Mary Donovan Hapgood (1886-1973) was a politically-active woman and writer who involved herself in some of the most controversial issues of her time. In the 1920s, she acted as corresponding secretary for the Sacco-Vanzetti trial. She later dedicated a chapter of her autobiography to Sacco and Vanzetti, describing how strong anti-immigration sentiment and a biased judge led to an unfair trial that ultimately led to their death. In 1932, the Socialist Party nominated Hapgood for the position of US vice president. She wrote in “Why Do Intelligent Women Marry?” that she felt obligated to decline the offer, as her husband had also been nominated for the position. Eight years later, she became the first woman to run for governor of Indiana for the Socialist Party and eventually helped to form the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. Her indignation at the treatment workers received while working at mines was clearly shown in her stories, “Jerry, the Mine Mule” and “Big Tim’s Daughter.” She supported workers who were courageous enough to rebel from “destructive” industrial conditions in an essay titled “The Vanishing Virtue.”
The Sacco-Vanzetti Trial
In 1920, Italian-born laborers and anarchists Ferdinando Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were accused of murdering a security guard in Braintree, Massachusetts. Even though there was more than reasonable doubt that they were innocent, and despite many attempts made by supporters to prevent their execution, Sacco and Vanzetti were sentenced to death. Hapgood wrote about the strong anti-immigration feelings that pervaded the court during their trial, noting that “only the Italians were likely to be prevented from entering…they and I” (Hapgood 1). She uses pathos when she gives a touching recount of Sacco and Vanzetti’s appeals to the judge, who wouldn’t even look at them: “‘I never knew, never heard, never read in history anything so cruel as this court…This is why I am here today, for having been of the oppressed class…I have suffered because I was an Italian and indeed I am an Italian,’ [Vanzetti said.]” (Hapgood 1). Such appeals were made while bloodthirsty mobs gathered outside and called out, “’Hang them all! Hang all the anarchists!’” (Hapgood ?)
Hapgood remains far from an objective and passive narrator. She takes active part in the proceedings of the trial: “Back at headquarters, we debated what to do next” (Hapgood 3). She decides to appeal to Governor Fuller, who asks Joe Moro, a member of the defense committee, how much she is being paid. When he is told that she has never received a cent from the committee for all her services, “he found these facts hard to believe” (Hapgood 4). No matter how hard she tries, the governor refuses to see her. Hapgood then organizes debates, marches, protests and petitions with the rest of the committee, doing anything she could think of to try to save the Italian pair. They eventually discover critical evidence that could free Sacco and Vanzetti, but it is denied admittance into the trial. When Sacco’s alibi proved to be true by two witnesses, the judge had it stricken from records. He then took the testimony of an insane woman because it was against Sacco and Vanzetti. Her attempts to recount the statement the next day were ignored.
Hapgood uses an appeal to logos by showing how she and the committee used reason and evidence to prove Sacco Vanzetti’s innocence. She lays out all the evidence and compares this method of approach with the judge, who obstinately clings to his resolution that the two Italians are guilty and must die. Hapgood makes it clear how utterly biased and contaminated the trial was. Not only was the judge inhumane and unwilling to listen, but most of Massachusetts supported the execution of the Italians because they were “anti-Italian and anti-Radical.” She condemns such anti-immigration and anti-radical sentiments by emphasizing the complete innocence, humanity and honorability of Sacco and Vanzetti.
Why Do Intelligent Women Marry?
“Why Do Intelligent Women Marry?” was published after Hapgood was nominated by the Socialist Party for the position of US vice president. She “had to withdraw” because her husband had also been nominated (Hapgood 2). In this essay, Hapgood states that while she attains satisfaction from being “a successful wife and mother,” she is “also interested in other things (Hapgood 2). She questions why “women who are married to men with interests the same as their own find that marriage is considered a substitute or a compensation for all else” (Hapgood 2). She is “interested in politics and in political life quite as much as” her husband, but is “expected to be interested, not in politics, but in my husband’s success in politics” (Hapgood 3). While it is true that two become one in a marriage, “that one they become is usually the man” (Hapgood 1). She points out the unfairness of such expectations, stating, “I, too, am an individual. I do not want to subordinate myself to my husband” (Hapgood 3).
Hapgood dedicates this entire essay to the topic of feminism. She calls for equal rights in a marriage and scorns the fact that married women are expected to take interest in nothing but their husband and children. She believes they should be able to pursue any interests they want, as they, too, are individuals who have something to offer to the world. She is unwilling to give up her individuality and believes she shouldn’t be called upon to give it up in the first place.
Jerry, the Mine Mule
Hapgood wrote this short story to convey to readers the terrible living conditions a mine worker suffered from during this time period. The story begins with a mule named Jerry, who lives in a farm surrounded by loving owners and a loving mother. When he comes of age, he is taken away from his home to become a mine mule. He is forced to work in terrible conditions—long hours in semi-darkness with no time to rest. Hapgood writes, “It seemed to Jerry that no matter how hard a mule worked, some drivers were never satisfied” (Hapgood 4). He suffers mistreatment from impatient and cruel drivers, who mercilessly beat and overwork Jerry. One of his drivers “cursed insanely when Jerry, straining with all his strength, was unable to move the string of cars.” He is seen as a machine, not a mule. Even though Jerry is diligent and patient and tries his hardest to satisfy his drivers, he is shown no love, sympathy or humanity. His workmate, Bird, is a “wiser mule. She refused to draw more than three cars at any time…She usually won her point” (Hapgood 4-5). Hapgood shows here the animalistic representation of a strike and how effective it can be, encouraging the idea of protesting for more rights and better treatment.
One day, Jerry is taken away from the mine and led to a “pasture that had little grass or shade” (Hapgood 6). He is given a break from hard work for six months, due to a strike that is going on. When he returns, he finds that he has a new driver, who has only ever driven a mule on the farm before. Expecting to be pinched and maltreated, Jerry draws away from him. The new driver is extremely gentle to him, however, and Jerry realizes suddenly that he is the very same boy he used to play with back when he lived in a farm.
In this story, Hapgood shows her indignation at the poor conditions a mine worker suffers from. Jerry symbolizes a mine worker and all the suffering he endures is equivalent to that of a mine worker’s. This shows that mine workers suffer from long hours under the hands of merciless bosses who care very little about their comfort, safety and health. As we discussed in class, a method of pathos is used in this story, which evokes sympathy and compassion for her characters. Interestingly, Hapgood chooses to make the main character an animal and creates a fable that might be read to a child as a bedtime story. She is very direct in her language. She clearly states her points without an attempt at softening anything. This approach makes her work easy to relate to and easy to read. It also makes her story available to a wide variety of audiences.
Big Tim’s Daughter
In this short story, Hapgood shows readers how destitute the life of a mine worker and his family can be, as well as how few rights or privileges a woman has to live for. She assures the reader that “The whole mining camp was sordid enough” (Hapgood 1), but the quality of living these miners had were even worse. Big Tim’s daughter, Nellie, notes how his shoes and stockings are “heavy with coal dust and perspiration” and thinks, “’Poor father…how hard we works” (Hapgood 1). One night, he stays out late to attend a union meeting. Nellie uses this opportunity to meet up with a man she is infatuated with, who convinces her to engage in sexual relations with him. He tells her that it’s safe and that nothing will happen, but she ends up becoming pregnant. Hapgood here seems to question the value of a man’s word, who will suffer no consequences for being sexually independent. Nellie pities the “poor little baby who was coming whether or not [she and Big Tim] wished it” (Hapgood 3). This shows that when a woman cannot be sexually active or independent as a man can. If she becomes pregnant, she has no choice but to give birth to the baby, who will then be a fatherless bastard.
In the midst of all this, Hapgood informs us that “the wage agreement, that kept the union meeting session so late that fateful night for Nellie, had not been signed. A strike was imminent” (Hapgood 4). On the day that Nellie gives birth to her child, 300 men go on strike against the recent wage reduction. In this one sentence, Hapgood masterfully combines the issue of women’s rights with the issue of unions. She coincides the union meeting with Nellie’s sexual experience; then, she again coincides the strike with Nellie’s giving birth to show how the unfair treatment miners receive destroy their family lives and how few freedoms women have. Because the men went on strike on the day that the baby was born, there will not be enough income to sustain everyone. Nellie’s boy grows up with his uncle and returns to his mother toward the end of the story. He thrives upon her love and attention, but delights in acting naughty because there isn’t a man’s presence to check his attitude. By the end of the story, he is taken back to the uncle’s, where he was utterly miserable, because Nellie cannot afford to take care of him by herself.
Hapgood uses subtlety while telling this story to show readers how the two issues interconnect. She shows us that women have few rights; that they cannot enjoy the same kind of freedom men can, and must thus suffer for it all their lives. Hapgood employs pathos by drawing sympathy from the readers towards Nellie, who is both helpless and hopeless and must suffer for the rest of her life because of a man who had no qualms about taking advantage of her. She also shows how unions attempt to improve the lives of miners, which are frequently destroyed when companies decide to lower their pay and worsen their working conditions.
The Vanishing Virtue
In this essay, Hapgood writes about courage. She defines it as being defiant of an oppressive force that is in the wrong, brave and authoritative. She then brings up the issue of the unions and the mines again, stating that “Industrial conditions are perhaps the most destructive of individuality” (Hapgood 1). She states that to stand up to such conditions is to be courageous. She enumerates the consequences a rebellious worker must face—deprivation for himself and his family, being beaten, being placed on the blacklist—and states that anyone who can muster up the strength to stand up for himself and his fellow workers, despite such dangers, is one who can be called truly brave. Throughout it all, she utilizes an appeal to ethos, calling upon one’s sense of morality and ethics and encouraging workers to take a stand for themselves. Like Queen Elizabeth, she seems to be rallying up her troops for an upcoming battle.
