On the Equality of Women

March 21, 2013May 14, 2015 / gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

Coolidge was not one to join the latest popular movement awarding privileges to one group while denying them to others. To do so is the opposite of equality. Suppressing the differences between men and women not only denies each one’s unique role but it thwarts the realization of equality. As Coolidge would say, “Women have a natural and indisputable place in the affairs of state. We do not want solely a man’s or a woman’s world — we want a human world and we are rapidly achieving it. This does not mean that men and women are to become alike. Rather it requires each of us to make his or her peculiar contribution. Fortunately no two of us are alike. Our civilization will be sturdy and satisfying, rich and dependable…in proportion as we deepen rather than decrease the difference between men and women.” Coolidge did not see people as monolithic groups. He ably measured the individual by his or her character. In fact, he saw more potential in people than they usually saw in themselves.

Coolidge was among those who believed women, naturally conservative in outlook “not only for themselves but for their posterity,” would render a “great benefit” by voting with sound moral values. Suffrage, to Coolidge, was not about placating a demographic. “Nothing can be safer…than the informed judgment of the mothers of the land.” Notice, what made the country secure was not empathy with or identity as a woman but informed judgment. The voter must understand how his and her decisions impact the future. Progress comes through the moral character each individual possesses. Skin color, gender, and party affiliation were unessential to genuine equality. This standard was illustrated by those with whom Coolidge worked.

Though the first President to nominate a woman to the Federal Judiciary, Coolidge was not seeking symbolism. His choice was Genevieve Cline, a self-taught expert in customs law who adroitly surveyed the complex terrain of tariff policy. She had developed this fascination as a young lady and, after many years of hard work, had established her own private practice in Cleveland. She eventually took on the challenging work of merchandise appraiser for the Treasury Department until her confirmation to the U. S. Customs Court in May 1928. Through it all, she consistently refused special treatment for herself, expecting the quality of her work, not her gender, to measure justice. She bravely asserted in 1949 that, “There is no gender in the law. No one says ‘man lawyer’ so why say ‘woman lawyer?’ ” For Judge Cline, justice must remain blind to incidentals to remain just.

Though appointed before Coolidge rose to the Presidency, Mabel Walker Willebrandt was retained and encouraged to keep doing her duty. After she took heat for criticizing certain federal district attorneys over selective enforcement of the law, Coolidge encouraged, “Keep plugging away at ’em.” Willebrandt was the Assistant Attorney General of the United States. Her unshakeable commitment to the law meant setting aside any personal reservations about the Volstead Act. Prohibition enforcement, enacted by the people through Constitutional amendment, applied impartially to everyone alike. For Willebrandt, the law did not depend upon having empathy for people’s plights. The law remained fair when it was blind to those particulars.

One of seven Republican women to serve during the Harding-Coolidge years, Florence Kahn demonstrated that faithful public service can be accomplished without catering to “women’s issues.” Mrs. Kahn, having supported her husband in his Congressional work, decided to run for his seat after his sudden death in 1924. Her sense of obligation prompted her to serve, forging a strong conservative record representing San Francisco over six terms. At any time, she could have appealed to her identity as a woman, or even a Jewess, to engender support for legislation. She refused. The merits of each issue must stand or fall on their own. While she believed women should serve, Kahn never accepted the premise that women needed special legislation for their “issues.” Asked why not, she said: “I am not specifically interested in so-called women’s questions, as all national positions are sexless.” Kahn did not represent women, she would say, she represented her district. Building strong military preparedness, enabling constructive economy, and meeting national obligations to veterans and their families were important policies for everyone. Governmental affairs are not segmented into gender-specific issues. They are borne by all and pertain to all. Therein lies equality.

For Representative Kahn, Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt, Judge Cline, and President Coolidge, what the nation required was not special allowance for irrelevant differences, but a deeper appreciation for the ways our distinct gender roles complement each other. When men and women exercise informed judgment as citizens, contributing together toward common goals, a vibrant liberty under an impartial and truly equal law can be preserved for the next generation.

Further Reading

Brown, Dorothy M. “Mabel Walker Willebrandt: A Study of Power, Loyalty and Law.” Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1984.

“Florence Prag Kahn,” in “Women in Congress, 1917-2006. Prepared under direction of Committee on House Administration by Office of History and Preservation, U.S. House. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2006.

Fowler, Russell. “Coolidge and the Supreme Court.” Journal of Supreme Court History 25 (November 2000): 271-295.

Goodhue, Norman H, “No Gender in Law, Says Woman Judge,” LA Times, April 17, 1949, p. C1.

Keyes, Frances Parkinson, “Seven Successful Women,” Delineator (July 1928): 16.

Levstik, Frank R. “Cline, Genevieve, Rose.” Notable American Women: The Modern Period: A Biographical Dictionary. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Willebrandt, Mabel Walker. “The Inside of Prohibition.” Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1929.

On Banks and Prosperity

March 20, 2013March 20, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

While the “Occupy Wall Street” mobs have subsided, having served their political purpose last year, the notion that banks are a device of the “excessively wealthy” is not new to our time. The image of fat, out-of-touch, greedy capitalists forming banks to “exploit” workers, the poor and the needy, robbing them of their hard-earned money was just as familiar in the early years of the twentieth century as it is now. Despite the verifiable fact that Secretary Mellon paid millions more in income taxes under his own plan, it did nothing to assuage the attempts throughout the twenties and thirties to finally “pin down” this “excessively wealthy tycoon” as guilty of something. If one keeps looking, they seemed to say, it can be found somewhere. Even F.D.R.’s tax “show trial” of Mellon yielded nothing but an unfairly demolished reputation. On the contrary, Vice President Coolidge addressed this very attitude about banks, a prejudice against capitalism and the myth that forceful redistribution of prosperity is both possible and virtuous. In a speech given on June 27, 1921, he said:

“There can be no permanent prosperity of any class or part. Such a condition can only be secured through a general and public prosperity. This means that to secure this end there must be a general distribution of the rewards of industry. Wherever this condition is maintained there you have the foundation for an increasing production and a sound financial and economic situation.

“One of the strongest reasons for supporting American institutions is that under them this condition is more nearly attained than under any other form of government that has ever met with any permanent success…

“…Too often the uninformed think of a bank as the possession of a few rich people, and as the creditor of the people at large. You who have had any experience with banking know that it is the opposite of this which is true. The resources of banks are not the resources of a few rich, but the resources of the people themselves, small perhaps in any individual instance, but, in the aggregate, very large. Nor are banks exclusively a creditor class. It is usually true that they owe to their depositors more than their borrowers owe to them. Every banker knows that to depend on the business and patronage of the rich would be in vain, that if any success attends his efforts it must be by serving and doing the business of the people. The stock is generally owned by the people, the deposits are always made by the people. This is the reason that banks partake of the nature of a public institution and perform real public service. They are the sole means by which modern commercial activities can be carried on. They afford the method by which the people combine their individual resources, providing a collection of capital sufficient to extend the necessary credit for financing the whole people of the nation…A bank is not a private institution, responsible to itself alone, or to a few. It is a public institution, under a moral obligation to be administered for the public welfare…Any power which is not used for the general welfare will in the end destroy itself…Such an institution is doing the work of the people.”

This simple explanation lays bare the ignorance of those who vilify banking and American capitalism as the instigators of what is wrong with the country. To go to war against these concepts is to war against the “common man,” the very person protestors claim to be helping. By calling for redistribution and the boycott of banks, the true perpetrators of class conflict, economic stagnation and human suffering are sought out as “saviors.” People like us, ultimately, are held responsible for this “unfairness” while those who create the climate are rewarded with more authority to solve problems they have no inclination or ability to resolve. While certain government officials are usually first and foremost this kind of “savior” sought, it is conveniently ignored that the capital on which banks are made possible belongs to “normal” people engaged in the daily use of what is theirs — buying, selling, saving, earning, investing, exchanging, lending, and borrowing. The complaint is with Washington not with regular folks.

On ‘Freedom and Its Obligations’

March 10, 2013March 11, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

Addressing those assembled at Arlington National Cemetery, May 30, 1924, President Coolidge spoke,

“American citizenship is a high estate. He who holds it is the peer of kings. It has been secured only by untold toil and effort. It will be maintained by no other method. It demands the best that men and women have to give. But it likewise awards to its partakers the best that there is on earth. To attempt to turn it into a thing of ease and inaction would be only to debase it. To cease to struggle and toil and sacrifice for it is not only to cease to be worthy of it but is to start a retreat toward barbarism. No matter what others may say, no matter what others may do, this is the stand that those must maintain who are worthy to be called Americans.”

During the Coolidge presidency, there were nine individuals whose actions merited the Medal of Honor, the highest recognition to those who distinguish themselves while wearing the uniform. Their actions were not all combat-related, as the years between 1923 and 1929 was a time of peace. Their courage and selfless service, however, be it in behalf of their brothers-in-arms, those around the world in need, or in the cause of greater possibilities (with nothing but uncertain flying crafts and their navigational skills) were testaments to what President Coolidge referred — those “worthy to be called Americans.” That tradition of selfless service will continue unbroken and it remains, rightly so, a reason to honor and aspire to those worthy of the name “American” to this day.

President Coolidge awarding the Medal of Honor to Machinist Floyd Bennett, USN (in front of him) and Commander Richard E. Byrd, Jr., USN (behind Coolidge), for their courageous risk of life in the first “heavier than air flight” to and from the North Pole in a tri-motor Fokker F-VII called the Josephine Ford.

The awarding of the Medal of Honor to Torpedoman Second Class Henry Breault, USN, for his quick actions to rescue a shipmate in their submarine 0-5, which sank within one minute. Confined by the hatch that closed after him, he kept himself and his mate alive for thirty-one hours below the surface until rescued.

Chief Gunner’s Mate Thomas Eadie, USN, received the Medal of Honor for an extraordinary rescue of his shipmate, Chief Torpedoman Michels, whose line fouled 102 feet below while trying to connect an airline to the sub USS S-4. CGM Eadie (as his citation states) “knowingly took his life in his hands,” diving down to skillfully extract Michels, bringing them both back to the surface after two hours of heroic effort.

Lieutenant Commander Walter Atlee Edwards, USN, was awarded the Medal of Honor for his rescue of 482 men, women and children from the sinking French transport Vinh-Long, while aflame in the Sea of Marmora, off the coast of Turkey. While commanding the USS Bainbridge, he placed and kept his ship alongside the burning wreck until all alive were safely transferred to the American vessel.

Machinist’s Mate William Russell Huber, USN, was recognized here with the Medal of Honor for his exceptional heroism after a boiler exploded aboard the USS Bruce in Norfolk Navy Yard, 11 June 1928, he went into the “steam-filled fireroom and at grave risk to his life” successfully carried shipmate, Charles H. Bryan, to safety. Machinist’s Mate Huber went below again to aid in removing others from the room despite suffering severe burns to his arms and neck.

Captain Charles A. Lindbergh, Army Air Corps Reserve, was recognized with the Medal of Honor for both courage and skill despite the risk in navigating by nonstop flight from New York City to Paris, France, in the Spirit of St. Louis, a custom-built single-engine monoplane, achieving (as his citation, held here by President Coolidge, states) “not only…the greatest individual triumph of any American citizen but demonstrated that travel across the ocean by aircraft was possible.”

Ensign Thomas John Ryan, USN, was presented with the Medal of Honor for heroism in rescue of a woman trapped when fire broke out at the Grand Hotel in Yokohama, Japan, September 1, 1923, as the result of an earthquake that hit the city. Ensign Ryan disregarded his own safety to help another, as unexpected events demanded decisive action.

Here is First Lieutenant Christian Frank Schilt, USMC, to whom the President has just given the Medal of Honor for his superb actions in Quilali, Nicaragua, over the course of three grueling days in January 1928. First Lieutenant Schilt, following an intense fight to restore peace to the area, volunteered to evacuate all of the wounded by air and bring in a new commanding officer as relief. Taking off a total of ten times while under steady enemy fire from rough urban terrain, he removed all the wounded, saved three lives and brought back the necessary supplies to those in dire need on the ground.