Until the movement in America regained its militant spirit, her heart was primarily with the English women, because she thought their fight so magnificent that it would bring suffrage to women in England sooner than our slow-going methods would bring it to us. In 1910, when English militancy was at its height, Mrs. Belmont gave out an interview in London, in which she predicted that English women would have the suffrage before us. She even went so far as to say that we in America would have to create an acute situation here, probably a form of militancy, before we could win. At the same time the President of the International Suffrage Alliance said in London: “The suffrage movement in England- resembles a battle. It is cruel and tragic. Ours in America is an evolution-less dramatic, slow but more sure.” Facts sustained Mrs. Belmont’s prophecy. Facts did not sustain the other prediction. English women got the vote in 1918. American women were not enfranchised nationally until August, 1920. The following is the political theory and program approved by Mrs. Belmont and submitted to the Congressional Union, by its chairman, Alice Paul, at a conference of the organization at the home of Mrs. Belmont in Newport in August, 1914: The dominant party (at that time the Democratic Party) is responsible for all action and therefore for action on suffrage. This party’s action had been hostile to this measure. The dominant party in the approaching election must be convinced, and through it all other parties, that opposition to suffrage is inexpedient. All parties will be convinced when they see that their opposition costs them votes. Our fight is a political one. We must appeal for support to the constituency which is most friendly to suffrage, that constituency being the voting women. An attempt must be made, no matter how small, to organize the women’s vote. An appeal must be made to the women voters in the nine suffrage states to withhold their support from the Democrats nationally, until the national Democratic Party ceases to block the suffrage amendment. This is non-partisanship in the highest degree, as it calls upon women to forego previous allegiance to a party. If they are Democrats in this instance, they must vote against their party. If the Republican Party were in power and pursued a similar course, we would work against that party. The party which sees votes falling away will change its attitude. After we have once affected by this means the outcome of a national election, even though slightly, every party will hesitate to trifle with our measure any longer. All candidates from suffrage states are professing suffragists, and therefore we have nothing to lose by defeating a member of the dominant party in those states. Another suffragist will take his place.