This is a modern-English version of History of Woman Suffrage, Volume II, originally written by unknown author(s).
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
Transcriber's Note
Transcriber's Note
Many occurrences of mismatched single and double quotes remain as they were in the original.
Many instances of mismatched single and double quotes are still as they were in the original.
HISTORY
of
Woman Suffrage.
EDITED BY
ELIZABETH CADY STANTON,
SUSAN B. ANTHONY, AND
MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE.
ILLUSTRATED WITH STEEL ENGRAVINGS.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. II.
1861-1876.
ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
17 Madison St., Rochester, N. Y.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1881, by
ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, SUSAN B. ANTHONY, AND
MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE.
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.
PREFACE.
In presenting to our readers the second volume of the "History of Woman Suffrage," we gladly return our thanks to the press for the many favorable notices we have received from leading journals, both in the old world and the new. The words of cordial approval from a large circle of friends, and especially from women well known in periodical literature, have been to us a constant stimulus during the toilsome months we have spent in gathering material for these pages. It was our purpose to have condensed the records of the last twenty years in a second volume, but so many new questions in regard to Citizenship, State rights, and National power, indirectly bearing on the political rights of women, grew out of the civil war, that the arguments and decisions in Congress and the Supreme Courts have combined to swell these pages beyond our most liberal calculations, with much valuable material that can not be condensed nor ignored, making a third volume inevitable.
In presenting the second volume of the "History of Woman Suffrage," we want to thank the press for the many positive reviews we’ve received from prominent journals, both internationally and domestically. The supportive feedback from a wide circle of friends, especially women recognized in periodical literature, has been a constant motivation during the challenging months we’ve spent compiling material for these pages. Our intention was to summarize the records of the last twenty years in this second volume, but numerous new questions about Citizenship, State rights, and National power—stemming from the Civil War—have emerged. The discussions and decisions in Congress and the Supreme Courts have expanded this volume much beyond our initial expectations, resulting in valuable content that cannot be condensed or overlooked, making a third volume necessary.
By their active labors all through the great conflict, women learned that they had many interests outside the home. In the camp and hospital, and the vacant places at their firesides, they saw how intimately the interests of the State and the home were intertwined; that as war and all its concomitants were subjects of legislation, it was only through a voice in the laws that their efforts for peace could command consideration.
By working hard throughout the war, women discovered that they had many interests beyond just home life. In the camp and hospital, and in the empty spaces at their homes, they realized how closely connected the concerns of the government and the household were; that since war and everything related to it were topics of law, it was only by having a say in the laws that their efforts for peace could be taken seriously.
The political significance of the war, and the prolonged discussions on the vital principles of government involved in the reconstruction, threw new light on the status of woman in a republic. Under a liberal interpretation of the XIV. Amendment, women, believing their rights of citizenship secured, made several attempts to vote in different States. Those who succeeded were arrested, tried, and convicted. Those who were denied the right to register their names and deposit their votes, sued the Inspectors of Election. Others[Pg iv] attempting to practice law, being denied that right in the States, took their cases up to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication. Others invaded the pulpit, asking to be ordained, which brought the question of woman's right to preach before ecclesiastical assemblies. These various attempts to secure her political and civil rights have called forth endless discussions on woman's true position in the State, the church, and the world of work.
The political significance of the war and the lengthy debates about the essential principles of government related to reconstruction shed new light on women’s status in a republic. With a broad interpretation of the XIV Amendment, women, believing their citizenship rights were guaranteed, made several attempts to vote in various states. Those who were successful were arrested, tried, and convicted. Those who were denied the chance to register and cast their votes sued the Election Inspectors. Others[Pg iv] tried to practice law but faced denial in the states, taking their cases to the Supreme Court of the United States for resolution. Some even attempted to enter the pulpit, seeking ordination, which raised the issue of women’s right to preach before church assemblies. These various efforts to secure their political and civil rights have sparked endless discussions about women’s true roles in the state, the church, and the workforce.
While gratefully accepting the generous praises of our friends, we must briefly reply to some strictures by our critics. Some object to the title of our work; they say you can not write the "History of Woman Suffrage" until the fact is accomplished. We feel that already enough has been achieved to make the final victory certain. Women vote in England, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and even India, on certain interests and qualifications; in Wyoming and Utah on all questions, and on the same basis as male citizens; and in a dozen States of the Union on school affairs. Moreover, women are filling many offices, such as Clerks of Courts, Notaries Public, Masters in Chancery, State Librarians, School Superintendents, Commissioners of Charity, Post Mistresses, Pension Agents, Engrossing and Enrolling Clerks in Legislative Assemblies.
While we appreciate the generous praise from our friends, we need to address some criticisms from our critics. Some argue against the title of our work, claiming we can't write the "History of Woman Suffrage" until it's fully realized. We believe that enough progress has been made to ensure the final victory is inevitable. Women vote in England, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and even India, with specific interests and qualifications; in Wyoming and Utah, they vote on all matters, just like male citizens; and in a dozen states in the U.S., they vote on school issues. Additionally, women are taking on many positions, such as Clerks of Courts, Notaries Public, Masters in Chancery, State Librarians, School Superintendents, Charity Commissioners, Post Mistresses, Pension Agents, and Clerks in Legislative Assemblies.
After years of persistent effort a resolution was passed in both Houses, during the present session of Congress (1882), securing "a select committee on the political Rights and Disabilities of Woman"—the first time in the history of our Government that a special committee to look after the interests of woman was ever appointed. A proposition for a XVI. Amendment to the National Constitution, to secure to women the right of suffrage, is now pending in Congress. Some phase of this question is being debated every year in State Legislatures. Propositions for so amending their constitutions as to extend the elective franchise to women will be voted upon by the people in four of the Western States within the coming two years. These successive steps of progress during forty years are as surely a part of the History of Woman Suffrage as will be the events of the closing period in which victory shall at last crown the hard fought battles of half a century.
After years of persistent effort, a resolution was passed in both Houses during the current session of Congress (1882), establishing "a select committee on the Political Rights and Disabilities of Women"—the first time in our Government's history that a special committee was formed to address women's interests. A proposal for a XVI Amendment to the National Constitution, to grant women the right to vote, is currently pending in Congress. Some aspect of this issue is debated every year in State Legislatures. Proposals to amend their constitutions to extend voting rights to women will be voted on by the public in four Western States in the next two years. These ongoing steps of progress over forty years are just as much a part of the History of Woman Suffrage as the events of the final period when victory will ultimately reward the hard-fought battles of half a century.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XVI.page
CHAPTER XVI.page
WOMAN'S PATRIOTISM IN THE WAR.
WOMAN'S PATRIOTISM IN THE WAR.
The first gun on Sumter, April 12, 1861—Woman's military genius—Anna Ella Carroll—The Sanitary Movement—Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell—The Hospitals—Dorothea Dix—Services on the battle-field—Clara Barton—The Freedman's Bureau—Josephine Griffing—Ladies' National Covenant—Political campaigns—Anna Dickinson—The Woman's Loyal National League—The Mammoth Petition—Anniversaries—The Thirteenth Amendment1
The first shot at Sumter on April 12, 1861—Women's military talent—Anna Ella Carroll—The Sanitary Movement—Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell—The Hospitals—Dorothea Dix—Services on the battlefield—Clara Barton—The Freedmen's Bureau—Josephine Griffing—Ladies' National Covenant—Political campaigns—Anna Dickinson—The Woman's Loyal National League—The Mammoth Petition—Anniversaries—The Thirteenth Amendment1
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.
First Petitions to Congress December, 1865, against the word "male" in the 14th Amendment—Joint resolutions before Congress—Messrs. Jenckes, Schenck, Broomall, and Stevens—Republicans protest in presenting petitions—The women seek aid of Democrats—James Brooks in the House of Representatives—Horace Greeley on the petitions—Caroline Healy Dall on Messrs. Jenckes and Schenck—The District of Columbia Suffrage Bill—Senator Cowan, of Pennsylvania, moved to strike out the word "male"—A three days' debate in the Senate—The final vote nine in favor of Mr. Cowan's amendment, and thirty-seven against90
First petitions to Congress in December 1865, opposing the word "male" in the 14th Amendment—Joint resolutions presented to Congress—Members Jenckes, Schenck, Broomall, and Stevens—Republicans express objections while presenting the petitions—The women seek support from Democrats—James Brooks in the House of Representatives—Horace Greeley comments on the petitions—Caroline Healy Dall discusses Messrs. Jenckes and Schenck—The District of Columbia Suffrage Bill—Senator Cowan from Pennsylvania proposed to remove the word "male"—A three-day debate in the Senate—The final vote was nine in favor of Mr. Cowan's amendment and thirty-seven against90
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS IN 1866-67.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS IN 1866-67.
The first National Woman Suffrage Convention after the war—Speeches by Ernestine L. Rose, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Henry Ward Beecher, Frances D. Gage, Theodore Tilton, Wendell Phillips—Petitions to Congress and the Constitutional Convention—Mrs. Stanton a candidate to Congress—Anniversary of the Equal Rights Association152
The first National Woman Suffrage Convention after the war—Speeches by Ernestine L. Rose, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Henry Ward Beecher, Frances D. Gage, Theodore Tilton, Wendell Phillips—Petitions to Congress and the Constitutional Convention—Mrs. Stanton as a candidate for Congress—Anniversary of the Equal Rights Association152
THE KANSAS CAMPAIGN—1867.
THE KANSAS CAMPAIGN—1867.
The Battle Ground of Freedom—Campaign of 1867—Liberals did not Stand by their Principles—Black Men Opposed to Woman Suffrage—Republican Press and Party Untrue—Democrats in Opposition—John Stuart Mill's Letters and Speeches Extensively Circulated—Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone Opened the Campaign—Rev. Olympia Brown Followed—60,000 Tracts Distributed—Appeal Signed by Thirty-one Distinguished Men—Letters from Helen E. Starrett, Susan E. Wattles, Dr. R. S. Tenney, Lieut.-Governor J. B. Root, Rev. Olympia Brown—The Campaign closed by ex-Governor Robinson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton,[Pg vi] Susan B. Anthony, and the Hutchinson Family—Speeches and Songs at the Polls in every Ward in Leavenworth Election Day—Both Amendments lost—9,070 Votes for Woman Suffrage, 10,843 for Negro Suffrage229
The Battleground for Freedom—Campaign of 1867—Liberals didn't stick to their principles—Black men were against woman suffrage—The Republican Press and Party were misleading—Democrats were in opposition—John Stuart Mill's letters and speeches were widely circulated—Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone kicked off the campaign—Rev. Olympia Brown followed—60,000 pamphlets were distributed—An appeal signed by thirty-one notable men—Letters from Helen E. Starrett, Susan E. Wattles, Dr. R. S. Tenney, Lieut.-Governor J. B. Root, and Rev. Olympia Brown—The campaign wrapped up with ex-Governor Robinson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton,[Pg vi] Susan B. Anthony, and the Hutchinson Family—Speeches and songs could be heard at the polls in every ward on Election Day in Leavenworth—Both amendments failed—9,070 votes for woman suffrage, 10,843 for Negro suffrage229
NEW YORK CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
NEW YORK CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Constitution Amended once in Twenty Years—Mrs. Stanton before the Legislature Claiming Woman's Right to Vote for Members to the Convention—An Immense Audience in the Capitol—The Convention Assembled June 4th, 1867. Twenty Thousand Petitions Presented for Striking the Word "Male" from the Constitution—"Committee on the Right of Suffrage, and the Qualifications for Holding Office" Horace Greeley, Chairman—Mr. Graves, of Herkimer, Leads the Debate in favor of Woman Suffrage—Horace Greeley's Adverse Report—Leading Advocates Heard before the Convention—Speech of George William Curtis on Striking the Word "Man" from Section 1, Article 11—Final Vote, 19 For, 125 Against—Equal Rights Anniversary of 1868269
Constitution Amended once in Twenty Years—Mrs. Stanton before the Legislature Claiming Woman's Right to Vote for Members to the Convention—An Immense Audience in the Capitol—The Convention Assembled June 4th, 1867. Twenty Thousand Petitions Presented for Striking the Word "Male" from the Constitution—"Committee on the Right of Suffrage, and the Qualifications for Holding Office" Horace Greeley, Chair—Mr. Graves, of Herkimer, Leads the Debate in favor of Woman Suffrage—Horace Greeley's Adverse Report—Leading Advocates Heard before the Convention—Speech of George William Curtis on Striking the Word "Man" from Section 1, Article 11—Final Vote, 19 For, 125 Against—Equal Rights Anniversary of 1868269
RECONSTRUCTION.
RECONSTRUCTION.
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments—Universal Suffrage and Universal Amnesty the Key-note of Reconstruction—Gerrit Smith and Wendell Phillips hesitate—A Trying Period in the Woman Suffrage Movement—Those Opposed to the word "Male" in the Fourteenth Amendment Voted Down in Conventions—The Negro's Hour—Virginia L. Minor on Suffrage in the District of Columbia—Women Advised to be Silent—The Hypocrisy of the Democrats preferable to that of the Republicans—Senator Pomeroy's Amendment—Protests against a Man's Government—Negro Suffrage a Political Necessity—Charles Sumner Opposed to the Fourteenth Amendment, but Voted for it as a Party Measure—Woman Suffrage for Utah—Discussion in the House as to who Constitute Electors—Bills for Woman Suffrage presented by the Hon. George W. Julian and Senators Wilson and Pomeroy—The Fifteenth Amendment—Anna E. Dickinson's Suggestion—Opinions of Women on the Fifteenth Amendment—The Sixteenth Amendment—Miss Anthony chosen a Delegate to the Democratic National Convention July 4, 1868—Her Address Read by a Unanimous Vote—Horatio Seymour in the Chair—Comments of the Press—The Revolution313
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments—Universal Suffrage and Universal Amnesty the Focus of Reconstruction—Gerrit Smith and Wendell Phillips have doubts—A Tough Time in the Women’s Suffrage Movement—Those Against the term "Male" in the Fourteenth Amendment sidelined in Conventions—The Moment for African Americans—Virginia L. Minor on Voting Rights in the District of Columbia—Women Encouraged to Stay Quiet—The Democrats’ Hypocrisy seen as better than that of the Republicans—Senator Pomeroy's Amendment—Opposition to a Men's Government—African American Suffrage Seen as a Political Necessity—Charles Sumner was against the Fourteenth Amendment but voted for it as a Party Measure—Women’s Suffrage for Utah—Debate in the House about who should be Electors—Bills for Women’s Suffrage introduced by the Hon. George W. Julian and Senators Wilson and Pomeroy—The Fifteenth Amendment—Anna E. Dickinson’s Proposal—Women’s Views on the Fifteenth Amendment—The Sixteenth Amendment—Miss Anthony selected as a Delegate to the Democratic National Convention on July 4, 1868—Her Address Approved by a Unanimous Vote—Horatio Seymour presiding—Media Reactions—The Revolution313
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS—1869.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS—1869.
First Convention in Washington—First hearing before Congress—Delegates Invited from Every State—Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas—Debate between Colored Men and Women—Grace Greenwood's Graphic Description—What the Members of the Convention Saw and Heard in Washington—Robert Purvis—A Western Trip—Conventions in Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Springfield, and Madison—Editorial Correspondence in The Revolution—Anniversaries in New York and Brooklyn—Conventions in Newport and Saratoga345
First Convention in Washington—First hearing before Congress—Delegates invited from every state—Senator Pomeroy, from Kansas—Debate between Black men and women—Grace Greenwood's vivid description—What the members of the convention saw and heard in Washington—Robert Purvis—A trip to the West—Conventions in Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Springfield, and Madison—Editorial correspondence in The Revolution—Anniversaries in New York and Brooklyn—Conventions in Newport and Saratoga345
THE NEW DEPARTURE—UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
THE NEW DEPARTURE—UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
Francis Minor's Resolutions—Hearing before Congressional Committee—Descriptions by Mrs. Fannie Howland and Grace Greenwood—Washington Convention[Pg vii] 1870—Rev. Samuel J. May—Senator Carpenter—Professor Sprague, of Cornell University—Notes of Mrs. Hooker—May Anniversary in New York—The Fifth Avenue Conference—Second Decade Celebration—Washington, 1871—Victoria Woodhull's Memorial—Judiciary Committee—Majority and Minority Reports—George W. Julian and A. A. Sargent in the House—May Anniversary, 1871—Washington in 1872—Senate Judiciary Committee—Benjamin F. Butler—The Sherman-Dahlgren Protest—Women in Grant and Wilson Campaign407
Francis Minor's Resolutions—Hearing before Congressional Committee—Descriptions by Mrs. Fannie Howland and Grace Greenwood—Washington Convention[Pg vii] 1870—Rev. Samuel J. May—Senator Carpenter—Professor Sprague, of Cornell University—Notes of Mrs. Hooker—May Anniversary in New York—The Fifth Avenue Conference—Second Decade Celebration—Washington, 1871—Victoria Woodhull's Memorial—Judiciary Committee—Majority and Minority Reports—George W. Julian and A. A. Sargent in the House—May Anniversary, 1871—Washington in 1872—Senate Judiciary Committee—Benjamin F. Butler—The Sherman-Dahlgren Protest—Women in Grant and Wilson Campaign407
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS—1873, '74, '75.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS—1873, '74, '75.
Fifth Washington Convention—Mrs. Gage on Centralization—May Anniversary in New York—Washington Convention, 1874—Frances Ellen Burr's Report—Rev. O. B. Frothingham in New York Convention—Territory of Pembina—Discussion in the Senate—Conventions in Washington and New York, 1875—Hearings before Congressional Committees521
Fifth Washington Convention—Mrs. Gage on Centralization—May Anniversary in New York—Washington Convention, 1874—Frances Ellen Burr's Report—Rev. O. B. Frothingham in the New York Convention—Territory of Pembina—Discussion in the Senate—Conventions in Washington and New York, 1875—Hearings before Congressional Committees521
TRIALS AND DECISIONS.
TRIALS AND DECISIONS.
Women Voting under the XVI. Amendment—Appeals to the Courts—Marilla M. Ricker, of New Hampshire, 1870—Nannette B. Gardner, Michigan—Sara Andrews Spencer, District of Columbia—Ellen Rand Van Valkenburgh, California—Catherine V. Waite, Illinois—Carrie S. Burnham, Pennsylvania—Sarah M. T. Huntingdon, Connecticut—Susan B. Anthony, New York—Virginia L. Minor, Missouri—Judges McKee, Jameson, Sharswood, Cartter—Associate Justice Hunt—Chief Justice Waite—Myra Bradwell—Hon. Matt. H. Carpenter—Supreme Court Decisions586
Women Voting under the 16th Amendment—Appeals to the Courts—Marilla M. Ricker, New Hampshire, 1870—Nannette B. Gardner, Michigan—Sara Andrews Spencer, District of Columbia—Ellen Rand Van Valkenburgh, California—Catherine V. Waite, Illinois—Carrie S. Burnham, Pennsylvania—Sarah M. T. Huntingdon, Connecticut—Susan B. Anthony, New York—Virginia L. Minor, Missouri—Judges McKee, Jameson, Sharswood, Cartter—Associate Justice Hunt—Chief Justice Waite—Myra Bradwell—Hon. Matt. H. Carpenter—Supreme Court Decisions586
AMERICAN WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.
AMERICAN WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.
Circular Letter—Cleveland Convention—Association Completed—Henry Ward Beecher, President—Convention in Steinway Hall, New York—George William Curtis Speaks—The First Annual Meeting held in Cleveland—Mrs. Tracy Cutler, President—Mass Meeting in Steinway Hall, New York, 1870—State Action Recommended—Moses Coit Tyler Speaks—Mass Meetings in 1871 in Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Pittsburgh—Memorial to Congress—Letters from William Lloyd Garrison and others—Hon. G. F. Hoar Advocates Woman Suffrage—Anniversary celebrated at St. Louis—Dr. Stone, of Michigan—Thomas Wentworth Higginson, President, 1872—Convention in Cooper Institute, New York—Two Hundred Young Women march in—Meeting in Plymouth Church—Letters from Louise May Alcott and Elizabeth Stuart Phelps—The Annual Meeting in Detroit—Julia Ward Howe, President—Letter from James T. Field—Mary F. Eastman Addresses the Convention. Bishop Gilbert Haven President for 1875—Convention in Steinway Hall, New York—Hon. Charles Bradlaugh Speaks—Centennial Celebration, July 3d—Petition to Congress for a XVI. Amendment—Conventions in Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Washington, and Louisville756
Circular Letter—Cleveland Convention—Association Completed—Henry Ward Beecher, President—Convention at Steinway Hall, New York—George William Curtis Speaks—The First Annual Meeting held in Cleveland—Mrs. Tracy Cutler, President—Mass Meeting at Steinway Hall, New York, 1870—State Action Recommended—Moses Coit Tyler Speaks—Mass Meetings in 1871 in Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Pittsburgh—Memorial to Congress—Letters from William Lloyd Garrison and others—Hon. G. F. Hoar Advocates Woman Suffrage—Anniversary celebrated in St. Louis—Dr. Stone from Michigan—Thomas Wentworth Higginson, President, 1872—Convention at Cooper Institute, New York—Two Hundred Young Women march in—Meeting at Plymouth Church—Letters from Louisa May Alcott and Elizabeth Stuart Phelps—The Annual Meeting in Detroit—Julia Ward Howe, President—Letter from James T. Field—Mary F. Eastman Addresses the Convention. Bishop Gilbert Haven President for 1875—Convention at Steinway Hall, New York—Hon. Charles Bradlaugh Speaks—Centennial Celebration, July 3rd—Petition to Congress for a XVI. Amendment—Conventions in Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Washington, and Louisville756
LIST OF ENGRAVINGS.
Vol. II.
Vol. II.
| Anna E. Dickinson | Frontispiece. |
| Clara Barton | page 25 |
| Clemence S. Lozier, M. D. | 153 |
| Rev. Olympia Brown | 265 |
| Jane Graham Jones | 313 |
| Virginia L. Minor | 409 |
| Isabella Beecher Hooker | 489 |
| Belva A. Lockwood | 521 |
| Ellen Clark Sargent | 553 |
| Myra Bradwell | 617 |
| Lucy Stone | 761 |
| Julia Ward Howe | 793 |
CHAPTER XVI.
WOMAN'S PATRIOTISM IN THE WAR.
The first gun on Sumter, April 12, 1861—Woman's military genius—Anna Ella Carroll—The Sanitary Movement—Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell—The Hospitals—Dorothea Dix—Services on the battle-field—Clara Barton—The Freedman's Bureau—Josephine Griffing—Ladies' National Covenant—Political campaigns—Anna Dickinson—The Woman's Loyal National League—The Mammoth Petition—Anniversaries—The Thirteenth Amendment.
The first shot fired at Sumter on April 12, 1861—Women's military talent—Anna Ella Carroll—The Sanitary Movement—Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell—The Hospitals—Dorothea Dix—Field services—Clara Barton—The Freedmen's Bureau—Josephine Griffing—Ladies' National Covenant—Political campaigns—Anna Dickinson—The Women's Loyal National League—The Mammoth Petition—Anniversaries—The Thirteenth Amendment.
Our first volume closed with the period when the American people stood waiting with apprehension the signal of the coming conflict between the Northern and Southern States. On April 12, 1861, the first gun was fired on Sumter, and on the 14th it was surrendered. On the 15th, the President called out 75,000 militia, and summoned Congress to meet July 4th, when 400,000 men and $400,000,000 were voted to carry on the war.
Our first volume ended during a time when the American people were anxiously anticipating the start of the conflict between the Northern and Southern States. On April 12, 1861, the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter, and it was surrendered on the 14th. On the 15th, the President called up 75,000 militia and summoned Congress to meet on July 4th, when they authorized 400,000 troops and $400,000,000 to support the war effort.
These startling events roused the entire people, and turned the current of their thoughts in new directions. While the nation's life hung in the balance, and the dread artillery of war drowned alike the voices of commerce, politics, religion and reform, all hearts were filled with anxious forebodings, all hands were busy in solemn preparations for the awful tragedies to come.
These shocking events awakened the entire nation and shifted everyone's thoughts in new directions. While the fate of the country hung in the balance and the terrifying sounds of war drowned out the voices of business, politics, religion, and reform, everyone was filled with worry, and all hands were busy making serious preparations for the terrible tragedies ahead.
At this eventful hour the patriotism of woman shone forth as fervently and spontaneously as did that of man; and her self-sacrifice and devotion were displayed in as many varied fields of action. While he buckled on his knapsack and marched forth to conquer the enemy, she planned the campaigns which brought the nation victory; fought in the ranks when she could do so without detection; inspired the sanitary commission; gathered needed supplies for the grand army; provided nurses for the hospitals; comforted the sick; smoothed the pillows of the dying; inscribed the last messages of love to those far away; and marked the resting-places where the brave men fell. The labor women accomplished, the hardships they endured, the time and strength they sacrificed in the war that summoned three million men to arms, can never be fully appreciated.[Pg 2]
At this significant moment, the patriotism of women shone as brightly and spontaneously as that of men; their selflessness and dedication were shown in many different ways. While he strapped on his backpack and set off to defeat the enemy, she organized the campaigns that led the nation to victory; fought alongside the troops when she could do so without being noticed; motivated the sanitary commission; collected essential supplies for the grand army; provided nurses for the hospitals; comforted the sick; adjusted the pillows of the dying; wrote the last messages of love for those far away; and marked the resting places of the brave men who fell. The work women did, the challenges they faced, and the time and energy they sacrificed in the war that called three million men to service can never be fully recognized.[Pg 2]
Think of the busy hands from the Atlantic to the Pacific, making garments, canning fruits and vegetables, packing boxes, preparing lint and bandages[1] for soldiers at the front; think of the mothers, wives and daughters on the far-off prairies, gathering in the harvests, that their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons might fight the battles of freedom; of those month after month walking the wards of the hospital; and those on the battle-field at the midnight hour, ministering to the wounded and dying, with none but the cold stars to keep them company.
Think about the busy hands stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, making clothes, canning fruits and vegetables, packing boxes, and preparing lint and bandages[1] for soldiers on the front lines; think of the mothers, wives, and daughters on the distant prairies, gathering the harvests so that their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons can fight for freedom; of those who, month after month, walk through the hospital wards; and those on the battlefield late at night, caring for the wounded and dying, with only the cold stars for company.
Think of the multitude of delicate, refined women, unused to care and toil, thrown suddenly on their own resources, to struggle evermore with poverty and solitude; their hopes and ambitions all freighted in the brave young men that marched forth from their native hills, with flying flags and marshal music, to return no more forever. The untiring labors, the trembling apprehensions, the wrecked hopes, the dreary solitude of the fatherless, the widowed, the childless in that great national upheaval, have never been measured or recorded; their brave deeds never told in story or in song, no monuments built to their memories, no immortal wreaths to mark their last resting-places.
Consider the many delicate, sophisticated women, unaccustomed to hardship and labor, who suddenly had to rely on themselves, struggling endlessly with poverty and loneliness. Their hopes and dreams were all tied to the brave young men who left their hometowns with waving flags and marching music, never to return. The relentless work, the constant worries, the shattered dreams, the bleak loneliness of the fatherless, the widowed, and the childless during that great national turmoil have never been measured or recorded; their courageous acts have never been told in stories or songs, no monuments built in their honor, no everlasting tributes to mark their final resting places.
How much easier it is to march forth with gay companions and marshal music; with the excitement of the battle, the camp, the ever-shifting scenes of war, sustained by the hope of victory; the promise of reward; the ambition for distinction; the fire of patriotism kindling every thought, and stimulating every nerve and muscle to action! How much easier is all this, than to wait and watch alone with nothing to stimulate hope or ambition.
How much easier it is to move forward with cheerful friends and marching music; with the thrill of battle, the camp, the constantly changing scenes of war, fueled by the hope of victory; the promise of reward; the desire for recognition; the passion of patriotism igniting every thought and energizing every nerve and muscle to take action! How much easier all of this is compared to waiting and watching alone with nothing to inspire hope or ambition.
The evils of bad government fall ever most heavily on the mothers of the race, who, however wise and far-seeing, have no voice in its administration, no power to protect themselves and their children against a male dynasty of violence and force.
The problems of poor governance weigh most heavily on the mothers of our society, who, no matter how wise and forward-thinking, have no say in its management and no ability to protect themselves and their children from a violent and forceful male ruling class.
While the mass of women never philosophize on the principles that underlie national existence, there were those in our late war who understood the political significance of the struggle: the "irrepressible conflict" between freedom and slavery; between national and State rights. They saw that to provide lint, bandages, and supplies for the army, while the war was not conducted on a wise policy, was labor in vain; and while many organizations, active, vigilant, self-sacrificing, were multiplied to look after the material[Pg 3] wants of the army, these few formed themselves into a National Loyal League to teach sound principles of government, and to press on the nation's conscience, that "freedom to the slaves was the only way to victory." Accustomed as most women had been to works of charity, to the relief of outward suffering, it was difficult to rouse their enthusiasm for an idea, to persuade them to labor for a principle. They clamored for practical work, something for their hands to do; for fairs, sewing societies to raise money for soldier's families, for tableaux, readings, theatricals, anything but conventions to discuss principles and to circulate petitions for emancipation. They could not see that the best service they could render the army was to suppress the rebellion, and that the most effective way to accomplish that was to transform the slaves into soldiers. This Woman's Loyal League voiced the solemn lessons of the war: liberty to all; national protection for every citizen under our flag; universal suffrage, and universal amnesty.
While most women don't contemplate the principles that underlie national existence, there were some during our recent war who recognized the political significance of the struggle: the "irrepressible conflict" between freedom and slavery; between national and state rights. They understood that providing lint, bandages, and supplies for the army, while the war was not executed with wise strategies, was pointless. Many organizations, active, vigilant, and self-sacrificing, were created to address the material[Pg 3] needs of the army, but these few formed a National Loyal League to promote sound government principles and to urge the nation's conscience that "freedom for the slaves was the only path to victory." Most women were accustomed to charitable work, helping with outward suffering, making it hard to inspire them for an idea and get them to work for a principle. They pushed for practical tasks, something tangible to occupy their hands; they wanted fairs, sewing societies to raise money for soldiers' families, tableaux, readings, and theater performances – anything but conventions to discuss principles and circulate petitions for emancipation. They didn't realize that the best way they could help the army was to end the rebellion, and that the most effective method to achieve that was to turn the slaves into soldiers. This Woman's Loyal League expressed the serious lessons of the war: liberty for all; national protection for every citizen under our flag; universal suffrage and universal amnesty.
As no national recognition has been accorded the grand women who did faithful service in the late war; no national honors nor profitable offices bestowed on them, the noble deeds of a few representative women should be recorded. The military services of Anna Ella Carroll in planning the campaign on the Tennessee; the labors of Clara Barton on the battle-field; of Dorothea Dix in the hospital; of Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell in the Sanitary; of Josephine S. Griffing in the Freedman's Bureau; and the political triumphs of Anna Dickinson in the Presidential campaign, reflecting as they do all honor on their sex in general, should ever be proudly remembered by their countrywomen.
As no national recognition has been given to the remarkable women who served faithfully in the recent war, with no national honors or meaningful positions awarded to them, the incredible contributions of a few standout women should be documented. The military efforts of Anna Ella Carroll in strategizing the campaign in Tennessee, the work of Clara Barton on the battlefield, Dorothea Dix in the hospital, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell in the Sanitary Commission, Josephine S. Griffing in the Freedmen's Bureau, and the political successes of Anna Dickinson in the Presidential campaign, which all reflect great honor on their gender as a whole, should always be proudly remembered by their fellow countrywomen.
ANNA ELLA CARROLL.
THE TENNESSEE CAMPAIGN.
Anna Ella Carroll, the daughter of Thomas King Carroll formerly Governor of Maryland, belongs to one of the oldest and most patriotic families of that State. Her ancestors founded the city of Baltimore; Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, was of the same family.
Anna Ella Carroll, the daughter of Thomas King Carroll, who was once the Governor of Maryland, comes from one of the oldest and most patriotic families in the state. Her ancestors established the city of Baltimore; Charles Carroll of Carrollton, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, was part of the same family.
At the breaking out of the civil war, Maryland was claimed by the rebellious States, and for a long time her position seemed uncertain. Miss Carroll, an intimate friend of Gov. Hicks, and at that time a member of his family, favored the national cause, and by her powerful arguments induced the Governor to remain firm in his opposition to the scheme of secession. Thus, despite the siren wooing of the South, in its plaint of
At the start of the civil war, Maryland was claimed by the rebellious States, and for a long time her position seemed uncertain. Miss Carroll, a close friend of Gov. Hicks and at that time part of his household, supported the national cause, and through her strong arguments persuaded the Governor to stay firm in his opposition to the idea of secession. So, despite the tempting allure of the South, in its lament of
"Maryland, my Maryland."
"Maryland, my Maryland."
Miss Carroll was the means of preserving her native State to the Union. Although a slave-owner, and a member of that class which so largely proved disloyal, Miss Carroll freed her slaves, and devoted herself throughout the war to the cause of liberty. She replied to the secession speech of Senator Breckenridge, made during the July session of Congress 1861, with such lucid and convincing arguments, that the War Department not only circulated a large edition, but the Government requested her to prepare other papers upon unsettled points. In response she wrote a pamphlet entitled "The War Powers of the Government," published in December, 1861. By the especial request of President Lincoln she also prepared a paper entitled "The Relation of Revolted Citizens to the National Government," which was approved by him, and formed the basis of his subsequent action. In September, 1861, she also prepared a paper on the Constitutional power of the President to make arrests, and to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; a subject upon which a great conflict of opinion then existed, even among persons of unquestioned loyalty.
Miss Carroll played a key role in keeping her home state in the Union. Even though she owned slaves and belonged to a class that largely showed disloyalty, she freed her slaves and dedicated herself to the cause of freedom throughout the war. She responded to Senator Breckenridge's secession speech during the July session of Congress in 1861 with such clear and persuasive arguments that the War Department not only circulated a large edition of her response but also requested her to write additional papers on unresolved issues. In reply, she wrote a pamphlet titled "The War Powers of the Government," published in December 1861. At the special request of President Lincoln, she also prepared a document called "The Relation of Revolted Citizens to the National Government," which he approved and used as the basis for his subsequent actions. In September 1861, she also wrote a paper on the President's constitutional authority to make arrests and suspend the writ of habeas corpus, a topic that was hotly debated, even among those with unquestionable loyalty.
Early in the fall of 1861, Miss Carroll took a trip to St. Louis to inspect the progress of the war in the West. A gun-boat fleet, under the special authorization of the President, was then in preparation for a descent of the Mississippi. An examination of this plan by Miss Carroll showed its weakness, and the inevitable disaster it would bring to the National arms. Her astute military genius led her to the substitution of another plan, upon which she based great hopes of success, and its results show it to have been one of the profoundest strategic movements of the ages. Strategy and generalship are two entirely distinct forms of the art of war. Many a general, good at following out a plan, is entirely incapable of forming a successful one. Napoleon stands in the foremost ranks as a strategist, and is held as the greatest warrior of modern times, yet he led no forces into battle. So entirely was he convinced that strategy was the whole art of war, that he was accustomed to speak of himself as the only general of his army, thus subordinating the mere command and movement of forces to the art of strategy. Judged by this standard, which is acknowledged by all military men, Anna Ella Carroll, of Maryland, holds foremost rank as a military genius. On the 12th of November, 1861, while still in St. Louis, Miss Carroll wrote to Hon. Edward Bates at Washington (the member of the Cabinet who first suggested the expedition down the Mississippi), that from information gained by her she believed this plan would fail, and urged him, instead, to have the expedition[Pg 5] directed up the Tennessee River, as the true line of attack. She also dispatched a similar letter to Hon. Thomas A. Scott, at that time Assistant Secretary of War. On the 30th of this month (November, 1861), Miss Carroll laid the following plan, accompanied by explanatory maps, before the War Department:
Early in the fall of 1861, Miss Carroll traveled to St. Louis to check on the progress of the war in the West. A fleet of gunboats was being prepared, with special authorization from the President, for a mission down the Mississippi. After examining this plan, Miss Carroll identified its weaknesses and the inevitable disaster it would bring to the National forces. Her keen military insight prompted her to propose an alternative plan, which she believed had a strong chance of success, and its outcomes proved to be one of the most significant strategic moves in history. Strategy and generalship are two completely different aspects of military art. Many generals are skilled at executing a plan but fail at devising a successful one. Napoleon is recognized as one of the top strategists and is often regarded as the greatest warrior of modern times, yet he didn’t lead troops into battle. He was so convinced that strategy was the essence of warfare that he often referred to himself as the sole general of his army, relegating the mere command and movement of troops to the strategy itself. Judged by this criterion, which is widely accepted among military professionals, Anna Ella Carroll from Maryland ranks highly as a military genius. On November 12, 1861, while still in St. Louis, Miss Carroll wrote to Hon. Edward Bates in Washington (the Cabinet member who first proposed the Mississippi expedition), stating that from information she had gathered, she believed this plan would fail. She urged him to redirect the expedition[Pg 5] up the Tennessee River as the more effective route of attack. She also sent a similar message to Hon. Thomas A. Scott, who was then the Assistant Secretary of War. On November 30, 1861, Miss Carroll presented the following plan, along with explanatory maps, to the War Department:
The civil and military authorities seem to me to be laboring under a great mistake in regard to the true key of the war in the South-west. It is not the Mississippi, but the Tennessee River. Now, all the military preparations made in the West indicate that the Mississippi River is the point to which the authorities are directing their attention. On that river many battles must be fought and heavy risks incurred, before any impression can be made on the enemy, all of which could be avoided by using the Tennessee River. This river is navigable for medium-class boats to the foot of Muscle Shoals in Alabama, and is open to navigation all the year, while the distance is but two hundred and fifty miles by the river from Paducah on the Ohio. The Tennessee offers many advantages over the Mississippi. We should avoid the almost impregnable batteries of the enemy, which can not be taken without great danger and great risk of life to our forces, from the fact that our forces, if crippled, would fall a prey to the enemy by being swept by the current to him, and away from the relief of our friends. But even should we succeed, still we have only begun the war, for we shall then have to fight the country from whence the enemy derives his supplies.
The civil and military leaders seem to me to be making a huge mistake about the real key to the war in the Southwest. It's not the Mississippi River; it's the Tennessee River. Right now, all the military preparations in the West show that the authorities are focusing on the Mississippi. On that river, many battles will have to be fought and serious risks taken before we can make any impact on the enemy, all of which could be avoided by using the Tennessee River instead. This river is navigable for medium-sized boats all the way to Muscle Shoals in Alabama and is open for navigation year-round, with just a 250-mile distance from Paducah on the Ohio River. The Tennessee offers many advantages over the Mississippi. We should steer clear of the nearly unbeatable enemy fortifications that we can't capture without significant danger and risk to our soldiers because if we suffer heavy losses, our forces could be swept downstream into enemy hands, away from the support of our allies. Even if we succeed, we'll have just begun the war, as we'll still need to fight the territory from which the enemy gets its supplies.
Now an advance up the Tennessee River would avoid this danger; for, if our boats were crippled, they would drop back with the current and escape capture. But a still greater advantage would be its tendency to cut the enemy's lines in two, by reaching the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, threatening Memphis, which lies one hundred miles due west, and no defensible point between; also Nashville, only ninety miles north-east, and Florence and Tuscumbia in North Alabama, forty miles east. A movement in this direction would do more to relieve our friends in Kentucky, and inspire the loyal hearts in East Tennessee, than the possession of the whole of the Mississippi River. If well executed, it would cause the evacuation of all those formidable fortifications on which the rebels ground their hopes for success; and in the event of our fleet attacking Mobile, the presence of our troops in the northern part of Alabama, would be material aid to the fleet.
Now, moving up the Tennessee River would avoid this risk because if our boats were damaged, they could retreat with the current and avoid capture. But an even bigger benefit would be its ability to split the enemy's lines by reaching the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, putting pressure on Memphis, which is a hundred miles due west, with no defensible spots in between; and also on Nashville, just ninety miles to the northeast, as well as Florence and Tuscumbia in northern Alabama, forty miles to the east. A move in this direction would do more to support our friends in Kentucky and uplift the loyal people in East Tennessee than controlling the entire Mississippi River. If executed well, it would force the enemy to abandon their strong fortifications that they rely on for success; and if our fleet were to attack Mobile, having our troops in northern Alabama would greatly assist the fleet.
Again, the aid our forces would receive from the loyal men in Tennessee would enable them soon to crush the last traitor in that region, and the separation of the two extremes would do more than one hundred battles for the Union cause. The Tennessee River is crossed by the Memphis and Louisville Railroad, and the Memphis and Nashville Railroad. At Hamburg the river makes the big bend on the east, touching the north-east corner of Mississippi, entering the north-west corner of Alabama, forming an arc to the south, entering the State of Tennessee at the north-east corner of Alabama, and if it does not touch the north-west corner of Georgia, comes very near it. It is but eight miles from Hamburg to the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, which goes through Tuscumbia, only[Pg 6] two miles from the river, which it crosses at Decatur thirty miles above, intersecting with the Nashville and Chattanooga road at Stephenson. The Tennessee never has less than three feet to Hamburg on the "shoalest" bar, and during the fall, winter, and spring months, there is always water for the largest boats that are used on the Mississippi River. It follows, from the above facts, that in making the Mississippi the key to the war in the West, or rather in overlooking the Tennessee River, the subject is not understood by the superiors in command.
Once again, the support our troops would get from the loyal men in Tennessee would soon allow them to defeat the last traitor in that area, and the separation of the two extremes would be more effective than a hundred battles for the Union cause. The Tennessee River is crossed by the Memphis and Louisville Railroad and the Memphis and Nashville Railroad. At Hamburg, the river makes a large bend to the east, touching the northeast corner of Mississippi, entering the northwest corner of Alabama, forming an arc to the south, and entering Tennessee at the northeast corner of Alabama. If it doesn’t touch the northwest corner of Georgia, it comes very close. It’s only eight miles from Hamburg to the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, which goes through Tuscumbia, just[Pg 6] two miles from the river, crossing it at Decatur thirty miles upstream and intersecting with the Nashville and Chattanooga road at Stephenson. The Tennessee never has less than three feet of water at Hamburg on the "shoalest" bar, and during the fall, winter, and spring months, there is always enough water for the largest boats used on the Mississippi River. Based on these facts, it’s clear that making the Mississippi the central focus of the war in the West, or rather neglecting the Tennessee River, shows a lack of understanding by those in command.
The War Department looked over these papers, and Col. Scott, the Assistant Secretary, possessing a knowledge of the railroad facilities and connections of the South, unequaled perhaps by any other man in the country at that time, at once saw the vital importance of Miss Carroll's plan. He declared it to be the first clear solution of the difficult problem, and was soon sent West to assist in carrying it out in detail. The Mississippi expedition was abandoned, and the Tennessee made the point of attack. Both land and naval forces were ordered to mass themselves at this point, and the country soon began to feel the wisdom of this movement. The capture of Fort Henry, an important Confederate post on the Tennessee River serving to defend the railroad communication between Memphis and Bowling Green, was the first result of Miss Carroll's plan. It fell Feb. 6, 1862, and was rapidly followed by the capture of Fort Donelson, which, after a gallant defense, surrendered to the Union forces Feb. 16th, and the name of Ulysses S. Grant, as the general commanding these forces, for the first time became known to the American people. By these victories the line of Confederate fortifications was broken, and the enemy's means of communication between the East and the West were destroyed.
The War Department reviewed these documents, and Col. Scott, the Assistant Secretary, who had an unparalleled understanding of the South's railroad facilities and connections, immediately recognized the crucial significance of Miss Carroll's plan. He stated it was the first clear solution to the challenging problem and was soon sent West to help implement it in detail. The Mississippi expedition was canceled, and the focus shifted to Tennessee for the attack. Both land and naval forces were ordered to concentrate at this location, and soon the nation began to appreciate the wisdom of this decision. The capture of Fort Henry, an important Confederate stronghold on the Tennessee River that defended the railroad link between Memphis and Bowling Green, was the first success of Miss Carroll's plan. It fell on February 6, 1862, and was quickly followed by the fall of Fort Donelson, which surrendered to Union forces on February 16th after a brave defense, marking the first time Ulysses S. Grant's name, as the commanding general, became known to the American public. These victories broke the Confederate defensive line and disrupted the enemy's communication between the East and the West.
All the historians of our civil war concede that the strategy which made the Tennessee River the base of military operations in the South-west, thus cutting the Confederacy in two by its control of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, also made its final destruction inevitable. At an early day the Government had neither a just conception of the rebellion, nor of the steps necessary for its suppression. It was looked upon from a political rather than a military point of view, and much valuable time was wasted in suggestions and plans worse than futile. But while the national Government had been blind to the real situation, the Confederacy had every hour strengthened its position both at home and abroad, having so far secured the recognition of France and England as to have been acknowledged belligerents, while threats of raising the blockade were also made by the same powers.[Pg 7]
All historians of our civil war agree that the strategy of using the Tennessee River as the base for military operations in the Southwest, which split the Confederacy in two by controlling the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, made its ultimate defeat unavoidable. Early on, the government didn’t fully understand the rebellion or the steps needed to suppress it. It was viewed more from a political angle than a military one, wasting a lot of valuable time on suggestions and plans that were counterproductive. While the national government failed to recognize the true situation, the Confederacy was steadily strengthening its position both domestically and internationally, having gained enough recognition from France and England to be acknowledged as belligerents, while those same powers threatened to raise the blockade.[Pg 7]
In order to a more full understanding of our national affairs at that time, we will glance at the proceedings of Congress. When this body met in December, 1861, a "Committee on the Conduct of the War" was at once created, and spirited debates upon the situation took place in both the Senate and the House. It was acknowledged that the salvation of the country depended upon military success. It was declared that the rebellion must be speedily put down or it would destroy the resources of the country, as $2,000,000 a day were then required to maintain the army in the field. Hon. Mr. Dawes compared the country to a man under an exhausted receiver gasping for breath, and said that sixty days of the present state of things must bring about an ignominious peace. Hon. Geo. W. Julian declared that the country was in imminent danger of a foreign war, and that in the opinion of many the great model Republic of the world was in the throes of death. The credit of the nation was then so poor as to render it unable to make loans of money from foreign countries. The treasury notes issued by the Government were falling in the market, selling at five and six per cent. discount. Mr. Morrill, in the Senate, gave it as his opinion that in six months the nation would be beyond hope of relief.
To better understand our national situation at that time, let’s take a look at what Congress was doing. When this body convened in December 1861, they quickly established a "Committee on the Conduct of the War," and there were passionate debates in both the Senate and the House about the situation. It was recognized that the country’s survival relied on military success. It was stated that the rebellion needed to be crushed quickly, or it would deplete the nation’s resources, as maintaining the army in the field at that time required $2,000,000 a day. Hon. Mr. Dawes compared the country to a man with an exhausted breathing apparatus gasping for air, insisting that if things continued for sixty more days, it would lead to a shameful peace. Hon. Geo. W. Julian warned that the country faced an imminent risk of foreign war and that many believed the great model Republic of the world was on the brink of collapse. The nation’s credit was so weak that it couldn't secure loans from other countries. The treasury notes issued by the Government were losing value in the market, selling at a five to six percent discount. Mr. Morrill, in the Senate, expressed the belief that in six months, the nation would be beyond hope of recovery.
England was anxiously hoping for our downfall. The London Post, Lord Palmerston's paper, the organ of the English Government, prophesied our national bankruptcy within a short time. The London Times denounced us in language deemed too offensive to be read before the Senate. It urged England's direct interference; counseled the pouring of a fleet of gun-boats through the St. Lawrence into the lakes with the opening of spring, "to secure, with the mastery of these waters, the mastery of all," and declared that three months hence the field would be all England's own. At that time the British Government had already sent some thirty thousand men into its colonies in North America, preparatory to an assault upon our north-western frontier. The nation seemed upon the point of being lost, and the hopes of millions of oppressed men in other lands destroyed by the disintegration of the Union. The war had been waged six months, but with the exception of West Virginia, the battle had been against the Union. The fact that military success alone could turn the scale, though now acknowledged, seemed to Congress as far as ever from consummation. Our military commanders, quite ignorant of both the geographical and topographical outlines of our vast country, were unable to formulate the plan necessary for a decisive blow.
England was nervously anticipating our downfall. The London Post, Lord Palmerston's newspaper and the voice of the English Government, predicted our national bankruptcy would happen soon. The London Times condemned us using language considered too offensive to be read in the Senate. It pushed for England's direct intervention and suggested sending a fleet of gunboats through the St. Lawrence into the lakes when spring arrived, "to secure, with control of these waters, control of all," and declared that in three months the field would belong entirely to England. At that point, the British Government had already deployed about thirty thousand troops to its colonies in North America in preparation for an attack on our northwestern border. The nation seemed on the verge of collapse, and the hopes of millions of oppressed people in other countries were threatened by the disintegration of the Union. The war had been ongoing for six months, but aside from West Virginia, the battle had primarily been against the Union. Although it was now recognized that military success was essential, it seemed to Congress that we were still far from achieving it. Our military leaders, largely unaware of both the geographical and topographical details of our vast country, were unable to devise a plan needed for a decisive strike.
Such was the situation at the time Miss Carroll sent her plan of[Pg 8] the Tennessee campaign to the War Department. Fortunately for civilization this plan was adopted, and with the fall of Fort Henry, the enemy's center was pierced, the decisive point gained. From that hour the nation's final success was assured. Its fall opened the Tennessee River, and its capture was soon followed by the evacuation of Columbus and Bowling Green. Fort Donelson was given up, its rebel garrison of 14,000 troops marched out as prisoners of war, and hope sprang up in the hearts of the people. Pittsburg Landing and Corinth soon followed the fate of the preceding forts. The President declared the victory at Fort Henry to be of the utmost importance. North and South its influence was alike felt. Gen. Beauregard was himself conscious that this campaign sealed the fate of the "Southern Confederacy." The success of the Tennessee campaign rendered intervention impossible, and taught those foreign enemies who were anxiously watching for our country's downfall, the power and stability of a Republic. Missouri was kept in the Union by its means, Tennessee and Kentucky were restored, the National armies were enabled to push to the Gulf States and secure possession of all the great rivers and routes of internal communication through the heart of the Confederate territory.
At the time Miss Carroll sent her plan for the[Pg 8] Tennessee campaign to the War Department, the situation was critical. Luckily for civilization, this plan was accepted, and with the fall of Fort Henry, the enemy's center was breached, gaining a crucial advantage. From that moment, the nation’s ultimate success was certain. Its fall opened the Tennessee River, and soon after, Columbus and Bowling Green were abandoned. Fort Donelson was surrendered, with its rebel garrison of 14,000 troops marching out as prisoners of war, igniting hope in the hearts of the people. Pittsburg Landing and Corinth soon faced the same fate as the earlier forts. The President declared the victory at Fort Henry to be extremely significant. Its impact was felt both North and South. Gen. Beauregard recognized that this campaign determined the destiny of the "Southern Confederacy." The success of the Tennessee campaign made intervention impossible and showed foreign enemies, who eagerly awaited our country’s collapse, the strength and stability of a Republic. Missouri was kept in the Union as a result, Tennessee and Kentucky were restored, and the National armies were able to advance to the Gulf States and secure control of all the major rivers and routes of communication deep within Confederate territory.
On the 10th of April, 1862, the President issued the following proclamation:
On April 10, 1862, the President issued the following proclamation:
It has pleased Almighty God to vouchsafe signal victories to the land and naval forces engaged in suppressing an internal rebellion; and at the same time to avert from our country the damages of foreign intervention and invasion.
It has pleased Almighty God to grant significant victories to the army and navy involved in putting down an internal rebellion; and at the same time, to protect our country from the harms of foreign intervention and invasion.
During all this time the author of this plan remained unknown, except to the President and his Cabinet, who feared to reveal the fact that the Government was proceeding under the advice and plan of a civilian, and that civilian a woman. Shortly after the capture of Forts Henry and Donelson a debate as to the author of this campaign took place in the House of Representatives.[2] The Senate discussed its origin March 13. It was variously ascribed to the President, to the Secretary of War, and to different naval and land commanders, Halleck, Grant, Foote, Smith, and Fremont. The historians of the war have also given adverse opinions as to its authorship. Draper's "History of the Civil War" ascribes it to Gen. Halleck; Boynton's "History of the Navy" to Commodore Foote; Lossing's "Civil War" to the combined wisdom of Grant, Halleck, and Foote; Badeau's "History of the Civil War"[Pg 9] credits it to Gen. C. F. Smith; and Abbott's "Civil War," to Gen. Fremont.
During this entire time, the author of this plan remained unknown, except to the President and his Cabinet, who were hesitant to reveal that the Government was acting on the advice and plan of a civilian, and that civilian a woman. Shortly after the capture of Forts Henry and Donelson, there was a debate in the House of Representatives about who created this campaign.[2] The Senate discussed its origin on March 13. It was attributed variously to the President, the Secretary of War, and several different naval and land commanders, including Halleck, Grant, Foote, Smith, and Fremont. Historians of the war have also expressed differing opinions regarding its authorship. Draper's "History of the Civil War" credits it to Gen. Halleck; Boynton's "History of the Navy" to Commodore Foote; Lossing's "Civil War" to the collective efforts of Grant, Halleck, and Foote; Badeau's "History of the Civil War"[Pg 9] attributes it to Gen. C. F. Smith; and Abbott's "Civil War" to Gen. Fremont.
But abundant testimony exists proving Miss Carroll's authorship of the plan, in letters from Hon. B. F. Wade,[3] Chairman of the Committee on the Conduct of the War; from Hon. Thos. A. Scott, Assistant Secretary of War; from Hon. L. D. Evans, former Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas (entrusted by the Government with an important secret mission during the war); from Hon. Orestes A. Bronson, and many other well-known public men; from conversations of President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton; and from reports of the Military Committee of the XLI., XLII., and XLVI. Congresses.[4] So anxious was the Government to keep the origin of the Tennessee campaign a secret, that Col. Scott, in conversation with Judge Evans, a personal friend of Miss Carroll, pressed upon him the absolute necessity of Miss Carroll's making no claim to the authorship while the struggle lasted. In the plenitude of her self-sacrificing patriotism she remained silent, and saw the honors rightfully belonging to her heaped upon others, although she knew the country was indebted to her for its salvation.
But there is plenty of evidence showing that Miss Carroll came up with the plan, including letters from Hon. B. F. Wade,[3] Chairman of the Committee on the Conduct of the War; from Hon. Thos. A. Scott, Assistant Secretary of War; from Hon. L. D. Evans, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas (who was given an important secret mission by the Government during the war); from Hon. Orestes A. Bronson, and many other well-known public figures; from conversations between President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton; and from reports from the Military Committee of the XLI., XLII., and XLVI. Congresses.[4] The Government was so eager to keep the source of the Tennessee campaign a secret that Col. Scott, while talking to Judge Evans, a personal friend of Miss Carroll, strongly urged him that it was absolutely necessary for Miss Carroll to not claim authorship while the conflict continued. In her deep sense of patriotic selflessness, she stayed silent and watched as honors rightfully hers were given to others, all while knowing that the country owed her for its salvation.
Previous to 1862 historians reckoned but fifteen decisive battles[5] in the world's history, battles in which, says Hallam, a contrary result would have essentially varied the drama of the world in all its subsequent scenes. Professor Cressy, of the chair of Ancient and Modern History, University of London, has made these battles the subject of two grand volumes. The battle of Fort Henry was the sixteenth, and in its effects may well be deemed the most important of all.[6] It opened the doors of liberty to the downtrodden and[Pg 10] oppressed among all nations, setting a seal of permanence on the assertion that self-government is the natural right of every person.
Before 1862, historians recognized only fifteen decisive battles[5] in world history—battles that, according to Hallam, could have dramatically changed the course of history in all its future events. Professor Cressy, who holds a chair in Ancient and Modern History at the University of London, has written two major volumes about these battles. The battle of Fort Henry was the sixteenth and can be seen as the most significant of them all.[6] It opened the doors of freedom to the oppressed and downtrodden across all nations, affirming that the right to self-government is a natural entitlement of every individual.
But it was not alone through her plan of the Tennessee campaign that Miss Carroll exhibited her military genius; throughout the conflict she continued to send plans and suggestions to the War Department. The events of history prove the wisdom of those plans, and that had they been strictly followed, the war would have been brought to a speedy close,[7] and millions of men and money saved to the country.
But it wasn't just through her plan for the Tennessee campaign that Miss Carroll showed her military genius; throughout the conflict, she consistently sent plans and suggestions to the War Department. History shows that those plans were wise, and if they had been strictly followed, the war could have ended quickly, saving millions of men and dollars for the country.[7]
Upon the fall of Fort Henry, February, 1862, she again addressed the War Department, advising an immediate advance upon Mobile or Vicksburg. In March, 1862, she presented a memorial and maps to Secretary Stanton in person, in regard to the reduction of Island 10, which had long been a vain effort by the Union forces, in which she said:
Upon the fall of Fort Henry in February 1862, she once again reached out to the War Department, urging an immediate advance on Mobile or Vicksburg. In March 1862, she personally delivered a memorial and maps to Secretary Stanton concerning the capture of Island 10, which had long been an unsuccessful effort by the Union forces, in which she said:
The failure to take Island 10, which thus far occasions much disappointment to the country, excites no surprise to me. When I looked at the gun-boats at St. Louis, and was informed as to their powers, and that the current of the Mississippi at full tide runs at the rate of five miles per hour, which is very near the speed of our gun-boats, I could not resist the conclusion that they were not well fitted to the taking of batteries on the Mississippi River, if assisted by gun-boats perhaps equal to our own. Hence it was that I wrote Col. Scott from there, that the Tennessee River was our strategic point, and the successes at Forts Henry and Donelson establish the justice of these observations. Had our victorious army, after the fall of Fort Henry, immediately pushed up the Tennessee River and taken position on the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, between Corinth, Miss., and Decatur, Ala., which might easily have been done at that time with a small force, every rebel soldier in Western Kentucky and Tennessee would have fled from every position south of that railroad. And had Buell pursued the enemy in his retreat from Nashville, without delay, into a commanding position in North Alabama, on[Pg 11] the railroad between Chattanooga and Decatur, the rebel government at Richmond would necessarily have been obliged to retreat to the cotton States. I am fully satisfied that the true policy of General Halleck is to strengthen Grant's column by such a force as will enable him at once to seize the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, as it is the readiest means of reducing Island 10, and all the strongholds to Memphis.
The failure to capture Island 10, which has caused a lot of disappointment for the country, doesn’t surprise me at all. When I saw the gunboats at St. Louis and learned about their capabilities, along with the fact that the Mississippi River flows at full tide at about five miles per hour—close to the speed of our gunboats—I couldn’t help but conclude that they weren’t suitable for taking out positions along the Mississippi River, especially with gunboats that could match ours. That’s why I wrote to Col. Scott from there, stating that the Tennessee River was our strategic focus, and the victories at Forts Henry and Donelson validate those thoughts. If our victorious army had pushed up the Tennessee River immediately after Fort Henry fell and secured the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, between Corinth, Miss., and Decatur, Ala., which could have been done easily with a small force at that time, every Confederate soldier in Western Kentucky and Tennessee would have retreated from all positions south of that railroad. And if Buell had pursued the enemy in their retreat from Nashville promptly, moving into a strong position in North Alabama, on the railroad between Chattanooga and Decatur, the Confederate government in Richmond would have been forced to retreat to the cotton States. I firmly believe that General Halleck’s best strategy is to reinforce Grant's forces with enough troops to enable him to seize the Memphis and Charleston Railroad immediately, as it’s the most effective way to neutralize Island 10 and all strongholds up to Memphis.
In October, 1862, observing the preparations for a naval attack upon Vicksburg, Miss Carroll again addressed the Secretary of War in the following memorial:
In October 1862, while watching the preparations for a naval attack on Vicksburg, Miss Carroll once again wrote to the Secretary of War with the following memorial:
As I understand an expedition is about to go down the river, for the purpose of reducing Vicksburg, I have prepared the enclosed map in order to demonstrate more clearly the obstacles to be encountered in the contemplated assault. In the first place, it is impossible to take Vicksburg in the front without too great a loss of life and material, for the reason that the river is only about half a mile wide, and our forces would be in point-blank range of their guns, not only from their water-batteries which line the shore, but from the batteries that crown the hills, while the enemy would be protected from the range of our fire.
As I understand it, an expedition is set to go down the river to reduce Vicksburg, so I've prepared the enclosed map to clearly show the obstacles we’ll face in this planned assault. First of all, it's impossible to take Vicksburg directly without suffering significant loss of life and resources because the river is only about half a mile wide. Our forces would be within easy reach of their guns, not only from the artillery stationed along the shore but also from the batteries on the hills, while the enemy would be shielded from our fire.
By examining the map I enclose, you will at once perceive why a place of so little apparent strength has been enabled to resist the combined fleets of the Upper and Lower Mississippi. The most economical plan for the reduction of Vicksburg now, is to push a column from Memphis or Corinth down the Mississippi Central Railroad to Jackson, the capital of the State of Mississippi. The occupation of Jackson, and the command of the railroad to New Orleans, would compel the immediate evacuation of Vicksburg, as well as the retreat of the entire rebel army east of that line; and by another movement of our army from Jackson, Miss., or from Corinth to Meridan, in the State of Mississippi, on the Ohio and Mobile Railroad, especially if aided by a movement of our gun-boats on Mobile, the Confederate forces, with all the disloyal men and slaves, would be compelled to fly east of the Tombigbee. Mobile being then in our possession, with 100,000 men at Meridan, would redeem the entire country from Memphis to the Tombigbee River. Of course I would have the gun-boats with a small force at Vicksburg, as auxiliary to this movement. With regard to the canal, Vicksburg can be rendered useless to the Confederate army upon the very first rise of the river; but I do not advise this, because Vicksburg belongs to the United States, and we desire to hold and fortify it, for the Mississippi River at Vicksburg and the Vicksburg and Jackson Railroad will become necessary as a base for our future operations. Vicksburg might have been reduced eight months ago, as I advised after the fall of Fort Henry, and with much more ease than it can be done to-day.
By looking at the map I’ve attached, you’ll quickly see why a place that seems so weak has managed to hold off the combined fleets of the Upper and Lower Mississippi. The most efficient way to take Vicksburg now is to send a team from Memphis or Corinth down the Mississippi Central Railroad to Jackson, the capital of Mississippi. Taking over Jackson and controlling the railroad to New Orleans would force an immediate evacuation of Vicksburg and the retreat of the entire Confederate army east of that line. Additionally, if our army moved from Jackson, Miss., or from Corinth to Meridian, Mississippi, along the Ohio and Mobile Railroad, especially with support from our gunboats on Mobile, the Confederate forces, along with all disloyal individuals and slaves, would have to flee east of the Tombigbee. Once we have Mobile, and with 100,000 troops in Meridian, we could reclaim the entire area from Memphis to the Tombigbee River. Naturally, I’d have the gunboats with a small force at Vicksburg to support this movement. Regarding the canal, Vicksburg can be rendered ineffective for the Confederate army at the first rise of the river; however, I wouldn’t recommend this, as Vicksburg belongs to the United States, and we want to secure and fortify it. The Mississippi River at Vicksburg and the Vicksburg and Jackson Railroad will be crucial as a base for our future operations. Vicksburg could have been taken eight months ago, as I suggested after the fall of Fort Henry, and with much less difficulty than it would be today.
It will be recollected that after a month's attack upon Vicksburg, commencing June 28, 1862, by the combined Farragut fleet, Porter mortar flotilla and the gun-boat fleet under Capt. C. H. Davis, the bombardment of the city was suspended, it being found impossible to capture and hold it with the forces at command.[Pg 12]
It should be remembered that after a month of fighting against Vicksburg, starting June 28, 1862, by the combined forces of Farragut's fleet, Porter’s mortar flotilla, and the gunboat fleet led by Capt. C. H. Davis, the bombardment of the city was stopped because it was found impossible to capture and hold it with the available forces.[Pg 12]
In October, 1862, Grant was appointed to the command of the forces from New Orleans to Vicksburg under the name of the "Department of Tennessee," and the capture of this "Gibraltar of the Confederacy" was once more attempted. This was the period of Miss Carroll's memorial above given, and the results proved the wisdom of her suggestions, as it was not until the army, by an attack upon its rear, were enabled to capture this stronghold, July 4, 1863, more than a year after the first demand of Farragut's fleet for its capitulation. Had it been attacked immediately after the fall of Fort Henry, according to Miss Carroll's plan, many lives, costly munitions of war, and much valuable time would have alike been saved. Miss Carroll's claim before Congress in connection with the Tennessee campaign of 1862, shows that the Military Committee of the United States Senate at the third session of the 41st Congress, reported (document 337), through Senator Howard, that Miss Carroll "furnished the Government the information which caused the change of the military expedition which was preparing in 1861 to descend the Mississippi, from that river to the Tennessee River." The same committee of the 42d Congress, second session (document 167), reported the evidence in support of this claim. For the House report of the 46th Congress, third session, see document 386.[8]
In October 1862, Grant was put in charge of the forces from New Orleans to Vicksburg under the title "Department of Tennessee," and another attempt was made to capture this "Gibraltar of the Confederacy." This was when Miss Carroll made her memorial mentioned earlier, and the outcomes validated her suggestions, as it wasn't until the army managed to capture this stronghold by attacking its rear on July 4, 1863, more than a year after Farragut's fleet first demanded its surrender. If it had been attacked right after Fort Henry fell, as Miss Carroll proposed, many lives, expensive war supplies, and significant time could have been saved. Miss Carroll's claim before Congress related to the Tennessee campaign of 1862 shows that the Military Committee of the U.S. Senate in the third session of the 41st Congress reported (document 337), via Senator Howard, that Miss Carroll "provided the Government with the information that led to the change in the military expedition that was being prepared in 1861 to move down the Mississippi, rerouting it to the Tennessee River." The same committee in the 42nd Congress, second session (document 167), reported evidence supporting this claim. For the House report of the 46th Congress, third session, see document 386.[8]
No fact in the history of our country is more clearly proved than that its very existence is due to the military genius of Miss Carroll, and no more shameful fact in its history exists, than that Congress has refused all recognition and reward for such patriotic services because they were rendered by a woman. While in the past twenty years thousands of men, great and small, have received thanks and rewards from the country she saved—for work done in accordance with her plans—Grant, first made known at Donelson, having twice received the highest office in the gift of the nation—having made the tour of the world amid universal honors—having received gifts of countless value at home and abroad—Miss Carroll is still left to struggle for a recognition of her services from that country which is indebted to her for its very life.
No fact in the history of our country is more clearly proven than that its very existence is due to the military brilliance of Miss Carroll, and no more shameful fact exists in its history than that Congress has denied all recognition and rewards for such patriotic services because they were performed by a woman. While in the past twenty years thousands of men, both notable and lesser-known, have received thanks and rewards from the nation she saved—for work done according to her plans—Grant, who was first recognized at Donelson, has twice held the highest office in the country, toured the world amid widespread accolades, and received invaluable gifts both at home and abroad—Miss Carroll is still left to fight for recognition of her contributions from the nation that owes its survival to her.
DOROTHEA DIX,
GOVERNMENT SUPERINTENDENT OF NURSES.
Upon the breaking out of the war, Miss Dix, who for years had been engaged in philanthropic work, saw here another requirement for her services and hurried to Washington to offer them to her[Pg 13] country. She found her first work in nursing soldiers who had been wounded by the Baltimore mob.[9] Upon June 10, 1861, she received from the War Department, Simon Cameron at that time its head, an appointment as the Government Superintendent of Women Nurses. Secretary Stanton, succeeding him, ratified this appointment, thus placing her in an extraordinary and exceptional position, imposing numerous and onerous duties, among them that of hospital visitation, distributing supplies, managing ambulances, adjusting disputes, etc. But while appointed to this office by the Government, Miss Dix found herself as a member of a disfranchised class, in a position of authority without the power of enforcing obedience, and the subject of jealousy among hospital surgeons, which largely militated against the efficiency of her work.[10]
When the war broke out, Miss Dix, who had spent years doing philanthropic work, saw another opportunity to serve her country and quickly went to Washington to offer her help. She started by nursing soldiers who had been injured by the mob in Baltimore. On June 10, 1861, she received an appointment from the War Department, headed by Simon Cameron at the time, as the Government Superintendent of Women Nurses. Secretary Stanton, who succeeded him, confirmed this appointment, putting her in a unique and challenging position with many responsibilities, including visiting hospitals, distributing supplies, managing ambulances, and resolving disputes. However, even though she was appointed to this role by the Government, Miss Dix found herself part of a disenfranchised group, holding authority without the power to enforce it, and she faced jealousy from hospital surgeons, which significantly undermined her effectiveness.
ELIZABETH BLACKWELL, M.D.
THE SANITARY COMMISSION.
It has been computed that since the historic period, fourteen thousand millions of human beings have fallen in the wars which men have waged against each other. From careful statistics it has also been estimated that four-fifths of this loss of life has been due to privation, exposure, and want of care. At an early day the mortality from sickness was evidently far greater than the above estimate; as late as the Crimean War, this mortality reached seven-eighths of the whole number of deaths. Military surgery was formerly but little understood. The wounded and sick of an army were indebted to the chance aid of friend or stranger, or were left to perish from neglect. Nothing has ever been held so cheap as human life, unless, indeed, it were human rights. But even from times of antiquity we read of women, sometimes of noble birth, who followed the[Pg 14] soldiers to the field, treating the wounds of friend or lover with healing balms or rude surgical appliance. To woman is the world indebted for the first systematic efforts toward relief, through the establishment of hospitals for sick or wounded soldiers. As early as the fifth century, the Empress Helena erected hospitals on the routes between Rome and Constantinople, where soldiers requiring it, received careful nursing.
It has been calculated that since the beginning of recorded history, fourteen billion people have died in wars fought by humans against one another. Careful statistics also estimate that about eighty percent of these deaths were due to deprivation, exposure, and lack of care. Early on, the death toll from disease was evidently much higher than the estimate above; even during the Crimean War, this mortality rate reached seventy-five percent of all deaths. Military surgery was not well understood in the past. The wounded and sick in an army relied on the random help of friends or strangers, or they were left to die from neglect. Nothing has ever been valued less than human life, unless, perhaps, it was human rights. However, even in ancient times, there are accounts of women, sometimes of noble birth, who followed the[Pg 14] soldiers into battle, treating the wounds of friends or lovers with healing ointments or basic surgical tools. Women are credited with the first organized efforts for relief, establishing hospitals for sick or injured soldiers. As early as the fifth century, Empress Helena built hospitals along the routes between Rome and Constantinople, where soldiers in need received proper care.
In the ninth century an order of women, who consecrated themselves to field work, arose in the Catholic Church. They were called Beguines, and everywhere ministered to the sick and wounded of the armies of Continental Europe during its long period of devastating wars.
In the ninth century, a group of women dedicated to agricultural work emerged within the Catholic Church. They were known as Beguines, and they provided care for the sick and injured in the armies of Continental Europe during its extended time of destructive wars.
To Isabella of Spain,[11] she who sold her jewels to fit Columbus for the discovery of a New World, is modern warfare most indebted for a mitigation of its horrors, through the establishment of the first regular Camp Hospitals. During her war with the Moors she caused a large number of tents to be furnished at her own charge, with the requisite medicines, appliances, and attendants for the wounded and sick of her army. These were known as the "Queen's Hospitals," and formed the inception of all the tender care given in army hospitals by the most enlightened nations of to-day.
To Isabella of Spain,[11] she who sold her jewels to enable Columbus to discover a New World, modern warfare owes a lot for reducing its horrors, through the creation of the first regular Camp Hospitals. During her war with the Moors, she personally funded a large number of tents, along with the necessary medicines, supplies, and staff for the injured and ill in her army. These were known as the "Queen's Hospitals," and they marked the beginning of all the compassionate care provided in army hospitals by the most progressive nations today.
It is but a few years since Christendom was thrilled by the heroism of a young English girl of high position, Florence Nightingale, who having passed through the course of training required for hospital nurses, voluntarily went out to the Crimea at the time when English soldiers, wounded and sick, were dying by scores and thousands without medicine or care, broke over the red-tape rules of the army, and with her corps of women nurses, brought life in place of death, winning the gratitude and admiration of her country and mankind by her self-sacrifice and her powers of organization. Rev. Henry Kinglake, in his "History of the Crimea," says she brought a priceless reinforcement of brain power to the nation at a time when the brains of Englishmen had given signs of inanition.
It’s only been a few years since the world was inspired by the bravery of a young English woman of high status, Florence Nightingale. After completing her training as a hospital nurse, she willingly traveled to the Crimea when English soldiers, wounded and sick, were dying by the hundreds and thousands without any medical help or care. She ignored the bureaucratic rules of the army and, along with her team of female nurses, brought life where there was death, earning the gratitude and admiration of her country and humanity through her selflessness and organizational skills. Rev. Henry Kinglake, in his "History of the Crimea," states that she provided a priceless boost of intelligence to the nation at a time when the minds of Englishmen appeared to be lacking.
A few years later brought our own civil war, and the wonderful sanitary commission, more familiarly known as "The Sanitary," the public records of which are a part of the history of the war; its sacrifices and its successes have burned themselves deep into the hearts of thousands upon thousands. Its fairs in New[Pg 15] York, New England, and the Northwest, were the wonders of the world in the variety and beauty of their exhibits and the vast sums realized from them. Scarcely a woman in the nation, from the girl of tender years,[12] to the aged matron of ninety, whose trembling hands scraped lint or essayed to knit socks and mittens for "the boys in blue," but knows its work, for of it they were a part. But not a hundred of all those thousands who toiled with willing hands, and who, at every battle met anew to prepare or send off stores, knows that to one of her own sex was the formation of the Great Sanitary due.[13]
A few years later, we faced our own civil war, and the incredible sanitary commission, more commonly known as "The Sanitary," whose public records are part of the history of the war; its sacrifices and successes have made a lasting impact on the hearts of countless individuals. Its fairs in New[Pg 15] York, New England, and the Northwest were renowned for the variety and beauty of their exhibits and the huge amounts of money raised. Nearly every woman in the country, from young girls to elderly matrons in their nineties, who with shaking hands scraped lint or tried to knit socks and mittens for "the boys in blue," knows about its work because they were part of it. Yet, among all those thousands who worked with eager hands, and who gathered at every battle to prepare or send off supplies, hardly a hundred know that the creation of the Great Sanitary was due to one of their own.
Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, returning to this country from England about the time of the breaking out of the war, fresh from an acquaintance with Miss Nightingale, and filled with her enthusiasm, at once called an informal meeting at the New York Infirmary[14] for Women and Children, where, on April 25th, 1861, the germ of the sanitary, known as the Ladies' Central Relief,[15] was inaugurated. A public meeting was held April 26, 1861, at the Cooper Union, its object being to concentrate scattered efforts by a large and formal organization. The society then received the name of the "Woman's Central Relief Association of New York." Miss Louisa Lee Schuyler was chosen its president. She soon sent out an appeal to women which brought New York into direct connection with many other portions of the country, enabling it "to report its monthly disbursements by tens of thousands, and the sum total of its income by millions." But very soon after its organization, Miss Schuyler saw the need of more positive connection with the Government. A united address was sent to the Secretary of War from the Woman's Central Relief Association, the Advisory Committee of the Board of Physicians and Surgeons of the hospitals of New York, and the New York[Pg 16] Medical Association for furnishing medical supplies. As the result of this address, the Sanitary Commission was established the 9th of June, 1861, under the authority of the Government, and went into immediate operation. Although acting under Government authorization, this commission was not sustained at Government expense, but was supported by the women of the nation. It was organized under the following general rules:
Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell came back to the U.S. from England around the time the war started. Inspired by her interactions with Miss Nightingale, she quickly organized an informal meeting at the New York Infirmary for Women and Children. On April 25th, 1861, she helped launch the foundation of what would become the Ladies' Central Relief. A public meeting followed on April 26, 1861, at the Cooper Union, aimed at unifying various efforts into a larger, formal organization. This group was named the "Woman's Central Relief Association of New York," with Miss Louisa Lee Schuyler as its president. She promptly issued a call for women to participate, connecting New York directly with many regions across the country, allowing it to report its monthly spending in the tens of thousands and its total income in the millions. Soon after its formation, Miss Schuyler recognized the need for a closer relationship with the Government. A united message was sent to the Secretary of War from the Woman's Central Relief Association, the Advisory Committee of the Board of Physicians and Surgeons of New York hospitals, and the New York Medical Association to provide medical supplies. This led to the establishment of the Sanitary Commission on June 9, 1861, under Government authority, which began operations immediately. Although it operated with Government approval, the commission was funded by the women of the nation. It was organized according to the following general rules:
1. The system of sanitary relief established by army regulations was to be adopted; the Sanitary Commission was to acquaint itself fully with those rules, and see that its agents were familiar with all the plans and methods of the army system.
1. The sanitary relief system set up by army regulations was to be adopted; the Sanitary Commission was to fully understand those rules and ensure that its agents were knowledgeable about all the plans and methods of the army system.
2. The Commission was to direct its efforts mainly to strengthening the regular army system, and work to secure the favor and co-operation of the Medical Bureau.
2. The Commission was to focus primarily on strengthening the regular army system and work to gain the support and collaboration of the Medical Bureau.
3. The Commission was to know nothing of religious differences or State distinctions, distributing without regard to the place where troops were enlisted, in a purely national spirit.
3. The Commission was not to be concerned with religious differences or State distinctions, distributing without considering where troops were recruited, in a purely national spirit.
Under these provisions the Sanitary Commission completed its full organization. Dr. Blackwell, in the Ladies' Relief Association, acted as Chairman of the Registration Committee, a position of onerous duties, requiring accord with the Medical Bureau and War Department, and visited Washington in behalf of this committee. But the Association soon lost her services by her own voluntary act of withdrawal. Professional jealousy of women doctors being offensively shown by some of those male physicians with whom she was brought in contact, she chose to resign rather than allow sex-prejudice to obstruct the carrying on of the great work originated by her. The Sanitary, with its Auxiliary Aid Societies, at once presented a method of help to the loyal[16] women of the country, and every city,[Pg 17] village, and hamlet soon poured its resources into the Commission. Through it $92,000,000 were raised in aid of the sick and wounded of the army. Nothing connected with the war so astonished foreign nations as the work of the Sanitary Commission.
Under these rules, the Sanitary Commission completed its full organization. Dr. Blackwell, from the Ladies' Relief Association, served as Chair of the Registration Committee, a role with heavy responsibilities, requiring collaboration with the Medical Bureau and War Department, and she visited Washington on behalf of this committee. However, the Association quickly lost her services due to her own decision to step down. Faced with professional jealousy from some male doctors she encountered, she chose to resign rather than let gender bias hinder the important work she had started. The Sanitary, along with its Auxiliary Aid Societies, immediately provided a way for the loyal women of the country to help, and soon every city, village, and hamlet contributed their resources to the Commission. Through it, $92,000,000 was raised to assist the sick and wounded soldiers. Nothing related to the war amazed foreign countries as much as the work of the Sanitary Commission.
Dr. Henry Bellows, its President at the close of the war, declared in his farewell address, that the army of women at home had been as patriotic and as self-sacrificing as the army of men in the field, and had it not been for their aid the war could not have been brought to a successful termination.[17]
Dr. Henry Bellows, the President at the end of the war, said in his farewell speech that the army of women at home had been just as patriotic and selfless as the army of men on the battlefield, and without their support, the war couldn’t have ended successfully.[17]
At every important period in the nation's history, woman has stood by the side of man in duties. Husband, father, son, or brother have not suffered or sacrificed alone.
At every significant moment in the nation's history, women have stood by men in their responsibilities. Husbands, fathers, sons, or brothers have not faced suffering or sacrifice alone.
In their ragged regimentals
Faltered not,"
because back of them stood the patriotic women of the thirteen Colonies; those of the north-eastern pine-woods, who aided in the first naval battle of the Revolution; those of Massachusetts, Daughters of Liberty, who formed anti-tea leagues, proclaimed inherent rights, and demanded an independency in advance of the men; those of New York, who tilled the fields, and, removing their hearth-stones, manufactured saltpetre from the earth beneath, to make powder for the army; those of New Jersey, who rebuked traitors; those of Pennsylvania, who saved the army; those of Virginia, who protested against taxation without representation; those of South Carolina, who at Charleston established a paper in opposition to the Stamp Act; those of North Carolina, whose fiery patriotism secured for[Pg 18] the counties of Rowan and Mecklenberg the derisive name of "The Hornet's Nest of America." The women of the whole thirteen Colonies everywhere showed their devotion to freedom and their choice of liberty with privation, rather than oppression with luxury and ease.
because behind them stood the patriotic women of the thirteen Colonies; those from the northeastern pine forests, who helped in the first naval battle of the Revolution; those from Massachusetts, Daughters of Liberty, who formed anti-tea leagues, proclaimed inherent rights, and demanded independence ahead of the men; those from New York, who worked the fields and, lifting their hearthstones, created saltpeter from the earth below to make gunpowder for the army; those from New Jersey, who called out traitors; those from Pennsylvania, who saved the army; those from Virginia, who protested against taxation without representation; those from South Carolina, who at Charleston started a paper opposing the Stamp Act; those from North Carolina, whose fiery patriotism earned the counties of Rowan and Mecklenburg the mocking title of "The Hornet's Nest of America." The women of all thirteen Colonies everywhere demonstrated their commitment to freedom and their preference for liberty through hardship, rather than comfort with oppression.
The civil war in our own generation was but an added proof of woman's love for freedom and her worthiness of its possession. The grandest war poem, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," was the echo of a woman's voice,[18] while woman's prescience and power were everywhere manifested. She saw, before President, Cabinet, generals, or Congress, that slavery must die before peace could be established in the country.[19] Months previous to the issue by the President of the Emancipation Proclamation, women in humble homes were petitioning Congress for the overthrow of slavery, and agonizing in spirit because of the dilatoriness of those in power. Were proof of woman's love of freedom, of her right to freedom needed, the history of our civil war would alone be sufficient to prove that love, to establish that right.
The civil war in our generation was just more evidence of women's 사랑 for freedom and their deserving of it. The greatest war poem, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," was inspired by a woman's voice,[18] while women's insight and strength were evident everywhere. She recognized, before the President, Cabinet, generals, or Congress, that slavery had to end before peace could be achieved in the country.[19] Months before the President issued the Emancipation Proclamation, women in humble homes were urging Congress to end slavery, feeling deep frustration over the slow action of those in power. If proof of women's love for freedom and their right to it was needed, the history of our civil war would be more than enough to demonstrate that love and establish that right.
WOMEN AS SOLDIERS.
Many women fought in the ranks during the war, impelled by the same patriotic motives which led their fathers, husbands, and brothers into the contest. Not alone from one State, or in one regiment, but from various parts of the Union, women were found giving their services and lives to their country among the rank and file of the army.[20] Although the nation gladly summoned their aid in camp and hospital, and on the battle-field with the ambulance corps, it gave them no recognition as soldiers, even denying them the rights of chaplaincy,[21] and by "army regulations" entirely refusing them recognition as part of the fighting forces of the country.
Many women served during the war, driven by the same patriotic reasons that inspired their fathers, husbands, and brothers to join the fight. Not just from one state or in one regiment, women came from all over the Union to offer their services and lives for their country among the soldiers.[20] Although the nation welcomed their help in camps, hospitals, and on the battlefield with the ambulance corps, it did not recognize them as soldiers, even denying them the rights to serve as chaplains,[21] and according to "army regulations," it completely disregarded them as part of the fighting forces of the country.
Historians have made no mention of woman's services in the war; scarcely referring to the vast number commissioned in the army, whose sex was discovered through some terrible wound, or by their[Pg 19] dead bodies on the battle-field. Even the volumes especially devoted to an account of woman's work in the war, have mostly ignored her as a common soldier, although the files of the newspapers of that heroic period, if carefully examined, would be found to contain many accounts of women who fought on the field of battle.[22][Pg 20]
Historians have largely overlooked the contributions of women during the war; rarely mentioning the many women who served in the army, whose gender was revealed only through severe injuries or by their[Pg 19] lifeless bodies on the battlefield. Even the books specifically dedicated to documenting women's work in the war mostly ignore them as ordinary soldiers, even though if you take a close look at the newspapers from that heroic time, you'd find numerous stories of women who fought on the battlefield.[22][Pg 20]
Gov. Yates, of Illinois, commissioned the wife of Lieut. Reynolds of the 17th, as Major, for service in the field, the document being made out with due formality, having attached to it the great seal of State. President Lincoln, more liberal than the Secretary[Pg 21] of War, himself promoted the wife of another Illinois officer, named Gates, to a majorship, for service in the hospital and bravery on the field.
Gov. Yates of Illinois appointed the wife of Lieut. Reynolds of the 17th as a Major for field service, with the document formalized and bearing the state’s official seal. President Lincoln, more generous than the Secretary[Pg 21] of War, promoted the wife of another Illinois officer, named Gates, to a major position for her work in the hospital and courage in the field.
One young girl is referred to who served in seven different regiments, participated in several engagements, was twice severely wounded; had been discovered and mustered out of service eight times, but as many times had re-enlisted, although a Canadian by birth, being determined to fight for the American Union.
One young girl is mentioned who served in seven different regiments, took part in several battles, was severely wounded twice; had been discovered and discharged from service eight times, but re-enlisted just as many, even though she was Canadian by birth, determined to fight for the American Union.
Hundreds of women marched steadily up to the mouth of a hundred cannon pouring out fire and smoke, shot and shell, mowing down the advancing hosts like grass; men, horses, and colors going down in confusion, disappearing in clouds of smoke; the only sound, the screaming of shells, the crackling of musketry, the thunder of artillery, through all this women were sustained by the enthusiasm born of love of country and liberty.
Hundreds of women marched confidently toward the mouths of a hundred cannons spewing fire and smoke, firing shots and shells that cut down the advancing troops like grass; men, horses, and flags fell into chaos, vanishing in clouds of smoke; the only sounds were the shrieks of shells, the crackle of muskets, and the roar of artillery. Through all this, the women were fueled by a passion driven by their love for their country and freedom.
And the splintered fire of the shattered hell,
And the great white breaths of the cannon smoke
As the growling guns by the battery spoke.
................
Right up to the guns, black-throated and grim,
Right down on the hedges bordered with steel,"
bravely marched hundreds of women.
bravely marched hundreds of women.
Nor was the war without its naval heroines. Among the vessels captured by the pirate cruiser Retribution, was the Union brigantine, J. P. Ellicott, of Bucksport, Maine, the wives of the captain and mate being on board. Her officers and crew were transferred to the pirate vessel and ironed, while a crew from the latter was put on the brigantine; the wife of the mate was left on board the brig with the pirate crew. Having cause to fear bad treatment at the hands of the prize-master[23] and his mate, this woman formed the bold plan of capturing the vessel. She succeeded in getting the officers intoxicated, handcuffed them and took possession of the vessel, persuading the crew, who were mostly colored men from St. Thomas, to aid her. Having studied navigation with her husband on the voyage, she assumed command of the brig, directing its course to St. Thomas, which she reached in safety, placing the vessel in the hands of the United States Consul, who transferred the prize-master, mate, and crew to a United States steamer, as prisoners of war. Her name was not given, but had this bold feat been accomplished by a man or boy, the[Pg 22] country would have rung with praises of the daring deed, and history would have borne the echoes down to future generations.
Nor was the war without its naval heroines. Among the vessels captured by the pirate cruiser Retribution was the Union brigantine J. P. Ellicott from Bucksport, Maine, which had the wives of the captain and mate on board. Her officers and crew were transferred to the pirate ship and put in chains, while a crew from the pirate vessel took over the brigantine. The mate's wife remained on board the brig with the pirate crew. Fearing mistreatment from the prize-master[23] and his mate, this woman came up with a bold plan to capture the ship. She managed to get the officers drunk, handcuffed them, and took control of the vessel, convincing the crew, who were mostly Black men from St. Thomas, to help her. Having learned navigation from her husband during the voyage, she took command of the brig, steering it to St. Thomas, which she reached safely, turning the ship over to the United States Consul, who then transferred the pirate master, mate, and crew to a United States steamer as prisoners of war. Her name was not recorded, but if a man or boy had performed this daring act, the country would have celebrated it, and history would have remembered it for generations to come.
Not alone on the tented field did the war find its patriotic victims. Many women showed their love of country by sacrifices still greater than enlistment in the army. Among these, especially notable for her surroundings and family, was Annie Carter Lee, daughter of Gen. Robert E. Lee, Commander-in-Chief of the rebel army. Her father and three brothers fought against the Union which she loved, and to which she adhered. A young girl, scarcely beyond her teens when the war broke out, she remained firm in her devotion to the National cause, though for this adherence she was banished by her father as an outcast from that elegant home once graced by her presence. She did not live to see the triumph of the cause she loved so well, dying the third year of the war, aged twenty-three, at Jones Springs, North Carolina, homeless, because of her love for the Union, with no relative near her, dependent for care and consolation in her last hours upon the kindly services of an old colored woman. In her veins ran pure the blood of "Light-Horse Harry" and that of her great aunt, Hannah Lee Corbin, who at the time of the Revolution, protested against the denial of representation to taxpaying women, and whose name does much to redeem that of Lee from the infamy, of late so justly adhering to it. When her father, after the war, visited his ancestral home,[24] then turned into a vast national[Pg 23] cemetery, it would seem as though the spirit of his Union-loving daughter must have floated over him, whispering of his wrecked hopes, and piercing his heart with a thousand daggers of remorse as he recalled his blind infatuation, and the banishment from her home of that bright young life.
Not only on the battlefield did the war claim its patriotic victims. Many women expressed their love for the country through sacrifices even greater than joining the army. Among them, particularly notable for her background and family, was Annie Carter Lee, the daughter of Gen. Robert E. Lee, Commander-in-Chief of the Confederate army. Her father and three brothers fought against the Union, which she loved and remained committed to. A young girl barely out of her teens when the war began, she stayed devoted to the National cause, even though this loyalty led her father to exile her from the elegant home that she once brightened. She did not live to see the victory of the cause she cherished, dying in the third year of the war at just twenty-three, in Jones Springs, North Carolina, homeless because of her love for the Union, with no relatives nearby to support her in her final hours, relying instead on the compassionate care of an older Black woman. Her veins flowed with the noble blood of "Light-Horse Harry" and that of her great-aunt, Hannah Lee Corbin, who during the Revolution protested against the lack of representation for taxpaying women, and whose legacy helps redeem the name of Lee from the infamy it has justly received lately. When her father returned to his ancestral home,[24] that had become a vast national[Pg 23] cemetery, it must have seemed as if the spirit of his Union-loving daughter was hovering over him, reminding him of his shattered hopes and piercing his heart with countless daggers of regret as he thought about his blind obsession and the loss of that bright young life from their home.
Of the three hundred and twenty-eight thousand Union soldiers who lie buried in national cemeteries, many thousands with headboards marked "Unknown," hundreds are those of women obliged by army regulations to fight in disguise. Official records of the military authorities show that a large number of women recruits were discovered and compelled to leave the army. A much greater number escaped detection, some of them passing entirely through the campaigns, while others were made known by wounds or on being found lifeless upon the battle-field. The history of the war—which has never yet been truly written—is full of heroism in which woman is the central figure.
Of the three hundred and twenty-eight thousand Union soldiers buried in national cemeteries, many thousands have headstones labeled "Unknown." Among them, there are hundreds of women who were required by army regulations to fight in disguise. Official military records indicate that many female recruits were discovered and forced to leave the army. However, many more evaded detection, some making it through entire campaigns, while others were revealed by injuries or found dead on the battlefield. The history of the war—which has never been accurately documented—is filled with acts of heroism where women played a central role.
The social and political condition of women was largely changed by our civil war. Through the withdrawal of so many men from their accustomed work, new channels of industry were opened to them, the value and control of money learned, thought upon political questions compelled, and a desire for their own personal, individual liberty intensified. It created a revolution in woman herself, as important in its results as the changed condition of the former slaves, and this silent influence is still busy. Its work will not have been accomplished until the chains of ignorance and selfishness are everywhere broken, and woman shall stand by man's side his recognized equal in rights as she is now in duties.
The social and political status of women changed dramatically due to our civil war. With so many men stepping away from their regular jobs, new opportunities in various industries opened up for women, teaching them the value and management of money, prompting them to think about political issues, and fueling their desire for personal freedom. It sparked a revolution within women themselves, as significant in its impact as the shift in the status of former slaves, and this quiet influence is still at work. Its mission won’t be complete until the chains of ignorance and selfishness are broken everywhere, and women stand alongside men as their recognized equals in rights, just as they are now in responsibilities.
CLARA BARTON.
MINISTERING ON THE FIELD OF BATTLE.
Clara Barton was the youngest child of Capt. Stephen Barton, of Oxford, Mass., a non-commissioned officer under "Mad Anthony Wayne." Captain Barton, who was a prosperous farmer and leader in public affairs, gave his children the best opportunities he could secure for their improvement. Clara's early education was principally at home under direction of her brothers and sisters. At sixteen, she commenced teaching, and followed the occupation for several years, during which time she assisted her oldest brother, Capt. Stephen Barton, Jr., a man of fine scholarship and business capacity, in equitably arranging and increasing the salaries of the large village schools of her native place, at the same time having clerical oversight of her brother's counting-house. Subsequently,[Pg 24] she finished her school education by a very thorough course of study at Clinton, N. Y. Miss Barton's remarkable executive ability was manifested in the fact that she popularized the Public School System in New Jersey, by opening the first free school in Bordentown, commencing with six pupils, in an old tumble-down building, and at the close of the year, leaving six hundred in the fine edifice at present occupied.
Clara Barton was the youngest child of Capt. Stephen Barton from Oxford, Mass., who was a non-commissioned officer under "Mad Anthony Wayne." Captain Barton, a successful farmer and leader in community affairs, provided his children with the best opportunities for their growth. Clara's early education mainly took place at home under the guidance of her siblings. At sixteen, she started teaching and pursued this profession for several years, during which she helped her oldest brother, Capt. Stephen Barton, Jr., a well-educated and capable businessman, fairly arrange and increase the salaries of the large village schools in her hometown, while also managing her brother's office work. Later on,[Pg 24] she completed her schooling with an extensive course of study in Clinton, N. Y. Miss Barton's impressive leadership skills were evident when she popularized the Public School System in New Jersey by opening the first free school in Bordentown, starting with just six students in a rundown building, and by the end of the year, she left six hundred students in the beautiful building that is currently in use.
At the close of her work in Bordentown, she went to Washington, D. C., to recuperate and indulge herself in congenial literary pursuits. There she was, without solicitation, appointed by Hon. Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, to the first independent clerkship held by a woman under our Government. Her thoroughness and faithfulness fitted her eminently for this position of trust, which she retained until after the election of President Buchanan, when, being suspected of Republican sentiments, and Judge Mason having resigned, she was deposed, and a large part of her salary withheld. She returned to Massachusetts and spent three years in the study of art, belles-lettres, and languages. Shortly after the election of Abraham Lincoln, she was recalled to the Patent Office by the same administration which had removed her. She returned, as she had left, without question, and taking up her line of duty, awaited developments.
At the end of her time in Bordentown, she went to Washington, D.C., to recover and enjoy some literary activities. There, without any request, she was appointed by Hon. Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, to be the first female clerk in our government. Her diligence and reliability made her exceptionally suited for this trusted role, which she held until after President Buchanan's election. When she was suspected of having Republican views and Judge Mason resigned, she was removed, and a significant portion of her salary was withheld. She went back to Massachusetts and spent three years studying art, literature, and languages. Shortly after Abraham Lincoln's election, the same administration that had dismissed her brought her back to the Patent Office. She returned, just as she had left, without any issues, and resumed her duties while waiting for further developments.
When the civil war commenced, she refused to draw her salary from a treasury already overtaxed, resigned her clerkship and devoted herself to the assistance of suffering soldiers. Her work commencing before the organization of Commissions, was continued outside and altogether independent of them, but always with most cordial sympathy. Miss Barton never engaged in hospital service. Her chosen labors were on the battle-field from the beginning, until the wounded and dead were attended to. Her supplies were her own, and were carried by Government transportation. Nearly four years she endured the exposures and rigors of soldier life, in action, always side by side with the field surgeons, and this on the hardest fought fields; such battles as Cedar Mountain, second Bull Run, Chantilly, Antietam, Falmouth, and old Fredericksburg, siege of Charleston, on Morris Island, at Wagner, Wilderness and Spotsylvania, The Mine, Deep Bottom, through sieges of Petersburg and Richmond, with Butler and Grant; through summer without shade, and winter without shelter, often weak, but never so far disabled as to retire from the field; always under fire in severe battles; her clothing pierced with bullets and torn by shot, exposed at all times, but never wounded.
When the civil war started, she refused to take her salary from a treasury that was already stretched thin, quit her job, and dedicated herself to helping suffering soldiers. Her work began before the establishment of Commissions and continued independently of them, but always with great support for their efforts. Miss Barton never participated in hospital service. From the start, she focused on the battlefield, helping out until the wounded and dead were taken care of. She supplied her own materials, which were transported by the government. For nearly four years, she faced the hardships and challenges of soldier life, always alongside the field surgeons in the toughest battles like Cedar Mountain, the second Battle of Bull Run, Chantilly, Antietam, Falmouth, and old Fredericksburg, as well as during the siege of Charleston, on Morris Island, at Wagner, in the Wilderness and Spotsylvania, The Mine, Deep Bottom, and through the sieges of Petersburg and Richmond with Butler and Grant. She endured summer without shade and winter without shelter, often feeling weak, but never so incapacitated that she had to leave the field; she was always under fire in intense battles, with her clothing shot through with bullets and torn by shrapnel, exposed at all times, but never wounded.
Firm in her integrity to the Union, never swerving from her[Pg 25] belief in the justice of the cause for which the North was fighting, on the battle-field she knew no North, no South; she made her work one of humanity alone, bestowing her charities and her care indiscriminately upon the Blue and the Gray, with an impartiality and Spartan firmness that astonished the foe and perplexed the friend, often falling under suspicion, or censure of Union officers unacquainted with her motives and character for her tender care and firm protection of the wounded captured in battle. Their home-thrusts were met with the same calm courage as were the bullets of the enemy, and many a Confederate soldier lives to bless her for care and life, while no Union man will ever again doubt her loyalty. All unconsciously to herself she was carrying out to the letter in practice the grand and beautiful principles of the Red Cross of Geneva (of which she had never heard), for the entire neutrality of war relief among the nations of the earth, that great international step toward a world-wide recognized humanity, of which she has since become the national advocate and leader in this country.
Firm in her commitment to the Union, never wavering in her belief in the justice of the cause for which the North was fighting, on the battlefield she recognized no North, no South; she focused her efforts solely on humanity, offering her aid and compassion without bias to both the Blue and the Gray, with an impartiality and steadfastness that amazed the enemy and confused her friends, often falling under suspicion or criticism from Union officers who didn't understand her motives and character for her gentle care and strong protection of the wounded captured in battle. Their verbal attacks were met with the same calm bravery as were the bullets of the enemy, and many Confederate soldiers live to express their gratitude for her care and life, while no Union man will ever doubt her loyalty again. Unknowingly, she was embodying the grand and beautiful principles of the Red Cross of Geneva (of which she had never heard), promoting the entire neutrality of war relief among the nations of the world, marking a significant international step toward a universally recognized sense of humanity, of which she has since become the national advocate and leader in this country.
At the close of the war she met exchanged prisoners at Annapolis. Accompanied by Dorrence Atwater, she conducted an expedition, sent at her request by the United States Government to identify and mark the graves of the 13,000 soldiers who perished at Andersonville. From Savannah to that point, as theirs were the first trains which had passed since the destruction of the railroads by Sherman, they were obliged to repair the bridges and the embankments, straighten bent rails, and in some places make new roads. The work was completed in August, 1865, and her report of the expedition was issued in the winter of 1866.
At the end of the war, she met with exchanged prisoners in Annapolis. Accompanied by Dorrence Atwater, she led an expedition sent at her request by the U.S. Government to locate and mark the graves of the 13,000 soldiers who died at Andersonville. From Savannah to that location, since they were the first trains to travel that route after the railroads had been destroyed by Sherman, they had to fix the bridges and embankments, straighten warped tracks, and, in some areas, create new roads. The work was finished in August 1865, and her report on the expedition was issued in the winter of 1866.
The anxiety felt by the whole country for the fate of those whom the exchange of prisoners and the disbanding of troops failed to reveal, stimulated her to devise the plan of relief, which, sanctioned by President Lincoln, resulted in the "search for missing men," which (except the printing) was carried on entirely at her own expense, to the extent of several thousand dollars, employing from ten to fifteen clerks. In the winter of '66, when she was on the point, for want of further means to carry out her plan, of turning the search over to the Government, Congress voted $15,000 for reimbursing moneys expended, and carrying on the work. The search was continued until 1869, and then a full report made and accepted by Congress. During the winter of 1867-8 Miss Barton was called on to lecture before many lyceums regarding the incidents of the war.
The anxiety felt by the entire country about the fate of those who weren’t accounted for after the prisoner exchanges and troop disbanding pushed her to come up with a relief plan. With President Lincoln's approval, this led to the "search for missing men," which she funded entirely on her own, aside from the printing costs, spending several thousand dollars and hiring ten to fifteen clerks. In the winter of '66, when she was about to hand the search over to the Government due to lack of funds, Congress approved $15,000 to reimburse her expenses and continue the work. The search went on until 1869, culminating in a full report that Congress accepted. During the winter of 1867-8, Miss Barton was invited to speak at many lyceums about her experiences during the war.
In 1869, her health failing, she went to Switzerland to rest and recover, where she was at the breaking out of the Franco-Prussian[Pg 26] war, and immediately tendered her services there, as here, on the battle-field, under the auspices of the Red Cross of Geneva. Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess of Baden, daughter of the Emperor of Germany, invited Miss Barton to aid her in the establishment of her noble Badise hospitals, a work which consumed several months. On the fall of Strasburg she entered the city with the German army, organized labor for women, conducting the enterprise herself, employing remuneratively a great number, and clothing over thirty thousand. She entered Metz with hospital supplies the day of its fall, and Paris the day after the fall of the Commune. Here she remained two months, distributing money and clothing which she carried, and afterward met the poor in every besieged city in France, extending succor to them.
In 1869, after her health began to decline, she traveled to Switzerland to rest and recover, arriving just as the Franco-Prussian war broke out. She immediately offered her services on the battlefield, under the guidance of the Red Cross of Geneva. Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess of Baden, the daughter of the Emperor of Germany, invited Miss Barton to help her set up her esteemed Baden hospitals, a project that took several months to complete. When Strasburg fell, she entered the city with the German army, organized work for women, personally running the effort, employing many and providing clothing for over thirty thousand. She arrived in Metz with hospital supplies on the day it fell and reached Paris the day after the fall of the Commune. She stayed there for two months, distributing money and clothing she brought with her, and later met with the needy in every besieged city in France, offering them assistance.
She is a representative of the "International Red Cross of Geneva," and President of the American National Association of the Red Cross, honorary and only woman member of "Comité de Strasbourgeois"; was decorated with the "Gold Cross of Remembrance" by the Grand Duke and Duchess of Baden, and with the "Iron Cross of Merit" by the Emperor and Empress of Germany.
She is a representative of the "International Red Cross of Geneva," and the President of the American National Association of the Red Cross, the honorary and only female member of the "Comité de Strasbourgeois"; she was awarded the "Gold Cross of Remembrance" by the Grand Duke and Duchess of Baden, and the "Iron Cross of Merit" by the Emperor and Empress of Germany.
Miss Barton may be said to have given her whole life to humanitarian affairs, largely national in character. The positions she has occupied, whether remunerative or not—and she has filled but few paid positions—have been pioneer ones, in which her efforts and success have been to raise the standard of woman's work and its recognition and remuneration. Her time, her property, and her influence have been held sacred to benevolence of that character that will assist in true progress. Nevertheless, she is one of the most retiring of women, never voluntarily coming before the world except at the call of manifest duty, and shrinking with peculiar sensitiveness from anything verging on notoriety.
Miss Barton can be said to have dedicated her entire life to humanitarian causes, mostly at a national level. The roles she has held, whether paid or not—and she’s had very few paying jobs—have been groundbreaking, focusing on improving the standards of women's work, as well as its recognition and pay. She has devoted her time, her money, and her influence to charitable efforts that promote genuine progress. Still, she is one of the most reserved women, rarely stepping into the spotlight unless it’s a matter of duty, and she strongly avoids anything that might draw attention to herself.
Her summers are passed at her pleasant country residence at Dansville, New York, where she has regained in a most gratifying degree her shattered health and war-worn strength, and her winters in Washington in the interests and charge of the great International movement which she represents in America.
Her summers are spent at her lovely country home in Dansville, New York, where she has successfully regained a significant measure of her health and strength that had been affected by the war. Her winters are in Washington, working on behalf of the major international movement she represents in America.
JOSEPHINE SOPHIE GRIFFING.
The National Freedman's Relief Association.
BY CATHARINE A. F. STEBBINS.
Josephine Sophie White was born at Hebron, Conn., December, 1816, and was educated in her native State. She grew to young womanhood in the pure and religious atmosphere of the New England[Pg 27] hills, and developed a strength of constitution and character which was the basis of her truly beneficent life-work. Refined, sympathetic, and conscientious, with the golden rule for her text, her career was ever marked with deeds of kindness and charity to the oppressed of every class. Taking an active part in both the "Anti-slavery" and "Woman's Rights" struggles, she early learned the very alphabet of liberty. With her the perception of its blessings and its glory was also a rich inheritance, and the vigilance and courage to conquer and secure it for others was not less a noble legacy. The love of liberty flowed down to her through two streams of life. On the mother's side she was descended from Peter Waldo[25], after whom the Waldenses were named; and on the father's, from Peregrine White, who was born in Massachusetts in 1620, the first child of Pilgrim parents. It is not strange she was by temperament and constitution a reformer, and a protestant against all despotisms, whether of mind, body, or estate. In the agitation for human rights of one class after another, in their historical order, she enlisted with the Abolitionists, with the Woman Suffragists, with the Loyal League and sanitary workers, and after the war, in relief of the Freedmen. Her interest in her own sex began early, and continued to the last.
Josephine Sophie White was born in Hebron, Connecticut, in December 1816 and received her education in her home state. She grew up in the pure and religious environment of the New England hills and developed a strong constitution and character that formed the foundation of her truly impactful life work. Refined, empathetic, and conscientious, she lived by the golden rule and was consistently involved in acts of kindness and charity for people in need. Actively participating in both the "Anti-slavery" and "Woman's Rights" movements, she quickly learned the basics of liberty. For her, understanding its blessings and its importance was also a valuable inheritance, and the determination and bravery to achieve and protect it for others were no less admirable legacies. The love for freedom came to her through two significant family lines. On her mother's side, she descended from Peter Waldo, after whom the Waldenses were named; and on her father's side, from Peregrine White, who was born in Massachusetts in 1620, the first child of Pilgrim parents. It is no surprise that she was naturally a reformer and a challenger against all forms of oppression, whether of the mind, body, or property. As the fight for human rights progressed for various groups throughout history, she joined forces with the Abolitionists, the Woman Suffragists, the Loyal League, and health workers, and after the Civil War, she focused on supporting Freedmen. Her commitment to women's issues began early and lasted her entire life.
At the age of twenty-two she married, and about the year 1842 removed with her family to Ohio, where her home soon became the refuge of the fugitive slave, and the resting-place of his defenders. In 1849 she began, with her husband, Chas. S. S. Griffing, her public labors in connection with the "American" and the "Western Anti-Slavery Societies," speaking at first to small audiences in school-houses, and when prejudice and bitterness gave way, to conventions, and mass-meetings; opposition and curiosity yielding finally to sympathy and aid. But for years the meetings were often broken up by mobs. The effort to uproot slavery was pronounced either absurd, treasonable, or irreligious; that it would incite insurrection of the slaves; or if successful, bring great responsibility upon the Abolitionists, and disaster to the whole country.
At the age of twenty-two, she got married and around 1842, she moved with her family to Ohio, where her home quickly became a safe haven for runaway slaves and their supporters. In 1849, she began her public work alongside her husband, Chas. S. S. Griffing, with the "American" and "Western Anti-Slavery Societies," initially speaking to small groups in schoolhouses. As prejudice and hostility faded away, they began addressing conventions and large meetings; opposition and curiosity eventually turned into sympathy and support. However, for years, their meetings were frequently disrupted by mobs. The campaign against slavery was often dismissed as absurd, treasonous, or unholy; it was feared that it would provoke slave rebellions or, if successful, place heavy burdens on the abolitionists and spell disaster for the entire country.
In 1861, Mrs. Griffing, prompted by the same loyal spirit that moved all the women of the nation, turned from the ordinary occupations[Pg 28] of life to see what she could do to mitigate the miseries of the war. She united at once with "The National Woman's Loyal League," lecturing and organizing societies in the West for the soldiers and freedmen, to whom large quantities of clothing and other supplies were sent, and circulating petitions to Congress for the emancipation of slaves as a war measure.
In 1861, Mrs. Griffing, inspired by the same loyal spirit that motivated women across the nation, shifted from her everyday activities[Pg 28] to see how she could help alleviate the hardships of the war. She immediately joined "The National Woman's Loyal League," giving lectures and organizing groups in the West to support soldiers and freedmen, sending them large amounts of clothing and supplies, and circulating petitions to Congress for the emancipation of slaves as a wartime strategy.
While thus engaged, her thoughts naturally turned to the large number of Southern slaves coming with the army into Washington, whose future she foresaw would be beset with distress and want during the long period of change from chattelism to the settled habits of freedom. They were coming by the hundreds and thousands in 1863, with a vague idea of being cared for by "the Governor," but the Government had as yet made no provision, separate from that for the soldiers, when Mrs. Griffing went to Washington and began her labors for them, which were continued until her death.
While she was involved in her work, her thoughts naturally shifted to the many Southern slaves arriving with the army in Washington. She predicted their future would be filled with hardships and struggles during the lengthy transition from being enslaved to adjusting to a life of freedom. In 1863, they were coming by the hundreds and thousands, with a vague hope of being looked after by "the Governor," but the Government still hadn't made any plans, apart from those for the soldiers. It was during this time that Mrs. Griffing went to Washington and started her efforts to help them, which continued until her death.
She at once counseled with President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton as to the best methods for immediate relief; proposed plans which they approved, and received from them every aid possible in their execution. Her first step was to open three ration-houses, where she fed at least a thousand of the old and most destitute of the freed people daily. She visited hundreds in the alleys and old stables, in attics and cellars, and in almost every place where shelter could be found, and became acquainted personally with their necessities, and the best means of supplying them. There were 30,000 in the capital at this time, and it would be difficult to give an idea to one not there, of the time and labor it cost to hunt out the old barracks and get them transformed into shelters for these outcasts. Upon the personal order of the Secretary of War, she was allowed army blankets and wood, which she distributed herself, going with the army wagons to see that those suffering most were first supplied. This "temporary relief" was necessarily continued for some time, during which Mrs. Griffing was made the General Agent of "The National Freedman's Relief Association of the District of Columbia." She opened a correspondence with the Aid societies of the Northern and New England States, which resulted in her receiving supplies of clothing and provisions, which were most acceptable. These were carefully dispensed by herself and two daughters, who were her assistants. Mrs. Griffing opened three industrial schools, where the women were taught to sew;[26] a price was set on their labors,[Pg 29] and they were paid in ready-made garments. The Secretary aided in the purchase of suitable cloth, and with that sent from the North, such outfits were supplied as could be afforded.
She immediately consulted with President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton about the best ways to provide immediate relief; proposed plans that they approved, and received their full support in carrying them out. Her first step was to open three ration houses, where she fed at least a thousand of the elderly and most destitute of the freed people every day. She visited hundreds in alleys and old stables, in attics and cellars, and in almost every place where shelter could be found, and personally got to know their needs and the best ways to meet them. At that time, there were 30,000 people in the capital, and it would be hard for someone not there to grasp the time and effort it took to locate the old barracks and get them turned into shelters for these outcasts. By the direct order of the Secretary of War, she was given army blankets and wood, which she distributed herself, accompanying the army wagons to ensure that those who suffered the most were prioritized. This "temporary relief" had to continue for some time, during which Mrs. Griffing was made the General Agent of "The National Freedman's Relief Association of the District of Columbia." She began communicating with the aid societies in the Northern and New England States, which led to her receiving supplies of clothing and food that were greatly needed. These were carefully distributed by her and her two daughters, who assisted her. Mrs. Griffing opened three industrial schools where the women were taught to sew;[26] a price was placed on their work,[Pg 29] and they were paid in ready-made garments. The Secretary helped purchase suitable fabric and with what was sent from the North, they provided as many outfits as they could afford.
It was soon apparent to Mrs. Griffing that the Government must provide for the old and the infirm, and that until labor could be found, even a majority of the strong must be included in the provision—with the understanding, however, that they must seek employment and exert themselves to find homes—and that educational and political interests must be established and encouraged. The stress of the situation can not be said ever to have relaxed during our friend's life, except as to numbers—at any rate in the early years; but as soon as some system grew out of the confusion, and all that could be, were supplied with bread and shelter, she turned her attention in part to the larger plan, and urged a bureau under Government; a department for these freedmen's interests. This plan was favored by Messrs. Sumner, Wade, Wilson, and a few other Senators and Members of Congress, and in December, 1863, a bill for a Bureau of Emancipation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Hon. Mr. Elliot, of Massachusetts. It received no welcome; few cared to listen to the details of the necessity, and it was only through Mrs. Griffing's brave and unwearied efforts that the plan was accepted, and carried through in March, 1865, under the title of "The Freedman's Bureau." The writer has had testimony to the truth of this from Senators Wade of Ohio, Howard of Michigan, and others, as well as to the fact that a majority of the Congressional Committee in charge of the bill, wished that Mrs. Griffing should be made Commissioner (among whom, and most active in support of the bill, was Senator Henry Wilson), but it was decided to place the Bureau in the War Department, with a military man at the head, Mrs. Griffing being appointed "Assistant Commissioner." She really held the position but a few weeks—in name, five months—a second military officer standing ready to take the appointment, as men have ever done, and as they will always crowd women aside so long as they are held political inferiors, without the citizen's charter to sustain their claim. This officer had the title and drew the pay, while our noble friend went on as before in her arduous and almost superhuman labors. The Bureau adopted her plan of finding homes in the North, sending the freedmen at Government charge, and of opening employment offices in New York City[Pg 30] and in Providence, R. I.; nevertheless it was necessary to supplement Government provision by private generosity; and moreover, that Congress should provide temporary relief for the helpless in the District. Appropriations were made in sums of $25,000, amounting in all to nearly $200,000, for the purchase of supplies, a very large proportion of which were distributed by Mrs. Griffing in person from her own residence.[27] "Shirley Dare," in writing to The New York World, after a little time spent with Mrs. G., said:
It quickly became clear to Mrs. Griffing that the government needed to take care of the elderly and the sick, and that until jobs could be secured, even most of the able-bodied individuals should be included in this support—with the understanding that they needed to look for work and make an effort to find homes—and that education and political involvement needed to be established and promoted. The pressure of the situation never seemed to ease during our friend’s life, at least in the early years; however, as soon as a system started to emerge from the chaos, and everyone who could be was provided with food and shelter, she shifted her focus toward a bigger plan and pushed for a government bureau dedicated to the interests of these freedmen. This idea gained support from Messrs. Sumner, Wade, Wilson, and a few other Senators and Representatives, and in December 1863, a bill for a Bureau of Emancipation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Hon. Mr. Elliot from Massachusetts. Unfortunately, it didn’t receive much enthusiasm; few were interested in hearing about the necessity behind it, and it was only through Mrs. Griffing’s courageous and tireless efforts that the proposal was accepted and passed in March 1865, under the name "The Freedman's Bureau." The writer has corroborated this through testimonials from Senators Wade of Ohio, Howard of Michigan, and others, as well as the fact that a majority of the Congressional Committee overseeing the bill wanted Mrs. Griffing to be the Commissioner (including Senator Henry Wilson, who was particularly active in supporting the bill), but it was decided to place the Bureau under the War Department, headed by a military official, while Mrs. Griffing was appointed "Assistant Commissioner." In reality, she held the position for only a few weeks—though officially for five months—since another military officer was poised to take over the role, as has always been the case with men pushing women aside as long as they are viewed as political subordinates, lacking the citizen's rights to support their claims. This officer held the title and received the salary, while our esteemed friend continued her intense and nearly superhuman efforts. The Bureau adopted her approach of finding homes in the North, transporting the freedmen at government expense, and opening job offices in New York City[Pg 30] and Providence, R.I.; however, it was also essential to supplement government assistance with private generosity. Additionally, Congress needed to provide temporary aid for the vulnerable in the District. Appropriations were made in amounts of $25,000, totaling nearly $200,000, for the purchase of supplies, a large portion of which Mrs. Griffing distributed personally from her own home.[27] "Shirley Dare," writing to The New York World, after spending some time with Mrs. G., remarked:
"I sat an hour this morning in Mrs. Griffing's office during the distribution of rations, and a curious scene it was. There was not a sound creature among the crowd which filled the yard, and which hangs about all day from nine till four, and which the neighborhood calls 'Mrs. Griffing's signs.' It reminded me of another crowd of impotent folk, lame, halt, and blind, which filled the loveliest space in Jerusalem, and was a sign of joy and charity in the place. Queer, tender, wistful faces, so earnest one forgets their grotesque character and ragged, faded forms, cluster in the porch; such a set as one might once have seen put up at auction as a 'refuse lot' of plantation negroes. The men wear old army cloaks, while the women, with dresses in every stage of decay, are so comic, one struggles between the ludicrous and the pitiful.... The faith of this class seems to be fastened nowhere so strongly as upon Mrs. Griffing. Salutations follow her along the streets, enough to satisfy the proudest Pharisee, and it provokes one between a smile and a tear, to see the women waiting timidly, yet eagerly, for a word from her, to set their faces all aglow. They used to say, persistently, 'We belongs to you,' and no efforts could induce them to change that phrase. 'Who has we but the Lord and you?' was the simple argument which stayed protest from the kind, proud woman who was their benefactress. A few words from her will draw out histories simple, funny, and sad beyond question."
"I spent an hour this morning in Mrs. Griffing's office during the distribution of rations, and it was a curious scene. The yard was filled with a crowd, completely silent, hanging around all day from nine to four, which the neighborhood calls 'Mrs. Griffing's signs.' It reminded me of another group of helpless people, lame, crippled, and blind, who filled the most beautiful spot in Jerusalem, symbolizing joy and charity. Odd, tender, wistful faces, so sincere that you forget their ragged, worn-out appearance, gather on the porch; they look like a 'refuse lot' of plantation slaves that might once have been put up for auction. The men are in old army cloaks, while the women wear dresses in various stages of decline, so comically that it’s hard to choose between finding them ridiculous and feeling pity for them.... This group seems to place their faith most strongly in Mrs. Griffing. Salutations follow her in the streets, more than enough to satisfy the proudest Pharisee, and it brings a mix of smiles and tears to see the women waiting nervously yet eagerly for a word from her that lights up their faces. They used to say, 'We belong to you,' and no amount of persuasion could make them change that phrase. 'Who do we have but the Lord and you?' was the simple argument that kept the kind, proud woman, their benefactress, from protesting. A few words from her can draw out stories that are simple, funny, and undeniably sad."
Our friend had a strong belief that the able in body could sustain themselves if labor were provided, which it could not be there, so she urged them to go to the North, which greatly needed laborers to fill the places of Northern men in the army. Woman's help, too, was as much in demand, for in many places large farms were wholly managed by women in the absence of husbands and sons; but it was learned by Mrs. Griffing and daughters through repeated testimony, that the life-long teaching of the slaves had been, that no good[Pg 31] could come from Northern people,[28] and this led the many in their pitiable ignorance to believe that, somewhere in the North, the monsters surely lived who were waiting to destroy them, and that the kind few whom they had met were of a different race; that "the North" was beyond the sea, and they could never return, nor hear from their friends left behind; so persistent argument was needed to convince the most ignorant of their false notions, and many of them never were, until some had gone and returned with good tidings. The first company prepared to go numbered sixty persons, for whom Mrs. Griffing procured Government transportation and a day's rations. She went with them to New York City, and as they passed from the cars the sight was a new and strange one. Filing through the streets, the anxious, wondering women dressed partly in neat garments given them, with others of their own selection in less good taste; while on the men an occasional damaged silk hat topped off a coat that would have made Joseph's of old look plain; with ironclad army shoes; or a half-worn wedding swallow-tail, eked out by a plantation broad-brim, and boots too much worn for either comfort or beauty. This motley band, led by a gentle and spiritual-faced woman, will not soon be forgotten by those who saw it depart. Leaving a few at one depot, and a few at another, to be met at the journey's end by their employer, Mrs. Griffing took those remaining to Providence, near which place homes had been provided. After these sent messages back to friends, others went more readily, and during a little more than two years over seven thousand freed people left Washington under Mrs. Griffing's special supervision and direction for homes in the North. I wish I could say how many parties she actually convoyed on the journey, and how many miles she traveled, but I know that she went as far as New York with a great many; and as I have seen them start, knew and felt that it was too much for her, and longed that some stronger person should appear to share her burdens, and relieve her from these exhausting duties. Perhaps she had written letters till twelve o'clock the night before; had taken a long walk beyond the Navy-Yard cars, in the afternoon, to visit her centenarians; or had received calls, and talked till her voice had almost given out.
Our friend strongly believed that those who were physically able could support themselves if they had work, which wasn’t available there, so she encouraged them to move North, where laborers were urgently needed to replace the Northern men in the army. Women’s help was equally in demand because, in many areas, large farms were entirely run by women in the absence of husbands and sons. However, Mrs. Griffing and her daughters learned through repeated testimonies that the lifelong teaching of the slaves had been that no good could come from Northern people, leading many, in their unfortunate ignorance, to think that there were monsters in the North waiting to destroy them. They believed the few kind Northern people they had encountered belonged to a different race, thinking "the North" was across the sea and that they could never return or hear from their friends left behind. It took persistent arguments to convince the most ignorant among them that these notions were false, and many remained unconvinced until some went North and returned with positive news. The first group prepared to leave included sixty people, for whom Mrs. Griffing obtained government transportation and a day's worth of food. She accompanied them to New York City, and as they exited the train, the scene was new and unusual. As they walked through the streets, the anxious, curious women were dressed partly in neat clothes provided for them and partly in less tasteful garments they had chosen themselves. The men wore an occasional damaged silk hat atop coats that would have made Joseph’s old coat look plain, along with army boots or a somewhat worn wedding coat complemented by a plantation broad-brim hat, and boots that were too worn for either comfort or style. This colorful group, led by a gentle, spiritually-minded woman, will long be remembered by those who witnessed their departure. After leaving a few at one depot and a few at another to be met by their employer at the end of the journey, Mrs. Griffing took the rest to Providence, where homes were provided for them. Once these individuals sent messages back to their friends, others were more willing to go, and over the next two years, more than seven thousand freed people left Washington under Mrs. Griffing's special supervision and guidance for homes in the North. I wish I could specify how many groups she actually accompanied on the journey and how many miles she traveled, but I know she went as far as New York with many of them. I saw them leave and felt that it was too much for her, wishing for a stronger person to help share her burdens and relieve her of these exhausting responsibilities. Perhaps she had spent the night before writing letters until midnight, taken a long walk past the Navy Yard cars in the afternoon to visit her centenarians, or hosted visitors and talked until her voice was nearly gone.
But she had the comfort of knowing that many remained where they had been sent, some buying homes and planting vines about the roof-tree. To behold this, she had wrought heroically in the[Pg 32] past for emancipation. She was busy with her hands, busier with her brain, and her spiritual nature was like a spring of sweet waters, overflowing in bounteous blessing on all around. Of the great painter Leonardo da Vinci, his biographer says: "He always saw four things he wanted to do at once." Our friend always saw many more. Her mind was teeming not only with ideals as beautiful as those of the great artist, but with practical plans to educate the ignorant, and lift them to self-support and self-protection. Her being was instinct with constructive and spiritual force.
But she found comfort in knowing that many stayed where they were sent, some buying homes and planting vines around their roofs. To witness this, she had worked tirelessly in the[Pg 32] past for freedom. She was busy with her hands, even busier with her mind, and her spirit was like a spring of sweet water, overflowing with generous blessings on everyone around her. The biographer of the great painter Leonardo da Vinci notes: "He always saw four things he wanted to do at once." Our friend saw many more. Her mind was filled not only with ideals as beautiful as those of the great artist, but also with practical plans to educate the uneducated and help them achieve self-sufficiency and self-protection. Her being was full of constructive and spiritual energy.
It would be hard to find any sphere of woman's activity in which she had not been leader. Believing that "the manifest intention of nature is the perfection of man," she faithfully did her part. In the laborious and the menial she served the colored poor, while she neglected no opportunity to open their spiritual vision. She fed, warmed, and clothed them; ministered to the sick; attended the dying; procured their coffins; spoke the comforting words, and sung the hymns at their funerals. She instructed them in their Sunday meetings, and gained release for those in prison for petty offences, or for those unjustly accused. Soldiers often appealed to her to assist and aid them. Her work at the jails was very wearing, for the poor creatures, not unfrequently the mother of an infant left at home, arrested for an imaginary offense, or for stealing bread to avert starvation, would plead so hard for her to get them released, and had such full faith that she could, that it was a constant tax upon her sympathy and strength, as was all her work connected with them.
It would be tough to find any area of a woman’s work where she hadn’t taken the lead. Believing that "the clear intention of nature is the perfection of man," she diligently did her share. In both demanding and low-status roles, she supported the marginalized communities while never missing a chance to enlighten their spiritual awareness. She provided food, warmth, and clothing; cared for the sick; comforted the dying; arranged for their coffins; offered reassuring words, and sang at their funerals. She taught them during their Sunday gatherings and fought for the freedom of those imprisoned for minor crimes or unfairly accused. Soldiers often reached out to her for support and assistance. Her work in the jails was exhausting, as the unfortunate individuals—often mothers of infants left at home—arrested for made-up charges or for stealing bread to avoid starvation, would plead so earnestly for her help to get them released and had such complete faith in her ability to do so that it continuously drained her sympathy and strength, just as all her work with them did.
Josephine Griffing had to deal too much with the realities of life and death to make many records of her work, save those required in the routine of her office. These were mostly kept by her daughter Emma, her official assistant. But the substance of what was done in these years may be found in the archives of the Government. On the calendar of both Houses of Congress, in the Congressional Globe, in the War Office, in the Freedman's Bureau, in the offices of District Government and District Courts, and perhaps in the prisons, the future historian may find abundant records of the patient and humane labors of this merciful, vigilant, and untiring woman. Whether he finds them in her name is not so certain!
Josephine Griffing had to confront the harsh realities of life and death too often to keep many records of her work, except for those needed for her job. Most of these were maintained by her daughter Emma, her official assistant. However, the essence of what happened during these years can be found in government archives. On the calendars of both Houses of Congress, in the Congressional Globe, in the War Office, in the Freedman's Bureau, in the offices of District Government and District Courts, and possibly in prisons, future historians may discover plenty of documentation about the dedicated and compassionate efforts of this caring, watchful, and tireless woman. Whether they will find them under her name is not so certain!
Mrs. Griffing not only devoted to these people the six days of the week allotted to labor, but her Sundays were given to public ministrations as well as private visits to the distant and aged, unable to come to the Relief rooms during the week. But for a real picture of the condition of these people, nothing can be more graphic or[Pg 33] full of feeling, than her own account in a letter to Lucretia Mott,[29] intended as an appeal to the Society of Friends in Philadelphia. It, with others, had early responded, and with its contributions in part, she had established the soup-houses before noted. Her account is also in connection with the Bureau, of historical interest. During this long struggle her evenings were spent in writing letters to the North, framing bills, petitions, and appeals to amend the laws of the District. As she was interested in all the reforms of the day, she was frequently called upon for active service in conventions and political gatherings.
Mrs. Griffing not only dedicated the six days of the week that were meant for work to these people, but she also spent her Sundays on public services and private visits to the older, distant individuals who couldn't make it to the Relief rooms during the week. For a vivid insight into the struggles these people faced, nothing is more powerful or moving than her own description in a letter to Lucretia Mott,[29] which was intended as a plea to the Society of Friends in Philadelphia. This group responded early on, and with their contributions, she was able to set up the soup kitchens mentioned earlier. Her account is also related to the Bureau and holds historical significance. Throughout this long fight, her evenings were filled with writing letters to the North, drafting bills, petitions, and appeals to change the laws of the District. Since she was involved in all the current reforms, she often found herself called upon for active participation in conventions and political gatherings.
Of the public men whom she consulted, two at least, I know, made everybody and everything yield when she appeared; these were Secretary Stanton and Chas. Sumner—so interested were they in the objects of her devotion, and so sure that Mrs. Griffing would not take their time without sufficient reason. Benj. F. Wade and Henry Wilson would not yield the palm in their respect to her, and Senator Howard, of Michigan, was also one of her most friendly helpers. Stevens, Julian, Dawes, Ashley—all the friends in Congress—could tell of her great achievements, and their unbounded confidence in her, as the following letters show:
Of the public figures she consulted, at least two, I know, could make everyone and everything comply when she showed up; these were Secretary Stanton and Charles Sumner—so passionate were they about the causes she cared about, and so confident that Mrs. Griffing wouldn’t waste their time without a good reason. Benjamin F. Wade and Henry Wilson also respected her greatly, and Senator Howard from Michigan was among her most supportive allies. Stevens, Julian, Dawes, Ashley—all her friends in Congress—could share stories of her significant accomplishments and their complete trust in her, as the following letters demonstrate:
Washington, D. C., March 11, 1865.
Washington, D. C., March 11, 1865.
To the Commissioner of the Freedman's Bureau:
To the Commissioner of the Freedman's Bureau:
Sir:—I take pleasure in giving my influence to this application for a place at the head of freedmen's affairs in the District of Columbia for Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing, believing her to be eminently qualified to develop the resources of the freed people in this District, most of whom are women and children—secure the national interest, and give satisfaction to the country. Mrs. Griffing has given successful public and private efforts in behalf of the colored race for many years, and has devoted the entire time of the last year to an investigation of the condition and best method of giving relief to the multitudes of freed people in and around the National Capital. Finding many thousands of women with families without employment or the means of self-support, she has conferred with the President and Governors of the Northwestern States upon the practicability of encouraging their emigration. To meet the destitution of these people in this city during the past winter, Mrs. Griffing has disbursed from the Government about $25,000 in wood and blankets and rations, and $5,000 in clothing and money from the public charity. I believe the appointment of Mrs. J. S. Griffing to a chief clerkship or general agency for the District in this Bureau will be creditable to the Government and satisfactory to the freed people.
Sir:—I am pleased to support this application for a position at the head of freedmen's affairs in the District of Columbia for Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing, as I believe she is highly qualified to develop the resources of the freed people in this District, most of whom are women and children—protect the national interest, and provide satisfaction to the country. Mrs. Griffing has dedicated many years to successful public and private efforts on behalf of the colored race and has spent the entire last year investigating the conditions and best methods of providing relief to the many freed people in and around the National Capital. Discovering thousands of women with families who are unemployed and lack means of self-support, she has discussed with the President and Governors of the Northwestern States the possibility of encouraging their emigration. To address the needs of these individuals in the city during the past winter, Mrs. Griffing has distributed about $25,000 from the Government in wood, blankets, and rations, along with $5,000 in clothing and cash from public charity. I believe that appointing Mrs. J. S. Griffing to a chief clerk position or general agency for the District in this Bureau would reflect well on the Government and be satisfying for the freed people.
Z. Chandler.
Z. Chandler.
I fully concur with my colleague. Mrs. Griffing is both worthy and capable, and I trust her services will be secured.
I completely agree with my colleague. Mrs. Griffing is both deserving and competent, and I believe her services will be retained.
J. M. Howard.
J. M. Howard.
If I had this appointment to make, I would make Mrs. Griffing Commissioner.
If I had this appointment to fill, I would make Mrs. Griffing the Commissioner.
J. M. Ashley.
J. M. Ashley.
I know Mrs. Griffing to be capable and humane, and very devoted to the colored race. I hope that her services may be secured.
I know Mrs. Griffing is capable and compassionate, and deeply committed to the African American community. I hope her help can be secured.
Charles Sumner.
Charles Sumner.
I most cheerfully join in this recommendation.
I happily support this recommendation.
H. Wilson,
J. N. Grimes.H. Wilson,
J. N. Grimes.
I fully concur in the above, and hope that Mrs. Griffing will receive a conspicuous place in the Freedman's Bureau. She is the best qualified of any person within my knowledge; her whole heart is in the work.
I completely agree with the above and hope that Mrs. Griffing will receive a prominent position in the Freedman’s Bureau. She is the most qualified person I know; her entire heart is dedicated to the work.
B. F. Wade, Solomon Foot,
Ira Harris, E. D. Morgan,
W. P. Fessenden.B. F. Wade, Solomon Foot,
Ira Harris, E. D. Morgan,
W. P. Fessenden.
I most fully concur.
I most fully concur.
J. V. Driggs,
T. W. Ferry.J. V. Driggs,
T. W. Ferry.
I fully concur in all that is said within in behalf of Mrs. Griffing, and earnestly commend her to the favor sought.
I completely agree with everything that has been said in support of Mrs. Griffing, and I sincerely recommend her for the favor she is seeking.
Geo. W. Julian.
Geo. W. Julian.
Washington, July 9, 1869.
Washington, July 9, 1869.
Mrs. Griffing has for several years devoted herself with great industry, intelligence, and success to the freed people in the District of Columbia, and in this service she has accomplished more good than any other one individual within my acquaintance. When the War Department was in my charge, she rendered very efficient aid of a humane character to relieve the wants and sufferings of destitute freed people, and was untiring in her benevolent exertions. Property for distribution was often placed in her hands, or under her directions, and she was uniformly trustworthy and skillful in its management and administration. In my judgment, she is entitled to the most full confidence and trust.
Mrs. Griffing has dedicated herself for several years with great effort, intelligence, and success to the freed people in the District of Columbia, and in this work, she has done more good than anyone else I know. When I was in charge of the War Department, she provided very effective humanitarian aid to help the needs and suffering of destitute freed people and was tireless in her charitable efforts. Property intended for distribution was often placed in her care or under her direction, and she was always reliable and skilled in its management and administration. In my opinion, she deserves the highest level of confidence and trust.
Edwin M. Stanton.
Edwin M. Stanton.
Jefferson, Ohio, Nov. 12, 1869.
Jefferson, Ohio, Nov. 12, 1869.
My Dear Mrs. Griffing:—On my return from Washington I found your kind letter of the 28th, ult. I regret much that I did not meet with you at Washington. I know your merits. I know that no person in America has done so much for the cause of humanity for the last four years as you have. Your disinterested labors have saved hundreds of poor human beings not only the greatest destitution and misery, but from actual starvation and death. I also know that in doing this you have not only devoted your whole time, but all the property you have. And I know, too, that your labors are just as necessary now as they ever have been. Others know all this as well as I do. Secretary Stanton can vouch for it all, and I can not doubt that Congress will not only pay you for what you have done, but give you a position where this necessary work may be done by you effectually. This is the very thing that ought to be done at once. Since the Bureau has been abolished it will be impossible to get along with the great influx of imbecility and destitution which gathers and[Pg 35] centers in Washington every winter, without some one being appointed to see to it, and certainly everybody knows that there is no one so competent for this work as yourself. To this end I will do whatever I can, but you know that I am now out of place, and have no influence at Court, but whatever I can do to effect so desirable an object will be done.
My Dear Mrs. Griffing:—When I got back from Washington, I found your kind letter dated the 28th of last month. I'm really sorry that I missed you while I was in Washington. I recognize your incredible contributions. No one in America has done as much for humanity over the past four years as you have. Your selfless efforts have saved countless individuals from extreme poverty, suffering, and even starvation and death. I also know that you've dedicated not just your entire time, but all of your resources to this cause. And I understand that your work is just as vital now as it has always been. Others acknowledge this too. Secretary Stanton can confirm it all, and I have no doubt that Congress will not only compensate you for what you've done but will also offer you a position where you can effectively continue this essential work. This is something that needs to happen immediately. Since the Bureau has been dissolved, managing the huge influx of helplessness and poverty that gathers in Washington every winter will be impossible without someone appointed to oversee it. It's clear to everyone that no one is as qualified for this task as you are. I will do whatever I can to support this goal, but you know I’m currently out of a position and lack influence at Court. However, I will do everything possible to achieve such a necessary outcome.
B. F. Wade.
B. F. Wade.
Truly yours,
Truly yours,
Senate Chamber, April 2.
Senate Chamber, April 2.
Dear Madam:—I have your note of the 31st, and am very sorry to hear that there is so much distress in the city. I shall endeavor to bring the charter up as soon as I have an opportunity; but while this trial is pending,[30] it is improbable that any legislative business will be done. I am as anxious as you are to secure its adoption.
Dear Madam:—I've received your note from the 31st, and I'm really sorry to hear about the distress in the city. I'll do my best to bring up the charter as soon as I can; however, with this trial ongoing,[30] it's unlikely that any legislative work will happen. I'm just as eager as you are to make sure it's adopted.
Charles Sumner.
Charles Sumner.
Yours truly,
Yours truly,
Mrs. J. S. Griffing, Washington.
Mrs. J. S. Griffing, Washington.
Boston, 27th July, 1869.
Boston, 27th July, 1869.
Dear Madam:—The statement or memorial which you placed in my hands was never printed. It is, probably, now on the files of the Senate. I wish I could help your effort with the Secretary of War. You must persevere. If Gen. Rawlins understands the case, he will do all that you desire. Accept my best wishes, and believe me, faithfully yours,
Dear Madam:—The document you gave me was never published. It’s likely sitting in the Senate's records now. I wish I could support your efforts with the Secretary of War. You must keep pushing forward. If Gen. Rawlins is aware of the situation, he will do everything you ask. Please accept my best wishes, and know that I am, faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
Charles Sumner.
Will Mrs. Griffing let Mr. Sumner know what institution or person should disburse the money appropriated?
Will Mrs. Griffing inform Mr. Sumner about which institution or person should distribute the allocated funds?
Senate Chamber,
Tuesday.
Senate Chamber,
Tuesday.
LETTERS ON THE FREEDMAN'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION.
Washington, April 8, '71.
Washington, April 8, '71.
To the Mayor and Board of Common Council, City of Washington, District of Columbia:
To the Mayor and City Council, City of Washington, D.C.:
Messrs.:—I have the honor to state that the aged, sick, crippled, and blind persons, for whom the National Freedman's Relief Association of this District partially provides, are at this time in very great destitution, many of them in extreme suffering for want of food and fuel. The Association has provided clothing. It is now twelve weeks since the Government appropriation for their temporary support for the last year was exhausted. This Association has by soliciting contributions, up to this time, relieved the most extreme cases, that otherwise must have died; but the want of food is so great among at least a thousand of these, not one of whom is able to labor for a support, that it is impossible to provide the absolute relief they must have, by further contributions from the charitable and the humane.
Gentlemen:—I want to express that the elderly, sick, disabled, and blind individuals who receive partial support from the National Freedman's Relief Association in this area are currently facing severe hardship, with many suffering greatly due to a lack of food and heat. The Association has provided clothing. It has been twelve weeks since the government's funds allocated for their temporary support last year ran out. To this point, the Association has been able to aid the most desperate cases through donations; otherwise, many would have died. However, the need for food is so critical among at least a thousand of these individuals, none of whom can work to support themselves, that it is impossible to provide the essential aid they require through further contributions from generous and compassionate people.
I would therefore most earnestly appeal in their behalf, that the Hon. Council and Mayor will appropriate from the market fund for their temporary relief one thousand dollars, to be disbursed by the above-named association, which sum will enable these destitute persons to subsist until, as is hoped and believed, Congress will make the usual special[Pg 36] appropriation for their partial temporary support. This Association to report the use of such money to the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Washington, D. C.
I would therefore sincerely ask that the Honorable Council and Mayor allocate one thousand dollars from the market fund for their temporary relief. This money, to be distributed by the named association, will help these needy individuals sustain themselves until, as we hope and believe, Congress will provide the usual special[Pg 36] funding for their partial temporary support. This Association will report on how the money is used to the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Washington, D.C.
J. S. Griffing,
General Agent N. F. R. Association, D. C.J. S. Griffing,
General Agent N. F. R. Association, D. C.Very respectfully,
Very respectfully,
Tribune Office, New York, Sept. 7, 1870.
Tribune Office, New York, Sept. 7, 1870.Mrs. Griffing:—In my judgment you and others who wish to befriend the blacks crowded into Washington, do them great injury. Had they been told years ago, "You must find work; go out and seek it," they would have been spared much misery. They are an easy, worthless race, taking no thought for the morrow, and liking to lean on those who befriend them. Your course aggravates their weaknesses, when you should raise their ambition and stimulate them to self-reliance. Unless you change your course speedily and signally, the swarming of blacks to the District will increase, and the argument that Slavery is their natural condition will be immeasurably strengthened. So long as they look to others to calculate and provide for them, they are not truly free. If there be any woman capable of earning wages who would rather some one else than herself should pay her passage to the place where she can have work, then she needs reconstruction and awakening to a just and honest self-reliance.
Mrs. Griffing:—In my opinion, you and others who want to help the black community crowded into Washington are causing them great harm. If they had been told years ago, "You must find work; go out and look for it," they would have avoided a lot of suffering. They are a complacent, dependent group, not planning for the future, and prefer to rely on those who assist them. Your actions worsen their weaknesses when you should be inspiring them to have ambition and encouraging self-sufficiency. If you don’t change your approach soon and dramatically, the influx of black individuals to the District will grow, and the argument that slavery is their natural state will gain significant strength. As long as they depend on others to figure out and provide for them, they aren’t truly free. If there’s any woman who can earn a living but would rather have someone else pay for her travel to a job, then she needs a fundamental change and an awakening to genuine and honest self-sufficiency.
Horace Greeley.
Horace Greeley.
Yours,
Yours,
Mrs. J. S. Griffing, Washington, D. C.
Mrs. J. S. Griffing, Washington, D. C.
Sept. 12, 1870.
Sept. 12, 1870.
Horace Greeley:
Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir:—Much as I respect your judgment, and admire your candor, I must express entire dissent with your views in reference to those who are laboring to befriend the Freedmen, and also of your estimate of the character of the black race.
Dear Sir:—As much as I respect your opinion and appreciate your honesty, I have to completely disagree with your views regarding those who are working to help the Freedmen, as well as your assessment of the character of the black race.
When you condemn my work for the old slaves, who can not labor, and are "crowded into Washington" by force of events uncontrollable, as a "great injury," I am at a loss to perceive your estimate of any and all benevolent action. If, to provide houses, food, clothing, and other physical comforts, to those broken-down aged slaves whom we have liberated in their declining years, when all their strength is gone, and for whom no home, family friendship, or subsistence is furnished; if this is a "great injury," in my judgment there is no call for alms-house, hospital, home, or asylum in human society, and all appropriations of sympathy and material aid are worse than useless, and demand your earnest rebuke and discountenance, and to the unfortunates crowded into these institutions, you should say, "You must find work, go out and seek it." So far as an humble individual can be, I am substituting to these a freedman's (relief) bureau; sanitary commission; church sewing society, to aid the poor; orphan asylum; old people's home; hospital and alms-house for the sick and the blind; minister-at-large, to visit the sick, console the dying, and bury the dead; and wherein I fail, and perhaps you discriminate, is the want of wealthy, popular, and what is called honorable associations. Were these at my command, with the field before me, it would be easy to illustrate the practical use as well as the divine origin of the Golden Rule.
When you criticize my efforts for the old slaves, who can no longer work and are "crowded into Washington" by forces beyond anyone's control, calling it a "great injury," I struggle to understand your view of benevolence. If providing homes, food, clothing, and other basic necessities to those elderly, freed slaves whom we have liberated in their twilight years—when they have lost all their strength and have no family support or means of living—is a "great injury," then, in my opinion, there's no need for shelters, hospitals, homes, or asylums in society. All forms of sympathy and material help would be worse than pointless and deserve your strong disapproval. To those unfortunate enough to end up in these institutions, you should say, "You must find work; go out and seek it." As much as an individual can, I am offering these people a freedman's relief bureau, a sanitary commission, a church sewing society to help the poor, an orphanage, a home for the elderly, hospitals and homeless shelters for the sick and blind, and a minister-at-large to visit the sick, comfort the dying, and bury the dead. Where I may fall short, and perhaps you find fault, is in lacking wealthy, popular, and what is considered respectable organizations. If I had those at my disposal, with the situation laid out before me, it would be easy to demonstrate both the practical application and the divine foundation of the Golden Rule.
If, in your criticism, you refer to my secondary department in which[Pg 37] I have labored to furnish employment to the Freedmen both in the District and out, is it not a direct reflection upon all efforts made for the distribution of labor? Is my course more aggravating to the weakness of destitute unemployed freed people, than emigrant societies, intelligence offices, benevolent ladies' societies, and young men's Christian associations, to give work to the poor of all nations; and lastly the Government Indian department, that has wisely called to its aid the American missionary, and the Quaker societies, to farm out the poor Indians? or, if the measures put forth by these admissible agents can raise the ambition and stimulate to self-reliance their beneficiaries, will you be good enough to show wherein the same means, which I claim to employ, must have the opposite effect upon the freedmen crowded into Washington.
If you criticize my secondary department where[Pg 37] I've worked to provide jobs for Freedmen both in the District and beyond, isn’t that a direct commentary on all efforts made to distribute labor? Is my approach more harmful to the vulnerability of impoverished unemployed Freedmen than that of emigrant societies, job agencies, charitable women's organizations, and young men’s Christian associations, which all strive to provide work for the needy from every nation? And what about the Government Indian department, which wisely involves American missionaries and Quaker societies to help the poor Indians? If the actions taken by these valid agents can inspire ambition and promote self-reliance among their beneficiaries, can you please explain how the same methods I intend to use would have the opposite effect on the Freedmen concentrated in Washington?
Is it possible that the swarming of the Irish, Swiss, and German poor, to the city of New York, is attributable to the intelligence offices and immigration societies of your city, and not, as we have supposed, to the want of work and bread at home, and is there really a danger, that in providing and calculating for them, we shall strengthen the argument of race, while our institutions of charity are filled with descendants of the Saxon, the Norman, the Goth, and the Vandal? I think not.
Is it possible that the influx of impoverished Irish, Swiss, and German people to New York City is due to the city's job placement agencies and immigration groups, rather than, as we've assumed, the lack of work and food back home? And is there truly a risk that by offering support and resources for them, we’ll reinforce the idea of racial differences, while our charitable institutions are filled with descendants of the Saxons, Normans, Goths, and Vandals? I don't think so.
Josephine S. Griffing.
Josephine S. Griffing.
Respectfully yours,
Respectfully yours,
From the New National Era.
From the New National Era.
MRS. JOSEPHINE S. GRIFFING THE ORIGINATOR OF THE FREEDMEN's BUREAU.
MRS. JOSEPHINE S. GRIFFING THE FOUNDER OF THE FREEDMEN'S BUREAU.
This truly excellent and noble woman was fitly spoken of in the New National Era just after her death, but at that early date it was not possible to obtain the facts to prove the statement at the head of this article, which is but simple truth and historic justice.
This truly remarkable and honorable woman was rightly mentioned in the New National Era shortly after her death, but at that time, it was impossible to gather the facts to support the claim at the beginning of this article, which is simply the truth and a matter of historical justice.
Mrs. Griffing was engaged in an arduous work for the Loyal League in the Northwest in 1862, and foresaw the need of a comprehensive system of protection, help, and education, for the slaves in the trying transition of freedom. She sought counsel and aid from fit persons in Ohio and Michigan, and came here only in 1863 to begin her work of urging the plan of a Bureau for that purpose. Nothing daunted by coldness or indifference she nobly persisted, until in December, 1863, a bill for a Bureau of Emancipation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Hon T. D. Elliott, of Massachusetts. After some changes in the bill, and a committee of conference of the House and Senate, and the valuable aid of Sumner, Wilson, and other Senators, the bill for the Freedman's Bureau finally passed in March, 1865, and was signed by President Lincoln just before his assassination.
Mrs. Griffing was involved in demanding work for the Loyal League in the Northwest in 1862 and recognized the need for a comprehensive system of protection, assistance, and education for the slaves during their challenging transition to freedom. She sought advice and support from suitable individuals in Ohio and Michigan, arriving here in 1863 to start her campaign for a Bureau dedicated to this purpose. Undeterred by indifference or setbacks, she courageously persisted until, in December 1863, a bill for a Bureau of Emancipation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Hon T. D. Elliott of Massachusetts. After some modifications to the bill, along with a joint committee from the House and Senate and the valuable support of Sumner, Wilson, and other Senators, the bill for the Freedman's Bureau finally passed in March 1865 and was signed by President Lincoln just before his assassination.
The original idea was Mrs. Griffing's; her untiring efforts gave it life, and it is but just that the colored people, of the South especially, should bear in grateful remembrance this able and gentle woman, whose life and strength were spent for their poor sufferers, and who called into useful existence that great national charity, the Freedman's Bureau.
The original idea came from Mrs. Griffing; her relentless efforts brought it to life, and it's only fair that the Black people, especially in the South, remember with gratitude this capable and kind woman, who dedicated her life and energy to help those in need and who established the important national charity, the Freedman's Bureau.
The following letter from William Lloyd Garrison to Giles B. Stebbins, then in Washington, corroborates the above statements:
The following letter from William Lloyd Garrison to Giles B. Stebbins, who was in Washington at the time, supports the statements made above:
Roxbury, Mass., March 4, 1872.
Roxbury, Mass., March 4, 1872.
My Dear Friend: ... I was glad to see the well-merited tributes paid by yourself and others to the memory of Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing. She was, for a considerable period, actively engaged in the anti-slavery struggle in Ohio, where by her rare executive ability and persuasiveness as a public lecturer, she aided greatly in keeping the abolition flag flying, enlightening and changing public sentiment, and hastening the year of jubilee. With what unremitting zeal and energy did she espouse the cause of the homeless, penniless, benighted, starving freedmen, driven by stress of circumstances into the national capital in such overwhelming numbers; and what a multitude were befriended and saved through her moving appeals in their behalf! How like an angel of mercy must she have seemed to them all! No doubt the formation of the Freedman's Bureau was mainly due to her representations as to its indispensable necessity; and how much good was done by that instrumentality in giving food, clothing, and protection to those who were so suddenly brought out of the house of bondage, as against the ferocity of the rebel element, it is difficult to compute because of its magnitude. She deserves to be gratefully remembered among "the honorable women not a few," who, in their day and generation, have been
My Dear Friend: ... I was really happy to see the well-deserved tributes given by you and others to the memory of Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing. She was actively involved in the anti-slavery movement in Ohio for a significant time, where her exceptional leadership skills and ability to persuade as a public speaker greatly helped keep the abolitionist cause alive, educate the public, and speed up the arrival of freedom. She dedicated herself with relentless energy and passion to the plight of homeless, broke, and desperate freedmen, who were forced by circumstances to flock to the national capital in massive numbers; so many were helped and saved through her heartfelt appeals on their behalf! She must have seemed like an angel of mercy to them all! No doubt, the establishment of the Freedman's Bureau was largely due to her advocacy for its critical need; and the amount of good it did by providing food, clothing, and protection to those who were suddenly freed from slavery, especially against the hostility of rebel forces, is hard to quantify because of its scale. She deserves to be remembered with gratitude among "the honorable women not a few," who, in their time, have been
"Those starry lights of virtue that diffuse,
Through the dark depths of time their vital flame,"
whose self-abnegation and self-sacrifice in the cause of suffering humanity having been absolute, and who have nobly vindicated every claim made by their sex to full equality with men in all that serves to dignify human nature. Her rightful place is among "the noble army of martyrs," for her life was undoubtedly very much shortened by her many cares and heavy responsibilities and excessive labors in behalf of the pitiable objects of her sympathy and regard.
whose selflessness and dedication to helping suffering humanity have been complete, and who have bravely supported every claim made by their gender for full equality with men in all that elevates human dignity. Her rightful place is among "the noble army of martyrs," for her life was certainly cut short by her numerous concerns, heavy responsibilities, and tireless efforts on behalf of those she cared for and sympathized with.
William Lloyd Garrison.
William Lloyd Garrison.
Very truly yours,
Very truly yours,
Parker Pillsbury, in a letter to Mrs. Stebbins says: "The anti-slavery conflict could never boast a braver, truer, abler advocate than Josephine Griffing. It was always an honor and inspiration to stand by her side, no matter how fierce the encounter. I have seen her when an infuriated mob assailed our Conventions, and dashed down doors, windows, seats, stoves, tables, everything that would yield to their demoniac rage, stand amid the ruins calm and unmoved, and with her gentle words of remonstrance shame the intruders, until one by one they shrank away, glad to get out of her sight.
Parker Pillsbury, in a letter to Mrs. Stebbins, says: "The anti-slavery fight could never have a braver, truer, or more capable advocate than Josephine Griffing. It was always a privilege and inspiration to stand by her side, no matter how intense the conflict. I have witnessed her when a furious mob attacked our conventions, smashing doors, windows, seats, stoves, tables—anything they could destroy in their wild rage—standing among the chaos calm and unshaken, and with her gentle words of protest shaming the intruders until one by one they backed away, relieved to be out of her sight."
Her beautiful home hospitalities; her warm welcome ever extended to the faithful friends of freedom and humanity, were equal to her unshaken courage and self-control in public assemblies. We used to call that humble home in Litchfield, 'The Saint's Rest,' and such it was to many a fugitive slave, as well as soldier in his cause.
Her beautiful home hospitality and warm welcome always extended to loyal friends of freedom and humanity matched her unwavering courage and self-control in public gatherings. We used to call that humble home in Litchfield, 'The Saint's Rest,' and it truly was for many fugitive slaves, as well as soldiers in their fight.
To the first demand for the enfranchisement of women in 1848, Mrs. Griffing heartily responded, and in this reform she was ever untiring in effort, wise in counsel, and eminent in public speech. In 1867 she helped to organize the Universal Franchise Association of the District of Columbia, of which she was president for years. She was also Corresponding Secretary of the National Woman Suffrage Association, and was ever considered the organizing power at Washington. She first suggested the importance of annual conventions at the capital, in order to influence Congressional action.
To the first call for women's voting rights in 1848, Mrs. Griffing enthusiastically responded, and in this reform, she was tireless in her efforts, insightful in her advice, and outstanding in public speaking. In 1867, she helped organize the Universal Franchise Association of the District of Columbia, where she served as president for several years. She was also the Corresponding Secretary of the National Woman Suffrage Association and was always seen as the driving force in Washington. She was the first to propose holding annual conventions in the capital to sway Congressional action.
Mrs. Griffing's last appearance in public was at the May Anniversary of the National Woman Suffrage Association, held in New York in 1871, and so feeble was her condition that a screen was placed behind her to enable the audience to hear her voice. At the close of the Convention she went to the home of her childhood, in Hebron, Conn., hoping that the bracing air of the New England hills would give her new life and strength, until she could finish her work. But it was already finished. She had taxed herself to the uttermost, beyond nature's power to recuperate. In November she returned to Washington, and enjoyed the sweet presence and tender care of her daughters until she passed away on Feb. 18, 1872.
Mrs. Griffing's last public appearance was at the May Anniversary of the National Woman Suffrage Association, held in New York in 1871. Her condition was so weak that a screen was set up behind her to help the audience hear her voice. After the Convention, she went to her childhood home in Hebron, Conn., hoping that the fresh air of the New England hills would revive her and give her strength to finish her work. But it was already done. She had pushed herself to the limit, beyond what her body could recover from. In November, she returned to Washington and enjoyed the loving presence and care of her daughters until she passed away on February 18, 1872.
THE LADIES' NATIONAL COVENANT.
After the war was fairly inaugurated, the manufactories of the country largely turned their attention to the production of material required by the army, which, combined with the immense number of volunteers from such avocations, and the rise in prices of all home manufactures, created an immense import of foreign goods, which, pouring into our country when gold was at the highest, brought to our doors a danger no less formidable than that of the Rebellion. It was shown from official returns, in 1863, that during a period of nine months, the imports, at the port of New York alone, amounted to $160,000,000 in gold; equal, including exchange, freight, insurance, etc., to twice that sum, while our exports amounted to only $120,000,000 in paper.
After the war was officially underway, the factories in the country focused heavily on producing materials needed by the army. This, along with the huge number of volunteers from various jobs and the rise in prices of all domestic products, led to a massive influx of foreign goods. These goods flooded into our country when gold prices were at their peak, presenting a threat just as serious as the Rebellion. Official reports from 1863 showed that in just nine months, imports at the port of New York alone reached $160,000,000 in gold; when you factor in exchange rates, shipping costs, insurance, and other expenses, that number was doubled. Meanwhile, our exports were only $120,000,000 in paper.
This ruinous state of our trade brought on us the taunts of foreign enemies, and roused the attention of the country to devise some method of meeting the new danger; Congress temporarily raised duties fifty per cent. in hopes of stemming the tide of importation. The patriotic women of the nation, ever on the alert for methods of[Pg 40] aiding the country, early in 1864 called a meeting of the loyal women of Washington, at which time an association, pledging women to the use of home manufactures, was formed under the name of "The Ladies' National Covenant," with offices in every State and Territory within the national lines. Mrs. General Jas. Taylor was elected President; Mrs. Stephen A. Douglas, Vice-President; Mrs. Rebecca Gillis and Miss Virginia Smith, Recording Secretaries; with ten Corresponding Secretaries, of whom Mrs. H. C. Ingersoll was the most active.
This miserable state of our trade exposed us to the mockery of foreign enemies and drew the country’s attention to find a way to deal with the new threat. Congress temporarily raised duties by fifty percent in hopes of slowing down imports. The patriotic women of the nation, always looking for ways to help, held a meeting of the loyal women of Washington in early 1864, during which they formed an association called "The Ladies' National Covenant," pledging to support the use of home-made products. This organization established offices in every State and Territory within the national boundaries. Mrs. General Jas. Taylor was elected President; Mrs. Stephen A. Douglas, Vice-President; Mrs. Rebecca Gillis and Miss Virginia Smith were appointed Recording Secretaries, along with ten Corresponding Secretaries, the most active of whom was Mrs. H. C. Ingersoll.
This association, formed for the purpose of encouraging domestic manufactures, was composed at its first meeting of the wives of members of the Cabinet and of Senators and Representatives, women of fashion, popular authoresses, mothers who had lost their sons, and wives who had lost their husbands. An Advisory and Organizing Committee was appointed, consisting of women from each State and Territory within the national line. An Address to the Women of America was issued, and a constitution consisting of eleven sections, together with the following pledge, was adopted:
This group, created to promote domestic manufacturing, included at its first meeting the wives of Cabinet members, Senators, and Representatives, along with fashionable women, well-known authors, mothers who had lost their sons, and wives who had lost their husbands. An Advisory and Organizing Committee was formed, made up of women from every State and Territory within the national borders. An Address to the Women of America was released, and a constitution with eleven sections, along with the following pledge, was adopted:
THE PLEDGE.
For three years, or during the war, we pledge ourselves to each other and the country, to purchase no imported goods where those of American manufacture can be obtained, such as "dress goods of velvet, silks, grenadines, India crape, and imported organdies, India lace and broche shawls, fine wrought laces and embroideries, watches and precious stones, hair ornaments, fans, artificial flowers and feathers, carpets, furniture, silks and velvets, painted china, ormolu, bronze, marble, ornaments, and mirrors."
For three years, or during the war, we commit to each other and to the country, not to buy any imported goods when we can find American-made ones, like "dress fabrics of velvet, silks, grenadines, Indian crape, and imported organdies, Indian lace and brocade shawls, fine laces and embroideries, watches and gemstones, hair accessories, fans, artificial flowers and feathers, carpets, furniture, silks and velvets, painted china, ormolu, bronze, marble, decorations, and mirrors."
The emblem of this Covenant was a black or gilt bee, worn as a pin fastening the national colors, upon the hair, arm, or bosom, as a public recognition of membership. In August of the same year the Secretary stated that orders for the emblem, the badge of the Covenant, were received by the manufacturer of the pin from all parts of the Union. A meeting was held in New York, rooms opened in Great Jones Street, and the Covenant was in a fair way to assume large proportions. When Lee's capitulation was announced the necessity for the Covenant ended, and with peace, trade was allowed to drift into its natural channels.
The symbol of this Covenant was a black or gold bee, worn as a pin to secure the national colors on the hair, arm, or chest, as a public sign of membership. In August of the same year, the Secretary mentioned that the manufacturer of the pin received orders for the emblem, the badge of the Covenant, from all over the country. A meeting took place in New York, with rooms opened on Great Jones Street, and the Covenant was on track to grow significantly. When Lee's surrender was announced, the need for the Covenant disappeared, and with peace, trade was allowed to flow into its normal patterns.
ANNA ELIZABETH DICKINSON.
Foremost among the women who understood the political significance of the great conflict, was Miss Dickinson, a young girl of Quaker ancestry, who possessed remarkable oratorical power, a keen[Pg 41] sense of justice, and an intense earnestness of purpose. In the heated discussions of Anti-Slavery Conventions, she had acquired a clear comprehension of the province of laws and constitutions; of the fundamental principles of governments, and the rights of man. Like a meteor, she appeared suddenly in the political horizon, as if born for the eventful times in which she lived, and inspired by the dangers that threatened the life of the republic.
Foremost among the women who grasped the political importance of the great conflict was Miss Dickinson, a young woman of Quaker heritage, who had remarkable speaking skills, a sharp sense of justice, and a deep commitment to her purpose. During the intense debates at Anti-Slavery Conventions, she developed a solid understanding of the role of laws and constitutions, the fundamental principles of governments, and human rights. Like a meteor, she suddenly emerged on the political scene, as if she was meant for the dramatic times in which she lived, motivated by the dangers threatening the republic's existence.
At the very beginning of the war her radical utterances were heard at different points in her native State.[31] Her admirable speech on the higher law, first made at Kennett Square, and the discussion that followed, in which Miss Dickinson maintained her position with remarkable clearness and coolness for one of her years, were a surprise to all who listened. The flattering reports of this meeting in several of the Philadelphia journals introduced her at once to the public.
At the very start of the war, her radical statements were heard in various places throughout her home state.[31] Her outstanding speech on the higher law, first delivered at Kennett Square, along with the discussion that followed, where Miss Dickinson held her ground with impressive clarity and composure for someone her age, surprised everyone who listened. The positive coverage of this meeting in several Philadelphia newspapers quickly brought her into the public eye.
On the evening of February 27, 1861, she addressed eight hundred people in Concert Hall, Philadelphia. This was her first appearance before so large an assembly, and the first time she had the sole responsibility of entertaining an audience for an entire evening. She spoke two full hours extemporaneously, and the lecture was pronounced a success, not only by the press, but by the many notables and professional men present. Although it was considered a marvelous performance for a young girl, Miss Dickinson herself was mortified, as she said, with the length of her speech and its lack of point, order, and arrangement.
On the evening of February 27, 1861, she spoke to eight hundred people at Concert Hall in Philadelphia. This was her first time in front of such a large crowd, and it was the first occasion where she had to entertain an audience solo for an entire evening. She spoke for two full hours without notes, and the lecture was deemed a success, not just by the media but also by many distinguished guests and professionals in attendance. While it was seen as an impressive performance for a young girl, Miss Dickinson herself was embarrassed, as she mentioned, by the length of her speech and its lack of clarity, organization, and structure.
Soon after, she entered the United States Mint, to labor from seven o'clock in the morning to six at night. Although she was ever faithful to her duties and skillful in everything she undertook, soon becoming the most rapid adjuster in the Mint, her radical criticisms on the war and its leaders cost her the loss of the place. At a meeting[Pg 42] just after the battle of Ball's Bluff, in summing up the record, after exonerating Stone and Baker, she said, "Future history will show that this battle was lost not through ignorance and incompetence, but through the treason of the commanding general, George B. McClellan, and time will vindicate the truth of my assertion." She was hissed all over the house, though some cried, "Go on!" "Go on!" She repeated this startling assertion three times, and each time was hissed.
Soon after, she started working at the United States Mint, from seven in the morning until six at night. Even though she was always dedicated to her responsibilities and skilled at everything she did, soon becoming the fastest adjuster in the Mint, her outspoken criticisms of the war and its leaders led to her losing her job. At a meeting[Pg 42] just after the Battle of Ball's Bluff, while reviewing the events and clearing Stone and Baker of blame, she stated, "Future history will show that this battle was lost not due to ignorance and incompetence, but because of the treason of the commanding general, George B. McClellan, and time will prove the truth of my claim." She was booed throughout the room, although some shouted, "Go on!" "Go on!" She repeated this shocking claim three times, and each time was met with hisses.
When Gen. McClellan was running against Lincoln in 1864, after she had achieved a world-wide reputation, she was sent by the Republican Committee of Pennsylvania to this same town, to speak to the same people, in the same hall. In again summing up the incidents of the war, when she came to Ball's Bluff, she said, "I say now, as I said three years ago, history will record that this battle was lost, not through ignorance or incompetence, but through the treason of the commanding general, George B. McClellan." "And time has vindicated your assertion," was shouted all over the house.
When General McClellan was running against Lincoln in 1864, after she had gained a worldwide reputation, she was sent by the Republican Committee of Pennsylvania to this same town, to speak to the same people, in the same hall. Recapping the incidents of the war, when she reached Ball's Bluff, she stated, "I say now, as I said three years ago, history will record that this battle was lost, not because of ignorance or incompetence, but due to the treason of the commanding general, George B. McClellan." "And time has confirmed your statement," echoed throughout the hall.
It was the speech made in 1861, that cost her her place in the mint, for while laboring there daily with her hands, her mind was not inactive nor indifferent to the momentous events transpiring about her. She kept a close watch of the progress of the war, and the policy of the Republican leaders. When ex-Governor Pollock dismissed her, he admitted that his reason was that Westchester speech, for at that time McClellan was the idol of the nation.[32]
It was the speech given in 1861 that cost her her job at the mint, because even though she worked there every day, her mind was fully engaged and aware of the significant events happening around her. She closely monitored the progress of the war and the strategies of the Republican leaders. When former Governor Pollock let her go, he acknowledged that the reason was that Westchester speech, as McClellan was the nation's hero at that time.[32]
With remarkable prescience all through the war, and the period of reconstruction, Miss Dickinson took the advance position. Wendell Phillips used to say that "she was the young elephant sent forward to try the bridges to see if they were safe for older ones to cross." When wily politicians found that her criticisms were applauded by immense audiences, they gained courage to follow her lead. As popular thought was centering everywhere on national questions, Miss Dickinson thought less of the special wrongs of women and negroes and more of the causes of revolutions and the true basis of government; hence she spoke chiefly on the political aspects of the war, and thus made herself available in party politics at once.
With impressive insight throughout the war and the reconstruction period, Miss Dickinson took the lead. Wendell Phillips used to say that "she was the young elephant sent forward to test the bridges to see if they were safe for older ones to cross." When clever politicians noticed that her criticisms were celebrated by huge audiences, they gained the confidence to follow her example. As public opinion began to focus heavily on national issues, Miss Dickinson shifted her attention from the specific injustices faced by women and Black people to the causes of revolutions and the true foundations of government; as a result, she primarily spoke about the political aspects of the war, which made her relevant in party politics right away.
In the intervals of public speaking, she made frequent visits to the Government hospitals, and became a most welcome guest among our soldiers. In long conversations with them, she learned their individual histories, experiences, hardships, and sufferings; the motives[Pg 43] that prompted them to go into the army; what they saw there; what they thought of war in their hours of solitude, away from the camp and the battle-field. Thus she acquired an insight into the soldier's life and feelings, and from these narratives drew her materials for that deeply interesting lecture on hospital life, which she delivered in many parts of the country.
During her breaks from public speaking, she often visited the government hospitals and became a very welcome guest among the soldiers. Through long conversations with them, she learned about their individual stories, experiences, struggles, and pains; the reasons [Pg 43] that led them to join the army; what they witnessed there; and what they thought about war during their quiet moments, away from the camp and the battlefield. This helped her gain a better understanding of a soldier's life and emotions, and she used these stories as the basis for her compelling lecture on hospital life, which she presented in various locations across the country.
This lecture, given in Concord, New Hampshire, in the autumn of 1862, was the turning-point of her fortunes. In this speech she proved slavery to be the cause of the war, that its continuance would result in prolonged suffering to our soldiers, defeat to our armies, and the downfall of the Republic. She related many touching incidents of her experiences in hospital life, and drew such vivid pictures of the horrors of both war and slavery, that by her pathos and logic, she melted her audience to tears, and forced the most prejudiced minds to accept her conclusions.
This lecture, delivered in Concord, New Hampshire, in the fall of 1862, was a turning point in her life. In this speech, she demonstrated that slavery was the cause of the war, highlighting that its continuation would lead to more suffering for our soldiers, losses for our armies, and the collapse of the Republic. She shared many moving stories from her experiences in hospitals and painted such vivid pictures of the horrors of both war and slavery that her emotional appeal and logic brought her audience to tears and convinced even the most biased individuals to accept her views.
It was on this occasion that the Secretary of the State Central Committee heard her for the first time. He remarked to a friend at the close of the lecture, "If we can get this girl to make that speech all through New Hampshire we can carry the Republican ticket in the coming election." Fully appreciating her magnetic power over an audience, he resolved at once, that if the State Committee refused to invite her, he should do so on his own responsibility. But through his influence she was invited by the Republican Committee, and on the first of March commenced her regular campaign speeches. During the four weeks before election she spoke twenty times, everywhere to crowded, enthusiastic audiences. Her march through the State was a succession of triumphs, and ended in a Republican victory.
It was during this event that the Secretary of the State Central Committee heard her speak for the first time. He told a friend at the end of the lecture, "If we can get this girl to deliver that speech all over New Hampshire, we can win the Republican ticket in the upcoming election." Recognizing her captivating presence with an audience, he immediately decided that if the State Committee didn't invite her, he would take the initiative to do it himself. However, thanks to his influence, she was invited by the Republican Committee, and on March 1st, she began her regular campaign speeches. In the four weeks leading up to the election, she spoke twenty times, always to packed, enthusiastic crowds. Her journey through the State was a series of victories, culminating in a Republican win.
The member in the first district having no faith that a woman could influence politics, sent word to the Secretary, "Don't send that damn woman down here to defeat my election." The Secretary replied, "We have work enough for her to do in other districts without interfering with you." But when the would-be honorable gentleman saw the furor she created, he changed his mind, and inundated the Secretary with letters to have her sent there. But the Secretary replied, "It is too late; the programme is arranged and published throughout the State; you would not have her when you could, and now you can not have her when you will."
The member from the first district, doubting that a woman could impact politics, sent a message to the Secretary saying, "Don't send that woman down here to ruin my election." The Secretary responded, "We have plenty of work for her in other districts without involving you." However, when the aspiring politician saw the excitement she stirred up, he changed his mind and flooded the Secretary with requests to have her sent there. The Secretary replied, "It's too late; the schedule is set and announced statewide; you didn’t want her when you could have, and now you can’t have her when you want."
It is pleasant to record that this man, who had the moral hardihood to send a profane adjective over the wires, with the name of this noble girl, lost his election. While all other districts went strongly Republican, his was lost by a large majority. When the[Pg 44] news came that the Republicans had carried the State, due credit was awarded to Anna Dickinson. The Governor-elect made personal acknowledgment that her eloquent speeches had secured his election. She was serenaded, feasted, and feted, the recipient of many valuable presents, and eulogized by the press and the people.
It’s nice to note that this man, who had the nerve to send a disrespectful term through the wires along with the name of this remarkable girl, lost his election. While all other areas leaned heavily Republican, his district was defeated by a large margin. When the[Pg 44] news came that the Republicans had won the State, Anna Dickinson received deserved recognition. The Governor-elect personally acknowledged that her powerful speeches helped secure his victory. She was serenaded, celebrated, and honored, receiving many valuable gifts, and praised by both the media and the public.
New Hampshire safe, all eyes were now turned to Connecticut. The contest there was between Seymour and Buckingham. It was generally conceded that, if Seymour was elected, Connecticut would give no more money or troops for the war. The Republicans were completely disheartened. They said nothing could prevent the Democrats from carrying the State by four thousand, while the Democrats boasted that they would carry it by ten thousand. Though the issue was one of such vital importance, there seemed so little hope of success, that the Republicans were disposed to give it up without making an effort. And no resistance to this impending calamity was made until Anna Dickinson went into the State, and galvanized the desponding loyalists to life. She spent two weeks there, and completely turned the tide of popular sentiment. Democrats, in spite of the scurrilous attacks made on her by some of their leaders and editors, received her everywhere with the warmest welcome, tore off their party badges, substituted her likeness, and applauded whatever she said. The halls where she spoke were so densely packed, that Republicans stayed away to make room for the Democrats, and the women were shut out to give place to those who could vote. There never was such enthusiasm over an orator in this country. The period of her advent, the excited condition of the people, her youth, beauty, and remarkable voice, and wonderful magnetic power, all heightened the effect of her genius, and helped to produce this result. Her name was on every lip; ministers preached about her, prayed for her, as a second Joan of Arc, raised up by God to save that State to the loyal party, and through it the nation to freedom and humanity. As the election approached, the excitement was intense; and when at last it was announced that the State was saved by a few hundred votes, the joy and gratitude of the crowds knew no bounds. They shouted and hurrahed for Anna Dickinson, serenaded her with full bands of music, sent her books, flowers, and ornaments, manifesting in every way their love and loyalty to this gifted girl, who through so many years had bravely struggled with poverty to this proud moment of success in her country's cause. Some leading gentlemen of the State who had invited her there presented her a gold watch and chain, a hundred dollars for every night she had spoken, and[Pg 45] four hundred for the last night before election, in Hartford. The comments of the press, though most flattering, give the reader but a faint idea of the enthusiasm of the people.[33]
New Hampshire was secure, and all attention shifted to Connecticut. The race there was between Seymour and Buckingham. It was widely believed that if Seymour was elected, Connecticut wouldn’t contribute any more money or troops for the war. The Republicans were totally discouraged. They claimed nothing could stop the Democrats from winning the state by four thousand votes, while the Democrats boasted they would win by ten thousand. Even though this issue was crucial, the Republicans felt so hopeless about success that they were ready to give up without trying. No one opposed this looming disaster until Anna Dickinson entered the state and energized the demoralized loyalists. She spent two weeks there and completely changed public opinion. Democrats, despite the nasty attacks from some of their leaders and editors, welcomed her enthusiastically everywhere, removed their party badges, replaced them with her image, and applauded everything she said. The venues where she spoke were packed so tightly that Republicans stayed away to make room for the Democrats, and women were turned away to allow space for those who could vote. There had never been such excitement over a speaker in this country. The timing of her arrival, the heightened emotions of the people, her youth, beauty, remarkable voice, and extraordinary charisma all amplified the impact of her talent and contributed to this outcome. Her name was on everyone’s lips; ministers preached about her and prayed for her, likening her to a second Joan of Arc, sent by God to save the state for the loyal party and, through it, the nation for freedom and humanity. As the election drew closer, the excitement was overwhelming; and when it was finally announced that the state was saved by a few hundred votes, the joy and gratitude of the crowds were boundless. They cheered and celebrated Anna Dickinson, serenaded her with full bands, sent her books, flowers, and gifts, showing their love and loyalty to this talented young woman who had bravely fought against poverty to reach this proud moment of success for her country. Some prominent figures in the state who had invited her there presented her with a gold watch and chain, a hundred dollars for each night she spoke, and four hundred for the last night before the election in Hartford. The press coverage, though very complimentary, gives only a faint idea of the enthusiasm of the people.[33]
Fresh from the victories in New Hampshire and Connecticut, she was announced to speak in Cooper Institute, New York. That meeting, in May, 1862, was the most splendid ovation to a woman's genius since Fanny Kemble, in all the wealth of her youth, beauty, and wonderful dramatic power, appeared on the American stage for the first time. There never was such excitement over any meeting in New York; hundreds went away unable even to get standing places in the lobbies and outer halls. The platform was graced with the most distinguished men and women in the country, and so crowded that the young orator had scarce room to stand. There were clergymen, generals, admirals, judges, lawyers, editors, the literati, and leaders of fashion, and all alike ready to do homage to this simple girl, who moved them alternately to laughter and tears, to bursts of applause and the most profound silence.
Fresh from her wins in New Hampshire and Connecticut, she was set to speak at Cooper Institute in New York. That meeting, in May 1862, was the most amazing tribute to a woman's talent since Fanny Kemble, with all her youth, beauty, and incredible acting skills, graced the American stage for the first time. There was never such excitement for any meeting in New York; hundreds left unable to even find standing spots in the lobbies and outer halls. The platform was filled with the most distinguished men and women in the country, so crowded that the young speaker barely had room to stand. There were clergymen, generals, admirals, judges, lawyers, editors, intellectuals, and fashion leaders, all ready to show their respect for this humble girl, who moved them from laughter to tears, to applause, and into deep silence.
Henry Ward Beecher, who presided, introduced the speaker in his happiest manner. For nearly two hours she held that large audience with intense interest and enthusiasm, and when she finished with a beautiful peroration, the people seemed to take a long breath, as if to find relief from the intensity of their emotions. Loud cries followed for Mr. Beecher; but he arose, and with great feeling and[Pg 46] solemnity, said: "Let no man open his lips here to-night; music is the only fitting accompaniment to the eloquent utterances we have heard." The Hutchinsons closed with one of their soul-stirring ballads, and the audience slowly dispersed, singing the John Brown song with thrilling effect, as they marched into the street.[34]
Henry Ward Beecher, who was in charge, introduced the speaker in his most cheerful way. For nearly two hours, she captivated that large audience with intense interest and enthusiasm, and when she concluded with a beautiful closing statement, the crowd seemed to exhale, as if relieved from the intensity of their emotions. Loud calls followed for Mr. Beecher; he stood up and, with great feeling and seriousness, said: "Let no one speak here tonight; music is the only appropriate accompaniment to the powerful words we've just heard." The Hutchinsons finished with one of their inspiring ballads, and the audience gradually dispersed, singing the John Brown song with a thrilling effect as they walked into the street.[34]
After her remarkable success in New York, the Philadelphia Union League invited her to speak in that city. The invitation, signed by leading Republicans, she readily accepted. Judge Wm. D. Kelley presided, and a most appreciative audience greeted her. In this address, reviewing the incidents of the war, she criticised General McClellan as usual, with great severity. Some of his personal friends, filled with indignation, left the house, while a derisive laugh followed them to the door. The Philadelphia journals vied with each other in their eulogiums of her grace, beauty, and eloquence. The marked attention she has always received in her native city has been most grateful to her, and honorable to her fellow-citizens.
After her amazing success in New York, the Philadelphia Union League invited her to speak in the city. She quickly accepted the invitation, which was signed by prominent Republicans. Judge Wm. D. Kelley presided over the event, and she was met by a very appreciative audience. In her speech, while reflecting on the events of the war, she criticized General McClellan as she often did, very harshly. Some of his personal friends, filled with anger, left the venue, while a mocking laugh followed them out the door. The Philadelphia newspapers competed with each other in praising her grace, beauty, and eloquence. The special attention she has always received in her hometown has been very meaningful to her and has brought honor to her fellow citizens.
In July, 1862, the first move was made to enlist colored troops in Pennsylvania. A meeting was called for that purpose in Philadelphia. Judge Kelley, Frederick Douglass, and Anna Dickinson were there, and made strong appeals to the people of that State to grant to the colored man the honor of bearing arms in defence of his country. The effort was successful. A splendid regiment was raised, and the first duty they discharged was to serenade the young orator, who had spoken so eloquently for their race all through the war.
In July 1862, the first efforts began to recruit Black soldiers in Pennsylvania. A meeting was organized for this purpose in Philadelphia. Judge Kelley, Frederick Douglass, and Anna Dickinson attended and made passionate appeals to the people of the state to allow Black men the honor of serving in defense of their country. The effort was a success. A remarkable regiment was formed, and their first act was to serenade the young orator who had spoken so eloquently for their community throughout the war.
In September a field-day was announced at Camp William Penn. General Pleasanton reviewed the troops. It was a brilliant and interesting occasion, as many were about to leave for the seat of war. At the close of the day when the people began to disperse it was noised round that Miss Dickinson was there; a cry was heard at once on all sides, "A speech! a speech!" The moon was just rising, mingling its pale rays with those of the setting sun, and throwing a soft, mysterious light over the whole scene. The troops gathered round with bristling bayonets and flags flying, the band was hushed to silence, and when all was still, mounted on a gun-wagon, with General Pleasanton and his staff on one side, General Wagner and his staff on the other, this brave girl addressed "our boys in blue." She urged that justice and equality might be secured to every citizen in the republic; that slavery and war might end forever[Pg 47] and peace be restored; that our country might indeed be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
In September, a field day was announced at Camp William Penn. General Pleasanton reviewed the troops. It was a brilliant and exciting event, as many were about to leave for the front lines. As the day came to an end and people started to leave, word got around that Miss Dickinson was there; a chorus of voices called out, "A speech! A speech!" The moon was just rising, blending its pale light with that of the setting sun, casting a soft, mysterious glow over the entire scene. The troops gathered around with gleaming bayonets and flags waving, the band fell silent, and when everything was still, this brave girl stood on a gun-wagon, with General Pleasanton and his staff on one side, and General Wagner and his staff on the other. She addressed "our boys in blue." She called for justice and equality to be guaranteed for every citizen in the country, for slavery and war to end forever, and for peace to be restored so that our nation could truly be the land of the free and the home of the brave.[Pg 47]
As she stood there uttering words of warning and prophecy, it seemed as if her lips had been touched with a live coal from the altar of heaven. Her inspired words moved the hearts of our young soldiers to deeds of daring, and gave fresh courage to those about her to bid their loved ones go and die if need be for freedom and their country. The hour, the mysterious light, the stillness, the novel surroundings, the youth of the speaker, all gave a peculiar power to her words, and made the scene one of the most thrilling and beautiful on the page of history.
As she stood there speaking words of warning and prophecy, it felt like her lips had been touched with a hot coal from the altar of heaven. Her powerful words inspired our young soldiers to act bravely and gave renewed courage to those around her to encourage their loved ones to go and fight, even if it meant dying for freedom and their country. The moment, the strange light, the stillness, the unfamiliar surroundings, and the youth of the speaker all added a unique strength to her words, making the scene one of the most exciting and beautiful in history.
In January, 1864, she made her first address in Washington. Though she now felt that her success as an orator was established, yet she hesitated long before accepting this invitation.[35] To speak before the President, Chief-Justice, Judges, Senators, Congressmen, Foreign Diplomats, all the dignitaries and honorables of the Government was one of the most trying ordeals in her experience. She had one of the largest and most brilliant audiences ever assembled in the Capitol, and was fully equal to the occasion. She made a profound impression, and her speech was the topic of conversation for days afterward. At the close of her address she was presented to many of the distinguished ladies and gentlemen, and chief among them the President. This was one of the grandest occasions of her life. She was honored as no man ever had been before. The comments[Pg 48] of the press[36] must have been satisfactory to her highest ambition as well as to that of her admiring countrywomen.
In January 1864, she gave her first speech in Washington. Even though she now felt established as an orator, she took a long time to accept the invitation.[35] Speaking in front of the President, Chief Justice, judges, senators, congress members, foreign diplomats, and all the dignitaries of the government was one of the most challenging experiences she had ever faced. She had one of the largest and most impressive audiences ever gathered in the Capitol and rose to the occasion. She made a significant impact, and her speech was the talk of the town for days afterward. At the end of her address, she was introduced to many of the distinguished ladies and gentlemen, including the President. This was one of the greatest moments of her life. She was honored in a way no man had ever been before. The press comments[Pg 48] must have fulfilled her highest ambitions as well as those of her admiring fellow women.
One of the most powerful and impressive appeals she ever made was in the Convention of Southern Loyalists held in Philadelphia in September, 1866. In this Convention there was a division of opinion between the Border and the Gulf States. The latter wanted to incorporate negro suffrage in their platform, as that was the only means of success for the Liberal party at the South. The former, manipulated by Northern politicians, opposed that measure, lest it should defeat the Republican party in the pending elections at the North. This stultification of principle, of radical public sentiment, stirred the soul of Miss Dickinson, and she desired to speak. But a rule that none but delegates should be allowed that privilege, prevented her. However, as the Southern men had never heard a woman speak in public, and felt great curiosity to hear her, they adjourned the Convention, resolved themselves into a committee of the whole, and invited her to address them.
One of the most powerful and impressive speeches she ever gave was at the Convention of Southern Loyalists held in Philadelphia in September 1866. At this Convention, opinions were divided between the Border States and the Gulf States. The Gulf States wanted to include Black voting rights in their platform, as that was the only way to achieve success for the Liberal party in the South. The Border States, influenced by Northern politicians, opposed this measure, fearing it would hurt the Republican party in the upcoming elections in the North. This betrayal of principle and radical public sentiment stirred Miss Dickinson's passion, and she wanted to speak. However, a rule stating that only delegates could have that opportunity held her back. Still, since the Southern men had never heard a woman speak publicly and were very curious to hear her, they adjourned the Convention, formed a committee of the whole, and invited her to address them.
An eye-witness[37] thus describes the scene: "As the young maiden stepped forward to deliver a speech as denunciatory as was ever listened to against the action of the Border States, on her right sat Brownlow, on her left John Minor Botts with his lips tightly compressed, and his face telling plainly that he remained there from courtesy, and would remain a patient listener to the end. She began; and for the first time since it met, the Convention was so still that the faintest whisper could be heard."[Pg 49]
An eye-witness[37] describes the scene: "As the young woman stepped forward to deliver a speech as critical as anything ever heard against the actions of the Border States, Brownlow sat on her right, and John Minor Botts sat on her left with his lips tightly pressed together, his face clearly showing that he was there out of courtesy and would patiently listen until the end. She began; and for the first time since it started, the Convention was so quiet that even the faintest whisper could be heard."[Pg 49]
She had not spoken long before she declared that Maryland had no business in the Convention, but should have been with delegates that came to welcome. There was vehement applause from the Border States. "This is a direct insult," shouted a delegate from Maryland. She went on in spite of interruptions, reviewing the conduct of the Border States with scorn, and an eloquence never equalled in any of her previous efforts, in favor of an open, manly declaration of the real opinion of the Convention for justice to the colored Loyalist, not in the courts only, but at the ballot-box. The speech was in Miss Dickinson's noblest style throughout—bold, but tender, and often so pathetic that she brought tears to every eye. Every word came from her heart, and it went right to the hearts of all. Kentucky and Maryland now listened as eagerly as Georgia and Alabama; Brownlow's iron features and Botts' rigid face soon relaxed, and tears stood in the old Virginian's eyes; while the noble Tennesseean moved his place, and gazed at the inspired girl with an interest and wonderment which no other orator had moved before. She had the audience in hand, as easily as a mother holds her child, and like the child, this audience heard her heart beat. It was a marvelous speech. Its greatness lay in its manner and effect, as well as its argument. When she finished, one after another of the Southern delegates came forward and pinned on her dress the badges of their States until she wore the gifts of Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Maryland.
She hadn't talked long before she said that Maryland shouldn't be in the Convention and should have been with delegates who came to welcome. There was loud applause from the Border States. "This is a direct insult," shouted a delegate from Maryland. She continued despite interruptions, criticizing the Border States with disdain, using a level of eloquence she had never shown in any of her previous speeches, advocating for a clear and honest declaration of the true opinion of the Convention in favor of justice for the colored Loyalist, not just in the courts but also at the ballot box. The speech was in Miss Dickinson's finest style throughout—bold yet gentle, and often so touching that she brought tears to everyone's eyes. Every word came from her heart and resonated deeply with all. Kentucky and Maryland listened as intently as Georgia and Alabama; Brownlow's stern features and Botts' rigid face soon softened, and tears filled the old Virginian's eyes; meanwhile, the noble Tennessean shifted in his seat and gazed at the inspired girl with an interest and astonishment that no other speaker had evoked before. She had the audience captivated, as effortlessly as a mother holds her child, and like that child, this audience felt her heartbeat. It was an incredible speech. Its greatness lay in both its delivery and impact, as well as its content. When she finished, one by one, the Southern delegates came forward and pinned the badges of their States onto her dress until she wore the gifts of Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Maryland.
And thus it was from time to time that this remarkable girl uttered the highest thought in American politics in that crisis of our nation's history. While in camp and hospital she spoke words of tenderness and love to the sick and dying, she did not hesitate to rebuke the incapacity and iniquity of those in high places. She was among the first to distrust McClellan and Lincoln, and in a lecture, entitled "My Policy," to unveil his successor, Andrew Johnson, to the people. She saw the scepter of power grasped by the party of freedom, and the first gun fired at Sumter in defence of slavery. She saw our armies go forth to battle, the youth, the promise, the hope of the nation—two millions strong—and saw them return with their ranks thinned and broken, their flags tattered and stained, the maimed, the halt and the blind, the weary and worn; and this, she said, is the price of liberty. She saw the dawn of the glorious day of emancipation when four million African slaves were set free, and that night of gloom when the darkest page in American history was written in the blood of its chief. Through the nation's agony was this young girl born into a knowledge of her[Pg 50] power; and she drew her inspiration from the great events of her day.
And so it was that every now and then, this amazing girl expressed some of the most profound ideas in American politics during a critical time in our nation's history. While in camp and at the hospital, she offered words of compassion and love to the sick and dying, but she didn't hold back from criticizing the incompetence and corruption of those in power. She was one of the first to doubt McClellan and Lincoln, and in a lecture called "My Policy," she revealed his successor, Andrew Johnson, to the public. She witnessed the power being seized by the party of freedom and the first cannon fired at Sumter to defend slavery. She saw our soldiers head into battle, the youth, the promise, the hope of the nation—two million strong—and watched them return with their ranks diminished and broken, their flags torn and stained, the wounded, the disabled, and the exhausted; and she claimed this was the cost of liberty. She witnessed the arrival of the glorious day of emancipation when four million African slaves were freed, and that night of despair when the darkest chapter in American history was written in the blood of its leader. Through the nation's suffering, this young girl gained an awareness of her[Pg 50] power; and she found her motivation in the major events of her time.
THE WOMAN'S NATIONAL LOYAL LEAGUE.
MAMMOTH PETITION.
Those who had been specially engaged in the Woman Suffrage movement, suspended their Conventions during the war and gave their time and thought wholly to the vital issues of the hour. Seeing the political significance of the war, they urged the emancipation of the slaves as the sure, quick way of cutting the gordion knot of the rebellion. To this end they organized a National League, and rolled up a mammoth petition, urging Congress to so amend the Constitution as to prohibit the existence of slavery in the United States.
Those who were actively involved in the Woman Suffrage movement paused their conventions during the war and dedicated their time and attention entirely to the urgent issues at hand. Recognizing the political importance of the war, they advocated for the emancipation of slaves as the fastest and most effective solution to resolve the conflict. To achieve this, they formed a National League and gathered a massive petition, urging Congress to amend the Constitution to outlaw slavery in the United States.
From their headquarters in Cooper Institute, New York, they sent out their appeals to the President, Congress, and the people at large; tracts and forms of petition, franked by members of Congress, were scattered like snowflakes from Maine to Texas. Meetings were held every week, in which the policy of the Government was freely discussed, approved or condemned. Robert Dale Owen, chairman of the Freedman's Commission, then residing in New York, aided and encouraged this movement from the beginning, frequently speaking in the public meetings.
From their headquarters at Cooper Institute in New York, they sent out their appeals to the President, Congress, and the general public; flyers and petition forms, endorsed by members of Congress, were distributed like snowflakes from Maine to Texas. Weekly meetings were held where the government's policies were openly discussed, either supported or criticized. Robert Dale Owen, chairman of the Freedman’s Commission, who was living in New York at the time, helped and motivated this movement from the start, often speaking at public meetings.
That this League did a timely educational work, is manifested by the letters received from generals, statesmen, editors, and from women in most of the Northern States, fully endorsing its action and principles.[38] The clearness of thinking women on the cause of the war; the true policy in waging it; their steadfastness in maintaining the principles of freedom, are worthy of consideration. With this League, Abolitionists and Republicans heartily co-operated. In a course of lectures secured for its benefit in Cooper Institute, we find the names of Horace Greeley, George William Curtis, William D. Kelly, Wendell Phillips, E. P. Whipple, Frederick Douglass, Theodore D. Weld, Rev. Dr. Tyng, Dr. Bellows, and Mrs. Frances D. Gage. Many letters are on its files from Charles Sumner, approving its measures, and expressing great satisfaction at the large number of emancipation petitions being rolled into Congress. The Republican press, too, was highly complimentary. The New York Tribune said: "The women of the Loyal League have shown great practical wisdom in restricting their efforts to one object, the most important which any society can aim at, in this hour, and great courage in[Pg 51] undertaking to do what never has been done in the world before, to obtain one million of names to a petition."
That this League did important educational work is clear from the letters received from generals, politicians, editors, and women from most of the Northern States, who fully support its actions and principles.[38] The clarity of thought among women regarding the cause of the war, the right strategies for fighting it, and their commitment to the principles of freedom are noteworthy. With this League, Abolitionists and Republicans worked together enthusiastically. In a series of lectures organized for its benefit at Cooper Institute, we see the names of Horace Greeley, George William Curtis, William D. Kelly, Wendell Phillips, E. P. Whipple, Frederick Douglass, Theodore D. Weld, Rev. Dr. Tyng, Dr. Bellows, and Mrs. Frances D. Gage. Many letters are on file from Charles Sumner, who praised its initiatives and expressed great satisfaction with the large number of emancipation petitions being presented to Congress. The Republican press was also very complimentary. The New York Tribune noted: "The women of the Loyal League have demonstrated great practical wisdom by focusing their efforts on one crucial goal that any society can aim for right now, and great courage in[Pg 51] taking on the unprecedented task of gathering one million names for a petition."
The leading journals vied with each other in praising the patience and prudence, the executive ability, the loyalty, the patriotism of the women of the League, and yet these were the same women, who when demanding civil and political rights, privileges, and immunities for themselves, had been uniformly denounced as "unwise," "imprudent," "fanatical," "impracticable." During the six years they held their own claims in abeyance to the slaves of the South, and labored to inspire the people with enthusiasm for the great measures of the Republican party, they were highly honored as "wise, loyal, and clear-sighted." But again when the slaves were emancipated and they asked that women should be recognized in the reconstruction as citizens of the Republic, equal before the law, all these transcendent virtues vanished like dew before the morning sun. And thus it ever is so long as woman labors to second man's endeavors and exalt his sex above her own, her virtues pass unquestioned; but when she dares to demand rights and privileges for herself, her motives, manners, dress, personal appearance, character, are subjects for ridicule and detraction.
The leading journals competed to praise the patience, caution, leadership, loyalty, and patriotism of the women of the League. Yet, these were the same women who, when they demanded civil and political rights, privileges, and protections for themselves, were consistently labeled as "unwise," "imprudent," "fanatical," and "impractical." For six years, they put their own claims on hold to support the slaves of the South and worked to inspire enthusiasm for the major initiatives of the Republican party, during which they were highly respected as "wise, loyal, and clear-sighted." However, when the slaves were freed and they requested that women be recognized in the reconstruction as citizens of the Republic, equal under the law, all these remarkable qualities disappeared like dew in the sunlight. This is how it always is: as long as a woman supports a man's efforts and elevates his gender above her own, her qualities go unchallenged. But when she has the audacity to demand rights and privileges for herself, her motives, behavior, clothing, appearance, and character become targets for mockery and disparagement.
In March, 1863, an appeal[39] to the women of the Republic, was[Pg 52] published in the New York Tribune, and in tract form extensively[Pg 53] circulated with "a call"[40] for a National Convention in New York, which assembled in Dr. Cheever's church May 14th. An immense audience, mostly women, representing a large number of the States, crowded the house at an early hour. Miss Susan B. Anthony called the Convention to order and nominated Lucy Stone for President; the other officers[41] of the Convention being chosen, Mrs. Stanton made the opening address, and stated the objects of the meeting.
In March 1863, an appeal[39] to the women of the Republic was[Pg 52] published in the New York Tribune and widely[Pg 53] distributed in pamphlet form with "a call"[40] for a National Convention in New York, which took place at Dr. Cheever's church on May 14th. A huge crowd, mostly women and representing many states, packed the venue early on. Miss Susan B. Anthony called the Convention to order and nominated Lucy Stone for President; after the other officers[41] were selected, Mrs. Stanton gave the opening address and explained the purposes of the meeting.
Miss Anthony having received large numbers of letters[42] which[Pg 54] it was impossible to read, said that the one word which had come up from all quarters showed an earnestness of purpose on the part of women to do everything in their power to aid the Government in the prosecution of this war to the glorious end of freedom. The President in introducing Angelina Grimké Weld, said:
Miss Anthony received a ton of letters[42] that[Pg 54] were impossible to read. She noted that the one word echoing from all sides showed a genuine commitment from women to do everything they could to support the Government in this war, striving for the glorious goal of freedom. The President, in introducing Angelina Grimké Weld, said:
This lady, once a South Carolina slaveholder, not only gave freedom to all her slaves twenty years ago, but has spent the strength of her younger years in going up and down among the people, urging the Northern States to make their soil sacred to freedom, to so amend their laws and constitutions that slavery can find no protection within their borders.
This woman, who was once a slaveowner in South Carolina, not only freed all her slaves twenty years ago, but has dedicated her younger years to traveling among the people, encouraging the Northern States to make their land a safe haven for freedom, and to change their laws and constitutions so that slavery can find no protection within their borders.
Mrs. Weld said: I came here with no desire and no intention to speak; but my heart is full, my country is bleeding, my people are perishing around me. But I feel as a South Carolinian, I am bound to tell the North, go on! go on! Never falter, never abandon the principles which you have adopted. I could not say this if we were now where we stood two years ago. I could not say thus when it was proclaimed in the Northern States that the Union was all that we sought. No, my friends, such a Union as we had then, God be praised that it has perished. Oh, never for one moment consent that such a Union should be re-established in our land. There was a time when I looked upon the Fathers of the Revolution with the deepest sorrow and the keenest reproach. I said to their shadows in another world, "Why did you leave this accursed system of slavery for us to suffer and die under? why did you not, with a stroke of the pen, determine—when you acquired your own independence—that the principles which you adopted in the Declaration of Independence should be a shield of protection to every man, whether he be slave or whether he be free?" But, my friends, the experience of sixty years has shown me that the fruit grows slowly. I look back and see that great Sower of the world, as he traveled the streets of Jerusalem and dropped the precious seed, "Do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you." I look at all the contests of different nations, and see that, whether it were the Patricians of Rome, England, France, or any part of Europe, every battle fought gained something to freedom. Our fathers, driven out by the oppression of England, came to this country and planted that little seed of liberty upon the soil of New England. When our Revolution took place, the seed was only in the process of sprouting. You must recollect that our Declaration of Independence was the very first National evidence of the great doctrine of brotherhood and equality. I verily believe that those who were the true lovers of liberty did all they could at that time. In their debates in the Convention they denounced slavery—they protested against the hypocrisy and inconsistency of a nation declaring such glorious truths, and then trampling them underfoot by enslaving the poor and oppressed, because he had a skin not colored like their own; as though a man's skin should make any difference in the recognition of his rights, any more than the color of his hair or of his eyes. This little blade sprouted as it were from the precious seeds that were planted by Jesus of Nazareth.[Pg 55] But, my friends, if it took eighteen hundred years to bring forth the little blade which was seen in our Declaration, are we not unreasonable to suppose that more could have been done than has been done, looking at the imperfections of human nature, looking at the selfishness of man, looking at his desire for wealth and his greed for glory?
Mrs. Weld said: I came here without any desire or intention to speak; but my heart is full, my country is suffering, and my people are dying around me. However, as a South Carolinian, I feel compelled to tell the North, keep going! Keep going! Never hesitate, never abandon the principles you have embraced. I couldn't say this if we were where we were two years ago. I couldn't say this when it was declared in the Northern States that the Union was all we sought. No, my friends, that kind of Union we had then, thank God it has ended. Oh, never for a moment agree to let such a Union be reestablished in our land. There was a time when I looked upon the Founding Fathers of the Revolution with great sorrow and deep reproach. I said to their spirits in another realm, "Why did you leave this cursed system of slavery for us to endure? Why didn’t you, with a stroke of the pen, decide—when you gained your own independence—that the principles in the Declaration of Independence should protect every person, whether they are a slave or free?" But, my friends, the experience of sixty years has shown me that change comes slowly. I look back and see that great Sower of the world, as he walked the streets of Jerusalem, spreading the precious seed, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I observe all the struggles of different nations and see that, whether it was the Patricians of Rome, England, France, or anywhere in Europe, every battle fought made some progress for freedom. Our forefathers, driven out by English oppression, came to this country and planted that small seed of liberty in New England. When our Revolution occurred, the seed was just beginning to sprout. We must remember that our Declaration of Independence was the very first national evidence of the great doctrine of brotherhood and equality. I truly believe that those who genuinely loved liberty did everything they could at that time. In their debates in the Convention, they condemned slavery—they protested against the hypocrisy and inconsistency of a nation proclaiming such glorious truths while trampling them underfoot by enslaving the poor and oppressed simply because their skin was a different color; as if a man’s skin should make any difference in recognizing his rights, just like the color of his hair or eyes shouldn’t. This small blade sprouted from the precious seeds sown by Jesus of Nazareth.[Pg 55] But, my friends, if it took eighteen hundred years to bring forth the small blade seen in our Declaration, isn't it unreasonable to think that more could have been achieved than what has been done, considering the flaws of human nature, the selfishness of man, his desire for wealth, and his greed for glory?
Had the South yielded at that time to the freemen of the North, we should have had a free Government; but it was impossible to overcome the long and strong prejudices of the South in favor of slavery. I know what the South is. I lived there the best part of my life. I never could talk against slavery without making my friends angry—never. When they thought the day was far off, and there was no danger of emancipation, they were willing to admit it was an evil; but when God in His providence raised up in this country an Anti-slavery Society, protesting against the oppressions of the colored man, they began to feel that truth which is more powerful than arms—that truth which is the only banner under which we can successfully fight. They were comparatively quiet till they found, in the election of Mr. Lincoln, the scepter had actually departed from them. His election took place on the ground that slavery was not to be extended—that it must not pass into the Territories. This was what alarmed them. They saw that if the National Government should take one such step, it never would stop there; that this principle had never before been acknowledged by those who had any power in the nation.
If the South had accepted the freemen of the North back then, we could have had a free government; but it was impossible to overcome the long-standing and strong prejudices in the South in favor of slavery. I know what the South is like. I spent most of my life there. I could never speak out against slavery without angering my friends—never. When they believed that emancipation was far off and there was no real threat, they were willing to admit it was a problem; but when God, in His wisdom, raised an Anti-slavery Society in this country to protest against the oppression of Black people, they started to feel the truth that is more powerful than weapons—that truth that is the only banner under which we can effectively fight. They were relatively peaceful until they realized, with Mr. Lincoln's election, that they had truly lost their power. His election was based on the idea that slavery should not expand—that it must not move into the Territories. This is what frightened them. They understood that if the National Government took even one step in that direction, it would not stop there; this principle had never before been acknowledged by those in power in the nation.
God be praised. Abolitionists never sought place or power. All they asked was freedom; all they wanted was that the white man should take his foot off the negro's neck. The South determined to resist the election of Mr. Lincoln. They determined if Fremont was elected, they would rebel. And this rebellion is like their own Republic, as they call it; it is founded upon slavery. As I asked one of my friends one day, "What are you rebelling for? The North never made any laws for you that they have not cheerfully obeyed themselves. What is the trouble between us?" Slavery, slavery is the trouble. Slavery is a "divine institution." My friends, it is a fact that the South has incorporated slavery into her religion; that is the most fearful thing in this rebellion. They are fighting, verily believing that they are doing God service. Most of them have never seen the North. They understand very little of the working of our institutions; but their politicians are stung to the quick by the prosperity of the North. They see that the institution which they have established can not make them wealthy, can not make them happy, can not make them respected in the world at large, and their motto is, "Rule or ruin."
God be praised. Abolitionists never sought position or power. All they wanted was freedom; they only wanted the white man to lift his foot off the black man's neck. The South decided to resist the election of Mr. Lincoln. They resolved that if Fremont was elected, they would rebel. This rebellion is similar to their own Republic, as they refer to it; it is based on slavery. One day, I asked a friend, "What are you rebelling for? The North hasn’t made any laws for you that they haven’t followed themselves. What’s the issue between us?" Slavery, slavery is the issue. Slavery is a "divine institution." My friends, it is true that the South has woven slavery into its religion; that is the most terrifying aspect of this rebellion. They are fighting, genuinely believing that they are serving God. Most of them have never seen the North. They know very little about how our institutions work; but their politicians are deeply affected by the North's prosperity. They see that the institution they've established can’t make them wealthy, can’t make them happy, can’t earn them respect in the wider world, and their motto is, "Rule or ruin."
Before I close, I would like, however strange it may seem, to utter a protest against what Mrs. Stanton said of colonizing the aristocrats in Liberia. I can not consent to such a thing. Do you know that Liberia has never let a slave tread her soil?—that when, from the interior of the country, the slaves came there to seek shelter, and their heathen masters pursued them, she never surrendered one? She stands firmly on the platform of freedom to all. I am deeply interested in this colony of Liberia. I do not want it to be cursed with the aristocracy of the South, or[Pg 56] any other aristocracy, and far less with the Copperheadism of the North. (Laughter). If these Southern aristocrats are to be colonized, Mrs. President, don't you think England is the best place for them? England is the country which has sympathized most deeply with them. She has allowed vessels to be built to prey upon our commerce; she has sent them arms and ammunition, and everything she could send through the West India Islands. Shall we send men to Liberia who are ready to tread the black man under their feet? No. God bless Liberia for what she has done, and what she is destined to do. (Applause).
Before I finish, I want to say, no matter how strange it might sound, that I disagree with what Mrs. Stanton said about sending the aristocrats to Liberia. I can’t agree to that. Do you know that Liberia has never allowed a slave to set foot on its land?—that when slaves came there from the interior seeking refuge, they were never handed over to their cruel masters? Liberia stands strong on the principle of freedom for everyone. I'm very invested in the colony of Liberia. I don’t want it to be burdened by the aristocracy of the South, or[Pg 56] any other kind of aristocracy, especially not with the Copperheadism of the North. (Laughter). If we’re going to send these Southern aristocrats somewhere, don’t you think England would be the best fit for them? England has sympathized with them the most. It has allowed ships to be built to attack our trade; it has sent them weapons and everything else it could send through the West Indies. Are we really going to send people to Liberia who are ready to trample on Black lives? No. God bless Liberia for what it has done and what it is meant to achieve. (Applause).
I am very glad to say here, that last summer I had the pleasure of entertaining several times, in our house, a Liberian who was well educated in England. He had graduated at Oxford College, and had a high position there. His health broke down, and he went to Liberia. "When I went to Liberia," said he, "I had a first-rate education, and I supposed, of course, I would be a very superior man there; but I soon found that, though I knew a great deal more Greek and Latin and mathematics than most of the men there, I was a child to them in the science of government and history. Why," said he, "you have no idea of the progress of Liberia. The men who go there are freemen—citizens; the burdens of society are upon them; and they feel that they must begin to educate themselves, and they are self-educated men. The President of Liberia, Mr. Benson, was a slave about seven years ago on a plantation in this country. He went to Liberia. He was a man of uncommon talents. He educated himself to the duties which he found himself called upon to perform as a citizen. And when Mr. Benson visited England a year ago, he had a perfect ovation. The white ladies and gentlemen of England, those who were really anti-slavery in their feelings—who love liberty—followed him wherever he went. They opened their houses, they had their soirees, and they welcomed him by every kind of demonstration of their good wishes for Liberia."
I’m really happy to share that last summer, I had the pleasure of hosting a well-educated Liberian in our home several times. He had graduated from Oxford and held a high position there. When his health declined, he moved to Liberia. “When I arrived in Liberia,” he said, “I had an excellent education and thought I would be quite exceptional there; but I quickly realized that, even though I knew much more Greek, Latin, and mathematics than most men there, I was like a child to them when it came to government and history. You have no idea how much progress Liberia has made. The men who go there are free citizens; they bear the responsibilities of society and feel the need to educate themselves, and they are self-taught individuals. The President of Liberia, Mr. Benson, was a slave on a plantation in this country just seven years ago. He went to Liberia and was a man of extraordinary talent. He taught himself the responsibilities he needed to fulfill as a citizen. When Mr. Benson visited England a year ago, he was given a huge welcome. The white men and women of England, especially those who were genuinely anti-slavery and loved freedom, followed him everywhere he went. They opened their homes, hosted their soirees, and greeted him with all kinds of expressions of goodwill for Liberia.”
Now, Mrs. President, the great object that I had in view in rising, was to give you a representative from South Carolina. (Applause). I mourn exceedingly that she has taken the position she has. I once had a brother who, had he been there, would have stood by Judge Pettigrew in his protest against the action of the South. He, many years ago, during the time of nullification in 1832, was in the Senate of South Carolina, and delivered an able address, in which he discussed these very points, and showed that the South had no right of secession; that, in becoming an integral part of the United States, they had themselves voluntarily surrendered that right. And he remarked, "If you persist in this contest, you will be like a girdled tree, which must perish and die. You can not stand." (Applause).
Now, Mrs. President, the main reason I got up to speak was to give you a representative from South Carolina. (Applause). I feel very sad that she has taken the stance she has. I once had a brother who, if he had been here, would have supported Judge Pettigrew in his protest against the actions of the South. Many years ago, during the time of nullification in 1832, he was in the Senate of South Carolina and gave a strong speech where he addressed these very issues, showing that the South had no right to secede; that by becoming part of the United States, they had voluntarily given up that right. He said, "If you keep insisting on this fight, you will be like a girdled tree, which must perish and die. You cannot survive." (Applause).
The President (Lucy Stone): Mrs. Weld thinks it would be too bad to send the Southern aristocrats and Northern copperheads to Liberia: I do not know but it would. I am equally sure that it would be too bad to send them among the laboring people of England, who are thoroughly, heartily, and wholly on the side of the loyal North. They ought not to be sent there. I would suggest, when they are fairly subdued, that we should send them to London to make a part of the staff of[Pg 57] the London Times. I think they would do better there than anywhere else. (Laughter).
The President (Lucy Stone): Mrs. Weld believes it would be a shame to send the Southern aristocrats and Northern copperheads to Liberia; I’m not sure it wouldn’t be. I’m also certain it would be wrong to send them to the working-class people of England, who are completely, wholeheartedly, and entirely on the side of the loyal North. They shouldn’t go there. I suggest that once they are properly subdued, we should send them to London to join the staff of [Pg 57] the London Times. I think they would fit in better there than anywhere else. (Laughter).
The Hutchinson Family being present, varied the proceedings with their inspiring songs. Lucy Stone, in introducing them, said Gen. McClellan was not willing they should sing on the other side of the Potomac, but we are glad to hear them everywhere. Susan B. Anthony presented a series of resolutions,[43] and said:
The Hutchinson Family was there, adding variety to the event with their uplifting songs. Lucy Stone, while introducing them, mentioned that Gen. McClellan didn't want them to perform on the other side of the Potomac, but we’re happy to hear them anywhere. Susan B. Anthony presented a series of resolutions,[43] and said:
There is great fear expressed on all sides lest this war shall be made a war for the negro. I am willing that it shall be. It is a war to found an empire on the negro in slavery, and shame on us if we do not make it a war to establish the negro in freedom—against whom the whole nation, North and South, East and West, in one mighty conspiracy, has combined from the beginning.
There is a lot of fear expressed everywhere that this war will be turned into a war for the Black person. I’m okay with that. This war is meant to create an empire based on the enslavement of Black people, and it would be a disgrace if we don’t instead make it a war to establish freedom for them—against whom the entire nation, North and South, East and West, has united in a massive conspiracy from the start.
Instead of suppressing the real cause of the war, it should have been proclaimed, not only by the people, but by the President, Congress, Cabinet, and every military commander. Instead of President Lincoln's waiting two long years before calling to the side of the Government the four millions of allies whom we have had within the territory of rebeldom, it should have been the first decree he sent forth. Every hour's delay, every life sacrificed up to the proclamation that called the slave to freedom and to arms, was nothing less than downright murder by the Government. For by all the laws of common-sense—to say nothing of laws military or national—if the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, could have devised any possible means whereby he might hope to suppress the rebellion, without the sacrifice of the life of one loyal citizen, without the sacrifice of one dollar of the loyal North, it was clearly his duty to have done so. Every interest of the insurgents, every dollar of their property, every institution, however peculiar, every life in every rebel State, even, if necessary, should have been sacrificed, before one dollar or one man should have been drawn from the free States. How much more, then, was it the President's duty to confer freedom on the four million slaves, transform them into a peaceful army for the Union, cripple the rebellion, and establish justice, the only sure foundation of[Pg 58] peace! I therefore hail the day when the Government shall recognize that it is a war for freedom. We talk about returning to the old Union—"the Union as it was," and "the Constitution as it is"—about "restoring our country to peace and prosperity—to the blessed conditions that existed before the war!" I ask you what sort of peace, what sort of prosperity, have we had? Since the first slave-ship sailed up the James River with its human cargo, and there, on the soil of the Old Dominion, sold it to the highest bidder, we have had nothing but war. When that pirate captain landed on the shores of Africa, and there kidnapped the first stalwart negro, and fastened the first manacle, the struggle between that captain and that negro was the commencement of the terrible war in the midst of which we are to-day. Between the slave and the master there has been war, and war only. This is only a new form of it. No, no; we ask for no return to the old conditions. We ask for something better. We want a Union that is a Union in fact, a Union in spirit, not a sham. (Applause).
Instead of hiding the real cause of the war, it should have been openly declared, not just by the people, but by the President, Congress, the Cabinet, and every military leader. Rather than President Lincoln waiting two long years before calling upon the four million allies within the rebel territories to support the Government, that should have been his first decree. Every hour of delay, every life lost before the proclamation that freed the slaves and called them to arms, was nothing less than outright murder by the Government. According to all common sense—let alone military or national laws—if the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, could have found any way to suppress the rebellion without sacrificing the life of even one loyal citizen, without wasting even one dollar of the loyal North, it was clearly his duty to do so. Every interest of the insurgents, every dollar of their property, every unique institution, every life in every rebel state, even if necessary, should have been sacrificed before drawing one dollar or one man from the free states. How much more was it the President's duty to grant freedom to the four million slaves, turn them into a peaceful army for the Union, weaken the rebellion, and establish justice, which is the only solid foundation for peace! I therefore celebrate the day when the Government recognizes that this is a war for freedom. We talk about returning to the old Union—"the Union as it was," and "the Constitution as it is"—about "restoring our country to peace and prosperity—to the blessed conditions that existed before the war!" I ask you, what kind of peace, what kind of prosperity, have we experienced? Since the first slave ship sailed up the James River with its human cargo, and there, on the soil of the Old Dominion, sold it to the highest bidder, we have known nothing but war. When that pirate captain landed on the shores of Africa, kidnapped the first strong Black man, and fastened the first manacle, the struggle between that captain and that man marked the beginning of the terrible war we are in today. Between the slave and the master, there has been war, and only war. This is just a new version of it. No, we do not ask for a return to the old conditions. We want something better. We want a Union that is genuinely united, a Union in spirit, not a facade. (Applause).
By the Constitution as it is, the North has stood pledged to protect slavery in the States where it existed. We have been bound, in case of insurrections, to go to the aid, not of those struggling for liberty, but of the oppressors. It was politicians who made this pledge at the beginning, and who have renewed it from year to year to this day. These same men have had control of the churches, the Sabbath-schools, and all religious influences; and the women have been a party in complicity with slavery. They have made the large majority in all the different religious organizations throughout the country, and have without protest, fellowshiped the slave-holder as a Christian; accepted pro-slavery preaching from their pulpits; suffered the words "slavery a crime" to be expurgated from all the lessons taught their children, in defiance of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would that others should do unto you." They have had no right to vote in their churches, and, like slaves, have meekly accepted whatever morals and religion the selfish interest of politics and trade dictated.
By the Constitution as it stands, the North is committed to protecting slavery in the states where it exists. We are obligated, in the event of uprisings, to support not those fighting for freedom, but the oppressors. It was politicians who made this commitment from the start, and they have continued to renew it year after year up to now. These same individuals have controlled the churches, Sunday schools, and all religious influences; and women have been complicit with slavery. They have constituted the vast majority in various religious organizations across the country, and have, without objection, accepted the slaveholder as a Christian; tolerated pro-slavery sermons from their pulpits; allowed the phrase "slavery a crime" to be removed from all lessons taught to their children, defying the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would that others should do unto you." They have had no voting rights in their churches, and, like slaves, have submissively accepted whatever morals and religion the selfish interests of politics and commerce dictated.
Woman must now assume her God-given responsibilities, and make herself what she is clearly designed to be, the educator of the race. Let her no longer be the mere reflector, the echo of the worldly pride and ambition of man. (Applause). Had the women of the North studied to know and to teach their sons the law of justice to the black man, regardless of the frown or the smile of pro-slavery priest and politician, they would not now be called upon to offer the loved of their households to the bloody Moloch of war. And now, women of the North, I ask you to rise up with earnest, honest purpose, and go forward in the way of right, fearlessly, as independent human beings, responsible to God alone for the discharge of every duty, for the faithful use of every gift, the good Father has given you. Forget conventionalisms; forget what the world will say, whether you are in your place or out of your place; think your best thoughts, speak your best words, do your best works, looking to your own conscience for approval.
Women must now take on their rightful responsibilities and become what they are meant to be: the educators of society. They should no longer be just a reflection, an echo of men's worldly pride and ambition. (Applause). If the women of the North had focused on understanding and teaching their sons the principles of justice toward Black individuals, regardless of the approval or disapproval of pro-slavery leaders, they wouldn’t be facing the loss of their loved ones to the horrors of war now. And so, women of the North, I urge you to rise up with sincere and genuine intentions, moving forward in the direction of what is right, fearlessly, as independent individuals, answerable only to God for fulfilling every duty, and for the faithful use of every gift that the good Father has given you. Forget about social norms; forget what others will think, whether you are in the right place or not; focus on your best ideas, express your best thoughts, and perform your best actions, seeking approval from your own conscience.
Mrs. Hoyt, of Wisconsin: Thus far this meeting has been conducted in such a way as would lead one to suppose that it was an anti-slavery[Pg 59] convention. There are ladies here who have come hundreds of miles to attend a business meeting of the Loyal Women of the North; and good as anti-slavery conventions are, and anti-slavery speeches are, in their way, I think that here we should attend to our own business.
Mrs. Hoyt, of Wisconsin: So far, this meeting has been run in a way that makes it seem like an anti-slavery[Pg 59] convention. There are women here who have traveled hundreds of miles to be part of a business meeting of the Loyal Women of the North; and while anti-slavery conventions and speeches are valuable in their own right, I believe we should focus on our own agenda here.
Mrs. Chalkstone, of California: My speech shall be as brief as possible and I ask for an excuse for my broken language. Our field is very small, and God has given us character and abilities to follow it out. We do not need to stand at the ballot-boxes and cast our votes, neither to stand and plead as lawyers; but in our homes we have a great office. I consider women a great deal superior to men. (Laughter and applause). Men are physically strong, but women are morally better. I speak of pure women, good women. It is woman who keeps the world in the balance.
Mrs. Chalkstone, of California: I’ll keep my speech as short as possible, and I apologize for my imperfect language. Our field is quite limited, and God has given us the character and skills to pursue it. We don't need to stand at the polls and cast votes, nor do we need to argue like lawyers; instead, in our homes, we hold an important role. I believe women are much better than men. (Laughter and applause). Men may be physically stronger, but women are morally superior. I’m talking about virtuous women, good women. It's women who keep the world in balance.
I am from Germany, where my brothers all fought against the Government and tried to make us free, but were unsuccessful. My only son, seventeen years old, is in our great and noble army of the Union. He has fought in many of the battles here, and I only came from California to see him once more. I have not seen him yet; though I was down in the camp, I could not get any pass. But I am willing to lay down all this sacrifice for the cause of liberty. We foreigners know the preciousness of that great, noble gift a great deal better than you, because you never were in slavery, but we are born in it. Germany pines for freedom. In Germany we sacrificed our wealth and ornaments for it, and the women in this country ought to do the same. We can not fight in the battles, but we can do this, and it is all we can do. The speaker, before me, remarked that Abraham Lincoln was two years before he emancipated slaves. She thought it wrong. It took eighteen hundred years in Europe to emancipate the Jews, and they are not emancipated now. Among great and intelligent peoples like Germany and France, until 1814 no Jew had the right to go on the pavement; they had to go in the middle of the street, where the horses walked! It took more than two years to emancipate the people of the North from the idea that the negro was not a human being, and that he had the right to be a free man. A great many will find fault in the resolution that the negro shall be free and equal, because our equal not every human being can be; but free every human being has a right to be. He can only be equal in his rights. (Applause).
I’m from Germany, where my brothers fought against the government to try to gain our freedom, but they were unsuccessful. My only son, who is seventeen, is in our great and noble Union army. He has fought in many battles here, and I came all the way from California to see him one last time. I haven’t seen him yet; even though I went to the camp, I couldn't get a pass. But I’m willing to make this sacrifice for the cause of liberty. We foreigners understand the value of that great, noble gift far better than you do because you have never been enslaved, but we were born into it. Germany longs for freedom. We sacrificed our wealth and possessions for it, and the women in this country should do the same. We can't fight in the battles, but we can contribute in this way, and it’s the best we can do. The speaker before me mentioned that Abraham Lincoln took two years to emancipate the slaves. She thought it was wrong. It took eighteen hundred years in Europe to free the Jews, and they still aren’t fully free. In highly developed countries like Germany and France, until 1814, Jews weren’t allowed to walk on the pavement; they had to walk in the middle of the street, where the horses passed! It took more than two years to change the mindset in the North that viewed black people as less than human and denied them the right to be free. Many will criticize the resolution stating that black people should be free and equal because not every single person can be equal in every way, but every person has the right to be free. They can only be equal in their rights. (Applause).
Mrs. Rose called for the reading of the resolutions, which after a spirited discussion, all except the fifth, were unanimously adopted.
Mrs. Rose called for the reading of the resolutions, which, after a lively discussion, were unanimously adopted, except for the fifth one.
Mrs. Hoyt, of Wisconsin, said: Mrs. President—I object to the passage of the fifth resolution, not because I object to the sentiment expressed; but I do not think it is the time to bring before this meeting, assembled for the purpose of devising the best ways and means by which women may properly assist the Government in its struggle against treason, anything which could in the least prejudice the interest in this cause which is so dear to us all. We all know that Woman's Rights as an ism has not been received with entire favor by the women of the country, and I know that there are thousands of earnest, loyal, and able women who will not go into any movement of this kind, if this idea is made prominent.[Pg 60] (Applause). I came here from Wisconsin hoping to meet the earnest women of the country. I hoped that nothing that would in any way damage the cause so dear to us all would be brought forward by any of the members. I object to this, because our object should be to maintain, as women properly may, the integrity of our Government; to vindicate its authority; to re-establish it upon a far more enduring basis. We can do this if we do not involve ourselves in any purely political matter, or any ism obnoxious to the people. The one idea should be the maintenance of the authority of the Government as it is, and the integrity of the Republican idea. For this, women may properly work, and I hope this resolution will not pass.
Mrs. Hoyt from Wisconsin said: Mrs. President—I oppose the fifth resolution, not because I disagree with the sentiment expressed, but I don’t think it’s the right time to bring anything before this meeting that could in any way harm our common cause, especially since we’re here to find ways for women to support the Government in its fight against treason. We all know that the concept of Women’s Rights as an ism hasn’t been fully embraced by women across the country, and I know there are thousands of dedicated, loyal, and capable women who won’t join any movement if this idea is highlighted.[Pg 60] (Applause). I came here from Wisconsin hoping to connect with the committed women of the country. I hoped that nothing damaging to our important cause would come up from any members. I oppose this because our goal should be to uphold, as women can rightfully do, the integrity of our Government; to affirm its authority; to re-establish it on much stronger ground. We can achieve this if we steer clear of any purely political issues or any ism that would alienate people. Our focus should be on supporting the authority of the Government as it stands, and preserving the integrity of the Republican idea. For this, women can justly work, and I hope this resolution does not pass.
Sarah H. Halleck, of Milton, N. Y.: I would make the suggestion that those who approve of this resolution can afford to give way, and allow that part of it which is objectionable to be stricken out. The negroes have suffered more than the women, and the women, perhaps, can afford to give them the preference. Let it stand as regards them, and blot out the word "woman." It may possibly be woman's place to suffer. At any rate, let her suffer, if, by that means, mankind may suffer less.
Sarah H. Halleck, of Milton, N. Y.: I suggest that those who support this resolution should be willing to compromise and remove the part that is objectionable. Black people have faced more suffering than women, and women, perhaps, can afford to give them priority. Let it remain as it pertains to them, and remove the word "woman." It might be women's role to endure hardship. In any case, let her endure if it helps reduce the suffering of all humanity.
A Voice: You are too self-sacrificing.
A Voice: You are too self-sacrificing.
Ernestine L. Rose: I always sympathize with those who seem to be in the minority. I know it requires a great deal of moral courage to object to anything that appears to have been favorably received. I know very well from long experience how it feels to stand in a minority of one; and I am glad that my friend on the other side (Mrs. Halleck) has already added one to make a minority of two, though that is by far too small to be comfortable. I, for one, object to the proposition to throw woman out of the race for freedom. (Applause). And do you know why? Because she needs freedom for the freedom of man. (Applause). Our ancestors made a great mistake in not recognizing woman in the rights of man. It has been justly stated that the negro at present suffers more than woman, but it can do him no injury to place woman in the same category with him. I, for one, object to having that term stricken out, for it can have no possible bearing against anything that we want to promote: we desire to promote human rights and human freedom. It can do no injury, but must do good, for it is a painful fact that woman under the law has been in the same category with the slave. Of late years she has had some small privileges conceded to her. Now, mind, I say conceded; for publicly it has not yet been recognized by the laws of the land that she has a right to an equality with man. In that resolution it simply states a fact, that in a republic based upon freedom, woman, as well as the negro, should be recognized as an equal with the whole human race. (Applause)
Ernestine L. Rose: I always feel for those who seem to be in the minority. I know it takes a lot of moral courage to challenge something that seems to be well-received. From long experience, I understand what it's like to stand alone as a minority of one; I'm glad my friend on the other side (Mrs. Halleck) has added herself, making it a minority of two, though that’s still way too small to be comfortable. I, for one, object to the idea of excluding women from the fight for freedom. (Applause). And do you know why? Because women need freedom for the freedom of men. (Applause). Our ancestors made a huge mistake by not recognizing women’s rights alongside men’s. It’s been rightly said that right now, Black people face more suffering than women, but it doesn't hurt to put women in the same category as them. I, for one, object to removing that term, as it has no negative implications for what we want to achieve: we aim to promote human rights and human freedom. It won’t cause any harm, and it should do good, as it’s a painful reality that under the law, women have been treated like slaves. Recently, they’ve received some small privileges. Now, let me be clear, I say conceded; because publically, it’s still not recognized by the laws of the land that women have the right to equality with men. In that resolution, it simply states a fact: in a republic founded on freedom, women, just like Black people, should be recognized as equals within the entire human race. (Applause)
Angeline G. Weld: Mrs. President—I rejoice exceedingly that that resolution should combine us with the negro. I feel that we have been with him; that the iron has entered into our souls. True, we have not felt the slave-holder's lash; true, we have not had our hands manacled, but our hearts have been crushed. Was there a single institution in this country that would throw open its doors to the acknowledgment of woman's[Pg 61] equality with man in the race for science and the languages, until Oberlin, Antioch, Lima, and a very few others opened their doors, twenty years ago? Have I not heard women say—I said thus to my own brother, as I used to receive from him instruction and reading: "Oh, brother, that I could go to college with you! that I could have the instruction you do! but I am crushed! I hear nothing, I know nothing, except in the fashionable circle." A teacher said to a young lady, who had been studying for several years, on the day she finished her course of instruction, "I thought you would be very glad that you were so soon to go home, so soon to leave your studies." She looked up, and said, "What was I made for? When I go home I shall live in a circle of fashion and folly. I was not made for embroidery and dancing; I was made a woman; but I can not be a true woman, a full-grown woman, in America."
Angeline G. Weld: Mrs. President—I am really thrilled that this resolution connects us with the Black community. I feel that we have been alongside them; that the pain of injustice has affected us deeply. True, we haven’t felt the slaveholder's whip; true, we haven’t had our hands shackled, but our hearts have been broken. Was there a single institution in this country that would allow the acknowledgment of women’s[Pg 61] equality with men in the pursuit of knowledge and languages until Oberlin, Antioch, Lima, and a very few others opened their doors, twenty years ago? Have I not heard women say—I said this to my own brother, as I received instruction and reading from him: "Oh, brother, how I wish I could go to college with you! How I wish I could have the education you get! But I am crushed! I hear nothing, I know nothing, except in the trendy circles." A teacher said to a young lady who had been studying for several years, on the day she finished her course of study, "I thought you would be very glad that you were going home so soon, so soon to leave your studies." She looked up and said, "What am I made for? When I go home, I will be in a world of fashion and foolishness. I was not made for embroidery and dancing; I am a woman; but I cannot be a true woman, a complete woman, in America."
Now, my friends, I do not want to find fault with the past. I believe that men did for women the best that they knew how to do. They did not know their own rights; they did not recognize the rights of any man who had a black face. We can not wonder that, in their tenderness for woman, they wanted to shelter and protect her, and they made those laws from true, human, generous feelings. Woman was then too undeveloped to demand anything else. But woman is full-grown to-day, whether man knows it or not, equal to her rights, and equal to the responsibilities of the hour. I want to be identified with the negro; until he gets his rights, we never shall have ours. (Applause).
Now, my friends, I don't want to criticize the past. I believe that men did the best they could for women. They didn’t understand their own rights, nor did they recognize the rights of any man with a black face. It’s no surprise that, in their care for women, they wanted to protect and shelter them, and they created those laws out of genuine, human feelings. At that time, women were too limited to ask for anything else. But today, women are fully grown, whether men realize it or not, fully entitled to their rights and capable of handling the responsibilities of the moment. I want to stand with the black community; until they get their rights, none of us will have ours. (Applause).
Susan B. Anthony: This resolution brings in no question, no ism. It merely makes the assertion that in a true democracy, in a genuine republic, every citizen who lives under the government must have the right of representation. You remember the maxim, "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." This is the fundamental principle of democracy; and before our Government can be a true democracy—before our republic can be placed upon lasting and enduring foundations—the civil and political rights of every citizen must be practically established. This is the assertion of the resolution. It is a philosophical statement. It is not because women suffer, it is not because slaves suffer, it is not because of any individual rights or wrongs—it is the simple assertion of the great fundamental truth of democracy that was proclaimed by our Revolutionary fathers. I hope the discussion will no longer be continued as to the comparative rights or wrongs of one class or another. The question before us is: Is it possible that peace and union shall be established in this country; is it possible for this Government to be a true democracy, a genuine republic, while one-sixth or one-half of the people are disfranchised?
Susan B. Anthony: This resolution doesn’t raise any issues or arguments. It simply states that in a real democracy, in a true republic, every citizen living under the government must have the right to be represented. You remember the saying, "Governments get their rightful powers from the consent of those they govern." This is the core principle of democracy; and for our Government to be a real democracy—before our republic can be built on solid and lasting foundations—the civil and political rights of every citizen must be fully established. This is what the resolution is claiming. It is a philosophical statement. It’s not just because women suffer, it’s not just because enslaved people suffer, and it’s not about any individual rights or wrongs—it’s the straightforward assertion of the fundamental truth of democracy that our Revolutionary leaders proclaimed. I hope we can stop discussing the comparative rights or wrongs of different groups. The question we need to consider is: Is it possible for peace and unity to exist in this country? Can this Government truly be a democracy, a real republic, when one-sixth or half of the people are denied the right to vote?
Mrs. Hoyt: I do not object to the philosophy of these resolutions. I believe in the advancement of the human race, and certainly not in a retrograde movement of the Woman's Rights question; but at the same time I do insist that nothing that has become obnoxious to a portion of the people of the country shall be dragged into this meeting. (Applause). The women of the North were invited here to meet in convention, not to hold a Temperance meeting, not to hold an Anti-Slavery meeting, not to hold a Woman's Rights Convention, but to consult as to[Pg 62] the best practical way for the advancement of the loyal cause. To my certain knowledge there are ladies in this house who have come hundreds of miles, who will withdraw from this convention, who will go home disappointed, and be thrown back on their own resources, and form other plans of organization; whereas they would much prefer to co-operate with the National Convention if this matter were not introduced. This movement must be sacred to the one object of assisting our Government. I would add one more remark, that though the women of the Revolution did help our Government in that early struggle, they did not find it necessary to set forth in any theoretical or clamorous way their right to equal suffrage or equal political position, though doubtless they believed, as much as any of us, in the advancement of woman.
Mrs. Hoyt: I don't disagree with the ideas behind these resolutions. I believe in the progress of humanity, and certainly not in rolling back the Women's Rights movement; however, I firmly insist that nothing that offends some people in this country should be brought into this meeting. (Applause). The women of the North were invited here to gather in convention, not to hold a Temperance meeting, not to hold an Anti-Slavery meeting, not to conduct a Women's Rights Convention, but to discuss [Pg 62] the best practical approach to support the loyal cause. I know for a fact there are women here who have traveled hundreds of miles and who will leave this convention feeling disappointed and forced to rely on their own resources, creating other plans for organization; when they would much rather work alongside the National Convention if this issue wasn’t raised. This effort should be dedicated solely to aiding our Government. I’d also like to point out that although the women of the Revolution supported our Government during that early struggle, they didn’t feel it was necessary to loudly assert their right to equal voting rights or equal political standing, even though they believed, just like all of us, in the progress of women.
A Lady: I want to ask the lady who just spoke if the women of the Revolution found it necessary to form Loyal Leagues? We are not bound to do just as the women of the Revolution did. (Applause and laughter).
A Lady: I want to ask the woman who just spoke if the women of the Revolution thought it was necessary to create Loyal Leagues? We don't have to do exactly what the women of the Revolution did. (Applause and laughter).
Lucy N. Coleman, of Rochester, N. Y.: I wish to say, in the first place, something a little remote from the point, which I have in my mind just now. A peculiar sensitiveness seems to have come over some of the ladies here in reference to the anti-slavery spirit of the resolutions. It seems to me impossible that a company of women could stand upon this platform without catching something of the anti-slavery spirit, and without expressing, to some extent, their sympathy with the advancement of human rights. It is the Anti-Slavery women and the Woman's Rights women who called this meeting, and who have most effectually aided in this movement. Their hearts bleed to the very core that our nation is to-day suffering to its depths, and they came together to devise means whereby they could help the country in its great calamity. I respect the woman who opposed this resolution, for daring to say so much. She says that it is an Anti-Slavery Convention that is in session. So it is, and something more. (Applause). She says it is a Woman's Rights Convention. So it is, and even more than that; it is a World's Convention. (Applause). Another woman (I rejoice to hear that lisping, foreign tongue) says that our sphere is so narrow that we should be careful to keep within it. All honor to her, that she dared to say even that. I recognize for myself no narrow sphere. (Applause). Where you may work, my brother, I may work. I would willingly stand upon the battle-field, and would be glad to receive the balls in my person, if in that way I could do more for my country's good than in any other. I recognize no right of any man or of any woman to say that I should not stand there. Our sphere is not narrow—it is broad.
Lucy N. Coleman, from Rochester, N. Y.: First, I want to mention something that’s a bit off-topic from what I'm thinking about right now. It seems like some of the women here are overly sensitive regarding the anti-slavery message in the resolutions. I find it hard to believe that a group of women could be on this platform without feeling some of that anti-slavery spirit and without showing, in some way, their support for the advancement of human rights. It’s the Anti-Slavery women and the Women’s Rights women who organized this meeting and who have been the most effective in this movement. They are deeply pained that our nation is suffering so greatly today, and they've come together to find ways to help the country through its crisis. I respect the woman who opposed this resolution for having the courage to voice her opinion. She says we are holding an Anti-Slavery Convention. That’s true, and it’s also something more. (Applause). She says it’s a Women’s Rights Convention. That’s true too, and even more; it’s a World Convention. (Applause). Another woman (I’m glad to hear that gently spoken, foreign voice) suggests our role is so limited that we should stay within our boundaries. I honor her for saying even that. I don’t see a limit for myself. (Applause). Where you can work, my brother, I can work. I would gladly stand on the battlefield and would be willing to take the hits if that would allow me to do more for my country than anything else. I do not acknowledge any right of any man or woman to tell me that I shouldn’t be there. Our role is not limited—it is expansive.
In reference to this resolution, Mrs. Halleck thinks it might be well to leave out woman. No, no. Do you remember, friends, long, long ago here in New York, an Anti-Slavery convention broke up in high dudgeon, because a woman was put upon a committee? But that Anti-Slavery Society, notwithstanding those persons who felt so sensitive withdrew from it, has lived thirty years, and to-day it has the honor of being credited as the cause of this war. Perhaps if the principle which was then[Pg 63] at stake—that a woman had a right to be on a committee—had been waived, from the very fact that the principle of right was overruled, that Society would have failed. I would not yield one iota, one particle, to this clamor for compromise. Be it understood that it is a Woman's Rights matter; for the Woman's Rights women have the same right to dictate to a Loyal League that the Anti-Woman's Rights women have, and the side that is strongest will carry the resolution, of course. But do not withdraw it. Do not say, "We will take it away because it is objectionable."
In regards to this resolution, Mrs. Halleck thinks it might be better to exclude women. No, no. Do you remember, friends, way back in New York, when an Anti-Slavery convention ended in outrage because a woman was appointed to a committee? But that Anti-Slavery Society, despite those who felt so offended leaving it, has existed for thirty years, and today it's recognized as a catalyst for this war. Maybe if the principle that a woman had the right to be on a committee had been ignored at that time, due to the fact that the principle of right was dismissed, that Society would have failed. I would not give in even a little, not at all, to this demand for compromise. Make it clear that this is a Women's Rights issue; because the Women’s Rights advocates have just as much right to influence a Loyal League as those against Women's Rights do, and the side with the most support will obviously win the resolution. But don’t back down. Don’t say, "We’ll remove it because it’s controversial."
I want the people to understand that this Loyal League—because it is a Loyal League—must of necessity bring in Anti-Slavery and Woman's Rights. (Applause). Is it possible that any of you believe that there is such a being in this country to-day as a loyal man or woman who is not anti-slavery to the backbone? (Applause). Neither is there a loyal man or woman whose intellect is clear enough to take in a broad, large idea, who is not to the very core a Woman's Rights man or woman. (Applause).
I want people to understand that this Loyal League—because it is a Loyal League—must inevitably support Anti-Slavery and Women's Rights. (Applause). Is it possible that any of you believe there’s such a thing as a loyal man or woman in this country today who isn’t completely anti-slavery? (Applause). Likewise, there’s not a loyal man or woman with a clear enough mind to grasp a big, broad idea who isn’t deeply committed to Women’s Rights. (Applause).
Mrs. Hoyt: As I have said before, I am not opposed to Anti-Slavery. I stand here an Abolitionist from the earliest childhood, and a stronger anti-slavery woman lives not on the soil of America. (Applause). I voted Yea on the anti-slavery resolution, and I would vote it ten times over. But, at the same time, in the West, which I represent, there is a very strong objection to Woman's Rights; in fact, this Woman's Rights matter is odious to some of us from the manner in which it has been conducted; not that we object to the philosophy—we believe in the philosophy—but object to this matter being tacked on to a purely loyal convention.... I will make one more statement which bears upon the point which I have been trying to make. I have never before spoken except in private meetings, and therefore must ask the indulgence of the audience. The women of Madison, Wisconsin, feeling the necessity and importance of doing something more than women were doing to assist the Government in this struggle, organized a Ladies' Union League, which has been in operation some time, and is very efficient.
Mrs. Hoyt: As I’ve said before, I'm not against Anti-Slavery. I've been an Abolitionist since childhood, and there's no stronger anti-slavery woman in America than me. (Applause). I voted in favor of the anti-slavery resolution, and I would vote for it ten more times if I could. However, in the West, which I represent, there’s a strong opposition to Woman’s Rights; in fact, some of us find the way this Woman’s Rights issue has been handled to be quite offensive. It’s not that we disagree with the philosophy—we support it—but we object to it being attached to a purely loyal convention... I want to make one more point related to what I’ve been saying. I’ve only spoken at private meetings before, so I ask for the audience's patience. The women of Madison, Wisconsin, seeing the need to do more than what women were already doing to help the Government in this struggle, formed a Ladies' Union League, which has been active for some time and is very effective.
A Voice:—What are they doing? Please state.
A Voice:—What are they doing? Please tell me.
Mrs. Hoyt: In Madison we had a very large and flourishing "Soldiers' Aid Society." We were the headquarters for that part of the State. A great many ladies worked in our Aid Society, and assisted us, who utterly refused to join with the Loyal League, because, they said, it would damage the Aid Society. We recognized that fact, and kept it purely distinct as a Ladies' Loyal League, for the promotion of the loyal sentiment of the North, and to reach the soldiers in the field by the most direct and practical means which were in our power. We have a great many very flourishing Ladies' Loyal Leagues throughout the West, and we have kept them sacred from Anti-Slavery, Woman's Rights, Temperance, and everything else, good though they may be. In our League we have three objects in view. The first is, retrenchment in household expenses, to the end that the material resources of the Government may be, so far as possible, applied to the entire and thorough vindication of its authority. Second, to strengthen the loyal sentiment of the people at home, and instil a deeper love of the national flag. The third and most important[Pg 64] object is, to write to the soldiers in the field, thus reaching nearly every private in the army, to encourage and stimulate him in the way that ladies know how to do. I state again, it is not an Anti-Slavery objection. I will vote for every Anti-Slavery movement in this Convention. I object to the Woman's Rights resolutions, and nothing else.
Mrs. Hoyt: In Madison, we had a large and thriving "Soldiers' Aid Society." We were the headquarters for that part of the state. Many women worked in our Aid Society and supported us, but they refused to join the Loyal League because they believed it would harm the Aid Society. We acknowledged this and kept it completely separate as a Ladies' Loyal League, aimed at promoting the loyal sentiment of the North and reaching soldiers in the field through the most direct and practical means available to us. We have numerous successful Ladies' Loyal Leagues throughout the West, and we have kept them focused solely on our mission, away from Anti-Slavery, Women's Rights, Temperance, or any other issues, regardless of how worthwhile they may be. In our League, we have three main objectives. First, to cut back on household expenses so that the government’s resources can be used as much as possible to fully uphold its authority. Second, to strengthen the loyal sentiment of people at home and instill a deeper love for the national flag. The third and most important[Pg 64] objective is to write to the soldiers in the field, connecting with nearly every private in the army, to encourage and motivate them in the way that women know how to do. I want to clarify again that this is not an Anti-Slavery objection. I will support every Anti-Slavery movement in this Convention. My only objection is to the Women's Rights resolutions, and nothing else.
Ernestine L. Rose: It is exceedingly amusing to hear persons talk about throwing out Woman's Rights, when, if it had not been for Woman's Rights, that lady would not have had the courage to stand here and say what she did. (Applause). Pray, what means "loyal"? Loyal means to be true to one's highest conviction. Justice, like charity, begins at home. It is because we are loyal to truth, loyal to justice, loyal to right, loyal to humanity, that woman is included in that resolution. Now, what does this discussion mean? The lady acknowledges that it is not against Woman's Rights itself; she is for Woman's Rights. We are here to endeavor to help the cause of human rights and human freedom. We ought not to be afraid. You may depend upon it, if there are any of those who are called copperheads—but I don't like to call names, for even a copperhead is better than no head at all—(laughter)—if there are any copperheads here, I am perfectly sure they will object to this whole Convention; and if we want to consult them, let us adjourn sine die. If we are loyal to our highest convictions, we need not care how far it may lead. For truth, like water, will find its own level. No, friends, in the name of consistency let us not wrangle here simply because we associate the name of woman with human justice and human rights. Although I always like to see opposition on any subject, for it elicits truth much better than any speech, still I think it will be exceedingly inconsistent if, because some women out in the West are opposed to the Woman's Rights movement—though at the same time they take advantage of it—that therefore we shall throw it out of this resolution.
Ernestine L. Rose: It's really amusing to hear people talk about getting rid of Women's Rights when, if it weren't for Women's Rights, that woman wouldn't have had the courage to stand here and say what she did. (Applause). By the way, what does "loyal" mean? Loyal means being true to one's highest beliefs. Justice, like charity, starts at home. It's because we're loyal to truth, loyal to justice, loyal to what's right, loyal to humanity, that women are included in that resolution. So, what does this discussion really mean? The woman acknowledges that it's not against Women's Rights itself; she is for Women's Rights. We're here to try to support the cause of human rights and human freedom. We shouldn't be afraid. You can be sure that if there are any people called copperheads—but I don’t like to name names, since even a copperhead is better than having no head at all—(laughter)—if there are any copperheads here, I’m certain they’ll object to this entire Convention; and if we want to consider their opinions, let’s adjourn sine die. If we are loyal to our highest beliefs, we shouldn't care about how far it may take us. Because truth, like water, will find its own level. No, friends, in the spirit of consistency, let’s not argue here just because we associate the name of woman with human justice and human rights. While I always appreciate opposition on any topic, as it brings out truth much better than any speech, I still think it’s very inconsistent to throw out this movement simply because some women out West are against Women's Rights—though they still benefit from it.
Mrs. Spence, of New York: I didn't come to this meeting to participate—only to listen. I don't claim to be a Northerner or a Southerner; but I claim to be a human being, and to belong to the human family (Applause). I belong to no sect or creed of politics or religion; I stand as an individual, defending the rights of every one as far as I can see them. It seems to me we have met here to come to some unity of action. If we attempt to bring in religious, political, or moral questions, we all must of necessity differ. We came here hoping to be inspired by each other to lay some plan by which we can unite in practical action. I have not heard such a proposition made; but I anticipate that it will be. (Hear, hear). Then if we are to unite on some proposition which is to be presented, it seems to me that our resolutions should be practical and directed to the main business. Let the object of the meeting be unity of action and expression in behalf of what we feel to be the highest right, our highest idea of liberty.
Mrs. Spence, of New York: I didn't come to this meeting to take part—only to listen. I don’t consider myself a Northerner or a Southerner; I consider myself a human being, part of the human family (Applause). I don’t belong to any specific political or religious group; I stand as an individual, advocating for everyone’s rights as far as I can see them. It seems to me we’ve gathered here to find some common ground for action. If we start bringing in religious, political, or moral issues, we’re all going to have different opinions. We came here hoping to inspire each other to come up with a plan for united, practical action. I haven't heard such a suggestion yet, but I expect that it will come. (Hear, hear). So if we’re going to come together on some proposal that will be put forward, I believe our resolutions should be practical and focused on the main goal. Let the purpose of this meeting be to unite in action and expression for what we believe to be the highest right, our greatest idea of liberty.
The President (Lucy Stone): Every good cause can afford to be just. The lady from Wisconsin, who differs from some of us here, says she is an Anti-Slavery woman. We ought to believe her. She accepts the principles of the Woman's Rights movement, but she does not like the way in which it has been carried on. We ought to believe her. It is not, then,[Pg 65] that she objects to the idea of the equality of women and negroes, but because she does not wish to have anything "tacked on" to the Loyal League, that to the mass of people does not seem to belong there. She seems to me to stand precisely in the position of those good people just at the close of the war of the Revolution. The people then, as now, had their hearts aching with the memory of their buried dead. They had had years of war from which they had garnered out sorrows as well as hopes; and when they came to establish a Union, they found that one black, unmitigated curse of slavery rooted in the soil. Some men said, "We can have no true Union where there is not justice to the negro. The black man is a human being, like us, with the same equal rights." They had given to the world the Declaration of Independence, grand and brave and beautiful. They said, "How can we form a true Union?" Some people representing the class that Mrs. Hoyt represents, answered, "Let us have a Union. We are weak; we have been beset for seven long years; do not let us meddle with the negro question. What we are for is a Union; let us have a Union at all hazards." There were earnest men, men of talent, who could speak well and earnestly, and they persuaded the others to silence. So they said nothing about slavery, and let the wretched monster live.
The President (Lucy Stone): Every good cause deserves to be just. The woman from Wisconsin, who has a different opinion than some of us here, identifies as an Anti-Slavery advocate. We should take her word for it. She embraces the principles of the Woman's Rights movement, but she disagrees with how it's been executed. We should respect her viewpoint. Her issue isn't with the idea of equal rights for women and Black individuals, but rather that she doesn't want anything added to the Loyal League that doesn't seem relevant to most people. She reminds me of those good folks right after the Revolutionary War. Back then, as now, people carried the pain of their fallen loved ones. They had gone through years of conflict, experiencing both grief and hope; when it came time to build a Union, they discovered one persistent and terrible curse of slavery entrenched in their land. Some asserted, "We can't have a true Union without justice for Black people. The Black man is just as human as we are, with the same equal rights." They had presented the world with the Declaration of Independence—noble and inspiring. They asked, "How can we create a genuine Union?" Some individuals—like those represented by Mrs. Hoyt—responded, "Let's just focus on forming a Union. We’re weak; we've been enduring hardships for seven long years; let’s not get involved with the issue of slavery. What matters to us is a Union; let's secure that at any cost." There were sincere men, talented speakers who expressed themselves passionately, and they convinced the others to remain silent. So they chose not to mention slavery and allowed the horrific injustice to continue.
To-day, over all our land, the unburied bones of our fathers and sons and brothers tell the sad mistake that those men made when long ago The babes we bear in anguish and carry in our arms are not ours. The few rights that we have, have been wrung from the Legislature by t they left this one great wrong in the land. They could not accomplish good by passing over a wrong. If the right of one single human being is to be disregarded by us, we fail in our loyalty to the country. All over this land women have no political existence. Laws pass over our heads that we can not unmake. Our property is taken from us without our consent. The babes we bear in anguish and carry in our arms are not ours. The few rights that we have, have been wrung from the Legislature by the Woman's Rights movement. We come to-day to say to those who are administering our Government and fighting our battles, "While you are going through this valley of humiliation, do not forget that you must be true alike to the women and the negroes." We can never be truly "loyal" if we leave them out. Leave them out, and we take the same backward step that our fathers took when they left out slavery. If justice to the negro and to woman is right, it can not hurt our loyalty to the country and the Union. If it is not right, let it go out of the way; but if it is right, there is no occasion that we should reject it, or ignore it. We make the statement that the Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and that all human beings have equal rights. This is not an ism—it is simply an assertion that we shall be true to the highest truth.
Today, across our country, the unburied bones of our fathers, sons, and brothers remind us of the tragic mistake those men made long ago. The babies we bear in pain and hold in our arms are not truly ours. The limited rights we do have have been wrested from the Legislature, yet they left this one significant injustice in place. They couldn’t achieve good by ignoring a wrong. If we choose to disregard the rights of even a single human being, we fail in our loyalty to our country. Throughout this nation, women have no political status. Laws are enacted over us that we have no power to change. Our property is taken from us without our consent. The babies we bear in pain and hold in our arms are not truly ours. The few rights we possess have been obtained through the Women’s Rights movement. We come today to remind those in power and those fighting our battles, "While you navigate this valley of humiliation, do not forget that you must remain true to both women and African Americans." We can never be genuinely "loyal" if we exclude them. Exclude them, and we take the same regressive step our ancestors took when they overlooked slavery. If justice for African Americans and for women is right, it cannot undermine our loyalty to the country and the Union. If it’s not right, let it be disregarded; but if it is right, there’s no reason we should reject or ignore it. We assert that the government’s legitimate powers come from the consent of the governed, and that all human beings have equal rights. This is not an ism — it is simply a declaration that we will remain true to the highest truth.
A man in the audience: The question was asked, as I entered this house, "Is it right for women to meet here and intermeddle in our public affairs?" It is the greatest possible absurdity for women to stand on that platform and talk of loyalty to a Government in which nine-tenths of the politicians of the land say they have no right to interfere, and still oppose Woman's Rights. The very act of standing there is an endorsement of Woman's Rights.[Pg 66]
A man in the audience: When I walked into this place, someone asked, "Is it appropriate for women to gather here and get involved in our public issues?" It's completely ridiculous for women to be on that stage discussing loyalty to a Government where most politicians claim they have no right to intervene, yet still oppose Women's Rights. Simply being there is a validation of Women's Rights.[Pg 66]
A voice: I believe this is a woman's meeting. Men have no right to speak here.
A voice: I think this is a meeting for women. Men shouldn't speak here.
The gentleman continued: It is on woman more than on man that the real evils of this war settle. It is not the soldier on the battle-field that suffers most; it is the wife, the mother, the daughter. (Applause. Cries of "Question, question").
The gentleman continued: The true burdens of this war fall more on women than on men. It's not the soldier on the battlefield who suffers the most; it's the wife, the mother, the daughter. (Applause. Cries of "Question, question").
A voice: You are not a woman, sit down.
A voice: You're not a woman, take a seat.
Susan B. Anthony: Some of us who sit upon this platform have many a time been clamored down, and told that we had no right to speak, and that we were out of our place in public meetings; far be it from us, when women assemble, and a man has a thought in his soul, burning for utterance, to retaliate upon him. (Laughter and applause).
Susan B. Anthony: Some of us on this stage have often been shouted down and told that we had no right to speak and that we didn't belong in public meetings; we would never dream of pushing back when women gather and a man has something important to say that he’s eager to express. (Laughter and applause).
The resolution was then put to vote.
The resolution was then put to a vote.
A Voice: Allow me to inquire if men have a right to vote on this question?
A Voice: Can I ask if men have the right to vote on this issue?
The President: I suppose men who are used to business know that they should not vote here. We give them the privilege of speaking.
The President: I guess guys who are used to business know that they really shouldn’t vote here. We allow them the chance to speak.
The resolution was carried by a large majority.
The resolution passed by a wide margin.
Susan B. Anthony: The resolution recommending the practical work, has not yet been prepared. We have a grand platform on which to stand, and I hope we shall be able to present a plan of work equally grand. But, Mrs. President, if we should fail in doing this, we shall not fail to enunciate the principles of democracy and republicanism which underlie the structure of a free government. When the heads and hearts of the women of the North are fully imbued with the true idea, their hands will find a way to secure its accomplishment.
Susan B. Anthony: The resolution recommending practical work hasn't been prepared yet. We have an impressive platform to build on, and I hope we'll be able to present an equally impressive plan. But, Mrs. President, even if we don't succeed in doing this, we will definitely make clear the principles of democracy and republicanism that form the foundation of a free government. When the minds and hearts of the women in the North truly embrace this idea, they'll find a way to make it happen.
There is evidently very great earnestness on the part of all present to settle upon some practical work. I therefore ask that the women from every State of the Union, who are delegates here from Loyal Leagues and Aid Societies, shall retire, at the close of this meeting, to the lecture-room of this church, and there we will endeavor to fix upon the best possible plan we can gather from the counsels of the many. I hope this enthusiasm may be directed to good and legitimate ends, and not allowed to evaporate into thin air. I hope we shall aid greatly in the establishment of this Government on the everlasting foundation of justice to all.
There is clearly a strong desire from everyone here to focus on some practical work. So, I ask the women from every State in the Union, who are delegates representing Loyal Leagues and Aid Societies, to meet after this meeting in the church’s lecture room. There, we will try to come up with the best possible plan based on everyone’s input. I hope this enthusiasm leads to meaningful and genuine outcomes and doesn’t just fade away. I hope we can significantly contribute to establishing this Government on a solid foundation of justice for everyone.
BUSINESS MEETING.
The lecture-room was crowded with representatives from the different States—Susan B. Anthony in the chair. There was a general expression in favor of forming a Woman's Loyal National League, which ended in the adoption of the following resolution:
The lecture room was packed with representatives from various states, with Susan B. Anthony presiding. There was a widespread agreement on creating a Woman's Loyal National League, which resulted in the adoption of the following resolution:
Resolved, That we, loyal women of the nation, assembled in convention in New York, this 14th day of May, 1863, do hereby pledge ourselves one to another in a Loyal League, to give support to the Government in so far as it makes the war for freedom.
Resolved, That we, loyal women of the nation, gathered in convention in New York, this 14th day of May, 1863, do hereby commit ourselves to each other in a Loyal League, to support the Government as long as it fights for freedom.
This pledge was signed by nearly every woman present. Mrs. Stanton was elected president unanimously, and Miss Anthony, Secretary. Many women spoke ably and eloquently; women who had[Pg 67] never before heard their own voices in a public meeting, discussed nice points of law and constitution in a manner that would have done credit to any legislative assembly. A deep religious tone of loyalty to God and Freedom pervaded the entire meeting. It was an occasion not soon to be forgotten. Women of all ages were assembled there, from the matron of threescore years and ten to the fair girl whose interest in the war had brought to her a premature sadness and high resolve. But of all who mourned the loss of husbands, brothers, sons, and lovers, no word of fear, regret, or doubt was uttered. All declared themselves ready for any sacrifice, and expressed an unwavering faith in the glorious future of a true republic. The interest in the meeting kept up until so late an hour that it was decided to adjourn, to meet the next afternoon.
This pledge was signed by almost every woman present. Mrs. Stanton was elected president unanimously, and Miss Anthony was named Secretary. Many women spoke skillfully and passionately; women who had[Pg 67] never before heard their own voices in a public setting discussed legal and constitutional matters in a way that would have honored any legislative assembly. A profound sense of loyalty to God and Freedom filled the entire meeting. It was an event not likely to be forgotten soon. Women of all ages gathered there, from the matron in her seventies to the young girl whose interest in the war had brought her an early sense of sorrow and strong determination. But among all those who grieved the loss of husbands, brothers, sons, and lovers, no words of fear, regret, or doubt were spoken. Everyone expressed their readiness for any sacrifice and showed unwavering faith in the bright future of a true republic. The enthusiasm for the meeting continued late into the night, leading to a decision to adjourn and reconvene the next afternoon.
EVENING SESSION.
The evening session was held in Cooper Institute, Mrs. Stanton presiding. An address to the President was read by Miss Anthony, which was subsequently adopted and sent to him.
The evening session took place at Cooper Institute, with Mrs. Stanton leading the meeting. Miss Anthony read an address to the President, which was later approved and sent to him.
The Loyal Women of the Country to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
The Loyal Women of the Country to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
Having heard many complaints of the want of enthusiasm among Northern women in the war, we deemed it fitting to call a National Convention. From every free State, we have received the most hearty responses of interest in each onward step of the Government as it approaches the idea of a true republic. From the letters received, and the numbers assembled here to-day, we can with confidence address you in the name of the loyal women of the North.
Having heard many complaints about the lack of enthusiasm among Northern women for the war, we felt it was appropriate to call a National Convention. From every free State, we have received enthusiastic responses showing interest in each step the Government takes toward realizing a true republic. Based on the letters we've received and the number of people gathered here today, we can confidently speak to you on behalf of the loyal women of the North.
We come not to criticise or complain. Not for ourselves or our friends do we ask redress of specific grievances, or posts of honor or emolument. We speak from no considerations of mere material gain; but, inspired by true patriotism, in this dark hour of our nation's destiny, we come to pledge the loyal women of the Republic to freedom and our country. We come to strengthen you with earnest words of sympathy and encouragement. We come to thank you for your proclamation, in which the nineteenth century seems to echo back the Declaration of Seventy-six. Our fathers had a vision of the sublime idea of liberty, equality, and fraternity; but they failed to climb the heights that with anointed eyes they saw. To us, their children, belongs the work to build up the living reality of what they conceived and uttered.
We’re not here to criticize or complain. We’re not asking for compensation for ourselves or our friends, nor for positions of honor or pay. We’re not motivated by simple material gain; instead, driven by genuine patriotism, during this critical moment in our nation’s history, we’re here to commit the loyal women of the Republic to freedom and our country. We’re here to support you with heartfelt words of sympathy and encouragement. We want to thank you for your proclamation, which feels like the nineteenth century reflecting the Declaration of 1776. Our forefathers envisioned the noble ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity; however, they didn’t reach the heights that they saw with clear eyes. It’s our responsibility, as their descendants, to realize the living truth of what they dreamed and spoke about.
It is not our mission to criticise the past. Nations, like individuals, must blunder and repent. It is not wise to waste one energy in vain regret, but from each failure rise up with renewed conscience and courage for nobler action. The follies and faults of yesterday we cast aside as the old garments we have outgrown. Born anew to freedom, slave creeds and codes and constitutions must now all pass away. "For men do not put new wine into old bottles, else the bottles break, and[Pg 68] the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish; but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved."
It’s not our job to criticize the past. Just like individuals, nations need to make mistakes and learn from them. It’s pointless to waste energy on regret, but we should rise from each failure with a refreshed sense of conscience and the courage for better actions. We let go of the foolishness and errors of yesterday like old clothes that no longer fit us. Born anew to freedom, outdated beliefs, rules, and laws must now disappear. "For people do not put new wine into old bottles, else the bottles break, and[Pg 68] the wine spills out, and the bottles are ruined; but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved."
Our special thanks are due to you, that by your Proclamation two millions of women are freed from the foulest bondage humanity ever suffered. Slavery for man is bad enough, but the refinements of cruelty must ever fall on the mothers of the oppressed race, defrauded of all the rights of the family relation, and violated in the most holy instincts of their nature. A mother's life is bound up in that of her child. There center all her hopes and ambition. But the slave-mother, in her degradation, rejoices not in the future promise of her daughter, for she knows by experience what her sad fate must be. No pen can describe the unutterable agony of that mother whose past, present, and future are all wrapped in darkness; who knows the crown of thorns she wears must press her daughter's brow; who knows that the wine-press she now treads, unwatched, those tender feet must tread alone. For, by the law of slavery, "the child follows the condition of the mother."
Our special thanks go to you for your Proclamation, which has freed two million women from the worst kind of bondage humanity has ever known. Slavery is terrible enough for men, but the cruelty is especially harsh on the mothers of the oppressed race, stripped of all rights in family relationships and violated in the most sacred instincts of their nature. A mother’s life is intertwined with her child’s. All her hopes and dreams are focused there. But the enslaved mother, in her suffering, cannot find joy in her daughter's future because she knows from experience the sad fate that awaits her. No words can capture the indescribable pain of a mother whose past, present, and future are engulfed in darkness; who realizes that the crown of thorns she wears will also press down on her daughter's head; who understands that the wine-press she currently endures, those delicate feet will have to navigate alone. Because, according to the law of slavery, "the child follows the condition of the mother."
By your act, the family, that great conservator of national virtue and strength, has been restored to millions of humble homes, around whose altars coming generations shall magnify and bless the name of Abraham Lincoln. By a mere stroke of the pen you have emancipated millions from a condition of wholesale concubinage. We now ask you to finish the work by declaring that nowhere under our national flag shall the motherhood of any race plead in vain for justice and protection. So long as one slave breathes in this Republic, we drag the chain with him. God has so linked the race, man to man, that all must rise or fall together. Our history exemplifies this law. It was not enough that we at the North abolished slavery for ourselves, declared freedom of speech and the press, built up churches, colleges, and free schools, studied the science of morals, government, and economy, dignified labor, amassed wealth, whitened the sea with our commerce, and commanded the respect and admiration of the nations of the earth, so long as the South, by the natural proclivities of slavery, was sapping the very foundations of our national life....
By your actions, the family, which is such an important guardian of national values and strength, has been revitalized in millions of modest homes, where future generations will honor and celebrate the name of Abraham Lincoln. With just a signature, you have freed millions from a state of widespread exploitation. Now we ask you to complete this mission by declaring that nowhere under our national flag will the motherhood of any race plead for justice and protection in vain. As long as one person is enslaved in this Republic, we are all bound by those chains. God has connected humanity in such a way that we all must rise or fall together. Our history demonstrates this truth. It wasn't enough for us in the North to abolish slavery for ourselves, declare freedom of speech and the press, establish churches, colleges, and public schools, study ethics, governance, and economics, elevate the dignity of labor, accumulate wealth, expand our trade across the seas, and earn the respect and admiration of nations, while the South, through the inherent problems of slavery, was undermining the very foundation of our national existence...
You are the first President ever borne on the shoulders of freedom into the position you now fill. Your predecessors owed their elevation to the slave oligarchy, and in serving slavery they did but obey their masters. In your election, Northern freemen threw off the yoke. And with you rests the responsibility that our necks shall never bow again. At no time in the annals of the nation has there been a more auspicious moment to retrieve the one false step of the fathers in their concessions to slavery. The Constitution has been repudiated, and the compact broken by the Southern traitors now in arms. The firing of the first gun on Sumter released the North from all constitutional obligations to slavery. It left the Government, for the first time in our history, free to carry out the Declaration of our Revolutionary fathers, and made us in fact what we have ever claimed to be, a nation of freemen.
You are the first President to be lifted into this role by the force of freedom. Your predecessors gained their positions through the slave-owning elite, and in supporting slavery, they were just following their masters. In your election, Northern citizens broke free from oppression. The responsibility now lies with you to ensure that we never submit again. There has never been a better time in our nation's history to correct the mistakes of our founders in their compromises with slavery. The Constitution has been rejected, and the agreement shattered by the Southern rebels currently in arms. The firing of the first shot at Sumter freed the North from any constitutional obligations to slavery. It allowed the Government, for the first time in our history, to fulfill the vision of our Revolutionary founders, truly making us what we have always claimed to be: a nation of free people.
"The Union as it was"—a compromise between barbarism and civilization—can never be restored, for the opposing principles of freedom and slavery can not exist together. Liberty is life, and every form of[Pg 69] government yet tried proves that slavery is death. In obedience to this law, our Republic, divided and distracted by the collisions of caste and class, is tottering to its base, and can only be reconstructed on the sure foundations of impartial freedom to all men. The war in which we are involved is not the result of party or accident, but a forward step in the progress of the race never to be retraced. Revolution is no time for temporizing or diplomacy. In a radical upheaving, the people demand eternal principles to stand upon.
"The Union as it was"—a compromise between barbarism and civilization—can never be restored, because the opposing principles of freedom and slavery cannot coexist. Liberty is life, and every form of[Pg 69] government ever tried shows that slavery is death. Following this truth, our Republic, divided and distracted by clashes of caste and class, is wobbling to its foundation, and can only be rebuilt on the solid ground of equal freedom for all men. The war we’re in isn’t the result of party politics or chance, but rather a necessary step forward in the progress of humanity that cannot be undone. In a time of revolution, there’s no room for indecision or diplomacy. During such a radical change, the people demand solid principles to rely on.
Northern power and loyalty can never be measured until the purpose of the war be liberty to man; for a lasting enthusiasm is ever based on a grand idea, and unity of action demands a definite end. At this time our greatest need is not in men or money, valiant generals or brilliant victories, but in a consistent policy, based on the principle that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." And the nation waits for you to say that there is no power under our declaration of rights, nor under any laws, human or divine, by which free men can be made slaves; and therefore that your pledge to the slaves is irrevocable, and shall be redeemed.
Northern power and loyalty can never truly be evaluated until the purpose of the war is the freedom of mankind; because lasting enthusiasm always relies on a grand idea, and unity in action requires a clear goal. Right now, our greatest need isn’t more men or money, brave generals or glorious victories, but a solid policy based on the belief that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." The nation is waiting for you to declare that there is no power under our bill of rights, or any laws, whether human or divine, that can turn free people into slaves; and therefore, your promise to the slaves is unbreakable and must be fulfilled.
If it be true, as it is said, that Northern women lack enthusiasm in this war, the fault rests with those who have confused and confounded its policy. The page of history glows with incidents of self-sacrifice by woman in the hour of her country's danger. Fear not that the daughters of this Republic will count any sacrifice too great to insure the triumph of freedom. Let the men who wield the nation's power be wise, brave, and magnanimous, and its women will be prompt to meet the duties of the hour with devotion and heroism.
If it’s true, as people say, that Northern women lack enthusiasm for this war, the blame lies with those who have muddled its policies. History is filled with examples of women selflessly sacrificing for their country in times of danger. Don’t worry that the daughters of this Republic will consider any sacrifice too great to ensure the victory of freedom. If the men in power are wise, brave, and generous, the women will be quick to rise to the occasion with dedication and courage.
When Fremont on the Western breeze proclaimed a day of jubilee to the bondmen within our gates, the women of the nation echoed back a loud Amen. When Hunter freed a million men, and gave them arms to fight our battles, justice and mercy crowned that act, and tyrants stood appalled. When Butler, in the chief city of the Southern despotism, hung a traitor, we felt a glow of pride; for that one act proved that we had a Government, and one man brave enough to administer its laws. And when Burnside would banish Vallandigham to the Dry Tortugas, let the sentence be approved, and the nation will ring with plaudits. Your Proclamation gives you immortality. Be just, and share your glory with men like these who wait to execute your will.
When Fremont announced a day of celebration for the enslaved people within our borders, the women of the nation responded with a loud Amen. When Hunter freed a million individuals and armed them to fight our battles, justice and compassion blessed that action, leaving tyrants in shock. When Butler executed a traitor in the main city of Southern oppression, we felt a surge of pride; that single act showed that we had a Government and a man brave enough to enforce its laws. And when Burnside decided to send Vallandigham to the Dry Tortugas, let the decision be supported, and the nation will applaud. Your Proclamation gives you everlasting recognition. Be fair, and share your glory with men like these who are ready to carry out your wishes.
In behalf of the Women's National Loyal League,
In support of the Women's National Loyal League,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, President.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, President.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary.
Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell: Possibly there maybe nations, like individuals, that are without definite ideas or purposes. They sprang into being by accident, and they continue to live by the sufferance of circumstances. Our American Republic is not of this type. We were born to the heritage of one great idea; we were created by it and for it, and it is mightier than we; it must annihilate us, or it must establish us a nation as lasting as the ages.
Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell: There might be nations, just like people, that lack clear ideas or goals. They came into existence by chance and continue to survive because of their circumstances. Our American Republic isn’t like that. We were born from one powerful idea; we were made by it and for it, and that idea is stronger than us; it will either destroy us or establish us as a nation that lasts through the ages.
Our ante-revolutionary statesmen were dissatisfied with an inadequate, partial, unjust representation. The thought grew in them till it developed the broad principle of self-government by the people. They perceived[Pg 70] and asserted that truth; they fought for it, and died or lived for it, as the case might be. So they constructed this great Republic, grounding it firmly upon a deep and wide democracy. Its frame-work was essentially democratic, but there were a few great beams and joists, and plenty of paint and mortar used, which were as purely aristocratic.
Our pre-revolution leaders were unhappy with a representation that was inadequate, incomplete, and unfair. This dissatisfaction grew in them until it formed the core idea of self-government by the people. They recognized[Pg 70] and claimed that truth; they fought for it and either died or lived for it, depending on the situation. They built this great Republic, establishing it firmly on a broad and deep democracy. Its foundation was primarily democratic, but there were some significant beams and supports, along with plenty of paint and mortar, that were distinctly aristocratic.
We, here at the North, have been accustomed to look at the strength of the foundations, and of the consistent massive frame-work; they, at the South, admired the incongruous ornaments and decorations, and they did not forget any of the exceptional timbers. We were shocked when the great structure seemed ready to tumble about our ears; they expected it all the time, and were working for it, ready to perish in the general downfall, if that were inevitable. I have seen a drop of water spread over a small orifice in a layer of melting ice, which was brilliant red in color to me, but it was the intensest blue to my friend, who was standing at my side. The moral vision is quite as largely dependent upon the angle at which it receives its rays of reflected light. North and South represent the extremes of the moral spectrum. The equalizing of labor and capital, which is a beautiful violet to us, is a very angry red to them; and the soft-toned hues of their system of servitude are crimson with blood-guiltiness to ourselves. If we stood where the perfect and undivided sunbeams could fall upon us, we should see all men under the common radiance of that pure white light, of which Providence has an unlimited supply.
We, here in the North, have always focused on the strength of the foundations and the solid framework; they in the South appreciated the mismatched ornaments and decorations, never overlooking any of the unique timbers. We were stunned when the great structure seemed on the verge of collapse; they anticipated it all along and were preparing for it, ready to suffer in the inevitable downfall if that were the case. I’ve seen a drop of water spread over a small opening in a layer of melting ice, which appeared bright red to me, but was the deepest blue to my friend standing next to me. Our moral perspective is heavily influenced by the angle from which we receive our reflections of light. North and South represent the extremes of the moral spectrum. The balance of labor and capital, which looks like a beautiful violet to us, appears as a very angry red to them; while the soft tones of their system of servitude appear blood-red and guilt-ridden to us. If we stood where the perfect, unbroken sunlight could reach us, we would see all people under the unified glow of that pure white light, which Providence has an endless supply of.
No more unanimity of sentiment or principle existed among our own people in the war of the Revolution, than in this. Democracy, asserting its rights, brought on the conflict then, though aristocracy, goaded by the instinct of self-preservation and self-interest, joined hands and aided it to its consummation. Patriotism grew in the hearts of each, and held us together as a nation for about eighty years; but the subordinate antagonism, tortured by its unnatural alliance during all those years, now in turn strikes also for independence. Predominance, precedence, pre-eminence, might have satisfied it for a time; but, from the nature of our institutions, that was impossible. It encroached at every point, and was generally rewarded for its self-assertion; but it was inherently and constitutionally subordinate, and must have remained so forever in the federation of the United States. It struck for independence, and it did well! It did all it could do, if it would not die inanely. One must always admire that instinct of the grub which leads it to weave its own winding-sheet, and lie down fearlessly in its sepulcher, preparatory to its resurrection as a butterfly; but immeasurably more to be admired is the calculating courage of men who are ready to stake their all upon any issue—even upon one so mistaken, so false, so partial to one class and so unjust to another, as the cause of the slave-holders. Every earnest purpose must have its own baptism of blessings.
No more agreement in feelings or principles existed among our people during the Revolutionary War than there is now. Democracy, standing up for its rights, initiated the conflict then, even though aristocracy, driven by the need for self-preservation and self-interest, teamed up with it to see it through. Patriotism grew in everyone's hearts and kept us united as a nation for about eighty years; however, the underlying conflict, burdened by its unnatural alliance all those years, now also fights for independence. Being dominant, having precedence, or being outstanding might have satisfied it temporarily, but due to the nature of our institutions, that was impossible. It pushed boundaries at every opportunity, often being rewarded for its assertiveness; yet it was inherently and constitutionally subordinate, and it would have remained so forever within the federation of the United States. It fought for independence, and it was right to do so! It did everything it could if it didn’t want to die without purpose. One must always respect that instinct of the caterpillar that drives it to spin its own cocoon and lay down fearlessly in its grave, preparing for its transformation into a butterfly; but what is even more admirable is the calculated bravery of people who are willing to risk everything on any outcome—even one so misguided, so wrong, so biased towards one class and so unfair to another, as the cause of the slaveholders. Every genuine purpose must undergo its own baptism of blessings.
We, the inheritors of a sublime truth, have been grievously wanting in faith in our heritage!—wanting in aim and purpose to maintain its integrity! No wonder the land is still washed with tears of the widowed and fatherless, and that stricken mothers refuse to be comforted. Give us a living principle to die for. "Make this a war for emancipation!" cries anti-slavery England, "and our sympathies will be with you!"[Pg 71] They demand much; but, that demand granted, it yet falls infinitely below the real point at issue. It is immeasurably short of the great conflict which we are actually waging. It is one phase of it,—the most acute phase, undoubtedly; but not, therefore, the broadest and most momentous one. Slavery was the peculiar institution of the South; but we, as a nation, have an incomparably greater peculiar institution of our own. The one is only peculiarly exceptional to our general policy; the other is essentially and organically at war with it. It is the only thing which pointedly distinguishes us from a dozen other nations. The consent of the governed is the sole, legitimate authority of any government! This is the essential, peculiar creed of our republic. That principle is on one side of this war; and the old doctrine of might makes right, the necessary ground-work of all monarchies, is on the other. It is a life-and-death conflict between all those grand, universal, man-respecting principles, which we call by the comprehensive term democracy, and all those partial, person-respecting, class-favoring elements which we group together under that silver-slippered word aristocracy. If this war does not mean that, it means nothing.
We, the heirs of a great truth, have seriously failed to believe in our heritage!—failed to have the ambition and purpose to uphold its integrity! It’s no surprise that the land is still drenched in the tears of widows and orphans, and that grieving mothers refuse to be comforted. Give us a cause worth fighting and dying for. "Make this a war for freedom!" shouts anti-slavery England, "and we’ll support you!"[Pg 71] They ask for a lot; but even if that request is fulfilled, it still misses the deeper issue at hand. It falls far short of the larger struggle we are actually facing. It is one aspect of it—the most intense aspect, without a doubt; but not the broadest and most significant one. Slavery was a specific institution of the South; but as a nation, we have an infinitely more significant unique institution of our own. One is merely an exception to our overall policy; the other is fundamentally opposed to it. It’s the only thing that clearly sets us apart from many other nations. The consent of the governed is the only legitimate authority of any government! This is the essential, unique belief of our republic. That principle is on one side of this war, while the old idea of might makes right, which is the foundation of all monarchies, is on the other. It’s a life-and-death struggle between those grand, universal principles that respect humanity, which we call democracy, and those narrow, individual-focused, class-privileging elements we group under the delicate term aristocracy. If this war doesn’t mean that, then it means nothing.
Slavery is malignantly aristocratic, and seems therefore to absorb all other manifestations of the principle into itself. It is Pharaoh's lean kine, which devour all the others of their species, and yet are no better favored than before. But if slavery were dead to-day, aristocracy might still grind our republic to powder. Men may cease to be slaves, and yet not be enfranchised. Although they are no longer bondmen, yet they may be governed without their own consent. But when you deny the universal enfranchisement of our people, you deny the one distinctive principle of our Government, and the only essential, fore-ordained fact in the future of our national institutions. We do not at all comprehend this.
Slavery is deeply rooted in an aristocratic mindset and seems to overshadow all other forms of this principle. It’s like Pharaoh’s lean cattle that consume all others of their kind but remain just as unattractive as before. However, if slavery were to end today, aristocracy could still crush our republic. People might no longer be slaves, yet they may still not be truly free. Even if they are not bonded laborers anymore, they can still be ruled without their own agreement. By refusing the universal right to vote for everyone, you deny the core principle of our Government, which is the only critical, inevitable truth for the future of our national systems. We don’t fully grasp this.
There was one who builded wiser than he knew, Emerson says, and I think that result is not uncommon. The little Indian boy in the pleasant fable, who ran on eagerly in advance of his migrating tribe, to plant his single, three-cornered beech-nut in the center of a great prairie, scarcely foresaw the many acres of heavy timber which was to confront the white pioneer hundreds of years afterward, as the outgrowth of his childish deed. Many soldiers are fighting our battles upon a basis broader than they know. There are men who believe that they are solely engaged in putting down the rebellion; others are maintaining the disputed courage and honor of the "mudsills"; some are fighting to uphold our present Northern civilization and its institutions; and a handful have set out definitely to carry these into the South, to give them to the slave, and to the master also, in spite of himself. All love the Union, and are ready to fight, perhaps to die, for it. Aye! but what does that mean? Something as antagonistic in the interpretation thereof as the decisions touching an ancient oracle, a disputed biblical text, or a knotty passage from our own venerated Constitution.
There was someone who built wiser than he realized, Emerson says, and I think that outcome isn’t uncommon. The little Indian boy in the charming fable, who eagerly ran ahead of his migrating tribe to plant his single, triangular beech nut in the middle of a vast prairie, hardly foresaw the many acres of dense forest that would eventually confront the white pioneer hundreds of years later, as a result of his innocent act. Many soldiers are fighting our battles on a broader foundation than they understand. There are men who believe they are only focused on quelling the rebellion; others are upholding the disputed courage and honor of the "mudsills"; some are fighting to support our current Northern civilization and its institutions; and a few have explicitly dedicated themselves to spreading these to the South, to give them to both the slave and the master, despite the latter’s resistance. All love the Union and are prepared to fight, perhaps even die, for it. Yes! But what does that truly mean? Something as conflicting in interpretation as the decisions surrounding an ancient oracle, a disputed biblical text, or a complicated passage from our own revered Constitution.
If victory should come just as she is summoned by each class of our patriotic and brave Union volunteers, would she most favor the rebels or the Government? Look at some of her conflicting purposed achievements:[Pg 72]
If victory arrives just as she is called by each group of our patriotic and brave Union volunteers, would she prefer the rebels or the Government? Consider some of her contradictory intended accomplishments:[Pg 72]
1. To preserve slavery unharmed, without so much as the smell of fire upon its garments, when it shall emerge from the ordeal of war.
1. To keep slavery intact, without even a hint of smoke on its clothes, when it comes out of the trial of war.
2. To gratuitously establish slavery forever, by solemn and unchanging guarantees.
2. To unnecessarily establish slavery permanently, through formal and unchanging guarantees.
3. To leave slavery to perish slowly and ingloriously, as it must when unprotected.
3. To let slavery fade away slowly and without glory, as it inevitably will when it has no protection.
4. To cripple and destroy slavery by a long guerrilla warfare against its special manifestations.
4. To weaken and eliminate slavery through prolonged guerrilla warfare against its specific forms.
5. To kill slavery at a blow, by right of an imperious and undoubted military necessity.
5. To eliminate slavery in one decisive action, based on an absolute and undeniable military necessity.
6. To exterminate slavery without compromise or weighing of consequences, because it is a gross moral wrong.
6. To completely end slavery without compromise or considering the consequences, because it is a serious moral wrong.
These are a few of the many platforms upon which husbands, brothers and sons are fighting to-day. No two opposing armies ever wearied heaven with asking more impossible cross-purposes than does this fraternal, Union army of ours. The bread and fish of these, are stones and scorpions to those. We are a practical people, but we are fighting for practical paradoxes. Do we expect any massive concentration of results? Our wavering, anaconda system of warfare is typical of our moral status as a people. It is the spontaneous and legitimate exponent of our aims and motives. Many or decisive victories I despair of, till we are better educated in the early lesson of the fathers. But from the President—God bless him that he seems to be more teachable than many others—down to the youngest drummer-boy of the army, the severe discipline of this war is schooling us into a better appreciation of our heritage as a peculiar people.
These are just a few of the many platforms where husbands, brothers, and sons are fighting today. No two opposing armies have ever tired heaven with requests for more conflicting purposes than our fraternal Union army does. What they offer as bread and fish are nothing but stones and scorpions to the others. We are a practical people, but we’re fighting for practical contradictions. Do we expect any significant results? Our inconsistent, anaconda-like approach to warfare reflects our moral status as a people. It is the natural and rightful expression of our goals and intentions. I despair of achieving many or decisive victories until we are better educated in the fundamental lessons of our forefathers. But from the President—God bless him for being more open to learning than many others—down to the youngest drummer-boy in the army, the harsh discipline of this war is teaching us to better appreciate our unique heritage.
All governments, said the fathers, are subordinate to the people, not the people to their governments. The distinct enunciation of that principle was the net result of the war of the Revolution. Born of the long-suffering and anguish of bleeding nations, its worth is yet incomparably greater than the cost, for it is the sublimest principle which has ever entered into the governmental relations of men. It must turn and overturn till, as rightful sovereign it is placed securely upon the throne of all nations, for, from the inherent nature of things, it is destined to become the mightiest revolutionist of the ages. The reinstating of that principle in the chair of our Republic will be the net result of this war of the Rebellion!
All governments, the founders said, are answerable to the people, not the other way around. Clearly stating this principle was the main outcome of the Revolutionary War. Born from the long suffering and pain of struggling nations, its value is far greater than its cost, as it represents the highest principle ever to influence the government relations among people. It must rise and fall until it, as the rightful authority, is firmly established as the leader of all nations, because, by the very nature of things, it is meant to become the greatest revolutionary force of all time. Restoring that principle in the leadership of our Republic will be the ultimate outcome of this Civil War!
When the statesmen of '76 sought to embody this principle in the complicated machinery of a vast government, there they partially failed—there they designedly failed. The minority seceded from it in that day as in this, and then they compromised. The antagonism which they engrafted on the young Republic assuming, as it does, that power, not humanity, is statute-maker, could not be more diametrically opposed to the axiom which asserts, that humanity, not power, is lawful arbiter of its own rights. The man, unwashed, unmended, unlearned, is yet a safer judge of his own interests, than is all the rank, the wealth, or the wisdom of men or angels. Thomas Simms is a better witness as to his own need of freedom than the combined wisdom of all the Boston lawyers, judges, and statesmen. We can keep ice and fire upon the[Pg 73] same planet, but it never does to bring them too near together. A nation proclaiming to the astonished world that governments derive all just powers solely from the consent of the governed, yet in the very face of this assertion enslaving the black man, and disfranchising half its white citizens, besides minor things of like import and consistency—do you wonder that eighty years of such policy culminated in rebellion?
When the leaders of '76 tried to put this principle into the complex system of a large government, they partially failed—intentionally failed. The minority withdrew from it back then just as they do now, and then they settled for a compromise. The conflict they embedded in the young Republic, which assumes that power, not humanity, makes the laws, couldn't be more opposed to the belief that humanity, not power, is the rightful judge of its own rights. A person who is unpolished, unrefined, and uneducated is still a better judge of their own interests than all the status, wealth, or wisdom of men or angels. Thomas Simms understands his need for freedom better than all the collective wisdom of the Boston lawyers, judges, and politicians. We can have ice and fire on the same planet, but it’s never wise to bring them too close together. A nation that declares to the shocked world that governments get all just powers only from the consent of the governed, yet at the same time enslaves black people and disenfranchises half of its white citizens, along with minor issues of the same nature—can you be surprised that eighty years of such a policy led to rebellion?
Do we expect the whole-hearted sympathy of any monarchy? Cannot they see, also, that two entire opposing civilizations are mustered into the conflict? They may hate slavery, and since we have found the courage to point our cannon more directly against the heart of that, they may rejoice so far; but do they desire to establish the subordination of any government to the rights of the very meanest of its subjects? Are they in love with our plebeian heresy, that all the magnificent civil machinery of nations is but so much base clay in the hands of the multitude of royal potters? We are now testing the practical possibilities of democratic theories; and there are those who would a thousand times rather see these shattered into hopeless fragments than any other result which could possibly transpire in the national affairs of all Christendom. Let our democracy prove shallow, weak, inefficient, unfitted for emergencies, and incapable of sustaining itself under the test of determined opposition, to them it is enough. Our great national axiom, is, per se, the eternal foe of all monarchies, aristocracies, oligarchies, of all possible despotism, because it is the fulcrum of a mighty lever which must one day overturn them all, if it be not itself jostled from its resting-place.
Do we really expect the full sympathy of any monarchy? Can’t they also see that two entirely opposing civilizations are caught up in this conflict? They might hate slavery, and since we’ve shown the courage to aim our cannons more directly at its core, they might celebrate that to some extent; but do they want to establish the subordination of any government to the rights of even the least of its subjects? Are they enamored with our common belief that all the impressive civil structures of nations are just raw material in the hands of countless royal potters? We are currently testing the real possibilities of democratic theories; and there are those who would much rather see these theories shattered into hopeless fragments than any other outcome in the national affairs of all Christian nations. Let our democracy prove shallow, weak, inefficient, ill-prepared for emergencies, and unable to sustain itself when faced with determined opposition— for them, that's enough. Our great national principle, per se, is fundamentally the eternal enemy of all monarchies, aristocracies, oligarchies, and all possible despotisms, because it serves as the fulcrum of a powerful lever that must one day topple them all, unless it is itself disturbed from its position.
What are we to do with our conquered provinces of the South? Give them all the franchises which we hold ourselves, assuredly—as many personal rights and as many State rights—provided always that they cease to encroach upon our liberties, and are no longer rebels against the common Government. Now that the issue is forced upon us, let us apply our principles unsparingly to all, and conclude by making the slaves, men and women too, as free and equal in all civil and political functions as their male masters. Secretary Chase has seized the occasion of our heavy financial troubles to give us a general national banking system; so out of the nettle Danger to our liberal institutions let us pluck the flower Safety to the interest of the feeblest subject. It is thus that the darkest evil is often made nurse to the brightest good. The black mud at its roots nourishes the pure white water-lily. When the Southern people, white and black, male and female, are all voters together, by simple virtue of their human needs and rights, then, but not till then, will I consent to their freely voting themselves into an independent nation, if they are so disposed. Even then, democracy requires that the question shall be decided by the suffrage of the whole country, North as well as South. A republic can never be dismembered except by the consent of a majority of all its citizens....
What should we do with our conquered Southern provinces? We should grant them all the rights we hold ourselves, both personal and state rights—as long as they stop threatening our liberties and are no longer rebelling against the common government. Now that the issue is upon us, let’s apply our principles equally to everyone and make both men and women who were slaves as free and equal in all civil and political roles as their male masters. Secretary Chase has taken advantage of our serious financial issues to introduce a national banking system; thus, from the risk to our liberal institutions, let’s create safety for the most vulnerable. This is how the worst challenges can lead to the best outcomes. The dark muck at the roots feeds the pure white water-lily. When the Southern people—both white and black, men and women—are all voters together, simply because of their human needs and rights, then, and only then, will I agree to let them vote to become an independent nation, if that’s what they want. Even then, democracy demands that the decision be made by the votes of the entire country, both North and South. A republic can never be divided without the consent of a majority of all its citizens.
Ernestine L. Rose, a native of Poland, was next introduced; she said: Louis Kossuth told us it is not well to look back for regret, but only for instruction. I therefore intend slightly to cast my mind's[Pg 74] eye back for the purpose of enabling us, as far as possible, to contemplate the present and foresee the future. It is unnecessary to point out the cause of this war. It is written on every object we behold. It is but too well understood that the primary cause is Slavery; and it is well to keep that in mind, for the purpose of gaining the knowledge how ultimately to be able to crush that terrible rebellion which now desolates the land. Slavery being the cause of the war, we must look to its utter extinction for the remedy. (Applause).
Ernestine L. Rose, who was originally from Poland, was introduced next; she said: Louis Kossuth told us that it’s not helpful to look back with regret, but only to learn from the past. So, I plan to reflect a little on the past to help us better understand the present and anticipate the future. There’s no need to explain the cause of this war; it’s clear in everything we see. It’s widely understood that the main cause is Slavery, and it’s important to remember that if we want to figure out how to ultimately defeat the terrible rebellion that is currently ravaging the land. Since Slavery is the cause of the war, we must aim for its total elimination as the solution. (Applause).
We have listened this evening to an exceedingly instructive, kind and gentle address, particularly that part of it which tells how to deal with the South after we have brought them back. But I think it would be well, at first, to consider how to bring them back!
We have listened this evening to a very informative, kind, and gentle speech, especially the part about how to handle the South once we've brought them back. But I think it would be a good idea to first think about how to bring them back!
Abraham Lincoln has issued a Proclamation. He has emancipated all the slaves of the rebel States with his pen, but that is all. To set them really and thoroughly free, we will have to use some other instrument than the pen. (Applause). The slave is not emancipated; he is not free. A gentleman once found himself of a sudden, without, so far as he knew, any cause, taken into prison. He sent for his lawyer, and told him, "They have taken me to prison." "What have you done?" said the lawyer. "I have done nothing," he replied. "Then, my friend, they can not put you in prison." "But I am in prison." "Well, that may be; but I tell you, my dear friend, they can not put you in prison." "Well," said he, "I want you to come and take me out, for I tell you, in spite of all your lawyer logic, I am in prison, and I shall be until you take me out." (Great laughter). Now the poor slave has to say, "Abraham Lincoln, you have pronounced me free; still I am a slave, bought and sold as such, and I shall remain a slave till I am taken out of this horrible condition." Then the question is, How? Have not already two long years passed over more than a quarter of a million of the graves of the noblest and bravest of the nation? Is that not enough? No; it has proved not to be enough. Let us look back for a moment. Had the Proclamation of John C. Fremont been allowed to have its effect; had the edict of Hunter been allowed to have its effect, the war would have been over. (Applause). Had the people and the Government, from the very commencement of the struggle, said to the South, "You have openly thrown down the gauntlet to fight for Slavery; we will accept it, and fight for Freedom," the rebellion would long before now have been crushed. (Applause). You may blame Europe as much as you please, but the heart of Europe beats for freedom. Had they seen us here accept the terrible alternative of war for the sake of freedom, the whole heart of Europe would have been with us. But such has not been the case. Hence the destruction of over a quarter of a million of lives and ten millions of broken hearts that have already paid the penalty; and we know not how many more it needs to wipe out the stain of that recreancy that did not at once proclaim this war a war for freedom and humanity.
Abraham Lincoln has issued a Proclamation. He has freed all the slaves in the rebel States with his writing, but that's all. To truly set them free, we will need a different tool than a pen. (Applause). The slave isn’t free; they remain enslaved. A gentleman once found himself unexpectedly thrown into prison for no apparent reason. He called his lawyer and said, "They’ve put me in prison." "What did you do?" asked the lawyer. "I did nothing," he replied. "Then, my friend, they can't keep you in prison." "But I am in prison." "Well, that may be, but I’m telling you, my dear friend, they can’t keep you in prison." "Well," he said, "I want you to come get me out, because despite your lawyer logic, I am in prison and will be until you help me out." (Great laughter). Now the poor slave has to say, "Abraham Lincoln, you’ve declared me free; yet I am still a slave, bought and sold like one, and I will stay a slave until I am taken out of this terrible situation." So the question is, How? Haven't two long years already passed over more than a quarter of a million graves of the noblest and bravest people in our nation? Isn't that enough? No; it hasn’t been enough. Let’s think back for a moment. If John C. Fremont’s Proclamation had been allowed to take effect; if Hunter’s order had been allowed to take effect, the war would have been over. (Applause). If the people and the Government had declared to the South from the very beginning, "You have openly challenged us to fight for slavery; we will accept it and fight for freedom," the rebellion would have long been defeated. (Applause). You can blame Europe all you want, but Europe’s heart beats for freedom. If they had seen us choose the difficult path of war for the sake of freedom, the whole of Europe would have supported us. But that hasn’t happened. Hence, over a quarter of a million lives have been lost, and ten million hearts have been broken already, paying the price; and we don’t know how many more lives it will take to erase the shame of not declaring this war as a fight for freedom and humanity from the start.
And now we have got here all around us Loyal Leagues. Loyal to what? What does it mean? I have read that term in the papers. A great many times I have heard that expression to-day. I[Pg 75] know not what others mean by it, but I will give you my interpretation of what I am loyal to. I speak for myself. I do not wish any one else to be responsible for my opinions. I am loyal only to justice and humanity. Let the Administration give evidence that they too are for justice to all, without exception, without distinction, and I, for one, had I ten thousand lives, would gladly lay them down to secure this boon of freedom to humanity. (Applause). But without this certainty, I am not unconditionally loyal to the Administration. We women need not be, for the law has never yet recognized us. (Laughter). Then I say to Abraham Lincoln, "Give us security for the future, for really when I look at the past, without a guarantee, I can hardly trust you." And then I would say to him, "Let nothing stand in your way; let no man obstruct your path."
And now we have Loyal Leagues all around us. Loyal to what? What does that even mean? I’ve seen that term in the news. I've heard that phrase a lot today. I[Pg 75] don’t know what others mean by it, but here’s what I’m loyal to. I’m speaking for myself. I don’t want anyone else to be accountable for my views. I’m only loyal to justice and humanity. If the Administration can show that they are also committed to justice for everyone, without exceptions or distinctions, then I would gladly give my life to secure that freedom for humanity, no matter how many times. (Applause). But without that assurance, I can’t be unconditionally loyal to the Administration. We women don’t have to be, because the law has never recognized us. (Laughter). So I say to Abraham Lincoln, "Give us security for the future, because honestly, when I look at the past, without a guarantee, it’s hard to trust you." And then I’d say to him, "Don’t let anything stop you; don’t let anyone block your way."
Much is said in the papers and in political speeches about the Constitution. Now, a good constitution is a very good thing; but even the best of constitutions need sometimes to be amended and improved, for after all there is but one constitution which is infallible, but one constitution that ought to be held sacred, and that is the human constitution. (Laughter). Therefore, if written constitutions are in the way of human freedom, suspend them till they can be improved. If generals are in the way of freedom, suspend them too; and more than that, suspend their money. We have got here a whole army of generals who have been actually dismissed from the service, but not from pay. Now, I say to Abraham Lincoln, if these generals are good for anything, if they are fit to take the lead, put them at the head of armies, and let them go South and free the slaves you have announced free. If they are good for nothing, dispose of them as of anything else that is useless. At all events, cut them loose from the pay. (Applause). Why, my friends, from July, 1861, to October, 1862—for sixteen long months—we have been electrified with the name of our great little Napoleon! And what has the great little Napoleon done? (Laughter). Why, he has done just enough to prevent anybody else from doing anything. (Great applause). But I have no quarrel with him. I don't know him. I presume none of you do. But I ask Abraham Lincoln—I like to go to headquarters, for where the greatest power is assumed, there the greatest responsibility rests, and in accordance with that principle I have nothing to do with menials, even though they are styled Napoleons—but I ask the President why McClellan was kept in the army so long after it was known—for there never was a time when anything else was known—that he was both incapable and unwilling to do anything? I refer to this for the purpose of coming, by and by, to the question, "What ought to be done?" He was kept at the head of the army on the Potomac just long enough to prevent Burnside from doing anything, and not much has been done since that time. Now, McClellan may be a very nice young man—I haven't the slightest doubt of it—but I have read a little anecdote of him. Somebody asked the president of a Western railroad company, in which McClellan was an engineer, what he thought about his abilities. "Well," said the president, "he is a first-rate man to build bridges; he is very exact, very mathematical[Pg 76] in measurement, very precise in adjusting the timber; he is the best man in the world to build a good, strong, sound bridge, but after he has finished it, he never wishes anybody to cross over it." (Great laughter). Well, we have disposed of him partially, but we pay him yet, and you and I are taxed for it. But if we are to have a new general in his place, we may ask, what has become of Sigel? Why does that disinterested, noble-minded, freedom-loving man in vain ask of the Administration to give him an army to lead into the field?
Much is talked about in the newspapers and in political speeches regarding the Constitution. A solid constitution is definitely a good thing; however, even the best constitutions sometimes need to be changed and improved because, ultimately, there is only one infallible constitution, one that should be held sacred, and that is the human constitution. (Laughter). So, if written constitutions hinder human freedom, let's put them on hold until they can be improved. If generals obstruct freedom, suspend them too; and more than that, cut off their funding. We have a whole army of generals who have been officially dismissed but are still receiving pay. Now, I say to Abraham Lincoln, if these generals are capable and ready to lead, put them in charge of armies and let them go South and free the slaves you’ve declared free. If they’re not capable, treat them like anything else that’s useless. In any case, stop their pay. (Applause). Why, my friends, from July 1861 to October 1862—for sixteen long months—we’ve been invigorated by the name of our so-called great little Napoleon! And what has this great little Napoleon accomplished? (Laughter). Well, he’s done just enough to stop anyone else from doing anything. (Great applause). But I don’t have a personal issue with him. I don’t know him, and I presume none of you do either. But I ask Abraham Lincoln—I like to go to the top, because where the most power is assumed, the greatest responsibility resides, and according to that principle I won’t concern myself with underlings, even if they’re called Napoleons—but I want to know why McClellan was kept in the army for so long after it was clear—because there’s never been a time when the opposite was true—that he was both incapable and unwilling to do anything? I bring this up to arrive, eventually, at the question, “What should be done?” He was kept in charge of the army on the Potomac just long enough to prevent Burnside from doing anything, and not much has happened since then. Now, McClellan might be a nice young man—I have no doubt about that—but I’ve heard a little story about him. Someone asked the president of a Western railroad company, where McClellan worked as an engineer, what he thought about his skills. “Well,” said the president, “he’s excellent for building bridges; he’s very precise, very mathematical in his measurements, very exact in adjusting the timber; he’s the best person to construct a solid, strong bridge, but once he’s finished, he never wants anyone to cross it.” (Great laughter). Well, we've partially dealt with him, but we still pay him, and you and I are taxed for that. But if we are going to have a new general take his place, we can ask, what has happened to Sigel? Why does that selfless, noble-minded, freedom-loving man ask the Administration in vain for an army to lead into the field?
A voice: Ask Halleck.
A voice: Ask Halleck.
Halleck! If Halleck is in the way, dispose of him. (Applause). Do you point me to the Cabinet? If the Cabinet is in the way of freedom, dispose of the Cabinet—(applause) some of them, at least. The magnitude of this war has never yet been fully felt or acknowledged by the Cabinet. The man at its head—I mean Seward—has hardly yet woke up to the reality that we have a war. He was going to crush the rebellion in sixty days. It was a mere bagatelle! Why, he could do it after dinner, any day, as easy as taking a bottle of wine! If Seward is in the way of crushing the rebellion and establishing freedom, dispose of him. From the cause of the war, learn the remedy, decide the policy, and place it in the hands of men capable and willing to carry it out. I am not unconditionally loyal, until we know to what principle we are to be loyal. Promise justice and freedom, and all the rest will follow. Do you know, my friends, what will take place if something decisive is not soon done? It is high time to consider it. I am not one of those who look on the darkest side of things, but yet my reason and reflection forbid me to hope against hope. It is only eighteen months more before another Presidential election—only one year before another President will be nominated. Let the present administration remain as indolent, as inactive, and, apparently, as indifferent as they have done; let them keep generals that are inferior to many of their private soldiers; let them keep the best generals there are in the country—Sigel and Fremont—unoccupied—(applause); let them keep the country in the same condition in which it has been the last two years, and is now, and what would be the result, if, at the next election, the Democrats succeed—I mean the sham Democrats? I am a democrat, and it is because I am a democrat that I go for human freedom. Human freedom and true democracy are identical. Let the Democrats, as they are now called, get into office, and what would be the consequence? Why, under this hue-and-cry for Union, Union, Union, which is like a bait held out to the mass of the people to lure them on, they will grant to the South the meanest and the most contemptible compromises that the worst slaveholders in the South can require. And if they really accept them and come back—my only hope is that they will not—but if the South should accept these compromises, and come back, slavery will be fastened, not only in the South, but it will be nationally fastened on the North. Now, a good Union, like a good Constitution, is a most invaluable thing; but a false Union is infinitely more despicable than no Union at all; and for myself, I would vastly prefer to have the South remain independent, than to bring them back with that eternal curse nationalized in the country. It is not enough for Abraham Lincoln[Pg 77] to proclaim the slaves in the South free, nor even to continue the war until they shall be really free. There is something to be done at home; for justice, like charity, must begin at home. It is a mockery to say that we emancipate the slaves we can not reach and pass by those we can reach. First, free the slaves that are under the flag of the Union. If that flag is the symbol of freedom, let it wave over free men only. The slaves must be freed in the Border States. Consistency is a great power. What are you afraid of? That the Border States will join with the now crippled rebel States? We have our army there, and the North can swell its armies. But we can not afford to fight without an object. We can not afford to bring the South back with slavery. We can not compromise with principle. What has brought on this war? Slavery, undoubtedly. Slavery was the primary cause of it. But the great secondary cause was the fact that the North, for the sake of the Union, has constantly compromised. Every demand that the South made of the North was acceded to, until the South came really to believe that they were the natural and legitimate masters, not only of the slaves, but of the North too.
Halleck! If Halleck is in the way, get rid of him. (Applause). Are you pointing me to the Cabinet? If the Cabinet is blocking freedom, get rid of the Cabinet—(applause) at least some of them. The scale of this war has never really been felt or recognized by the Cabinet. The person leading it—I mean Seward—has hardly grasped that we are in a war. He thought he could crush the rebellion in sixty days. It was just a trivial matter! He could do it after dinner any day, as easily as opening a bottle of wine! If Seward is in the way of defeating the rebellion and securing freedom, dispose of him. Learn the remedy from the cause of the war, decide on a policy, and put it in the hands of people who are capable and willing to execute it. I am not blindly loyal until we know what principle we are being loyal to. Promise justice and freedom, and everything else will follow. Do you know, my friends, what will happen if something significant isn’t done soon? It’s high time to think about it. I’m not someone who always sees the worst side of things, but my reason and reflection prevent me from hoping against hope. There are only eighteen months until the next Presidential election—only one year until another President will be nominated. If the current administration continues to be lazy, inactive, and seemingly indifferent; if they keep generals who are inferior to many of their private soldiers; if they allow the best generals in the country—like Sigel and Fremont—to remain unoccupied—(applause); if they maintain the country in the same situation it’s been in for the last two years, what would happen if, at the next election, the Democrats win—I mean the fake Democrats? I am a Democrat, and it's because I am a Democrat that I support human freedom. Human freedom and true democracy are the same thing. If the Democrats as they are now called get into office, what would be the outcome? Why, under this loud call for Union, Union, Union, which is like bait dangled to attract the masses, they will offer the South the most disgraceful compromises that the worst slaveholders in the South could demand. And if they actually accept these compromises and return—my only hope is that they won’t—but if the South accepts these compromises and comes back, slavery will be entrenched, not just in the South, but it will be nationally ingrained in the North. Now, a true Union, like a genuine Constitution, is incredibly valuable; but a false Union is far worse than no Union at all. Personally, I would much rather the South remain independent than bring them back with that everlasting curse enshrined in the country. It’s not enough for Abraham Lincoln[Pg 77] to declare the slaves in the South free, nor even to continue the war until they are truly free. There’s work to do at home; after all, justice, like charity, must start at home. It’s a joke to say that we free slaves we can’t touch while ignoring those we can reach. First, free the slaves under the Union flag. If that flag represents freedom, let it fly over free people only. The slaves must be freed in the Border States. Consistency is a powerful force. What are you afraid of? That the Border States will side with the now weakened rebel states? We have our army there, and the North can bolster its forces. But we can’t afford to fight without a purpose. We can’t afford to bring the South back with slavery. We can’t compromise with our principles. What caused this war? Slavery, without a doubt. Slavery was the main cause. But the significant secondary cause was that the North, for the sake of the Union, kept compromising. Every demand the South made was accepted by the North until the South genuinely believed they were the natural and rightful masters—not only of the slaves but of the North as well.
Now, it is time to reverse all these things. This rebellion and this war have cost too dear. The money spent, the vast stores destroyed, the tears shed, the lives sacrificed the hearts broken are too high a price to be paid for the mere name of Union. I never believed we had a Union. A true Union is based upon principles of mutual interest, of mutual respect and reciprocity, none of which ever existed between the North and South. They based their institutions on slavery; the North on freedom.
Now, it’s time to change all of this. This rebellion and this war have cost too much. The money spent, the massive resources destroyed, the tears shed, the lives lost, and the hearts broken are too high a price to pay for the mere name of Union. I never believed we had a Union. A real Union is built on principles of shared interest, mutual respect, and reciprocity, none of which ever existed between the North and South. They based their systems on slavery; the North on freedom.
I care not by what measure you end the war, if you allow one single germ, one single seed of slavery to remain in the soil of America, whatever may be your object, depend upon it, as true as effect follows cause, that germ will spring up, that noxious weed will thrive, and again stifle the growth, wither the leaves, blast the flowers, and poison the fair fruits of freedom. Slavery and freedom can not exist together. Seward proclaimed a truism, but he did not appreciate its import. There is an irrepressible conflict between freedom and slavery. You might as well say that light and darkness can exist together as freedom and slavery. We, therefore, must urge the Government to do something, and that speedily, to secure the boon of freedom, while they yet can, not only in the rebel States, but in our own States too, and in the Border States. It is just as wrong for us to keep slaves in the Union States as it ever was in the South. Slavery is as great a curse to the slaveholder as it is a wrong to the slaves; and yet while we free the rebel slaveholder from the curse, we allow it to continue with our Union-loving men in the Border States. Free the slaves in the Border States, in Western Virginia, in Maryland, and wherever the Union flag floats, and then there will be a consistency in our actions that will enable us to go to work earnestly with heart and hand united, as we move forward to free all others and crush the rebellion. We have had no energy yet in the war, for we have fought only for the purpose of reuniting, what has never been united, restoring the old Union—or rather the shadow as it was. A small republic, a small nation,[Pg 78] based upon the eternal principle of freedom, is great and powerful. A large empire based upon slavery, is weak and without foundation. The moment the light of freedom shines upon it, it discloses its defects, and unmasks its hideous deformities. As I said before, I would rather have a small republic without the taint and without the stain of slavery in it, than to have the South brought back by compromise. To avert such calamity, we must work. And our work must mainly be to watch and criticise and urge the Administration to do its whole duty to freedom and humanity. (Applause).
I don't care how you choose to end the war, but if you let even one tiny bit of slavery stay in the soil of America, no matter your intentions, you can be sure that, just like cause leads to effect, that bit will grow, that harmful weed will flourish, and it will stifle growth, wilt the leaves, ruin the flowers, and poison the beautiful fruits of freedom. Slavery and freedom cannot coexist. Seward stated an obvious truth, but he didn't fully grasp its significance. There's an unavoidable conflict between freedom and slavery. You might as well say light and dark can coexist as freedom and slavery can. So, we need to push the Government to take action, and do it quickly, to secure the gift of freedom while they still can, not just in the rebel States, but in our own States too, and in the Border States. It's just as wrong for us to keep slaves in the Union States as it ever was in the South. Slavery is a huge burden for the slaveholder just as it is a violation for the slaves; yet, while we're freeing the rebel slaveholder from this burden, we let it continue with our Union-supporting people in the Border States. Free the slaves in the Border States, in Western Virginia, in Maryland, and wherever the Union flag flies, and then our efforts will be consistent and we'll be able to work passionately together as we strive to free all others and defeat the rebellion. We haven't shown much energy in this war yet, because we've been fighting just to reunite what’s never been truly united, restoring the old Union—or more accurately, the shadow of it. A small republic, a small nation, [Pg 78] built on the lasting principle of freedom, is strong and powerful. A large empire built on slavery is weak and lacks a solid foundation. The moment the light of freedom shines on it, it reveals its flaws and exposes its grotesque deformities. As I said before, I would prefer a small republic free from the stain of slavery than to see the South restored through compromise. To prevent such a disaster, we must take action. And our main task should be to keep an eye on, critique, and push the Administration to fulfill its entire duty to freedom and humanity. (Applause).
The President then said: I suppose all the loyal women will agree with me that we owe to the President and the Government in these hours of trial, whether they make mistakes or whether they do not, words of cheer and encouragement; and, as events occur one after another, our criticisms should not be harshly made. When we find willful departure from what is just and true, when we find treason, we should not hesitate to speak the word of strongest denunciation against both the treason and the traitor. But where there is evident intention to be and to do right, where there is loyalty, there all good men and all good women should give a word of cheer and encouragement.
The President then said: I think all the loyal women will agree with me that we owe it to the President and the Government during these tough times, whether they make mistakes or not, to offer words of support and encouragement; and as events unfold, our criticisms shouldn't be too harsh. When we see a clear disregard for what is right and true, when we encounter treason, we shouldn't hesitate to strongly condemn both the treason and the traitor. But where there is a clear intention to do what is right, where there is loyalty, all good men and women should offer words of support and encouragement.
Women have their share in the responsibilities of this hour; in the reconstruction of the Government. The battles now being fought on Southern soil, will be fought again in the Capitol at Washington, when we shall need far-seeing statesmen to base the new Union on justice, liberty, and equality. Ours is the work of educating the people to make this demand.
Women have their part to play in the responsibilities of this moment; in rebuilding the Government. The battles currently being fought in the South will be fought again in Washington, where we will need visionary leaders to create a new Union based on justice, liberty, and equality. Our task is to educate the people to make this demand.
The entire year was spent in rolling up the mammoth petition. Many hands were busy sending out letters and petitions, counting and assorting the names returned. Each State was rolled up separately in yellow paper, and tied with the regulation red tape, with the number of men and women who had signed, endorsed on the outside. Nearly four hundred thousand were thus sent, and may now be found in the archives at Washington. The passage of the Thirteenth Amendment made the continuance of the work unnecessary. The first installment of 100,000 was presented by Charles Sumner, in an appropriate speech, Feb. 9th, 1864.
The whole year was spent compiling the massive petition. Many people worked on sending out letters and petitions, counting and sorting the names that came back. Each state was wrapped separately in yellow paper and tied with the official red tape, with the number of men and women who signed noted on the outside. Nearly four hundred thousand were sent this way and can now be found in the archives in Washington. The passing of the Thirteenth Amendment made it unnecessary to continue the effort. The first batch of 100,000 was delivered by Charles Sumner in an appropriate speech on February 9, 1864.
THE PRAYER OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND.
Speech of Hon. Chas. Sumner on the Presentation of the First Installment of the Emancipation Petition of the Woman's National League.
Speech of Hon. Chas. Sumner on the Presentation of the First Installment of the Emancipation Petition of the Woman's National League.
In the Senate of the United States, Tuesday, February 9, 1864.
In the Senate of the United States, Tuesday, February 9, 1864.
Mr. Sumner.—Mr. President: I offer a petition which is now lying on the desk before me. It is too bulky for me to take up. I need not add that it is too bulky for any of the pages of this body to carry.
Mr. Sumner.—Mr. President: I present a petition that’s currently on the desk in front of me. It’s too large for me to handle, and I should mention that it’s also too large for any of the staff members in this body to carry.
This petition marks a stage of public opinion in the history of slavery, and also in the suppression of the rebellion. As it is short I will read it:[Pg 79]
This petition represents a moment in public opinion regarding the history of slavery and the effort to suppress the rebellion. Since it's brief, I'll read it:[Pg 79]
"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:"
"The undersigned, women of the United States above the age of eighteen years, earnestly pray that your honorable body will pass at the earliest practicable day an act emancipating all persons of African descent held to involuntary service or labor in the United States."
"The undersigned, women of the United States over the age of eighteen, respectfully urge your esteemed body to pass, as soon as possible, a law freeing all individuals of African descent who are held in forced service or labor in the United States."
There is also a duplicate of this petition signed by "men above the age of eighteen years."
There is also a copy of this petition signed by "men over the age of eighteen."
It will be perceived that the petition is in rolls. Each roll represents a State.[44] For instance, here is New York with a list of seventeen thousand seven hundred and six names; Illinois with fifteen thousand three hundred and eighty; and Massachusetts with eleven thousand six hundred and forty-one. These several petitions are consolidated into one petition, being another illustration of the motto on our coin—E pluribus unum.
It will be seen that the petition is in rolls. Each roll represents a state.[44] For example, here is New York with a list of 17,706 names; Illinois with 15,380; and Massachusetts with 11,641. These various petitions are combined into one petition, providing another example of the motto on our coin—E pluribus unum.
This petition is signed by one hundred thousand men and women, who unite in this unparalleled number to support its prayer. They are from all parts of the country and from every condition of life. They are from the sea-board, fanned by the free airs of the ocean, and from the Mississippi and the prairies of the West, fanned by the free airs which fertilize that extensive region. They are from the families of the educated and uneducated, rich and poor, of every profession, business, and calling in life, representing every sentiment, thought, hope, passion, activity, intelligence which inspires, strengthens, and adorns our social system.[Pg 80] Here they are, a mighty army, one hundred thousand strong, without arms or banners; the advance-guard of a yet larger army.
This petition is signed by one hundred thousand men and women who come together in this extraordinary number to support its request. They are from all over the country and from every walk of life. They come from the coastline, refreshed by the ocean breeze, and from the Mississippi and the western plains, nurtured by the winds that enrich that vast area. They represent families from both educated and uneducated backgrounds, wealthy and poor, in every profession, business, and occupation, reflecting every sentiment, thought, hope, passion, activity, and intelligence that uplifts, strengthens, and beautifies our society.[Pg 80] Here they stand, a powerful force, one hundred thousand strong, without weapons or banners; the vanguard of an even larger movement.
But though memorable for their numbers, these petitioners are more memorable still for the prayer in which they unite. They ask nothing less than universal emancipation; and this they ask directly at the hands of Congress. No reason is assigned. The prayer speaks for itself. It is simple, positive. So far as it proceeds from the women of the country, it is naturally a petition, and not an argument. But I need not remind the Senate that there is no reason so strong as the reason of the heart. Do not all great thoughts come from the heart?
But even though they are notable for their numbers, these petitioners are even more remarkable for the request they share. They ask for nothing less than universal freedom, and they directly address this to Congress. No reasons are given. The request is clear and straightforward. Given that it comes from the women of the country, it is naturally a petition and not a debate. But I shouldn’t have to remind the Senate that there is no reason stronger than the reason of the heart. Don’t all great ideas come from the heart?
It is not for me, on presenting this petition, to assign reasons which the army of petitioners has forborne to assign. But I may not improperly add that, naturally and obviously, they all feel in their hearts, what reason and knowledge confirm: not only that slavery as a unit, one and indivisible, is the guilty origin of the rebellion, but that its influence everywhere, even outside the rebel States, has been hostile to the Union, always impairing loyalty, and sometimes openly menacing the national government. It requires no difficult logic to conclude that such a monster, wherever it shows its head, is a national enemy, to be pursued and destroyed as such, or at least a nuisance to the national cause to be abated as such. The petitioners know well that Congress is the depository of those supreme powers by which the rebellion, alike in its root and in its distant offshoots, may be surely crushed, and by which unity and peace may be permanently secured. They know well that the action of Congress may be with the co-operation of the slave-masters, or even without the co-operation, under the overruling law of military necessity, or the commanding precept of the Constitution "to guarantee to every State a Republican form of government." Above all, they know well that to save the country from peril, especially to save the national life, there is no power, in the ample arsenal of self-defense, which Congress may not grasp; for to Congress, under the Constitution, belongs the prerogative of the Roman Dictator to see that the Republic receives no detriment. Therefore to Congress these petitioners now appeal. I ask the reference of the petition to the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen.
It’s not my place to explain the reasons behind this petition that the group of petitioners hasn't explained themselves. However, I can point out that they all genuinely feel, deep down, what reason and knowledge confirm: that slavery as a whole is the root cause of the rebellion, and its impact is felt everywhere, even beyond the rebel states, always undermining loyalty and sometimes directly threatening the national government. It doesn’t take much logic to conclude that such a threat, wherever it appears, is a national enemy that must be confronted and eliminated, or at the very least, a nuisance that needs to be dealt with. The petitioners understand that Congress holds the powers needed to decisively crush the rebellion, both at its source and in its far-reaching effects, and to ensure lasting unity and peace. They know that Congress can act either with the cooperation of slaveholders or without it, based on military necessity or the constitutional requirement to "guarantee to every State a Republican form of government." Most importantly, they recognize that to protect the country from danger, particularly to safeguard the national existence, there is no power that Congress cannot utilize from its significant resources of self-defense; the Constitution grants Congress the authority akin to that of a Roman Dictator to ensure the Republic is not harmed. Therefore, these petitioners are now turning to Congress for help. I request that the petition be referred to the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen.
It was referred, after earnest discussion, as Mr. Sumner proposed.
It was called, after a serious discussion, as Mr. Sumner suggested.
ANNIVERSARY OF THE
LOYAL WOMEN'S NATIONAL LEAGUE.
The Anniversary of the Women's National League was held at the Church of the Puritans, Thursday morning, May 12, 1864. The President, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, called the meeting to order, and requested the audience to observe a few moments of silence, that each soul might seek for itself Divine guidance through the deliberations of the meeting. The Corresponding Secretary, Charlotte B. Wilbour, read the call for the meeting. The Recording Secretary read the following report of the Executive Committee:[Pg 81]
The Anniversary of the Women's National League took place at the Church of the Puritans on Thursday morning, May 12, 1864. The President, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, opened the meeting and asked everyone to spend a few moments in silence so that each person could seek Divine guidance throughout the discussions. The Corresponding Secretary, Charlotte B. Wilbour, read the invitation for the meeting. The Recording Secretary presented the following report from the Executive Committee:[Pg 81]
One year ago we formed ourselves into a League, with the declared object of educating thirty millions of people into the true idea of a Christian Republic, by means of tracts, speeches, appeals, and petitions for emancipation. Whilst as women, we might not presume to teach men statesmanship and diplomacy, we felt it our duty to call the nation back to the a, b, c of human rights. In looking over the history of the Republic we clearly saw in slavery the cause not only of all our political and financial convulsions, but of the terrible rebellion desolating our country and our homes. To do this was a work of time and money; and we were compelled to assume a debt of five thousand dollars in starting—the item of postage alone amounting to one thousand—all of which we are happy to say has been duly paid.
One year ago, we formed a League with the goal of educating thirty million people about the true concept of a Christian Republic through tracts, speeches, appeals, and petitions for emancipation. While we, as women, might not claim to teach men about statesmanship and diplomacy, we felt it was our responsibility to remind the nation about the basics of human rights. As we reviewed the history of the Republic, we clearly identified slavery as the root cause of all our political and financial turmoil, as well as the devastating rebellion affecting our country and homes. This effort required a significant investment of time and money; thus, we had to take on a debt of five thousand dollars at the outset, with postage alone costing one thousand dollars—all of which we are pleased to report has been fully paid.
Our thanks are due to Robert Dale Owen, Gerrit Smith, Bradhurst Schieffelin, Wendell Phillips, Jessie Benton Fremont, Frederick Douglass, Henry Ward Beecher, and the Hovey Trust Fund Committee of Boston, for their timely contributions and liberal words of cheer. But still more are we indebted to the numberless, nameless thousands of the honest, earnest children of toil, throughout the country, for their responses to our call, their words of hearty God-speed, and their "mite" offerings, ranging from five cents to five dollars; amounting in all to $5,000. From these petitions, thus widely scattered, we have already sent to Congress the names of over two hundred thousand men and women, demanding an amendment of the Constitution and an act of emancipation. And thousands are still returning to us daily, and we hope to roll up another hundred thousand before the close of the present session.
Our thanks go to Robert Dale Owen, Gerrit Smith, Bradhurst Schieffelin, Wendell Phillips, Jessie Benton Fremont, Frederick Douglass, Henry Ward Beecher, and the Hovey Trust Fund Committee of Boston for their timely contributions and generous words of encouragement. But we are even more grateful to the countless, unnamed thousands of hardworking individuals across the country for their responses to our call, their heartfelt good wishes, and their "mite" donations, which ranged from five cents to five dollars, totaling $5,000. From these widely scattered petitions, we have already submitted to Congress the names of over two hundred thousand men and women, calling for a constitutional amendment and an act of emancipation. And we continue to receive thousands more daily, hoping to gather another hundred thousand before the end of this session.
Leaving, then, all minor questions of banks and mints and public improvements for Congressmen to discuss at the rate of $3,000 a year, we decided the first work to be done was to end slavery, and ring the death knell of caste and class throughout the land. To this end, as a means of educating the people, we sent out twenty thousand emancipation petitions, with tracts and appeals, into different districts of the free States, and into the slave States wherever our armies had opened the way.
Leaving aside all the small issues regarding banks, mints, and public improvements for Congress members to debate at their $3,000 annual salary, we decided that our first priority should be to end slavery and eliminate caste and class distinctions across the nation. To achieve this, and to help educate the public, we distributed twenty thousand emancipation petitions, along with pamphlets and appeals, to various areas of the free States and to the slave States wherever our armies had gained access.
The Woman's National League now numbers five thousand members. And in the west, where we have employed two lecturing agents—Josephine S. Griffing, and Hannah Tracy Cutler—a large number of auxiliary Leagues have been formed.
The Woman's National League now has five thousand members. In the west, where we’ve hired two speakers—Josephine S. Griffing and Hannah Tracy Cutler—many auxiliary Leagues have been established.
We have registered on our books the names of two thousand men and women, boys and girls, who have circulated these petitions. We have on file all the letters received from the thousands with whom we have been in correspondence, feeling that this canvass of the nation for freedom will be an important and most interesting chapter in our future history. These letters, coming from all classes and all latitudes, breathe one prayer for the downfall of slavery.
We have recorded the names of two thousand men and women, boys and girls, who have shared these petitions. We have a collection of all the letters we've received from the thousands we've communicated with, believing that this nationwide effort for freedom will be a significant and fascinating chapter in our future history. These letters, coming from all walks of life and all regions, express a single wish for the end of slavery.
Massachusetts' noble Senator, Charles Sumner, who has so reverently received, presented, and urged these petitions, has cheered us with kind messages, magnifying the importance of our labors. His eloquent speech, made in the Senate on presenting our first installment—the prayer of one hundred thousand—we have printed in tract form and scattered throughout the country. We have flooded the nation with letters and appeals,[Pg 82] public and private, and put forth every energy to rouse the people to earnest, persistent action against slavery, the deadly foe of all our cherished institutions.
Massachusetts' esteemed Senator, Charles Sumner, who has respectfully received, presented, and advocated for these petitions, has encouraged us with supportive messages, emphasizing the significance of our efforts. His passionate speech, delivered in the Senate when presenting our first batch—the prayer of one hundred thousand—we have printed as a pamphlet and distributed across the country. We have inundated the nation with letters and appeals,[Pg 82] both public and private, and devoted all our energy to energizing the people to take serious, ongoing action against slavery, the deadly enemy of all our valued institutions.
We proposed to ourselves in the first moments of enthusiasm to secure, at least, a million signatures—one thirtieth part of our entire population. We thought the troubled warnings of a century—the insidious aggressions of slavery, with its violations of the sacred rights of habeas corpus, free speech, and free press, with its riots in our cities, and in the councils of the nation striking down, alike, black men and brave Senators, all culminating, at last, in the horrid tragedies of war—must have roused the dullest moral sense, and prepared the nation's heart to do justice and love mercy. But we were mistaken. Sunk in luxury, corruption, and crime—born and bred into the "guilty phantasy that man could hold property in man," we needed the clash of arms, the cannon's roar, the shrieks and groans of fallen heroes, the lamentations of mothers for their first-born, the angel's trump, the voices of the mighty dead, to wake this stolid nation from its sleep of death.
We set ourselves an ambitious goal in the initial rush of excitement: to gather at least a million signatures—one-thirtieth of our total population. We believed that a century's worth of troubling warnings—the creeping threats of slavery, which violated the fundamental rights of habeas corpus, free speech, and a free press, along with the riots in our cities and the harsh treatment of both black citizens and courageous Senators—would have stirred even the most indifferent moral conscience and readied the nation's heart for justice and compassion. But we were wrong. Deeply entrenched in luxury, corruption, and crime—having been raised in the "guilty fantasy that one person could own another"—we required the shock of battle, the sound of cannons, the cries and suffering of fallen heroes, the mourning of mothers for their lost children, the call of angels, and the voices of the great dead to awaken this indifferent nation from its slumber.
In circulating our petition many refused to sign because they believed slavery a divine institution, and therefore did not wish to change the status of the slave. Others, who professed to hate slavery, denied the right of Congress to interfere with it in the States; and yet others condemned all dictation, or even suggestion to Congress or the President. They said, "Let the people be still and trust the affairs of State to the management of the rulers they, themselves, have chosen." And many of our "old Abolitionists," believing their work done, that the war had killed slavery, knocked the bottom out of the tub, not only declared our work one of supererogation, but told us that petitioning, as a means of educating the people or influencing Congress, had become obsolete.
In gathering support for our petition, many people refused to sign because they saw slavery as a divine institution and didn't want to change the status of enslaved individuals. Others, who claimed to hate slavery, argued that Congress shouldn't interfere with it in the States. Additionally, some condemned any attempts to guide or influence Congress or the President. They insisted, "Let the people be still and trust the management of State affairs to the leaders they've chosen." Moreover, many of our "old Abolitionists," believing their job was done and that the war had ended slavery, undermined our efforts by claiming our work was unnecessary. They told us that petitioning, as a way to educate the public or sway Congress, had become outdated.
Under all these discouragements, with neither press nor pulpit to magnify our work, without money or the enthusiasm of numbers, in simple faith, into the highways and hedges we sent the Gospel of Freedom, and as of old, the people heard with gladness. A very large majority of our petitioners are from the unlettered masses. They who, knowing naught of the machinery of government or the trickery of politics, believe that, as God reigns, there is justice on the earth. As yet, none of our large cities have been thoroughly canvassed; but from the savannahs of the South and the prairies of the West—from the hills of New England and the shores of our lakes and gulfs, have we enrolled the soldiers of freedom; they who, when the rebels shall lay down their arms, with higher, holier weapons must end the war. Through us, two hundred thousand[45] people—the labor and virtue of the Republic—have spoken in our national Capitol, where their voices were never heard before.
Despite all these setbacks, with no media or religious leaders to promote our cause, lacking funds or the enthusiasm of large crowds, we shared the Gospel of Freedom in simple faith, reaching out to the highways and byways, and just like before, the people received it with joy. Most of our petitioners come from the uneducated masses. They, knowing nothing about the workings of government or the tricks of politics, believe that as God rules, there is justice on earth. So far, we haven't fully canvassed any of our major cities; however, from the southern plains and western prairies—from the hills of New England and the shores of our lakes and coasts—we have gathered the soldiers of freedom; those who, when the rebels lay down their arms, will use greater, nobler means to end the conflict. Through us, two hundred thousand[45] people—the workforce and moral strength of the Republic—have made their voices heard in our national Capitol, where they had never been heard before.
Those unaccustomed to balance influences, who judge of the importance of movements by their apparent results, may deem our efforts lost, because the Amendment and Emancipation bills have not yet passed the House; but we feel that our labors for the past year, in the circulation[Pg 83] of tracts and petitions and appeals—in our lectures and letters, public and private, have done as much to kill the rebellion, by educating the people for the final blow, as any other organization, civil, political, military, or religious, in the land. Could you but read the many earnest, thrilling letters we have received from simple men and women, in their rural homes, you would have fresh hope for the stability of our Republic; remembering that the life of a nation depends on the virtue of its people, and not on the dignity of its rulers.
Those who aren't used to seeing the impact of balanced influences and judge the importance of movements by their visible outcomes might think our efforts have been in vain because the Amendment and Emancipation bills haven't passed the House yet; but we believe that our hard work over the past year, through distributing tracts and petitions and making appeals—in our public and private lectures and letters—has contributed significantly to undermining the rebellion by educating the public for the decisive moment, just like any other organization—be it civil, political, military, or religious—in the country. If you could read the many heartfelt, inspiring letters we've received from ordinary men and women in their rural homes, you would gain renewed hope for the strength of our Republic, remembering that the survival of a nation rests on the character of its people, not the status of its leaders.
One poor, infirm woman in Wisconsin, who had lost her husband and all her sons in the war, traveled on foot over one hundred miles in gathering two thousand names. Her letter was filled with joy that she, too, had been able to do something for the cause of liberty. Follow her, in imagination, through sleet and snow, from house to house; listen to her words—mark the pathos of her voice, as she debates the question of freedom, or tells some tale of horror in the land of slavery, or asks her neighbors one by one, to give their names to end such wrongs. Aside from all she says, the fact that she comes in storm, on foot, is to all an argument, that there is something wrong in the republic, demanding haste and action from every citizen. You who, in crowded towns, move masses by your eloquence, scorn not the slower modes. Remember the seeds of enthusiasm you call forth have been planted by humbler hands—by the fireside, the old arm-chair in the workshop, at the plow—wherever man communes alone with God.
One poor, sick woman in Wisconsin, who lost her husband and all her sons in the war, walked over one hundred miles to gather two thousand names. Her letter was filled with joy that she, too, had been able to contribute to the cause of liberty. Imagine her journey through sleet and snow, going from house to house; listen to her words—notice the emotion in her voice as she discusses the issue of freedom, shares stories of horror from the land of slavery, or asks her neighbors one by one to give their names to help end such injustices. Beyond everything she says, the fact that she braves the storm on foot is a clear message to everyone that there is something wrong in the republic that calls for urgency and action from every citizen. You who, in busy towns, move crowds with your speeches, do not underestimate the slower methods. Remember that the seeds of enthusiasm you inspire have been sown by humbler hands—by the fireside, in the old armchair of the workshop, at the plow—wherever a person connects quietly with God.
Our work for the past year—and what must still be our work—involves the vital question of the nation's life. For, until the old Union with slavery be broken, and our Constitution so amended as to secure the elective franchise to all its citizens who are taxed, or who bear arms to support the Government, we have no foundations on which to build a true Republic. We urge our countrywomen who have shown so much enthusiasm in the war—in Sanitary and Freedmen's Associations—now to give themselves to the broader, deeper, higher work of reconstruction. The new nation demands the highest type of womanhood. It is a holy mission to minister to suffering soldiers in camp and hospital, and on the battle-field; to hold the heads and stanch the wounds of dying heroes; but holier still, by the magic word of freedom, to speak a dying nation into life.
Our work over the past year—and what we still need to focus on—centers on the crucial issue of our nation’s future. Until we break the old Union with slavery and amend our Constitution to guarantee the right to vote for all citizens who are taxed or who serve to defend the Government, we have no solid ground to build a true Republic. We encourage our women, who have demonstrated incredible commitment during the war through Sanitary and Freedmen's Associations, to now dedicate themselves to the broader, deeper task of reconstruction. The new nation requires the best kind of womanhood. It’s a sacred duty to care for injured soldiers in camps, hospitals, and on the battlefield; to support and comfort dying heroes; but even more sacred is the ability, through the powerful word of freedom, to bring a struggling nation back to life.
Four years ago the many thought all was well in the land of the free and the home of the brave; but we knew the war was raging then through all the Southern States. We knew the secrets of that bastile of horrors; we heard, afar off, the shrieks and groans of the dying, the lamentations of husbands and wives, parents and children, sundered forever from each other. Then we fed, and clothed, and sheltered the fugitives in their weary marches where the North Star led, and crowned with immortal wreaths the panting heroes, pursued by the bloodhounds from the everglades of Florida, who asked but to die in freedom under the shadow of a monarch's throne.
Four years ago, many thought everything was fine in the land of the free and the home of the brave; but we knew the war was raging through all the Southern States. We were aware of the horrors happening behind closed doors; we heard, from a distance, the cries and suffering of the dying, the mourning of husbands and wives, parents and children, torn apart forever. Then we fed, clothed, and sheltered the refugees in their weary journeys led by the North Star, and honored the exhausted heroes, chased by the bloodhounds from the swamps of Florida, who only wanted to die free under the shadow of a king's throne.
Yes, the rebellion has been raging near a century on every cotton field and rice plantation. Every vice, hardship, and abomination, suffered by our soldiers in the war, has been the daily life in slavery. Yet no Northern[Pg 84] volunteers marched to the black man's help, though he stood alone against such fearful odds, until John Brown and his twenty-three men threw themselves into the deadly breach. What a sublime spectacle! Behold! the black man, forgetting all our crimes, all his wrongs for generations, now nobly takes up arms in our defence. Look not to Greece or Rome for heroes—to Jerusalem or Mecca for saints—but for the highest virtues of heroism, let us worship the black man at our feet. Mothers, redeem the past by teaching your children the limits of human rights, with the same exactness that you now teach the multiplication table. That "all men are created equal" is a far more important fact for a child to understand, than that twice two makes four.
Yes, the rebellion has been ongoing for nearly a century on every cotton field and rice plantation. Every vice, hardship, and atrocity that our soldiers experienced during the war has been the daily reality of slavery. Yet no Northern[Pg 84] volunteers marched to help the black man, even though he stood alone against such overwhelming odds, until John Brown and his twenty-three men bravely stepped into the dangerous fight. What an incredible sight! Look! The black man, forgetting all our sins and his wrongs for generations, now heroically takes up arms in our defense. Don’t look to Greece or Rome for heroes, or to Jerusalem or Mecca for saints—let's honor the black man at our feet for the highest virtues of heroism. Mothers, redeem the past by teaching your children the boundaries of human rights, just as precisely as you now teach the multiplication table. That "all men are created equal" is a far more crucial lesson for a child to grasp than that twice two equals four.
Had we during the past century as fondly guarded the tree of liberty, with its blessed fruits of equality, as have Southern mothers the deadly upas of slavery, the blood of our sires and sons, mingled with the sweat and tears of slaves, would not now enrich the tyrant's soil, our hearthstones would not all be desolate, nor we, with shame, behold our Northern statesmen in the nation's councils overwhelmed with doubt and perplexity on the simplest question of human rights. A mariner without chart or compass, ignorant of the starry world above his head, drifting on a troubled sea, is not more hopeless than a nation, in the throes of revolution, without faith in the immutability and safety of truth and justice.
Had we cherished the tree of liberty and its valuable fruits of equality as much over the past century as Southern mothers have cherished the deadly poison of slavery, the blood of our ancestors and sons, mixed with the sweat and tears of slaves, wouldn’t now be enriching the tyrant's land. Our homes wouldn’t be barren, nor would we, with shame, see our Northern leaders in the nation's councils overwhelmed with doubt and confusion over the simplest issues of human rights. A sailor without a map or compass, unaware of the stars above, drifting in a stormy sea, is not more hopeless than a nation in the midst of revolution, lacking faith in the unchangeable and secure nature of truth and justice.
Behold in the long past the endless wreck of nations—Despotisms, Monarchies, Republics—alike, they all sprang up and bloomed—then drooped and died, because not planted with the seeds of life; and on their crumbling ruins the black man now plants his feet, and as he proudly breaks his chains declares, "man above all human government."
Look back at the distant past, where the endless ruins of nations lie—Despotisms, Monarchies, Republics—each one rose and thrived, then wilted and fell apart because they weren’t rooted in the true seeds of life; and on their decaying remains, the Black man now stands, and as he proudly breaks his chains, he proclaims, "man above all human government."
Wendell Phillips was introduced and made an eloquent appeal in behalf of the object of the League. He congratulated the Society on the progress it had made, contrasted the past with the present, referred to his experience at former meetings, and argued that woman should have a voice and a vote in the affairs of the nation. He showed the importance of woman's moral power infused into the politics of the country, and of the independence of those outside of party lines, who neither vote or hold office, to criticise the shortcomings of our rulers. He eulogized the manner in which Anna Dickinson had arraigned both men and measures before the judgment-seat of the people; deplored the slavery of party, that puts padlocks on the lips of leading politicians. While the sons of the Puritans, with bated breath, see in the violation of the most sacred rights of citizens the swift-coming destruction of the Republic, and in silence wait the shock, an inspired girl comes forward, sounds the alarm, raises the signal of distress, and fearlessly calls the captain, pilot, crew, and all to duty, for the Ship of State is drifting on a rock-bound coast. Again and again is this young girl put forward to tell the people what men in high places dare not say themselves.
Wendell Phillips was introduced and made a powerful appeal on behalf of the League's purpose. He praised the Society for its progress, compared the past to the present, shared his experiences from past meetings, and argued that women should have a voice and vote in national issues. He emphasized the importance of women's moral influence in politics and the necessity for those outside party lines, who don’t vote or hold office, to be able to critique the failures of our leaders. He praised Anna Dickinson for holding both men and policies accountable in front of the public; he lamented the party loyalty that silences leading politicians. While the sons of the Puritans, anxious and holding their breath, see the violation of the most sacred rights of citizens as a sign of the Republic's impending doom and wait in silence for the fallout, a courageous young woman steps up, sounds the alarm, raises the distress signal, and boldly calls the captain, pilot, crew, and everyone to action because the Ship of State is veering toward a rocky shore. Time and again, this young woman is called upon to speak to the people about the things that men in high positions are afraid to say themselves.
The following resolutions were then read and submitted for discussion:
The following resolutions were read and open for discussion:
1. Whereas, The testimony of all history, the teachings of all sound philosophy, and our national experience for almost a hundred years, have demonstrated that in the Divine economy there is an "irrepressible conflict" between slavery and freedom; and[Pg 85]
1. Whereas, The evidence from all of history, the lessons from sound philosophy, and our national experience for nearly a hundred years have shown that in the Divine plan there is an "irrepressible conflict" between slavery and freedom; and[Pg 85]
Whereas, The present war is but the legitimate fruit of this unnatural union; therefore
Whereas, The current war is just the rightful outcome of this unnatural union; therefore
Resolved, That any attempt to reconstruct the Government with any root or branch of the slave system remaining, will surely prove disastrous, and therefore should be met at the outset with the stern rebuke of every true patriot and friend of humanity.
Resolved, That any effort to rebuild the government while keeping any part of the slave system in place will undoubtedly end in failure, and as such should be confronted from the beginning with a strong condemnation from every genuine patriot and supporter of humanity.
2. Resolved, That this Government still upholds slavery by military as well as civil power, and is, therefore, itself, still in daring rebellion against the God of Justice, before whom Jefferson "trembled" and whose "exterminating thunders" he warned us would be our destruction, unless, by "the diffusion of light and liberality," we were led to exterminate it forever from the land.
2. Resolved, That this Government still supports slavery through military as well as civil power, and is therefore still in bold rebellion against the God of Justice, before whom Jefferson "trembled" and whose "exterminating thunders" he warned us would lead to our destruction unless, through "the spread of knowledge and openness," we were guided to eliminate it completely from the land.
3. Resolved, That until the old union with slavery be broken, and the Constitution so amended as to secure the elective franchise to all citizens who bear arms, or are taxed to support the Government, we have no foundations on which to build a true Republic.
3. Resolved, That until the old union with slavery is ended, and the Constitution is amended to guarantee the right to vote for all citizens who serve in the military or are taxed to support the Government, we have no basis on which to build a true Republic.
4. Whereas, The Anti or Pro-slavery character of the Constitution has long been a question of dispute among statesmen and judges, as well as reformers, therefore
4. Whereas, the Anti or Pro-slavery nature of the Constitution has been a topic of debate among politicians, judges, and reformers for a long time, therefore
Resolved, That we demand for the new nation a new Constitution, in which the guarantee of liberty and equality to every human being shall be so plainly and clearly written as never again to be called in question.
Resolved, That we demand for the new nation a new Constitution, which guarantees liberty and equality to every individual in a way that is so clear and obvious that it will never be disputed again.
5. Resolved, That we demand for black men not only the right to be sailors, soldiers, and laborers under equal pay and protection with white men, but the right of suffrage, that only safeguard of civil liberty, without which emancipation is but mockery.
5. Resolved, That we demand for black men not only the right to be sailors, soldiers, and workers with equal pay and protection as white men, but also the right to vote, which is the only guarantee of civil liberty; without it, emancipation is just a joke.
6. Resolved, That women now acting as nurses in our hospitals, who are regular graduates of medicine, should be recognized as physicians and surgeons, and receive the same remuneration for their services as men.
6. Resolved, That women currently working as nurses in our hospitals, who are qualified medical graduates, should be acknowledged as doctors and surgeons, and receive the same pay for their services as men.
7. Resolved, That the failure of the Administration to protect our black troops against such outrages as were long ago officially threatened, and fearfully perpetrated at Port Hudson, Milliken's Bend, Olustee, and Fort Pillow, is but added proof of its heartless character or utter incapacity to conduct the war.
7. Resolved, That the government's failure to protect our Black troops from the atrocities that were officially threatened long ago, and horrifyingly carried out at Port Hudson, Milliken's Bend, Olustee, and Fort Pillow, is just more evidence of its callous nature or complete inability to manage the war.
8. Resolved, That when the men of a nation, in a political party, consecrate themselves to "Freedom and Peace" and declare their high resolve to found a Republic on the principles of justice, they have lifted politics into the sphere of morals and religion, where it is the duty of women to be co-workers with them in giving immortal life to the new nation.
8. Resolved, That when the men of a nation, in a political party, dedicate themselves to "Freedom and Peace" and express their strong commitment to establish a Republic based on justice, they elevate politics into the realm of morals and spirituality, where it's the responsibility of women to collaborate with them in bringing lasting life to the new nation.
9. Resolved, That our special thanks are due to Robert Dale Owen, who aided us in the inauguration of our work; and to Charles Sumner, who so earnestly and eloquently presented our petitions in the Senate of the United States.
9. Resolved, That we extend our heartfelt thanks to Robert Dale Owen, who helped us launch our efforts; and to Charles Sumner, who passionately and eloquently presented our petitions in the U.S. Senate.
10. Whereas, From official statistics, it appears that our annual national expenditures for imported broadcloths, silks, laces, embroideries, wines, spirits, and cigars, are more than one hundred million dollars; therefore
10. Whereas, According to official statistics, it seems that our yearly national spending on imported broadcloths, silks, laces, embroideries, wines, spirits, and cigars exceeds one hundred million dollars; therefore
Resolved, that we recommend the formation of leagues of patriotic men[Pg 86] and women throughout the country, whose object shall be to discountenance and prevent the indulgence of all these, and similar useless luxuries during the war; thereby encouraging habits of economy, stimulating American industry, diminishing the foreign debt, and increasing our ability to meet the vast expenditures of the present crisis.
Resolved, that we suggest creating groups of patriotic men[Pg 86] and women across the country, aimed at discouraging and preventing the use of all these and similar unnecessary luxuries during the war; thus promoting thriftiness, boosting American industry, reducing our foreign debt, and enhancing our capacity to handle the significant expenses of the current crisis.
The following letters were read by Miss Anthony:
The following letters were read by Miss Anthony:
LETTER FROM EMILE PRETORIUS.
LETTER FROM EMILE PRETORIUS.
St. Louis, Mo., April 29, 1864.
St. Louis, Mo., April 29, 1864.
Madam:—Your favor of 23d inst. has come to hand with your call, which was published and endorsed by our paper, as you will see by the enclosed slip. Your sentiments are so high and noble that to doubt a favorable result and response from the West would be like doubting whether our women had courage enough to follow the truest instincts, the best impulses of their own pure nature. I, for one, have no such idea, no such fears; and if I should ever believe that the Cornelias and Thuseneldas were only to be found by going back thousands of years in history, and would not and could not be rivalled by patriotic mothers and heroic wives in this present crises of ours, I then would renounce at once all hopes of a national resurrection. Liberty, it is true, is immortal; but we would be bound to look for her in some other part of our globe, if we fail on American soil to enlist in our struggle the full heart of our women.
Madam:—I received your letter dated the 23rd, along with your call, which was published and supported by our paper, as you will see in the enclosed slip. Your thoughts are so admirable and noble that doubting a positive outcome and response from the West would be like doubting whether our women have the courage to follow their truest instincts and the best impulses of their own pure nature. I, for one, have no such doubts or fears; and if I ever believed that figures like Cornelia and Thusnelda could only be found by looking back thousands of years in history, and that they could not be matched by patriotic mothers and heroic wives in our current crisis, I would immediately give up all hope for a national revival. It is true that liberty is immortal; but if we fail to engage the full support of our women in our struggle on American soil, we might as well look for it elsewhere in the world.
But there is no such thing as failure in battling for all that is high and good and sacred, and there is no such thing as failure in appealing for so good a cause to woman's noble mind and true heart. They will be with us, every one of them will, and whether a majority of our people be up to our standard this time or not, still, in the eyes of our women we would be what our German poet calls, "the conquering defeated."
But there’s no such thing as failure when fighting for something that is noble, good, and sacred, and there’s no such thing as failure in appealing to the noble minds and true hearts of women for such a worthy cause. They will all stand with us, and whether most of our people meet our standards this time or not, in the eyes of our women, we would still be what our German poet refers to as "the conquering defeated."
Emile Pretorius.
Emile Pretorius.
Yours for Fremont and Freedom,
Yours for Fremont and Freedom,
LETTER FROM CHARLES SUMNER.
LETTER FROM CHARLES SUMNER.
Senate Chamber, May 6, 1864.
Senate Chamber, May 6, 1864.
Madam:—I can not be with you in New York, according to the invitation with which you have honored me; for my post of duty is here. I am grateful to your Association for what you have done to arouse the country to insist on the extinction of slavery. Now is the time to strike, and no effort should be spared. And yet there are many who lap themselves in the luxury of present success, and hold back. This is a mistake. The good work must be finished; and to my mind nothing seems to be done while anything remains to be done. There is one point to which attention must be directed. No effort should be spared to castigate and blast the whole idea of property in man, which is the corner-stone of the rebel pretension, and the constant assumption of the partisans of slavery, or of its lukewarm opponents. Let this idea be trampled out, and there will be no sympathy with the rebellion; and there will be no such abomination as slave-hunting, which is beyond question the most execrable feature of slavery itself. Accept my thanks, and believe me,
Madam:—I can't join you in New York, as per your kind invitation; my responsibilities are here. I appreciate your Association for all that you've done to urge the nation to push for the end of slavery. Now is the moment to act, and we should hold nothing back. Yet, many are basking in the comfort of current success and hesitating. This is a mistake. We must complete the good work; in my view, nothing is accomplished while anything remains unfinished. One key point needs attention. We must do everything we can to condemn and eradicate the entire notion of property in man, which is the foundation of the rebel's claims and a consistent belief among slavery supporters and its indifferent critics. If we crush this idea, there will be no support for the rebellion, and the horrific act of slave-hunting—which is undoubtedly the worst aspect of slavery—will cease to exist. Thank you, and know that I am sincere,
Charles Sumner.
Charles Sumner.
Madam, faithfully yours,
Madam, faithfully yours,
Miss Susan B. Anthony.
Miss Susan B. Anthony.
Speeches were then made by George Thompson, Lucretia Mott, and Ernestine L. Rose; after which, in adjourning the Convention, the President said:
Speeches were then given by George Thompson, Lucretia Mott, and Ernestine L. Rose; after that, when closing the Convention, the President said:
This is the only organization of women that will have a legitimate cause for existence beyond the present hour. The Sanitary, Soldiers' Aid, Hospital, and Freedmen's Societies all end with the war; but the soldier and negro in peace have yet to be educated into the duties of citizens in a republic, and our legislators to be stimulated by a higher law than temporary policy. This is the only organization formed during the war based specifically on universal emancipation and enfranchisement. Knowing that in this great national upheaval women would exert an influence for good or evil, we felt the importance of concentrating all their power on the side of liberty. To this end we have urged them to use with zeal and earnestness their only political right under the Constitution: the right of petition. During the past year the petitions for freedom have been quietly circulating in the most remote school districts of all the free States and Territories, in the Army, the Navy, and some have found their way to the far South. And now they are coming back by the thousands, with the signatures of men and women, black and white, soldiers and civilians, from every point of the compass, to be presented in mammoth rolls again in the coming Congress. I urge every one present to help spread the glad tidings of liberty to all, by signing and circulating these petitions, remembering that while man may use the bullet and the ballot to enforce his will, this is woman's only weapon of defence to-day in this Republic. The Convention is now adjourned.
This is the only organization of women that will have a valid reason to exist beyond the present moment. The Sanitary, Soldiers' Aid, Hospital, and Freedmen's Societies all end with the war; but in peacetime, soldiers and formerly enslaved people still need to be educated about their responsibilities as citizens in a republic, and our lawmakers need to be guided by principles that go beyond temporary policy. This is the only group created during the war specifically focused on universal freedom and voting rights. Recognizing that in this major national upheaval, women could have a significant impact for better or worse, we understood the importance of uniting their efforts in support of liberty. To achieve this, we have encouraged them to actively and earnestly use their only political right under the Constitution: the right to petition. Over the past year, petitions for freedom have been quietly circulated in the most remote school districts of all the free States and Territories, in the Army, the Navy, and some have even made it to the far South. Now, they are returning by the thousands, with signatures from men and women, black and white, soldiers and civilians, from all corners, to be presented in large bundles in the upcoming Congress. I urge everyone here to help spread the important message of freedom to all by signing and sharing these petitions, remembering that while men may use bullets and ballots to impose their will, this is women's only form of defense today in this Republic. The Convention is now adjourned.
The debates throughout these Conventions show how well the leaders of the Loyal League understood the principles of republican government, and the fatal policy of some of those in power. They understood the situation, and clearly made known their sentiments. The character of the discussions and resolutions in their Conventions was entirely changed during the war; broader ideas of constitutional law; the limits of national power and State rights formed the basis of the new arguments. They viewed the questions involved in the great conflict from the point of view of statesmen, rather than that of an ostracised class. Reviewing the varied efforts of the representative women[46] referred to in this chapter in the political, military, philanthropic, and sanitary departments of the Government, and the army of faithful assistants, behind them, all alike self-sacrificing and patriotic; with a keen insight into the policy of the Government and the legitimate results of the war; the question naturally suggests itself, how was it possible that when peace was restored they received[Pg 88] no individual rewards nor general recognition for their services, which, though acknowledged in private, have been concealed from the people and ignored by the Government.[47]
The discussions during these Conventions demonstrate how well the leaders of the Loyal League understood the principles of republican government and the harmful policies of some in power. They grasped the situation and clearly expressed their views. The nature of the discussions and resolutions in their Conventions shifted completely during the war; broader ideas of constitutional law and the boundaries of national power and State rights became the foundation of the new arguments. They analyzed the questions raised by the great conflict from the perspective of statesmen, not that of an excluded class. Looking back at the diverse contributions of the representative women[46] mentioned in this chapter in the political, military, philanthropic, and sanitary sectors of the Government and the army of dedicated helpers behind them, all equally selfless and patriotic; with a sharp understanding of the Government's policies and the legitimate outcomes of the war, one naturally wonders how it was possible that when peace was restored, they received[Pg 88] no individual rewards or general recognition for their services, which, although acknowledged privately, have been hidden from the public and ignored by the Government.[47]
Gen. Grant has the credit for the success of plans which were the outgrowth of the military genius of a woman; Gen. Howard received a liberal salary as the head of the Freedman's Bureau, while the woman who inspired and organized that department and carried its burdens on her shoulders to the day of her death, raised most of the funds by personal appeal for that herculean work.
Gen. Grant gets the credit for the success of plans that came from the military brilliance of a woman; Gen. Howard received a good salary as the head of the Freedman's Bureau, while the woman who inspired and organized that department and handled its responsibilities until her death raised most of the funds through personal appeals for that massive effort.
Dr. Bellows enjoyed the distinction as President of the Sanitary Bureau, which originated in the mind of a woman, who, when the machinery was perfected and in good working order, was forced to resign her position as official head through the bigotry of the medical profession.
Dr. Bellows was proud to be the President of the Sanitary Bureau, which was initially conceived by a woman. After the system was developed and running smoothly, she had to step down from her role as the official leader due to the prejudice within the medical field.
Though to Anna Dickinson was due the triumph of the Republican party in several of the doubtful States at a most critical period of the war, yet that party, twenty years in power, has refused to secure her in the same civil and political rights enjoyed by the most ignorant foreigner or slave from the plantations of the South.
Though Anna Dickinson played a key role in the success of the Republican party in several pivotal states during a critical time in the war, that party, twenty years in power, has refused to grant her the same civil and political rights enjoyed by even the most uneducated foreigner or slave from the Southern plantations.
The lessons of the war were not lost on the women of this nation; through varied forms of suffering and humiliation, they learned that they had an equal interest with man in the administration of the Government, enjoying or suffering alike its blessings or its miseries. When in the enfranchisement of the black man they saw another ignorant class of voters placed above their heads, and with anointed eyes beheld the danger of a distinctively "male" government, forever involving the nations of the earth in war and violence; a lesson taught on every page of history, alike in every century of human experience; and demanded for the protection of themselves and children, that woman's voice should be heard, and her opinions in public affairs be expressed by the ballot, they were coolly told that the black man had earned the right to vote, that he had fought and bled and died for his country![Pg 89]
The lessons from the war were not lost on the women of this nation; through various forms of suffering and humiliation, they realized that they had an equal stake with men in how the Government was run, sharing in both its blessings and its burdens. When they saw that the enfranchisement of black men placed another uninformed group of voters above them, and recognized the threat of a distinctly "male" government, which continually dragged nations into war and violence—a lesson evident in every chapter of history and in every century of human experience—they demanded that women's voices be heard and that their opinions in public matters be expressed through the ballot for the sake of their own protection and that of their children. They were coldly told that the black man had earned the right to vote because he had fought, bled, and died for his country![Pg 89]
Did the negro's rough services in camp and battle outweigh the humanitarian labors of woman in all departments of government? Did his loyalty in the army count for more than her educational work in teaching the people sound principles of government? Can it be that statesmen in the nineteenth century believe that they who sacrifice human lives in bloody wars do more for the sum of human happiness and development than they who try to save the multitude and teach them how to live? But if on the battle-field woman must prove her right to justice and equality, history abundantly sets forth her claims; the records of her brave deeds mark every page of fact and fiction, of poetry and prose.
Did the Black man's tough service in the camp and battle outweigh the compassionate work women did in all areas of government? Did his loyalty in the army count for more than her efforts in educating people on sound principles of governance? Is it possible that statesmen in the nineteenth century believe that those who sacrifice human lives in brutal wars contribute more to human happiness and progress than those who strive to save lives and teach people how to live? But if women must prove their right to justice and equality on the battlefield, history clearly presents their claims; the records of their courageous actions fill the pages of fact and fiction, poetry and prose.
In all the great battles of the past woman as warrior in disguise has verified her right to fight and die for her country by the side of man. In camp and hospital as surgeon, physician, nurse, ministering to the sick and dying, she has shown equal skill and capacity with him. There is no position woman has not filled, no danger she has not encountered, no emergency in all life's tangled trials and temptations she has not shared with man, and with him conquered. If moral power has any value in the balance with physical force, surely the women of this republic, by their self-sacrifice and patriotism, their courage 'mid danger, their endurance 'mid suffering, have rightly earned a voice in the laws they are compelled to obey, in the Government they are taxed to support; some personal consideration as citizens as well as the black man in the "Union blue."
In all the major battles of the past, women warriors in disguise have proven their right to fight and die for their country alongside men. In camps and hospitals, as surgeons, physicians, and nurses, they have displayed equal skill and capability. There is no role a woman has not taken on, no danger she has not faced, and no crisis in all of life's complicated challenges and temptations that she has not shared with men and overcome together. If moral strength has any value alongside physical strength, then surely the women of this republic, through their selflessness and patriotism, their bravery in danger, and their resilience in suffering, have rightfully earned a say in the laws they must follow and in the government they help to support; they deserve personal recognition as citizens just like the Black men in the "Union blue."
FOOTNOTES:
[3] In a conversation with Miss Carroll, in February, 1876, Mr. Wade said: "I have sometimes reproached myself that I had not made known the author when they were discussing the resolution in Congress to find out, but Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Stanton were opposed to its being known that the armies were moving under the plan of a civilian, directed by the President as Commander-in-Chief. Mr. Lincoln said it was that which made him hesitate to inaugurate the movement against the opinion of the military commanders, and he did not wish to risk the effect it might have upon the armies if they found out some outside party had originated the campaign; that he wanted the armies to believe they were doing the whole business of saving the country."
[3] In a conversation with Miss Carroll, in February 1876, Mr. Wade said: "I’ve sometimes regretted that I didn’t mention the author when they were discussing the resolution in Congress to find out, but Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Stanton were against making it known that the armies were moving based on a plan from a civilian, directed by the President as Commander-in-Chief. Mr. Lincoln said that was what made him hesitate to start the movement against the military commanders' opinions, and he didn’t want to risk what effect it might have on the armies if they found out some outside party had come up with the campaign; he wanted the armies to think they were entirely responsible for saving the country."
[5] The ninth, known to the world as the battle of Orleans, fought in 1439, which brought the hundred years' war between France and England to an end, securing the independent existence of France, possessed for its organizer and leader, Joan of Arc, then but eighteen, at which time she acquired her cognomen, "Maid of Orleans."
[5] The ninth, known as the Battle of Orleans, fought in 1439, ended the Hundred Years' War between France and England, securing France's independence. It was organized and led by Joan of Arc, who was just eighteen at the time and earned her title, "Maid of Orleans."
[6] It has been well said: "That assumption of man that as feud is the origin of all laws; that as woman does not fight she shall not vote, that her rights are to be forever held in abeyance to his wishes, was forever silenced by the military genius of Anna Ella Carroll in planning this brilliant campaign. Proving, too, that as right is of no sex, so genius is of no sex."
[6] It's been rightly said: "The idea that because men fight, they create all laws; that because women don’t fight, they shouldn’t vote, and that their rights should always be secondary to men's wishes, was put to rest by the military brilliance of Anna Ella Carroll in crafting this remarkable campaign. It also shows that rights don't belong to any specific gender, just as genius isn't limited to one gender."
[7] Hon. L. D. Evans said: "Nothing is more certain than that the rebel power was able to resist all the forces of the Union, and keep her armies from striking their resources and interior lines of communication, upon any of the plans or lines of operation on which the Union arms were operating. Geographically considered, there was but one line which the National armies could take and maintain, and that was unthought of and unknown, and could not have been found out, in all human probability, in time to have prevented a collapse, or warded off recognition and intervention, but for Miss Carroll. The failure to reduce Vicksburg from the water, after a tremendous sacrifice of life and treasure, and the time it took to take Richmond, furnish irrefragable proof of the inability of the Union to subdue the rebellion on the plan of our ablest generals.... England and France had resolved that duty to their suffering operatives required the raising of the blockade for the supply of cotton, and nothing prevented that intervention but the progress of the National arms up the Tennessee.... This campaign must, therefore, take rank with those few remarkable strategic movements in the world's history, which have decided the fate of empires and nations."
[7] Hon. L. D. Evans said: "Nothing is more certain than that the rebel power was able to resist all the forces of the Union and keep their armies from targeting their resources and communication lines through any of the strategies the Union was using. Geographically, there was only one path that the National armies could take and hold, and that was unthought of and unknown, and could not have been discovered, in all likelihood, in time to prevent a collapse or to fend off recognition and intervention, except for Miss Carroll. The failure to capture Vicksburg from the water, after a tremendous loss of life and resources, and the lengthy time it took to seize Richmond, provide undeniable proof of the Union's inability to suppress the rebellion using the plans of our best generals.... England and France had decided that their duty to their suffering workers required them to lift the blockade for the supply of cotton, and nothing prevented that intervention except for the advancement of the National armies up the Tennessee.... This campaign must therefore be ranked with those few remarkable strategic movements in history that have determined the fate of empires and nations."
[9] But as early as she was thus engaged, one woman had already preceded her. When the first blood of the war was shed by the attack upon the Massachusetts troops passing through Baltimore that memorable April 19, 1861, but one person in the whole city was found to offer them shelter and aid. Ann Manley, a woman belonging to what is called the outcast class, with a pity as divine as that of the woman who anointed the feet of our Lord and wiped them with the hair of her head—took the disabled soldiers into her own house, and at the hazard of her life, bound up their wounds. In making up His jewels at the last great day, will not the Lord say of her as of one of old, "She has loved much, and much is forgiven her?"
[9] But even while she was engaged in this, one woman had already stepped forward. When the first blood of the war was spilled during the attack on the Massachusetts troops passing through Baltimore on that significant April 19, 1861, only one person in the entire city offered them shelter and help. Ann Manley, a woman from what is often called the outcast class, with compassion as profound as that of the woman who anointed the feet of our Lord and wiped them with her hair—took the injured soldiers into her home and, risking her own life, bandaged their wounds. When the Lord gathers His jewels on the final great day, will He not say of her as He did of someone long ago, "She has loved much, and much is forgiven her?"
[10] There was no penalty for disobedience, and persons disaffected, forgetful, or idle, might refuse or neglect to obey with impunity. It indeed seems most wonderful—almost miraculous—that under such circumstances, such a vast amount of good was done. Had she not accomplished half so much, she still would richly have deserved that highest of plaudits, "Well done, good and faithful servant!"—Woman's Work in the Civil War.
[10] There was no punishment for disobedience, and people who were unhappy, forgetful, or lazy could choose not to follow orders without facing consequences. It truly seems incredible—almost miraculous—that so much good was achieved in such an environment. Even if she hadn't done nearly as much, she still would have fully deserved the highest praise: "Well done, good and faithful servant!"—Woman's Work in the Civil War.
[11] When the Spanish minister, Señor Don Francisco Barca, was presented to the President, he spoke of America as the "splendid and fortunate land dreamed of, for the service of God and of human progress, by the greatest of all Spanish women, before others conceived of it."
[11] When the Spanish minister, Señor Don Francisco Barca, met with the President, he referred to America as the "great and blessed land envisioned for the service of God and human progress by the greatest of all Spanish women, even before others thought of it."
[12] On a pair of socks sent to the Central Association of Relief, was pinned a paper, saying: "These socks were knit by a little girl five years old, and she is going to knit some more, for mother said it would help some poor soldier."
[12] Attached to a pair of socks sent to the Central Association of Relief was a note that read: "These socks were knitted by a five-year-old girl, and she plans to knit more because her mom said it would help a poor soldier."
[13] The Christian Commission, an organization of later date, never succeeded in so fully gaining the affection of the soldiers, who, in tent or hospital, hailed the approach of medicine or delicacy, with an affectionate "How are you, Sanitary?"
[13] The Christian Commission, a later organization, never quite managed to earn the soldiers' love as much as others did. Whether in a tent or hospital, they welcomed the arrival of medical care or treats with a warm, "How's it going, Sanitary?"
[14] Organized seven years previously by Dr. Blackwell as an institution where women might be treated by their own sex, and for co-ordinate purposes, and out of which the New York Medical College for Women finally grew.
[14] Set up seven years earlier by Dr. Blackwell as a place where women could receive treatment from other women, with additional goals in mind, which eventually led to the establishment of the New York Medical College for Women.
[15] Women in many other parts of the country were active at as early a date as those of New York. A Soldiers' Aid Society was formed in Cleveland, Ohio, April 20, 1861, five days after the President's proclamation calling for troops. This association, with a slight change in organization, remained in existence a long time after the close of the war, actively employed in securing pensions and back pay to crippled and disabled soldiers. At two points in Massachusetts, meetings to form aid societies were called immediately upon the departure of the Sixth Militia of that State for Washington.
[15] Women in many other parts of the country were involved as early as those in New York. A Soldiers' Aid Society was established in Cleveland, Ohio, on April 20, 1861, just five days after the President's call for troops. This organization, with a few adjustments, continued to operate long after the war ended, actively working to secure pensions and back pay for injured and disabled soldiers. In two locations in Massachusetts, meetings to create aid societies were organized right after the Sixth Militia from that state left for Washington.
[16] Women as loyal as these were to be found in the South, where an expression of love for the Union was held as a death offence. Among the affecting incidents of the war, was that of a woman who, standing upon the Pedee River bank, waved her handkerchief for joy at seeing her country's flag upon a boat passing up the stream, and who for this exhibition of patriotism was shot dead by rebels on the shore. During the bread riots in Mobile a woman was shot. As she was dying she took a small National flag from her bosom, where she had kept it hidden, wrapped it outside a cross, kissed it, and fell forward dead.
[16] Women as loyal as these could be found in the South, where expressing love for the Union was considered a death sentence. Among the heartbreaking events of the war was a woman who, standing on the bank of the Pedee River, waved her handkerchief in joy upon seeing her country's flag on a boat passing upstream, and for this display of patriotism, she was shot dead by rebels on the shore. During the bread riots in Mobile, a woman was shot. As she was dying, she took a small National flag from her bosom, where she had kept it hidden, wrapped it around a cross, kissed it, and fell forward dead.
"Indeed, we may safely say that there is scarcely a loyal woman in the North who did not do something in aid of the cause—who did not contribute time, labor, and money, to the comfort of our soldiers and the success of our arms. The story of the war will never be fully or fairly written if the achievements of woman in it are left untold. They do not figure in the official reports; they are not gazetted for deeds as gallant as ever were done; the names of thousands are unknown beyond the neighborhood where they live, or the hospitals where they loved to labor; yet there is no feature in our war more creditable to us as a nation, none from its positive newness so well worthy of record."—Women of the War.
"Indeed, we can confidently say that there is hardly a loyal woman in the North who didn't do something to support the cause—who didn't donate time, effort, and money to help our soldiers and ensure our victory. The story of the war will never be completely or fairly told if the contributions of women are left unacknowledged. They don’t appear in the official reports; they aren’t recognized for acts as brave as any that were performed; the names of thousands remain unknown beyond the communities where they live or the hospitals where they devoted themselves to service; yet there’s no aspect of our war that reflects better on us as a nation, none so deserving of recognition for its unique significance."—Women of the War.
[17] The distinctive features in woman's work in that war, were magnitude, system, thorough co-operation with the other sex, distinctness of purpose, business-like thoroughness in details, sturdy persistency to the close. There was no more general rising among the men than among the women, and for every assembly where men met for mutual exertion in the service of the country, there was some corresponding gathering of women to stir each other's hearts and fingers in the same sacred cause.... And of the two, the women were clearer and more united than the men, because their moral feelings and political instincts were not so much affected by selfishness, or business, or party considerations.... It is impossible to over-estimate the amount of consecrated work done by the loyal women of the North for the army. Hundreds of thousands of women probably gave all the leisure they could command, and all the money they could save and spare, to the soldiers for the whole four years and more of the war.... No words are adequate to describe the systematic, persistent faithfulness of the women who organized and led the Branches of the United States Sanitary Commission. Their voluntary labor had all the regularity of paid service, and a heartiness and earnestness which no paid service can ever have.... Men were ashamed to doubt where women trusted, or to murmur where they submitted, or to do little where they did so much.—Woman's Work in the Civil War. L. P. Brackett.
[17] The key characteristics of women’s contributions during that war were their scale, organization, strong collaboration with men, clear purpose, attention to detail, and unwavering dedication until the end. There wasn’t a greater mobilization among men than there was among women, and for every gathering of men working together to support the country, there was a corresponding group of women encouraging each other’s efforts for the same noble cause…. Among the two groups, women were more cohesive and focused than men, as their moral convictions and political instincts were less influenced by selfishness, business, or political agendas…. We cannot overstate the dedicated work done by the loyal women of the North for the army. Hundreds of thousands of women likely devoted all their available time and every penny they could spare to support the soldiers throughout the war and beyond…. No words can fully capture the organized, relentless commitment of the women who led the Branches of the United States Sanitary Commission. Their voluntary efforts were as systematic as any paid work, accompanied by a sincerity and passion that no paid service could ever match…. Men felt ashamed to question where women had faith, to complain where they accepted, or to contribute little when they were doing so much.—Woman's Work in the Civil War. L. P. Brackett.
[20] During all periods of the war instances occurred of women being found in the ranks fighting as common soldiers, their sex remaining unsuspected.—Women of the War.
[20] Throughout the war, there were times when women were discovered fighting as regular soldiers, and their gender went unnoticed.—Women of the War.
[21] After the close of the war a bill was passed by Congress authorizing the payment of salary due Mrs. Ella F. Hobart, for services as chaplain in the Union army. Mrs. Hobart was chaplain in the First Wisconsin Volunteer Artillery. The Governor of Wisconsin declined to commission her until the War Department should consent to recognize the validity of the commission. This Secretary Stanton refused to do on account of her sex, though her application was endorsed by President Lincoln, though not by the Government. Mrs. Hobart continued in her position as religious counselor, Congress at last making payment for her services.
[21] After the war ended, Congress passed a bill authorizing the payment of salary owed to Mrs. Ella F. Hobart for her role as a chaplain in the Union army. Mrs. Hobart served as chaplain for the First Wisconsin Volunteer Artillery. The Governor of Wisconsin refused to commission her until the War Department agreed to recognize the validity of her commission. Secretary Stanton denied this request because of her gender, even though her application had the backing of President Lincoln, although not the Government's. Mrs. Hobart continued to serve as a religious counselor, and eventually, Congress approved payment for her services.
[22] There are many and interesting records of women who served in Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania Regiments, in the armies of the Potomac, the Cumberland, the Tennessee, with the Indian Rangers, in cavalry, artillery, on foot. A woman was one of the eighteen soldiers sent as a scout at Lookout Mountain—whose capture was deemed impossible—to ascertain the position of General Bragg's forces; and a woman performed one of the most daring naval exploits of the war. It was a woman of Brooklyn, N. Y., who, inspired with the idea that she was to be the country's savior, joined the army in spite of parental opposition, and, during the bloody battle of Lookout Mountain, fell pierced in the side, a mortal wound, by a minie ball. Elizabeth Compton served over a year in the 25th Michigan cavalry; was wounded at the engagement of Greenbrier Bridge, Tennessee, her sex being discovered upon her removal to the hospital, at Lebanon, Kentucky, where, upon recovery, she was discharged from the service. Ellen Goodridge, although not an enlisted soldier, was in every great battle fought in Virginia, receiving a painful wound in the arm from a minie ball. Sophia Thompson served three years in the 59th O. V. I. Another woman soldier, under the name of Joseph Davidson, also served three years in the same company. Her father was killed fighting by her side at Chickamauga. A soldier belonging to the 14th Iowa regiment was discovered, by the Provost-Marshal of Cairo, to be a woman. An investigation being ordered, "Charlie" placed the muzzle of her revolver to her head, fired, and fell dead on open parade-ground. No clue was obtained to her name, home, or family.
[22] There are many fascinating accounts of women who served in the regiments from Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania, in the armies of the Potomac, the Cumberland, the Tennessee, with the Indian Rangers, in cavalry, artillery, and on foot. One woman was part of the eighteen soldiers sent as a scout at Lookout Mountain—where capture was considered impossible—to find out the location of General Bragg's troops; and another woman accomplished one of the most courageous naval feats of the war. A woman from Brooklyn, NY, driven by the belief that she was meant to save her country, joined the army despite her parents' objections, and during the fierce battle of Lookout Mountain, she was mortally wounded in the side by a minie ball. Elizabeth Compton served over a year in the 25th Michigan cavalry; she was wounded at the battle of Greenbrier Bridge in Tennessee, and her gender was discovered when she was taken to the hospital in Lebanon, Kentucky, from which she was discharged after recovering. Ellen Goodridge, though not an enlisted soldier, was present at every major battle fought in Virginia and suffered a painful wound in her arm from a minie ball. Sophia Thompson served three years in the 59th O. V. I. Another woman soldier, using the name Joseph Davidson, also served three years in the same company. Her father was killed fighting alongside her at Chickamauga. A soldier from the 14th Iowa regiment was found by the Provost-Marshal of Cairo to be a woman. When an investigation was initiated, "Charlie" put the muzzle of her revolver to her head, fired, and collapsed dead on the open parade ground. No information was uncovered about her name, home, or family.
Frances Hook, of Illinois, enlisted with her brother in the 65th Home Guards, assuming the name of "Frank Miller." She served three months, and was mustered out without her sex being discovered. She then enlisted in the 90th Illinois, and was taken prisoner in a battle near Chattanooga. Attempting to escape she was shot through one of her limbs. The rebels in searching her person for papers, discovered her sex. They respected her as a woman, giving her a separate room while she was in prison at Atlanta, Ga. During her captivity, Jeff. Davis wrote her a letter, offering her a lieutenant's commission if she would enlist in the rebel army, but she preferred to fight as a private soldier for the stars and stripes, rather than accept a commission from the rebels. This young lady was educated in a superior manner, possessing all the modern accomplishments. After her release from the rebel prison, she again enlisted in the 2d East Tennessee Cavalry. She was in the thickest of the fight at Murfreesboro, and was severely wounded in the shoulder, but fought gallantly and waded the Stone River into Murfreesboro on that memorable Sunday when the Union forces were driven back. Her sex was again disclosed upon the dressing of her wound, and General Rosecrans was informed, who caused her to be mustered out of the service, notwithstanding her earnest entreaty to be allowed to serve the cause she loved so well. The General was favorably impressed with her daring bravery, and himself superintended the arrangements for her transmission home. She left the army of the Cumberland, resolved to enlist again in the first regiment she met. The Louisville Journal gave the following account of her under the head of
Frances Hook from Illinois signed up with her brother in the 65th Home Guards, using the name "Frank Miller." She served for three months and was mustered out without anyone realizing she was a woman. She then enlisted in the 90th Illinois and was captured during a battle near Chattanooga. While trying to escape, she was shot in one of her limbs. When the rebels searched her for papers, they discovered her gender. They respected her as a woman, providing her with a separate room during her imprisonment in Atlanta, GA. While she was held captive, Jeff Davis wrote her a letter offering her a lieutenant’s position if she would join the rebel army, but she chose to fight as a private soldier for the Union rather than accept a commission from the rebels. This young woman was well-educated and had all the modern skills. After being released from the rebel prison, she reenlisted in the 2nd East Tennessee Cavalry. She fought bravely at Murfreesboro, where she was seriously wounded in the shoulder but continued to fight and crossed the Stone River into Murfreesboro on that significant Sunday when the Union forces were pushed back. Her gender was revealed again when her wound was being treated, and General Rosecrans was informed, leading him to muster her out of the service despite her passionate pleas to continue serving the cause she loved. The General was impressed by her courage and personally oversaw the arrangements for her return home. She left the Army of the Cumberland determined to enlist again in the first regiment she encountered. The Louisville Journal published the following account of her under the headline
"Mustered Out.—'Frank Miller,' the young lady soldier, now at Barracks No. 1, will be mustered out of the service in accordance with the army regulations which prohibit the enlistment of females in the army, and sent to her parents in Pennsylvania. This will be sad news to Frances, who has cherished the fond hope that she would be permitted to serve the Union cause during the war. She has been of great service as a scout to the army of the Cumberland, and her place will not be easily filled. She is a true patriot and a gallant soldier."
"Mustered Out.—'Frank Miller,' the young lady soldier currently at Barracks No. 1, will be discharged from service according to army rules that forbid the enlistment of women. She will be sent back to her parents in Pennsylvania. This news will be heartbreaking for Frances, who has held onto the hope that she would be allowed to serve the Union cause during the war. She has been a tremendous asset as a scout for the Army of the Cumberland, and her position will be hard to fill. She is a true patriot and a brave soldier."
"Frank," found the 8th Michigan at Bowling Green, in which she again enlisted, remaining connected with this company. She said she had discovered a great many women in the army, one of them holding a lieutenant's commission, and had at different times assisted in burying three women soldiers, whose sex was unknown to any but herself.
"Frank," found the 8th Michigan at Bowling Green, where she enlisted again, staying with this company. She mentioned discovering many women in the army, one of whom held a lieutenant's commission, and at various times helped bury three women soldiers, whose identities were known only to her.
The St. Louis Times, sometime after the war, referring to a girl called as a witness before the Police Court of that city, says:
The St. Louis Times, sometime after the war, mentioning a girl called as a witness before the Police Court of that city, says:
"This lady is a historical character, having served over two years in the Federal army during the war; fifteen months as a private in the Illinois cavalry, and over nine months as a teamster in the noted Lead mine regiment, which was raised in Washburne district from the counties of Jo Daviess and Carrol. She was at the siege of Corinth, and was on duty during most of the campaign against Vicksburg. At Lookout Mountain she formed one of the party of eighteen selected to make a scout and report the position of General Bragg's forces. She was an attache of General Blair's seventeenth corps during most of the campaign of the Tennessee, and did good service in the reconnoitering operations around the Chattahochie River, at which time she was connected with General Davis' fourteenth corps. She went through her army life under the cognomen of 'Soldier Tom.'"
"This woman is a historical figure, having served over two years in the Federal army during the war; fifteen months as a private in the Illinois cavalry, and more than nine months as a teamster in the well-known Lead Mine Regiment, which was formed in the Washburne district from the counties of Jo Daviess and Carroll. She was present at the siege of Corinth and was on duty for most of the campaign against Vicksburg. At Lookout Mountain, she was part of a group of eighteen chosen to scout and report on the position of General Bragg's forces. She served as an attache of General Blair's seventeenth corps for most of the Tennessee campaign and contributed significantly to the reconnaissance operations around the Chattahoochee River, at which point she was associated with General Davis' fourteenth corps. Throughout her military service, she went by the name 'Soldier Tom.'"
The name of Miss Brownlow, of Tennessee, was familiar during the war for her daring exploits; also that of Miss Richmond, of Raleigh, North Carolina, who handled a musket, rifle, or shot-gun with precision and skill, fully equal to any sharp-shooter, and who was at any time ready to join the clan of which her father, a devoted Unionist, was leader, in an expedition against the rebels, or on horseback, alone in the night, to thread the wild passes of the mountains as a bearer of information.
The name of Miss Brownlow from Tennessee became well-known during the war for her bold actions; likewise, Miss Richmond from Raleigh, North Carolina, who expertly handled a musket, rifle, or shotgun just as well as any sharpshooter, was always prepared to join the group led by her father, a committed Union supporter, on missions against the rebels or ride alone at night through the rugged mountain passes as a messenger.
Major Pauline Cushman and Dr. Mary Walker were also noted for their devotion to the Union. No woman suffered more or rendered more service to the national cause than Major Cushman, who was employed in the secret service of the Government as scout and spy. She carried letters between Louisville and Nashville, and was for many months with the army of the Cumberland, employed by General Rosecrans, rendering the army invaluable service. She was three times taken prisoner, once by John Morgan, and advertised to be hung in Nashville as a Federal spy, but she escaped by singular daring and courage. The third time she was tried and condemned, but her execution was postponed on account of her illness. After lying in prison three months, she had an interview with General Bragg, who assured her that he would make an example of her and hang her as soon as she got well enough to be hung decently.
Major Pauline Cushman and Dr. Mary Walker were both recognized for their dedication to the Union. No woman endured more hardship or provided more support to the national cause than Major Cushman, who worked in the government’s secret service as a scout and spy. She delivered messages between Louisville and Nashville, and spent many months with the Army of the Cumberland, working for General Rosecrans and providing the army with invaluable assistance. She was captured three times, once by John Morgan, and was advertised to be hanged in Nashville as a Federal spy, but she escaped through remarkable bravery and determination. The third time she was tried and sentenced, but her execution was delayed due to her illness. After spending three months in prison, she met with General Bragg, who assured her that he would make an example of her and hang her as soon as she was well enough to be executed properly.
While she remained in this condition of suspense, the grand army of Rosecrans commenced its forward march, and one fine day the rebel town in which she was imprisoned was surprised and captured by the Union troops under General Gordon Granger, and she was released. After hearing an account of the sufferings she had undergone for the Union cause, General Granger determined to bestow upon her a testimonial of appreciation for her services, and she was accordingly formally proclaimed a Major of cavalry. The ladies of Nashville, hearing of this promotion, prepared a costly riding habit trimmed in military style, with dainty shoulder-straps, etc., and presented the dress to Miss Cushman.
While she was stuck in this tense situation, Rosecrans' grand army began to move forward, and one day the Confederate town where she was held was unexpectedly taken by Union troops led by General Gordon Granger, and she was freed. After learning about the hardships she had faced for the Union cause, General Granger decided to give her a recognition of appreciation for her service, and she was officially named a Major of cavalry. The women of Nashville, hearing about this promotion, prepared an elaborate riding outfit trimmed in a military style, complete with stylish shoulder straps, and presented the outfit to Miss Cushman.
Dr. Mary Walker gave her services on the field as surgeon, winning an acknowledged reputation in the Second corps, army of the Potomac, for professional superiority. She applied for a commission as assistant surgeon, but was refused by Surgeon-General Hammond because of her sex. Dr. Walker suffered imprisonment in Castle Thunder, Richmond, having been taken prisoner.
Dr. Mary Walker served as a surgeon on the battlefield, earning a well-deserved reputation in the Second Corps of the Army of the Potomac for her exceptional skills. She applied for a commission as an assistant surgeon but was denied by Surgeon-General Hammond because she was a woman. Dr. Walker was imprisoned in Castle Thunder in Richmond after being captured.
The special correspondent of the N. Y. Tribune, Headquarters Army of the Potomac, Sept. 15, 1863, said: "She applied to both Surgeon-Generals Finlay and Hammond for a commission as assistant surgeon. Her competence was attested and approved, yet as the Army Regulations did not authorize the employment of women as surgeons, her petition was denied. A Senator from New York, with an enlightenment which did him honor, urged her appointment to the Secretary of War, but without success."
The special correspondent of the N. Y. Tribune, Headquarters Army of the Potomac, Sept. 15, 1863, said: "She applied to both Surgeon Generals Finlay and Hammond for a commission as an assistant surgeon. Her qualifications were confirmed and approved, but since Army Regulations didn’t allow for the employment of women as surgeons, her request was denied. A Senator from New York, showing admirable insight, recommended her appointment to the Secretary of War, but it was unsuccessful."
[24] Lee at Arlington.—Visitors to this noted place are so frequent that his appearance attracted no attention. He walked through the dreary hall, and looked in on the wide, vacant rooms, and passing to the front, stood for some time gazing out over the beautiful panorama, with its one great feature, the new dome of the old capitol, surmounted by a bronze statue of Liberty armed, and with her back to him, gazing seaward.
[24] Lee at Arlington.—Visitors to this famous place are so frequent that his presence went unnoticed. He walked through the gloomy hall, glanced into the spacious, empty rooms, and moving to the front, stood for a while looking out at the stunning view, highlighted by the new dome of the old capitol, topped with a bronze statue of Liberty, armed and facing away from him, looking out to sea.
From this he passed to the garden, and looked over the line of the officers' graves that bound its sides, saw the dying flowers and wilted borders and leaf strewn walks, and continuing after a slight pause, he stopped on the edge of the field where the sixteen thousand Union soldiers lie buried in lines, as if they had lain down after a review to be interred in their places. Some negroes were at work here raking up the falling leaves, and one old man stopped suddenly and stared at the visitor as if struck mute with astonishment. He continued to gaze in this way until the stranger, walking slowly, regained his horse and rode away, when he dropped his rake and said to his companions: "Shuah as de Lord, men, dat was ole Massa Lee!"
From there, he moved to the garden and looked over the row of officers' graves that lined its edges, noticing the dying flowers, wilted borders, and leaf-strewn paths. After a brief pause, he came to the edge of the field where sixteen thousand Union soldiers are buried in rows, as if they had lain down after a review to rest in their places. Some Black workers were here, raking up the fallen leaves, and one elderly man suddenly stopped and stared at the visitor, as if he were speechless with surprise. He continued to watch until the stranger slowly walked back to his horse and rode away. Then he dropped his rake and said to his companions, "I swear, men, that was old Master Lee!"
One hastens to imagine the thoughts and feelings that must have agitated this fallen chief as he stood thus, like Marius amid the ruins of Carthage, on the one spot of all others, to realize the fact of the Lost Cause and its eventful history. About him were the scenes of his youth, the home of his honored manhood, the scenery that gave beauty to the peaceful joys of domestic life. They were nearly all the same, and yet between then and now, came the fierce war, the huge campaigns and hundred battles loud with the roar of mouthing cannons and rattling musketry, and stained into history by the blood of thousands, the smoke of burning houses, the devastation of wide States, and the desolation of the households, and all in vain. He stood there, old before his time, the nationality so fiercely struggled for, unrecognized; the great confederacy a dream, his home a grave-yard, and the capitol he sought to destroy grown to twice its size, with the bronze goddess gazing calmly to the East.—Correspondence of the Cincinnati Commercial, 1866.
One quickly imagines the thoughts and emotions that must have troubled this fallen leader as he stood there, like Marius among the ruins of Carthage, in the one place above all others to grasp the reality of the Lost Cause and its significant history. Around him were the scenes of his youth, the home of his respected adulthood, the landscape that added beauty to the simple joys of family life. They were almost all the same, yet between then and now lay the fierce war, the massive campaigns and hundreds of battles filled with the noise of booming cannons and rattling muskets, marked in history by the blood of thousands, the smoke of burning homes, the destruction of vast territories, and the mourning of families, all for nothing. He stood there, aged beyond his years, the national identity fought for so fiercely, unacknowledged; the great confederation just a fantasy, his home a graveyard, and the capital he aimed to destroy expanded to twice its size, with the bronze goddess calmly gazing to the East.—Correspondence of the Cincinnati Commercial, 1866.
[25] Peter Waldo, a merchant of Lyon, of the 12th century, was less the founder of a sect, than the representative and leader of a wide-spread struggle against the corruptions of the clergy. The church would have tolerated him, had he not trenched upon ground dangerous to the hierarchy. But he had the four Gospels translated and (like Wicklyffe) maintained that laymen had the right to read them to the people. He exposed thus the ignorance and the immorality of the clergy, and brought down their wrath upon himself. His opinions were condemned by a General Council, and he retired to the valleys of the Cottian Alps. Long persecutions followed, but his disciples could not be forced to yield their opinions. The protest of the Waldenses related to practical questions.—Encyc.
[25] Peter Waldo, a 12th-century merchant from Lyon, was more a leader of a widespread fight against the corruption of the clergy than the founder of a sect. The church might have accepted him if he hadn't challenged the hierarchy directly. However, he had the four Gospels translated and, like Wycliffe, asserted that regular people had the right to read them aloud. This action highlighted the ignorance and immorality of the clergy, bringing their anger down on him. His beliefs were condemned by a General Council, and he withdrew to the valleys of the Cottian Alps. He faced long periods of persecution, but his followers refused to abandon their beliefs. The Waldensian protest focused on practical issues.—Encyc.
[26] It was almost as thrilling a sight to me to see these earnest women together at work with their needles, as it was to see the first colored soldier in the Union blue. He was from Camp Reed, near Boston. I met him in the church of Rev. Mr. Grimes, and could not have known before how much such a vision would stir me. It was with great satisfaction that I took him by the hand and rejoiced with him in the progress of the Government toward equality.
[26] It was almost as exciting for me to see these dedicated women working together with their needles as it was to see the first Black soldier in the Union blue. He was from Camp Reed, near Boston. I met him in Rev. Mr. Grimes' church, and I couldn't have known before how much such a sight would move me. I was filled with great satisfaction as I shook his hand and celebrated with him the Government's progress toward equality.
[27] Mrs. Briggs ("Olivia") writing to the Sunday Morning Chronicle after Mrs. Griffing had departed this life, said in this connection: "Altogether $166,000 were given by Congress to the helpless who had been so long held in bondage, and for the great good accomplished, the sufferers were more indebted to Mrs. Griffing than to all the women of the country combined, for the larger proportion of the supplies purchased with this money, was distributed by her own hands."
[27] Mrs. Briggs ("Olivia") wrote to the Sunday Morning Chronicle after Mrs. Griffing passed away, stating: "In total, Congress donated $166,000 to help those who had been trapped in bondage for so long, and for the significant impact made, the victims owe more to Mrs. Griffing than to all the women in the country combined, as the majority of the supplies bought with this money were distributed by her own efforts."
[28] This would at first thought seem to conflict with the knowledge of "the North Star" and "Canada," but, as elsewhere, we must draw the line between the ignorant and the intelligent.
[28] At first glance, this might seem to clash with the understanding of "the North Star" and "Canada," but, like in other situations, we need to distinguish between the uninformed and the knowledgeable.
[31] Forney's Press, in reporting a meeting at Kennett Square, said: "Miss Anna E. Dickinson, of Philadelphia, aged seventeen years, handsome, of an expressive countenance, plainly dressed, and eloquent beyond her years, made the speech of the occasion. After the listless, monotonous harangues of the day, the distinct, earnest tones of this juvenile Joan of Arc were very sweet and charming. During her discourse, which was frequently interrupted, Miss Dickinson maintained her presence of mind, and uttered her radical sentiments with augmented resolution and plainness. Those who did not sympathize with her remarks, provocative as they were of numerous unmanly interruptions, were softened by her simplicity and solemnity. 'We are told,' said she, 'to maintain constitutions because they are constitutions, and compromises because they are compromises. But what are compromises, and what is laid down in those constitutions? Eminent lawyers have said that certain great fundamental ideas of right are common to the world, and that all laws of man's making which trample on these ideas, are null and void—wrong to obey; right to disobey. The Constitution of the United States recognizes human slavery, and makes the souls of men articles of purchase and of sale.'"
[31] Forney's Press, in covering a meeting at Kennett Square, stated: "Miss Anna E. Dickinson, a seventeen-year-old from Philadelphia, attractive, with an expressive face, dressed simply, and more eloquent than her age suggests, delivered the main speech of the event. After the dull, monotonous speeches of the day, the clear, passionate voice of this young Joan of Arc was truly refreshing and charming. Throughout her speech, which was often interrupted, Miss Dickinson kept her composure and expressed her radical views with increased determination and clarity. Those who didn’t agree with her remarks, which provoked many unmanly interruptions, were softened by her sincerity and seriousness. 'We are told,' she said, 'to uphold constitutions just because they are constitutions, and to accept compromises simply because they are compromises. But what are compromises, and what is stated in those constitutions? Distinguished lawyers have claimed that certain fundamental ideas of justice are universal, and that all man-made laws that violate these principles are invalid—wrong to follow; right to defy. The Constitution of the United States acknowledges human slavery and treats the souls of men as items to be bought and sold.'"
[32] She has always said that that was the best service the Government could have rendered her, as it forced her to the decision to labor no longer with her hands for bread, but open some new path for herself.
[32] She has always claimed that it was the best thing the government could have done for her because it pushed her to stop working with her hands for a living and instead find a new way forward for herself.
[33] The highest compliment that the Union men of this city could pay Miss Anna E. Dickinson, was to invite her to make the closing and most important speech in this campaign. They were willing to rest their case upon her efforts. She may go far and speak much; she will have no more flattering proof of the popular confidence in her eloquence, tact, and power, than this. Her business being to obtain votes for the right side, she addressed herself to that end with singular adaptation. But when we add to this lawyerlike comprehension of the necessities of the case, her earnestness, enthusiasm, and personal magnetism, we account for the effect she produced on that vast audience Saturday night.
[33] The highest compliment that the Union supporters in this city could give to Miss Anna E. Dickinson was to invite her to deliver the final and most crucial speech in this campaign. They trusted her enough to base their case on her work. She may travel far and speak often; she will have no more flattering evidence of the public's confidence in her eloquence, skill, and effectiveness than this. Her goal was to gather votes for the right side, and she focused on that with remarkable skill. When we add to this her lawyer-like understanding of what was needed, along with her passion, enthusiasm, and personal charisma, we can see why she had such a powerful impact on that huge audience Saturday night.
Allyn Hall was packed as it never was before. Every seat was crowded. The aisles were full of men who stood patiently for more than three hours; the window-sills had their occupants, every foot of standing room was taken, and in the rear of the galleries men seemed to hang in swarms like bees. Such was the view from the stage. The stage itself and the boxes were filled with ladies, giving the speaker an audience of hundreds who could not see her face. Hardly a listener left the hall during her speech. Her power over that audience was marvellous. She seemed to have that absolute mastery of it which Joan of Arc is reported to have had of the French troops. They followed her with that deep attention which is unwilling to lose a word, greeting her ever and anon with bursts of applause. The speech in itself and its effect was magnificent. The work of the campaign is done, and it only remains in the name of all loyal men in this district to express to Miss Dickinson most heartfelt thanks for her inspiring aid. She has aroused everywhere respect, enthusiasm, and devotion, not to herself alone, but to our country also. While such women are possible in the United States, there is not a spot big enough for her to stand on, that will not be fought for so long as there is a man left.—Hartford Courant.
Allyn Hall was more packed than ever before. Every seat was filled. The aisles were filled with men who stood patiently for over three hours; the window sills had people sitting on them, every bit of standing room was occupied, and in the back of the galleries, men seemed to swarm like bees. That was the view from the stage. The stage itself and the boxes were occupied by women, giving the speaker an audience of hundreds who couldn’t see her face. Hardly anyone left the hall during her speech. Her influence over that audience was incredible. She appeared to have the same kind of command over them that Joan of Arc reportedly had over the French troops. They listened intently, not wanting to miss a single word, and occasionally broke into applause. The speech and its impact were magnificent. The campaign is complete, and it only remains for all loyal men in this district to express their heartfelt thanks to Miss Dickinson for her inspiring support. She has sparked respect, enthusiasm, and dedication everywhere, not just toward her but our country as well. As long as there are women like her in the United States, there will be no place too small for her to stand that won’t be fought over as long as there’s a man left.—Hartford Courant.
To Miss Anna E. Dickinson, Philadelphia, Pa.:
To Miss Anna E. Dickinson, Philadelphia, PA.:
Miss Dickinson:—Heartily appreciating the value of your services in the campaigns in New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New York, and the qualities that have combined to give you the deservedly high reputation you enjoy; and desiring as well to testify that appreciation, as to secure to ourselves the pleasure of hearing you, we unite in cordially inviting you to deliver an address at the capital this winter, at some time suited to your own convenience.
Miss Dickinson:—We truly value your contributions in the campaigns across New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New York, as well as the qualities that have rightfully earned you the high reputation you have; and we wish to express our appreciation and give ourselves the pleasure of hearing you speak, so we warmly invite you to give a talk at the capital this winter at a time that works best for you.
Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 1863.
Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 1863.
Hannibal Hamlin, Ira Harris, James A. Garfield, Charles Sumner, and sixteen other Henry C. Deming, Henry Wilson, Senators. R. B. Van Valkenburg, Benjamin F. Wade, Schuyler Colfax, A. C. Wilder, John Sherman, Thaddeus Stephens, and seventy other James Dixon, William D. Kelley, Representatives. H. B. Anthony, Robert C. Schenck,
Gentlemen:—I thank you sincerely for the great and most unexpected honor which you have conferred upon me by your kind invitation to speak in Washington. Accepting it, I would suggest the 16th of January as the time, desiring the proceeds to be devoted to the help of the suffering freedmen.
Gentlemen:—I sincerely thank you for the tremendous and unexpected honor of your kind invitation to speak in Washington. If I may, I would suggest January 16th as the date, with the proceeds going to support the suffering freedmen.
Anna E. Dickinson.
Anna E. Dickinson.
Truly yours,
Truly yours,
1710 Locust St., Phila., June 7, 1864.
1710 Locust St., Phila., June 7, 1864.
[36] The New York Evening Post in describing the occasion said: "Miss Dickinson's lecture in the Hall of the House of Representatives last night was a gratifying success, and a splendid personal triumph. She can hardly fail to regard it the most flattering ovation—for such it was—of her life. At precisely half-past seven Miss Dickinson came in, escorted by Vice-President Hamlin and Speaker Colfax. A platform had been built directly over the desk of the official reporters and in front of the clerk's desk, from which she spoke. She was greeted with loud cheers as she entered. Mr. Hamlin introduced her in a neat speech, in which he happily compared her to the Maid of Orleans. The scene was one to test severely the powers of a most accomplished orator, for the audience was not composed of the enthusiastic masses of the people, but rather of loungers, office-holders, orators, critics, and men of the fashionable world. At eight o'clock Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln entered, and not even the utterance of a fervid passage in the lecture could repress the enthusiasm of the audience. Just as the President entered the hall Miss Dickinson was criticising with some sharpness his Amnesty Proclamation and the Supreme Court; and the audience, as if feeling it to be their duty to applaud a just sentiment, even at the expense of courtesy, sustained the criticism with a round of deafening cheers. Mr. Lincoln sat meekly through it, not in the least displeased. Perhaps he knew there were sweets to come, and they did come, for Miss Dickinson soon alluded to him and his course as President, and nominated him as his own successor in 1865. The popularity of the President in Washington was duly attested by volleys of cheers. The proceeds of the lecture—over a thousand dollars—were appropriated at Miss Dickinson's request to the National Freedman's Relief Society."
[36] The New York Evening Post described the event, saying: "Miss Dickinson's lecture in the Hall of the House of Representatives last night was a great success and a remarkable personal achievement. She can hardly see it as anything but the most flattering reception of her life. At exactly 7:30 PM, Miss Dickinson arrived, escorted by Vice-President Hamlin and Speaker Colfax. A platform had been set up directly over the official reporters' desk and in front of the clerk's desk, where she spoke. She received loud cheers as she entered. Mr. Hamlin introduced her with a well-crafted speech, happily comparing her to the Maid of Orleans. The scene was truly a test for a skilled orator, as the audience was not made up of enthusiastic crowds but rather of onlookers, office-holders, speakers, critics, and fashionable individuals. At 8 PM, Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln entered, and not even the most passionate part of the lecture could dampen the audience's enthusiasm. Just as the President walked into the hall, Miss Dickinson was sharply criticizing his Amnesty Proclamation and the Supreme Court; the audience, feeling it their duty to support a fair sentiment even at the cost of politeness, greeted the criticism with deafening cheers. Mr. Lincoln sat quietly through it, seemingly unfazed. Perhaps he knew there were rewards ahead, and indeed there were, as Miss Dickinson soon mentioned him and his presidency, suggesting he run for his own successor in 1865. The President's popularity in Washington was confirmed by bursts of applause. The proceeds from the lecture—over a thousand dollars—were allocated at Miss Dickinson's request to the National Freedman's Relief Society."
[39] When our leading journals, orators, and brave men from the battle-field, complain that Northern women feel no enthusiasm in the war, the time has come for us to pledge ourselves loyal to freedom and our country. Thus far, there has been no united expression from the women of the North as to the policy of the war. Here and there one has spoken and written nobly. Many have vied with each other in acts of generosity and self-sacrifice for the sick and wounded in camp and hospital. But we have, as yet, no means of judging where the majority of Northern women stand.
[39] When our top journals, speakers, and brave individuals from the battlefield say that Northern women aren't excited about the war, it's time for us to commit ourselves to freedom and our country. So far, there hasn't been a united voice from Northern women regarding the war's strategy. Here and there, some have spoken and written with great passion. Many have competed in showing generosity and selflessness for the sick and wounded in camps and hospitals. But we still don't have a clear idea of where most Northern women stand.
If it be true that at this hour the women of the South are more devoted to their cause than we are to ours, the fact lies here. They see and feel the horrors of the war; the foe is at their firesides; while we, in peace and plenty, live as heretofore. There is an inspiration, too, in a definite purpose, be it good or bad. The women of the South know what their sons are fighting for. The women of the North do not. They appreciate the blessings of slavery; we not the blessings of liberty. We have never yet realized the glory of those institutions in whose defence it is the privilege of our sons to bleed and die. They are aristocrats, with a lower class, servile and obsequious, intrenched in feudal homes. We are aristocrats under protest, who must go abroad to indulge our tastes, and enjoy in foreign despotisms the customs which the genius of a Republic condemns.
If it's true that right now the women of the South are more committed to their cause than we are to ours, the reason is clear. They see and experience the horrors of war; the enemy is at their doorsteps; while we, in comfort and abundance, live as we always have. There’s also a sense of motivation that comes from having a clear purpose, whether it's good or bad. The women of the South know what their sons are fighting for. The women of the North do not. They recognize the advantages of slavery; we do not recognize the advantages of freedom. We have not yet grasped the honor of the values that our sons are privileged to fight and die for. They are aristocrats with a lower class that is submissive and compliant, entrenched in feudal homes. We are aristocrats by choice, who must travel abroad to indulge our preferences and enjoy in foreign tyrannies the customs that the spirit of a Republic condemns.
But, from the beginning of the Government, there have been women among us who, with the mother of the immortal John Quincy Adams, have lamented the inconsistencies of our theory and practice, and demanded for all the people the exercise of those rights that belong to every citizen of a republic. The women of a nation mold its morals, religion, and politics. The Northern treason, now threatening to betray us to our foes, is hatched at our own firesides, where traitor snobs, returned from Europe and the South, out of time and tune with independence and equality, infuse into their sons the love of caste and class, of fame and family, of wealth and ease, and baptize it all in the name of Republicanism and Christianity. Let every woman understand that this war involves the same principles that have convulsed the nations of the earth from Pharaoh to Lincoln—liberty or slavery—democracy or aristocracy—equality or caste—and choose, this day, whether our republican institutions shall be placed on an enduring basis, and an eternal peace secured to our children, or whether we shall leap back through generations of light and experience, and meekly bow again to chains and slavery.
But from the start of the government, there have been women among us who, like the mother of the legendary John Quincy Adams, have criticized the inconsistencies between our theory and practice and demanded that all people exercise the rights that belong to every citizen of a republic. The women of a nation shape its morals, religion, and politics. The Northern betrayal, which now threatens to hand us over to our enemies, is born in our own homes, where traitorous snobs, returning from Europe and the South, disconnected from independence and equality, instill in their sons a love for class and privilege, for fame and family, for wealth and comfort, and label it all under the guise of Republicanism and Christianity. Let every woman realize that this war involves the same principles that have shaken nations from Pharaoh to Lincoln—freedom or slavery—democracy or aristocracy—equality or class division—and choose, today, whether we will solidify our republican institutions on a lasting foundation and secure eternal peace for our children, or whether we will regress through generations of enlightenment and experience and humbly submit once again to chains and slavery.
Shall Northern freemen yet stand silent lookers-on when through Topeka, St. Paul, Chicago, Cleveland, Boston, and New York, men and women, little boys and girls, chained in gangs, shall march to their own sad music, beneath a tyrant's lash? On our sacred soil shall we behold the auction-block—babies sold by the pound, and beautiful women for the vilest purposes of lust; where parents and children, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, shall be torn from each other, and sent East and West, North and South? Shall our free presses and free schools, our palace homes, colleges, churches, and stately capitols all be leveled to the dust? Our household gods be desecrated, and our proud lips, ever taught to sing peans to liberty, made to swear allegiance to the god of slavery? Such degradation shall yet be ours, if we gird not up our giant freemen now to crush this rebellion, and root out forever the hateful principle of caste and class. Men who, in the light of the nineteenth century, believed that God made one race all booted and spurred, and another to be ridden; who would build up a government with slavery for its corner-stone, can not live on the same continent with a pure democracy. To counsel grim-visaged war seems hard to come from women's lips; but better far that the bones of our sires and sons whiten every Southern plain, that we do their rough work at home, than that liberty, struck dumb in the capital of our Republic, should plead no more for man. Every woman who appreciates the grand problem of national life must say war, pestilence, famine, anything but an ignoble peace.
Shall Northern freemen remain silent bystanders while in Topeka, St. Paul, Chicago, Cleveland, Boston, and New York, men, women, little boys and girls, chained together in groups, march to their own sorrowful tune, under a tyrant's whip? Will we witness the auction block on our sacred soil—babies sold by the pound and beautiful women exploited for the worst kinds of lust; where parents and children, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters are ripped from each other and sent off to the East and West, North and South? Will our free presses and free schools, our grand homes, colleges, churches, and impressive state capitols all be reduced to rubble? Our family sanctuaries be violated, and our proud voices, always trained to sing praises to liberty, forced to pledge allegiance to the god of slavery? Such humiliation will be ours if we don't rally our strong freemen now to crush this rebellion and eliminate the hateful idea of caste and class forever. Men who, in the light of the nineteenth century, believe that God created one race to dominate and another to serve; who would establish a government with slavery as its foundation, cannot coexist with a true democracy on the same continent. It seems harsh for women to call for grim-faced war; but it’s far better for the bones of our ancestors and sons to bleach on every Southern plain than to handle their bitter work at home, rather than let liberty, silenced in the heart of our Republic, stop pleading for humanity. Every woman who understands the great challenge of national existence must choose war, pestilence, famine—anything but a shameful peace.
We are but co-workers now with the true ones of every age. The history of the past is but one long struggle upward to equality. All men, born slaves to ignorance and fear, crept through centuries of discord—now one race dominant, then another—but in this ceaseless warring, ever wearing off the chains of their gross material surroundings of a mere animal existence, until at last the sun of a higher civilization dawned on the soul of man, and the precious seed of the ages, garnered up in the Mayflower, was carried in the hollow of God's hand across the mighty waters, and planted deep beneath the snow and ice of Plymouth Rock with prayers and thanksgivings. And what grew there? Men and women who loved liberty better than life. Men and women who believed that not only in person, but in speech should they be free, and worship the God who had brought them thus far according to the dictates of their own conscience. Men and women who, like Daniel of old, defied the royal lion in his den. Men and women who repudiated the creeds and codes of despots and tyrants, and declared to a waiting world that all men are created equal. And for rights like these, the Fathers fought for seven long years, and we have no record that the women of that Revolution ever once cried, "hold, enough," till the invading foe was conquered, and our independence recognized by the nations of the earth.
We are just co-workers now with the true ones of every age. The history of the past is one long struggle for equality. All people, born slaves to ignorance and fear, crawled through centuries of conflict—sometimes one race was dominant, then another—but in this endless fighting, they gradually shed the chains of their crude material surroundings of mere animal existence, until finally the sun of a higher civilization rose on the soul of humanity, and the precious seed of the ages, gathered in the Mayflower, was carried in the hollow of God's hand across the vast waters, and planted deep beneath the snow and ice of Plymouth Rock with prayers and gratitude. And what grew there? Men and women who valued freedom more than life. Men and women who believed they should be free not only in person but also in speech, and worship the God who had brought them this far according to the guidance of their own conscience. Men and women who, like Daniel of old, defied the royal lion in his den. Men and women who rejected the beliefs and rules of despots and tyrants, and declared to a waiting world that all people are created equal. And for rights like these, the Founding Fathers fought for seven long years, and there’s no record that the women of that Revolution ever cried, "stop, that’s enough," until the invading enemy was defeated and our independence recognized by the nations of the world.
And here we are, the grandest nation on the globe. By right no privileged caste or class. Education free to all. The humblest digger in the ditch has all the civil, social, and religious rights with the highest in the land. The poorest woman at the wash-tub may be the mother of a future President. Here all are heirs-apparent to the throne. The genius of our institutions bids every man to rise, and use all the powers that God has given him. It can not be, that for blessings such as these, the women of the North do not stand ready for any sacrifice.
And here we are, the greatest nation on the planet. There are no privileged groups or classes. Education is free for everyone. The humblest worker in the ditch has the same civil, social, and religious rights as the highest in the land. The poorest woman doing laundry could be the mother of a future President. Here, everyone is a potential heir to greatness. The spirit of our institutions encourages every person to rise and use all the talents that God has given them. It can't be that, for blessings like these, the women of the North aren't willing to make any sacrifices.
A sister of Kossuth, with him an exile to this country, in conversation one day, called my attention to an iron bracelet, the only ornament she wore. "In the darkest days of Hungary," said she, "our noble women threw their wealth and jewels into the public treasury, and clasping iron bands around their wrists, pledged themselves that these should be the only jewels they would wear till Hungary was free." If darker hours than these should come to us, the women of the North will count no sacrifice too great. What are wealth and jewels, home and ease, sires and sons, to the birthright of freedom, secured to us by the heroes of the Revolution? Shall a priceless heritage like this be wrested now from us by Southern tyrants, and Northern women look on unmoved, or basely bid our freemen sue for peace? No! No! The vacant places at our firesides, the void in every heart says No!! Such sacrifices must not be in vain!! The cloud that hangs o'er all our Northern homes is gilded with the hope that through these present sufferings the nation shall be redeemed.
A sister of Kossuth, who was exiled to this country with him, once pointed out an iron bracelet she wore, which was her only piece of jewelry. "During the darkest days in Hungary," she said, "our noble women gave their wealth and jewels to the public treasury, and wrapped iron bands around their wrists, pledging that these would be the only adornments they would wear until Hungary was free." If darker times come to us, the women of the North will consider no sacrifice too great. What are wealth and jewels, home and comfort, fathers and sons, compared to the birthright of freedom, secured for us by the heroes of the Revolution? Shall such a priceless legacy be taken from us by Southern tyrants, while Northern women stand by unaffected, or shamefully encourage our free men to seek peace? No! No! The empty spaces at our firesides and the emptiness in every heart say No!! Such sacrifices must not be in vain!! The cloud hanging over all our Northern homes is touched with the hope that through these current sufferings, the nation will be redeemed.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
[40] The call for a meeting of the Loyal Women of the Nation:
[40] The invitation for a meeting of the Loyal Women of the Nation:
In this crisis of our country's destiny, it is the duty of every citizen to consider the peculiar blessings of a republican form of government, and decide what sacrifices of wealth and life are demanded for its defence and preservation. The policy of the war, our whole future life, depends on a clearly-defined idea of the end proposed, and the immense advantages to be secured to ourselves and all mankind, by its accomplishment. No mere party or sectional cry, no technicalities of Constitution or military law, no mottoes of craft or policy are big enough to touch the great heart of a nation in the midst of revolution. A grand idea, such as freedom or justice, is needful to kindle and sustain the fires of a high enthusiasm.
In this crisis facing our country’s future, it’s the responsibility of every citizen to consider the unique blessings of a democratic government and determine what sacrifices of money and life are necessary for its defense and preservation. The direction of the war, and our entire future, depends on having a clear understanding of the intended outcome and the huge benefits that will come to us and all humanity by achieving it. No simple party or regional shout, no legal technicalities or military rules, and no clever slogans or strategies are substantial enough to resonate with the great spirit of a nation during a revolution. A powerful idea, like freedom or justice, is essential to ignite and sustain the flames of deep passion.
At this hour, the best word and work of every man and woman are imperatively demanded. To man, by common consent, is assigned the forum, camp, and field. What is woman's legitimate work, and how she may best accomplish it, is worthy our earnest counsel one with another. We have heard many complaints of the lack of enthusiasm among Northern women; but, when a mother lays her son on the altar of her country, she asks an object equal to the sacrifice. In nursing the sick and wounded, knitting socks, scraping lint, and making jellies, the bravest and best may weary if the thoughts mount not in faith to something beyond and above it all. Work is worship only when a noble purpose fills the soul. Woman is equally interested and responsible with man in the final settlement of this problem of self-government; therefore let none stand idle spectators now. When every hour is big with destiny, and each delay but complicates our difficulties, it is high time for the daughters of the revolution, in solemn council, to unseal the last will and testament of the Fathers—lay hold of their birthright of freedom, and keep it a sacred trust for all coming generations.
At this moment, we need the best efforts and contributions from every man and woman. The forum, camp, and field are traditionally assigned to men. We should seriously discuss what women’s legitimate work is and how they can best achieve it. There have been many complaints about a lack of enthusiasm among Northern women; however, when a mother sacrifices her son for her country, she deserves a cause worthy of that sacrifice. While caring for the sick and wounded, knitting socks, scraping lint, and making jellies, even the bravest may grow weary if their thoughts don't reach toward something greater. Work is only meaningful when it’s filled with a noble purpose. Women share equal interest and responsibility with men in solving the issue of self-government; therefore, no one should be a passive observer right now. With each hour carrying significant consequences, and every delay complicating our challenges, it’s time for the daughters of the revolution to come together in serious discussion to fulfill the last wishes of the Founding Fathers—taking hold of their birthright of freedom and preserving it as a sacred trust for future generations.
To this end we ask the Loyal Women of the Nation to meet in the church of the Puritans (Dr. Cheever's), New York, on Thursday, the 14th of May next.
To this end, we invite the Loyal Women of the Nation to gather at the church of the Puritans (Dr. Cheever's) in New York on Thursday, May 14th.
Let the women of every State be largely represented both in person and by letter.
Let the women of every state be well represented both in person and through correspondence.
On behalf of the Woman's Central Committee,
On behalf of the Women's Central Committee,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Susan B. Anthony.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Susan B. Anthony.
[41] Vice-Presidents.—Elizabeth Cady Stanton, of New York; Angelina Grimké Weld, of New Jersey; Fannie W. Willard, of Pennsylvania; Mary H. L. Cabot, of Massachusetts; Mary White, of Connecticut; Mrs. E. O. Sampson Hoyt, of Wisconsin; Eliza W. Farnham, of California; Mrs. H. C. Ingersol, of Maine.
[41] Vice Presidents.—Elizabeth Cady Stanton, New York; Angelina Grimké Weld, New Jersey; Fannie W. Willard, Pennsylvania; Mary H. L. Cabot, Massachusetts; Mary White, Connecticut; Mrs. E. O. Sampson Hoyt, Wisconsin; Eliza W. Farnham, California; Mrs. H. C. Ingersol, Maine.
Secretaries.—Martha C. Wright, of New York, and Lucy N. Colman, of New York.
Secretaries.—Martha C. Wright from New York and Lucy N. Colman from New York.
Business Committee.—Susan B. Anthony; Ernestine L. Rose, New York; Rev. Antoinette B. Blackwell, New Jersey; Amy Post, New York; Annie V. Mumford, Penn.
Business Committee.—Susan B. Anthony; Ernestine L. Rose, New York; Rev. Antoinette B. Blackwell, New Jersey; Amy Post, New York; Annie V. Mumford, Pennsylvania.
[43] Resolved, 2. That we heartily approve that part of the President's Proclamation which decrees freedom to the slaves of rebel masters, and we earnestly urge him to devise measures for emancipating all slaves throughout the country.
[43] Resolved, 2. We fully support the part of the President's Proclamation that grants freedom to the slaves of rebellious masters, and we strongly encourage him to come up with plans to free all slaves across the nation.
Resolved, 3. That the national pledge to the freedmen must be redeemed, and the integrity of the Government in making it vindicated, at whatever cost.
Resolved, 3. That the national commitment to the freedmen must be fulfilled, and the government's integrity in upholding it validated, no matter the cost.
Resolved, 4. That while we welcome to legal freedom the recent slaves, we solemnly remonstrate against all State or National legislation which may exclude them from any locality, or debar them from any rights or privileges as free and equal citizens of a common Republic.
Resolved, 4. That while we welcome the recently freed slaves into legal freedom, we strongly oppose any state or national laws that may prevent them from living in any area or deny them any rights or privileges as free and equal citizens of our shared Republic.
Resolved, 5. There never can be a true peace in this Republic until the civil and political rights of all citizens of African descent and all women are practically established.
Resolved, 5. There can never be real peace in this Republic until the civil and political rights of all citizens of African descent and all women are fully established.
Resolved, 7. That the women of the Revolution were not wanting in heroism and self-sacrifice, and we, their daughters, are ready in this war to pledge our time, our means, our talents, and our lives, if need be, to secure the final and complete consecration of America to freedom.
Resolved, 7. That the women of the Revolution showed great bravery and selflessness, and we, their daughters, are prepared in this war to dedicate our time, resources, skills, and, if necessary, our lives, to ensure the ultimate and total dedication of America to freedom.
| State. | Men. | Women. | Total. |
| New York | 6,519 | 11,187 | 17,706 |
| Illinois | 6,382 | 8,998 | 15,380 |
| Massachusetts | 4,248 | 7,392 | 11,641 |
| Pennsylvania | 2,259 | 6,366 | 8,625 |
| Ohio | 3,676 | 4,654 | 8,330 |
| Michigan | 1,741 | 4,441 | 6,182 |
| Iowa | 2,025 | 4,014 | 6,039 |
| Maine | 1,225 | 4,362 | 5,587 |
| Wisconsin | 1,639 | 2,391 | 4,030 |
| Indiana | 1,075 | 2,591 | 3,666 |
| New Hampshire | 393 | 2,261 | 2,654 |
| New Jersey | 824 | 1,709 | 2,533 |
| Rhode Island | 827 | 1,451 | 2,278 |
| Vermont | 375 | 1,183 | 1,558 |
| Connecticut | 393 | 1,162 | 1,555 |
| Minnesota | 396 | 1,094 | 1,490 |
| West Virginia | 82 | 100 | 182 |
| Maryland | 115 | 50 | 165 |
| Kansas | 84 | 74 | 158 |
| Delaware | 67 | 70 | 137 |
| Nebraska | 13 | 20 | 33 |
| Kentucky | 21 | 21 | |
| Louisiana (New Orleans) | 14 | 14 | |
| Citizens of the U. S. living in New Brunswick | 19 | 17 | 36 |
| 34,399 | 65,601 | 100,000 |
[46] Behind Clara Barton stood Frances D. Gage and others aiding and encouraging her in the consummation of her plans; with Dorothea Dix in the Hospitals, the untiring labors of Abby Hopper Gibbons and Jane G. Swisshelm must not be forgotten. Three noble daughters, with hand and heart devoted to the work, made it possible for Josephine S. Griffing to accomplish what she did in the Freedman's Bureau. With Anna Dickinson stood hosts of women identified with the Anti-Slavery and the liberal republican movement; and behind the leaders of the National Woman's Loyal League stood 300,000 petitioners for freedom and equality to the black man, and the select body demanding the right of suffrage for woman, who thoroughly understood the genius of republican institutions.
[46] Behind Clara Barton were Frances D. Gage and others supporting and encouraging her in achieving her goals; with Dorothea Dix in the hospitals, we must also recognize the tireless efforts of Abby Hopper Gibbons and Jane G. Swisshelm. Three remarkable women, dedicated to the cause, enabled Josephine S. Griffing to accomplish her work in the Freedman's Bureau. Alongside Anna Dickinson were many women involved with the Anti-Slavery movement and the liberal republican cause; and behind the leaders of the National Woman's Loyal League were 300,000 supporters advocating for freedom and equality for black men, and a select group demanding the right to vote for women, who fully understood the principles of republican institutions.
[47] The facts that Miss Carroll planned the campaign on the Tennessee; that Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell originated the Sanitary movement; and that those Senators most active in carrying the measure for a Freedman's Bureau through Congress, intended that Mrs. Griffing should be its official head, are known only to the few behind the scenes, facts published now on the page of history for the first time.
[47] The information that Miss Carroll organized the campaign in Tennessee, that Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell started the Sanitary movement, and that the Senators most engaged in pushing the Freedman's Bureau through Congress intended for Mrs. Griffing to be its official leader is known only to a select few who were involved, and this is now being shared for the first time in the historical record.
CHAPTER XVII.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.
First petitions to Congress December, 1865, against the word "male" in the 14th Amendment—Joint resolutions before Congress—Messrs. Jenckes, Schenck, Broomall, and Stevens—Republicans protest in presenting petitions—The women seek aid of Democrats—James Brooks in the House of Representatives—Horace Greeley on the petitions—Caroline Healy Dall on Messrs. Jenckes and Schenck—The District of Columbia Suffrage bill—Senator Cowan, of Pennsylvania, moved to strike out the word "male"—A three days' debate in the Senate—The final vote nine in favor of Mr. Cowan's amendment, and thirty-seven against.
First petitions to Congress in December 1865, opposing the word "male" in the 14th Amendment—Joint resolutions before Congress—Messrs. Jenckes, Schenck, Broomall, and Stevens—Republicans object while presenting petitions—The women seek support from Democrats—James Brooks in the House of Representatives—Horace Greeley comments on the petitions—Caroline Healy Dall discusses Messrs. Jenckes and Schenck—The District of Columbia Suffrage bill—Senator Cowan from Pennsylvania proposed to remove the word "male"—A three-day debate in the Senate—The final vote was nine in favor of Mr. Cowan's amendment and thirty-seven against.
Liberty victorious over slavery on the battle-field had now more powerful enemies to encounter at Washington. The slave set free; the master conquered; the South desolate; the two races standing face to face, sharing alike the sad results of war, turned with appealing looks to the General Government, as if to say, "How stand we now?" "What next?" Questions, our statesmen, beset with dangers, fears for the nation's life, of party divisions, of personal defeat, were wholly unprepared to answer. The reconstruction of the South involved the reconsideration of the fundamental principles of our Government, and the natural rights of man. The nation's heart was thrilled with prolonged debates in Congress and State Legislatures, in the pulpits and public journals, and at every fireside on these vital questions, which took final shape in three historic amendments.
Liberty triumphed over slavery in battle but now faced even stronger enemies in Washington. The enslaved were freed; the masters were defeated; the South lay in ruins; the two races stood confronted by each other, equally affected by the tragic aftermath of war, looking to the federal government with hopeful expressions, as if to ask, "What’s our status now?" "What comes next?" These questions overwhelmed our politicians, already stressed by threats to the nation's survival, internal divisions, and personal setbacks, and they were entirely unprepared to provide answers. Rebuilding the South required reconsidering the core principles of our government and the inherent rights of individuals. The nation's spirit buzzed with ongoing debates in Congress and state legislatures, in church sermons, public writings, and around every household about these crucial issues, which ultimately crystallized into three significant amendments.
The first point, his emancipation, settled, the political status of the negro was next in order; and to this end various propositions were submitted to Congress. But to demand his enfranchisement on the broad principle of natural rights, was hedged about with difficulties, as the logical result of such action must be the enfranchisement of all ostracised classes; not only the white women of the entire country, but the slave women of the South. Though our Senators and Representatives had an honest aversion to any proscriptive[Pg 91] legislation against loyal women, in view of their varied and self-sacrificing work during the war, yet the only way they could open the constitutional door just wide enough to let the black man pass in, was to introduce the word "male" into the national Constitution. After the generous devotion of such women as Anna Carroll and Anna Dickinson in sustaining the policy of the Republicans, both in peace and war, they felt it would come with an ill-grace from that party, to place new barriers in woman's path to freedom. But how could the amendment be written without the word "male"? was the question.
The first issue, his freedom, settled, the political status of Black people came next; and for this reason, various proposals were presented to Congress. However, demanding their voting rights based on natural rights was complicated, as the logical outcome of such a move would mean granting voting rights to all marginalized groups, including all white women across the nation and enslaved women in the South. While our Senators and Representatives genuinely disliked any discriminatory legislation against loyal women, considering their diverse and selfless contributions during the war, the only way they could slightly open the constitutional door enough for Black men to enter was by including the word "male" in the national Constitution. After the generous commitment of women like Anna Carroll and Anna Dickinson in supporting the Republican agenda during both peace and war, they felt it would be disgraceful for that party to create new obstacles in women's path to freedom. But how could the amendment be drafted without the word "male"? was the dilemma.
Robert Dale Owen, being at Washington and behind the scenes at the time, sent copies of the various bills to the officers of the Loyal League in New York, and related to them some of the amusing discussions. One of the Committee proposed "persons" instead of "males." "That will never do," said another, "it would enfranchise all the Southern wenches." "Suffrage for black men will be all the strain the Republican party can stand," said another. Charles Sumner said, years afterward, that he wrote over nineteen pages of foolscap to get rid of the word "male" and yet keep "negro suffrage" as a party measure intact; but it could not be done.
Robert Dale Owen, being in Washington and in the know at the time, sent copies of various bills to the officers of the Loyal League in New York and shared some of the amusing discussions. One member of the Committee suggested using "persons" instead of "males." Another replied, "That won't work; it would give the vote to all the Southern women." "Suffrage for black men will be as much as the Republican party can handle," someone else remarked. Charles Sumner later said that he wrote over nineteen pages on foolscap to eliminate the word "male" while keeping "negro suffrage" as a party measure intact, but it just couldn't be done.
Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton, ever on the watch-tower for legislation affecting women, were the first to see the full significance of the word "male" in the 14th Amendment, and at once sounded the alarm, and sent out petitions[48] for a constitutional amendment[Pg 92] to "prohibit the States from disfranchising any of their citizens on the ground of sex."[49]
Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton, always on the lookout for laws that impact women, were the first to recognize the full importance of the word "male" in the 14th Amendment. They immediately raised the alarm and circulated petitions[48] for a constitutional amendment[Pg 92] to "prevent the States from denying any of their citizens the right to vote based on sex."[49]
Miss Anthony, who had spent the year in Kansas, started for New York the moment she saw the propositions before Congress to put the word "male" into the National Constitution, and made haste to rouse the women in the East to the fact that the time had come to begin vigorous work again for woman's enfranchisement.[50] Mr. Tilton (December 27, 1865) proposed the formation of a National Equal Rights Society, demanding suffrage for black men and women alike, of which Wendell Phillips should be President, and the National Anti-Slavery Standard its organ. Mr. Beecher promised to give a lecture (January 30th) for the benefit of this universal suffrage[Pg 93] movement. The New York Independent (Theodore Tilton, editor) gave the following timely and just rebuke of the proposed retrogressive legislation:
Miss Anthony, who had spent the year in Kansas, headed to New York as soon as she saw the proposals in Congress to add the word "male" to the National Constitution. She quickly set out to motivate the women in the East to realize that it was time to start working hard again for women's voting rights.[50] Mr. Tilton (December 27, 1865) suggested forming a National Equal Rights Society, advocating for voting rights for both black men and women, with Wendell Phillips as President and the National Anti-Slavery Standard as its voice. Mr. Beecher promised to give a lecture (January 30th) to support this universal suffrage[Pg 93] movement. The New York Independent (edited by Theodore Tilton) offered a timely and justified criticism of the proposed regressive legislation:
A LAW AGAINST WOMEN.
The spider-crab walks backward. Borrowing this creature's mossy legs, two or three gentlemen in Washington are seeking to fix these upon the Federal Constitution, to make that instrument walk backward in like style. For instance, the Constitution has never laid any legal disabilities upon woman. Whatever denials of rights it formerly made to our slaves, it denied nothing to our wives and daughters. The legal rights of an American woman—for instance, her right to her own property, as against a squandering husband; or her right to her own children, as against a malicious father—have grown, year by year, into a more generous and just statement in American laws. This beautiful result is owing in great measure to the persistent efforts of many noble women who, for years past, both publicly and privately, both by pen and speech, have appealed to legislative committees, and to the whole community, for an enlargement of the legal and civil status of their fellow-country women. Signal, honorable, and beneficent have been the works and words of Lucretia Mott, Lydia Maria Child, Paulina W. Davis, Abby Kelly Foster, Frances D. Gage, Lucy Stone, Caroline H. Dall, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and many others. Not in all the land lives a poor woman, or a widow, who does not owe some portion of her present safety under the law to the brave exertions of these faithful laborers in a good cause.
The spider crab walks backward. Taking inspiration from this creature's mossy legs, a couple of men in Washington are trying to apply the same backward logic to the Federal Constitution. For example, the Constitution has never placed any legal restrictions on women. While it may have denied rights to our former slaves, it granted nothing but rights to our wives and daughters. The legal rights of American women—for instance, their right to own property against a spending husband or their right to their children against a harmful father—have gradually improved in American laws. This wonderful progress is largely thanks to the tireless efforts of many remarkable women who, over the years, both publicly and privately, through writing and speaking, have appealed to legislative committees and the entire community for an expansion of the legal and civil status of their fellow women. The impactful and honorable contributions of Lucretia Mott, Lydia Maria Child, Paulina W. Davis, Abby Kelly Foster, Frances D. Gage, Lucy Stone, Caroline H. Dall, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and many others have been significant. Not a single poor woman or widow in the entire country can claim that she isn’t indebted, in some way, for her current legal safety to the brave efforts of these dedicated advocates for a good cause.
Now, all forward-looking minds know that, sooner or later, the chief public question in this country will be woman's claim to the ballot. The Federal Constitution, as it now stands, leaves this question an open one for the several States to settle as they choose. Two bills, however, now lie before Congress proposing to array the fundamental law of the land against the multitude of American women by ordaining a denial of the political rights of a whole sex. To this injustice we object totally! Such an amendment is a snap judgment before discussion; it is an obstacle to future progress; it is a gratuitous bruise inflicted upon the most tender and humane sentiment that has ever entered into American politics. If the present Congress is not called to legislate for the rights of women, let it not legislate against them.
Now, all forward-thinking individuals know that, sooner or later, the main public issue in this country will be women's right to vote. The Federal Constitution, as it currently stands, leaves this question open for the individual States to decide as they see fit. However, two bills are now before Congress that would set the fundamental law of the land against millions of American women by denying the political rights of an entire gender. We totally object to this injustice! Such an amendment is a hasty decision before any real discussion; it poses an obstacle to future progress; it inflicts an unnecessary wound on the most compassionate and humane sentiment that has ever played a role in American politics. If the current Congress is not set to pass laws for women's rights, let it not pass laws against them.
But Americans now live who shall not go down into the grave till they have left behind them a Republican Government; and no republic is Republican which denies to half its citizens those rights which the Declaration of Independence, and which a true Christian Democracy make equal to all. Meanwhile, let us break the legs of the spider-crab!
But Americans are alive today who will not pass away until they have established a Republican Government; and no republic is truly Republican if it denies half its citizens the rights that the Declaration of Independence and genuine Christian Democracy guarantee to everyone. In the meantime, let’s break the legs of the spider-crab!
While the 13th Amendment was pending, Senator Sumner wrote many letters to the officers of the Loyal League, saying, "Send on the petitions; they give me opportunity for speech." "You are doing a noble work." "I am grateful to your Association for what you have done to arouse the country to insist on the extinction of[Pg 94] slavery." And our petitions were sent again and again, 300,000 strong, and months after the measure was carried, they still rolled in from every quarter where the tracts and appeals had been scattered. But when the proposition for the 14th Amendment was pending, and the same women petitioned for their own civil and political rights, they received no letters of encouragement from Republicans nor Abolitionists; and now came some of the severest trials the women demanding the right of suffrage were ever called on to endure. Though loyal to the Government and the rights of the colored race, they found themselves in antagonism with all with whom they had heretofore sympathized. Though Unionists, Republicans, and Abolitionists, they could not without protest see themselves robbed of their birth-right as citizens of the republic by the proposed amendment. Republicans presented their petitions in a way to destroy their significance, as petitions for "universal suffrage," which to the public meant "manhood suffrage." Abolitionists refused to sign them, saying, "This is the negro's hour."[51][Pg 95] Colored men themselves opposed us, saying, do not block our chance by lumbering the Republican party with Woman Suffrage.
While the 13th Amendment was being discussed, Senator Sumner wrote many letters to the leaders of the Loyal League, saying, "Send in the petitions; they give me a chance to speak." "You're doing an amazing job." "I appreciate your Association for what you’ve done to wake the country up to demand the end of[Pg 94] slavery." Our petitions were sent over and over, 300,000 strong, and months after the measure was passed, they continued to come in from every place where the brochures and appeals had been distributed. But when the proposal for the 14th Amendment was under consideration, and the same women petitioned for their own civil and political rights, they received no letters of support from Republicans or Abolitionists; and now came some of the hardest challenges that the women fighting for the right to vote ever faced. Even though they were loyal to the Government and the rights of the Black community, they found themselves at odds with everyone they had previously supported. Although they were Unionists, Republicans, and Abolitionists, they could not simply stand by while their birthright as citizens of the republic was taken away by the proposed amendment. Republicans presented their petitions in ways that diminished their importance, labeling them as petitions for "universal suffrage," which the public interpreted as "manhood suffrage." Abolitionists refused to sign them, saying, "This is the Black man's moment."[51][Pg 95] Even the Black men themselves opposed us, arguing that we shouldn’t hinder their chances by burdening the Republican party with Woman Suffrage.
The Democrats readily saw how completely the Republicans were stultifying themselves and violating every principle urged in the debates on the 13th Amendment, and volunteered to help the women fight their battle. The Republicans had declared again and again that suffrage was a natural right that belonged to every citizen that paid taxes and helped to support the State. They had declared that the ballot was the only weapon by which one class could protect itself against the aggressions of another. Charles Sumner had rounded out one of his eloquent periods, by saying, "The ballot is the Columbiad of our political life, and every citizen who holds it is a full-armed monitor."
The Democrats quickly recognized how the Republicans were completely undermining themselves and disregarding every principle discussed during the debates on the 13th Amendment, and they offered to support the women in their struggle. The Republicans had repeatedly stated that voting was a natural right belonging to every citizen who paid taxes and contributed to the State. They had asserted that the ballot was the only tool that one group could use to defend itself against the encroachments of another. Charles Sumner had concluded one of his powerful speeches by saying, "The ballot is the Columbiad of our political life, and every citizen who holds it is a fully armed monitor."
The Democrats had listened to all the glowing debates on these great principles of freedom until the argument was as familiar as a, b, c, and continually pressed the Republicans with their own weapons. Then those loyal women were taunted with having gone over to the Democrats and the Disunionists. But neither taunts nor persuasions moved them from their purpose to prevent, if possible, the introduction of the word "male" into the Federal Constitution, where it never had been before. They could not see the progress—in purging the Constitution of all invidious distinctions on the ground of color—while creating such distinctions for the first time in regard to sex.
The Democrats had heard all the enthusiastic discussions about these important principles of freedom until the arguments became as familiar as the alphabet, and they kept challenging the Republicans with their own tactics. Then those dedicated women were mocked for supposedly siding with the Democrats and the Disunionists. But neither the mockery nor the attempts to persuade them changed their determination to stop the word "male" from being added to the Federal Constitution, where it had never existed before. They couldn’t understand how it was seen as progress to eliminate all unfair distinctions based on race while creating new distinctions for the first time based on gender.
In the face of all opposition they scattered their petitions broadcast, and in one session of Congress they rolled in upwards of ten thousand. The Democrats treated the petitioners with respect, and called attention in every way to the question.[52] But even such Republicans[Pg 96] as Charles Sumner presented them, if at all, under protest. A petition from Massachusetts, with the name of Lydia Maria Child at the head, was presented by the great Senator under protest[Pg 97] as "most inopportune!" As if there could be a more fitting time for action than when the bills were pending.
Despite all the opposition, they spread their petitions far and wide, and in one session of Congress, they submitted over ten thousand. The Democrats treated the petitioners with respect and highlighted the issue in every possible way.[52] However, even Republicans[Pg 96] like Charles Sumner presented them, if at all, with a disclaimer. A petition from Massachusetts, signed by Lydia Maria Child, was submitted by the prominent Senator but under protest[Pg 97] as "most untimely!" As if there could be a more appropriate time for action than when the bills were on the table.
During the morning hour of February 21st, Senator Henderson, of Missouri, presented a petition from New York.[Pg 98]
During the morning of February 21st, Senator Henderson from Missouri presented a petition from New York.[Pg 98]
SUFFRAGE FOR WOMEN.
Mr. Henderson: I present the petition of Mrs. Gerrit Smith and twenty-seven other ladies of the United States, the most of them from the State of New York, praying that the right of suffrage be granted to women. Along with the petition I received a note, stating as follows:
Mr. Henderson: I present the petition from Mrs. Gerrit Smith and twenty-seven other women from the United States, most of whom are from New York, requesting that women be given the right to vote. Along with the petition, I received a note that says:
I notice in the debates of to-day that Mr. Yates promises, at the "proper time" to tell you why the women of Illinois are not permitted to vote. To give you an opportunity to press him on this point I send you a petition, signed by twenty-eight intelligent women of this State, who are native-born Americans—read, write, and pay taxes, and now claim representation! I was surprised to-day to find Mr. Sumner presenting a petition, with an apology, from the women of the republic. After his definition of a true republic, and his lofty peans to "equal rights" and the ballot, one would hardly expect him to ignore the claims of fifteen million educated tax-payers, now taking their places by the side of man in art, science, literature, and government. I trust, sir, you will present this petition in a manner more creditable to yourself and respectful to those who desire to speak through you. Remember, the right of petition is our only right in the Government; and when three joint resolutions are before the House to introduce the word "male" into the Federal Constitution, "it is the proper time" for the women of the nation to be heard, Mr. Sumner to the contrary notwithstanding.
I see that in today’s debates, Mr. Yates promises to explain why women in Illinois aren’t allowed to vote "at the right time." To give you a chance to press him on this issue, I’m sending you a petition signed by twenty-eight intelligent women from this state, who are native-born Americans—who can read, write, and pay taxes, and are now claiming representation! I was surprised today to see Mr. Sumner presenting a petition, along with an apology, from the women of the republic. After his definition of a true republic and his grand speeches about "equal rights" and the ballot, you wouldn’t expect him to ignore the demands of fifteen million educated taxpayers who are now standing alongside men in art, science, literature, and government. I hope, sir, that you will present this petition in a way that is more respectable for you and respectful to those who wish to communicate through you. Remember, the right to petition is our only right in Government; and when three joint resolutions are in front of the House to add the word "male" to the Federal Constitution, "it’s the right time" for the women of the nation to be heard, regardless of Mr. Sumner’s opinion.
The right of petition is a sacred right, and whatever may be thought of giving the ballot to women, the right to ask it of the Government can not be denied them. I present this petition without any apology. Indeed, I present it with pleasure. It is respectful in its terms, and is signed by ladies occupying so high a place in the moral, social, and intellectual world, that it challenges at our hands, at least a respectful consideration. The distinguished Senators from Massachusetts and from Illinois must make their own defense against the assumed inconsistency of their position. They are abundantly able to give reasons for their faith in all things; whether they can give reasons satisfactory to the ladies in this case, I do not know. The Senators may possibly argue that if women vote at all, the right should not be exercised before the age of twenty-one; that they are generally married at or before that age, and that when married, they become, or ought to become, merged in their husbands; that the act of one must be regarded as the act of the other; that the good of society demands this unity for purposes of social order; that political differences should not be permitted to disturb the peace of a relation so sacred. The honorable Senators will be able to find authority for this position, not only in the common law, approved as it is by the wisdom and experience of ages, but in the declaration of the first man, on the occasion of the first marriage, when he said, "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." It may be answered, however, that the wife, though one with her husband, at least constitutes his better half, and if the married man be entitled to but one vote, the unmarried man should be satisfied with less than half a vote. [Laughter]. Having some doubts, myself, whether beyond a certain age, to which I have not yet arrived, such a man should be entitled to a vote or even half a vote, I leave the difficulty to be settled by my friend from Massachusetts and the fair petitioners. The petitioners claim, that as we are proposing to enfranchise four million emancipated slaves, equal and impartial justice alike demands the suffrage for fifteen million women.[Pg 99] At first view the proposition can scarcely be met with denial, yet reasons "thick as blackberries" and strong as truth itself may be urged in favor of the ballot in the one case, which can not be urged in the other.
The right to petition is a fundamental right, and regardless of opinions about granting women the vote, they cannot be denied the right to request it from the Government. I present this petition without any apology. In fact, I present it with pride. It is respectful in its language, and it's signed by women who hold such esteemed positions in the moral, social, and intellectual realms that it warrants at least our respectful attention. The notable Senators from Massachusetts and Illinois will have to justify the apparent inconsistency in their stance. They are more than capable of providing justifications for their beliefs in all matters; whether those justifications will satisfy the women involved in this case, I cannot say. The Senators might argue that if women are allowed to vote, it should not happen until they are at least twenty-one; that they are usually married by that age, and when they are married, they become, or should become, one with their husbands; that the actions of one should reflect the actions of the other; that the well-being of society requires this unity to maintain social order; and that political disagreements shouldn’t disrupt such a sacred relationship. The honorable Senators can find support for this view not only in common law, which is respected for its wisdom and experience over the ages, but also in the words of the first man during the first marriage when he stated, "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." However, it might be countered that while the wife is one with her husband, she is still his better half, and if a married man is entitled to only one vote, then an unmarried man should accept less than half a vote. [Laughter]. Personally, I have some doubts about whether, after a certain age that I have yet to reach, such a man should be entitled to a vote or even half a vote, so I’ll leave that issue to be resolved by my friend from Massachusetts and the gracious petitioners. The petitioners argue that since we are considering granting suffrage to four million freed slaves, equal and fair justice demands the same for fifteen million women.[Pg 99] At first glance, this proposal is hard to disagree with, yet there are reasons "as plentiful as blackberries" and as strong as the truth itself that can be advocated for voting rights in one case that can't be applied in the other.
Mr. Saulsbury: I rise to a point of order. My point of order is, that a man who has lived an old bachelor as long as the Senator from Missouri has, has no right to talk about women's rights. [Laughter].
Mr. Saulsbury: I want to raise a point of order. My point is that a man who has been a lifelong bachelor like the Senator from Missouri doesn't have the right to discuss women's rights. [Laughter].
The President pro tem.: The chair moves that is not a point of order; and the Senator from Missouri will proceed.
The President pro tem.: The chair states that this is not a point of order; the Senator from Missouri may proceed.
Mr. Henderson: I had no idea that that was a point of order, sir. Whatever may be said theoretically about the elective franchise as a natural right, in practice at least, it has always been denied in the most liberal States to more than half the population. It is withheld from those whose crimes prove them devoid of respect for social order, and generally from those whose ignorance or imbecility unfits them for an intelligent appreciation of the duties of citizens and the blessings of good government. To women the suffrage has been denied in almost all Governments, not for the reasons just stated, but because it is wholly unnecessary as a means of their protection. In the government of nature the weaker animals and insects, dependent on themselves for safety and life, are provided with means of defense. The bee has its sting and the despised serpent its deadly poison. So, in the Governments of men, the weak must be provided with power to inspire fear at least in the strong, if not to command their respect. Political power was claimed originally by the people as a means of protecting themselves against the usurpations of those in power, whose interests or caprices might lead to their oppression. Hence came the republican system. But it was never thought the interests or caprices of men could lead to a denial of the civil rights or social supremacy of woman. People of one race have always been unjust to those of another. The ignorant and sordid Jew despised the Samaritan and scoffed at the idea of his equality. To him the learned and accomplished Greek was a barbarian, and all rights were denied him except those simple rights accorded to the most degraded Gentile. Chinamen, to-day, believe as firmly in the superiority of the celestial race as Americans do in the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon. All races of men are unjust to other races. They are unjust because of pride. That very pride makes them just to the women of their own race. There may be men who have prejudice against race; they are less than men who have prejudice against sex. The social position of woman in the United States is such that no civil right can be denied her. The women here have entire charge of the social and moral world. Hence she must be educated. First impressions are those which bend the mind to noble or ignoble action, and these impressions are made by mothers. To have intelligent voters we must have intelligent mothers. To have free men we must have free women. The voter from this source receives his moral and intellectual training. Woman makes the voter, and should not descend from her lofty sphere to engage in the angry contests of her creatures. She makes statesmen, and her gentle influence, like the finger of the angel pointing to the path of duty, would be lost in the controversies of political strife. She makes[Pg 100] the soldier, infuses courage and patriotism in his youthful heart, and hovers like an invisible spirit over the field of battle, urging him on to victory or death in defense of the right. Hence woman takes no musket to the battle-field. Here, as in politics, her personal presence would detract from her power. Galileo, Newton, and La Place could not fitly discuss the laws of planetary motion with ignorant rustics at a country inn. The learned divine who descends from the theological seminary to wrangle upon doctrinal points with the illiterate, stubborn teacher of a small country flock must lose half his influence for good. Our Government is built as our Capitol is built. The strong and brawny arms of men, like granite blocks, support its arches; but woman, lovely woman, the true goddess of Liberty, crowns its dome.
Mr. Henderson: I had no idea that was a point of order, sir. No matter what can be said in theory about the right to vote as a natural entitlement, in practice, it has always been denied to more than half the population, even in the most liberal states. It is taken away from those whose crimes show they lack respect for social order and generally from those whose ignorance or incapacity make them unfit for an informed understanding of the responsibilities of citizenship and the benefits of good governance. Almost all governments have denied women the right to vote, not for the reasons just mentioned, but because it's seen as unnecessary for their protection. In nature, weaker animals and insects, relying on themselves for safety and survival, have defenses. The bee has its sting, and the despised serpent has its deadly venom. Similarly, in human governments, the weak must be given power to instill at least some fear in the strong, if not to earn their respect. Political power was originally claimed by the people as a way to protect themselves against the overreach of those in authority, whose interests or whims could lead to oppression. This gave rise to the republican system. However, it was never considered that personal interests or whims could lead to women being stripped of their civil rights or social standing. Throughout history, people of one race have often treated those of another unfairly. The ignorant and base Jew looked down on the Samaritan and rejected the notion of equality. To him, the educated and cultured Greek was a barbarian, and all rights were denied to him except for those meager rights granted to the most degraded Gentile. Today, Chinese people firmly believe in their racial superiority just as Americans do in the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon. All races tend to be unjust to others. They are unjust because of pride. That same pride makes them just toward the women of their own race. There may be men who are biased against certain races; those men are less significant than those who hold biases against women. The social standing of women in the United States is such that no civil right can be denied to them. Women here hold complete responsibility for the social and moral fabric of society. Therefore, they must be educated. First impressions are those that shape the mind toward noble or base actions, and these impressions are formed by mothers. To have informed voters, we need informed mothers. To have free men, we need free women. The voter receives their moral and intellectual guidance from this source. Women create the voter and should not lower themselves to participate in the heated disputes of their creations. They shape statesmen, and their gentle influence, like an angel's finger pointing to the path of duty, would be lost in the turmoil of political conflict. Women create[Pg 100] the soldier, instilling courage and patriotism in his young heart, and watch over the battlefield like an unseen spirit, urging him toward victory or death in defense of what is right. Thus, women do not carry muskets to the battlefield. Here, like in politics, their physical presence would diminish their influence. Galileo, Newton, and La Place could not appropriately discuss the laws of planetary motion with ignorant farmers at a country inn. The learned theologian who comes down from the theological seminary to argue doctrinal issues with an illiterate, stubborn teacher of a small country congregation would lose much of his ability to affect positive change. Our government is constructed just like our Capitol. The strong, muscular arms of men, like granite blocks, support its arches; but women, beautiful women, the true goddesses of Liberty, crown its dome.
Mr. Yates: I wish to ask the Senator from Missouri a question. I understand that he has introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States so that there shall be no distinction on account of color. Will the gentleman accept an amendment to that resolution that there shall be no distinction in regard to sex?
Mr. Yates: I’d like to ask the Senator from Missouri a question. I understand he has put forward a resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States to ensure there’s no distinction based on color. Will the gentleman agree to an amendment to that resolution that there should be no distinction regarding sex?
Mr. Henderson: I have given my views, I think, very distinctly, as the Senator would have found if he had listened, in the latter part of what I have just stated in reference to the question of voting. In reply to what he has said, I will say that I do not think that on the mere presentation of a petition it is in order to discuss the merits of the petition. I hope, therefore, that the Senator will not insist upon entering into a question of that sort now.
Mr. Henderson: I've expressed my views quite clearly, as the Senator would know if he had paid attention to the latter part of what I just said about voting. In response to his comments, I want to say that I don’t believe it’s appropriate to discuss the merits of a petition just because it has been presented. I hope, therefore, that the Senator won’t push to discuss that kind of issue right now.
Mr. Yates: I shall not do so. I only wish to say that I am not proposing to amend the Constitution. I simply desire to give rights to those who have rights under the Constitution as it has been amended. When I propose to amend the Constitution then the question will come up whether I will allow women to vote or not.
Mr. Yates: I'm not going to do that. I just want to say that I'm not suggesting any changes to the Constitution. I only want to ensure that people who have rights according to the Constitution, as it stands, are recognized. When I propose to change the Constitution, then we can discuss whether or not I'll allow women to vote.
Mr. Sumner: Before this petition passes out of sight I wish to make one observation, and only one. The Senator from Missouri began by an allusion to myself and to a remark which fell from me when I presented the other day a petition from women of the United States praying for the ballot. I took occasion then to remark that in my opinion the petition at that time was not judicious. That was all that I said. I did not undertake to express my opinion on the great question whether women should vote or should not vote. I did venture to say that in my opinion it was not judicious for them at this moment to bring forward their claims so as to compromise in any way the great question of equal rights for an enfranchised race now before Congress. The Senator has quoted a letter suggesting that I did not present the petition in a creditable way. I have now to felicitate my excellent friend on the creditable way in which he has performed his duty. [Laughter].
Mr. Sumner: Before this petition fades from view, I want to make one comment, and just one. The Senator from Missouri started by referring to me and to something I said recently when I presented a petition from women across the United States asking for the right to vote. At that time, I mentioned that I felt the petition wasn’t wise. That was all I said. I didn’t try to share my thoughts on the bigger issue of whether women should vote or not. I did express that I believed it wasn’t wise for them to bring up their claims right now if it would in any way undermine the crucial issue of equal rights for an enfranchised race currently before Congress. The Senator quoted a letter suggesting that I didn’t present the petition effectively. Now, I want to congratulate my esteemed friend on the commendable way he has carried out his responsibility. [Laughter].
Mr. Yates: Allow me to say that I think the two gentlemen, one of whom has arrived at the age of forty-nine and the other sixty-three, have no right to discuss the question of women's rights in the Senate. [Laughter].
Mr. Yates: Let me just say that I believe the two gentlemen, one of whom is forty-nine and the other sixty-three, shouldn't be discussing women's rights in the Senate. [Laughter].
The President pro tem.: Will the Senator from Missouri suggest the disposition he wishes made of this petition?[Pg 101]
The President pro tem.: Can the Senator from Missouri share how he would like this petition to be handled?[Pg 101]
Mr. Henderson: Let it lie on the table.
Mr. Henderson: Just leave it on the table.
The President pro tem.: That order will be made.
The President pro tem.: That order will be implemented.
The wriggling, the twisting, the squirming of the Republicans at this crisis under the double fire of the Democrats and the women, would have been laughable, had not their proposed action been so outrageously unjust and ungrateful. The tone of the Republican press[53] was stale, flat, and unprofitable. But while their journals were thus unsparing in their ridicule and criticism of the loyal women who had proved themselves so patriotic and self-sacrificing, they would grant them no space in their columns to reply.[54][Pg 102]
The squirming, twisting, and wriggling of the Republicans during this crisis, under the intense pressure from both the Democrats and the women, would have been funny if their proposed actions weren’t so unfair and ungrateful. The tone of the Republican press[53] was old, dull, and unproductive. However, while their publications were relentless in ridiculing and criticizing the loyal women who had shown such patriotism and selflessness, they refused to give them any space in their columns to respond.[54][Pg 102]
The second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress is memorable for an able debate in the Senate on the enfranchisement of woman, on[Pg 103] the bill[55] "to regulate the franchise in the District of Columbia," which proposed extending the suffrage to the "males" of the colored race. On Monday, December 10, 1866, Senator Cowan, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend the amendment by striking out the word "male" before the word person. This debate in the Senate lasted three entire days, and during that time the comments of the press were as varied as they were multitudinous. Even Horace Greeley,[56] who had ever been a true friend to woman, in favor of all her rights, industrial, educational, and political, said the time had not yet come for her enfranchisement.
The second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress is notable for a significant debate in the Senate about women's voting rights, specifically on[Pg 103] the bill[55] "to regulate the franchise in the District of Columbia," which aimed to extend voting rights to "males" of the colored race. On Monday, December 10, 1866, Senator Cowan from Pennsylvania proposed an amendment to remove the word "male" before "person." This debate in the Senate lasted for three whole days, and during that time, the media coverage was both extensive and varied. Even Horace Greeley,[56] who had always been a strong advocate for women's rights in every aspect—industrial, educational, and political—stated that the time had not yet arrived for women's voting rights.
From The Congressional Globe of December 11th, 12th, 13th, 1866, we give the debates on Mr. Cowan's amendment. In moving to drop the word "male" from the District of Columbia Suffrage bill, he said:
From The Congressional Globe of December 11th, 12th, 13th, 1866, we give the debates on Mr. Cowan's amendment. In moving to remove the word "male" from the District of Columbia Suffrage bill, he said:
Mr. President: It is very well known that I have always heretofore been opposed to any change of the kind contemplated by this bill; but while opposing that change I have uniformly asserted that if it became inevitable, if the change was certain, I should insist upon this change[Pg 104] as an accompaniment. It is agreed—for I suppose when my honorable friend from Rhode Island [Mr. Anthony] and myself agree to it, it will be taken to be the universal sentiment of the body—that the right of suffrage is not a natural right, but a conventional right, and that it may be limited by the community, the body-politic, in any manner they see fit and consistent with their sense of propriety and safety.
Mr. President: It’s widely known that I've always been against any kind of change proposed by this bill; however, while opposing that change, I have consistently stated that if it became unavoidable, if the change was certain, I would push for this change[Pg 104] to go along with it. It’s agreed—since my honorable colleague from Rhode Island [Mr. Anthony] and I are in agreement, it will likely be viewed as the common perspective of the group—that the right to vote is not a natural right, but a man-made one, and that the community, the body politic, can limit it in any way they see fit that aligns with their sense of propriety and safety.
The proposition now before the Senate is to confer on the colored people of this District the right of franchise; that is, the advocates of the bill say that that will be safe and prudent and proper, and will contribute, of course, to the happiness of the mass of the inhabitants of the District; and they further say that no reason can be given why a man of one color should not vote as well as a man of another color, especially when both are equally members of the same society, equally subjected to its burdens, equally to be called upon to defend it in the field, and all that. I agree to a great portion of that. I do not know and never did know any very good reason why a black man should not vote as well as a white man, except simply that all the white men said, "We do not like it." I do not know of any very good reason why a black woman should not marry a white man, but I suppose the white man would give about the same reason, he does not like to do it. There are certain things in which we do not like to go into partnership with the people of different races and between whom and ourselves there are tribal antipathies. It is now proposed to break down that barrier, so far as political power may be concerned, and admit both equally to share in this privilege; and since the barrier is to be broken down, and since there is to be a change, I desire another change, for which I think there is quite as good a reason, and a little better, perhaps, than that offered for this. I propose to extend this privilege not only to males, but to females as well: and I should like to hear even the most astute and learned Senator upon this floor give any better reason for the exclusion of females from the right of suffrage than there is for the exclusion of negroes. I want to hear that reason. I should like to know it.
The proposal currently under consideration by the Senate is to grant the people of color in this District the right to vote. The supporters of the bill argue that this would be a safe, wise, and appropriate decision, contributing to the well-being of the majority of residents in the District. They also assert that there’s no valid reason why a person of one color shouldn’t be able to vote just as a person of another color can, especially when both are equal members of the same society, equally burdened by it, and both can be called to defend it in times of war. I agree with much of that. I have never really understood why a black man shouldn’t be able to vote just like a white man, other than that all the white men seem to say, "We don’t like it." I also don’t see a good reason why a black woman shouldn’t be able to marry a white man, but I assume the white man would have a similar excuse: he doesn’t like it. There are certain areas where we hesitate to partner with people of different races, especially when there’s historical tension between us. Now, there’s a proposal to dismantle that barrier when it comes to political power, allowing both groups to share this privilege equally. And since we’re breaking down that barrier and making a change, I want to propose another change, which I believe has just as much, if not more, justification than the argument for the first change. I propose to extend this right not just to men but to women as well, and I would really like to hear even the most knowledgeable senator here provide a better reason for excluding women from the right to vote than there is for excluding black people. I’m eager to know that reason.
Now, for my part, I very much prefer, if the franchise is to be widened, if more people are to be admitted to the exercise of it, to allow females to participate than I would negroes; but certainly I shall never give my consent to the disfranchisement of females who live in society, who pay taxes, who are governed by the laws, and who have a right, I think, even in that respect, at times to throw their weight in the balance for the purpose of correcting the corruptions and the viciousness to which the male portions of the family tend. I think they have a right to throw their influence into the scale; and I should like to hear any reason to be offered why this should not be. Taxation and representation ought to go hand in hand. That we have heard here until all ears have been wearied with it. If taxation and representation are to go hand in hand, why should they not go hand in hand with regard to the female as well as the male? Is there any reason why Mrs. Smith should be governed by a goat-head of a mayor any more than John Smith, if he could correct it? He is paid by taxes levied and assessed on her property just in the same way as he is paid out of taxes levied on the property of John.[Pg 105] If she commits an offense she is subjected to be tried, convicted, and punished by the other sex alone; and she has no protection whatever in any way either as to her property, her person, or to her liberty very often. There is another thing, too. A great many reflections have been made upon the white race keeping the black in slavery. I should like to know whether we have not partially kept the female sex in a condition of slavery, particularly that part of them who labor for a living? I do not know of any reason in the world why a woman should be confined to two dollars a week when a man gets two dollars a day and does not do any more work than she does, and does not do that which he does do quite so well at all times.
Now, personally, I'd much rather see the franchise expanded to include women rather than just more men; but I will never agree to take away the voting rights of women who are part of society, pay taxes, follow the laws, and have a right to weigh in on issues to help correct the problems and corruption that can arise from the male members of society. I believe they have a right to contribute their influence, and I’d like to hear any reasons why they shouldn’t. We've been told that taxation and representation should go hand in hand until we're all tired of hearing it. If taxation and representation are to go hand in hand, then why shouldn't that apply to women just as it does to men? Is there a reason why Mrs. Smith should be governed by a terrible mayor just as John Smith would be if he could change it? The mayor is paid through taxes collected from her property just like he is paid from taxes collected from John’s property.[Pg 105] If she commits an offense, she is tried, convicted, and punished solely by men; and she has no protection regarding her property, her person, or her freedom. Additionally, many have criticized the white race for keeping the black population in slavery. I want to know if we haven't partially kept women in a form of slavery, especially those who work for a living? I can't see any reason a woman should be limited to earning two dollars a week while a man makes two dollars a day for doing no more work and often not doing the job as well.
Mr. President, if we are to venture upon this wide sea of universal suffrage, I object to manhood suffrage. I do not know anything specially about manhood which dedicates it to this purpose more than exists about womanhood. Womanhood to me is rather the more exalted of the two. It is purer; it is higher; it is holier; and it is not purchasable at the same price that the other is, in my judgment. If you want to widen the franchise so as to purify your ballot-box, throw the virtue of the country into it; throw the temperance of the country into it; throw the purity of the country into it; throw the angel element, if I may so express myself, into it. [Laughter]. Let there be as little diabolism as possible, but as much of the divinity as you can get. Therefore, Mr. President, I put this as a serious question for the consideration of this body. In the presence of the tendencies of the age and in recognition of this movement, which my honorable friend from Massachusetts is always talking about, and of which he seems to have had premonition long before it came to any of the rest of us—I say in the face of this movement and in recognition of it, I earnestly beg all patriots here to think of this proposition. It is inevitable. How are you to resist when it is made the demand of fifteen million American females for this right, which can be granted and which can be as safely exercised in their hands as it can in the hands of negroes? And I would ask gentlemen while they are bestowing this ballot which has such merit in it, which has such a healing efficacy for all ills, which educates people, and which elevates them above the common level of mankind, and which, above all, protects them, how they will go home and look in the face their sewing women, their laboring women, their single women, their taxed women, their overburdened women, their women who toil till midnight for the barest subsistence, and say to them, "We have it not for you; we could give it to the negro, but we could not give it to you."
Mr. President, if we are going to embark on this vast ocean of universal suffrage, I have a problem with manhood suffrage. I don’t see anything about being male that makes it more suited for this purpose than being female. To me, womanhood is actually the more elevated of the two. It is purer, it is higher, it is holier, and it isn’t something you can buy as easily as the other. If you want to expand the right to vote to purify the ballot box, bring in the virtue of the nation; bring in the temperance of the nation; bring in the purity of the nation; bring in, if I may say so, the angelic qualities. [Laughter]. We need to reduce as much negativity as possible, but increase as much goodness as we can. So, Mr. President, I’m putting this forward as a serious question for this group to consider. Given the trends of our time and acknowledging the movement that my esteemed friend from Massachusetts has often mentioned, and of which he seemed to be aware long before the rest of us—I say in recognition of this movement, I sincerely urge all patriots here to reflect on this idea. It’s inevitable. How can you resist when it is the demand of fifteen million American women for this right, which can be granted and can be exercised just as safely in their hands as it can in the hands of Black men? And I ask the gentlemen, while they are giving this ballot, which carries so much value, which can heal many issues, which educates people and lifts them above the average state of humanity, and above all, protects them, how they will go home and look into the faces of their seamstresses, their working women, their single women, their taxed women, their overburdened women, their women who work until midnight just to make ends meet, and say to them, “We don’t have this for you; we could give it to Black men, but we couldn’t give it to you.”
How would the honorable Senator from Massachusetts face the recent meeting of the Equal Rights Society in Philadelphia? How would he answer the potent arguments which were offered there and which challenge an answer even from the Senate of the United States, when made by women of the highest intellect, perhaps, on the planet, and women who are determined, knowing their rights, to maintain them and to secure them? I ask honorable Senators of his faith how they are to answer those ladies there? If this is refused, how are Senators to answer, especially those who recognize the onward force of this movement, who[Pg 106] are up to the tendencies of the times, who desire to keep themselves in front of the great army of humanity which is marching forward just as certainly to universal suffrage as to universal manhood suffrage. Therefore, Mr. President, I offer this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays upon it.
How will the honorable Senator from Massachusetts respond to the recent meeting of the Equal Rights Society in Philadelphia? How will he address the strong arguments presented there that demand a reply, even from the Senate of the United States, when made by some of the most intelligent women on the planet who are determined to assert and secure their rights? I ask the honorable Senators who share his beliefs how they will respond to those women. If they refuse to engage, how can Senators respond, especially those who acknowledge the momentum of this movement, who understand the current trends, and who want to stay aligned with the vast army of humanity that is moving steadily towards universal suffrage just as it is towards universal manhood suffrage? Therefore, Mr. President, I propose this amendment and request a vote on it.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The votes were called.
Mr. Anthony: I move that the Senate do now adjourn. ["Oh, no!"]
Mr. Anthony: I propose that the Senate adjourn now. ["Oh, no!"]
Mr. Wilson: I hope not.
Mr. Wilson: I hope not.
The President pro tem.: The motion is not debatable and must be put unless withdrawn.
The President pro tem.: The motion can't be debated and has to be voted on unless it's taken back.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.
The motion was approved, and the Senate adjourned.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT.
In Senate, Tuesday, Dec. 11, 1866.
In Senate, Tuesday, Dec. 11, 1866.
The President pro tempore: If there be no further morning business, and no motion is interposed, the chair, although the morning hour has not expired, will call up the unfinished business, which is the bill (S, No. 1) to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia, the pending question being on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan] to strike out the word "male" before the word "person" in the second line of the first section of the amendment, reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia as a substitute for the original bill.
The President pro tempore: If there’s no more morning business and no motions put forward, the chair will move on to the unfinished business, which is the bill (S, No. 1) to regulate voting rights in the District of Columbia. The current issue is the amendment from the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan] to remove the word "male" before "person" in the second line of the first section of the amendment, which was submitted by the Committee on the District of Columbia as an alternative to the original bill.
Mr. Anthony: I suppose the Senator from Pennsylvania introduced this amendment rather as a satire upon the bill itself, or if he had any serious intention it was only a mischievous one to injure the bill; but it will not probably have that effect, for I suppose nobody will vote for it except the Senator himself, who can hardly avoid it, and I, who shall vote for it because it accords with a conclusion to which I have been brought by considerable study upon the subject of suffrage. I do not contend for female suffrage on the ground that it is a natural right, because I believe that suffrage is a right derived from society, and that society is competent to impose upon the exercise of that right whatever conditions it chooses. I hold that the suffrage is a delegated trust—a trust delegated to certain designated classes of society—and that the whole body-politic has the same right to withdraw any part of that trust, that we have to withdraw any part of the powers or the trusts that we have imposed upon any executive officer, and that it is no more a punishment to restrict the suffrage, and thereby deprive certain persons of the exercise of that right who have heretofore exercised it, than it is a punishment on the Secretary of the Treasury if we should take from him the appointment of certain persons whose appointment is now vested in him. The power that confers in each case has the right to withdraw.
Mr. Anthony: I think the Senator from Pennsylvania introduced this amendment more as a joke about the bill itself, or if he had any serious intention, it was just to harm the bill. But it probably won't have that effect, since I assume no one will support it except the Senator himself, who really can’t avoid it, and me, as I will vote for it because it aligns with my conclusions after studying the issue of voting rights. I don’t argue for women’s voting rights on the grounds that it’s a natural right, because I believe voting rights come from society, and society can set whatever conditions it wants on exercising that right. I believe that voting is a delegated trust—a trust given to certain designated groups within society—and that the entire political body has the same right to withdraw part of that trust as we do to take back powers or trusts we’ve assigned to any government official. It’s no more a punishment to limit voting rights and thereby prevent certain individuals from exercising a right they’ve had before than it is to punish the Secretary of the Treasury if we were to remove his authority to appoint certain individuals. The authority that gives in either situation has the right to take back.
The true basis of suffrage, of course, is intelligence and virtue; but as we can not define those, as we can not draw the line that shall mark the amount of intelligence and virtue that any individual possesses, we come as near as we can to it by imperfect conditions. It certainly will not be contended that the feminine part of mankind are so much below the masculine in point of intelligence as to disqualify them from exercising the right of suffrage on that account. If it be asserted and conceded[Pg 107] that the feminine intellect is less vigorous, it must also be allowed that it is more acute; if it is not so strong to strike, it is quicker to perceive. But at all events, it will not be contended that there is such a difference in the intellectual capacity of the sexes as that that alone should be a disqualification from the exercise of the right of suffrage. Still less will it be contended that the female part of creation is less virtuous than the masculine. On the contrary, it will be conceded by every one that morality and good order, religion, charity, and all good works appertain rather more to the feminine than to the masculine race.
The real foundation of voting rights is, of course, intelligence and virtue; but since we can't define those or draw a line to determine how much intelligence and virtue any individual has, we rely on imperfect criteria. It's certainly not tenable to argue that women are so far below men in intelligence that they shouldn't have the right to vote. Even if we agree that women's intelligence might not be as strong, we must also recognize that it can be sharper; while it may not be as forceful, it is quicker to understand. However, it won't be argued that there's such a gap in intellectual ability between the sexes that it should disqualify anyone from voting rights. Even less can it be claimed that women are less virtuous than men. On the contrary, it's widely accepted that morality, good order, religion, charity, and all good deeds are more often associated with women than with men.
The argument that women do not want to vote is no argument at all, because if the right to vote is conferred upon them they can exercise it or not, as they choose. It is not a compulsory exercise of power on their part. But I think that argument is partly disproved by the Convention to which the Senator from Pennsylvania referred yesterday, whose arguments he said were worthy of consideration even in this Chamber. I think they are, and I think it would be very difficult for any one in this Chamber to disprove them. Nor is it a fair statement of the case to say that the man represents the woman in the exercise of suffrage, because it is an assumption on the part of the man; it is an involuntary representation so far as the woman is concerned. Representation implies a certain delegated power, and a certain responsibility on the part of the representative toward the party represented. A representation to which the represented party does not assent is no representation at all, but is adding insult to injury. When the American Colonies complained that they ought not to be taxed unless they were represented in the British Parliament, it would have been rather a singular answer to tell them that they were represented by Lord North, or even by the Earl of Chatham. The gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber who say that the States lately in rebellion are entitled to immediate representation in this Chamber would hardly be satisfied if we should tell them that my friend from Massachusetts represented South Carolina, and my friend from Michigan represented Alabama. They would hardly be satisfied, I think, with that kind of representation.
The claim that women don’t want to vote isn't really valid, because if they are given the right to vote, they can choose whether to use it or not. It's not mandatory for them to exercise that right. I believe this argument is somewhat disproved by the Convention the Senator from Pennsylvania mentioned yesterday, which he argued deserves our attention even here. I think it does, and I believe it would be very hard for anyone in this Chamber to refute it. It’s also not accurate to say that a man represents a woman in voting rights, because that’s an assumption made by the man; it’s an uninvited representation from the woman’s perspective. True representation involves assigned power and responsibility from the representative to the represented party. If the represented party hasn't agreed to this representation, then it really isn’t representation at all, and it only adds insult to injury. When the American Colonies argued that they shouldn't be taxed without representation in the British Parliament, it would have been quite odd to respond by saying they were represented by Lord North or even by the Earl of Chatham. The men on the other side of the Chamber who think the states that recently rebelled should immediately be represented here would probably not be satisfied if we told them that my friend from Massachusetts represented South Carolina, and my friend from Michigan represented Alabama. I doubt they would find that type of representation acceptable.
Nor have we any more right to assume that the women are satisfied with the representation of the men. Where has been the assembly at which this right of representation was conferred? Where was the compact made? What were the conditions? It is wholly an assumption. A woman is a member of a manufacturing corporation; she is a stockholder in a bank; she is a shareholder in a railroad company; she attends all those meetings in person or by proxy, and she votes, and her vote is received. Suppose a woman offering to vote at a meeting of a railroad corporation should be told by one of the men "we represent you, you can not vote," it would be precisely the argument that is now used—that men represent the women in the exercise of the elective franchise. A woman pays a large tax, and the man who drives her coach, the man who waits upon her table, goes to the polls and decides how much of her property shall go to support the public expenses, and what shall be done with it. She has no voice in the matter whatever; she is taxed without representation.[Pg 108]
We also have no right to assume that women are happy with men's representation. Where has the meeting been that granted this right of representation? When was the agreement made? What were the terms? It's entirely an assumption. A woman is a member of a manufacturing company; she's a shareholder in a bank; she's a stockholder in a railroad company; she attends all those meetings in person or by proxy, and she votes, and her vote is counted. Imagine a woman trying to vote at a railroad company meeting being told by a man, "We represent you, you can’t vote." That’s exactly the argument being made today—that men represent women in exercising their voting rights. A woman pays a significant tax, and the man who drives her carriage, the man who serves her food, goes to the polls and decides how much of her property will go towards public expenses and what will be done with it. She has no say in the matter at all; she's taxed without representation.[Pg 108]
The exercise of political power by women is by no means an experiment. There is hardly a country in Europe—I do not think there is any one—that has not at some time of its history been governed by a woman, and many of them very well governed too. There have been at least three empresses of Russia since Peter the Great, and two of them were very wise rulers. Elizabeth raised England to the very height of greatness, and the reign of Anne was illustrious in arms and not less illustrious in letters. A female sovereign supplied to Columbus the means of discovering this country. He wandered foot-sore and weary from court to court, from convent to convent, from one potentate to another, but no man on a throne listened to him, until a female sovereign pledged her jewels to fit out the expedition which "gave a new world to the kingdoms of Castile and Leon." Nor need we cite Anne of Austria, who governed France for ten years, or Marie Theresa, whose reign was so great and glorious. We have two modern instances. A woman is now on the throne of Spain, and a woman sits upon the throne of the mightiest empire in the world. A woman is the high admiral of the most powerful fleet that rests upon the seas. Princes and nobles bow to her, not in the mere homage of gallantry, but as the representative of a sovereignty which has descended to her from a long line of sovereigns, some of the most illustrious of them of her own sex. And shall we say that a woman may properly command an army, and yet can not vote for a Common Councilman in the city of Washington? I know very well this discussion is idle and of no effect, and I am not going to pursue it. I should not have introduced this question, but as it has been introduced, and I intend to vote for the amendment, I desire to declare here that I shall vote for it in all seriousness, because I think it is right. The discussion of this subject is not confined to visionary enthusiasts. It is now attracting the attention of some of the best thinkers in the world, both in this country and in Europe, and one of the very best of them all, John Stuart Mill, in a most elaborate and able paper, has declared his conviction of the right and justice of female suffrage. The time has not come for it, but the time is coming. It is coming with the progress of civilization and the general amelioration of the race, and the triumph of truth and justice and equal rights.
The exercise of political power by women is definitely not a new idea. There’s hardly a country in Europe—I don’t think there’s any—that hasn’t been governed by a woman at some point in its history, and many of them were even governed very well. Since Peter the Great, at least three women have been empresses of Russia, with two of them being very wise leaders. Elizabeth took England to the peak of its greatness, and Anne’s reign was distinguished both in military matters and in literature. A female ruler provided Columbus with the resources needed to discover this country. He traveled, exhausted and weary, from court to court, convent to convent, and to various rulers, but no man on a throne would listen to him until a female monarch pledged her jewels to fund the expedition that “gave a new world to the kingdoms of Castile and Leon.” We also don’t need to mention Anne of Austria, who governed France for ten years, or Maria Theresa, whose rule was so significant and glorious. We have two modern examples: a woman currently sits on the throne of Spain, and another woman presides over the mightiest empire in the world. A woman is the admiral of the most powerful fleet on the seas. Princes and nobles bow to her, not just out of chivalrous respect, but because she represents a sovereignty inherited from a long line of rulers, many of whom were also women. And can we say that a woman can rightfully command an army but cannot vote for a council member in Washington, D.C.? I know this discussion seems pointless and ineffective, and I don’t plan to elaborate on it further. I wouldn’t have brought it up if it hadn’t already been mentioned, but since it has, and I intend to vote for the amendment, I want to make it clear that I will vote for it earnestly because I believe it is the right thing to do. The debate on this topic is not limited to dreamers. It is now drawing the interest of some of the best minds in the world, both in this country and in Europe, and one of the very best, John Stuart Mill, in a detailed and insightful paper, has expressed his belief in the rightness and fairness of women’s suffrage. The time isn’t here yet, but it’s on the way. It’s coming with the advancement of civilization and the overall betterment of humanity, along with the victory of truth, justice, and equal rights.
Mr. Williams: Mr. President, to extend the right of suffrage to the negroes in this country I think is necessary for their protection; but to extend the right of suffrage to women, in my judgment, is not necessary for their protection. For that reason, as well as for others, I shall vote against the amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, and for the amendment as it was originally introduced by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade]. Negroes in the United States have been enslaved since the formation of the Government. Degradation and ignorance have been their portion; intelligence has been denied to them; they have been proscribed on account of their color; there is a bitter and cruel prejudice against them everywhere, and a large minority of the people of this country to-day, if they had the power, would deprive them of all political and civil rights and reduce them to a state of abject servitude. Women have not been enslaved. Intelligence has not been denied to them; they have not been degraded; there is no prejudice[Pg 109] against them on account of their sex; but, on the contrary, if they deserve to be, they are respected, honored, and loved. Wide as the poles apart are the conditions of these two classes of persons. Exceptions I know there are to all rules; but, as a general proposition, it is true that the sons defend and protect the reputation and rights of their mothers; husbands defend and protect the reputation and rights of their wives; brothers defend and protect the reputation and rights of their sisters; and to honor, cherish, and love the women of this country is the pride and the glory of its sons.
Mr. Williams: Mr. President, I believe it's essential to grant voting rights to Black individuals in this country for their protection; however, I don't think granting voting rights to women is necessary for their protection. For that reason, among others, I will vote against the amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania and support the amendment as it was originally introduced by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade]. Black Americans have been enslaved since the founding of this Government. They have faced degradation and ignorance; they've been denied education; they've been discriminated against because of their skin color; there is widespread and harsh prejudice against them, and many people in this country today, if they could, would take away all their political and civil rights and reduce them to extreme servitude. Women have not been enslaved. They have not been denied education; they have not been degraded; there is no prejudice[Pg 109] against them based on their gender; in fact, when they deserve it, they are respected, honored, and loved. The situations of these two groups are as different as night and day. I know there are exceptions to every rule; however, generally speaking, it’s true that sons defend and protect their mothers' reputations and rights; husbands defend and protect their wives' reputations and rights; brothers defend and protect their sisters' reputations and rights; and honoring, cherishing, and loving the women of this country is a source of pride and glory for its sons.
When women ask Congress to extend to them the right of suffrage it will be proper to consider their claims. Not one in a thousand of them at this time wants any such thing, and would not exercise the power if it were granted to them. Some few who are seeking notoriety make a feeble clamor for the right of suffrage, but they do not represent the sex to which they belong, or I am mistaken as to the modesty and delicacy which constitute the chief attraction of the sex. Do our intelligent and refined women desire to plunge into the vortex of political excitement and agitation? Would that policy in any way conduce to their peace, their purity, and their happiness? Sir, it has been said that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"; and there is truth as well as beauty in that expression. Women in this country, by their elevated social position, can exercise more influence upon public affairs than they could coerce by the use of the ballot. When God married our first parents in the garden, according to that ordinance they were made "bone of one bone and flesh of one flesh"; and the whole theory of government and society proceeds upon the assumption that their interests are one, that their relations are so intimate and tender that whatever is for the benefit of the one is for the benefit of the other; whatever works to the injury of the one works to the injury of the other. I say, sir, that the more identical and inseparable these interests and relations can be made, the better for all concerned; and the woman who undertakes to put her sex in an antagonistic position to man, who undertakes by the use of some independent political power to contend and fight against man, displays a spirit which would, if able, convert all the now harmonious elements of society into a state of war, and make every home a hell upon earth. Women do not bear their proportion and share, they can not bear their proportion and share of the public burdens. Men represent them in the Army and in the Navy; men represent them at the polls and in the affairs of the Government; and though it be true that individual women do own property that is taxed, yet nine-tenths of the property and the business from which the revenues of the Government are derived are in the hands and belong to and are controlled by the men. Sir, when the women of this country come to be sailors and soldiers; when they come to navigate the ocean and to follow the plow; when they love to be jostled and crowded by all sorts of men in the thoroughfares of trade and business; when they love the treachery and the turmoil of politics; when they love the dissoluteness of the camp and the smoke and the thunder and the blood of battle better than they love the enjoyments of home and family, then it will be time to talk about[Pg 110] making the women voters; but until that time the question is not fairly before the country.
When women ask Congress to give them the right to vote, it’s important to consider their requests. Right now, very few of them actually want that, and most wouldn’t even use the power if it were given to them. A handful of women seeking attention may make some noise about wanting the vote, but they don’t represent the majority, or I’m wrong about the modesty and grace that are the main qualities of women. Do our educated and sophisticated women really want to get caught up in the chaos of political drama and conflict? Would that really benefit their peace, purity, and happiness? It has been said that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world," and there’s truth as well as beauty in that saying. Women in this country, because of their high social status, can influence public affairs more effectively than by voting. When God united our first parents in the garden, they became “bone of one bone and flesh of one flesh”; and the whole idea of government and society is based on the belief that their interests are united, that their relationship is so close and tender that what benefits one also benefits the other; what harms one also harms the other. I believe, sir, that the more closely these interests and relationships can be intertwined, the better it is for everyone; and a woman who tries to put her gender in opposition to men, who attempts to use some independent political power to fight against men, shows a mindset that, if allowed, would turn all the currently harmonious aspects of society into conflict and make every home a nightmare. Women don’t bear their fair share of public responsibilities; they can’t bear their fair share of these burdens. Men represent them in the military; men represent them at the polls and in government affairs; and while it’s true that some women own property that is taxed, the vast majority of property and businesses that generate government revenue are owned and controlled by men. Sir, when women in this country become sailors and soldiers; when they navigate the ocean and farm the land; when they enjoy being pushed and squeezed by various men in the business world; when they revel in the chaos and drama of politics; when they prefer the roughness of military life, the smoke, noise, and violence of battle over the comforts of home and family, then it will be time to talk about[Pg 110] making women voters; but until then, this question isn’t truly on the table.
Mr. Cowan: Mr. President, I had not intended to say anything on this subject beyond what I offered to the Senate yesterday evening, and I should not do so if it were not for the suggestion of a friend, and I am glad to say a friend who believes as I do, that it is the general supposition that I am not serious and not in earnest in the amendment which I have moved; and I only rise now for the purpose of disabusing the minds of Senators and others from any impression they may have had of that sort.
Mr. Cowan: Mr. President, I hadn’t planned to say anything on this topic beyond what I shared with the Senate yesterday evening. I wouldn’t be speaking now if it weren’t for a suggestion from a friend—a friend who believes, like I do, that many assume I’m not serious or sincere about the amendment I proposed. I’m speaking now just to clear up any misunderstandings Senators and others might have regarding that.
I am perfectly free to admit that I have always been opposed to change. I do not know why it is. Whether I have felt myself old or not, I have not ranged myself in the category of "old fogies" as yet. Although I feel an indisposition to exchange the "ills we suffer" for "those we know not of," and am not desirous to launch myself away from that which is ascertained and certain, and adventure myself upon a sea of experiment, at the same time I feel as much of that strength, that elasticity, that vigor, and that desire for the advancement of my race, my countrymen, and my kind as anybody can feel. I yield to no one in that respect. All I have asked, and all I have desired heretofore, is that we go surely. I believe with my fathers and my ancestors that to base suffrage upon the white males of twenty-one years of age and upward was a great stride in the world's affairs; that it would be well for the world if its government could progress, could advance upon that basis, and that all the rest of the world who did not happen to be white males of the age of twenty-one years and upward could very well afford to stand back and witness the effect of our experiment. I was of that opinion, I lived in the light of it, and I rejoiced in its success; and when I saw this Rebellion, when I witnessed the differences of opinion which convulsed this part of the Continent; when I saw the fact that one-half of the United States was upon the one side and the other half upon the other side as to the understanding of the true theory of this Government of ours, simple as it may be to the lawyer, complex as it may be when examined more thoroughly, I was more than ever disinclined to widen the suffrage, to intrust the franchise to a larger number of people. I trembled for the success of the experiment; I hesitated as to where it would end. I may say, Mr. President, that I hesitate yet. The question is by no means settled, the difficulty is by no means ended, the controversy is by no means yet concluded.
I can honestly say that I’ve always been against change. I’m not sure why that is. Whether I feel old or not, I don’t consider myself part of the “old fogies” crowd yet. While I’m hesitant to trade the “problems we know” for “those we don’t,” and I’m not eager to leave what is certain for an unknown journey, I also feel just as much energy, resilience, motivation, and commitment to the progress of my people, my fellow citizens, and humanity as anyone else does. I don’t back down in that regard. All I’ve ever asked for, and all I’ve wanted until now, is that we move forward cautiously. I believe, like my ancestors, that limiting the right to vote to white males aged twenty-one and older was a major step in global affairs; that it would benefit the world if governance could evolve based on that principle, and that everyone else who isn’t a white male of that age could just step back and observe the results of our experiment. That was my belief, I lived by it, and I celebrated its success; but when I witnessed this Rebellion, saw the conflicting opinions tearing apart this part of the continent; when I realized that one half of the United States supported one viewpoint while the other half took the opposite side on the interpretation of our government, while it may seem simple to a lawyer, becomes complex with deeper examination, I became even more hesitant about expanding voting rights and giving the franchise to a larger group of people. I was worried about the outcome of the experiment; I was uncertain about where it might lead. I can say, Mr. President, that I still hesitate. The question is far from settled, the difficulties are not over, and the debate is definitely not concluded.
But the first step taken, from the very initiative of that step, I have announced my ground and my determination. When a bill was up here before, proposing to enlarge and widen the franchise in this District, I stated that if negroes were to vote I would persist in opening the door to females. I said that if the thing were to be taken away from the feudal realms and from feudal reasons, which went on the idea that the man who bore arms, and he alone, was entitled to the exercise of political power, and if it was to be put upon the ground of logic, and if we were to be asked to give a reason for it, and if we were to be compelled to give that reason, I said then, and I say now, "If I have no reason to offer why a[Pg 111] negro man shall not vote, I have no reason to offer why a white woman shall not vote." If the negro man is interested in the Government of the country, if he can not trust to the masses of the people that the Government shall be a fair and just Government and that it shall do right to him, then the woman is also interested that this Government shall be fair to woman and fair to the interests of woman. Why not, Mr. President? Are not these interests equal to those of the negro and of his race? I know it has been said that the woman is represented by her husband, represented by the male; and yet we know how she has been represented by her husband in bygone times; we know how she is represented by her barbarian husband; and let him who wants to know how she is represented by her civilized husband go to her speeches made in the recent Woman's Rights Convention. We know how she has been represented by her barbarian husband in the past and is even at the present. She bears his burdens, she bears his children, she nurses them, she does his work, she chops his wood, and she grinds his corn; while he, forsooth, by virtue of this patent of nobility that he has derived, in consequence of his masculinity, from Heaven, confines himself to the manly occupations of hunting and fishing and war.
But the first step I took, from the very moment I took it, announced my position and my determination. When a bill came up here before, proposing to expand the franchise in this District, I made it clear that if Black men were allowed to vote, I would insist on giving women the same opportunity. I stated that if we were moving away from the feudal idea that only those who bear arms are entitled to political power, and if we were to base this on logic and had to justify it, I said then, and I say now, "If I have no reason to explain why a Black man shouldn’t vote, I have no reason to explain why a white woman shouldn’t vote." If a Black man is concerned about the governance of this country, if he cannot rely on the general population to ensure that the government is fair and just towards him, then women are equally interested in ensuring that the government is fair to them and their interests. Why not, Mr. President? Are these interests not just as important as those of Black men and their community? I know it's been said that women are represented through their husbands or men; yet we see how they've been represented by their husbands in the past; we know how they've been treated by their oppressive husbands; and anyone wanting to see how they are represented by more civilized husbands just needs to look at the speeches made at the recent Women’s Rights Convention. We know how women have been burdened by their oppressive husbands historically and still are today. They bear their burdens, have their children, take care of them, do their work, chop their wood, and grind their corn; while he, by virtue of the supposed nobility that comes with his masculinity, limits himself to the manly pursuits of hunting, fishing, and war.
I should like to hear my honorable friend from Maine [Mr. Morrill], so apt, so pertinent, so eloquent on all questions, discourse upon the title which the male derives in consequence of the fact that he has been a fisher and a hunter and a warrior all the time; and then I should like to know how he would discriminate between that fisher and hunter and warrior, and those Amazons who burnt their right breasts in order that they might the more readily draw the bow and against whose onset no troops of that day were able to stand. I should also like to know from him how it was that the female veterans of the army of Dahomey recently, within the last three or four years, in the face of an escarpment that would have made European veterans, aye, and I might say American veterans tremble, scrambled over that escarpment and carried the city sword in hand.
I would love to hear my respected friend from Maine [Mr. Morrill], who is always so knowledgeable, relevant, and articulate on every issue, talk about the title that men claim because they've been fishermen, hunters, and warriors throughout history. Then, I would like to know how he differentiates between those fishermen, hunters, and warriors and the Amazons who burned their right breasts to better draw their bows, against whom no armies of that time could withstand. I'd also like to hear from him how it was that the female veterans of the Dahomey army, just in the last three or four years, managed to scale an escarpment that would have made European, and I might even say American, veterans tremble, and took the city sword in hand.
Now, Mr. President, it is time that we look at these things; and that we look them full in the face. I am always glad and willing to stand upon institutions that have been established in the past; that have been sanctified by time; that have given to men liberty and protection with which they were satisfied. But, sir, when the time comes that we are to make a step forward, then another and different question arises. I am utterly astonished at my honorable friend from Rhode Island who doubted my sincerity in this movement. Why should I not be sincere? Have I not as many interests at stake as he has?
Now, Mr. President, it's time for us to address these issues directly. I always appreciate and support institutions that were established in the past, that have been validated by time, and that have provided people with the freedom and protection they valued. However, when the moment comes to make progress, another and different question comes up. I am completely surprised by my honorable friend from Rhode Island who questioned my sincerity in this matter. Why shouldn't I be sincere? Do I not have as many interests at stake as he does?
My honorable friend from Oregon [Mr. Williams] thinks this is entirely preposterous. I have no doubt he does, and I give him all credit for honesty and sincerity in the remarks that he has made; but the trouble with him is, and with a great many others—perhaps it is with myself upon some subjects—is that he directs his gaze too long upon a particular point. It is remarkable that when a man who looks long and steadily upon one subject to the exclusion of every other, that subject at last becomes to him the universe itself. I have met fellow-politicians[Pg 112] fellow-Senators, and fellow-coworkers in the great battle of life, who really had so long contemplated one subject that it was not within their capacity to see any others.
My respected friend from Oregon [Mr. Williams] thinks this is completely ridiculous. I have no doubt he feels that way, and I respect his honesty and sincerity in what he said; but the issue with him, and with many others—maybe even with myself on some topics—is that he focuses too long on a single point. It’s interesting that when a person stares intently at one subject while ignoring all others, that subject eventually becomes their entire world. I've encountered fellow politicians[Pg 112], fellow Senators, and coworkers in the larger struggle of life, who have spent so much time thinking about one topic that they can’t see any others.
But it unfortunately happens that in this world there are others besides the negro who suffer. When you have told of the injuries and outrages which prevail on the earth in regard to the negro you have not finished. Another, and in my judgment a much more important personage, comes upon the scene; she lifts the curtain and reveals to you a new drama, and she tells you distinctly that you have not only been tyrannizing over your brother, your sable brother, your brother at the other end of the national antipodes, your troublesome antipathic brother; you have not only been drenching the earth from the East to the far West with the blood of savages of a different color from yours; you have not only left your blood-stained marks in Japan, in China, in the East Indies, everywhere, and in the West, where one of your Christian bishops boasted that six million Mexicans at one time had been sacrificed, and what for? To make them Christians; to make the rest Christians after the six millions had gone. I say this new personage who makes her appearance upon the drama of human affairs informs you that you and your religion, under the conduct of the male, generative, fecundative principle of the sex, have filled the world with blood from one end to the other of it. What for? To give her liberty. She complains to-day; she complains in your most intelligent high places; she complains in your most refined cities; she complains in your halls decorated with a more than Grecian beauty of architecture; she complains where all of past civilization, all of past adornment, and all of past education comes down to satisfy us that we stand upon the very acmé of human progress; she complains that you have been tyrant to her. Mr. President, let me read from the proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. I propose to read from the remarks of Mrs. Gage, a woman, a lady, a lady of brain and intellect, of courage and force; and whether I am in earnest or not, whether I may be charged with being serious or not, no man dare charge Mrs. Gage with not being serious. Mrs. Frances D. Gage said: "I have read speeches and heard a great deal said about the right of suffrage for the freedmen." So have we all, Mr. President; and the probability is that we have been even more afflicted if that can be said to be a punishment, and there is very great difficulty now to ascertain what is punishment in this world. If that can be said to be a punishment, I think this Senate can with at least equal propriety with Mrs. Gage, complain of its extraordinary infliction upon them without any previous trial and conviction. [Laughter]. "What does it mean? Does it mean the male freedman only, or does it mean the freedwoman also? I was glad to hear the voice of Miss Anthony in behalf of her sex." I am glad, Mr. President, that we have a male of that name in this body who emulates the virtues of his more humble sister [laughter], and stands up equally here for the broad rights of humanity as she does. "I know it is said that this is bringing in a new issue." Yes, that is what was said about me yesterday evening. Gentlemen said it was a new issue; we had not talked about this thing here before; nobody[Pg 113] had thought about it. Why had nobody thought about it? Because nobody was thinking about the actual, real sufferings which human beings were subjected to in this world. Persons thought about such things just in proportion as they reflected themselves upon their future political career. If it became necessary, in order to elect a dozen Senators to this body this winter, that the women should be treated as women ought to be treated, that they should be put upon an equal footing with the men in all respects and enjoy equal rights with men, then I should have great hopes of carrying my amendment, and carrying it in spite of everybody, because then and in that light it would be seen by Senators, and they would be thereby guided. "I know it is said that this is bringing in a new issue. We must bring in new issues."
But it unfortunately happens that in this world, there are others besides Black people who suffer. When you've spoken about the injuries and injustices that affect Black people, you haven't covered everything. Another, and in my opinion a much more significant figure, comes into play; she raises the curtain and shows you a new drama, clearly telling you that you haven't just been oppressing your brother, your dark-skinned brother, your brother from the opposite side of the country, your difficult, conflicting brother; you haven't merely soaked the earth from the East to the far West with the blood of people who look different from you; you haven't only left your blood-stained marks in Japan, China, the East Indies, everywhere, and in the West, where one of your Christian bishops bragged that six million Mexicans were sacrificed at one point, and for what? To convert them into Christians; to convert others into Christians after those six million were gone. I say this new figure who enters the scene of human affairs informs you that you and your religion, led by the male, generative, procreative principle of the sex, have filled the world with blood from one end to the other. For what? To give her freedom. She is complaining today; she is complaining in your most prestigious places; she is complaining in your most refined cities; she is complaining in your beautifully adorned halls, boasting architecture more beautiful than Greek; she is complaining where all of past civilization, all of past beauty, and all of past education come together to assure us that we are at the peak of human progress; she complains that you have been a tyrant to her. Mr. President, let me read from the proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. I will read from the remarks of Mrs. Gage, a woman, a lady, a lady of intelligence and courage, who is forceful; and whether I am serious or not, no one would dare say Mrs. Gage isn't serious. Mrs. Frances D. Gage said: "I have read speeches and heard a lot about the right to vote for freedmen." So have we all, Mr. President; and likely, we've been even more tormented by it if you can call it a punishment, and it’s very difficult now to determine what constitutes punishment in this world. If that can be called punishment, I think this Senate can, at least as justifiably as Mrs. Gage, complain about the strange infliction upon them without any prior trial or conviction. [Laughter]. "What does it mean? Does it refer only to male freedmen, or does it also include freedwomen? I was happy to hear Miss Anthony speak up for her gender." I’m glad, Mr. President, that we have a man of that name in this body who follows the virtues of his less privileged sister [laughter] and stands up just as firmly for the universal rights of humanity as she does. "I know it's said that this brings in a new issue." Yes, that's what was said about me last night. Gentlemen claimed it was a new issue; we hadn't discussed this here before; nobody[Pg 113] had considered it. Why hadn't anyone considered it? Because no one was thinking about the real, actual suffering that people face in this world. People thought about such issues only to the extent that it reflected on their future political careers. If it became necessary, in order to elect a dozen Senators to this body this winter, that women should be treated as they deserve to be treated, that they should be put on equal footing with men in every respect and enjoy equal rights with men, then I would have high hopes of passing my amendment, and passing it irrespective of opposition, because then and in that light Senators would see it differently, and be led accordingly. "I know it's said that this brings in a new issue. We must introduce new issues."
Now, I want to know what the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] will say when he finds me advocating this new issue that must be brought in while he lags behind. My honorable friend from Delaware [Mr. Saulsbury] will have immensely more the advantage of him to-day than he had yesterday if he dares lag, because I put the question to him now distinctly, and I do not leave it to his sense of propriety as to whether he shall speak or not speak on this question; I demand that he do speak. I demand that that voice which has been so potential, that voice which has had so much of solemn, I do not say sepulchral wisdom in it heretofore, shall now be heard on the one side or the other of this important question, which involves the fate, the destiny, the liberty of one-half of the people who inhabit this Continent. I know from the generous upswelling of the bosom, which I almost perceive from here in my brother, that he will respond to this sentiment, and make a response of which his State and her progress, having two negroes in the Legislature now [laughter], will be proud. I feel assured of it, and I feel that when suffering humanity in any shape or form, whether it be male or female, whether it be black or white, red or yellow, appeals to him, the appeal will not be in vain, but that he will come to the rescue, and that he will strike the shield of the foremost knight on the other side and defy him to the combat.
Now, I'm curious to hear what the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] will say when he sees me pushing this new issue that needs to be addressed while he falls behind. My honorable friend from Delaware [Mr. Saulsbury] has much more of an advantage today than he did yesterday if he decides to lag, because I’m directly putting this question to him now, and I won’t leave it up to his sense of propriety about whether he should speak or not; I demand that he speak. I demand that the voice that has been so influential, a voice that has carried so much serious, and I won't say gloomy, wisdom in the past, be heard on one side or the other of this critical question, which involves the fate, the future, the freedom of half the people living on this continent. I can almost feel the generous surge of support from my brother over here, and I'm sure he will rise to this sentiment and respond in a way that his state and its progress, with having two African-Americans in the Legislature now [laughter], will be proud of. I'm confident that when suffering humanity, in any form—whether male or female, black or white, red or yellow—calls out to him, he won't ignore it, but will step up to help, and he will challenge the leading knight on the other side to a fight.
"We must [said Mrs. Gage][57] bring in new issues. I sat in the Senate Chamber last winter."
"We need to [said Mrs. Gage][57] introduce new topics. I was in the Senate Chamber last winter."
And now I beg pardon of my honorable friend from Massachusetts, the other Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner], for any offence that I may do to his modesty; but when I come to consider the recent change which has taken place in his life and habits, I am the better assured that he will endure it. At any other time I should not have dared to introduce this quotation: "I sat in the Senate Chamber last winter [said Mrs. Gage. Last winter, remember] "and heard Charles Sumner's grand speech, which the whole country applauded."
And now, I apologize to my respected friend from Massachusetts, the other Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner], for any offense I might cause to his modesty; but when I think about the recent changes in his life and habits, I'm more confident that he will handle it. At any other time, I wouldn't have had the courage to bring this up: "I sat in the Senate Chamber last winter [said Mrs. Gage. Last winter, remember] and heard Charles Sumner's amazing speech, which the entire country applauded."
And Mr. President, they did, too, and they did it properly. It was a great, a grand, and a glorious speech; it was the ultimate of all speeches in that direction; and I too applauded with the country, although I too might not have agreed with every part of the speech. I might not have[Pg 114] agreed with the speech in general, but it was a great, grand, proud, high, and intellectual effort, at which every American might applaud, and I pardon Mrs. Gage for the manner in which she speaks of it. She has not excelled me in the tribute which I offer here to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, and which I am glad to lay at his feet: "I sat in the Senate Chamber last winter, and heard Charles Sumner's grand speech which the whole country applauded; and I heard him declare that taxation without representation was tyranny to the freedman."
And Mr. President, they really did, and they did it well. It was an amazing, grand, and powerful speech; it was the best of all speeches in that regard; and I too cheered along with the country, even though I might not have agreed with every single part of the speech. I might not have[Pg 114] fully supported the speech overall, but it was a remarkable, proud, and intellectual effort, one that every American could applaud, and I excuse Mrs. Gage for how she talks about it. She hasn't surpassed me in the tribute I'm offering here to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, which I’m pleased to present to him: "I sat in the Senate Chamber last winter and listened to Charles Sumner's magnificent speech that the whole country celebrated; and I heard him say that taxation without representation is tyranny for the freedman."
That was the ring of that speech; that was its key-note; it was the same key-note which stirred his forefathers in 1776; it was the same bugle-blast which called them to the field of Lexington and Bunker Hill ninety years ago; and it is no wonder that Mrs. Gage picks that out as being the residuum, that which was left upon her ear of substance after the music of the honorable Senator's tones had died away, after the brilliancy of his metaphors had faded, after the light which always encircles him upon this subject had gone away. It is no wonder that all that remained of it was that taxation without representation was tyranny. Let me commend it to the honorable Senator, with his keen eye, his good taste, his appreciation of that which is effective, and that which strikes the American heart to the core; let me commend it to him who desires to be the idol of that heart.
That was the essence of that speech; that was its main point; it was the same main point that inspired his ancestors in 1776; it was the same rallying call that brought them to the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill ninety years ago; and it's no surprise that Mrs. Gage highlights that as the takeaway, the thing that lingered in her mind after the honorable Senator's voice faded, after the brilliance of his metaphors dimmed, after the aura he usually has on this topic disappeared. It’s no surprise that all that remained was the idea that taxation without representation is tyranny. Let me suggest this to the honorable Senator, with his keen eye, his good taste, and his understanding of what resonates deeply with the American people; let me recommend it to him who wishes to be the champion of that heart.
"When"—Now, Mr. President, sic transit gloria mundi. "When I afterwards found that he meant only freedom for the male sex, I learned that Charles Sumner fell far short of the great idea of liberty."
"When"—Now, Mr. President, sic transit gloria mundi. "When I later discovered that he only meant freedom for men, I realized that Charles Sumner didn't come close to the true concept of liberty."
All this outpouring, all this magnificent burst of eloquence, all this eclectic combination drawn from all the quarters of the earth, all the sublime talk about the ballot, was merely meant for the question of trousers and petticoats? "Tyranny to the male sex," says Mrs. Gage, and now she goes on, and this right to the point. The proposition here is to give to the male freedman a vote and to ignore the female freedwoman, to be tautological: "I know something of the freedwomen South. Maria—I do not know that she had any other name—when liberated from slavery at Beaufort went to work, and before the year was out she had laid up $1,000."
All this outpouring, all this amazing burst of eloquence, all this diverse mix from every corner of the globe, all the lofty discussions about voting, was just meant for the issue of pants and skirts? "Tyranny to men," says Mrs. Gage, and now she keeps going, and this is right on target. The proposal here is to give the male freedman the right to vote while ignoring the female freedwoman, which is redundant: "I know something about the freedwomen in the South. Maria—I don’t know if she had any other name—when she was freed from slavery in Beaufort, went to work, and by the end of the year, she had saved up $1,000."
That is a magnificent Maria, that is a practical Maria. She puts Sterne's Maria and all other Marias, except Ave Maria, in the shade. [Laughter].
That’s an amazing Maria, that’s a down-to-earth Maria. She outshines Sterne's Maria and all the other Marias, except for Ave Maria. [Laughter].
"I never heard of any southern white making $1,000 in a year down there. Shall Maria pay a tax and have no voice?" Shall Maria pay a tax and have no voice where the principle is admitted, where the principle is thundered forth, where it is axiomatic, where none dare gainsay it, that taxation without representation is tyranny? "Shall Maria pay a tax and have no voice?" That is the question. That, Mr. President, is the question before the Senate.
"I've never heard of any southern white person making $1,000 in a year down there. Should Maria pay a tax and have no say? Should Maria pay a tax and have no say where it’s accepted, where it’s loudly proclaimed, where it's a given, where no one dares argue against it, that taxation without representation is tyranny? 'Should Maria pay a tax and have no say?' That's the question. That, Mr. President, is the question before the Senate."
"Old Betty"—There is not so much of the classic, not so much of the euphonious, not so much of the salva rosa about Betty as about Maria—"Old Betty, while under my charge, cleared more than that amount free from taxation, and I presume is worth $3,000 to-day."
"Old Betty"—There's not as much of the classic, not as much of the melodious, not as much of the salva rosa about Betty as there is about Maria—"Old Betty, while I was in charge of her, earned more than that amount tax-free, and I assume she's worth $3,000 today."
Think of Betty! "Is she to be taxed in South Carolina to support[Pg 115] the aristocracy?" Betty lives in South Carolina, it seems. "Will you be just, or will you be partial to the end of time!"
Think about Betty! "Is she going to be taxed in South Carolina to support[Pg 115] the elite?" It looks like Betty lives in South Carolina. "Will you be fair, or will you show favoritism until the end of time!"
The marriage relation was alluded to by Mrs. Gage.
The marriage relationship was mentioned by Mrs. Gage.
And here is a most important part, to which I would direct the attention of my brother Senators as fundamental in two respects—fundamental in the testimony it furnishes of the character of those you now propose to invest with the right of suffrage, fundamental in its character as to the use which they will make of it as to one-half of the people who are in this bill presumed to be the objects of your especial care. The marriage relation was alluded to by Mrs. Gage. "When the positive order was sent to me to compel the marriage of the colored people living together, the women came to me with tears, and said, 'We don't want to be married in the church, because when we are married in the church our husbands treat us just as old massa used to, and whip us if they think we deserve it; but when we ain't married in the church they knows if they tyrannize over us we go and leff 'em.'"
And here is a crucial point that I want to highlight for my fellow Senators, significant in two ways—it provides essential evidence of the character of the individuals you are considering granting the right to vote, and it speaks to how they will use that right in relation to half of the people addressed in this bill, whom you are especially meant to protect. Mrs. Gage mentioned the institution of marriage. "When I was ordered to enforce the marriage of the Black couples living together, the women came to me in tears and said, 'We don’t want to get married in the church, because when we do, our husbands treat us just like the old master did, and beat us if they think we deserve it; but when we aren’t married in the church, they know that if they try to control us, we can just leave them.'"
That is the class of male, gentlemen, to whom you propose to give suffrage. These poor women who have to be whipped if the males think they deserve it, are the people to whom you deny it. These are the gentlemen who are to fabricate and make your laws of marriage, who are to fix the causes of divorce in these several States. These are the men, in other words, who are to enact, if it so please them, that upon the marriage the husband becomes seized of all his wife's property, of the personalty absolute and the realty as tenant by courtesy; or perhaps they will have no courtesy about it—and I should not wonder if they had not—and give it to him in fee.
That’s the group of men, gentlemen, that you want to give the right to vote. These poor women, who can be punished if the men think they deserve it, are the ones you’re denying that right. These are the men who will create and shape your marriage laws and decide the reasons for divorce in these various states. In other words, these are the men who, if they choose, can dictate that when a couple marries, the husband automatically gains control of all his wife’s property, both personal belongings and real estate as a tenant by courtesy; or maybe they won’t even have that courtesy—and I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t—and just take everything outright.
"And the men"—I beg the Senate to remember that I am reading the testimony of Mrs. Gage; unexceptionable testimony: "And the men came to me and said: 'We want you to compel them to be married, for we can't manage them unless you do.'"
"And the men"—I urge the Senate to keep in mind that I am reading Mrs. Gage's testimony; it's reliable testimony: "And the men came to me and said: 'We need you to force them to get married, because we can't handle them unless you do.'"
I am not certain whether they can always be managed even after they are married. [Laughter]. But this is worse a great deal than before: "'They goes and earns just as much money as we does, and then they goes and spends it, and never asks no questions. Now we wants 'em married in the church, 'cause when they's married in the church we makes em mind.' So in San Domingo establishing the laws of marriage made tyranny for these redeemed slave women."
I’m not sure they can be controlled even after getting married. [Laughter]. But this is definitely worse than before: “They earn just as much money as we do, and then they just spend it without asking any questions. Now we want them married in the church, because when they’re married in the church, we can make them listen.” So in San Domingo, setting up the laws of marriage created oppression for these freed slave women.
Mrs. Gage continues: "I would not say one word against marriage, God forbid. It is the noblest institution we have in this country. But let it be a marriage of equality. Let the man and woman stand as equals before the law. Let the freedwoman of the South own the money she earns by her own labor, and give her the right of suffrage; for she knows as much as the freedman. Bring in these elements, and you will achieve a success. But I will stand firmly and determinedly against the oppression that puts the newly emancipated colored woman of South Carolina under subjection to her husband required by the marriage laws of South Carolina. I demand equality on behalf of the freedwoman as well as the freedman."
Mrs. Gage continues: "I wouldn't say a negative word about marriage, God forbid. It’s the most honorable institution we have in this country. But it should be a marriage of equals. The man and woman should stand as equals before the law. The freedwoman of the South should own the money she earns through her own labor, and she should have the right to vote, because she knows just as much as the freedman. Include these aspects, and you'll achieve success. But I will firmly and determinedly oppose the oppression that places the newly freed colored woman of South Carolina under her husband's control due to the marriage laws of South Carolina. I demand equality for the freedwoman just as much as for the freedman."
I might follow Mrs. Gage further; I might detain the Senate here hour[Pg 116] after hour reading extracts from the various speeches and essays which have been delivered and made upon this subject within the last few years, and I may again make the challenge which I made yesterday. Let us have a reason why these are not potent to influence our action. Let us be told wherein the object of this argument is defective. Let us be shown why it is, if these things are rights, natural or conventional, that those who have interests are not to participate in them.
I could continue to follow Mrs. Gage; I could keep the Senate here hour[Pg 116] after hour reading excerpts from the various speeches and essays that have been given on this topic over the past few years, and I may once again pose the challenge I made yesterday. Let’s have an explanation for why these don’t effectively influence our actions. Let’s be informed where the flaws in this argument lie. Let’s see why, if these are indeed rights, whether natural or conventional, those with interests should not be allowed to partake in them.
I listened to the eloquent and ingenious remarks of my honorable friend from Maine [Mr. Morrill]—old, time-worn, belonging to the region of paleontology, far behind the carboniferous era. I would not undertake to go back there and answer them. All I can do with them is to refer them to the next meeting of the Equal Rights Society, which more than likely will meet in Albany or Boston the next time. There they will be attended to, and there they will be answered in such satisfactory phrase, I have no doubt, as would pale any poor effort of mine in the attempt. I have also listened to my honorable friend from Oregon [Mr. Williams], and still there are the same ancient foot-prints, the same old arguments, the same things that satisfied men thousands of years ago, and which never did satisfy any woman that I know of, the same traveling continually of the tracks of the lion into the cave along with his victim, and nulla retrorsum vestigia, not a step ever came back. But let me say to my friends that Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mrs. Frances D. Gage, Miss Susan B. Anthony, are upon your heels. They have their banner flung out to the winds; they are after you; and their cry is for justice, and you can not deny it. To deny is to deny the perpetuity of your race.
I listened to the articulate and clever comments from my respected friend from Maine [Mr. Morrill]—old and outdated, rooted in paleontology, far back from the carboniferous era. I won’t try to go back and respond to them. All I can do is direct them to the next meeting of the Equal Rights Society, which will probably be held in Albany or Boston next time. They will address those issues there, and I’m sure their responses will be much more satisfying than anything I could come up with. I’ve also listened to my respected friend from Oregon [Mr. Williams], and once again, we hear the same old ideas, the same tired arguments that may have satisfied men thousands of years ago but have never satisfied any woman I know. It’s like watching the lion track its prey into the cave and **nulla retrorsum vestigia**, not a single step ever goes back. But let me tell my friends that Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mrs. Frances D. Gage, and Miss Susan B. Anthony are right on your heels. They have their banner waving in the wind; they are pursuing you, and their call is for justice, which you cannot deny. To deny it is to deny the survival of your race.
Now, Mr. President, in regard to this District and this city, here is a fair proposition. It proposes to confer upon all persons above the age of twenty-one years the right to participate in the city government. Is any one afraid of it? Is my honorable friend from Maine afraid of it? He says it shall be confined to the males. He and my friend from Oregon have gone on to tell you that the white males of this city are in a very bad condition; indeed, some of them in such a terrible condition that we are called upon to pass a bill of attainder, or a bill of pains and penalties, and a little ex post facto law in order to reach their tergiversations and perverseness. If that be true, why not incorporate some other element? I do not know much about the female portion of the negroes of this District except what I have seen, and I must confess that although there are a great many respectable persons among the negroes, and many for whom I have considerable regard, yet as a mass they have not impressed me as being a very high style of human development.
Now, Mr. President, regarding this District and this city, here’s a fair proposal. It suggests giving everyone over the age of twenty-one the right to take part in the city government. Is anyone afraid of it? Is my esteemed colleague from Maine fearful of it? He insists it should be limited to males. He and my colleague from Oregon have gone on to tell you that the white males of this city are in very poor condition; indeed, some are in such a terrible state that we’re being called to pass a bill of attainder, or a bill of pains and penalties, and a little ex post facto law to address their inconsistencies and wrongdoing. If that’s the case, why not include some other group? I don’t know much about the female population of the black community in this District beyond what I’ve seen, and I must admit that while there are many respectable individuals among them, and some I hold in high regard, as a group they haven’t impressed me as being a very advanced form of human development.
When I look along the pavements and about the walks and see them lounging, I am free to say that, without having been previously enlightened on the subject by so much as we have heard upon it recently, I should have had great doubts about conferring on them the right of suffrage. And when I reflect that they have a Freedmen's Bureau to make their contracts for them and to keep them in order, and, it is said, to protect them against the enmity of their white neighbors, even where they have a majority, or nearly a majority, I am not strengthened in my partiality for them by that. And when I reflect that just about this time last year[Pg 117] we had great hesitation about adjourning, for fear that the people represented by these males who are now to be invested with the franchise were in an actually starving condition in this District, and that the chief authorities of the District, moved, I have no doubt, by that humanity which ought to characterize them everywhere, investigated the matter and reported to us, we were obliged to appropriate $25,000 to relieve them in their immediate wants; I do not think that speaks so well for the male portion of the African population of this city.
When I look along the sidewalks and see them hanging out, I can honestly say that, even without the recent discussions on the topic, I would have serious doubts about granting them the right to vote. And when I consider that they have a Freedmen's Bureau to handle their contracts and keep them organized, and that it's said to protect them from hostility from their white neighbors, even when they have a majority or nearly a majority, it doesn't make me feel any better about supporting them. And when I remember that around this time last year[Pg 117], we were really hesitant to adjourn because we feared that the people represented by these men who are now supposed to get the vote were actually starving in this District, and that the main authorities of the District, motivated, I’m sure, by the humanity they should always show, looked into the situation and reported back to us, we had to allocate $25,000 to help meet their immediate needs; I don't think that reflects well on the male part of the African population in this city.
I believe if it were to come to the last resort, that the female Africans of the District of Columbia have more merit, more industry, more of all that which is calculated to make them good and virtuous members of society than the males have. Why should you not throw them in? Why should you throw this batch of males into the ballot-box without any countervailing element which would be efficacious to qualify it and make it better?
I believe that if it comes down to the last option, the African women in the District of Columbia have more merit, more work ethic, and more qualities that would make them good and virtuous members of society than the men do. Why shouldn’t you include them? Why should you just add this group of men to the ballot without any balancing factor that could improve it and make it better?
To me it is perfectly plain. I have reconciled my mind to negro suffrage, but while I reconcile myself to negro suffrage as inevitable, I hold it to be my bounden duty to insist upon female suffrage at the same time. I am happy to say that in this opinion I am not alone; that while I favor universal suffrage limited by the age of twenty-one years so far, there are others who have been led to this same train of thought with myself. I beg, therefore, to read a letter dated Jefferson, Ohio, November 14, 1866:
To me, it's perfectly clear. I've accepted the idea of Black suffrage as unavoidable, but while I do that, I believe it's my duty to also advocate for women's suffrage. I'm pleased to say I'm not alone in this view; I support universal suffrage restricted to those aged twenty-one and older, and there are others who have come to the same conclusion as I have. Therefore, I'd like to share a letter dated Jefferson, Ohio, November 14, 1866:
"Madam:—Yours of the 9th instant is received, and I desire to say in reply that I am now and ever have been the advocate of equal and impartial suffrage of all citizens of the United States who have arrived at the age of twenty-one years, who are of sound mind, and who have not disqualified themselves by the commission of any offence, without any distinction on account of race, color, or sex. Every argument that ever has been or ever can be adduced to prove that males should have the right to vote, applies with equal if not greater force to prove that females should possess the same right; and were I a citizen of your State I should labor with whatever of ability I possess to ingraft those principles in its constitution.
"Madam:—I received your letter from the 9th, and I want to reply by saying that I am currently and have always been a supporter of equal and fair voting rights for all citizens of the United States who are at least twenty-one years old, of sound mind, and who haven’t disqualified themselves by committing any offense, regardless of race, color, or gender. Every argument that has ever been made to support the idea that men should have the right to vote applies just as strongly, if not more so, to support that women should also have the same right; and if I were a citizen of your state, I would work with whatever ability I have to incorporate these principles into its constitution."
B. F. Wade.
B. F. Wade.
Yours, very respectfully,
Yours, very respectfully,
"To Susan B. Anthony,
Secretary American Equal Rights Association.""To Susan B. Anthony,
Secretary of the American Equal Rights Association."Now, Mr. President, I ask whether this has not an orthodox sanction at least. I should like to know who would question, who would dare to question, the orthodoxy of the honorable Senator from Ohio, and who dares tell me that this is such a novelty that it is not to be introduced here as serious, as in earnest? Sir, I say that I am perfectly in earnest, and I say that if this amendment be incorporated in this bill I shall vote for it with all my heart and soul. I beg to be understood that I would not inaugurate the movement, I would not make the change by my own mere motion, because I would not venture upon the change anywhere. That change must rise out of, spring out of, and come up from society generally. It is that thing which the poet has called the vox populi, and which he likens to the vox Dei. When the community spontaneously demands this call, when the community spontaneously demands this action, I yield to it. It is so in this instance. While I yield to the demand[Pg 118] for negro suffrage, I demand at the same time female suffrage; and when I yield to the question of manhood suffrage, I feel assured I throw along the antidote to all the poison which I suppose would accompany the first proposition.
Now, Mr. President, I ask whether this doesn’t have at least some sort of conventional approval. I’d like to know who would question, who would dare to question, the beliefs of the honorable Senator from Ohio, and who would tell me that this is so much of a novelty that it shouldn’t be introduced here seriously? Sir, I say that I am completely serious, and I say that if this amendment is added to this bill, I will support it wholeheartedly. I want to make it clear that I wouldn’t start this movement; I wouldn’t make this change on my own initiative because I wouldn’t take that step anywhere. That change has to emerge from society as a whole. It’s what the poet called the vox populi, likening it to the vox Dei. When the community naturally demands this call, when the community naturally asks for this action, I will go along with it. It is the case here. While I agree with the demand[Pg 118] for black suffrage, I also demand female suffrage; and when I support the issue of manhood suffrage, I feel confident that I am providing the remedy for all the negative consequences that I believe would come with the initial proposal.
I am not afraid of negro suffrage if you allow female suffrage to go hand in hand with it. I believe that if there is any one influence in the country which will break down this tribal antipathy, which will make the two races one in political harmony and political action, not in actuality as races by amalgamation, but which will induce that harmony and that co-operation which may bring about the highest state, perhaps, of social civilization and development, it is the fact that woman and not man must interfere in order to smooth the pathway for these two races to go along harmoniously together. And it is for that reason that I insist that when you do make this step, this step forward which once made can never be retrieved, you must do that other thing which assures its success after it is made. Let the negro male vote now, and you open the arena of strife and contention; let both sexes vote, and then you close that arena of strife, you bring in that element which subdues all strife, which has made America what she is, which has made the American political meeting, which has made the American political convention, not the scene of strife or angry contention, where armed men met together to settle political differences, as in the Polish Diet, but a convention where all were subjected to reason, influenced, as it might properly be, by eloquence and by that "feast of reason" which is "the flow of the soul" to those who enjoy it. And therefore, Mr. President, I beg to assure everybody, and especially my honorable friend from Rhode Island, who agrees with me, I know, upon this topic, that I am serious and in earnest in urging this amendment; in dead earnest, in good earnest, and why not? I am not so blind as to mistake the signs of the times.
I’m not afraid of Black men voting if you let women vote alongside them. I believe that the one thing in this country that can break down the deep-seated bias and bring these two races together in political unity and action—without merging them as races—is the involvement of women, not men, to help smooth the way for both groups to coexist peacefully. That’s why I insist that when you take this important step forward, which can’t be undone, you also need to ensure its success afterward. Allow Black men to vote now, and you open the door to conflict; allow both men and women to vote, and you eliminate that conflict. You introduce an element that calms disputes, which has shaped America as we know it—turning political meetings and conventions into spaces for reasoned debate, influenced, of course, by eloquence and the “feast of reason” that enriches those who appreciate it. So, Mr. President, I want to assure everyone, especially my respected friend from Rhode Island, who I know agrees with me on this issue, that I am serious and truly dedicated to pushing for this amendment; I’m completely committed, absolutely sincere, and why not? I see the signs of the times clearly.
I might have refused to believe long ago, when my honorable friend from Ohio [Mr. Wade] predicted that this was coming. I might have disbelieved when my honorable friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] predicted this was coming; when he blew his bugle-blast and announced what an army was coming behind to enforce his doctrine and his principles. I might, like Thomas of old, have doubted; but now I have had my fingers in the very wounds of which he spoke. I know of a certainty now that this movement is in progress, and that this movement will go on. I know of a certainty that black men must vote in the District of Columbia. Who can doubt it? Those who are in favor of that measure here are in force sufficient to carry it constitutionally beyond all question. Well, if it is to be I am reconciled to it, but at the same time I want to throw about it as many safeguards as are possible under the circumstances, and among those safeguards I think that of allowing females suffrage to be not only the best, but the only one which will be efficacious in this behalf. Mr. President, I have trespassed a great deal longer upon the Senate than I intended. I beg to return my thanks for the indulgence they have exhibited in listening to what I had to say.
I might have found it hard to believe a while ago when my honorable friend from Ohio [Mr. Wade] predicted that this was coming. I might have been skeptical when my honorable friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] foretold this, when he sounded the alarm and revealed the army ready to support his beliefs and principles. Like Thomas of old, I might have doubted; but now I’ve been up close to the very wounds he described. I now know for sure that this movement is underway, and it will continue. I know for certain that black men must vote in the District of Columbia. Who could possibly doubt it? Those who support this measure here have enough strength to pass it constitutionally without question. Well, if it’s going to happen, I accept it, but at the same time, I want to ensure as many safeguards as possible under the circumstances, and among those safeguards, I believe that allowing women to vote is not only the best but the only one that will really work in this regard. Mr. President, I've taken up much more time in the Senate than I intended. I sincerely thank everyone for their patience in listening to what I had to say.
Mr. Morrill: Mr. President, the honorable Senator began by saying that he was in earnest, and he concludes by affirming the same thing.[Pg 119] Doubtless he had made the impression upon his own mind that after all he had said, there might be a doubt in the minds of the Senate on that point. Does any one who has heard the speech, somewhat extraordinary, of the honorable Senator, suppose that he is at all in earnest or sincere in a single sentiment he has uttered on this subject? I do not imagine he believes that any one here is idle enough for a moment to suppose so. Now, his attempt at being facetious has not been altogether a failure. I think he has succeeded in being amusing; he has evidently amused himself; and if he could afford the sacrifice, I admit he has amused the galleries and probably the most of us; but that he has convinced anybody that he was arguing to enlighten the Senate or the public mind on a question which he says is important, he does not believe and he does not expect anybody else to believe it. If it is true, as he intimates, that he is desirous of becoming a Radical, I am not clear that I should not be willing to accept his service, although there is a good deal to be repented of before he can be taken into full confidence. [Laughter].
Mr. Morrill: Mr. President, the honorable Senator started by saying he was serious, and he ends by reaffirming that. [Pg 119] He must have convinced himself that after everything he said, there might still be some doubt among the Senate on that issue. Does anyone who heard the Senator's rather extraordinary speech really think he's sincere in anything he’s said on this matter? I can't imagine he believes anyone here is foolish enough to think so. His attempt at humor hasn’t been a complete failure. I think he’s actually managed to be entertaining; he’s clearly entertained himself, and while it may be a stretch, I admit he’s probably amused the galleries and many of us too. But he certainly hasn’t convinced anyone that he’s trying to shed light on a question he claims is important. He doesn’t believe it, and he doesn’t expect anyone else to either. If it's true, as he suggests, that he wants to become a Radical, I’m not sure I wouldn’t be willing to consider his services, though he has quite a bit to atone for before he can be fully trusted. [Laughter].
When a man has seen the error of his ways and confesses it, what more is there to be done except to receive him seventy and seven times? Now if this is an indication that the honorable Senator means to out-radical the Radicals, "Come on, Macduff," nobody will object provided you can show us you are sincere. That is the point. If it is mischief you are at, you will have a hard time to get ahead. While we are radical we mean to be rational. While we intend to give every male citizen of the United States the rights common to all, we do not intend to be forced by our enemies into a position so ridiculous and absurd as to be broken down utterly on that question, and whoever comes here in the guise of a Radical and undertakes to practice that, probably will not make much by the motion. I am not surprised that those of our friends who went out from us and have been feeding on the husks, desire to get in ahead; but I am surprised at the indiscretion and the want of common sense exercised in making so profound a plunge at once! If these gentlemen desire to be taken into companionship and restored to good standing, I am the first man to reach out the hand and say, "Welcome back again, so that you are repentant and regenerated;" but, sir, I am the last man to allow that you shall indorse what you call radicalism for the purpose of breaking down measures which we propose!
When a man realizes he was wrong and owns up to it, what's left to do but to forgive him over and over again? If this is a sign that the honorable Senator wants to outdo the Radicals, "Bring it on, Macduff," nobody will mind as long as you can prove you're genuine. That's the key. If you're just trying to cause trouble, you'll struggle to succeed. While we are being radical, we also plan to be reasonable. We aim to give every male citizen of the United States the same rights that everyone else has, but we won't be pushed by our opponents into a position that's completely ridiculous and absurd, where we completely fail on that issue. Whoever comes here pretending to be a Radical to undermine that probably won't get far. I'm not surprised that some of our friends who left us and have been living off scraps want to rejoin; but I am shocked by the thoughtlessness and lack of common sense in making such a drastic move all at once! If these gentlemen want to be accepted back and restored to good standing, I'm the first to extend my hand and say, "Welcome back, as long as you're truly sorry and changed;" but, sir, I'm the last person who will let you endorse what you call radicalism just to sabotage our proposed measures!
So much for the radicalism of my honorable friend. Now, sir, what is the sincerity of this proposition? What is the motive of my honorable friend in introducing it? Is it to perfect this bill? Is it to vindicate a principle in which he believes? Not a bit of it. It is the old device of the enemy—if you want to defeat a measure, make it as hateful and odious and absurd as possible and you have done it. That is the proposition. Does he believe in the absolute right of women to vote? Not a bit of it, for he has said here time and again in the beginning, middle, and end of his discourse that he does not believe a word of it.
So much for the radical ideas of my honorable friend. Now, sir, what’s the sincerity behind this proposal? What is my honorable friend's motive for introducing it? Is it to improve this bill? Is it to uphold a principle he believes in? Not at all. It's the old tactic of the opposition—if you want to sabotage a measure, make it as detestable, outrageous, and ridiculous as possible, and you’ve succeeded. That's the proposal. Does he truly believe in the absolute right of women to vote? Not at all, because he has stated repeatedly, from the beginning to the end of his speech, that he doesn’t believe a word of it.
Mr. Cowan: And never did.
Mr. Cowan: And never did.
Mr. Morrill: He says it is no natural right whatever either to man or woman, and therefore he does not stand here to vindicate a right.
Mr. Morrill: He says that there is no natural right at all for either men or women, and because of that, he is not here to defend a right.
Mr. Cowan: I should like to ask the honorable Senator whether he believes it is a natural right either in man or woman.[Pg 120]
Mr. Cowan: I would like to ask the honorable Senator if he thinks it's a natural right for both men and women.[Pg 120]
Mr. Morrill: I have said distinctly on a former occasion that I did not; and therefore I am not to be put in the attitude of so arguing. The Senator does not believe that; he is not here urging a principle in which he believes. What is he doing? Trying to do mischief; trying to make somebody believe he is sincere. That is labor lost here. It will not succeed, of course. Now, what is his position? "I do not believe in woman suffrage, and do not believe in negro suffrage, but if you will insist upon male negro suffrage I will insist upon woman negro suffrage." That is his position exactly. "If you insist that the male negro shall vote, I insist the female shall." That is his attitude, nothing more nor less. Mr. President, I do not think there is much force in the position. He has not offered an argument on the subject. He has read from a paper. He has introduced here the discourse of some ladies in some section of the country, upon what they esteem to be their own rights, in illustration; that is all; not as argument; he does not offer it as an argument, but to illustrate his theme and to put us in an attitude, as he supposes, of embarrassment on that subject. He has read papers which are altogether foreign from his view of this subject, and which he for a moment will not indorse. He offers these as an illustration with a view of illustrating his side of the question, and particularly with a view of embarrassing this measure.
Mr. Morrill: I have clearly stated before that I do not agree; so I won’t be drawn into arguing that point. The Senator doesn’t truly believe that; he isn’t here advocating for a principle he stands by. What is he doing? Trying to cause trouble; trying to convince someone he’s genuine. That’s a waste of effort here. It won’t work, of course. Now, what’s his stance? “I don’t support woman suffrage, and I don’t support black suffrage, but if you’re going to push for black men to vote, I’ll push for black women to vote.” That’s exactly where he stands. “If you insist that black men should vote, I insist that black women should too.” That’s his position, plain and simple. Mr. President, I don’t think his argument holds much weight. He hasn’t presented a real argument on this topic. He’s just read from a document. He’s brought in the words of some women from a specific area of the country regarding what they believe to be their rights, just as an illustration; that’s all it is—not an argument. He isn’t presenting it as a real argument but merely to illustrate his point and to create what he thinks is an awkward situation for us regarding this issue. The papers he has read are completely unrelated to his perspective on this topic, and he wouldn’t stand behind them for a second. He uses them as an illustration to support his view and especially to create obstacles for this measure.
Mr. Cowan: Well, now, Mr. President, I desire to answer a question of the Senator. He alleges that I am not serious in the amendment I have moved, that I am not in earnest about it. How does he know? By what warrant does he undertake to say that a brother Senator here is not serious, not in earnest. I should like to know by what warrant he undertakes to do that. He says I do not look serious. I have not perhaps been trained in the same vinegar and persimmon school [laughter]; I have not been doctrinated into the same solemn nasal twang which may characterize the gentleman, and which may be considered to be the evidence of seriousness and earnestness. I generally speak as a man, and as a good-natured man, I think. I hope I entertain no malice toward anybody. But the honorable gentleman thinks I want to become a radical. Why, sir, common charity ought to have taught the honorable Senator better than that. I think no such imputation, even on the part of the most virulent opponent that I may have, can with any justice be laid to my door. I have never yielded to his radicalism; I have never truckled to it. Whether it be right or wrong, I have never bowed the knee to it. From the very word "go" I have been a conservative; I have endeavored to save all in our institutions that I thought worth saving.
Mr. Cowan: Well, Mr. President, I want to respond to a question from the Senator. He claims that I'm not serious about the amendment I've proposed, that I'm not sincere about it. How does he know? What gives him the right to say that a fellow Senator here isn’t serious or earnest? I'd like to know what gives him that right. He says I don’t look serious. I haven’t been trained in the same strict or uptight manner [laughter]; I haven’t been accustomed to the same solemn tone that the gentleman might have, which might be seen as a sign of seriousness and sincerity. I generally speak like a person, and I think as a friendly person. I hope I don't hold any grudges against anyone. But the honorable gentleman believes I want to become a radical. Well, sir, basic decency should have taught the honorable Senator better than that. I believe no such accusation, even from my fiercest opponent, can justly be made against me. I have never given in to his radicalism; I have never bowed to it. Right or wrong, I have never submitted to it. From the very beginning, I have been a conservative; I have tried to preserve everything in our institutions that I thought was worth keeping.
I suppose, in the opinion of the gentleman, I have made sacrifices. I suppose I am in the condition of Dr. Caius: "I have had losses." Certainly if any man has given evidence of the sincerity of his doctrines, I have done so; I have lost all of that, perhaps, which the Senator from Maine may think valuable; I have lost all the feathers that might have adorned my cap by opposition to radicalism; and now I stand perfectly free and independent upon this floor; free, as I supposed, not only from all imputation of interest, but free from all imputation of dishonor. I[Pg 121] am out of the contest. If I had chosen to play the radical; if I had chosen to out-Herod Herod, I could have out-Heroded Herod perhaps as well as the honorable gentleman, and I could have had quite as stern and vigorous a following as he or any other man, more than likely without asserting any very large amount of vanity to myself [Mr. Morrill rose]; but now, when I stand here, as, I think, free, unquestionably free from all imputation either of interest or dishonor, to be told this is—If the Senator wants to say anything I will hear him.
I guess, according to the gentleman, I’ve made sacrifices. I think I’m in the same position as Dr. Caius: "I have had losses." If any man has shown how sincere his beliefs are, it’s certainly me. I’ve lost everything that the Senator from Maine might consider valuable; I’ve lost all the accolades that might have come from opposing radical views; and now I stand here completely free and independent on this floor; free, as I believed, not just from any suggestion of self-interest but also from any suggestion of dishonor. I[Pg 121] am out of the competition. If I had decided to act like a radical; if I had chosen to outdo Herod in his own game, I could have probably done that as well as the honorable gentleman and likely would have had just as strong a following as he or anyone else, probably without inflating my own ego too much [Mr. Morrill rose]; but now, when I stand here, as I believe, completely free from any accusations of interest or dishonor, to be told this is—If the Senator wants to say something, I’m ready to listen.
Mr. Morrill: The honorable Senator will allow me to say that I do not think this line of argument is open to him, because to-day once or twice he certainly repeated that this was a race of radicalism, and he did not intend to be outdone. My remark was predicated simply on the assumption of the honorable Senator that he was disposed to enter into the race, and rather in a disposition to welcome than discourage him.
Mr. Morrill: I respectfully suggest that the esteemed Senator might reconsider this line of reasoning, as today he has indeed emphasized more than once that this is a competition of radical ideas, and he doesn’t want to fall behind. My comment was based simply on the Senator’s apparent willingness to engage in this competition, and I was more inclined to encourage him than to hold him back.
Mr. Cowan: Mr. President, I agree that if you will allow the gentleman to put arguments in my mouth, and to furnish me theories as his fancy paints them, he can demolish them. I will not agree that he is my master in any particular; but I do agree that he can take a pair of old pantaloons out in the country and stuff them, and make a man of straw, and that he can overthrow it and trample upon it and kick it about with the utmost impunity. But I do not choose to allow the honorable Senator to make either my theories or my arguments, nor do I allow him to make quotations from me unless he does it fairly. I gave utterance to no such idea as that which he has just attributed to me. I did not say that in this race of radicalism I was determined to be in front. I said no such thing. I said that there was an onward movement, that I yielded to that movement, and that while I yielded to it against my own better opinion that any change was impolitic, yet that change was inevitable, I wanted it to be as perfect as possible, and I wanted it to be made with all the safeguards possible.
Mr. Cowan: Mr. President, I agree that if you let the gentleman put words in my mouth and create theories as he sees fit, he can easily tear them apart. I won't accept that he holds any authority over me, but I do agree that he can take a pair of old trousers out in the countryside, stuff them to create a straw man, and then knock it down and stomp on it without any consequences. However, I refuse to let the honorable Senator shape my theories or arguments, nor will I permit him to quote me unless he does so accurately. I did not express the idea he just assigned to me. I never claimed that I intended to lead in this wave of radicalism. What I stated was that there is a forward movement, that I am yielding to it, and even though I believe change is unwise, I recognize it is unavoidable. I want that change to be as thorough as possible and implemented with all necessary safeguards.
That was my argument. I said so yesterday; I said so to-day; I say so now; and I appeal to my friends here who have talked about this onward movement, this progress of things, this inevitable which was in the future, to stand now upon their theories and upon their doctrines. That was my ground, ground simply stated, and for that I am not to be charged here with a desire to conciliate the honorable gentleman, or his faction, or his party, or any other party in this country. Mr. President, I am not a proud man, I hope; not a vain man, I hope; but I would rather be deprived of the right of suffrage, high punishment as it is, I would rather suffer all the penalties that would be inflicted even by the most malignant lawgiver, than to cower or cringe or yield to anything of mortal mould on this planet, except by duress and by force. No man dare charge me with that. I have endeavored to act here as an honest man feeling his own responsibilities, feeling the responsibilities of the oath upon him when he took it; obliged to interpret the Constitution as he himself understands it; feeling that that Constitution was a restraint upon him, a restraint upon the people, a restraint upon everybody; that we were sent here for the purpose of standing upon it even against the rage of the people, even against their desire to trample it under foot. Feeling[Pg 122] all these things, I have stood here, and appeal to my fellow-Senators to know if any one of them can say that at any time I have manifested the smallest disposition to yield in any one particular. I scorn the imputation; I would rather have the approval of my own conscience, I would rather walk in the star-light and look up to them and to the God who made me free and independent, than to seek the highest station upon the earth by truckling to any man or to any set of people, or giving up my free opinions.
That was my argument. I said it yesterday, I say it today, and I say it now. I urge my friends here who have discussed this ongoing movement, this progress, this inevitability in the future, to stand by their theories and doctrines. That was my stance, simply put, and for that, I shouldn’t be accused of wanting to appease the honorable gentleman, his group, his party, or any other party in this country. Mr. President, I don't consider myself a proud man, or a vain man, but I would rather lose the right to vote, as severe as that may be, than to cower or yield to anything mortal on this planet, except under coercion or force. No one can accuse me of that. I have tried to act here as an honest person, recognizing my responsibilities and the weight of the oath I took; I have to interpret the Constitution as I understand it, feeling that it is a restraint on me, on the people, on everyone; that we were sent here to uphold it even against the fury of the public, even against their desire to trample it underfoot. Given all these feelings, I have stood here, and I ask my fellow Senators if any of them can say that at any point I have shown the slightest willingness to compromise on any issue. I reject the suggestion; I would rather have the approval of my own conscience, I would rather walk in the starlight and look up to it and to the God who made me free and independent, than to seek the highest position on earth by bowing to anyone or any group, or by giving up my own opinions.
And yet I propose not to be irrational in this matter. As I said yesterday, and as I said to-day, I have struggled against change; but if it is to be made I wish to direct it properly. I made in my own person, two or three years ago, a motion which passed this body by, I think, a vote of precisely two to one—I believe it was 28 to 14—that the voters of the District of Columbia should be confined to white males; but upon that occasion I stated—and the debates will bear me out, I think—that if the door of the franchise was to be opened, if it was thought that the safety of the country required more people to cast ballots, more people to enjoy this privilege, I would open it to the women of the country sooner than I would open it to the negroes. I say so to-day. You are determined to open it to the negroes. I appeal to you to open it to the women. You say there is no danger in opening it to the negroes. I say there is no danger then in opening it to the women. You say that it is safe in the hands of the negroes. I say it is equally safe in the hands of our sisters, and more safe in the hands of our wives and our mothers. I say more to you. I say you have not demonstrated that it is safe to confer the franchise upon men just emerged from the barbarism of slavery; I say you have not demonstrated that it is safe to give the ballot to men who require a Freedmen's Bureau to take care of them, and who it is not pretended anywhere have that intelligence which is necessary to enable them to comprehend the questions which agitate the people of this nation, and of which the people are supposed to have an intelligent understanding. I say you have not demonstrated all that; but you have expressed your determination. You are determined to do it, and when you are determined to do it I want to put along with that element, that doubtful element, that ignorant element, that debased element, that element just emerged from slavery, I want you to put along with it into the ballot-box, to neutralize its poison if poison there be, to correct its dangers if danger there be, the female element of the country.
And yet I propose not to be unreasonable about this. As I mentioned yesterday and again today, I have fought against change; but if it is going to happen, I want to shape it properly. A couple of years ago, I made a motion in this body which passed, I believe, by a vote of exactly two to one—I think it was 28 to 14—that the voters of the District of Columbia should only be white males; but at that time I stated—and I believe the debates will support me—that if we were to expand the franchise, if we thought that the safety of the country required more people casting votes, then I would rather grant that right to women in this country than to Black men. I stand by that today. You are set on granting it to Black men. I urge you to also grant it to women. You say there’s no risk in letting Black men vote. I say there’s no risk then in letting women vote. You say it’s safe to give the vote to Black men. I say it’s equally safe in the hands of our sisters, and even safer in the hands of our wives and mothers. I also want to point out that you haven’t proven it’s safe to give the vote to men who have just come out of the harshness of slavery; you haven’t shown that it’s safe to give the ballot to men who need a Freedmen's Bureau to assist them, and who, frankly, don’t seem to have the ability to understand the issues that concern our nation and that the public is expected to understand intelligently. I say you haven’t proven any of that; but you have shown your resolve. You are determined to do it, and when you are set on doing that, I want you to include, alongside that uncertain, uninformed, and troubled group—those recently freed from slavery—I want you to include the female population of the country to balance it out, to counteract any negative effects if there are any, and to mitigate any risks if there are risks.
That is my position. If you abandon the whole project I have no objection. I am willing to rest the safety of the country where it is and has been so far. I am open to conviction, open to argument, open to reason even upon that subject; but I am willing to leave this question of suffrage where our fathers left it, where the world leaves it to-day, where all wise men leave it. If, however, it is to be opened, if there is to be a new era, if political power is to be distributed per capita according to a particular age, then I am for extending it to women as well as men. Let me tell the honorable Senator I am not alone in this opinion; the Senator from Ohio with me is not alone; one of the first intellects of this age, perhaps the first man of the first country of the earth, is of the same[Pg 123] opinion. I allude to John Stuart Mill, of Great Britain. He is now agitating for this very thing in England. So that it need not seem surprising that I should be in earnest in this; and I trust that after the explanation I have made of my position and my doctrines. I shall not be charged either with insincerity or with a desire to ingratiate myself with the majority of this body, with the majority of the people, or with any one, because, thank God, I am free from all entanglements of that kind at this present speaking, and if I retain my senses I think I shall keep free.
That’s my stance. If you decide to drop the whole project, I have no objections. I’m willing to leave the safety of the country as it is and has been so far. I’m open to being convinced, to discussion, and to reasoning, even on that topic; but I prefer to keep the question of voting rights where our founders left it, where the world places it today, where all wise individuals place it. However, if we are going to revisit it, if we're stepping into a new era, if political power is going to be distributed per capita based on a specific age, then I support extending it to women as well as men. Let me tell the honorable Senator that I'm not alone in this view; the Senator from Ohio shares this sentiment; one of the greatest minds of our time, perhaps the most prominent individual in the leading country of the world, agrees with me. I’m referring to John Stuart Mill from Great Britain. He is currently advocating for this very issue in England. Therefore, it shouldn’t be surprising that I’m passionate about this matter; and I hope that after explaining my position and beliefs, I won’t be accused of insincerity or of trying to win favor with the majority of this body, the majority of the people, or anyone else, because, thank God, I am free from such entanglements as I speak today, and as long as I stay sane, I intend to remain free.
Mr. Wade: Mr. President, I did not intend to say a word upon this subject, because on the first day of the last session of Congress I introduced the original bill now before the Senate, to which the Committee have proposed several amendments, and that action on my part I supposed demonstrated sufficiently to all who might read the bill what were my views and sentiments upon the question of suffrage; and, sir, they are of no sudden growth. I have always been of the opinion that in a republican government the right of voting ought to be limited only by the years of discretion. I have always believed that when a person arrived at the age when by the laws of the country he was remitted to the rights of citizens, when the laws fixed the age of majority when the person was supposed to be competent to manage his own affairs, then he ought to be suffered to participate in the Government under which he lives. Nor do I believe that any such rule is unsafe. I imagine that safety is entirely on the other side, for just in proportion as you limit the franchise, you create in the same degree an aristocracy, an irresponsible Government; and gentlemen must be a little tinctured with a fear of republican sentiment when they fear the extension of the right of suffrage.
Mr. Wade: Mr. President, I didn't plan to say anything on this topic, because on the first day of the last session of Congress, I introduced the original bill that's now before the Senate, which the Committee has since made several amendments to. I thought that my actions clearly showed my views and opinions on the issue of voting rights. And let me be clear—they're not a new perspective for me. I've always believed that in a republic, the right to vote should only be limited by the age of maturity. I’ve always thought that once a person reaches the age determined by law as an adult, when they're considered capable of managing their own affairs, they should be allowed to participate in the government they live under. I also don't think that this approach poses any risk. If anything, I believe that limiting voting rights creates more risk by fostering an aristocracy and an unaccountable government. Those who worry about expanding the right to vote must have some underlying fear of republican values.
If I believed, as some gentlemen do, that to participate in Government required intellect of the highest character, the greatest perspicacity of mind, the greatest discipline derived from education and experience, I should be convinced that a republican form of government could not live. It is because I believe that all that is essential in government for the welfare of the community is plain, simple, level with the weakest intellects, that I am satisfied this Government ought to stand and will stand forever. Who is it that ought to be protected by these republican governments? Certainly it is the weak and ignorant, who have no other manner of defending their rights except through the ballot-box.
If I thought, like some people do, that being involved in government requires top-level intelligence, sharp insight, and the best education and experience, I would believe that a republican form of government couldn't survive. I think that everything important for the community's welfare in government is straightforward and accessible to even the least informed. That's why I'm confident this government should endure and will last forever. Who should be protected by these republican governments? It's definitely the vulnerable and uninformed, who only have the ballot box to defend their rights.
The argument for aristocracies and monarchies has ever been that the masses of the people do not know enough to take care of the high concerns of government. If they do not, the human race is in a miserable condition. If, indeed, the great masses of mankind, who are permitted to transact their own business, are incompetent to participate in government, then farewell to the republican system of government; it can not stand a day; it is a wrong foundation. Our principles of government are radically wrong if gentlemen's fears on this subject are well grounded. Thank God, I know they are not. I know that all the defects and evils of our Government have not come from the ignorant masses; but the frauds and the devices of the higher intellects and the more cultivated minds have brought upon our Government all those scars by which it has been disfigured.
The argument for aristocracies and monarchies has always been that regular people don't know enough to handle important government matters. If that's true, then humanity is in a terrible state. If the majority of people who are allowed to manage their own affairs are unfit to engage in government, then goodbye to the republican system; it won't last a day; it's a flawed foundation. Our government principles are fundamentally wrong if the fears of the elites on this issue are justified. Thank goodness, I know they're not. I understand that all the flaws and problems in our government haven't come from the uneducated masses; rather, the scams and schemes of the more intelligent and educated individuals have caused all the damage that has disfigured our government.
Why, sir, look at the administration of the Southern governments in the seceded States, where their public men were advocates of the doctrine that[Pg 124] suffrage should be restricted, and generally that republican governments were wrong. I had a great deal of private conversation with the gentlemen who were formerly in these halls representing those governments, and I hardly ever conversed with a single man of them from that part of the country who believed that a republican government could or ought to stand. Some of them used to say, "How can the mechanic, how can the laboring man understandingly participate in these high and complicated affairs of Government?" Those men at heart were aristocrats or monarchists; they did not believe in your republican Government. I, on the other hand, believe that the safety of our Government depends on unlimited franchise, or, rather, I should say, on franchise limited only by that discretion which fits a man to manage his own concerns. Let a man arrive at the years of majority, when the Government and the experience of the world say that he has attained to such an age and such discretion that it is safe to intrust him with his own affairs, and then if he can not be permitted to participate in the Government, I say again, farewell to republican government; it can not stand.
Why, sir, look at how the Southern governments in the seceded States were run, where their public leaders supported the idea that [Pg 124] voting should be limited and generally believed that republican governments were flawed. I had many private conversations with the gentlemen who used to represent those governments in these halls, and I rarely talked to a single one of them from that area who thought a republican government could or should survive. Some of them would say, "How can a mechanic, how can a working man, understand and participate in these complex matters of government?" Those men were, at their core, aristocrats or monarchists; they didn’t believe in your republican government. I, on the other hand, believe that the safety of our government relies on unrestricted voting, or, better put, on voting limited only by the judgment that allows someone to manage their own affairs. Once a person reaches adulthood, when the government and the world's experience indicate that they have reached an age and maturity that makes it safe to entrust them with their own matters, if they’re still not allowed to participate in government, I say again, farewell to republican government; it cannot survive.
It was for these reasons that, when I introduced the original bill, I put it upon the most liberal principles of franchise except as to females. The question of female suffrage had not then been much agitated, and I knew the community had not thought sufficiently upon it to be ready to introduce it as an element in our political system. While I am aware of that fact, I think it will puzzle any gentleman to draw a line of demarkation between the right of the male and the female on this subject. Both are liable to all the laws you pass; their property, their persons, and their lives are affected by the laws. Why, then, should not the females have a right to participate in their construction as well as the male part of the community? There is no argument that I can conceive or that I have yet heard, that makes any discrimination between the two on the question of right.
It was for these reasons that, when I introduced the original bill, I based it on the most progressive principles of voting rights, except for women. The issue of women's suffrage hadn’t been widely discussed at that time, and I knew the community hadn’t considered it enough to be ready to make it a part of our political system. While I'm aware of this fact, I believe it would confuse anyone to draw a line between the rights of men and women on this topic. Both are subject to all the laws you enact; their property, their bodies, and their lives are impacted by the laws. So, why shouldn’t women have the right to participate in shaping those laws just like men do? I can’t think of any argument, nor have I heard one, that justifies treating the two differently on this matter of rights.
Why should there be any restriction? Is it because gentlemen apprehend that the female portion of the community are not as virtuous, that they are not as well-calculated to consider what laws and principles of the Government will conduce to their welfare as men are? The great mass of our educated females understand all these great concerns of government infinitely better than that great mass of ignorant population from other countries which you admit to the polls without hesitation.
Why should there be any restrictions? Is it because men fear that women aren't as virtuous or that they're not as capable of understanding what laws and principles of the government will benefit them? The majority of our educated women comprehend these important issues of government far better than the large group of uninformed people from other countries that you allow to vote without question.
But, sir, the right of suffrage, in my judgment, has bearings altogether beyond any rights of persons or property that are to be vindicated by it. I lay it down that in any free community, if any particular class of that community are excluded from this right they can not maintain their dignity; it is a brand of Cain upon their foreheads that will sink them into contempt, even in their own estimation. My judgment is that if this right was accorded to females, you would find that they would be elevated in their minds and in their intellects. The best discipline you can offer them would be to permit and to require them to participate in these great concerns of Government, so that their rights and the rights of their children should depend in a manner upon the way in which they understand these great things.
But, sir, I believe that the right to vote is connected to much more than individual rights or property that are defended by it. I assert that in any free society, if a specific group is excluded from this right, they cannot uphold their dignity; it becomes a mark of shame that will lead them to feel contempt for themselves, even in their own eyes. I believe that if this right were granted to women, they would feel more empowered and intellectually stimulated. The best way to support them would be to allow and encourage them to engage in the important matters of Government, so that their rights and those of their children are influenced by their understanding of these significant issues.
What would be the effect upon their minds? Would it not be, I ask you, sir, to lead them from that miserable amusement of reading frivolous books and novels and romances that consume two-thirds of their time now, from which[Pg 125] they learn nothing, and draw their attention to matters of more moment, more substance, better calculated to well-discipline the mind? In my judgment it would. I believe it would tend to educate them as well as the male part of the population. Take the negroes, who, it is said, are ignorant, the moment you confer the franchise on them it will lead them to struggle to get an understanding of the affairs of Government, so as to be able to participate intelligently in them. They will then understand that they are made responsible for the Government under which they live. In my judgment, this is the reason why the fact exists, which is acknowledged everywhere, that the great mass of our population rise immensely higher in intellect and every quality that should adorn human nature, above the peasantry and working-classes of the Old World. Why is this? I think much of it results from the fact that the people of this country are compelled to serve on juries, to participate in the government of their own localities in various capacities, and finally to take part in all the great concerns of Government. That elevates a man, and makes him feel his own consequence in the community in which he lives.
What would be the impact on their minds? Wouldn’t it help to steer them away from the pointless pastime of reading light novels and books that take up two-thirds of their time, from which[Pg 125] they learn nothing, and instead focus on more important and substantial matters that are better suited to train the mind? In my opinion, it would. I believe it would help educate them just like it does for the men in the population. Take the African Americans, who are said to be uneducated; the moment they are granted the right to vote, it will drive them to understand government affairs so they can participate in them intelligently. They will then realize that they are responsible for the government under which they live. In my view, this is why it’s recognized everywhere that a significant portion of our population is much smarter and possesses qualities that enhance human nature far beyond the peasantry and working classes of the Old World. Why is that? I think a lot of it comes from the fact that people in this country are required to serve on juries, to engage in their local government in various roles, and ultimately to be involved in the major affairs of government. That elevates a person and makes them aware of their importance in the community where they live.
It is for these reasons as much as any other, that I wish to see the franchise extended to every person of mature age and discretion who has committed no crime. I know very well that prejudices against female voting have descended legitimately to us from the Old World; yea, more than anything else, from that common law which we lawyers have all studied as the first element in jurisprudence. That system of law really sank the female to total contempt and insignificance, almost annihilated her from the face of the earth. It made her responsible for nothing. So far was she removed from participating in anything or being responsible for anything, that if she even committed a crime in the presence of her husband she was not by that old law answerable for it. He was her guardian; he had the right to correct her as the master did his slave in the South. Such was the chivalry of that old common law from which we derive our judicial education. A vast remnant of that old prejudice is still lurking in the minds of our community. It is a mere figment of proscription and nothing else, descended to us, and we have not overcome it. It is not founded in reason; it is not founded in common sense; and it is being done away with very fast too.
It’s for these reasons, among others, that I want to see the right to vote extended to every mature and sensible person who hasn’t committed a crime. I know that biases against women voting have been passed down to us from the Old World; in fact, more than anything else, from that common law which we lawyers have all studied as the foundation of legal practice. That legal system really pushed women down to total disrespect and unimportance, almost erasing them from society. It made women accountable for nothing. She was so far removed from being involved or responsible for anything that if she committed a crime in front of her husband, she wouldn’t be held accountable under that old law. He was her guardian; he had the right to discipline her just like a master would with a slave in the South. Such was the so-called chivalry of that old common law that shapes our legal education. A large part of that outdated prejudice is still hidden in the minds of our community. It’s nothing but a relic of discrimination that has been handed down to us, and we haven’t overcome it. It’s not based on reason; it’s not based on common sense; and thankfully, it’s quickly being erased.
I know that those women who have taken these things into consideration, with minds as enlightened and as intelligent as our own, have done immense good to their sex by agitating these great subjects against all the ridicule and all the contempt that has been wielded against them from the time they commenced the agitation. I know that in my own State we had, a few years ago, a great many laws on our statute-book depriving females of a great many rights without the least reason upon earth. Perhaps it was because the question was not agitated, and because it did not particularly concern the males, that they did not turn their attention to it; but when agitated in the Women's Rights Conventions that have been so abused and ridiculed throughout the country, man could no longer shut his eyes to the glaring defects that existed in our system, and our Legislature has corrected many of those abuses, and placed the rights of the female upon infinitely higher grounds than they occupied there thirty years ago; I believe this remark is as applicable to many other States as it is to Ohio. I tell you the agitation of these subjects has been salutary and good; and our male population would no more go back to divest women of the[Pg 126] rights they have acquired, than they would go back now to slavery itself, in the advance we have lately made.
I know that those women who have thought carefully about these issues, with minds as enlightened and intelligent as ours, have done a tremendous amount of good for their gender by advocating for these important topics despite all the mockery and contempt directed at them since they started. I know that in my own state, just a few years ago, we had many laws that stripped women of a number of rights without any valid reason. Maybe it was because the issue wasn’t discussed and didn’t particularly concern men that they didn’t pay attention to it; but once it was brought up in the Women's Rights Conventions that have been so criticized and ridiculed across the country, men could no longer ignore the obvious flaws in our system. Our Legislature has addressed many of those issues and elevated women’s rights to a much higher status than they held thirty years ago; I believe this observation is just as relevant in many other states as it is in Ohio. I assure you, the push for these issues has been beneficial and positive; our male population would no more think about taking away the rights women have gained than they would consider returning to slavery after the progress we've recently made.
What do I infer, then, from all this? Seeing that their rights rest upon the same foundation and are only kept down by proscription and prejudice, I think I know that the time will come—not to-day, but the time is approaching—when every female in the country will be made responsible for the just government of our country as much as the male; her right to participate in the Government will be just as unquestioned as that of the male. I know that my opinions on this subject are a little in advance of the great mass, probably, of the community in which I live; but I am advancing a principle. I shall give a vote on this amendment that will be deemed an unpopular vote, but I am not frightened by that. I have been accustomed to give such votes all my life almost, but I believe they have been given in the cause of human liberty and right and in the way of the advancing intelligence of our age; and whenever the landmark has been set up the community have marched up to it. I think I am advocating now the same kind of a principle, and I have no doubt that sooner or later it will become a fixed fact, and the community will think it just as absurd to exclude females from the ballot-box as males.
What do I make of all this? Since their rights are based on the same foundation and are only suppressed by discrimination and bias, I believe that the time will come—not today, but it's on the way—when every woman in the country will be as responsible for the fair governance of our nation as men are; her right to participate in government will be as unquestioned as that of men. I know my views on this subject may be ahead of most people in my community, but I’m standing up for a principle. I plan to vote on this amendment, and it may be seen as an unpopular choice, but that doesn’t scare me. I've made such votes for almost my entire life, and I believe they’ve been in support of human liberty and rights and aligned with the growing understanding of our time; and whenever a new standard has been established, the community has moved toward it. I think I’m promoting the same kind of principle now, and I have no doubt that sooner or later it will become a reality, and the community will find it just as ridiculous to exclude women from the ballot box as they do men.
I do not believe it will have any unfavorable effect upon the female character, if women are permitted to come up to the polls and vote. I believe it would exercise a most humane and civilizing influence upon the roughness and rudeness with which men meet on these occasions, if the polished ladies of the land would come up to the ballot-box clothed with these rights and participate in the exercise of the franchise. It has not been found that association with ladies is apt to make men rude and uncivilized; and I do not think the reflex of it prevents that lady-like character which we all prize so highly. I do not think it has that effect. On the other hand, in my judgment, if it was popular to-day for ladies to go to the polls, no man would regret their presence there, and the districts where their ballots were given would be harmonized, civilized, and rendered more gentlemanly, if I may say so, on the one side and on the other, and it would prevent the rude collisions that are apt to occur at these places, while it would reflect back no uncivilizing or unlady-like influence upon the female part of the community. That is the way I judge it. Of course, as it has never been tried in this country, it is more or less of an experiment; but here in this District is the very place to try your experiment.
I don’t believe it will have any negative impact on women's character if they are allowed to come to the polls and vote. I think it would have a very positive and civilizing effect on the roughness and rudeness that men often show during these times if the refined women of our society came to the ballot box empowered with their rights and took part in the voting process. It hasn't been proven that being around women makes men rude or uncivilized, and I don’t believe it takes away from the elegance that we all value so much in women. I don’t see that happening. On the contrary, I believe that if it became common for women to vote, no man would mind having them there, and the areas where their votes were cast would become more harmonious, civilized, and gentlemanly, if I may add, on both sides, reducing the harsh confrontations that can happen at polling places, while also having no negative or unrefined effect on the women in the community. That’s how I see it. Of course, since this hasn’t been tried in this country before, it’s somewhat of an experiment; but this District is exactly the place to test that experiment.
I know that the same things were said about the abolition of slavery. I was here. Gentlemen know very well that there was a strong desire entertained by many gentlemen on this floor that emancipation, if it took place, should be very gradual, very conservative, a little at a time. I was the advocate of striking off the shackles at one blow, and I said that the moment you settled on that the community would settle down upon this principle of righteousness, justice, and liberty, and be satisfied with it, but just as long as you kept it in a state of doubt and uncertainty, going only half way, just so long it would be an irritating element in our proceedings. It is just so now with this question. Do not understand that I expect that this amendment will be carried. I do not. I do not know that I would have agitated it now, although it is as clear to me as the sun at noonday, that the time is approaching when females will be admitted to this franchise as much as males, because I can see no reason for the distinction. I agree, however, that there is not the same pressing necessity for allowing[Pg 127] females as there is for allowing the colored people to vote, because the ladies of the land are not under the ban of a hostile race grinding them to powder. They are in high fellowship with those who do govern, who, to a great extent, act as their agents, their friends, promoting their interests in every vote they give, and, therefore, communities get along very well without conferring this right upon the female. But when you speak of it as a right, and as a great educational power in the hands of females, and I am called on to vote on the subject, I will vote that which I think under all circumstances is right, just, and proper. I shrink not from the question because I am told by gentlemen that it is unpopular. The question with me is, is it right? Show me that it is wrong, and then I will withhold my vote; but I have heard no argument that convinces me that the thing is not right.
I know that similar arguments were made about ending slavery. I was here. Everyone knows there was a strong desire among many on this floor for emancipation to be very gradual, very cautious, just a little at a time. I advocated for abolishing it all at once, and I stated that once you accepted that, the community would embrace this principle of righteousness, justice, and liberty, and be satisfied with it. But as long as it remained uncertain and halfway, it'd be a frustrating element in our discussions. It’s the same with this issue now. Don’t think I expect this amendment to pass. I don’t. I'm not even sure I would have brought it up now, even though it’s clear to me that the time is coming when women will be allowed to vote just like men, because I see no reason for the difference. However, I agree that there isn’t the same urgent need to allow women to vote as there is for giving the right to vote to people of color, because the women in our country are not oppressed by a hostile race trying to crush them. They have strong connections with those in power, who largely act as their representatives, friends, promoting their interests with every vote they cast, so communities do fine without granting this right to women. But when you talk about it as a right and as an important educational tool for women, and I’m asked to vote on it, I will vote for what I believe is right, just, and appropriate under any circumstances. I won't shy away from the issue just because some say it’s unpopular. To me, the question is, is it right? Show me it's wrong, and I'll reconsider my vote; but I haven’t heard any argument that convinces me it isn't right.
There has been something said about this right of voting, as to whether it is a natural or a conventional right. I do not know that there is much difference between a natural and a conventional right. Right has its hold upon the conscience in the inevitable fitness of things, and whether it springs from nature or from any other cause right is right, and a conventional right is as sacred as a natural right. I can not distinguish them; I know of no difference between them. It certainly does not seem to me that it would be right now if a new community is about to set up a government, for one-third of them to seize upon that government and say they will govern, and the rest shall have nothing to do with it. It seems to me there is a wrong done to those who are shut out from any participation in the Government, and that it is a violation of their rights; and what odds does it make whether you call it a natural, or conventional, or artificial right? I contend that when you set up a Government you shall call every man who has arrived at the years of discretion, who has committed no crime, into your community and ask him to participate in setting up that Government; and if you shut him out without any reason, you do him a wrong, one of the greatest wrongs that you can inflict upon a man. If it is to be done to me or to my posterity, I say to you take their lives, but do not deprive them of the right of standing upon the same foothold, upon the same platform in their political rights with any other man in the community. I will compromise no such principles. I contend before God and man ever, always, that they shall stand upon the same platform in setting up their governments, and in continuing them after they are set up, and I will brand it as a wrong and an injustice in any man to deprive any portion of the population, unless it be for crime or offence, from participating in the Government to the same extent that he participates himself. If they are ignorant, so much the greater necessity that they have this weapon in their hands to guard themselves against the strong. The weaker, the more ignorant, and the more liable they are to be imposed upon, the greater the necessity of having this great weapon of self-defence in their hands.
There’s been some discussion about whether the right to vote is a natural right or a conventional right. Honestly, I don’t think there’s much difference between the two. A right connects to our conscience in the natural order of things, and whether it comes from nature or any other source, a right is a right, and a conventional right is just as important as a natural right. I can’t tell them apart; I see no distinction. It certainly doesn’t seem right to me that if a new community is about to establish a government, one-third of the population could take control of that government and decide to govern without involving the rest. To me, there’s an injustice to those who are excluded from participating in the government, and it violates their rights. Does it really matter if you call it a natural, conventional, or artificial right? I argue that when you establish a government, every adult who is of sound mind and hasn’t committed a crime should be included in your community and invited to help set up that government; and if you exclude someone without justification, you are wronging him in a significant way. If this were to happen to me or to my descendants, I would say take their lives, but do not strip them of their right to stand on equal ground and share the same political rights as anyone else in the community. I will not compromise on these principles. I will assert, before God and humanity, that everyone should have equal standing in establishing their governments and maintaining them afterward. I will condemn any effort to exclude any part of the population from participating in the government to the same extent that others do, unless it’s due to a crime or offense. If they are uninformed, that just makes it even more crucial for them to have this power in their hands to protect themselves from the powerful. The weaker and more uninformed they are, the more essential it is for them to have this vital means of self-defense at their disposal.
I know very well that great prejudices have existed against colored people; but my word for it, the moment they are admitted to the ballot-box, especially about the second Tuesday of October in our State, you will find them as genteel a set of men as you know anywhere; as much consideration will be awarded to them; they will be men; they will be courted; their rights will be awarded to them; they will be made to feel, and it will go abroad that they are not the subjects of utter contempt that can be treated as men see fit to treat them; but[Pg 128] they will rise in the scale of the community, and finally occupy a platform according to their merits, which they never can obtain; and you will never be able to make anything of any portion of the community black or white, while you exclude them from the ballot-box.
I know very well that there have been significant prejudices against people of color; but trust me, the moment they can vote, especially around the second Tuesday of October in our State, you'll find them to be as refined a group of individuals as you’ll encounter anywhere. They will receive as much respect as anyone else; they will be seen as men; they will be sought after; their rights will be recognized; they will feel respected, and it will be known that they are not subjects of total disdain that can be treated however others see fit; but[Pg 128] they will rise in the social hierarchy and eventually occupy a place according to their abilities, which they can never achieve while being excluded from the voting process.
These, sir, are the reasons why I introduce this bill, and to vindicate them I have spoken. I know I am not able to set forth anything new on this subject. Every American citizen has reflected upon it until his mind is made up, and the thing itself is so universally approved by our community, that the only wonder is that when we propose to extend this franchise to all the people alike anybody is found in opposition to it.
These, sir, are the reasons why I'm presenting this bill, and I've spoken to support them. I know I can't offer anything new on this topic. Every American citizen has thought about it until they've formed their own opinions, and it's so widely accepted in our community that the only surprise is that there are still people who oppose extending this right to everyone equally.
Mr. Yates: Mr. President, I propose to occupy the time of the Senate for but a few moments by way of explanation of my position on this subject. Honorable Senators seem to think there is some little embarrassment in the position in which we are placed upon this question. There is certainly none whatever to my mind. I must confess, after an examination of this question, that logically there are no reasons in my mind which would not permit women to vote as well as men, according to the theory of our Government—a Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Mr. Yates: Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments of the Senate’s time to explain my stance on this issue. Distinguished Senators seem to feel there’s some awkwardness in our position regarding this question. To me, there’s absolutely none. I have to admit that after looking into this issue, I see no logical reasons that would prevent women from voting just like men, in line with the principles of our Government—a Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
But, sir, that question as to whether ladies shall vote or not is not an issue now. That was not the question at the last election. That was not the question that was argued in another part of this Capitol. That was not embraced in the bill now before us for consideration. Questions of a different character engross our attention; and, sir, we have but one straightforward course to pursue in this matter. While I may and do indorse, I believe, substantially all that my honorable friend from Ohio has said, and while I can not state perhaps a good reason why under our form of government all persona, male and female, should not exercise the right of suffrage, yet we have another matter on hand now. We have fought the fight, and our banners blaze victoriously in the sky. The honorable Senator from Pennsylvania stands humbled and overcome at his defeat, and he might just as well bow his head before the wheels of that Juggernaut of which he spoke, which has crushed him to the earth, and say, let the vox populi, which is the vox Dei, be the rule of this land.
But, sir, whether women should vote or not isn't the issue right now. That wasn't the question during the last election. It wasn't what was debated elsewhere in this Capitol either. It’s not part of the bill we’re considering today. We're focused on different matters; and, sir, we have only one clear path forward on this issue. While I support almost everything my honorable friend from Ohio has said, and although I can't really give a solid reason why everyone, regardless of gender, shouldn't have the right to vote, we have another urgent issue to address now. We've fought for this cause, and our banners shine victoriously in the sky. The honorable Senator from Pennsylvania has been humbled and defeated, and he might as well bow his head before the unstoppable force he described that has brought him down and say, let the vox populi, which is the vox Dei, guide this land.
I believe that this issue will come, and if the gentleman proposes to make it in the next elections, I shall be with him perhaps on the question of universal suffrage; for, sir, I am for universal suffrage. I am not for qualified suffrage; I am not for property suffrage; T am not for intelligent suffrage, as it is termed; but I am for universal suffrage. That is my doctrine. But, sir, when it is proposed to crush out the will of the American people by an issue which certainly is not made in sincerity and truth, then I have no difficulty whatever. While I do not commit myself against the progress of human civilization, because I believe that time is coming, in voting "no" on this amendment I only vote to maintain the position for which I have fought, and for which my State has fought. My notions are peculiar on this subject. I confess that I am for universal suffrage, and when the time comes I am for suffrage by females as well as males; but that is not the point before us.
I believe this issue will arise, and if the gentleman suggests addressing it in the next elections, I will likely support him on the matter of universal suffrage; because, sir, I am in favor of universal suffrage. I'm not in favor of qualified suffrage; I don't support property-based suffrage; I don’t support the so-called intelligent suffrage either; I am for universal suffrage. That's my stance. However, sir, when there’s an attempt to undermine the will of the American people with an issue that clearly isn't presented sincerely or truthfully, then I have no hesitation. While I don't oppose the advancement of human civilization, as I believe that time is inevitable, by voting "no" on this amendment I am only voting to uphold the position I've fought for, and for which my State has fought. My views on this matter are unique. I admit that I support universal suffrage, and when the time comes, I advocate for suffrage for women as well as men; but that's not the issue we are discussing.
Mr. Wilson: The Senator from Pennsylvania demands that I shall express my concurrence in or my opposition to his amendment. I tell him, without the least hesitation, I shall vote against it. I am opposed to connecting together these two questions, enfranchisement of black men and the enfranchisement of women, and therefore shall vote against his amendment.[Pg 129]
Mr. Wilson: The Senator from Pennsylvania insists that I state whether I support or oppose his amendment. I tell him, without any hesitation, that I will vote against it. I am against linking these two issues, the enfranchisement of black men and the enfranchisement of women, and therefore I will vote against his amendment.[Pg 129]
These ladies in the conventions recently held seem to have made a great impression upon the Senator from Pennsylvania. While I heard him reading their speeches, I could not but regret that the Senator had not read the speeches of some of those ladies and the speeches of some of those gentlemen who attended those recent meetings, before he came into the Senate. If he had read the speeches of the ladies and gentlemen who have attended these conventions during the past few years, their speeches might have made as great an impression on him at an earlier day as they seem to have done at this; and if they had done so, the Senator might have made a record for liberty, justice, and humanity he would have been proud of after he leaves the Senate. I have, sir, quite the advantage of the honorable Senator. I have been accustomed to attend the meetings of some of these ladies and gentlemen for many years, and read their speeches too. I read these speeches for the freedom of all, and for the enfranchisement of all, woman included. Before I came to the Senate of the United States, I entertained the conviction that it would be better for this country, that our legislation would be more humane, more for liberty, more for a high civilization, if the women of the country were permitted to vote, and every year of my life has confirmed that conviction. I have been more than ever convinced of it since I have read the opinions of one of the foremost men of this or any other age—John Stuart Mill.
These women at the recent conventions seem to have really impressed the Senator from Pennsylvania. While I listened to him reading their speeches, I couldn't help but wish he had taken the time to read the speeches of some of those ladies and gentlemen who were also at these meetings before he joined the Senate. If he had read the speeches from the women and men who have attended these conventions over the past few years, those speeches might have had as big of an impact on him earlier as they clearly did now; and if that were the case, the Senator could have built a legacy of liberty, justice, and humanity that he would be proud of once he leaves the Senate. I have, sir, a significant advantage over the honorable Senator. I've been attending meetings held by some of these women and men for many years and have read their speeches too. I read these speeches advocating for freedom and enfranchisement for everyone, including women. Before I came to the U.S. Senate, I believed that it would be better for this country, that our laws would be more humane, more focused on liberty, and more aligned with a higher civilization, if the women of this country were allowed to vote, and every year of my life has reinforced that belief. I've become even more convinced of it since reading the views of one of the greatest thinkers of this or any age—John Stuart Mill.
But I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania that while these are my opinions, while I will vote now or at any time for woman suffrage, if he or any other Senator will offer it as a distinct, separate measure, I am unalterably opposed to connecting that question with the pending question of negro suffrage. The question of negro suffrage is now an imperative necessity; a necessity that the negro should possess it for his own protection; a necessity that he should possess it that the nation may preserve its power, its strength, and its unity. We have fought that battle, as has been stated by the Senator from Illinois; we have won negro suffrage for the District of Columbia, and I say I believe we have won for all the States; and before the 4th of March, 1869, before this Administration shall close, I hope that the negro in all the loyal States will be clothed with the right of suffrage. That they will be in the ten rebel States I can not doubt, for patriotism, liberty, justice, and humanity demand it.
But I tell the Senator from Pennsylvania that while these are my views, and I will vote now or anytime for women's suffrage, if he or any other Senator presents it as a separate measure, I am firmly against linking that issue with the current question of Black suffrage. The issue of Black suffrage is urgently necessary; it's essential for Black people to have it for their own protection; it's essential for the nation to maintain its power, strength, and unity. We have fought that battle, as the Senator from Illinois has mentioned; we have secured Black suffrage for the District of Columbia, and I believe we have achieved it for all the states; and before March 4, 1869, before this Administration ends, I hope that Black people in all the loyal states will be granted the right to vote. I have no doubt they will be in the ten rebel states, because patriotism, liberty, justice, and humanity demand it.
This bill, embodying pure manhood suffrage, is destined to become the law in spite of all opposition and all lamentations. I am opposed, therefore, to associating with this achieved measure the question of suffrage for women. That question has been discussed for many years by ladies of high intelligence and of stainless character—ladies who have given years of their lives to the cause of liberty, to the cause of the bondman, to the cause of justice and humanity, to the improvement of all and the elevation of all. No one could have heard them or have read their speeches years ago, without feeling that they were in earnest. They have made progress; these women have instructed the country; women, and men too, have been instructed; progress is making in that direction; but the public judgment is not so pronounced in any one State to-day in favor of woman suffrage, as to create any large and general movement for it. Time is required to instruct the public mind and to carry forward and to concentrate the public judgment in favor of woman suffrage. All public men are not in its favor as is the Senator from Ohio, as has already been proved in this debate. I am, therefore, sir, for keeping these questions apart. I am[Pg 130] for securing the needed suffrage for the colored race. I am for enfranchising the black man, and then if this other question shall come up in due time, and I have a vote to give, I shall be ready to give my vote for it. But to vote for it now is to couple it with the great measure now pressing upon us, to weaken that measure and to endanger its immediate triumph, and therefore I shall vote against the amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, made, it is too apparent, not for the enfranchisement of woman, but against the enfranchisement of the black man.
This bill, which represents universal male voting rights, is set to become law despite all opposition and complaints. I am therefore against linking this accomplished measure to the issue of women's voting rights. This issue has been debated for many years by intelligent and principled women—those who have dedicated years of their lives to the causes of liberty, the freedom of enslaved individuals, justice, and humanity, as well as the upliftment of all. Anyone who has listened to or read their speeches over the years knows they are sincere. They have made progress; these women have educated the nation; both women and men have been informed; progress is being made in that direction; however, public opinion isn't strong enough in any state today to create a widespread movement for women's suffrage. Time is needed to educate the public and to unify public opinion in support of women's suffrage. Not all public figures support it as the Senator from Ohio does, as this debate has already shown. I am, therefore, in favor of keeping these issues separate. I am for securing the necessary voting rights for the colored population. I support enfranchising the black man, and when this other issue is brought up in due time, if I have a vote to give, I will be ready to vote for it. But to vote for it now is to tie it to the important measure we’re currently facing, which undermines that measure and jeopardizes its immediate success, so I will vote against the amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, which is clearly not intended for the enfranchisement of women, but rather against the enfranchisement of black men.
Mr. Johnson: The immediate question before the Senate, I understand, is upon the amendment offered by the honorable member from Pennsylvania, which, if I am correctly informed, is to strike out the word "male," so as to give to all persons, independent of sex, the right of voting. It is, therefore, a proposition to admit to the right of suffrage all the females in the District of Columbia who may have the required residence and are of the required age. I am not aware that the right is given to that class anywhere in the United States. I believe for a very short time—my friend from New Jersey will inform me if I am correct—it was more or less extended to the women of New Jersey; but, if that be an exception, it is, as far as I am informed, the only exception; and there are a variety of reasons why, as I suppose, the right has never been extended as now proposed.
Mr. Johnson: The main issue before the Senate, as I understand it, is the amendment proposed by the honorable member from Pennsylvania, which aims to remove the word "male" to allow all individuals, regardless of gender, the right to vote. This means granting voting rights to all women in the District of Columbia who meet the residency and age requirements. To my knowledge, this right isn’t granted to that group anywhere else in the United States. I believe it was briefly extended to women in New Jersey—my colleague from New Jersey can confirm if I'm right—but if that's an exception, it's the only one I'm aware of. There are many reasons, I suppose, why the right hasn't been broadened as proposed now.
Ladies have duties peculiar to themselves which can not be discharged by anybody else; the nurture and education of their children, the demands upon them consequent upon the preservation of their household; and they are supposed to be more or less in their proper vocation when they are attending to those particular duties. But independent of that, I think if it was submitted to the ladies—I mean the ladies in the true acceptation of the term—of the United States, the privilege would not only not be asked for, but would be rejected. I do not think the ladies of the United States would agree to enter into a canvass, and to undergo what is often the degradation of seeking to vote, particularly in the cities, getting up to the polls, crowded out and crowded in. I rather think they would feel it, instead of a privilege, a dishonor. There is another reason why the right should not be extended to them, unless it is the purpose of the honorable member and of the Senate to go a step further. The reason why the males are accorded the privilege, and why it was almost universal in the United States with reference to those of a certain age, is that they may be called upon to defend the country in time of war or in time of insurrection. I do not suppose it is pretended that the ladies should be included in the militia organization or be compelled to take up arms to defend the country. That must be done by the male sex, I hope.
Women have responsibilities unique to them that no one else can take on; the care and education of their children, the demands that come from managing their households; and they are considered to be fulfilling their role when they focus on those specific duties. However, if it were presented to the women—I mean the women in the true sense of the word—of the United States, I believe they wouldn't ask for the privilege, but would turn it down instead. I don't think American women would agree to participate in the struggle that often comes with trying to vote, especially in cities, where they’d have to go to the polls and deal with being pushed around. I think they’d see it as more of a dishonor than a privilege. There’s another reason why this right shouldn’t be extended to them unless the honorable member and the Senate plan to take it a step further. The reason that men are granted the privilege, and why this was almost universal in the United States for those of a certain age, is because they may be called upon to defend the country during war or rebellion. I don't think anyone suggests that women should be included in the militia or forced to take up arms for the defense of the country. That should be the responsibility of men, I hope.
But I rose not so much for the purpose of expressing my own opinion, or reasoning rather upon the opinion, as to refer to a sentence or two in a letter written many years ago, by the elder Adams, to a correspondent in Massachusetts. It was proposed at that time in Massachusetts to alter the suffrage. It was then limited in that State. That limitation, it was suggested, should be taken away in whole or in part, and the correspondent to whom this letter was addressed seems to have been in favor of that change. Mr. Adams, under date of the 26th of May, 1776, writes to his correspondent, Mr. James Sullivan, a name famous in the annals of Massachusetts, and well known to the United States, a long letter, of which I shall read only a sentence or two. It is to be[Pg 131] found in the ninth volume of the works of John Adams, beginning at page 375. In that letter Mr. Adams, among other things, says: "But let us first suppose that the whole community, of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community is assembled. A motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern and the obligation of the minority to obey?
But I didn’t rise just to share my own opinion or to think about it, but to refer to a sentence or two from a letter written many years ago by the elder Adams to a contact in Massachusetts. Back then, there was a proposal in Massachusetts to change the voting rights, which were limited in that state. It was suggested that this limitation should be removed partially or entirely, and the person receiving this letter seemed to support that change. Mr. Adams, on May 26, 1776, wrote a long letter to his correspondent, Mr. James Sullivan, a name well-known in Massachusetts history and recognized throughout the United States, of which I will read only a sentence or two. It can be[Pg 131] found in the ninth volume of John Adams' works, starting on page 375. In that letter, Mr. Adams mentions: "But let us first assume that the whole community, regardless of age, rank, gender, or status, has the right to vote. This community is gathered. A motion is made and passed by a majority of one voice. The minority disagrees. Where does the right of the majority to govern come from, and why must the minority obey?"
"From necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule. But why exclude women?
"Out of necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule. But why exclude women?"
"You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience in the great businesses of life and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True."
"You might say that their sensitivity makes them unsuitable for practical experience in the major challenges of life and the tough ventures of war, as well as the demanding responsibilities of governance. Furthermore, they are so focused on raising their children that nature has designed them to excel at domestic duties. And children lack their own judgment or will. That’s true."
And he closes the letter by saying: "Society can be governed only by general rules. Government can not accommodate itself to every particular case as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule will accommodate most cases and most persons. Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end of it. New claims will arise; women will demand a vote; lads from twelve to twenty-one will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level."
And he ends the letter by saying: "Society can only be governed by general rules. Government can't adjust itself to every specific case as it arises or to the situations of individual people. It needs to establish broad, comprehensive regulations for cases and individuals. The only question is which general rule will suit most cases and most people. Trust me, it's risky to open up such a rich source of disagreement and conflict as would be created by trying to change the qualifications for voters; there will be no end to it. New demands will come up; women will want the right to vote; young people aged twelve to twenty-one will feel their rights aren't being fully recognized, and every man without a penny will want an equal say in all government matters. This approach will blur and erase all distinctions and bring all classes down to one common level."
The honorable member from Ohio seems to suppose that the right should be given as a means, if I understood him, of protecting themselves and as a means of elevating them intellectually. I had supposed the theory was that the woman was protected by the man. If she is insulted she is not expected to knock the man who insults her down, or during the days of the duello to send him a challenge. She goes to her male friend, her husband or brother or acquaintance. Nature has not made her for the rough and tumble, so to speak, of life. She is intended to be delicate. She is intended to soften the asperities and roughness of the male sex. She is intended to comfort him in the days of his trial, not to participate herself actively in the contest either in the forum, in the council chamber, or on the battle-field. As to her not being protected, what lady has ever said that her rights were not protected because she had not the right of suffrage? There are women, respectable I have no doubt in point of character, moral and virtuous women no doubt, but they are called, and properly called, the "strong-minded"; they are in the public estimation contradistinguished from the delicate; they are men in women's garb, ready, I have no doubt, such people would be—and I deem it no disparagement to them; I have no doubt they are conscientious—to go upon the battle-field. Such things have happened. They are willing to take an insult, and horse-whip and chastise the man who has extended the rudeness to them; but they are exceptions to the softness which is the charm of the female character. I appeal to my friend from New York [Mr. Morgan]—I can speak for Baltimore—and to the member from[Pg 132] Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan] who I suppose can speak for Philadelphia, would they have their wives and their daughters seeking to get up to the poll on a hotly-contested election, driven with indignation at times from it, insulted, violence used to them, as is often the case, rudeness of speech sure to be indulged in——
The honorable member from Ohio seems to think that the right should be granted as a way, if I understood correctly, of helping women defend themselves and to elevate their intellect. I thought the theory was that men were there to protect women. If a woman is insulted, she isn’t expected to fight back or, back in the days of dueling, send a challenge. Instead, she turns to her male friend, husband, brother, or acquaintance. Nature hasn’t designed her for the rough and tumble of life, so to speak. She is meant to be delicate. Her role is to soften the harshness and roughness of men. She is there to comfort him during tough times, not to actively join in contests, whether in a meeting, in government, or on the battlefield. Regarding the idea that she isn’t protected, which woman has ever claimed that her rights weren’t safeguarded just because she couldn’t vote? There are women who are surely respectable in character, moral, and virtuous, yet they are often called the "strong-minded"; they are seen as different from those who are more delicate; they resemble men disguised as women, and I believe they would be, without any disrespect meant toward them; I’m sure they are principled enough to step into battle. Such instances have occurred. They are willing to endure insults and to confront the man who has wronged them; however, they are exceptions to the softness that is often considered a charm of femininity. I ask my friend from New York [Mr. Morgan]—I can speak for Baltimore—and the member from[Pg 132] Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan], who I assume can speak for Philadelphia; would they want their wives and daughters trying to reach the polls during a heated election, sometimes feeling driven away in anger, insulted, and facing violence, as often happens, with rudeness of speech guaranteed?
Mr. Wade: I should like to know if that is the character of your city?
Mr. Wade: I’d like to know if that’s what your city is like?
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Mr. Wade: Then it is very different from the community in which I live.
Mr. Wade: Then it’s really different from the community I live in.
Mr. Johnson: I rather think you might make Cincinnati an exception from what I have heard. I am not speaking for the country, though I have seen it pretty rough in the country; and they have been rough occasionally in Ohio. If they were all of the same temper with my honorable friend who interrupts me of course it would be different, and all could have their rights accorded them.
Mr. Johnson: I really think you could make Cincinnati an exception based on what I've heard. I'm not talking about the entire country, even though I've experienced it being quite harsh in rural areas; things have been tough at times in Ohio too. If everyone had the same attitude as my honorable friend who keeps interrupting me, then it would be a different situation, and everyone could have their rights respected.
Mr. Cowan: I should like to ask whether the presence of ladies on an occasion of that kind would not tend to suppress everything of that sort? Would it not turn the blackguard into a gentleman, so that we should have nothing but good conduct?
Mr. Cowan: I’d like to ask whether having women present at an event like that wouldn’t help to keep things in check. Wouldn’t it turn a scoundrel into a gentleman, ensuring that we only see good behavior?
Mr. Johnson: No, sir; you can not turn a blackguard into a gentleman.
Mr. Johnson: No, sir; you can't turn a scoundrel into a gentleman.
Mr. Cowan: Except by a lady.
Mr. Cowan: Except by a lady.
Mr. Johnson: No, sir; by no means known to human power. There may be some revulsion that will cause him to cease to be a blackguard for the moment, but as to a lady making a gentleman of a man who insults her it has not happened that I know of anywhere. He may be made somewhat of a gentleman by being cowhided. But the question I put I put in all seriousness. I have seen the elections in Baltimore, where they are just as orderly as they are in other cities; but we all know that in times of high party excitement it is impossible to preserve that order which would be sufficient to protect a delicate female from insult, and no lady would venture to run the hazard of being subjected to the insults that she would be almost certain to receive.
Mr. Johnson: No, sir; definitely not something within human control. There might be a moment where he feels some shame and stops being a jerk, but as far as I know, no woman has ever been able to turn a disrespectful man into a gentleman just by being polite. He might be somewhat refined after facing some consequences. But the question I'm asking is serious. I've witnessed elections in Baltimore, and they are just as organized as in other cities; however, we all know that during times of intense political passion, it's impossible to maintain the order needed to keep a sensitive woman safe from disrespect, and no lady would risk facing the insults she would likely encounter.
They do not want this privilege. As to protecting themselves, as to taking a part in the Government in order to protect themselves, if they govern those who govern, is not that protection enough? And who does not know that they govern us? Thank God they do. But what more right has a woman, as a mere matter of right independent of all delicacy, to the suffrage than a boy who is just one day short of twenty-one? You put him in your military service when he is eighteen; you may put him in it at a younger age if you think proper; but you will not let him vote. Why? Only upon moral grounds; that is all; not because that boy may not be able to exercise the right, but because, in the language of Mr. Adams, there must be some general rule, which must be observed, because in the absence of such general rule, if you permit excepted cases you might as well abolish all rules, and then where are we, as he properly asks.
They don’t want this privilege. When it comes to protecting themselves and having a say in the Government to ensure their safety, isn’t it enough if they govern those who govern us? And who doesn’t realize that they govern us? Thank goodness they do. But what right does a woman have to vote, just based on the principle of right and without considering all delicacy, compared to a boy who is just one day shy of turning twenty-one? You draft him into military service at eighteen; you might even draft him at a younger age if you choose to, but you won’t let him vote. Why is that? Only for moral reasons; that’s all; not because that boy isn’t capable of exercising the right, but because, as Mr. Adams puts it, there has to be some general rule that must be followed, because without such a rule, if you allow exceptions, you might as well eliminate all rules. And then where would that leave us, as he rightly questions?
I like to learn wisdom from the men of 1776. I know we have had the advantage of living in an age which they did not witness. I have lived a good many years and watched the public men of the day, and I do not think, and I have never been able with all my disposition to think that we are any better than were the men of 1776 and our predecessors on this floor, the men who participated in the deliberations of the Convention which led to the adoption[Pg 133] of the Constitution of the United States, the men who were the authors of the State papers which were issued during that period, and which filled the world with admiration and amazement.
I like to learn from the wise men of 1776. I understand that we've had the advantage of living in a time they never saw. I've lived many years and observed the political figures of today, and I don’t believe, despite my best efforts, that we are any better than the men of 1776 and our predecessors here, the ones who took part in the discussions that led to the adoption[Pg 133] of the Constitution of the United States, the ones who wrote the important documents released during that time, which amazed and inspired the world.
From the days of colonization down to the present hour no such proposition as this has received, so far as I am aware, any support, unless it was for a short time in the State of New Jersey. It has nothing to do with the right of negroes to vote. That is perfectly independent. If I desired because I am opposed to that to defeat the bill, I might perhaps, as a mere party scheme, as a measure known to party tactics which govern occasionally some—I do not say that they have not governed me heretofore—vote for this amendment with a view to defeat the bill: but I have lived to be too old and have become too well satisfied of what I think is my duty to the country to give any vote which I do not believe, if it should be supported by the votes of a sufficient number to carry the measure into operation, would redound to the interests and safety and honor of the country.
From the days of colonization to now, as far as I know, no proposal like this has received any support, except for a brief period in New Jersey. This has nothing to do with the right of Black people to vote; that's a completely separate issue. If I wanted to defeat the bill because I’m against that right, I could, as a party strategy, support this amendment to undermine the bill—though I won’t deny I’ve followed party tactics before. However, I've lived long enough and have become too convinced of what I believe is my duty to the country to cast any vote that I don't think would benefit the interests, safety, or honor of the nation if it had enough backing to be enacted.
Mr. Wade: The gentleman seems to suppose that the only reason females should have the right to vote is that they might defend themselves with a cowhide against those who insult them. I do not suppose that giving them the right to vote will add anything to their physical strength or courage. That is the argument of the Senator, and the whole of his argument: but I did not propose that they should vote on such hypothesis or with any view that it should have any such effect. But I do know that as the law stood until very recently in many of the States a husband was not the best guardian for his wife in many cases, and frequently the greatest hardships that I have ever known in the community have arisen from the fact that a good-for-nothing, drunken, miserable man had married a respectable lady with property, and your law turned the whole of it right over to him and left her a pauper at his will. While I was at the bar I was more conversant with the manner in which these domestic affairs were transacted than I am now; and I knew instances of the greatest hardship arising from the fact that the law permitted such things to be done. I have known a drunken, miserable wretch of a husband take possession of a large property of a virtuous, excellent woman, who had a family of small children depending upon her, and turn her out to support her family by sewing and by manual labor; and it is not an uncommon case. The legislators, the males having the law-making power in their hands, especially were not very prompt to correct these evils; they were very slow in doing so. They continued from the old common law, when the memory of man did not run to the contrary, down to a time that is within the recollection of us all; and I do not know but that in some of the States this absurd rule prevails even now. It would not have prevailed if ladies had been permitted to vote for their legislators. They would have instructed them, and would have withheld their votes from every one who would not correct these most glaring evils.
Mr. Wade: The man seems to think that the only reason women should have the right to vote is so they can defend themselves with a cowhide against those who disrespect them. I don’t believe that giving them the right to vote will improve their physical strength or bravery. That’s the Senator’s entire argument: I didn’t suggest they should vote on such assumptions or with any intention of achieving that effect. But I do know that, until very recently in many states, a husband wasn't always the best protector for his wife, and often the worst injustices I've seen in the community stemmed from a worthless, drunken man marrying a respectable woman with property, and the law handed everything over to him, leaving her destitute at his mercy. During my time in the legal field, I was more aware of how these domestic matters were handled than I am now, and I witnessed terrible hardships caused by the fact that the law allowed such things to happen. I've seen a drunken, useless husband seize control of a substantial property belonging to a virtuous woman with small children depending on her, forcing her to support her family through sewing and manual labor; and it’s not an uncommon situation. Legislators, predominantly men with law-making power, were particularly slow to address these issues; they took their time in doing so. They continued to follow outdated common law, dating back to times well before our memories, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some states still adhere to this ridiculous rule. It wouldn’t have persisted if women had been allowed to vote for their lawmakers. They would have influenced them and would have withheld their votes from anyone who wouldn’t address these glaring injustices.
The Senator tells us that the community in which he lives is so barbarous and rude that a lady could not go to the polls to perform a duty which the law permitted without insult and rudeness. That is a state of things that I did not believe existed anywhere. I do not believe that it exists in Baltimore to-day. I do not believe if the ladies of Baltimore should go up to the polls clothed with the legal right to select their own legislators that there is anybody[Pg 134] in Baltimore who would insult them on their way in performing that duty. I do not believe that our communities have got to that degree of depravity yet that such kind of rascally prudence is necessary to be exercised in making laws. On the other hand, I have always found wherever I have gone that the rude and the rough in their conduct were civilized and ameliorated by the presence of females; for I do believe, as much as I believe anything else, that, take the world as it is, the female part of it are really more virtuous than the males. I think so; and I think if we were to permit them to have this right, it would tend to a universal reform instead of the reverse; and I do not believe any lady would be insulted in any community that I know anything about while on her way to perform this duty.
The Senator tells us that the community he lives in is so uncivilized and rude that a woman couldn't go to the polls to fulfill her legal duty without facing insults and disrespect. I never thought such a situation existed anywhere. I don’t believe it exists in Baltimore today. I don't think that if the women of Baltimore went to the polls, fully entitled to choose their own legislators, there would be anyone[Pg 134] in Baltimore who would insult them while they carried out this duty. I don't think our communities have sunk to such a level of depravity that we need to exercise such cowardly caution in making laws. On the contrary, I've always found that wherever I've been, the rude and rough behavior of people was softened and improved by the presence of women; because I truly believe, as much as I believe anything else, that, looking at the world as it is, women are generally more virtuous than men. I believe that if we allowed them this right, it would lead to widespread reform rather than the opposite; and I don't think any woman would be insulted in any community I'm familiar with while carrying out this duty.
As I can see no good reason to the contrary, I shall vote for this proposition. I shall vote as I have often voted, as the Senator from Massachusetts has often voted, what he believed to be right; not because he believed a majority were with him, but because he believed the proposition which he was called upon to vote for was right, just, and proper. It is because I can not see that this is not so that I vote for it. It comes from a Senator who does not generally vote with us; it is a proposition unlooked for from his general course of action in this body, being, as he says, on the conservative list, and generally for holding things just as they are. Well, sir, I am for holding them just as they are, when I think they are right, and when I think they are not, I am for changing them and making them right. I do not think it is right to exclude females from the right of suffrage. As I said before, I do not expect that public opinion will be so correct at this time that my vote will be effective; but nevertheless it would be no excuse for me that I did not do my part toward effecting a reform that I think the community requires, because I did not see that the whole world was going with me. I do not wait for that. I am frequently in minorities. I would as lief be there as anywhere else, provided I see that I am right; and I do not wait for the majority to go with me when I think a proposition is right. Therefore I shall vote for this amendment if nobody else votes for it, trusting that if I am right the world will finally see it and come up to the mark where I am; if I am wrong, on further investigation and further thought I shall be left in the lurch. Believing that I am right, and believing that the world will come up to this standard finally, I am ambitious to make my mark upon it right here.
As far as I can see, there's no good reason to vote against this proposal, so I will support it. I will vote like I have before, just like the Senator from Massachusetts has often voted, based on what he believes is right; not because he thinks the majority agrees with him, but because he believes that the proposal he’s voting on is right, fair, and appropriate. It's because I don’t see any reason why it shouldn't be that I'm voting for it. It comes from a Senator who usually doesn’t align with us; it’s an unexpected move based on his typical behavior in this body, especially since he describes himself as conservative and generally prefers to maintain the status quo. Well, I’m all for maintaining things as they are when I believe they’re right, but when I think they aren’t, I support changes to make them right. I don’t believe it’s right to deny women the right to vote. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t expect the public opinion to be in line with this at the moment, so my vote may not have much impact; however, that doesn’t excuse me from doing my part to push for a reform I think the community needs, just because I don't see everyone else agreeing with me. I don’t wait for that. I often find myself in the minority. I’m just as comfortable there as anywhere else, as long as I believe I’m right; and I don’t wait for the majority to agree with me on a proposal I believe in. So, I will vote for this amendment even if no one else does, hoping that if I’m right, eventually the world will recognize it and come to my point of view; if I’m wrong, with more investigation and thought, I’ll be left behind. Since I believe I’m right and trust that the world will eventually reach this standard, I’m eager to make my mark on it right here.
Mr. Frelinghuysen: Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland has made an inquiry as to the law of New Jersey in reference to women voting. There was a period in New Jersey when, in reference to some local matters, and those only, women voted; but that period has long since passed away; and I think I am authorized in saying that the women of New Jersey to-day do not desire to vote. Sir, I confess a little surprise at the remark which has been so frequently made in the Senate, that there is no difference between granting suffrage to colored citizens and extending it to the women of America. The difference, to my mind, is as wide as the earth. As I understand it, we legislate for classes, and the women of America as a class do vote now, though there are exceptions from the peculiar circumstances of individuals. Do not the American people vote in this Senate to-day on this question? Do they not vote in the House of Representatives? So the women of America vote by their faithful and true representatives, their husbands, their brothers, their sons; and no[Pg 135] true man will go to the polls and deposit his ballot without remembering that true and loving constituency that he has at home. More than that, sir, ninety-nine out of a hundred, I believe nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand, of the women in America do not want the privilege of voting in any other manner than that which I have stated. In both these regards there is a vast difference between the situation of the colored citizen and the women of America.
Mr. Frelinghuysen: Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland has asked about New Jersey's law regarding women voting. There was a time in New Jersey when women could vote on certain local issues, but that time has long passed. I believe I can say that the women of New Jersey today do not want to vote. I must admit I'm a bit surprised by the frequent claim in the Senate that there's no difference between giving voting rights to people of color and extending them to women in America. In my opinion, the difference is significant. As I see it, we make laws for specific groups, and the women of America as a group do vote, even though there are exceptions based on individual circumstances. Are the American people not represented in this Senate today on this issue? Do they not vote in the House of Representatives? Thus, the women of America vote through their devoted representatives, such as their husbands, brothers, and sons; and no[Pg 135] genuine man will go to the polls and cast his ballot without considering that loving support he has at home. Moreover, I believe that ninety-nine out of a hundred, or even nine hundred ninety-nine out of a thousand, women in America do not want to vote any other way than what I’ve described. In both cases, there is a significant difference between the experiences of people of color and the women of America.
But Mr. President, besides that, the women of America are not called upon to serve the Government as the men of America are. They do not bear the bayonet, and have not that reason why they should be entitled to the ballot; and it seems to me as if the God of our race has stamped upon them a milder, gentler nature, which not only makes them shrink from, but disqualifies them for the turmoil and battle of public life. They have a higher and a holier mission. It is in retirement, to make the character of the coming men. Their mission is at home, by their blandishments and their love to assuage the passions of men as they come in from the battle of life, and not themselves by joining in the contest to add fuel to the very flames. The learned and eloquent Senator from Pennsylvania said, yesterday, with great beauty, that he wanted to cast the angel element into the suffrage system of America. Sir, it seems to me that it would be ruthlessly tearing the angel element from the homes of America, for the homes of the people of America are infinitely more valuable than any suffrage system. It will be a sorry day for this country when those vestal fires of piety and love are put out. Mr. President, it seems to me that the Christian religion, which has elevated woman to her true position as a peer by the side of man from which she was taken; that religion which is a part of the common law of this land, in its very spirit and declarations recognizes man as the representative of woman. The very structure of that religion which for centuries has been being built recognizes that principle, and it is written on its very door-posts. The woman, it is true, was first tempted; but it was in Adam that we all died. The angel, it is true, appeared to Mary; but it is in the God-man that we are all made alive. I do not see that there is any parity of reasoning between the case of the women of America, entitling them or making it desirable that they should have suffrage, and that of the colored citizens of the United States.
But Mr. President, apart from that, the women of America are not called to serve the government in the same way that men are. They don’t bear arms, and therefore don’t have the same justification for having the right to vote. It seems to me that God has given them a softer, gentler nature, which not only makes them hesitant but also unfit for the struggles and chaos of public life. They have a higher, nobler purpose. Their role is to shape the character of future generations in the privacy of home. Their mission is to soothe and comfort men as they return from life’s battles, rather than joining that conflict and adding fuel to the fire. The learned and eloquent Senator from Pennsylvania said yesterday, beautifully, that he wanted to incorporate the angelic presence into America’s voting system. Sir, it seems to me that this would be a brutal act, tearing the angelic presence away from American homes, which are far more precious than any voting system. It will be a sad day for this country when those sacred fires of devotion and love are extinguished. Mr. President, it seems to me that the Christian faith, which has raised women to their rightful standing alongside men, recognizes man as the representative of woman. The very foundation of that religion, which has been built over centuries, acknowledges this principle, and it’s written throughout its teachings. Yes, the woman was first tempted; but it was in Adam that we all fell. Yes, the angel appeared to Mary; but it is through the God-man that we are all brought to life. I don’t see any valid reasoning that equates the situation of American women, justifying their desire for voting rights, with that of the colored citizens of the United States.
Mr. Conness: It does not appear that we can come to a vote to-night upon this proposition, and I therefore rise to propose an adjournment.
Mr. Conness: It doesn’t look like we can vote on this proposal tonight, so I'm suggesting that we adjourn.
Mr. Morrill: Perhaps we can get a vote on this simple amendment.
Mr. Morrill: Maybe we can take a vote on this straightforward amendment.
Mr. Brown and others: Oh, no; let us adjourn.
Mr. Brown and others: Oh, no; let's take a break.
Mr. Morrill: I doubt whether there is any inclination to talk further on this amendment, and I should be glad to get a vote on it before we adjourn.
Mr. Morrill: I don't think anyone wants to discuss this amendment any longer, and I would like to get a vote on it before we wrap things up.
Mr. Conness: If the Senate will come to a vote, I will not move an adjournment.
Mr. Conness: If the Senate is ready to vote, I won't call for an adjournment.
Mr. Brown: Mr. President——
Mr. Brown: Mr. President——
Mr. Doolittle: If the honorable Senator from Missouri will give way, I will renew the motion to adjourn.
Mr. Doolittle: If the respected Senator from Missouri will allow it, I will restate the motion to adjourn.
Mr. Brown: I do not care particularly to detain the Senate. I have but a very few remarks to make.
Mr. Brown: I don’t particularly want to hold up the Senate. I only have a few things to say.
Several Senators: Let us adjourn.
Several Senators: Let us adjourn.
Mr. Doolittle: If the honorable Senator will give way, I will renew the motion to adjourn.[Pg 136]
Mr. Doolittle: If the respected Senator would allow it, I’d like to propose we adjourn again.[Pg 136]
The President pro tem.: Does the Chair understand the Senator from Missouri as yielding the floor?
The President pro tem.: Does the Chair understand that the Senator from Missouri is giving up the floor?
Mr. Brown: Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown: Yes, sir.
Mr. Doolittle: I move that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. Doolittle: I propose that the Senate adjourn now.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.
The motion was approved, and the Senate adjourned.
In Senate, Wednesday, December 12, 1866.
In Senate, Wednesday, December 12, 1866.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. Gray.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. Gray.
The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.
The journal from yesterday was read and approved.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
The President pro tem.: The Chair has received, and takes this opportunity to lay before the Senate, the memorial of William Boyd, of Washington City, District of Columbia, the substance of which, stated in his own words, is:
The President pro tem.: The Chair has received, and takes this opportunity to present to the Senate, the memorial of William Boyd from Washington City, District of Columbia, which, in his own words, is:
I humbly ask your Honorable Body that you make no distinctions in regard to either color or sex if you should think proper to extend the elective franchise in this District, which I beg of your Honorable Body to do immediately; so that hereafter there shall be no distinction of race or sex. I am among those who believe that slavery will never die, until all laws are so constructed as to hold all mankind as equal before the law.
I respectfully ask your esteemed Body not to make any distinctions based on color or gender if you decide to expand voting rights in this District, which I urge you to do right away; so that in the future there will be no differences in treatment based on race or gender. I am one of those who believes that slavery will not truly end until all laws are designed to treat everyone equally under the law.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT.
The President pro tem.: The unfinished business is the bill (S. No. 1) to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia which is now before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. The pending question is on the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan], to amend the amendment reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia, by striking out in the second line of its first section the word "male" before "person." Upon this question the Senator from Missouri is entitled to the floor.
The President pro tem.: The unfinished business is the bill (S. No. 1) to regulate voting rights in the District of Columbia, which is currently in front of the Senate as a Committee of the Whole. The pending question is on the motion from the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan] to amend the amendment reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia by removing the word "male" in the second line of its first section before "person." The Senator from Missouri now has the floor to speak on this matter.
Mr. Brown: Mr. President, I do not believe that the pending amendment to the bill extending the franchise to women in the District of Columbia, offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, was designed to be carried out into practical legislation at this time or in this connection. I think it was rather intended to elicit an expression of opinion from members of the Senate upon the general proposition involved. If it were to go into practical effect, I am one of those who believe that it would be necessary to accompany it by a good deal of other legislation to prevent it from degenerating into abuse, and perhaps corrupting many of those it designs to advance in position and influence. But accepting the matter in the light which I have stated, for one I am willing to express an opinion very freely on the subject. I have to say then, sir, here on the floor of the American Senate, I stand for universal suffrage, and as a matter of fundamental principle do not recognize the right of society to limit it on any ground of race, color, or sex. I will go further and say that I recognize the right of franchise as being intrinsically a natural right; and I do not believe that society is authorized to impose any limitation upon it that does not spring out of the necessities of the social state itself. These may seem, Mr. President, extreme views, but they conform to the rigid logic of the question, and I defy any Senator[Pg 137] here who abides that logic to escape that conclusion. Sir, I have been shocked, yes, shocked, during the course of this debate at expressions which I have heard so often fall from distinguished Senators, and apparently with so little consideration of what the heresy irresistibly leads to, saying in substance that they recognize in this right of franchise only a conventional or political arrangement that may be abrogated at will and taken from any; that it is simply a privilege yielded to you and me and others by society or the Government which represents society; that it is only a gracious boon from some abstract place and abstract body for which we should be proud and thankful; in other words, that it is not a right in any sense, but only a concession. Mr. President, I do not hold my liberties by any such tenure. On the contrary, I believe that whenever you establish that doctrine, whenever you crystalize that idea in the public mind of this country, you ring the death-knell of American liberties. You take from each, what is perhaps the highest safeguard of all, the conviction that there are rights of men embracing their liberty in society, and substitute a skepticism on all matters of personal freedom and popular liberties which will lay them open to be overthrown whenever society shall become sufficiently corrupted by partyism or whenever constitutional majorities shall become sufficiently exasperated by opposition.
Mr. Brown: Mr. President, I don’t think the proposed amendment to the bill that gives women the right to vote in the District of Columbia, put forward by the Senator from Pennsylvania, was meant to be implemented as practical legislation right now or in this context. I believe it was more about getting the Senate's opinion on the overall issue. If it were to be put into action, I think it would require a lot of additional legislation to avoid potential abuses and possibly harm those it aims to help. That said, considering the issue as I’ve described, I’m ready to share my thoughts on the matter. So, here on the floor of the American Senate, I firmly support universal suffrage and, as a fundamental principle, I don’t believe society has the right to restrict it based on race, color, or sex. I’ll go even further and say that the right to vote is inherently a natural right; I don’t think society is justified in placing any limits on it unless they arise from the necessities of social conditions. These views may seem extreme, Mr. President, but they align with the strict logic of this issue, and I challenge any Senator[Pg 137] who follows that logic to deny that conclusion. Sir, I have been shocked, yes, shocked, during this debate by statements I’ve often heard from respected Senators, clearly without much thought about where such heresy inevitably leads. They essentially argue that they see the right to vote as just a conventional or political arrangement that can be revoked at will and taken from anyone; that it is merely a privilege granted to you, me, and others by society or the government representing society; that it's just a generous gift from some abstract source for which we should feel proud and grateful; in other words, that it’s not a right at all, but just a concession. Mr. President, I don’t claim my freedoms by such terms. On the contrary, I believe that when you establish that doctrine, when you solidify that idea in the public consciousness of this country, you toll the death knell for American freedoms. You strip away from each individual what is perhaps the greatest safeguard of all: the belief that there are rights belonging to all people that include their liberty in society, and you replace it with a doubt about personal freedom and public liberties, making them vulnerable to being overturned whenever society becomes sufficiently corrupted by political factions or whenever constitutional majorities become sufficiently frustrated by opposition.
Mr. President, so important, yea, so crucial, so to speak, do I deem this position, that I trust I may be pardoned by the Senate if I refer to the abstract grounds, the invincible agreement upon which I deem it to rest. I do this the more readily because in my belief the metaphysical always controls ultimately the practical in all the affairs of life. Now, what are abstract rights? And are there any intrinsic necessary conditions that go to constitute liberty in society? I believe that there are, and that those conditions are as determinable as the liberties they protect. The foundation upon which all free government rests, and out of which all natural rights flow as from a common center, has been well stated by Mr. Herbert Spencer in a late work on "Social Statics," to be "the liberty of each limited by the like liberty of all." As the fundamental truth originating and yet circumscribing the validity of laws and constitutions, it can not be stated in a simpler form. As the rule in conformity with which society must be organized, and which distinguishes where the rightful subordination terminates, and where tyranny, whether of majorities or minorities, begins, it can not be too much commended. "Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man," is stated as the law of just social relationships, and in it the rights of individual liberty of thought, of speech, of action, find their complete expression. It will be observed that equality is the essence of it all. In fact, any recognition of an inequality of rights is fatal to liberty.
Mr. President, I consider this position to be extremely important and crucial, and I hope the Senate will forgive me if I refer to the fundamental principles that I believe it stands on. I do this willingly because I think that the abstract always ultimately influences the practical in all aspects of life. Now, what are abstract rights? Are there essential conditions that make up liberty in society? I believe there are, and those conditions are as clear-cut as the liberties they safeguard. The foundation of all free government, and from which all natural rights flow, has been well articulated by Mr. Herbert Spencer in his recent work on "Social Statics," as "the liberty of each limited by the like liberty of all." This idea clearly expresses the fundamental truth that both originates and defines the validity of laws and constitutions. As the guiding principle by which society must be organized, it sets the boundaries of rightful subordination and marks where tyranny begins, whether from majorities or minorities, and it deserves much praise. "Every person has the freedom to do anything they want, as long as it does not infringe on the equal freedom of anyone else," is stated as the law of just social relationships, and within this, the rights of individual liberty of thought, speech, and action are fully expressed. It should be noted that equality is at the heart of it all. In fact, recognizing any inequality in rights is detrimental to liberty.
Observe, furthermore, that those rights inhere in the individual, are part of his existence, and not the gift of any man or aggregation of men. If they were, equality under a despotism might find its justification in the postulate just as well as equality under a republic. Cæsarean Democracy could claim like paternity with American Democracy. The[Pg 138] assumption, then, that freedom in any of its forms is a privilege conceded by society is utterly unwarrantable, because society itself is a concession from the individual—the liberty of each limited by the like liberty of all—and such limitation is what society or Government represents. And it is in this sense, and flowing from this axiom, that the rights of franchise originally appertain to all alike; for franchise is in itself nothing more than a mode of participating in the common Government, and represents only the interest each has therein. That limitations may attach thereto, just as they attach to freedom of speech or freedom of action, is perfectly true; but they must be equal limitations, applicable to all alike, growing out of the social relation, and not leveled at the inherent right of any individual or class. Thus the exclusion of criminals from the franchise, the designation of terms of minority as connected with the exercise of political duties, the regulation of the admission to citizenship of persons coming from foreign countries, find their justification in a principle which, so far from recognizing in Government or society a purely arbitrary control of the rights and exercise of self-government or personal liberty, brings it down within rigid and narrow limits of equality and necessity.
Notice, too, that these rights belong to the individual, are part of who they are, and are not granted by any person or group of people. If they were, equality under a dictatorship could be justified just as much as equality under a republic. Cæsarean Democracy could claim the same parentage as American Democracy. The [Pg 138] idea that freedom in any form is a privilege given by society is completely unjustified, because society itself is a concession from the individual—each person's liberty is limited by the equal liberty of all—and this limitation is what society or Government represents. In this way, and stemming from this principle, the rights of voting originally belong to everyone; voting is simply a way of participating in the common Government and reflects each person's interest in it. It is true that there can be restrictions, just like there can be on freedom of speech or action; however, those restrictions must be equal, applying to everyone, stemming from social relationships, and not targeting any individual or class's inherent right. Thus, the exclusion of criminals from voting, the designation of age limits regarding political duties, and the rules for admitting citizens from other countries find their justification in a principle that, rather than recognizing Government or society as having arbitrary control over self-government or personal liberty, confines it within strict and necessary limits of equality.
There are those, and I am sorry some such have arisen in the Senate to-day, who seek to escape this conclusion, and put the blush upon all free government by affirming, as I have said, that the right of franchise is a purely political right, neither inherent nor inalienable, and may be divested by the citizen or the State at will. The consideration mentioned, that the right of franchise is neither more nor less than the right of self-government as exercised through a participation in the common government of all, shows, however, that if it be not a natural right it will be difficult to say in what a natural right consists. Indeed, it is perhaps the most natural of any of our rights, inasmuch as its denial is the denial of all right to personal liberty, for how can such latter right exist when the right to maintain it among men and the societies of men is denied? Again, if the right to share in the joint government is not inherent, from whence does it come? Who can give the right to govern another? and how can any give what he has not got? Society is but the aggregate of individuals, and in its authority represents only the conceded limitations on all, not any reservoir of human rights, otherwise human rights would vary with every changing association. Still again, if the right of a man as regards Government can be divested either by himself or Government at will, then Government has no limit to its rightful tyranny—it may divest not only one man, but a hundred or a thousand; indeed, why not all but the chosen few or the imperial one, thus arriving logically at oligarchic or despotic rule. And if a man may divest himself of this right, what right is sacred from his renunciation? That a man may refuse to exercise any right is true, and that in changing his abode he may sever his political and social relations is equally true; but these facts only prove that his natural rights inhere in his person, go with him in his movement, subject always to be exercised under the conditions and limitations before recited. After all, to demonstrate the utter falsity and pernicious consequence of the idea that the right to share in the common Government[Pg 139] (which is only a synonym for the right of franchise) is a privilege to be farmed out by Government at discretion and to whom it chooses, it is only necessary to ask, if that be so, whence comes the right to representation? Wherein is the foundation for any democratic society, predicated on the rights of individuals? That various mixed Governments do undertake to limit the franchise to the few as a privilege coming from the body-corporate, has nothing to do with the question, for I am discussing now rights, not practices; republics, not aristocracies.
There are people, and I regret that some of them are in the Senate today, who try to avoid this conclusion and tarnish the idea of free government by claiming, as I mentioned, that the right to vote is just a political right, neither inherent nor inalienable, and can be taken away by the citizen or the state at will. The point that the right to vote is essentially the right to self-governance expressed through participation in the common government shows that, if it’s not a natural right, it's hard to define what a natural right actually is. In fact, it might be the most fundamental of our rights because denying it undermines the very notion of personal liberty. How can personal liberty exist if the right to uphold it among people and societies is denied? Additionally, if the right to participate in government isn't inherent, where does it come from? Who can grant the right to govern another person, and how can anyone give what they don't possess? Society is merely a collection of individuals, and its authority reflects only the accepted limitations on everyone, not a source of human rights; otherwise, human rights would change with every new association. Furthermore, if a person can willingly give up their rights concerning Government, then Government has no boundaries to its legitimate tyranny—it can strip any one person, or even hundreds or thousands, of their rights; in fact, why not all but the chosen few or a single ruler, leading logically to an oligarchy or dictatorship? And if a person can relinquish this right, what right remains sacred from their renunciation? It's true that a person can choose not to use any right, and that by changing their residence they can sever their political and social ties; but these facts only prove that their natural rights belong to them, accompany them wherever they go, and are always subject to be exercised under the previously mentioned conditions and limitations. Ultimately, to show the complete falsehood and harmful consequences of the idea that the right to participate in the common Government[Pg 139] (which is just another term for the right to vote) is a privilege that Government can distribute at its discretion, one only needs to ask, if that were true, where does the right to representation come from? What forms the foundation for any democratic society based on individual rights? That various mixed Governments choose to limit the vote to a select few as a privilege granted by the entity itself doesn’t address the issue, as I am discussing rights, not practices; republics, not aristocracies.
Such I believe, Mr. President, to be the principles on which our personal rights, our liberties in society repose. It is true the argument carries us very far, but not farther, I apprehend, than republican government must go whenever it undertakes to conform its practice to its logic. And having examined the general reasoning that controls the whole question of franchise, let me now advert more particularly to the bearing of that argument upon the proposition submitted by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I know that many affirm that the results to which such reasoning as that I have adduced would lead are themselves conclusive against its force. But that is scarcely a fair mode of judging of the strength and invincibility of any argument, far less one touching interests so momentous in character. To give the objection its greatest force it may be said, "If suffrage be the right of all men, why is it not also the right of all women, of all children?" "Are they not equally interested in good government, and are they not equally capable of expressing through a vote their wish in relation to public affairs?" "Do they not come within the category, the equal liberty of each limited by the like liberty of all, and if so, can the infringement of their liberty by disfranchisement be justified!" To such questions, and, in fact, to the whole inquiry, it may be replied that as freedom finds the expression of its limits in the social relation itself, so long as the marital and paternal state remain as they are now, essential parts to that social relation, so long will there be more or less of constraint involved in their expression through governmental forms. And it may be added also that in so far as marriage and paternity establish an identity of interest between husband and wife, or parent and child, so far the participation of the one in the Government is virtually the participation of both, the franchise of one the franchise of both. Such identity is not always true or equable, but it nevertheless approximates truth, and is therefore the more readily accepted as such in practical affairs.
I believe, Mr. President, that these are the principles on which our personal rights and freedoms in society stand. It's true that this argument takes us quite far, but not beyond where a republican government needs to go when it tries to align its practices with its reasoning. After examining the overall reasoning behind the franchise question, let’s focus more specifically on how this argument relates to the proposal made by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I know many people argue that the conclusions drawn from this reasoning undermine its validity. However, that isn't a fair way to assess the strength and resilience of any argument, especially one that deals with such important interests. To strengthen the objection, one might say, "If voting is a right for all men, why isn’t it also a right for all women and children?" "Aren’t they equally invested in good governance, and can’t they express their desires about public affairs through a vote?" "Do they not fall under the principle of equal liberty for each, limited by the same liberty for all, and if so, how can their liberty be infringed upon by denying them the vote?" In response to these questions, and indeed the entire discussion, it can be said that as freedom finds its boundaries within social relationships, as long as marriage and parenthood remain integral to that social relation, there will be some level of constraint in expressing those relationships through governmental systems. Additionally, to the extent that marriage and parenthood create a shared interest between husband and wife or parent and child, the participation of one in government effectively means the participation of both; when one has the right to vote, both do. This identity of interests isn’t always consistent or equal, but it tends to approximate the truth and is therefore more readily accepted in practical situations.
That the rights of women, however, are intrinsically the same with those of men, may not be consistently denied; and that all the advance of modern civilization has been toward according them greater equality of condition is attested by the current history of every nation within its pale. Rights of married women and minors are constantly finding new expression in our laws and new force in our public opinion, which is only law in process of formation. While it will not be necessary, therefore, to go into those deeper and anterior questions of social life involving the substitution of voluntary for compulsory modes which are agitating so profoundly the intellect of this age, it is important to note that of the three great departments of control in human affairs, namely, morals or[Pg 140] conscience, manners or society, governments or laws, the two former have been unreservedly conceded to the full and equal participation of women. And furthermore, I venture to affirm with all confidence, that although the social relation, as it embraces a recognition of family dependence, may present obstacles to an equal influence under present forms of government and to the full exercise of citizen rights on the part of women, yet that the purity, the refinement, the instinctive reading of character, the elegant culture of the women of our land, if brought to bear upon the conduct of political affairs, would do much to elevate them in all their aims, and conform them to higher standards of justice.
The rights of women are fundamentally the same as those of men, and it's hard to deny that modern civilization has continually worked towards providing them with greater equality. This is evident in the current history of every nation. The rights of married women and minors are increasingly being recognized in our laws and gaining traction in public opinion, which can be seen as law in the making. While we don’t need to delve into the deeper social questions about replacing compulsory systems with voluntary ones that are currently challenging our thinking, it’s essential to acknowledge that in the three major areas of control in human affairs—morals or conscience, manners or society, and governments or laws—the first two have been fully opened to equal participation by women. Furthermore, I confidently assert that even though the social dynamics involving family dependency can hinder women's equal influence in our current governmental structures and their full exercise of citizenship rights, the purity, refinement, keen understanding of character, and cultural sophistication of the women in our country, if applied to political matters, would significantly uplift these pursuits and align them with higher standards of justice.
Mr. President, I have listened in vain for the argument on which is predicated the assertion that sex alone affords a rightful ground for exclusion from the rights of franchise. I do not find anything to justify that view, even in the position of those who contend that franchise is a mere political privilege and not founded in any right, for that would apply to men equally as to women, and does not touch the question of relative rights. The position would still remain to be established why the franchise should be given to the one and not to the other. It would remain still to present grounds of principle on which that right as such may be denied to her and not denied to him. I have heard reasons of policy, reasons of sentiment, reasons of precedent advanced to justify this exclusion; but in all frankness, and with no disrespect intended, I must say that those which have been presented during this debate seem to me trivial, illogical, and contradictory of one another.
Mr. President, I've listened in vain for the argument that supports the claim that being female alone is a valid reason for denying someone the right to vote. I don't see anything that justifies that perspective, even from those who argue that voting is just a political privilege and not based on any right, since that would apply equally to men and women and doesn’t address the issue of relative rights. It would still need to be established why the vote should be granted to one and not the other. There still needs to be a principled reason for denying that right to her and not to him. I've heard arguments based on policy, sentiment, and precedent used to justify this exclusion; however, in all honesty, and with no disrespect intended, I must say that the reasons presented in this debate seem trivial, illogical, and contradictory.
First, it has been said that if women are entitled to the rights of franchise they would correspondingly come under the obligation to bear arms. But, sir, I do not know that there is any necessary connection between the right of franchise and the requirement of service in your army. On the contrary, I do know that all Governments which have existed among men do now recognize the fact that there is no necessary connection between the two; and I do know that no Government has more distinctly recognized this position than the Government of the United States. Are there not large classes even among men in this country who are exempt from service in our armies for physical incapacity and for other reasons? And if exemptions which appertain to males may be recognized as valid, why not similar exemptions for like reason when applied to females? Does it not prove that there is nothing in the argument so far as it involves the question of right? There are Quakers and other religious sects; there are ministers of the gospel—persons having conscientious scruples; indeed, all men over a certain age who under the laws of many of the States are released from service of that character. Indeed, it is the boast of the republic that ours is a volunteer military establishment. Hence I say there is nothing in the position that because she may not be physically qualified for service in your army, therefore you have the right to deny her the franchise on the score of sex. It might be an inquiry of very great interest and worthy of being pursued much further than I have the time or the ability to pursue it just now, how far, if the ballot should be extended to all the women in this land, it would go to modify existing opinion and action[Pg 141] and relationship among States so as to obliterate in a great degree the very necessity for your army and navy. I believe, sir, that a very large majority of the wars that have been waged in this world have been wars that were condemned by the moral sense of the nations on both sides; wars that would have been terminated forthwith if that moral sense could have had its rightful influence in controlling the affairs of Government; and I say it is a question that is worthy of consideration how far such an element introduced into your political control would go to obviate these barbarous resorts to force which you now deem essential and which we all deplore, but which it is a folly, if not a crime, to say constitute a reason woman should be denied any right to which she would be otherwise entitled.
First, it’s been said that if women have the right to vote, they should also have the obligation to serve in the military. But, sir, I don’t think there’s a necessary link between the right to vote and the requirement to serve in your army. In fact, I know that all governments that have existed recognize there’s no essential connection between the two; and I know that no government has acknowledged this more clearly than the Government of the United States. Aren’t there large groups, even among men in this country, who are exempt from military service due to physical inability and other reasons? And if exemptions for men are considered valid, why shouldn’t there be similar exemptions for women for the same reasons? Doesn’t that show that there’s nothing in the argument with regards to the question of rights? There are Quakers and other religious groups; there are ministers—people with sincere beliefs; indeed, all men over a certain age who are released from such service in many states. Truly, our republic takes pride in being a volunteer military. So I say there’s no basis for the idea that because she may not be physically fit for service in your army, you have the right to deny her the vote simply because she is a woman. It could be a very interesting inquiry—worthy of much more exploration than I have time or ability for right now—how extending the vote to all women in this country might change existing opinions and actions and relationships among states to greatly reduce the need for your army and navy. I believe, sir, that a large majority of wars fought in this world have been opposed by the moral conscience of both sides; wars that would have ended immediately if that sense of morality had influenced government affairs. I believe it’s worth considering how much introducing such an element into your political system could help prevent these brutal uses of force, which you currently see as necessary and which we all regret, and it’s foolish, if not criminal, to claim that this justifies denying women any rights they would otherwise have.
Mr. President, a second objection has been taken to any extension of the franchise in this direction, and it is one that perhaps has more seeming force in it than the other. It has been said with a great deal of pathos by the Senator from New Jersey: what, would you have your wives and your daughters mingle in the scenes at the election-booths, go into the riotous demonstrations that attend upon the exercise of the ballot, and become participants in the angry and turbulent strifes that are so characteristic of our political modes. I say with frankness that I would not have wife or daughter mingle in any such scene; I would be loth to have their purity and their virtue exposed to such demoralized surroundings, surroundings that are only too apt to corrupt even the males that mingle in the political arena. But, sir, I contend that that is an argument against the ballot and the hustings and the polling-booths, and not against the rights of woman. It is an argument against those corruptions that you have permitted to grow and fasten upon your political methods and appliances, and not an argument against her rights as contrasted with the rights of man. What! usurp an exclusive control—then degrade the modes of exercising power, and after that say the degradation is reason why the usurpation should continue unchallenged. What profanation of the very powers of thought is that! On the contrary, I am prepared to say that I see no reason, I never have seen any reason, why there might not be changes introduced in your modes of taking the sense of the community, of ascertaining public opinion upon public measures, of making selection even of its individuals for important offices, that would conform them far more to those refinements and those elevations which should characterize and control them, purifications that must render them appropriate for participation in by the most refined of the land, whether male or female. I see no reason why it should not be done. The change has been constant already from the very rudest forms to the forms which we now have, and which I am sorry to say, are sufficiently rude to disgrace the civilization of the age. Why not further amelioration and adaptation? Are we to have no progress in the modes of government among men? Are we and future generations to be ever imprisoned in the uncouth alternative of monarchical or democratic forms as they now obtain? I can not believe it. For five years past we have had revolution enough among us to satisfy even the most conservative that the present is no ultimatum, either of form or[Pg 142] substance in political or social affairs. I will go further and venture to say, that there are now seething underneath all the forms of this Government, revolutions still more striking than any one of us have yet witnessed. Beneath all these methods and appliances of administrations and controls among men, I believe there is under our very feet a heaving, unsteady ocean of aroused questioning in which many modes now practiced will sink to rise no more, and out of which other adaptations will emerge that will render far more perfect the reflection of the will of the people; that will perhaps represent minorities as well as majorities; that will disarm corruptions by dispensing with party organizations. It is the very witching hour of change.
Mr. President, there’s a second objection to extending the vote in this way, and it might carry more weight than the first. The Senator from New Jersey has expressed a strong sentiment: would you want your wives and daughters to mix with those at the voting booths, to participate in the chaotic scenes that come with voting, and to get involved in the heated and turbulent conflicts that define our political processes? Honestly, I wouldn’t want my wife or daughter to be part of something like that; I would be reluctant to expose their purity and virtue to such a corrupt environment, one that easily taints even the men involved in politics. But, sir, I argue that this is a critique of the voting process itself, not a critique of women's rights. It’s a criticism of the corrupt practices that you’ve allowed to thrive within your political systems, and not an argument against women’s rights compared to men’s rights. What! Establish exclusive control, then allow the methods of exercising power to degrade, and afterward claim that this degradation justifies the ongoing usurpation? What an insult to the very power of thought! On the contrary, I believe there’s no reason, and I’ve never seen a reason, why we couldn't introduce changes in how we gauge public sentiment, how we determine public opinion on issues, or how we select individuals for important positions, changes that would align these processes with the refinement and elevation they should reflect, making them suitable for participation by the most discerning individuals, regardless of gender. I see no reason why this shouldn’t happen. Change has already taken place, evolving from the most primitive forms to the current ones, which, I regret to say, are still rough enough to shame our civilization. Why not seek further improvement and adaptation? Are we not allowed any progress in how we govern ourselves? Are we and future generations meant to remain stuck with the clumsy choice between monarchy and democracy as they currently exist? I refuse to believe that. For the past five years, we’ve seen enough upheaval to assure even the most traditional among us that the present situation is not the final word, either in form or substance, in politics or social affairs. I will go further and say that beneath all the structures of this government, there are revolutions brewing that are even more significant than anything we have yet experienced. Underneath all these systems and methods of administration, I believe there’s a restless, unsteady sea of questioning just beneath our feet, where many current practices will fade away, giving rise to new adaptations that will better reflect the will of the people; ones that might represent both minorities and majorities and that could eliminate corruption by doing away with party systems altogether. This is the crucial moment for change.
And, sir, I do not dread change. Why should we? Is not change the primal condition on which all life is permitted to exist? Change is the very essence of all things pure, the sign and token of the divinity that is within us, and conservatism per se is infidelity against the ordination of God. When, therefore, we see such change in all things that are around us, in fashions and customs and laws and recognitions and intellectualities, even to the supremest generalizations of science, in all things save the elemental principles of our being and by consequence of our rights, why shall we say that these forms into which we have cast administration and government, shall not obey the great law of development and take upon themselves ameliorations better suited to the changing society of mankind, to the wants of a more truthful representation, to the participation by all in the Government that is over all. Mr. President, I am of those who believe that they will. When I look around on the incongruities and corruptions that surround our present system, when I see what politics and government and administration actually are, if I believed there was to be no progress in that direction I should be bereft of all hope and desolate of faith. On the contrary, methinks I can see in the adown vista of the future the golden apples hanging on the tree of promise. It seems to me that the light of the morning is already streaming in upon us that shall illuminate further advancements in the science of government. And why should not even Republican government take to itself other modes of administration without infraction of its fundamental liberties? Why should not large reductions transpire in those opportunities that invite the most sinister combination for offices and spoils? Is there any reason why the emoluments of place should more than repay the labor it calls for? Is there any reason why large abolitions of executive patronage may not transpire; why Government may not generate through examining commissioners, best agencies of its own for the functional work it is called to perform, leaving appeals to the community to pass rather upon controlling measures and general policies and legislative functionaries? Is there any reason why that should not take place? Sir, already, if I mistake not, in the large cities of this land, which are the local points of your domestic political system, the necessity for such a change is being felt and acted upon, and large branches of executive work and supervision are being necessarily put in commission. Mr. President, I think what I have said sufficiently shows that the argument which is advanced, that the present surroundings are[Pg 143] such that woman could not properly participate in your elections, is an argument that does not go to the right of the woman, but does go to the wrong of the man. It is a criticism, perhaps a satire upon the civilization of your political system, not a justification for any exclusions practiced under it.
And, sir, I’m not afraid of change. Why should we be? Isn’t change the fundamental condition that allows all life to exist? Change is the core of all things good, the sign and proof of the divinity within us, and conservatism itself is a betrayal of God’s plan. So, when we see change happening everywhere around us—in fashion, customs, laws, and ideas, even in the most comprehensive principles of science, except for the basic elements of who we are and, therefore, our rights—why should we say that the systems we’ve established for administration and government shouldn’t follow the great law of development and evolve to better fit the changing society of humanity? To meet the demand for more accurate representation and for everyone to participate in the government that governs us all. Mr. President, I believe they will. When I look around at the contradictions and corruption in our current system, when I see what politics and government really are, if I didn’t believe that progress was possible, I would be completely without hope and faith. On the contrary, I can see the golden opportunities in the future. It seems to me that the light of morning is already shining on us, heralding further advancements in the science of government. And why can’t even a Republican government adopt different administrative methods without violating its core liberties? Why can’t there be significant reductions in the opportunities that lead to the most corrupt combinations for jobs and profits? Is there any reason why the benefits of a position should exceed the effort it requires? Is there any reason why we can’t eliminate much of the executive favoritism? Why can’t the government create its own best agencies for the work it needs to do through examining commissioners, and allow the community to focus more on controlling measures, general policies, and legislative functions? Is there any reason why this shouldn’t happen? Sir, already, if I’m not mistaken, in the large cities of this country—where your domestic political system is centered—the need for such change is being felt and acted upon, and many branches of executive work and oversight are being put into commission. Mr. President, I believe what I’ve said clearly indicates that the argument suggesting the current situation is such that women can’t properly engage in your elections isn’t about the rights of women, but rather a criticism of men. It’s a critique, perhaps a satire, on the civilization of your political system, not a justification for any exclusions enforced by it.
There is one other line of remark that has been indulged in, and only one other so far as I have heard, which calls for any special rejoinder, and that affirms the precedents of the past to be all against any such proposition as that now submitted. It is said that there is no precedent, that it is not customary in any of our governments, that it is not one of the recognitions of our society, that it has never been signified as such in the past. I do not know that such an argument amounts to anything at best, but I do know that the allegation itself has no foundation in fact. I know that in many cases and on many occasions this impassable barrier that is now set forth as dividing the natural rights of man and woman has been broken down and trampled upon, and that, too, without any injury to the society from so doing. Perhaps I can best illustrate this point by what an accomplished lady, who has given much thought and research to the subject, has presented. I read from a contribution she has made to one of our leading public prints. She says:
There’s one more point that’s been brought up, and only one that I’ve heard so far, which deserves a response. This point claims that all past examples are against the proposition currently being presented. It’s said that there’s no precedent for it, that it’s not a common practice in any of our governments, that it’s not one of the accepted norms of our society, and that it’s never been acknowledged like this before. I’m not sure how much weight this argument actually carries, but I do know that the claim itself is unfounded. I’m aware that, in many cases and at various times, this supposedly unbreakable barrier that is claimed to separate the natural rights of men and women has been crossed and disregarded, and that this hasn’t harmed society at all. I think I can best illustrate this point by sharing what a knowledgeable woman, who has researched this topic extensively, has to say. I’ll read from her contribution to one of our major newspapers. She states:
So long as political power was of an absolute and hereditary character women shared it whenever they happened, by birth, to hold the position to which it was attached. In Hungary, in some of the German States, and in the French Provinces to this day, certain women, holding an inherited right, confer the franchise upon their husbands, and in widowhood empower some relative or accredited agent to be the legislative protector of their property. In 1858, the authorities of the old university town of Upsal granted the right of suffrage to fifty women owning real estate, and to thirty-one doing business on their own account. The representative that their votes elected was to sit in the House of Burgesses. In Scotland, it is less than a century since, for election purposes, parties were unblushingly married in cases where women conveyed a political franchise, and parted after the election. In Ireland, the court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, restored to women, in January, 1864, the old right of voting for town commissioners. The Justice, Fitzgerald, desired to state that ladies were also entitled to sit as town commissioners, as well as to vote for them, and the chief-justice took pains to make it clear that there was nothing in the act of voting repugnant to their habits.
As long as political power was absolute and inherited, women shared it whenever they were born into the right position. In Hungary, in some German states, and in the French provinces even today, certain women with inherited rights grant the vote to their husbands, and when widowed, allow a relative or trusted agent to be the legal protector of their property. In 1858, the authorities of the historic university town of Upsal gave the right to vote to fifty women who owned real estate and to thirty-one who ran their own businesses. The representative elected by their votes was to sit in the House of Burgesses. In Scotland, it was less than a century ago that parties were openly married for election purposes in cases where women held a political vote, and then separated after the election. In Ireland, the Queen's Bench court in Dublin restored women's old right to vote for town commissioners in January 1864. Justice Fitzgerald wanted to declare that women were also entitled to serve as town commissioners, as well as vote for them, and the chief justice emphasized that voting was not incompatible with their customs.
In November, 1864, the Government of Moravia decided that all women who were tax-payers had the right to vote. In the Government of Pitcairn's Island, women over sixteen have voted ever since its settlement. In Canada, in 1850, a distinct electoral privilege was conferred on women, in the hope that thereby the Protestant might balance the Roman Catholic power in the school system. I lived where I saw this right exercised by female property holders for four years. I never heard the most cultivated man, not even that noble gentleman, the late Lord Elgin, object to its results. In New Jersey, the Constitution adopted in 1776, gave the right of suffrage to all inhabitants, of either sex, who possessed fifty dollars in proclamation money. In 1790, to make it clearer, the Assembly inserted the words "he or she." Women voted there till 1838, when, the votes of some colored women having decided an election, the prejudice against the negro came to the aid of lordly supremacy, and an act was passed limiting the right of suffrage to "free white male citizens." In 1852, the Kentucky Legislature conferred the right on widows with children in matters relating to the school system. The same right was conferred in Michigan; and full suffrage was given to women in the State constitution submitted to Kansas in 1860.
In November 1864, the Government of Moravia decided that all women who paid taxes had the right to vote. In the Government of Pitcairn's Island, women over sixteen have been voting since its settlement. In Canada, in 1850, a specific voting privilege was granted to women, hoping that it would balance the Protestant and Roman Catholic influence in the school system. I lived in a place where I saw this right exercised by female property owners for four years. I never heard even the most educated man, including the esteemed late Lord Elgin, complain about its outcomes. In New Jersey, the Constitution adopted in 1776 granted the right to vote to all residents, regardless of gender, who possessed fifty dollars in proclamation money. In 1790, to clarify this, the Assembly added the words "he or she." Women voted there until 1838, when the votes of some Black women decided an election, leading to increased prejudice against Black individuals and the passing of a law restricting the right to vote to "free white male citizens." In 1852, the Kentucky Legislature granted the right to widows with children concerning the school system. The same right was granted in Michigan, and full voting rights were given to women in the State constitution presented to Kansas in 1860.
I think that is a list of illustrations sufficient to dispose of any argument that may arise on such a score. And now, Mr. President, permit[Pg 144] me to say, in concluding the remarks I have felt called upon to make here, that I have spoken rather as indicating my assent to the principle than as expecting any present practical results from the motion in question. In the earliest part of my political life, when first called upon to represent a constituency in the General Assembly of Missouri, in looking around, after my arrival at the seat of Government at those matters that seemed to me of most importance in legislation, I was struck with two great classes of injustices, two great departments in which it seemed to me the laws and the constitutions of my State had done signal wrong. Those were one as respects the rights of colored persons; the other as respects the rights of married women, minors, and females; and I there and then determined that whenever and wherever it should be in my power to aid in relieving them of those inequalities and those injustices, I would do so to the extent of my humble ability. Since then I have labored zealously in those two reforms as far and as fast as a public opinion could be created or elicited to enforce them, and I can say from my own observation that each step of advance taken has been fruitful of all good and productive of no evil. Emancipation of the colored race in Missouri has been achieved in a most thorough manner, substantially achieved even before the war; and to-day the community is ripe for the declaration that all are created equal, and that there is no reason to exclude from any right, civil or political, on the ground of race or color. I feel proud to say likewise that Missouri has gone further, and wiped from her statute-book large portions of that unjust and unfair and illiberal legislation which had been leveled at the rights and the property of the women of the State. Believing that that cause which embraces and embodies the cause of civil liberty will go forward still triumphing and to triumph, I will never, so help me God, cast any vote that may be construed as throwing myself in the face of that progress. Even though I recognize, therefore, the impolicy of coupling these two measures in this manner and at this time, I shall yet record my vote in the affirmative as an earnest indication of my belief in the principle and my faith in the future.
I believe that's a sufficient list of examples to address any arguments that might come up regarding this matter. And now, Mr. President, let me conclude my remarks by saying that I've spoken more to show my agreement with the principle than to expect any immediate practical outcomes from the motion at hand. Early in my political career, when I was first asked to represent a constituency in the Missouri General Assembly, I was struck by two major injustices that seemed critically important in legislation. One was related to the rights of people of color; the other concerned the rights of married women, minors, and females. Right then and there, I decided that whenever I could help address those inequalities and injustices, I would do so to the best of my humble ability. Since then, I've worked diligently on those two issues as much as public opinion would allow, and I can say from my own experiences that every step forward has led to positive outcomes without any negative consequences. The emancipation of the colored community in Missouri has been accomplished thoroughly, largely even before the war, and today the community is ready to declare that all are created equal, with no reason to deny any rights, civil or political, based on race or color. I'm also proud to say that Missouri has gone further, removing significant portions of unjust, unfair, and discriminatory laws aimed at the rights and property of women in the state. Believing that the cause of civil liberty will continue to advance and succeed, I will never, so help me God, cast a vote that could be seen as opposing that progress. Even though I recognize that it may not be wise to combine these two issues at this time, I will still cast my vote in favor as a sincere indication of my belief in the principle and my hope for the future.
Mr. Davis: Mr. President, our entire population, like that of all other countries, is divided into two great classes, the male and the female. By the census of 1860 the white female population of the United States exceeded thirteen millions, and the aggregate negro population, of both sexes, was below four and a half millions. That great white population, and all its female predecessors, have never had the right of suffrage, or, to use that cant phrase of the day, have never been enfranchised; and such has also been the condition of the negro population. That about one negro in ten thousand in four or five States have been allowed to vote, is too insignificant to be dignified with any consideration as an exception. But now a frenzied party is clamoring to have suffrage given to the negro, while they not only raise no voice for female suffrage, but frown upon and repel every movement and utterance in its favor. Who of the advocates of negro suffrage, in Congress or out of it, dare to stand forth and proclaim to the manhood of America, that the free negroes are fitter and more competent to exercise transcendent political power, the[Pg 145] right of suffrage, than their mothers, their wives, their sisters, and their daughters? The great God who created all the races and in every race gave to man woman, never intended that woman should take part in national government among any people, or that the negro, the lowest, should ever have co-ordinate and equal power with the highest, the white race, in any government, national or domestic. To woman in every race He gave correlative, and as high, as necessary, and as essential, but different faculties and attributes, intellectual and moral, as He gave to man in the same race; and to both, those adapted to the equally important but different parts which they were to play in the dramatic destinies of their people. The instincts, the teachings of the distinct and differing, but harmonious organism of each, led man and woman in every race and people and nation and tribe, savage and civilized, in all countries and ages of the world, to choose their natural, appropriate, and peculiar field of labor and effort. Man assumed the direction of government and war, woman of the domestic and family affairs and the care and the training of the child; and each have always acquiesced in this partition and choice. It has been so from the beginning, throughout the whole history of man, and it will continue to be so to the end, because it is in conformity to nature and its laws, and is sustained and confirmed by the experience and reason of six thousand years.
Mr. Davis: Mr. President, our entire population, like that of every other country, is divided into two main classes: male and female. According to the 1860 census, the white female population of the United States was over thirteen million, while the total Black population, both male and female, was under four and a half million. This large white population, along with all its female predecessors, has never had the right to vote, or to use today's terminology, has never been enfranchised; the same has been true for the Black population. The fact that about one Black person in ten thousand in four or five states has been allowed to vote is too insignificant to be treated as an exception. Yet now, a passionate group is demanding that voting rights be given to Black people, while they not only remain silent on the issue of women's suffrage but also oppose and push away any efforts or statements supporting it. Who among the supporters of Black suffrage, in Congress or outside of it, has the courage to stand up and tell the men of America that free Black individuals are more suited and capable of exercising the fundamental right to vote than their mothers, their wives, their sisters, and their daughters? The great God who created all races and gave women to men in every race never intended for women to participate in the national government of any people, nor for the Black race, the lowest, to ever have equal power with the highest, the white race, in any government, whether national or domestic. To women in every race, He bestowed valuable and essential, yet different, intellectual and moral qualities, just as He did to men in the same race; and both were given the abilities suited for the important but distinct roles they were to fulfill in the unfolding story of their people. The instincts and teachings of the distinct but harmonious organization of each led men and women across every race, nation, and tribe, both savage and civilized, throughout all times and places, to choose their natural and appropriate fields of work and effort. Men took charge of government and war, while women managed domestic affairs and cared for and educated children; and both have consistently accepted this division of roles. This has been the case from the beginning, throughout human history, and it will remain so to the end, because it conforms to nature and its laws, and is supported and validated by the experience and reasoning of six thousand years.
I therefore, Mr. President, am decidedly and earnestly opposed to the amendment moved by my friend from Pennsylvania. There is no man more deeply impressed with or more highly appreciates the important offices which woman exercises over the destiny of race than I do. I concede that woman, by her teachings and influence, is the source of the large mass of the morality and virtue of man and of the world. The benignant and humanizing and important influence which she exercises upon the whole race of man in the proper discharge of her functions and duties can not be overestimated; but that woman should properly perform these great duties, this inappreciably valuable task, it is necessary that she should be kept pure. The domestic altar is a sacred fane where woman is the high and officiating priestess. This priestess should be virtuous, she should be intelligent, she should be competent to the performance of all her high duties. To keep her in that condition of purity, it is necessary that she should be separated from the exercise of suffrage and from all those stern and contaminating and demoralizing duties that devolves upon the hardier sex—man.
I, therefore, Mr. President, am firmly and sincerely against the amendment proposed by my friend from Pennsylvania. No one understands or values the important roles women play in shaping the future of humanity more than I do. I acknowledge that women, through their teachings and influence, are a significant source of morality and virtue for both men and the world. The positive, uplifting, and essential impact they have on all of humanity in fulfilling their responsibilities cannot be overstated; however, for women to carry out these vital duties, it is crucial that they remain pure. The home is a sacred space where women act as the primary caretakers. This caretaker should be virtuous, knowledgeable, and capable of fulfilling all her important responsibilities. To ensure she remains in this pure state, it is essential that she is kept separate from the responsibilities of voting and from all the harsh, corrupting, and demoralizing duties that belong to men.
What is the proposition now before the Senate? To make pure, cultivated, noble woman a partisan, a political hack, to lead her among the rabble that surround and control by blackguardism and brute force so many of the hustings of the United States. Mr. President, if one greater evil or curse could befall the American people than any other, in my judgment it would be to confer upon the women of America the right of suffrage. It would be a great step in the line of mischief and evil, and it would lead to other and equally fatal steps—in the same direction. Sir, if ever in the depths and silence of night I send up my secret orisons to my Maker, one of the most fervent of my prayers would be that the women of my country should be saved and sheltered by man from this[Pg 146] great contamination. It is not necessary to the proper influence and to the legitimate power of woman. A cultivated, enlightened, delicate, refined, and virtuous woman at the family altar is the persuasive and at the same time plastic power that sways and fashions the principles and character of her children, and thus makes her impress upon the future men of America, the Phocians, the Timoleons, the Washingtons, who are the honor of the race, and whose destiny it is to elevate and ennoble it. Mr. President, in proportion as man becomes civilized so increases the power and the influence of woman. In the tribes and nations of the lowest ignorance and barbarism this influence is least—it is most potent where there is the greatest intellectual and moral cultivation of man. I want this gentle and holy influence to continue pure and uncontaminated by keeping it within the domestic fane and afar from party politics. But, sir, it has become the fashion, the philosophy, the frenzy of the day to coin catch-words that carry a seemingly attractive principle, but at the same time alluring and mischievous, and among them is this cry for woman's rights and also for negro suffrage and manhood suffrage and universal suffrage. It is all nothing but slang and demagoguery, and is fraught with naught but evil, mischief, and degradation, individually and nationally. For these reasons, sir, one of the last propositions, or if gentlemen choose, principles which have been or may be propounded to the people of America, or as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to which I shall ever give my acceptance, is female suffrage.
What is the issue currently before the Senate? To make refined, educated, noble women into political players, to lead them among the crowds that often control the political scene in the United States through dishonesty and brute force. Mr. President, if there’s one greater misfortune that could befall the American people, in my opinion, it would be granting women the right to vote. It would be a significant step toward trouble and negativity, leading to further equally harmful actions in that direction. Sir, whenever I find myself in the stillness of night, I often pray fervently to my Maker that women in my country be protected and preserved by men from this great contamination. This is not necessary for the rightful influence and power of women. An educated, enlightened, gentle, refined, and virtuous woman at the family level has the persuasive and malleable power that shapes the principles and character of her children, thus leaving her mark on the future men of America, the Phocians, the Timoleons, the Washingtons, who are the pride of our race and are destined to uplift and dignify it. Mr. President, the more civilized man becomes, the greater the power and influence of women grows. In tribes and nations steeped in ignorance and barbarism, this influence is minimal, but it is most powerful where there is significant intellectual and moral development among men. I want this gentle and sacred influence to remain pure and free from the contamination of party politics by keeping it within the home. However, sir, it has become trendy, a prevailing thought of the day to create catchy phrases that suggest appealing principles, but are actually misleading and harmful, including the calls for women's rights, along with suffrage for Black people and universal suffrage. It's all just empty rhetoric and demagoguery, bringing nothing but harm, trouble, and degradation, both individually and nationally. For these reasons, sir, one of the last proposals, or if gentlemen prefer, principles that have been or may be presented to the people of America, or as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which I will always reject, is female suffrage.
I do not deny that our national family properly and wisely comprehends all of the nationalities of Europe who may come here, according to the terms of our naturalization laws, and their posterity; but I assert that negroes, Indians, Mongolians, Chinese, and Tartars ought not and can not safely be admitted to the powers and privileges of citizenship.
I don’t deny that our national family rightly and sensibly includes all the nationalities of Europe who may come here, according to our naturalization laws, and their descendants; but I believe that Black people, Indigenous peoples, Asians, Chinese, and Tartars should not and cannot safely be granted the rights and privileges of citizenship.
I have no doubt that my honorable friend from Pennsylvania desires that the right of suffrage should be given to women; and if he had the power to transfer all the women of the conservative States into and to become residents of the radical States, who imagines that if that were done the Radicals of this House and of the nation would shout in favor of giving to women the right of suffrage? If the Radicals in Congress and out of Congress knew with the certainty of truth that every vote which they will enfranchise by conferring the right of suffrage on the negro, would be cast against that party, in favor of their late southern masters, in favor of the Democracy, in hostility to the schemes of ambition and spoils which are now animating the heart and mind of the great radical organization, who doubts that this party and every mother's son of them would shout for withholding suffrage from the negro?
I have no doubt that my esteemed friend from Pennsylvania wants women to have the right to vote; and if he could move all the women from the conservative states to the radical states, who thinks that if that were to happen, the Radicals in this House and across the country would cheer for granting women the right to vote? If the Radicals in Congress and outside of it knew for sure that every vote they would grant by giving voting rights to Black people would be cast against them, supporting their former Southern masters, backing the Democratic Party, and opposing the ambitions and interests that are currently driving the radical organization, who doubts that this party and every one of its members would call for denying voting rights to Black people?
Mr. Sprague: I know the Senate is impatient for a vote. I know they are determined to vote favorably. When it is necessary that women shall vote for the support of liberty and equality I shall be ready to cast my vote in their favor. The black man's vote is necessary to this at this time....
Mr. Sprague: I understand the Senate is eager to vote. I know they are set on voting positively. When it's essential for women to vote in support of freedom and equality, I will be ready to cast my vote for them. The vote of the black man is crucial at this time....
Mr. Buckalew: I desire to say before the vote is taken on this amendment that I shall vote in favor of it because of the particular position[Pg 147] which it occupies. A vote given for this amendment is not a final one. I understand it to pronounce an opinion upon the two propositions which have been undergoing consideration in the Senate, in a comparative manner, if I may use the expression. In voting for this proposition I affirm simply that the principles and the reasonings upon which the bill itself, as reported by the committee, is based, would apply with equal, if not increased force, to the particular proposition contained in the amendment. If that be affirmed, then recurs the question whether it is proper, whether it is expedient at this time to increase, and very extensively increase, suffrage in this country. I do not understand that the general argument on that question is involved in the present motion. I do not understand that it comes up of necessity in considering the proposition covered by the amendment of my colleague which stands simply in contrast with that contained in the bill. I presume there are several gentlemen, members of this body, who will vote with reference to this consideration and who will reserve their opinion, either openly or in their own consciousness, upon the general or indirect question of the extension of suffrage to the females of the United States.
Mr. Buckalew: I want to state before the vote on this amendment that I will vote in favor of it because of the specific position[Pg 147] it holds. A vote for this amendment doesn’t mean it’s a final decision. I see it as expressing an opinion on the two propositions being discussed in the Senate in a comparative way, if I may put it that way. By voting for this proposition, I am simply affirming that the principles and reasoning behind the bill as reported by the committee would apply just as strongly, if not more so, to the particular proposition in the amendment. If that’s affirmed, it leads us to the question of whether it’s appropriate and timely to extensively expand suffrage in this country. I don’t believe that the general argument on that issue is part of the current motion. I don’t think it necessarily comes up when we consider the proposition in my colleague’s amendment, which stands in direct contrast to what’s in the bill. I assume there are several members of this body who will vote considering this fact and will keep their opinions, whether openly or privately, about the broader question of extending suffrage to women in the United States.
But the occasion invites some remarks beyond the mere statement of this point. The debates which have been going on for three days in this Chamber will go out to the country. They will constitute an element in the popular discussions of the times and awaken a large amount of public attention. This is not the last we shall hear of this subject. It will come to us again; and I am persuaded that one reason why it will come again is that the arguments against the proposed extension of suffrage have not been sufficient; they have been inadequate; they have been placed upon grounds which will not endure debate. Those who are in favor of the extension of suffrage to females can answer what has been said in this Chamber, and they can answer it triumphantly; and you will eventually be obliged to take other grounds than those which have been here stated. From the beginning of this debate there has been either an open or an implied concession of the principle upon which the extension of suffrage is asked; and that is, that there is some natural right or propriety in extending it further than it was extended by those who formed our State and Federal Constitutions; that there is some principle of right or of propriety involved which now appeals powerfully to us in favor of extended and liberal action in behalf of those large classes who have been hitherto disfranchised; upon whom the right of suffrage has not been heretofore conferred.
But this occasion calls for some comments beyond just stating this point. The debates that have been happening for three days in this Chamber will reach the public. They will be part of the ongoing discussions of our time and grab a lot of public attention. This won't be the last we hear about this issue. It will come back to us; and I believe one reason it will resurface is that the arguments against the proposed extension of voting rights have not been strong enough; they have been lacking; they have been based on grounds that won't hold up under scrutiny. Those who support extending voting rights to women can respond to what has been said in this Chamber, and they will do so successfully; and eventually, you will have to rely on different arguments than those that have been presented here. From the start of this debate, there has been either a clear or implied acknowledgment of the principle behind the push for expanding voting rights; that is, that there is some natural right or appropriateness in extending it further than what was granted by those who created our State and Federal Constitutions; that there is some principle of justice or fairness involved which now strongly calls us to take extended and generous action for those large groups who have previously been denied their rights; who have not been granted the right to vote until now.
Having made this concession upon the fundamental ground of the inquiry, or at all events intimated it, the opponents of an extended franchise pass on to particular arguments of inconvenience or inexpediency as constituting the grounds of their opposition.
Having made this concession based on the essential basis of the inquiry, or at least hinted at it, the opponents of a broader franchise move on to specific arguments about inconvenience or impracticality as the reasons for their opposition.
Now, sir, I venture to say that those who resist the extension of suffrage in this country will be unsuccessful in their opposition; they will be overborne, unless they assume grounds of a more commanding character than those which they have here maintained. This subject of the extension of suffrage must be put upon practical grounds and extricated from the sophisms of theoretical reasoning. Gentlemen must get out of[Pg 148] the domain of theory. They must come back again to those principles of action upon which our fathers proceeded in framing our constitutional system. They lodged suffrage in this country simply in those whom they thought most worthy and most fit to exercise it. They did not proceed upon those humanitarian theories which have since obtained and which now seem to have taken a considerable hold on the public mind. They were practical men, and acted with reference to the history and experience of mankind. They were no metaphysicians; they were not reformers in the modern sense of the term; they were men who based their political action upon the experience of mankind, and upon those practical reflections with reference to men and things in which they had indulged in active life. They placed suffrage then upon the broad common-sense principle that it should be lodged in and exercised by those who could use it most wisely and most safely and most efficiently to serve the great ends for which Government was instituted. They had no other ground than this, and their work shows that they proceeded upon it, and not upon any abstract or transcendental notion of human rights which ignored the existing facts of social life.
Now, sir, I believe that those who resist the expansion of voting rights in this country will ultimately fail in their efforts; they will be overwhelmed unless they adopt arguments that are stronger than those they have used here. The issue of expanding suffrage needs to be approached practically and removed from the misleading arguments of theoretical reasoning. Gentlemen must move beyond the realm of theory. They need to return to the principles of action that our founding fathers relied on when creating our constitutional system. They granted suffrage in this country solely to those they deemed most deserving and best qualified to exercise it. They did not base their decisions on the humanitarian theories that have since become popular and that now seem to have a significant influence on public opinion. They were practical men, making decisions informed by the history and experiences of humanity. They were not philosophers; they were not reformers in the modern sense; they were individuals whose political actions were grounded in real-world experience and practical observations about people and circumstances that they encountered in their active lives. They established suffrage on the straightforward principle that it should be entrusted to those who could wield it most wisely, safely, and effectively to fulfill the essential purposes for which government exists. That was their only basis, and their work demonstrates that they acted on it, rather than on any abstract or lofty idea of human rights that disregarded the actual social realities of the time.
Now, sir, the objection which I have to a large extension of suffrage in this country, whether by Federal or State power, is this: that thereby you will corrupt and degrade elections, and probably lead to their complete abrogation hereafter. By pouring into the ballot-boxes of the country a large mass of ignorant votes, and votes subjected to pecuniary or social influence, you will corrupt and degrade your elections and lay the foundation for their ultimate destruction. That is a conviction of mine, and it is upon that ground that I resist both negro suffrage and female suffrage, and any other proposed form of suffrage which takes humanity in an unduly broad or enlarged sense as the foundation of an arrangement of political power.
Now, sir, my objection to significantly expanding voting rights in this country, whether through federal or state power, is this: it will corrupt and lower the quality of elections, and could potentially lead to their complete abolition in the future. By flooding the ballot boxes with a large number of uninformed votes, and votes influenced by money or social pressure, you will degrade the integrity of your elections and set the stage for their eventual downfall. That’s my belief, and it’s why I oppose both black suffrage and women’s suffrage, as well as any other proposed form of voting rights that broadly defines humanity as the basis for political power arrangements.
Mr. President, I proposed before the debate concluded, before this subject should be submitted to the Senate for its final decision, to protest against some of the reasoning by which this amendment was resisted. I intended to protest against particular arguments which were submitted; but I was glad this morning that that duty which I had proposed to myself was discharged, and well discharged by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Brown]. For instance, the argument that the right of suffrage ought not to be conferred upon this particular class because they did not or could not bear arms—a consideration totally foreign and irrelevant, in my opinion, to the question which we are discussing.
Mr. President, I suggested before the debate wrapped up, and before this topic goes to the Senate for a final decision, that I wanted to speak out against some of the reasoning used to oppose this amendment. I aimed to address specific arguments that were presented, but I was pleased this morning that the responsibility I had taken on was fulfilled, and done well by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Brown]. For example, the argument that the right to vote shouldn’t be granted to this particular group because they didn’t or couldn’t serve in the military is completely irrelevant to the issue we’re discussing, in my view.
But, sir, passing this by, I desire to add a few words before I conclude upon another point which was stated or suggested by the Senator from Missouri, and that is the question of reform or improvement in our election system; I mean in the machinery by which or plans upon which those elections proceed. After due reflection given to this subject, my opinion is that our electoral systems in this country are exceedingly defective, and that they require thorough revision, that to them the hand of reform must be strongly applied if republican institutions are to be ultimately successful with us.
But, sir, setting this aside, I want to add a few words before I wrap up about another point raised by the Senator from Missouri, which is the issue of reform or improvement in our election system; specifically, the processes and plans that guide those elections. After careful consideration of this topic, I believe that our electoral systems in this country are seriously flawed and need a complete overhaul. We need to apply strong reform efforts if we want our republican institutions to ultimately succeed.
I would see much less objection to your extension of the right of suffrage[Pg 149] very largely to classes now excluded if you had a different mode of voting, if you did take or could take the sense of these added classes in a different manner from that which now obtains in popular voting. You proceed at present upon the principle or rule that a mere majority of the electoral community shall possess the whole mass of political power; and what are the inevitable results? First, that the community is divided into parties, and into parties not very unequal in their aggregate numbers. What next? That the balance of power between parties is held by a very small number of voters; and in practical action what is the fact? That the struggle is constantly for that balance of power, and in order to obtain it, all the arts and all the evil influences of elections are called into action. It is this struggle for that balance of power that breeds most of the evils of your system of popular elections. Now, is it not possible to have republican institutions and to eliminate or decrease largely this element of evil? Why, sir, take the State of Pennsylvania, whose voice, perhaps, in this Government is to give direction to its legislation at a given time and take a pecuniary interest in the country largely interested in your laws, looking forward upon the eve of a hotly contested election to some particular measures of Government which shall favor it, with what ease can that interest throw into the State a pecuniary contribution competent to turn the voice of that powerful State and change or determine the policy of your Government. And why so? It is only necessary that this corrupt influence should be exerted very slightly indeed within that State from abroad in order to turn the scale, because you are only to exert your pernicious power upon a small number of persons who hold the balance of power between parties therein. Sir, that organization of our system which allows such a state of things to occur must be inherently vicious. Instead of this being a Government of the whole people, which is our fundamental principle, which is our original idea, it is a Government, in the first place, of a majority only of the people; and in the next place, it is in some sort a Government of that small number of persons who give preponderance to one party over another, and who may be influenced by fanaticism, corruption, or passion.
I would see much less objection to your expansion of voting rights[Pg 149] to classes currently excluded if you had a different way of voting, taking the opinions of these new classes in a different manner than what we have in popular voting now. You’re currently operating on the principle that just a simple majority of the voting community should hold all the political power; and what are the inevitable results? First, the community splits into parties, and these parties aren’t very unequal in size. What happens next? The balance of power between these parties rests in the hands of a very small number of voters, and in practice, the result is a constant struggle for that balance of power, where all sorts of tactics and negative influences related to elections come into play. It’s this fight for the balance of power that creates most of the issues within your system of popular elections. Now, isn’t it possible to have republican institutions while reducing or eliminating this element of corruption? For instance, think about Pennsylvania, whose opinion can significantly influence legislation at a certain time. If a certain financial interest is keen on some government measures that would benefit it, during a heated election season, that interest could easily inject funds into the state that would sway its powerful voice and change or dictate your government’s policies. And why is that? It only takes a slight exertion of corrupt influence from outside the state to tip the scales, because you only need to target a small number of people who hold the balance of power between the parties. Sir, that structure of our system that allows this to happen must be fundamentally flawed. Instead of being a government of all the people, which is our core principle and original idea, it’s, first and foremost, a government of a majority only of the people; and secondly, it’s somewhat a government of that small number of individuals who tip the scale for one party or another, who can be swayed by fanaticism, corruption, or passion.
This being our political state at present with reference to electoral action, what do you propose? We have a great evil. Electoral corruption is the great danger in our path. It is the evil in our system against which we must constantly struggle. Every patriot and every honest man here and in his own State is bound to lift his voice and to strike boldly against it in all its forms, and it requires for its repression all the efforts and all the exertion we can put forth. Now what is proposed by the reformers of the present time? We have our majority rule—it is not a principle; it is an abuse of all terms to call it a principle—we have our majority rule in full action, presenting an invitation to corrupt, base, and sinister influences to attach themselves to our system; we have great difficulties with which we now struggle arising from imperfect arrangements, and what do you propose? To reform existing evils and abuses? To correct your system? To study it as patriots, as men of reflection and good sense? No, sir. You propose to introduce into our electoral bodies new elements of enormous magnitude. You propose to take the base of society, excluded[Pg 150] now, and build upon it, and upon it alone or mainly, because the introduction of the enormous mass of voters proposed by the reformers will wholly change the foundations upon which you build.
This is our current political situation regarding elections; what do you suggest we do? We face a significant problem. Electoral corruption is the major threat we’re dealing with. It is the issue in our system that we must constantly fight against. Every patriotic citizen and honest person, both here and in their own state, needs to raise their voice and stand firmly against it in all its forms. It demands all the effort and energy we can muster to combat it. So, what do the reformers today suggest? We have our majority rule—it’s not a true principle; it’s a misuse of the term to call it one—our majority rule is fully operational, inviting corrupt, unethical influences to attach themselves to our system. We are currently grappling with serious challenges due to flawed structures, and what do you propose? To fix existing issues and abuses? To improve your system? To study it thoughtfully, like true patriots? No, sir. You want to introduce into our electoral groups new elements on a massive scale. You aim to take the lower classes of society, who are currently excluded,[Pg 150] and build solely upon that, because the influx of the vast number of voters suggested by the reformers will completely alter the foundations on which you construct.
Will not these new electors you propose to introduce be more approachable than men who now vote to all corrupt influences? Will they not be more passionate, and therefore more easily influenced by the demagogue? Will they not be more easily caught and enraptured by superficial declamation, because more incapable of profound reflection? Will not their weakness render them subservient to the strong and their ignorance to the artful?
Will these new voters you're suggesting to bring in really be easier to reach than the current ones who are swayed by corruption? Will they be more emotional and, as a result, more vulnerable to manipulation by demagogues? Will they fall for flashy rhetoric more easily because they struggle with deep thinking? Won’t their weaknesses make them submissive to the powerful and their lack of knowledge to the cunning?
I shall not, however, detain you with an elaborate argument upon this question of suffrage. I only feel myself called upon to say enough to indicate the general direction of my reflections upon the questions before us; to show why it is that I am immovably opposed at this time to extending our system of suffrage in the District of Columbia or elsewhere so as to include large classes of persons who are now excluded; and to state my opinion that reform or change should be concerned with the correction of the existing evils of our electoral system, instead of with the enlargement of its boundaries.
I won’t keep you with a long argument about the suffrage issue. I just want to share enough to highlight where my thoughts are headed on this topic; to explain why I strongly oppose expanding our suffrage system in the District of Columbia or anywhere else to include large groups of people who are currently excluded; and to express my belief that any reforms or changes should focus on fixing the problems within our current electoral system, rather than trying to broaden its scope.
Mr. Doolittle: I move that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. Doolittle: I suggest that the Senate should adjourn now.
Several Senators: Oh, no; let us have a vote.
Several Senators: Oh, no; let’s vote on it.
The motion was not agreed to.
The motion was not approved.
Mr. Doolittle: Mr. President, this amendment, in my judgment, opens a very grave question; a question graver than it appears at the blush; a question upon which the ablest minds are divided here and elsewhere; a question, however, on which we are called upon to vote, and therefore one upon which I desire very briefly to state the views which control my judgment when I say that I shall vote against the amendment which is now offered.
Mr. Doolittle: Mr. President, in my opinion, this amendment raises a serious issue; an issue more serious than it seems at first glance; an issue on which the best minds are divided both here and beyond; a question, nonetheless, that we must vote on, and for that reason, I would like to briefly share the reasons behind my decision to vote against the amendment currently presented.
For myself, sir, after giving some considerable reflection to the subject of suffrage, I have arrived at the conclusion that the true base or foundation upon which to rest suffrage in any republican community is upon the family, the head of the family; because in civilized society the family is the unit, not the individual. What is meant by "man" is man in that relation where he is placed according to nature, reason, and religion. If it were a new question and it were left to me to determine what should be the true qualification of a person to exercise the right of suffrage, I would fix it upon that basis that the head of a family, capable of supporting that family, and who had supported the family, should be permitted to vote, and no other.
For me, sir, after thinking a lot about the issue of voting rights, I’ve come to the conclusion that the best foundation for suffrage in any republican community is the family and its head. This is because, in a civilized society, the family is the main unit, not the individual. When we talk about "man," we mean a man in his role as defined by nature, reason, and religion. If it were a new question and I had to decide what the true qualification should be for someone to exercise the right to vote, I would base it on the idea that the head of a family, who is capable of supporting that family and has actually done so, should be allowed to vote, and no one else.
While I know that the question is not a new one; while it is impossible for me to treat it as a new question because suffrage everywhere has been extended beyond the heads of families, yet the reason, in my judgment, upon which it has been extended is simply this: if certain men have been permitted to vote who were not the heads of families it was because they were the exceptions to the general rule, and because it was to be presumed that if they were not at the time heads of families they ought to be, and probably would be. I say that according to reason, nature, and religion, the family is the unit of every society. So far as the ballot is concerned, in my judgment, it represents this fundamental element of civilized society, the family. It therefore should be cast by the head of the family, and according to reason, nature, and religion man is the head of the family. In that relation, while every man is king, every woman is queen; but upon him devolves the responsibility of controlling the external[Pg 151] relations of this family, and those external relations are controlled by the ballot; for that ballot or vote which he exercises goes to choose the legislators who are to make the laws which are to govern society. Within the family man is supreme; he governs by the law of the family, by the law of reason, nature, religion. Therefore it is that I am not in favor of conferring the right of suffrage upon woman....
While I understand that this question isn't new and it's impossible for me to view it as such since voting rights have already been extended beyond those who are heads of households, I believe the reason for this extension is straightforward: when certain men who weren't heads of families were allowed to vote, it was because they were exceptions to the general rule. It was presumed that even if they weren't heads of families at that moment, they should be and likely would be in the future. I argue that according to reason, nature, and religion, the family is the basic unit of society. As far as voting is concerned, I believe it symbolizes this essential aspect of civilized society: the family. Therefore, it should be cast by the head of the family, and by nature, reason, and religion, that role falls to the man. In that dynamic, every man is a king, and every woman is a queen; however, it is the man's responsibility to manage the family’s external affairs, and these external affairs are influenced by the vote. The vote he casts selects the legislators who create the laws governing society. Within the family, the man holds authority; he governs according to the family's laws, informed by reason, nature, and religion. That is why I am not in favor of granting women the right to vote...
Mr. President, I have stated very briefly that I shall not be able to vote for the proposition of my honorable friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan]. I shall not be able to vote for this bill if it be a bill to give universal suffrage to the colored men in this District without any restriction or qualification. I have been informed that some other Senator intends before this bill shall have passed in the Senate to propose an amendment which will attach a qualification, and perhaps, should that meet the views of the Senate, I might give my support to the bill. I shall not detain the Senate further now on this subject.
Mr. President, I've stated briefly that I can't support the proposal from my respected colleague from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan]. I won’t be able to vote for this bill if it aims to grant universal suffrage to men of color in this District without any restrictions or qualifications. I've heard that another Senator plans to propose an amendment before this bill passes in the Senate, which would add a qualification, and if that aligns with the Senate's views, I might consider supporting the bill. I won't take up any more time in the Senate on this subject now.
Mr. Pomeroy: I desire to say in just a brief word that I shall vote against the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, simply because I am in favor of this measure, and I do not want to weigh it down with anything else. There are other measures that I would be glad to support in their proper place and time; but this is a great measure of itself. Since I have been a member of the Senate, there was a law in this District authorizing the selling of colored men. To have traveled in six years from the auction-block to the ballot with these people is an immense stride, and if we can carry this measure alone of itself we should be contented for the present. I am for this measure religiously and earnestly, and I would vote down and vote against everything that I thought weakened or that I thought was opposed to it. It is simply with this view, without expressing any opinion in regard to the merits of the amendment, that I shall vote against it and all other amendments.
Mr. Pomeroy: I want to say briefly that I will vote against the amendment from the Senator from Pennsylvania because I support this measure and don’t want to complicate it with anything else. There are other measures I’d be happy to support at the right time; however, this is a significant measure on its own. Since becoming a member of the Senate, I've seen a law in this District that allowed the selling of Black people. To have progressed from the auction block to the ballot in six years is a massive leap, and if we can push this measure through on its own, we should be satisfied for now. I am fully committed to this measure, and I would vote against anything that I believe undermines or opposes it. This is why I will vote against this amendment and all others, without expressing any opinion on the amendment’s merits.
The President pro tem.: The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan], to strike out the word "male" before the word "person," in the second line of the first section of the amendment reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia as a substitute for the whole bill, and on that question the yeas and nays have been ordered. Yeas, 9. Nays, 37.[58]
The President pro tem.: The question is about the amendment from the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan], to remove the word "male" from before the word "person" in the second line of the first section of the amendment submitted by the Committee on the District of Columbia as a replacement for the entire bill, and regarding that question, the roll call has been requested. Yes, 9. No, 37.[58]
In the House, January 28, 1867, Mr. Noell, of Missouri, introduced a bill to amend the suffrage act of the District of Columbia, which, after the second reading, he moved should be referred to a select committee of five, and on that motion demanded the previous question, and called for the yeas and nays, which resulted in 49 yeas,[59] 74 nays—68 not voting.
In the House, January 28, 1867, Mr. Noell from Missouri introduced a bill to change the voting rights act for the District of Columbia. After the second reading, he suggested that it be sent to a select committee of five. He then called for a vote to move forward with that suggestion, which led to a roll call of yeas and nays: 49 yeas, [59] 74 nays—68 not voting.
FOOTNOTES:
[48] Form of Petition.—To the Senate and House of Representatives:—The undersigned women of the United States, respectfully ask an amendment of the Constitution that shall prohibit the several States from disfranchising any of their citizens on the ground of sex.
[48] Form of Petition.—To the Senate and House of Representatives:—The undersigned women of the United States respectfully request an amendment to the Constitution that would prevent the states from denying any of their citizens the right to vote based on their gender.
In making our demand for Suffrage, we would call your attention to the fact that we represent fifteen million people—one-half the entire population of the country—intelligent, virtuous, native-born American citizens; and yet stand outside the pale of political recognition. The Constitution classes us as "free people," and counts us whole persons in the basis of representation; and yet are we governed without our consent, compelled to pay taxes without appeal, and punished for violations of law without choice of judge or juror. The experience of all ages, the Declarations of the Fathers, the Statute Laws of our own day, and the fearful revolution through which we have just passed, all prove the uncertain tenure of life, liberty, and property so long as the ballot—the only weapon of self-protection—is not in the hand of every citizen.
In making our demand for Suffrage, we want to highlight that we represent fifteen million people—half the entire population of the country—intelligent, virtuous, native-born American citizens; and yet we still stand outside of political recognition. The Constitution classifies us as "free people," and counts us whole persons in the basis of representation; and yet we are governed without our consent, forced to pay taxes without a way to appeal, and punished for breaking the law without a choice of judge or juror. The experiences of all ages, the declarations of the Founding Fathers, the laws of our time, and the terrifying revolution we just experienced, all demonstrate the insecure nature of life, liberty, and property as long as the ballot—the only tool for self-protection—is not in the hands of every citizen.
Therefore, as you are now amending the Constitution, and, in harmony with advancing civilization, placing new safeguards round the individual rights of four millions of emancipated slaves, we ask that you extend the right of Suffrage to Woman—the only remaining class of disfranchised citizens—and thus fulfill your constitutional obligation "to guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government." As all partial application of Republican principles must ever breed a complicated legislation as well as a discontented people, we would pray your Honorable Body, in order to simplify the machinery of Government and ensure domestic tranquillity, that you legislate hereafter for persons, citizens, tax-payers, and not for class or caste. For justice and equality your petitioners will ever pray.
Therefore, as you are now amending the Constitution and, in line with the progress of society, putting new protections around the individual rights of four million freed slaves, we ask that you extend the right to vote to women—the only remaining group of disenfranchised citizens—and thus fulfill your constitutional duty "to guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government." Any partial application of Republican principles will only lead to complicated laws and a dissatisfied population. We urge your Honorable Body, to simplify the workings of Government and ensure peace at home, to legislate in the future for individuals, citizens, and taxpayers, rather than for specific classes or groups. For justice and equality, your petitioners will always pray.
[49] JOINT RESOLUTIONS BEFORE CONGRESS AFFECTING WOMEN.
[49] JOINT RESOLUTIONS IN CONGRESS IMPACTING WOMEN.
To the Editor of the Standard—Sir:—Mr. Broomall, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Schenck, of Ohio; Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode Island; Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, have each a resolution before Congress to amend the Constitution.
To the Editor of the Standard—Sir:—Mr. Broomall from Pennsylvania; Mr. Schenck from Ohio; Mr. Jenckes from Rhode Island; and Mr. Stevens from Pennsylvania all have a resolution in front of Congress to amend the Constitution.
Article 1st, Section 2d, reads thus: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective number."
Article 1st, Section 2d, reads thus: "Representatives and direct taxes will be distributed among the different States in this Union based on their respective populations."
Mr. Broomall proposes to amend by saying "male electors," Mr. Schenck "male citizens," Mr. Jenckes "male citizens," Mr. Stevens "legal voters." There is no objection to the amendment proposed by Mr. Stevens, as in process of time women may be made "legal voters" in the several States, and would then meet that requirement of the Constitution. But those urged by the other gentlemen, neither time, effort, nor State Constitutions could enable us to meet, unless, by a liberal interpretation of the amendment, a coat of mail to be worn at the polls might be judged all-sufficient. Mr. Jenckes and Mr. Schenck, in their bills, have the grace not to say a word about taxes, remembering perhaps that "taxation without representation is tyranny." But Mr. Broomall, though unwilling to share with us the honors of Government, would fain secure us a place in its burdens; for while he apportions representatives to "male electors" only, he admits "all the inhabitants" into the rights, privileges, and immunities of taxation. Magnanimous M. C.!
Mr. Broomall wants to change it to "male electors," Mr. Schenck suggests "male citizens," Mr. Jenckes also says "male citizens," and Mr. Stevens says "legal voters." There’s no issue with Mr. Stevens’ suggestion, as in time women may become "legal voters" in the various States and would then fulfill that requirement of the Constitution. However, the other suggestions are not something we could meet with time, effort, or State Constitutions unless, through a generous interpretation of the amendment, wearing armor at the polls could be considered enough. Mr. Jenckes and Mr. Schenck, in their proposals, wisely avoid mentioning taxes, perhaps recalling that "taxation without representation is tyranny." But Mr. Broomall, although reluctant to let us share in the privileges of Government, is eager to assign us a role in its burdens; since while he distributes representatives only to "male electors," he includes "all the inhabitants" in the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of taxation. What a generous Member of Congress!
I would call the attention of the women of the nation to the fact that under the Federal Constitution, as it now exists, there is not one word that limits the right of suffrage to any privileged class. This attempt to turn the wheels of civilization backward, on the part of Republicans claiming to be the Liberal party, should rouse every woman in the nation to a prompt exercise of the only right she has in the Government, the right of petition. To this end a committee in New York have sent out thousands of petitions, which should be circulated in every district and sent to its Representative at Washington as soon as possible.
I want to draw the attention of women across the country to the fact that, according to the current Federal Constitution, there isn't a single word that restricts the right to vote to any privileged group. This effort to roll back progress, led by Republicans who claim to be the Liberal party, should motivate every woman in the country to quickly utilize her only power in the government: the right to petition. To support this, a committee in New York has distributed thousands of petitions, which need to be shared in every district and sent to the Representative in Washington as soon as possible.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
New York, January 2, 1866.
New York, January 2, 1866.
[50] Leaving Rochester October 11th, she called on Martha Wright, Auburn; Phebe Jones and Lydia Mott, Albany; Mrs. Rose, Gibbons, Davis, Stanton, New York; Lucy Stone and Antoinette Brown Blackwell, New Jersey; Stephen and Abby Foster, Worcester; Mrs. Severance, Dall, Nowell, Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Dr. Zakzyewska, Mr. Phillips and Garrison, in Boston, urging them to join in sending protests to Washington against the pending legislation. Mr. Phillips at once consented to vote $500 from the "Jackson Fund" to commence the work. Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton spent all their "Christmas holidays" in writing letters and addressing appeals and petitions to every part of the country, and before the close of the session of 1865-66 ten thousand signatures were poured into Congress.
[50] Leaving Rochester on October 11th, she visited Martha Wright in Auburn; Phebe Jones and Lydia Mott in Albany; Mrs. Rose, Gibbons, Davis, and Stanton in New York; Lucy Stone and Antoinette Brown Blackwell in New Jersey; Stephen and Abby Foster in Worcester; and Mrs. Severance, Dall, Nowell, Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Dr. Zakzyewska, Mr. Phillips, and Garrison in Boston, encouraging them to join in sending protests to Washington against the proposed legislation. Mr. Phillips immediately agreed to allocate $500 from the "Jackson Fund" to start the initiative. Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton spent their entire "Christmas holidays" writing letters and addressing appeals and petitions to all parts of the country, and by the end of the 1865-66 session, ten thousand signatures had been submitted to Congress.
To the Editor of the Standard—Sir:—By an amendment of the Constitution, ratified by three-fourths of the loyal States, the black man is declared free. The largest and most influential political party is demanding suffrage for him throughout the Union, which right in many of the States is already conceded. Although this may remain a question for politicians to wrangle over for five or ten years, the black man is still, in a political point of view, far above the educated women of the country. The representative women of the nation have done their uttermost for the last thirty years to secure freedom for the negro, and so long as he was lowest in the scale of being we were willing to press his claims; but now, as the celestial gate to civil rights is slowly moving on its hinges, it becomes a serious question whether we had better stand aside and see "Sambo" walk into the kingdom first. As self-preservation is the first law of nature, would it not be wiser to keep our lamps trimmed and burning, and when the constitutional door is open, avail ourselves of the strong arm and blue uniform of the black soldier to walk in by his side, and thus make the gap so wide that no privileged class could ever again close it against the humblest citizen of the republic?
To the Editor of the Standard—Sir:—An amendment to the Constitution, approved by three-fourths of the loyal States, declares that black men are free. The largest and most influential political party is pushing for voting rights for black men across the nation, a right that is already granted in many States. Even though this may be a topic for politicians to debate for five or ten years, black men are still politically ahead of the educated women of the country. For the last thirty years, the representative women of the nation have done everything they can to secure freedom for black people, and as long as he was considered the lowest in the social hierarchy, we were willing to advocate for his rights; but now, as the path to civil rights is slowly opening, we face a serious question of whether we should step aside and let "Sambo" enter the kingdom first. Since self-preservation is the first law of nature, wouldn’t it be wiser to keep our lamps lit and ready, and when the constitutional door is open, make use of the strong support and blue uniforms of black soldiers to walk in beside them, thus opening the gap wide enough that no privileged class could ever close it again against the humblest citizen of the republic?
"This is the negro's hour." Are we sure that he, once entrenched in all his inalienable rights, may not be an added power to hold us at bay? Have not "black male citizens" been heard to say they doubted the wisdom of extending the right of suffrage to women? Why should the African prove more just and generous than his Saxon compeers? If the two millions of Southern black women are not to be secured in their rights of person, property, wages, and children, their emancipation is but another form of slavery. In fact, it is better to be the slave of an educated white man, than of a degraded, ignorant black one. We who know what absolute power the statute laws of most of the States give man, in all his civil, political, and social relations, demand that in changing the status of the four millions of Africans, the women as well as the men shall be secured in all the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens.
"This is the black man's hour." Are we really sure that once he has all his inalienable rights, he won't be an added force to keep us at bay? Haven't "black male citizens" been heard questioning the wisdom of giving women the right to vote? Why should African Americans be more just and generous than their white counterparts? If the two million Southern black women don't have their rights to person, property, wages, and children guaranteed, their emancipation is just another form of slavery. In fact, it's better to be the slave of an educated white man than of a degraded, ignorant black man. We who understand the absolute power that the laws of most states give to men in all their civil, political, and social relations demand that when changing the status of the four million Africans, both women and men must be secured in all the rights, privileges, and protections of citizens.
It is all very well for the privileged order to look down complacently and tell us, "This is the negro's hour; do not clog his way; do not embarrass the Republican party with any new issue; be generous and magnanimous; the negro once safe, the woman comes next." Now, if our prayer involved a new set of measures, or a new train of thought, it would be cruel to tax "white male citizens" with even two simple questions at a time; but the disfranchised all make the same demand, and the same logic and justice that secures suffrage to one class gives it to all. The struggle of the last thirty years has not been merely on the black man as such, but on the broader ground of his humanity. Our Fathers, at the end of the first revolution, in their desire for a speedy readjustment of all their difficulties, and in order to present to Great Britain, their common enemy, an united front, accepted the compromise urged on them by South Carolina, and a century of wrong, ending in another revolution, has been the result of their action. This is our opportunity to retrieve the errors of the past and mould anew the elements of Democracy. The nation is ready for a long step in the right direction; party lines are obliterated, and all men are thinking for themselves. If our rulers have the justice to give the black man suffrage, woman should avail herself of that new-born virtue to secure her rights; if not, she should begin with renewed earnestness to educate the people into the idea of universal suffrage.
It’s easy for those in power to look down and say, “This is the time for black people; don’t stand in their way; don’t distract the Republican Party with any new issues; be kind and generous; once black people are secure, women will be next.” However, if our request involved a new set of policies or a different way of thinking, it would be unfair to burden "white male citizens" with even two simple questions at once; but the disenfranchised all make the same demand, and the same reasoning and fairness that grants voting rights to one group should apply to all. The struggle over the last thirty years hasn’t just been about black men, but about humanity as a whole. Our forefathers, at the end of the first revolution, eager to resolve their issues quickly and to present a united front against Great Britain, accepted the compromise pushed by South Carolina, leading to a century of injustice that culminated in another revolution. This is our chance to correct the mistakes of the past and reshape the elements of Democracy. The nation is poised to take a major step forward; party lines are blurred, and everyone is thinking for themselves. If our leaders have the fairness to grant black men the right to vote, women should use that newfound virtue to secure their own rights; if not, they should start with renewed determination to educate the public on the importance of universal suffrage.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
New York, December 26, 1865.
New York, December 26, 1865.
Scenes in the House of Representatives.—Negroes are to Vote—Why not Coolies in California—Indians everywhere, and First of all, Fifteen Millions of our Countrywomen.
Scenes in the House of Representatives.—Black people are allowed to vote—So why not Asian immigrants in California—Native Americans everywhere, and let's not forget, fifteen million of our country’s women.
The following occurred in the House, Tuesday, upon Thaddeus Stevens' resolution, from the Reconstruction Committee, to deprive the South of representation, unless the South lets the negroes vote there....
The following occurred in the House on Tuesday regarding Thaddeus Stevens' resolution from the Reconstruction Committee, aiming to take away representation from the South unless they allow Black people to vote.
Mr. Chandler, of New York, having the floor for an hour, said: Before proceeding with my remarks, I will yield the floor for ten minutes to my colleague [Mr. Brooks].
Mr. Chandler, from New York, having the floor for an hour, said: Before I continue with my comments, I will give the floor to my colleague [Mr. Brooks] for ten minutes.
Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise, of course, to debate this resolution, in the few minutes allowed me by my colleague, nor, in my judgment, does the resolution need any discussion unless it may be for the mere purpose of agitation. I do not suppose that there is an honorable gentleman upon the floor of this House who believes for a moment that any movement of this character is likely to become the fundamental law of the land, and these propositions are, therefore, introduced only for the purpose of agitation. If the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] had been quite confident of adopting this amendment, he would at the start have named what are States of this Union. The opinion of the honorable gentleman himself, that there are no States in this Union but those that are now represented upon this floor, I know full well, but he knows as well that the President of the United States recognizes thirty-six States of this Union, and that it is necessary to obtain the consent of three-fourths of those thirty-six States, which number it is not possible to obtain. He knows very well that if his amendment should be adopted by the Legislatures of States enough, in his judgment, to carry it, before it could pass the tribunal of the Executive Chamber it would be obliged to receive the assent of twenty-seven States in order to become an amendment to the Constitution. The whole resolution, therefore, is for the purpose of mere agitation. It is an appeal from this House to the outside constituencies that we know by the name of buncombe. Here it was born, and here, after its agitation in the States, it will die. Hence, I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania this morning to be consistent in his proposition. In one thing he is consistent, and that is in admitting the whole of the Asiatic immigration, which, by the connection of our steamers with China and Japan and the East Indies, is about to pour forth in mighty masses upon the Pacific coast to the overwhelming even of the white population there.
Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I’m not here to debate this resolution in the few minutes my colleague has given me, and frankly, I don’t think it needs any discussion unless it’s just to stir up trouble. I don't think there’s anyone in this House who believes for a second that any movement like this is going to become the law of the land. These ideas are only put forward to create a fuss. If the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] really believed his amendment would pass, he would have specified which States of this Union he is referring to from the outset. I know very well that he thinks there are no States in this Union except those represented here, but he also knows that the President acknowledges thirty-six States, and we’d need the approval of three-fourths of those thirty-six, which just isn’t going to happen. He knows that for his amendment to even reach the Executive Chamber, it would have to be approved by twenty-seven States to qualify as a Constitutional amendment. So really, the whole resolution is just about creating noise. It’s basically a pitch from this House to the outside world that we know as buncombe. It started here, and after creating a stir in the States, it will end here too. That’s why I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania this morning to be consistent in his position. He is consistent in one aspect, and that’s in welcoming all the Asian immigration, which, thanks to our steamship connections with China, Japan, and the East Indies, is about to flood the Pacific coast and overwhelm the white population there.
Mr. Stevens: I wish to correct the gentleman. I said it excluded Chinese.
Mr. Stevens: I want to correct the gentleman. I said it excluded Chinese people.
Mr. Brooks: How exclude them, when Chinese are to be included in the basis of representation?
Mr. Brooks: How can we exclude them when the Chinese are included in the basis of representation?
Mr. Stevens: I say it excludes them.
Mr. Stevens: I think it leaves them out.
Mr. Brooks: How exclude them?
Mr. Brooks: How exclude them?
Mr. Stevens: They are not included in the basis of representation.
Mr. Stevens: They’re not part of the representation basis.
Mr. Brooks: Yes, if the States exclude them from the elective franchise; and the States of California and Oregon and Nevada are to be deprived of representation according to their population upon the floor of this House by this amendment. I asked him, also, if the Indian was not a man and a brother, and I obtained no satisfactory answer from the honorable gentleman. I speak now, in order to make his resolution consistent, for no one hundred thousand coolies or wild savages, but I raise my voice here in behalf of fifteen million of our countrywomen, the fairest, brightest portion of creation, and I ask why they are not permitted to vote for Representatives under this resolution? Why, in organizing a system of liberality and justice, not recognize in the case of free women as well as free negroes the right of representation?
Mr. Brooks: Yes, if the states keep them from voting; and the states of California, Oregon, and Nevada will lose representation based on their population because of this amendment. I also asked him whether an Indian is not a man and a brother, and I got no satisfactory answer from the honorable gentleman. I'm speaking now to make his resolution consistent, not for a hundred thousand coolies or wild savages, but I raise my voice here for fifteen million of our countrywomen, the fairest and brightest part of creation, and I ask why they are not allowed to vote for Representatives under this resolution? Why, when setting up a system of fairness and justice, don't we recognize the right to representation for free women just like we do for free Black people?
Mr. Stevens: The gentleman will allow me to say that this bill does not exclude women. It does not say who shall vote.
Mr. Stevens: I would like to point out that this bill does not exclude women. It doesn’t specify who can vote.
Mr. Brooks: I comprehend all that; but the whole object of this amendment is to obtain votes for the negroes. That is its purport, tendency, and meaning; and it punishes those who will not give a vote to the negroes in the Southern States of our Union. That is the object of the resolution, and the ground upon which it is presented to this House and to the country. This is a new era; this is an age of progress. Indians are not only Indians, but men and brothers; and why not, in a resolution like this, include the fair sex too, and give them the right to representation? Will it be said that this sex does not claim a right to representation? Many members here have petitions from these fifteen millions of women, or a large portion of them, for representation, and for the right to vote on equal terms with the stronger sex, who they say are now depriving them of it. To show that such is their wish and desire, I will send to the Clerk's desk to be read certain documents, to which I ask the attention of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens], for in one of them he will find he is somewhat interested.
Mr. Brooks: I understand all that; but the main aim of this amendment is to secure voting rights for Black people. That's its purpose, direction, and meaning; and it penalizes those who refuse to vote for Black individuals in the Southern States of our Union. That's the intention behind this resolution and the basis on which it’s being presented to this House and to the country. We are in a new era; this is a time of progress. Indigenous people are not just Indigenous; they are men and brothers. And why shouldn't we, in a resolution like this, also include women and grant them the right to representation? Is it going to be argued that women don’t want representation? Many members here have petitions from these fifteen million women, or a significant number of them, asking for representation and the right to vote on equal terms with men, who they say are currently denying them that right. To demonstrate that this is their wish and desire, I will send certain documents to the Clerk's desk for reading, and I ask for the attention of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens], as he will find himself somewhat involved in one of them.
The Clerk read as follows:
The Clerk read as follows:
Standard Office, 48 Beekman Street, New York, Jan. 20, 1866.
Standard Office, 48 Beekman Street, New York, Jan. 20, 1866.
Dear Sir:—I send you the inclosed copy of petition and signatures sent to Thaddeus Stevens last week. I then urged Mr. Stevens, if their committee of fifteen could not report favorably on our petitions, they would, at least, not interpose any new barrier against woman's right to the ballot.
Dear Sir:—I’m sending you the enclosed copy of the petition and signatures that were sent to Thaddeus Stevens last week. I urged Mr. Stevens that if their committee of fifteen couldn’t give us a favorable report on our petitions, at the very least, they shouldn’t create any new obstacles to women's right to vote.
Mrs. Stanton has sent you a petition—I trust you will present that at your earliest convenience. The Democrats are now in minority. May they drive the Republicans to do good works—not merely to hold the rebel States in check until negro men shall be guaranteed their right to a voice in their governments, but to hold the party to a logical consistency that shall give every responsible citizen in every State equal right to the ballot. Will you, sir, please send me whatever is said or done with our petitions? Will you also give me the names of members whom you think would present petitions for us?
Mrs. Stanton has sent you a petition—I hope you can present it at your earliest convenience. The Democrats are currently in the minority. May they encourage the Republicans to do meaningful work—not just to keep the rebel States in line until Black men are guaranteed their right to participate in their governments, but also to hold the party accountable to a logical consistency that ensures every responsible citizen in every State has an equal right to vote. Could you please let me know what is said or done about our petitions? Also, could you provide me with the names of members you think would present petitions on our behalf?
Susan B. Anthony.
Susan B. Anthony.
Respectfully yours,
Respectfully yours,
Hon. James Brooks.
Hon. James Brooks.
A PETITION FOR UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.
A PETITION FOR UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:—[The petition here presented has been already in The Express. The following are the signatures to the petition sent to Mr. Stevens]: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, New York; Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N.Y.; Antoinette Brown Blackwell, New York; Lucy Stone, Newark, N.J.; Ernestine L. Rose, New York; Joanna S. Morse, 48 Livingston St., Brooklyn; Elizabeth R. Tilton, 48 Livingston St., Brooklyn; Ellen Hoxie Squier, 34 St. Felix St., Brooklyn; Mary Fowler Gilbert, 294 West 19th St., New York; Mary E. Gilbert, 294 West 19th St., New York; Mattie Griffith, New York.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:—[The petition presented here has already appeared in The Express. Below are the signatures for the petition sent to Mr. Stevens]: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, New York; Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N.Y.; Antoinette Brown Blackwell, New York; Lucy Stone, Newark, N.J.; Ernestine L. Rose, New York; Joanna S. Morse, 48 Livingston St., Brooklyn; Elizabeth R. Tilton, 48 Livingston St., Brooklyn; Ellen Hoxie Squier, 34 St. Felix St., Brooklyn; Mary Fowler Gilbert, 294 West 19th St., New York; Mary E. Gilbert, 294 West 19th St., New York; Mattie Griffith, New York.
The Speaker: The ten minutes of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] have expired.
The Speaker: The ten minutes for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] have run out.
Mr. Brooks: I will only say that at the proper time I will move to amend—or if I do not I would suggest to some gentleman on the other side to move it—this proposed amendment by inserting the words "or sex" after the word "color," so that it will read:
Mr. Brooks: I’ll just say that when the time is right, I’ll propose an amendment—or if I don’t, I recommend someone on the other side to propose it—by adding the words "or sex" after "color," so it reads:
Provided, That whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color or sex, all persons of such race or color or sex shall be excluded from the basis of representation.
Provided, that whenever the right to vote is denied or limited in any state because of race, color, or sex, all individuals of that race, color, or sex will be excluded from the basis of representation.
Mr. Stevens: Is the gentleman from N.Y. [Mr. Brooks] in favor of that amendment?
Mr. Stevens: Is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] in support of that amendment?
Mr. Brooks: I am if negroes are permitted to vote.
Mr. Brooks: I am if Black people are allowed to vote.
Mr. Stevens: That does not answer my question. Is the gentleman in favor of the amendment he has indicated?
Mr. Stevens: That doesn't answer my question. Does the gentleman support the amendment he mentioned?
Mr. Brooks: I suggested that I would move it at a convenient time.
Mr. Brooks: I mentioned that I would take care of it at a good time.
Mr. Stevens: Is the gentleman in favor of his own amendment?
Mr. Stevens: Does the gentleman support his own amendment?
Mr. Brooks: I am in favor of my own color in preference to any other color, and I prefer the white women of my country to the negro. [Applause on the floor and in the galleries promptly checked by the Speaker]. The Speaker said he saw a number of persons clapping in the galleries. He would endeavor, to the best of his ability, whether supported by the House or not, to preserve order. Applause was just as much out of order as manifestations of disapproval, and hisses not more than clapping of hands. Instead of general applause on the floor, gentlemen on the floor should set a good example.
Mr. Brooks: I prefer my own race over any other, and I favor the white women of my country over those of African descent. [Applause from the floor and the galleries was quickly silenced by the Speaker]. The Speaker noted that he saw several people clapping in the galleries. He would do his best, regardless of support from the House, to maintain order. Applause was just as inappropriate as signs of disapproval, and hissing was no different than clapping. Instead of widespread applause on the floor, the gentlemen should lead by example.
[53] Women Politicians.—Mr. Lane, of Kansas, it is reported, has presented to the Senate the petition of "one hundred and twenty-four beautiful, intelligent, and accomplished ladies of Lawrence," praying for a constitutional amendment that shall prohibit States from disfranchising citizens on account of sex. That trick will not do. We wager a big apple that the ladies referred to are not "beautiful" or accomplished. Nine of every ten of them are undoubtedly passe. They have hook-billed noses, crow's-feet under their sunken eyes, and a mellow tinting of the hair. They are connoisseurs in the matter of snuff. They discard hoops, waterfalls, and bandeaux. They hold hen conventions, to discuss and decide, with vociferous expression, the orthodoxy of the minister, the regularity of the doctor, and the morals of the lawyer. They read the Tribune with spectacles, and have files of The Liberator and Wendell Phillips' orations, bound in sheepskin. Heaven forbid that we should think of any of the number as a married woman, without a fervent aspiration of pity for the weaker vessel who officiates as her spouse. As to rearing children, that is not to be thought of in the connection. Show us a woman who wants to mingle in the exciting and unpurified squabble of politics, and we will show you one who has failed to reach and enjoy that true relation of sovereignty which is held by her "meek and lowly" sisters; who, though destitute of such panting aspirations, hold the scepter of true authority in those high and holy virtues which fascinate while they command in their undisputed empire—the social circle. What iconoclast shall break our idol, by putting the ballot in woman's hand?—Albany Evening Journal.
[53] Women Politicians.—It’s reported that Mr. Lane from Kansas has submitted a petition to the Senate from "one hundred and twenty-four beautiful, intelligent, and accomplished women of Lawrence," asking for a constitutional amendment to stop States from denying citizens the right to vote based on their sex. That strategy won't work. We bet a big apple that the women mentioned aren’t really "beautiful" or accomplished. Nine out of ten of them are probably past their prime. They have hooked noses, crow's-feet under their sunk-in eyes, and a faded hair color. They are experts when it comes to snuff. They’ve ditched hoops, waterfalls, and bandeaux. They hold meetings, passionately discussing and determining the orthodoxy of the minister, the reliability of the doctor, and the ethics of the lawyer. They read the Tribune with glasses and have collections of The Liberator and Wendell Phillips' speeches, bound in sheepskin. God forbid we think of any of them as married women without feeling deep sympathy for the unfortunate partner who shares their life. As for raising children, that isn’t even a consideration. Show us a woman who wants to dive into the messy and unrefined chaos of politics, and we’ll show you someone who hasn’t reached or cherished the true role of authority that her "meek and lowly" sisters possess; who, while lacking such ambitious desires, hold the true power in the high and sacred virtues that captivate while they command in their undisputed realm—the social circle. What rebel will challenge our beliefs by giving women the vote?—Albany Evening Journal.
A Cry from the Females.—Mr. Sumner yesterday presented a petition to the Senate from a large number of the women of New England, praying that they may not be debarred from the right of suffrage on account of sex. Our heart warms with pity toward these unfortunate creatures. We fancy that we can see them, deserted of men, and bereft of those rich enjoyments and exalted privileges which belong to women, languishing their unhappy lives away in a mournful singleness, from which they can escape by no art in the construction of waterfalls or the employment of cotton-padding. Talk of a true woman needing the ballot as an accessory of power, when she rules the world by a glance of her eye. There was sound philosophy in the remark of an Eastern monarch, that his wife was sovereign of the Empire, because she ruled his little ones, and his little ones ruled him. The sure panacea for such ills as the Massachusetts petitioners complain of, is a wicker-work cradle and a dimple-cheeked baby.—The New York Tribune.
A Cry from the Females.—Mr. Sumner yesterday presented a petition to the Senate from a large number of women in New England, asking that they not be denied the right to vote because of their gender. Our hearts go out to these unfortunate women. We imagine them, abandoned by men, lacking the rich joys and privileges that should come with being a woman, wasting their lives away in sorrowful solitude, from which there’s no escape through any clever designs of waterfalls or the use of cotton padding. They talk about how a true woman needs the vote as a source of power, when she already commands the world with just a look. There was wisdom in the saying of an Eastern king that his wife was the ruler of the Empire because she managed their kids, and those kids controlled him. The real solution to the problems the women of Massachusetts are facing is a cozy cradle and a chubby-cheeked baby.—The New York Tribune.
[54] Woman Suffrage.—Editor Commonwealth:—Enclosed is a letter I sent to the editor of The Nation. As I consider his allusion to it insufficient, will you have the kindness to print it, no paper but yours, that I know of, being now open to the subject. All that the editor of The Nation has a right to say is, that he has not investigated the statistics. Most of the women who have signed the petitions are women who have not a male relative in the world interested in the matter.
[54] Woman Suffrage.—Editor Commonwealth:—I’ve attached a letter I sent to the editor of The Nation. Since I feel his reference to it is lacking, could you please print it? No other publication I know of is currently addressing this issue. The only thing the editor of The Nation can say is that he hasn’t looked into the statistics. Most of the women who signed the petitions are women who don’t have any male relatives in the world who are interested in this topic.
Caroline H. Dall.
Caroline H. Dall.
Very truly yours,
Very truly yours,
Boston, Jan. 20, 1866.
Boston, Jan. 20, 1866.
70 Warren Avenue, Boston, Jan. 6, 1866.
70 Warren Avenue, Boston, Jan. 6, 1866.
To the Editor of The Nation:—I saw with surprise in The Nation, received to-day, a paragraph on "Universal Suffrage," which contained the following lines:
To the Editor of The Nation:—I was surprised to see in The Nation, which I received today, a paragraph about "Universal Suffrage" that included the following lines:
"We think the women of the United States ought to have the franchise if they desire it, and we think they ought to desire it. But until they do desire it, and show that they do, by a general expression of opinion, we are opposed to their being saddled with it on grounds of theoretical fitness, etc."
"We believe that women in the United States should have the right to vote if they want it, and we think they should want it. However, until they do want it and demonstrate that desire through a general expression of opinion, we are against them being burdened with it just based on theoretical qualifications, etc."
Surely, it is difficult to explain such a sentence in a professedly far-seeing and deep-thinking journal! That argument will serve as well for the lately enfranchised blacks as for women, for no one will pretend that of the millions set free, a bare majority would of themselves contend for the franchise. That argument might have refused them freedom itself, for a large majority of Southern slaves knew too little of it to desire it, however they may have longed to be rid of a taskmaster and the pangs which slavery brought. During the last four years women have been silent about their "rights" in the several States, because pressed by severe duties. Desirous to establish a reputation for discretion, we have refrained from complicating the perplexities of any Senator; but now that a constitutional amendment is pending we must be careful, even if we gain no franchise, to lose no opportunity.
Surely, it's tough to explain such a statement in a supposedly forward-thinking and insightful publication! That argument applies just as much to the recently freed Black people as it does to women, since no one can honestly claim that the majority of those set free would actively seek the right to vote. This argument could have even denied them their freedom, given that a large number of Southern slaves understood too little about it to actually want it, even though they yearned to be free from their masters and the suffering that came with slavery. Over the past four years, women have kept quiet about their "rights" in the various states because they've been overwhelmed by heavy responsibilities. Eager to build a reputation for good judgment, we have held back from complicating any Senator's challenges; but now that a constitutional amendment is on the table, we need to be cautious, even if we don't gain the right to vote, to ensure we don’t miss any opportunity.
Hitherto the Constitution of the United States has contained no word that would shut women out from future suffrage. Mr. Schenck, of Ohio, and Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode Island, propose to limit a right to "male citizens" which should rest, as it now does, simply on "legal voters." This would oblige women to move to amend the Constitution of the United States after each separate State was carried. We have no inclination for this unnecessary work, and here, in Boston, we are preparing a petition basing the necessity of our present interference on this fact alone. How much women desire the suffrage, Mr. Editor, you ought to perceive from the conduct of the women of Australia. Carelessly enough, her male legislators omitted the significant adjective from their constitutional amendment, and, without a word of warning, on election day, every woman, properly qualified, was found at the polls. There was no just reason for refusing them the privilege, and The London Times says the precedent is to stand.
Up until now, the Constitution of the United States has not included any wording that would exclude women from future voting rights. Mr. Schenck from Ohio and Mr. Jenckes from Rhode Island want to restrict the right to "male citizens," which should, as it currently does, simply be based on "legal voters." This would force women to amend the Constitution of the United States after each individual State was won. We have no desire for this unnecessary effort, and here in Boston, we are preparing a petition stating that our current action is necessary for this sole reason. How much women want the vote, Mr. Editor, should be evident from the actions of the women in Australia. Their male lawmakers carelessly left out the important adjective from their constitutional amendment, and, without any warning, on election day, every qualified woman was found at the polls. There was no valid reason to deny them this privilege, and The London Times states that this precedent will remain in place.
A very absurd article in The Evening Post has lately given us an idea that New York contains some remarkable women. Women born to be looked at!—women who do their whole duty if they blossom like the roses, and like the roses die. Let us hope they fulfill the functions of this type by as short a sojourn on this earth as may be, lingering, as Malherbe would have it, only for "the space of a morning." It may be among them that you find the women who "look persistently to married life as a means of livelihood." Here, in Massachusetts, we do not acknowledge any such. Fashion has her danglers among men and women, but we pity those whose lot has thrown them into intimate relations with such women as you describe. They are not of our sort. We think that if the writer in The Evening Post were tested, he would be forced to admire most the hands which could do the best work. It would be small comfort to him, when Bridget and John had simultaneously departed, when the baby was crying and the fire out, that his wife sat lonely, in one corner of the apartment, with serene eyes and unstained hands. Men who talk such nonsense in America, must remember that neither wealth nor gentle blood can here protect them from such a dilemma. As to suffrage, we are not now talking of granting it to a distinct race; if we were, they might manifest a "general" desire for it. Women, who love their husbands and brothers, can not all submit to bear the reproach which clings to their demand for justice. A few of us must suffer sharply for the sake of that great future which God shows us to be possible, when goodness shall join hands with power. But we do not like our pain. We would gladly be sheltered, and comforted, and cheered, and we warn you, by what passes in our own hearts, that women will never express a "general" desire for suffrage until men have ceased to ridicule and despise them for it; until the representatives of men have been taught to treat their petitions with respect. There would be no difficulty in obtaining this right of suffrage If it depended on a property qualification. It is consistent democracy which bars our way.
A very ridiculous article in The Evening Post recently suggested that New York has some extraordinary women. Women who were born to be admired!—women who do their part simply by blooming like roses, and then like the roses, wilt. Let’s hope they fulfill this role with as little time on this earth as possible, lingering, as Malherbe would say, only for “the space of a morning.” It may be that among them, you find those women who “look to marriage as a way to make a living.” Here in Massachusetts, we don’t recognize any such women. Fashion has its followers among both men and women, but we feel sorry for those whose lives have led them to be close to such women as you describe. They are not like us. We believe that if the writer at The Evening Post were put to the test, he would most admire the hands that can do the best work. It wouldn’t bring him much comfort when Bridget and John had both left, with the baby crying and the fire out, knowing his wife sat alone in a corner of the apartment, with calm eyes and clean hands. Men who spout such nonsense in America must remember that neither wealth nor noble birth can here protect them from such a predicament. As for suffrage, we aren’t talking about granting it to a specific race; if we were, they might show a “general” desire for it. Women who care about their husbands and brothers can’t all bear the shame that comes with demanding justice. Some of us must endure hardship for the sake of a brighter future that God shows us is possible, when goodness aligns with power. But we don’t like our suffering. We would happily seek shelter, comfort, and encouragement, and we warn you, based on what we feel, that women will never express a “general” desire for suffrage until men stop mocking and belittling them for it; until men’s representatives are taught to treat their petitions with respect. It wouldn’t be hard to attain this right to vote if it were based on property qualifications. It’s the principles of democracy that stand in our way.
Caroline Healey Dall.
Caroline Healey Dall.
[55] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled: That, from and after the passage of this act, each and every male person, excepting paupers and persons under guardianship, of the age of twenty-one years and upward, who has not been convicted of any infamous crime or offence, and who is a citizen of the United States, and who shall have resided in the said District for the period of six months previous to any election therein, shall be entitled to the elective franchise, and shall be deemed an elector and entitled to vote at any election in said District, without any distinction on account of color or race.
[55] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled: That, starting from the passage of this act, every male person over the age of twenty-one, except for those who are poor or under guardianship, who hasn't been convicted of a serious crime, who is a citizen of the United States, and who has lived in the District for six months before any election, is eligible to vote. They will be considered an elector and can vote in any election in the District, regardless of their color or race.
[56] The New York Tribune, Dec. 12, 1866, contains the following editorial comments: The Senate devoted yesterday to a discussion of the right of women to vote—a side question, which Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, interjected into the debate on suffrage for the District of Columbia. Mr. Cowan chooses to represent himself as an ardent champion of the claim of woman to the elective franchise. It is not necessary to question his sincerity, but the occasion which he selects for the exhibition of his new-born zeal, subjects him to the suspicion of being considerably more anxious to embarrass the bill for enfranchising the blacks, than to amend it by conferring upon women the enjoyment of the same right. Mr. Cowan was once a Republican. He abandoned his party, has been repudiated by his State, and may well be casting about for some new issue by which to divert attention from his faithlessness on the old. We have heard that Mr. Cowan affects the classics; we are sure, therefore, that he will thank us for reminding him of that familiar story out of Plutarch respecting Alcibiades. When the dissolute Athenian had cut off the tail of his dog, which was the dog's principal ornament, and all Athens cried out against him for the act, Alcibiades laughed, and said: "Just what I wanted has happened. I wished the Athenians to talk about this that they might not say something worse of me."
[56] The New York Tribune, Dec. 12, 1866, includes the following editorial comments: The Senate spent yesterday discussing women's right to vote—a side issue that Mr. Cowan from Pennsylvania brought up during the debate on suffrage for the District of Columbia. Mr. Cowan positions himself as a passionate supporter of women’s voting rights. While we don't need to doubt his sincerity, the timing of his newfound enthusiasm raises suspicions that he's more interested in complicating the bill for enfranchising Black citizens than in expanding it to include women. Mr. Cowan was once part of the Republican Party. He left the party, has been rejected by his State, and may be looking for a new topic to distract from his betrayal of the old one. We've heard that Mr. Cowan claims to appreciate classical literature, so we're sure he'll appreciate us reminding him of a well-known story from Plutarch about Alcibiades. When the reckless Athenian cut off his dog's tail, its most valued feature, and all of Athens condemned him for it, Alcibiades laughed and said, “Just what I wanted has happened. I wanted the Athenians to talk about this so they wouldn’t say something worse about me.”
We are not to be suspected of indifference to the question whether woman shall vote. At a proper time we mean to urge her claim, but we object to allowing a measure of urgent necessity, and on which the public has made up its mind, to be retarded and imperilled. Nor do we think the Radical majority in the Senate need be beholden to the enemy's camp for suggestions as to their policy. We want to see the ballot put in the hands of the black without one day's delay added to the long postponement of his just claim. When that is done, we shall be ready to take up the next question.
We should not be seen as indifferent about whether women should vote. At the right time, we plan to advocate for her right to vote, but we oppose delaying an urgent matter that the public has already decided on. We also believe that the Radical majority in the Senate shouldn’t rely on the opposing side for policy recommendations. We want to see the ballot in the hands of Black people without any further delays added to the long wait for their rightful claim. Once that is accomplished, we will be ready to address the next issue.
[58] Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Buckalew, Cowan, Foster, Nesmith, Patterson, Riddle, Wade—9. Nays—Messrs. Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Creswell, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fogg, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Norton, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Yates—37.
[58] Yes—Mr. Anthony, Mr. Brown, Mr. Buckalew, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Foster, Mr. Nesmith, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Riddle, Mr. Wade—9. No—Mr. Cattell, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Conness, Mr. Creswell, Mr. Davis, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Fogg, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Grimes, Mr. Harris, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Hendricks, Mr. Howard, Mr. Howe, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Lane, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Morrill, Mr. Norton, Mr. Poland, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Ross, Mr. Saulsbury, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Sprague, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Sumner, Mr. Trumbull, Mr. Van Winkle, Mr. Willey, Mr. Williams, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Yates—37.
[59] Yeas—Ancona, Baker, Barker, Baxter, Benjamin, Boyer, Broomall, Bundy, Campbell, Cooper, Defrees, Denison, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferry, Finck, Garfield, Hale, Hawkins, Hise, Chester D. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Humphrey, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Le Blond, Coan, McClurg, McKee, Miller, Newell, Niblock, Noell, Orth, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Sitgreaves, Starr, Stevens, Strouse, Taber, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Trimble, Andrew H. Ward, Henry D. Washburn, Winfield—49.
[59] Yes—Ancona, Baker, Barker, Baxter, Benjamin, Boyer, Broomall, Bundy, Campbell, Cooper, Defrees, Denison, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferry, Finck, Garfield, Hale, Hawkins, Hise, Chester D. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Humphrey, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Le Blond, Coan, McClurg, McKee, Miller, Newell, Niblock, Noell, Orth, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Sitgreaves, Starr, Stevens, Strouse, Taber, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Trimble, Andrew H. Ward, Henry D. Washburn, Winfield—49.
CHAPTER XVIII.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS IN 1866-67.
The first National Woman Suffrage Convention after the war—Speeches by Ernestine L. Rose, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Henry Ward Beecher, Frances D. Gage, Theodore Tilton, Wendell Phillips—Petitions to Congress and the Constitutional Convention—Mrs. Stanton a candidate to Congress—Anniversary of the Equal Rights Association.
The first National Woman Suffrage Convention after the war—Speeches by Ernestine L. Rose, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Henry Ward Beecher, Frances D. Gage, Theodore Tilton, Wendell Phillips—Petitions to Congress and the Constitutional Convention—Mrs. Stanton running for Congress—Anniversary of the Equal Rights Association.
The first Woman's Rights Convention[60] after the war was held in the Church of the Puritans, New York, May 10th, 1866.
The first Woman's Rights Convention[60] after the war took place at the Church of the Puritans in New York on May 10, 1866.
As the same persons were identified with the Anti-slavery and[Pg 153] Woman's Rights Societies, and as by the "Proclamation of Emancipation" the colored man was now a freeman, and a citizen; and as bills were pending in Congress to secure him in the right of suffrage, the same right women were demanding, it was proposed to merge the societies into one, under the name of "The American Equal Rights Association," that the same conventions, appeals, and petitions, might include both classes of disfranchised citizens. The proposition was approved by the majority of those present, and the new organization completed at an adjourned session. Though Mr. Garrison, with many other abolitionists, feeling that the Anti-slavery work was finished, had retired, and thus partly disorganized that Society, yet, in its executive session, Wendell Phillips, President, refused to entertain the proposition, on the ground that such action required an amendment to the constitution, which could not be made without three months previous notice. Nevertheless there was a marked division of opinion among the anti-slavery friends present.
As the same people were involved with the Anti-slavery and[Pg 153] Women's Rights Societies, and since the "Proclamation of Emancipation" had declared that the colored man was now a free person and a citizen, and as there were bills in Congress to ensure his right to vote, the same right women were also seeking, it was suggested to combine the societies into one under the name "The American Equal Rights Association." This way, the same conventions, appeals, and petitions could include both groups of disenfranchised citizens. Most people present agreed with the idea, and the new organization was finalized at a later meeting. Although Mr. Garrison and many other abolitionists believed the Anti-slavery movement had reached its goals and had stepped back, which slightly disrupted that Society, Wendell Phillips, the President, refused to consider the proposal in the executive session, arguing that such action required a constitutional amendment that needed three months' notice. Still, there was a clear divide of opinion among the abolitionist supporters present.
At an early hour Dr. Cheever's church was well filled with an audience chiefly of ladies, who received the officers and speakers[61] of the Convention with hearty applause. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, President of the "National Woman's Rights Committee," called the Convention to order, and said:
At an early hour, Dr. Cheever's church was mostly filled with ladies, who greeted the officers and speakers of the Convention with enthusiastic applause. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, President of the "National Woman's Rights Committee," called the Convention to order and said:
We have assembled to-day to discuss the right and duty of women to claim and use the ballot. Now in the reconstruction is the opportunity, perhaps for the century, to base our government on the broad principle of equal rights to all. The representative women of the nation feel that they have an interest and duty equal with man in the struggles and triumphs of this hour.[Pg 154]
We’ve gathered today to talk about women’s right and duty to demand and use the vote. Right now, as we rebuild, we have a chance—perhaps for this whole century—to establish our government on the fundamental idea of equal rights for everyone. The women representing our nation believe they have as much of a stake and responsibility as men in the challenges and victories of this moment.[Pg 154]
It may not be known to all of you that, during the past year, thousands of petitions, asking the ballot for woman, have been circulated through the Northern States and sent to Congress. Our thanks are due to the Hon. James Brooks for his kindness in franking our petitions, and his skill in calling to them the attention of the nation. As we have lost this champion in the House, I trust his more fortunate successor will not dodge his responsibilities to his countrywomen who are taxed but not represented. This should be a year of great activity among the women of this State. As New York is to have a constitutional convention in '67, it behooves us now to make an earnest demand, by appeals and petitions, to have the word "male" as well as "white" stricken from our Constitution.
It might not be known to all of you that, over the past year, thousands of petitions advocating for women's voting rights have been circulated throughout the Northern States and submitted to Congress. We owe our thanks to Hon. James Brooks for his generosity in mailing our petitions and for his ability to draw national attention to them. Since we have lost this supporter in the House, I hope his more fortunate successor will not dodge their responsibilities towards the women of this country who are taxed but not represented. This should be a year of significant action among the women of this State. With New York planning a constitutional convention in '67, it is our duty to make a strong demand, through appeals and petitions, to remove the word "male" as well as "white" from our Constitution.
Susan B. Anthony, presented several resolutions for consideration.
Susan B. Anthony presented several resolutions for review.
5. Resolved, That disfranchisement in a republic is as great an anomaly, if not cruelty, as slavery itself. It is, therefore, the solemn duty of Congress, in "guaranteeing a republican form of government to every State of this Union," to see that there be no abridgment of suffrage among persons responsible to law, on account of color or sex.
5. Resolved, That taking away voting rights in a republic is just as much of an oddity, if not a cruelty, as slavery itself. It is, therefore, the serious responsibility of Congress, in "guaranteeing a republican form of government to every State of this Union," to ensure that there is no reduction of voting rights among individuals accountable to the law, based on color or gender.
6. Resolved, That the Joint Resolutions and report of the "Committee of Fifteen," now before Congress, to introduce the word "male" into the Federal Constitution, are a desecration of the last will and testament of the Fathers, a violation of the spirit of republicanism, and cruel injustice to the women of the nation.
6. Resolved, That the Joint Resolutions and report of the "Committee of Fifteen," currently before Congress, to add the word "male" to the Federal Constitution, are a disrespect to the final wishes of the Founding Fathers, a betrayal of the principles of republicanism, and a cruel injustice to the women of the nation.
7. Resolved, That while we return our thanks to those members of Congress who, recognizing the sacred right of petition, gave our prayer for the ballot a respectful consideration, we also remind those who, with scornful silence laid them on the table, or with flippant sentimentality pretended to exalt us to the clouds, above man, the ballot and the work of life, that we consider no position more dignified and womanly than on an even platform with man worthy to lay the corner-stone of a republic in equality and justice.
7. Resolved, That while we thank those members of Congress who, recognizing the sacred right of petition, gave our request for the ballot thoughtful consideration, we also want to remind those who, with dismissive silence, put them aside, or with casual sentimentality pretended to elevate us above man, the ballot, and the responsibilities of life, that we view no position as more dignified and womanly than standing on equal ground with man, deserving to lay the foundation of a republic based on equality and justice.
8. Resolved, That we recommend to the women of the several States to petition their Legislatures to take the necessary steps to so amend their constitutions as to secure the right of suffrage to every citizen, without distinction of race, color or sex; and especially in those States that are soon to hold their constitutional conventions.
8. Resolved, That we encourage the women of the various States to ask their Legislatures to take the necessary actions to change their constitutions to guarantee the right to vote for every citizen, regardless of race, color, or gender; especially in those States that are about to hold their constitutional conventions.
Theodore Tilton said: According to the programme, it is now my friend Mr. Beecher's turn to speak, but I observe that this gentleman, like some of the rest of the President's friends, occupies a back seat. [Laughter]. While, therefore, he is sitting under the gallery, I will occupy your attention just long enough to give that modest man a chance to muster nerve enough to make his appearance in public. [Laughter]. First of all, I have an account to settle with Mrs. Stanton. In her speech on taking the chair, she said that editors are not good housekeepers—a remark which no editor would think of retorting upon herself. [Laughter]. But, however dingy my editorial office may sometimes be, it is always a cheerful place when Mrs. Stanton visits it. [Applause]. Moreover, I think the place she invited me out of is no darker than this place which she invited me into! [Laughter]. In fact, I think the press has generally as much illumination as the church. [Applause].
Theodore Tilton said: According to the schedule, it’s now my friend Mr. Beecher's turn to speak, but I see that he's sitting in the back like some of the other friends of the President. [Laughter]. So, while he’s under the gallery, I'll take a moment to give this modest man a chance to gather the courage to come forward and speak. [Laughter]. First, I have a little issue to address with Mrs. Stanton. In her speech when she took the chair, she mentioned that editors aren’t great housekeepers—which no editor would ever think to reply to her about. [Laughter]. But no matter how messy my editorial office might get sometimes, it’s always bright and lively when Mrs. Stanton comes by. [Applause]. Besides, I think the place she invited me out of is no gloomier than this place she invited me into! [Laughter]. In fact, I believe that the press is usually just as well-lit as the church. [Applause].
Mrs. President, this convention is called to consider the most beautiful and humane idea which has ever entered into American politics—the right of woman to that ballot which belongs equally to all citizens. What is the[Pg 155] chief glory of our democratic institutions? It is, that they appeal equally to the common interest of all classes—to high and low, to rich and poor, to white and black, to male and female. And never, until the political equality of all these classes is fully recognized by our laws, shall we have a government truly democratic. The practical instrument of this equality is the ballot. Now what is the ballot? Mr. Frothingham gave us one definition; Mr. Phillips gave us another. But the ballot is so large a thing that it admits of many definitions. The ballot is what the citizen thinks of the government. The government looks to the ballot to know the popular will. I do not mean to say that the little piece of white paper which we hold in our hand on election day is the only means whereby we can utter an opinion that shall be heard in Washington. We can speak by the pen; we can speak by the voice. A wise government will give heed to the public press, and to the popular voice. But there is no spoken voice, there is no written word, which the government is legally bound to heed except the ballot. When they see the ballot, they know they are served with official notice. When you talk to a government, you talk as to a tree; but when you vote at it, you scratch your name on the bark. Now, I want to see Rosalind's name cut into the bark of the government. [Applause]. Who ought to possess the ballot? Our President is right—I mean this President. [Applause]. She does not claim the ballot for women as women, but for women as citizens. That is the true ground. The ballot belongs not to the white man, not to the black man, not to the woman, but to the citizen. Shall the minister vote? No. Shall the lawyer? No. Shall the merchant? No. Shall the rich man? No. Shall the poor man? No. None of these shall vote. There is only one person who shall vote, and that is the citizen. [Applause]. Now I trust the day is not far distant when our institutions shall practically recognize this idea—when civil prerogative shall be limited not only by no distinction of color, but by no distinction of sex.
Mrs. President, this convention is called to discuss the most beautiful and humane idea that has ever entered American politics—the right of women to the ballot, which belongs equally to all citizens. What is the[Pg 155] main pride of our democratic institutions? It is that they appeal equally to the common interests of all classes—to the rich and the poor, to the white and the black, to the men and the women. And until the political equality of all these groups is fully recognized by our laws, we will not have a truly democratic government. The practical tool for this equality is the ballot. Now, what is the ballot? Mr. Frothingham gave us one definition; Mr. Phillips gave us another. But the ballot is such a vast concept that it can have many definitions. The ballot represents what the citizen thinks of the government. The government looks to the ballot to understand the popular will. I’m not saying that the little piece of white paper we hold on election day is the only way we can express an opinion that will be heard in Washington. We can speak through writing; we can speak out loud. A wise government will pay attention to the press and to the public’s voice. But there is no spoken word, no written word, that the government is legally required to acknowledge except for the ballot. When they see the ballot, they know they are receiving official notice. When you talk to a government, you talk like you're addressing a tree; but when you vote, you mark your name on the bark. Now, I want to see Rosalind's name carved into the bark of the government. [Applause]. Who should have the ballot? Our President is right—I mean this President. [Applause]. She does not claim the ballot for women just because they are women, but for women as citizens. That is the true basis. The ballot does not belong to the white man, nor to the black man, nor to the woman, but to the citizen. Should the minister vote? No. Should the lawyer? No. Should the merchant? No. Should the rich man? No. Should the poor man? No. None of these should vote. There is only one person who should vote, and that is the citizen. [Applause]. Now I hope the day is not far away when our institutions will practically recognize this idea—when civil rights will not be limited by distinctions of color or by distinctions of sex.
Are women politically oppressed that they need the ballot for their protection? I leave that question to be answered by women themselves. I demand the ballot for woman, not for woman's sake, but for man's. She may demand it for her own sake; but to-day, I demand it for my sake. We shall never have a government thoroughly permeated with humanity, thoroughly humane, thoroughly noble, thoroughly trustworthy, until both men and women shall unite in forming the public sentiment, and in administering that sentiment through the government. [Applause]. The church needs woman, society needs woman, literature needs woman, science needs woman, the arts need woman, politics need woman. [Applause]. A Frenchman once wrote an essay to prove woman's right to the alphabet. She took the alphabet, entered literature, and drove out Dean Swift. When she takes the ballot, and enters politics, she will drive out Fernando Wood. [Applause]. But, shall we have a woman for President? I would thank God if to-day we had a man for President. [Laughter]. Shall women govern the country? Queens have ruled nations from the beginning of time, and woman has governed man from the foundation of the world! [Laughter]. I know that Plato didn't have a good opinion of women; but probably they were[Pg 156] not as amiable in his day as in ours. They undoubtedly have wrought their full share of mischief in the world. The chief bone of contention among mankind, from the earliest ages down, has been that rib of Adam out of which God made Eve. [Laughter]. And I believe in holding women to as great a moral accountability as men. [Laughter]. I believe, also, in holding them to the same intellectual accountability. Twenty years ago, when Macaulay sat down to review Lucy Rushton's—no, I mean Lucy Aiken's (laughter) "Life of Addison," he was forced to allude to what was a patent fact, that a woman's book was then to be treated with more critical leniency than a man's. But criticism nowadays never thinks of asking whether a book be a woman's or a man's, as a preliminary to administering praise or blame. In the Academy of Design, the critic deals as severely with a picture painted by a woman as with one painted by a man. This is right. Would you have it otherwise? Not at all! We are to stand upon a common level.
Are women politically oppressed that they need the vote for their protection? I’ll leave that question for women to answer themselves. I demand the vote for women, not just for their sake, but for men’s as well. She may want it for her own benefit; but right now, I’m demanding it for my benefit. We will never have a government that is fully humane, truly noble, and completely trustworthy until both men and women come together to shape public opinion and enforce it through the government. [Applause]. The church needs women, society needs women, literature needs women, science needs women, the arts need women, politics needs women. [Applause]. A Frenchman once wrote an essay arguing for women’s right to the alphabet. She embraced the alphabet, entered literature, and pushed out Dean Swift. When she gets the vote and steps into politics, she will push out Fernando Wood. [Applause]. But will we have a woman President? I would thank God if we had a man as President today. [Laughter]. Should women govern the country? Queens have ruled nations since the dawn of time, and women have governed men since the beginning of the world! [Laughter]. I know Plato didn’t think highly of women, but they probably weren’t as agreeable in his time as they are in ours. They have certainly caused their fair share of trouble in the world. The big argument among people, from ancient times until now, has been that rib of Adam from which God created Eve. [Laughter]. And I believe in holding women to the same moral accountability as men. [Laughter]. I also believe in holding them to the same intellectual accountability. Twenty years ago, when Macaulay sat down to review Lucy Rushton’s—no, I mean Lucy Aiken’s (laughter) "Life of Addison," he had to mention the obvious fact that a woman’s book was treated with more leniency than a man’s. But today, criticism doesn’t even think about whether a book is written by a woman or a man before deciding to praise or blame it. In the Academy of Design, critics treat a painting by a woman as seriously as one by a man. This is right. Would you have it any other way? Not at all! We should be on equal ground.
The signs of the times indicate the progress of woman's cause. Every year helps it forward visibly. The political status of woman was never so seriously pondered as it is now pondered by thoughtful minds in this country. By and by, the principles of Christian democracy will cover the continent—nay, will cover the world, as the equator belts it with summer heat! [Applause]. Until which time, we are called to diligent and earnest work. "Learn to labor and to wait," saith the poet. There will be need of much laboring and of long waiting. Sir William Jones tells us that the Hindoo laws declared that women should have no political independence—and there is many a backward Yankee who don't know any better than to agree with the Hindoos. Salatri, the Italian, drew a design of Patience—a woman chained to a rock by her ankles, while a fountain threw a thin stream of water, drop by drop, upon the iron chain, until the link should be worn away, and the wistful prisoner be set free. In like manner the Christian women of this country are chained to the rock of Burmese prejudice; but God is giving the morning and the evening dew, the early and the latter rain, until the ancient fetters shall be worn away, and a disfranchised sex shall leap at last into political liberty. [Applause]. And now for Mr. Beecher.
The signs of the times show progress for women's rights. Each year visibly pushes it forward. The political status of women has never been given such serious consideration as it is now by thoughtful individuals in this country. Eventually, the principles of Christian democracy will spread across the continent—and even cover the world, just like the equator wraps it with summer heat! [Applause]. Until that time, we are called to diligent and earnest work. "Learn to labor and to wait," says the poet. There will be a need for a lot of hard work and a long wait. Sir William Jones tells us that Hindu laws stated that women should have no political independence—and there are still many outdated folks who don’t know any better than to agree with the Hindus. Salatri, the Italian, created a depiction of Patience—a woman chained to a rock by her ankles, while a fountain dripped water, drop by drop, onto the iron chain, until the link wore away, and the hopeful prisoner was set free. Similarly, the Christian women of this country are bound by the rock of Burmese prejudice; but God is providing the morning and evening dew, the early and latter rain, until the ancient chains are worn away, and an oppressed gender finally steps into political freedom. [Applause]. And now for Mr. Beecher.
Mr. Beecher, on rising, was received with hearty applause,[62] and spoke for an hour, in a strain of great animation, as follows:
Mr. Beecher, when he got up, was welcomed with enthusiastic applause,[62] and spoke for an hour with great energy, saying:
It may be asked why, at such a time as this, when the attention of the whole nation is concentrated upon the reconstruction of our States, we should intrude a new and advanced question. I have been asked "Why not wait for the settlement of the one that now fills the minds of men? Why divert and distract their thoughts?" I answer, because the questions are one and the same. We are not now discussing merely the right of suffrage for the African, or his status as a new-born citizen. Claiming his rights compels us to discuss the whole underlying question[Pg 157] of government. This is the case in court. But when the judge shall have given his decision, that decision will cover the whole question of civil society, and the relations of every individual in it as a factor, an agent, an actor....
It might be asked why, at a time like this, when the whole nation is focused on the reconstruction of our States, we should bring up a new and complex issue. I've been asked, "Why not wait for the settlement of the one that’s currently on everyone’s minds? Why change the subject?" I respond because these issues are essentially linked. We are not just discussing the right to vote for African Americans or their status as newly recognized citizens. Asserting their rights forces us to tackle the broad question of government itself. This is similar to what happens in court. But once the judge makes a ruling, that ruling will address the entire question of civil society and the role of every individual within it as a factor, an agent, an actor....
All over the world, the question to-day is, Who has a right to construct and administer law? Russia—gelid, frigid Russia—can not escape the question. Yea, he that sits on the Russian throne has proved himself a better democrat than any of us all, and is giving to-day more evidence of a genuine love of God, and of its partner emotion, love to man, in emancipating thirty million serfs, than many a proud democrat of America has ever given. (Applause.) And the question of emancipation in Russia is only the preface to the next question, which doubtless he as clearly as any of us foresees—namely, the question of citizenship, and of the rights and functions of citizenship. In Italy, the question of who may partake of government has arisen, and there has been an immense widening of popular liberty there. Germany, that freezes at night and thaws out by day only enough to freeze up again at night, has also experienced as much agitation on this subject as the nature of the case will allow. And when all France, all Italy, all Russia, and all Great Britain shall have rounded out into perfect democratic liberty, it is to be hoped that, on the North side of the fence where it freezes first and the ice thaws out last, Germany will herself be thawed out in her turn, and come into the great circle of democratic nations. Strange, that the mother of modern democracy should herself be stricken with such a palsy and with such lethargy! Strange, that in a nation in which was born and in which has inhered all the indomitableness of individualism should be so long unable to understand the secret of personal liberty! But all Europe to-day is being filled and agitated with this great question of the right of every man to citizenship; of the right of every man to make the laws that are to control him; and of the right of every man to administer the laws that are applicable to him. This is the question to-day in Great Britain. The question that is being agitated from the throne down to the Birmingham shop, from the Atlantic to the North Sea, to-day, is this: Shall more than one man in six in Great Britain be allowed to vote? There is only one in six of the full-grown men in that nation that can vote to-day. And everywhere we are moving toward that sound, solid, final ground—namely, that it inheres in the radical notion of manhood that every man has a right which is not given to him by potentate nor by legislator, nor by the consent of the community, but which belongs to his structural idea, and is a divine right, to make the laws that control him, and to elect the magistrates that are to administer those laws. It is universal.
All around the world, the question today is, who has the right to create and enforce laws? Russia—cold, icy Russia—can’t escape this question. Yes, the person on the Russian throne has shown himself to be a better democrat than any of us, and he’s providing more evidence of a genuine love for God and for humanity by freeing thirty million serfs than many proud democrats in America have ever shown. (Applause.) The issue of emancipation in Russia is just the beginning of the next big question, which he, just like the rest of us, clearly sees coming—the question of citizenship, and the rights and responsibilities that come with it. In Italy, the question of who can participate in government has emerged, leading to a significant expansion of popular liberty. Germany, which freezes at night and only thaws enough during the day to freeze again, has also seen significant unrest on this issue as much as the situation permits. And when all of France, Italy, Russia, and Great Britain have fully embraced democratic liberty, we can hope that in the North, where it freezes first and thaws last, Germany will eventually warm up and join the great circle of democratic nations. It’s strange that the birthplace of modern democracy should be stricken with such paralysis and lethargy! It’s odd that in a nation known for its strong individualism there’s been such a long struggle to comprehend the essence of personal liberty! But all of Europe today is stirred up by this significant question: the right of every man to citizenship, the right of every man to make the laws that govern him, and the right of every man to enforce the laws that apply to him. This is the topic today in Great Britain. The issue, being discussed from the throne down to the Birmingham shops, from the Atlantic to the North Sea, is: should more than one in six men in Great Britain be allowed to vote? Right now, only one in six adult men in that nation has the right to vote. And everywhere we are progressing toward that sound, solid, final principle—that it is inherent in the fundamental nature of manhood that every man has a right that isn’t granted by any ruler, lawmaker, or community consent, but which is part of his very being, a divine right, to create the laws that govern him and to choose the officials who will enforce those laws. This is universal.
And now, this being the world-tide and tendency, what is there in history, what is there in physiology, what is there in experience, that shall say to this tendency, marking the line of sex, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther?" I roll the argument off from my shoulders, and I challenge the man that stands with me, beholding that the world-thought to-day is the emancipation of the citizen's power and the preparation by education of the citizen for that power, and objects to extending[Pg 158] the right of citizenship to every human being, to give me the reasons why. (Applause). To-day this nation is exercising its conscience on the subject of suffrage for the African. I have all the time favored that: not because he was an African, but because he was a man; because this right of voting, which is the symbol of everything else in civil power, inheres in every human being. But I ask you, to-day, "Is it safe to bring in a million black men to vote, and not safe to bring in your mother, your wife, and your sister to vote?" (Applause). This ought ye to have done, and to have done quickly, and not to have left the other undone. (Renewed applause).
And now, given the current state of the world and its direction, what in history, biology, or personal experience can limit this shift in gender equality, saying, "You can go this far, but no further?" I dismiss that argument and challenge anyone who stands with me, recognizing that today's mindset is about empowering citizens and educating them for that power. If someone objects to extending[Pg 158] the right to vote to every human being, I want them to explain why. (Applause). Currently, this nation is grappling with the issue of voting rights for African Americans. I've always supported this not because they are African, but because they are human; this right to vote, which represents all forms of civil power, belongs to every person. But I ask you today, "Is it safe to allow a million black men to vote, but not your mother, your wife, or your sister?" (Applause). You should have done this already, and done it swiftly, without neglecting the other. (Renewed applause).
To-day politicians of every party, especially on the eve of an election, are in favor of the briefest and most expeditious citizenizing of the Irishmen. I have great respect for Irishmen—when they do not attempt to carry on war! (Laughter). The Irish Fenian movement is a ludicrous phenomenon past all laughing at. Bombarding England from the shore of America! (Great laughter). Paper pugnation! Oratorical destroying! But when wind-work is the order of the day, commend me to Irishmen! (Renewed laughter). And yet I am in favor of Irishmen voting. Just so soon as they give pledge that they come to America, in good faith, to abide here as citizens, and forswear the old allegiance, and take on the new, I am in favor of their voting. Why? Because they have learned our Constitution? No; but because voting teaches. The vote is a schoolmaster. They will learn our laws, and learn our Constitution, and learn our customs ten times quicker when the responsibility of knowing these things is laid upon them, than when they are permitted to live in carelessness respecting them. And this nation is so strong that it can stand the incidental mischiefs of thus teaching the wild rabble that emigration throws on our shores for our good and upbuilding. We are wise enough, and we have educational force enough, to carry these ignorant foreigners along with us. We have attractions that will draw them a thousand times more toward us than they can draw us toward them. And yet, while I take this broad ground, that no man, even of the Democratic party (I make the distinction because a man may be a democrat and be ashamed of the party, and a man may be of the party and not know a single principle of democracy), should be debarred from voting, I ask, is an Irishman just landed, unwashed and uncombed, more fit to vote than a woman educated in our common schools? Think of the mothers and daughters of this land, among whom are teachers, writers, artists, and speakers! What a throng could we gather if we should, from all the West, call our women that as educators are carrying civilization there! Thousands upon thousands there are of women that have gone forth from the educational institutions of New England to carry light and knowledge to other parts of our land. Now, place this great army of refined and cultivated women on the one side, and on the other side the rising cloud of emancipated Africans, and in front of them the great emigrant band of the Emerald Isle, and is there force enough in our government to make it safe to give to the African and the Irishman the franchise? There is. We shall give it to them. (Applause). And will our force all fail, having done that? And[Pg 159] shall we take the fairest and best part of our society; those to whom we owe it that we ourselves are civilized: our teachers; our companions; those to whom we go for counsel in trouble more than to any others; those to whom we trust everything that is dear to ourselves—our children's welfare, our household, our property, our name and reputation, and that which is deeper, our inward life itself, that no man may mention to more than one—shall we take them and say, "They are not, after all, fit to vote where the Irishman votes, and where the African votes?" I am scandalized when I hear men talk in the way that men do talk—men that do not think.
Today, politicians from every party, especially right before an election, support quickly granting citizenship to Irish people. I have a lot of respect for the Irish—unless they’re trying to start a war! (Laughter). The Irish Fenian movement is a ridiculous situation that’s beyond funny. Attacking England from America’s shores! (Great laughter). It’s all talk! But when it comes to bluster, Irishmen take the cake! (Renewed laughter). Yet, I do support Irish people being able to vote. As soon as they promise that they come to America, genuinely intending to live here as citizens, reject their old allegiance, and accept the new one, I’m all for their right to vote. Why? Because they’ve learned our Constitution? No; it’s because voting teaches. The act of voting is a teacher. They will learn our laws, our Constitution, and our customs ten times faster when they’re responsible for knowing these things than if they’re allowed to be careless about them. This nation is strong enough to handle the occasional chaos from teaching the influx of immigrants who come to our shores for our benefit and growth. We’re smart enough, and we have enough educational resources to help these uninformed newcomers integrate into our society. Our country has far more to offer them than they could ever offer us. And while I firmly believe that no one, even from the Democratic party (I make this distinction because one may be a democrat and still be ashamed of the party, and a person may belong to the party and not know a single democratic principle), should be denied the right to vote, I ask: is an Irishman just off the boat, unwashed and unkempt, more qualified to vote than a woman educated in our public schools? Think about the mothers and daughters in this country, many of whom are teachers, writers, artists, and speakers! Imagine the crowd we could gather if we called upon all the women educators spreading culture in the West! There are thousands of women who have left New England’s educational institutions to share knowledge across the nation. Now, if we put this extraordinary group of educated women on one side, alongside the growing population of freed Africans, and facing them the large group of immigrants from Ireland, do we have enough strength in our government to safely grant the right to vote to the African and the Irish? We do. We will give it to them. (Applause). Would our power fail after that? And should we exclude the finest members of our society; those who have helped us become civilized: our educators; our companions; those we turn to for guidance in tough times more than anyone else; those we trust with our most cherished things—our children’s future, our homes, our property, our names and reputations, and our deeper inner lives that no one speaks of to anyone but one other—should we say that “They are not, after all, qualified to vote alongside the Irish and the Africans?” I’m appalled when I hear people speak like that—people who clearly don’t think.
If therefore, you refer to the initial sentence, and ask me why I introduce this subject to-day, when we are already engaged on the subject of suffrage, I say, This is the greatest development of the suffrage question. It is more important that woman should vote than that the black man should vote. It is important that he should vote, that the principle may be vindicated, and that humanity may be defended; but it is important that woman should vote, not for her sake. She will derive benefit from voting; but it is not on a selfish ground that I claim the right of suffrage for her. It is God's growing and least disclosed idea of a true human society that man and woman should not be divorced in political affairs any more than they are in religious and social affairs. I claim that women should vote because society will never know its last estate and true glory until you accept God's edict and God's command—long raked over and covered in the dust—until you bring it out, and lift it up, and read this one of God's Ten Commandments, written, if not on stone, yet in the very heart and structure of mankind, Let those that God joined together not be put asunder. (Applause.)
If you refer to the opening sentence and ask why I’m bringing up this topic today, when we're already discussing suffrage, I’ll say this is the biggest development in the suffrage debate. It’s more important for women to vote than for Black men to vote. It’s important for him to vote to uphold the principle and defend humanity; however, the reason women should vote isn't just for their own benefit. While they will gain from voting, my argument for their right to suffrage isn't based on selfish reasons. It's part of God’s evolving and often hidden vision of a true human society that men and women shouldn’t be separated in political matters any more than they are in religious and social ones. I believe women should vote because society won’t reach its fullest potential and true greatness until you accept God’s command—long overlooked and buried in dust—until you bring it out, lift it up, and acknowledge this one of God’s Ten Commandments, written not on stone but within the very heart and structure of humanity, Let those that God joined together not be put asunder. (Applause.)
When men converse with me on the subject of suffrage, or the vote, it seems to me that the terminology withdraws their minds from the depth and breadth of the case to the mere instruments. Many of the objections that are urged against woman's voting are objections against the mechanical and physical act of suffrage. It is true that all the forces of society, in their final political deliverance, must needs be born through the vote, in our structure of government. In England it is not so. It was one of the things to be learned there that the unvoting population on any question in which they are interested and united are more powerful than all the voting population or legislation. The English Parliament, if they believed to-day that every working man in Great Britain staked his life on the issues of universal suffrage, would not dare a month to deny it. For when a nation's foundations are on a class of men that do not vote, and its throne stands on forces that are coiled up and liable at any time to break forth to its overthrow, it is a question whether it is safe to provoke the exertion of those forces or not. With us, where all men vote, government is safe; because, if a thing is once settled by a fair vote, we will go to war rather than give it up. As when Lincoln was elected, if an election is valid, it must stand. In such a nation as this, an election is equivalent to a divine decree, and irreversible. But in Great Britain an election means, not the will of the people, but the will of rulers and a favored class, and there is always under them a great[Pg 160] wronged class, that, if they get stirred up by the thought that they are wronged, will burst out with an explosion that not the throne, nor parliament, nor the army, nor the exchequer can withstand the shock. And they wisely give way to the popular will when they can no longer resist it without running too great a risk. They oppose it as far as it is safe to do so, and then jump on and ride it. And you will see them astride of the vote, if the common people want it. But in America it is not so. The vote with us is so general that there is no danger of insurrection, and there is no danger that the government will be ruined by a wronged class that lies coiled up beneath it. When we speak of the vote here, it is not the representative of a class, as it is in England, worn like a star, or garter, saying, "I have the king's favor or the government's promise of honor." Voting with us is like breathing. It belongs to us as a common blessing. He that does not vote is not a citizen, with us.
When men talk to me about suffrage or voting, it feels like they get distracted by the terms instead of focusing on the real issues. Many of the objections raised against women voting are about the mechanical and physical act of voting itself. It's true that all societal forces ultimately find their expression through the vote in our government system. In England, that's not the case. One thing we learned there is that the non-voting population, when interested and united on an issue, can be more powerful than all the voters or the legislation itself. If the English Parliament believed today that every working man in Great Britain was committed to universal suffrage, they wouldn’t dare to deny it for a month. When a nation’s foundations rely on a class of non-voters and its power rests on forces that could erupt at any moment, it raises the question of whether it's wise to provoke those forces. In our country, where everyone votes, the government is secure; because if something is settled by a fair vote, we would rather go to war than let it be changed. Just like when Lincoln was elected, an election is valid and must be respected. In a nation like ours, an election is like a divine order—absolute and unchangeable. But in Great Britain, an election reflects not the will of the people, but the will of rulers and a privileged class, always overshadowed by a large, wronged class that, if roused, can erupt in a way that the throne, Parliament, army, or treasury cannot withstand. They wisely bend to the popular will when resisting it becomes too risky. They push back only as long as it's safe to do so, and then they hop on board. You’ll see them riding the vote whenever the common people demand it. But in America, it's different. Voting here is so widespread that there’s no risk of insurrection or that a wronged class will bring down the government. When we talk about voting here, it doesn’t represent a class like it does in England, where it's seen as a sign of royal favor or governmental honor. For us, voting is as natural as breathing. It's a shared blessing. Anyone who doesn’t vote is, in our eyes, not a citizen.
It is not the vote that I am arguing, except that that is the outlet. What I am arguing, when I urge that woman should vote, is that she should do all things back of that which the vote means and enforces. She should be a nursing mother to human society. It is a plea that I make, that woman should feel herself called to be interested not alone in the household, not alone in the church, not alone in just that neighborhood in which she resides, but in the sum total of that society to which she belongs; and that she should feel that her duties are not discharged until they are commensurate with the definition which our Saviour gave in the parable of the good Samaritan. I argue, not a woman's right to vote: I argue woman's duty to discharge citizenship. (Applause.) I say that more and more the great interests of human society in America are such as need the peculiar genius that God has given to woman. The questions that are to fill up our days are not forever to be mere money questions. Those will always constitute a large part of politics; but not so large a portion as hitherto. We are coming to a period when it is not merely to be a scramble of fierce and belluine passions in the strife for power and ambition. Human society is yet to discuss questions of work and the workman. Down below privilege lie the masses of men. More men, a thousand times, feel every night the ground, which is their mother, than feel the stars and the moon far up in the atmosphere of favor. As when Christ came the great mass carpeted the earth, instead of lifting themselves up like trees of Lebanon, so now and here the great mass of men are men that have nothing but their hands, their heads, and their good stalwart hearts, as their capital. The millions that come from abroad come that they may have light and power, and lift their children up out of ignorance, to where they themselves could not reach with the tips of their fingers. And the great question of to-day is, How shall work find leisure, and in leisure knowledge and refinement? And this question is knocking at the door of legislation. And is there a man who does not know, that when questions of justice and humanity are blended, woman's instinct is better than man's judgment? From the moment a woman takes the child into her arms, God makes her the love-magistrate of the family; and her instincts and moral nature fit her to adjudicate questions of weakness and want. And when society is on the eve of adjudicating[Pg 161] such questions as these, it is a monstrous fatuity to exclude from them the very ones that, by nature, and training, and instinct, are best fitted to legislate and to judge.
It’s not just about the vote itself; that’s simply the outlet. When I advocate for women to vote, I’m really arguing that women should engage in everything the vote represents and enforces. Women should nurture human society. I urge that women see themselves as responsible not just for their households, their churches, or their neighborhoods, but for the entirety of the society they belong to; and they should understand that their responsibilities aren't fulfilled until they align with the definition given by our Savior in the parable of the Good Samaritan. I’m not arguing for a woman’s right to vote: I’m arguing for a woman’s duty to fulfill her citizenship. (Applause.) I believe that the significant interests of human society in America increasingly require the unique talents that God has given to women. The issues we'll face in the future won't just be about money. While financial matters will always be a significant part of politics, they won’t dominate as they have before. We’re moving toward a time when it won’t just be a fierce struggle for power and ambition. Human society still needs to address questions concerning work and workers. Beneath privilege lie the masses of men. Far more men feel the ground they stand on every night, which is their mother, than feel the stars and the moon high above in the realm of privilege. Just as in the time of Christ, when the masses covered the earth rather than rising like the cedars of Lebanon, today, the majority of men have little but their hands, their minds, and their strong hearts as their capital. Millions who come from abroad seek light and empowerment, hoping to lift their children out of ignorance, reaching heights they themselves couldn’t touch. The pressing question today is, how can work find time for leisure, and in that leisure, knowledge and refinement? This question is knocking at the door of legislation. And isn’t it clear that when issues of justice and humanity intertwine, a woman’s intuition is often superior to a man’s judgment? From the moment a woman holds her child, God designates her as the love magistrate of the family; her instincts and moral nature equip her to assess matters of weakness and need. Therefore, as society stands on the brink of resolving[Pg 161] such issues, it is sheer folly to exclude those who are naturally, through their training and instincts, best equipped to legislate and judge.
For the sake, then, of such questions as these, that have come to their birth, I feel it to be woman's duty to act in public affairs. I do not stand here to plead for your rights. Rights compared with duties, are insignificant—are mere baubles—are as the bow on your bonnet. It seems to me that the voice of God's providence to you to-day is, "Oh messenger of mine, where are the words that I sent you to speak? Whose dull, dead ear has been raised to life by that vocalization of heaven, that was given to you more than to any other one?" Man is sub-base. A thirty-two feet six-inch pipe is he. But what is an organ played with the feet, if all the upper part is left unused? The flute, the hautboy, the finer trumpet stops, all those stops that minister to the intellect, the imagination, and the higher feelings—these must be drawn, and the whole organ played from top to bottom! (Applause.)
For the sake of questions like these that have come to light, I believe it’s a woman’s duty to get involved in public affairs. I’m not here to argue for your rights. Rights, when compared to duties, are trivial—just decorations—like the bow on your hat. It occurs to me that God’s message to you today is, "Oh messenger of mine, where are the words I sent you to speak? Whose dull, lifeless ear has been awakened by the heavenly voice that was given to you more than to anyone else?" Man is basic. He’s like a thirty-two feet six-inch pipe. But what good is an organ played with just the feet if the whole upper part is left unused? The flute, the oboe, the finer trumpet stops, all those that engage the intellect, imagination, and deeper feelings—these must be utilized, and the entire organ must be played from top to bottom! (Applause.)
More than that, there are now coming up for adjudication public questions of education. And who, by common consent, is the educator of the world? Who has been? Schools are to be of more importance than railroads—not to undervalue railroads. Books and newspapers are to be more vital and powerful than exchequers and banks—not to undervalue exchequers and banks. In other words, as society ripens, it has to ripen in its three departments, in the following order: First, in the animal; second, in the social; and third, in the spiritual and moral. We are entering the last period, in which the questions of politics are to be more and more moral questions. And I invoke those whom God made to be peculiarly conservators of things moral and spiritual to come forward and help us in that work, in which we shall falter and fail without woman. We shall never perfect human society without her offices and her ministration. We shall never round out the government, or public administration, or public policies, or politics itself, until you have mixed the elements that God gave to us in society—namely, the powers of both men and women. (Applause.) I, therefore, charge my countrywomen with this duty of taking part in public affairs in the era in which justice, and humanity, and education, and taste, and virtue are to be more and more a part and parcel of public procedure. * * * *
More than that, there are now public education issues that need to be addressed. And who, by common agreement, is the educator of the world? Who has been? Schools are becoming more important than railroads—not to undervalue railroads. Books and newspapers are becoming more vital and powerful than treasuries and banks—not to undervalue treasuries and banks. In other words, as society develops, it must grow in three areas, in this order: first, in the physical; second, in the social; and third, in the spiritual and moral. We are entering the last phase, where political questions will increasingly be moral questions. I call on those whom God has made to be protectors of moral and spiritual matters to step up and help us in this effort, in which we will struggle and fail without women. We will never create a perfect human society without her contributions and support. We will never fully develop the government, public administration, public policies, or politics itself until we bring together the qualities that God has given us in society—specifically, the strengths of both men and women. (Applause.) Therefore, I urge my fellow women to take on this duty of participating in public affairs in an era where justice, humanity, education, culture, and virtue will increasingly be essential parts of public processes. * * * *
In such a state of society, then, as the present, I stand, as I have said, on far higher ground in arguing this question than the right of woman. That I believe in; but that is down in the justice's court. I go to the supreme bench and argue it, and argue it on the ground that the nation needs woman, and that woman needs the nation, and that woman can never become what she should be, and the nation can never become what it should be, until there is no distinction made between the sexes as regards the rights and duties of citizenship—until we come to the 28th verse of the third chapter of Galatians. What is it? [turning to Mr. Tilton, who said, "I don't know!"] Don't know? If it was Lucy Rushton, you would! (Great laughter).
In today's society, I find myself, as I mentioned, in a much stronger position to argue this issue than the rights of women. I believe in that, but that's a lower court issue. I'm addressing the highest authority and making my case based on the fact that the nation needs women, and women need the nation. Women will never reach their full potential, and the nation will never become what it should be, until there’s no distinction between the sexes in terms of citizenship rights and responsibilities—until we embrace the 28th verse of the third chapter of Galatians. What does it say? [turning to Mr. Tilton, who said, "I don't know!"] You don’t know? If it had been Lucy Rushton, you would! (Great laughter).
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And when that day comes; when the heavenly kingdom is ushered in with its myriad blessed influences; when the sun of righteousness shall fill the world with its beams, as the natural sun coming from the far South fills the earth with glorious colors and beauty, then it will come to pass that there shall be no nationality, no difference of classes, and no difference of sexes. Then all shall be one in Christ Jesus. Hold that a minute, please [handing Mr. Tilton a pocket Testament from which he had read the foregoing passage of Scripture]. Theodore was a most excellent young man when he used to go to my church; but he has escaped from my care lately, and now I don't know what he does. (Laughter).
And when that day comes; when the heavenly kingdom arrives with its countless blessings; when the sun of righteousness lights up the world with its rays, just like the natural sun from the far South illuminates the earth with vibrant colors and beauty, then it will happen that there will be no nationalities, no class distinctions, and no gender differences. Then everyone will be united in Christ Jesus. Hold on a second, please [handing Mr. Tilton a pocket Testament from which he had read the previous passage of Scripture]. Theodore was a really great young man when he used to attend my church; but he has slipped out of my reach lately, and now I have no idea what he's up to. (Laughter).
I urge, then, that woman should perform the duty of a citizen in voting. You may, perhaps, ask me, before I go any further, "What is the use of preaching to us that we ought to do it, when we are not permitted to do it?" That day in which the intelligent, cultivated women of America say, "We have a right to the ballot" will be the day in which they will have it. (Voices—"Yes." "That is so"). There is no power on earth that can keep it from them. [Applause]. The reason you have not voted is because you have not wanted to. [Applause]. It is because you have not felt that it was your duty to vote. You have felt yourselves to be secure and happy enough in your privileges and prerogatives, and have left the great mass of your sisters, that shed tears and bore burdens, to shirk for themselves. You have felt that you had rights more than you wanted now. O yes, it is as if a beauty in Fifth Avenue, hearing one plead that bread might be sent to the hungry and famishing, should say, "What is this talk about bread for? I have as much bread as I want, and plenty of sweetmeats, and I do not want your loaves." Shall one that is glutted with abundance despise the wants of the starving, who are so far below them that they do not hear their cries, not one of which escapes the ear of Almighty God? Because you have wealth and knowledge and loving parents, or a faithful husband, or kind brothers, and you feel no pressure of need, do you feel no inward pressure of humanity for others? Is there no part of God's great work in providence that should lead you to be discontented with your ease and privileges until you are enfranchised? You ought to vote; and when your understanding and intellect are convinced that you ought to do it, you will have the power to do it; and you never will till then.
I urge you to take the responsibility of a citizen by voting. You might ask me, before I go any further, "What's the point of telling us that we should vote when we’re not allowed to?" The day that intelligent, educated women in America declare, "We have the right to vote," will be the day they actually have it. (Voices—"Yes." "That is true.") There's no power on earth that can deny them that right. [Applause]. The reason you haven't voted is that you haven't wanted to. [Applause]. It's because you haven't felt it was your duty to vote. You've felt secure and content in your privileges and have left the great majority of your sisters, who shed tears and carry burdens, to fend for themselves. You’ve believed you had more rights than you needed right now. Oh yes, it's like a wealthy woman on Fifth Avenue, hearing someone plead for bread for the hungry, saying, "What's this talk about bread? I have as much as I want, along with plenty of sweets, and I have no need for your loaves." Should someone who is full and comfortable ignore the cries of the starving, who are so far beneath them that they don’t even hear their suffering, not one of which escapes the attention of Almighty God? Just because you have wealth, education, loving parents, a supportive husband, or kind brothers, and you don't feel any pressure of need, does that mean you feel no inner call of humanity for others? Is there no part of God's greater plan that should make you dissatisfied with your comfort and privileges until you are given the right to vote? You should vote; and when your understanding and intellect recognize that you should, you will have the power to do so; and you will not until then.
I. Woman has more interest than man in the promotion of virtue and purity and humanity. Half, shall I say?—Half does not half measure the proportion of those sorrows that come upon woman by reason of her want of influence and power. All the young men that, breaking down, break fathers' and mothers' hearts; all those that struggle near to the grave, weeping piteous tears of blood, it might almost be said, and that at last, under paroxysms of despair, sin against nature, and are swept out of misery into damnation; the spectacles that fill our cities, and afflict and torment villages—what are these but reasons that summon woman to have a part in that regenerating of thought and that regenerating of legislation which shall make vice a crime, and vice-makers criminals? Do you suppose that, if it were to turn on the votes of women to-day whether rum should be sold in every shop in this city, there would be[Pg 163] one moment's delay in settling the question? What to the oak lightning is that marks it and descends swiftly upon it, that woman's vote would be to miscreant vices in these great cities. [Applause]. Ah, I speak that which I do know. As a physician speaks from that which he sees in the hospital where he ministers, so I speak from that which I behold in my professional position and place, where I see the undercurrent of life. I hear groans that come from smiling faces. I witness tears that when others look upon the face are all swept away, as the rain is when one comes after a storm. Not most vocal are our deepest sorrows. Oh, the sufferings of wives for husbands untrue! Oh, the sufferings of mothers for sons led astray! Oh, the sufferings of sisters for sisters gone! Oh, the sufferings of companions for companion-women desecrated! And I hold it to be a shame that they, who have the instinct of purity and of divine remedial mercy more than any other, should withhold their hand from that public legislation by which society may be scoured, and its pests cleared away. And I declare that woman has more interest in legislation than man, because she is the sufferer and the home-staying, ruined victim.
I. Women are more invested than men in promoting virtue, purity, and humanity. Can I say half?—“Half” doesn’t even begin to capture the extent of the sorrows that women face due to their lack of influence and power. Every young man who breaks down and shatters his parents' hearts, all those who struggle close to death, shedding heartbreaking tears, and who, in fits of despair, betray nature and get pulled from misery into damnation; the scenes that fill our cities and torment our towns—what are these if not reasons for women to take part in reshaping thoughts and laws to make vice a crime and those who create vice criminals? Do you really think that if it came down to women voting today on whether liquor should be sold in every store in this city, there would be[Pg 163] a single moment's hesitation in resolving that issue? Just as lightning strikes an oak tree swiftly, a woman’s vote would strike against the vices plaguing these big cities. [Applause]. Ah, I speak from experience. Just like a doctor shares what they see in the hospital, I share what I see in my work, where I observe the underlying currents of life. I hear groans from smiling faces. I witness tears that disappear when others look at the face, like rain fades away after a storm. Our deepest sorrows aren’t the loudest. Oh, the pain of wives for unfaithful husbands! Oh, the anguish of mothers for daughters who’ve lost their way! Oh, the suffering of sisters for sisters who are gone! Oh, the distress of partners for women who have been wronged! And I believe it’s shameful that those who possess the instinct for purity and divine compassion more than anyone else should hold back from that public legislation aimed at cleansing society and eliminating its pests. I assert that women have a greater stake in legislation than men because they are the ones who suffer and bear the burdens at home.
II. The household, about which we hear so much said as being woman's sphere, is safe only as the community around about it is safe. Now and then there may be a Lot that can live in Sodom; but when Lot was called to emigrate, he could not get all his children to go with him. They had been intermarried and corrupted. A Christian woman is said to have all that she needs for her understanding and to task her powers if she will stay at home and mend her husband's clothes, if she has a husband, and take care of her children, if she has children. The welfare of the family, it is said, ought to occupy her time and thoughts. And some ministers, in descanting upon the sphere of woman, are wont to magnify the glory and beauty of a mother teaching some future chief-justice, or some president of the United States. Not one whit of glory would I withdraw from such a canvas as that; but I aver that the power to teach these children largely depends upon the influences that surround the household. So that she that would take the best care of the house must take care of that atmosphere which is around the house as well. And every true and wise Christian woman is bound to have a thought for the village, for the county, for the State, and for the nation. [Applause]. That was not the kind of woman that brought me up—a woman that never thought of anything outside of her own door-yard. My mother's house was as wide as Christ's house; and she taught me to understand the words of Him that said, "The field is the world; and whoever needs is your brother." A woman that is content to wash stockings, and make Johnny-cake, and to look after and bring up her boys faultless to a button, and that never thinks beyond the meal-tub, and whose morality is so small as to be confined to a single house, is an under-grown woman, and will spend the first thousand years after death in coming to that state in which she ought to have been before she died. [Laughter]. Tell me that a woman is fit to give an ideal life to an American citizen, to enlarge his sympathies, to make him wise in judgment, and to establish him in patriotic regard, who has no thought above what to eat and[Pg 164] drink, and wherewithal to be clothed. The best housekeepers are they that are the most widely beneficent. "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." God will take care of the stockings, if you take care of the heads! [Laughter and applause]. Universal beneficence never hinders anybody's usefulness in any particular field of duty. Therefore, woman's sphere should not be limited to the household. The public welfare requires that she should have a thought of affairs outside of the household, and in the whole community.
II. The household, often talked about as being a woman's domain, is only secure if the surrounding community is secure. Occasionally, there might be a Lot who can survive in Sodom; however, when Lot was called to leave, he couldn’t get all his children to follow him. They had become intertwined and corrupted. A Christian woman is said to have all the knowledge she needs if she stays at home to mend her husband's clothes, if she has a husband, and to care for her children, if she has children. It's said that the family's well-being should occupy her time and thoughts. Some ministers, while discussing a woman's role, often highlight the glory and beauty of a mother educating a future chief justice or a president. I wouldn’t take away any glory from that scene; but I maintain that a woman's ability to teach these children largely depends on the influences surrounding her home. Therefore, the woman who wants to care best for the household must also consider the environment around it. Every true and wise Christian woman should think about her village, county, state, and nation. [Applause]. That wasn’t the kind of woman who raised me—a woman who never thought beyond her own yard. My mother’s home was as expansive as Christ’s, and she taught me to understand the words of Him who said, "The field is the world, and whoever is in need is your brother." A woman who is satisfied with just washing laundry, making Johnny-cake, and raising her boys perfectly, while never thinking beyond her kitchen, whose sense of morality is so limited that it only pertains to a single home, is an underdeveloped woman who will spend her first thousand years after death learning what she should have grasped in life. [Laughter]. How can we say that a woman is capable of nurturing an ideal American citizen, expanding his empathy, making him wise in judgment, and instilling in him a sense of patriotism when her thoughts are limited to food and clothing? The best homemakers are the ones who are the most generous beyond their own homes. "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." God will handle the laundry if you take care of the minds! [Laughter and applause]. Universal generosity does not impede anyone's effectiveness in any specific duty. Therefore, a woman's role should not be confined to the home. The public good requires that she consider issues beyond the household and focus on the whole community.
III. Woman brings to public affairs peculiar qualities, aspirations, and affections which society needs. I have had persons say to me, "Would you, now, take your daughter and your wife, and walk down to the polls with them?" If I were to take my daughter and my wife, and walk down to the polls with them, and there was a squirming crowd of bloated, loud-mouthed, blattering men, wrangling like so many maggots on cheese, what would take place, but that, at the moment I appeared with my wife and daughter walking by my side with conscious dignity and veiled modesty, the lane would open, and I should pass through the red sea unharmed? [Great applause]. Where is there a mob such that the announcement that a woman is present does not bring down the loudest of them? Nothing but the sorcery of rum prevents a man from paying unconscious, instant respect to the presence of a woman....
III. Women bring unique qualities, ambitions, and emotions to public life that society needs. I've had people ask me, "Would you actually take your daughter and wife and walk to the polls with them?" If I were to take my daughter and wife and walk down to the polls, and there was a noisy crowd of obnoxious, loud men arguing like worms on cheese, what would happen? The moment I appeared with my wife and daughter walking beside me with awareness and quiet dignity, the crowd would part, and I would walk through the chaos unscathed. [Great applause]. Where is there a crowd where the presence of a woman doesn’t command immediate respect? Only the influence of alcohol stops a man from giving effortless, instant respect to a woman's presence...
IV. The history of woman's co-operative labors thus far justifies the most sanguine anticipations, such as I have alluded to. Allusion has been made to the purification of literature. The influence of women has been a part of the cause of this, unquestionably; but I would not ascribe such a result to any one cause. God is a great workman, and has a chest full of tools, and never uses one tool, but always many; and in the purification of literature, the elevation of thought, the advancement of the public sentiment of the world in humanity, God has employed more than that which has been wrought in their departments. And that which the family has long ago achieved—that, in more eminence and more wondrous and surprising beauty, the world will achieve for itself in public affairs, when man and woman co-operate there, as now they are co-operating in all other spheres of taste, intellection, and morality....
IV. The history of women’s cooperative efforts so far supports the most optimistic expectations I mentioned earlier. It has been noted that women have contributed to the improvement of literature. Their influence is undoubtedly part of the reason, but I wouldn't attribute this outcome to any single cause. God is a skilled craftsman, with a toolbox full of instruments, and He never relies on just one; He always uses many. In the enhancement of literature, the uplift of thought, and the progress of global human sentiment, God has utilized more than just the work done in their fields. What the family has accomplished long ago—this, in an even more prominent and wonderfully surprising way, the world will achieve for itself in public matters when men and women collaborate there, just as they are currently cooperating in all other areas of taste, intellect, and morality.
It is said, a "woman's place is at home." Well, now, since compromises are coming into vogue again, will you compromise with me, and agree that until a woman has a home she may vote? [Laughter]. That is only fair. It is said, "She ought to stay at home, and attend to home duty, and minister to the wants of father, or husband, or brothers." Well, may all orphan women, and unmarried women, and women that have no abiding place of residence vote? If not, where is the argument? But, to look at it seriously, what is the defect of this statement? It is the impression that staying at home is incompatible with going abroad. Never was there a more monstrous fallacy. I light my candle, and it gives me all the light I want, and it gives all the light you want to you, and to you, and to you, and to every other one in the room; and there is not one single ray that you get there which cheats me here; and a woman that is doing her duty right in the family sheds a beneficent influence out upon the village[Pg 165] in which she dwells, without taking a moment's more time. My cherry-trees are joyful in all their blossoms, and thousands go by them and see them in their beauty day by day; but I never mourn the happiness that they bestow on passers-by as having been taken from me. I am not cheated by the perfume that goes from my flowers into my neighbor's yard. And the character of a true woman is such that it may shine everywhere without making her any poorer. She is richer in proportion as she gives away.... And it is just because woman is woman that she is fitted, while she takes care of the household, to take care of the village and the community around about her.
It’s often said that a “woman’s place is at home.” Well, since compromise seems to be in style again, will you compromise with me and agree that until a woman has a home, she should be allowed to vote? [Laughter]. That seems fair. People say, “She should stay at home, take care of household duties, and meet the needs of her father, husband, or brothers.” So, can all orphaned women, unmarried women, and women without a permanent home vote? If not, where is the logic in that? Seriously though, what’s wrong with this viewpoint? It suggests that staying at home and being out in the world are incompatible. That’s a ridiculous misconception. I light my candle, and it gives me all the light I need, and it gives light to you, and you, and you, and everyone else in the room. Not a single ray of light that you get here takes away from me. A woman who is committed to her family also spreads positive influence throughout her village[Pg 165] without needing any extra time. My cherry trees bloom beautifully, and countless people pass by to enjoy their beauty every day; I don’t feel sad that their enjoyment doesn’t diminish my own. I’m not deprived of the fragrance of my flowers just because my neighbor enjoys it too. The essence of a true woman is such that her goodness can shine everywhere without making her any poorer. She actually becomes richer the more she gives away.... And it’s precisely because she is a woman that she can manage her household while also caring for the village and community around her.
But it is said, "She ought to act through her father, or husband, or brother, or son." Why ought she? Did you ever frame an argument to show why the girl should use her father to vote for her, and the boy who is younger, and not half so witty, should vote for himself? It does not admit of an argument. If the grandmother, the mother, the wife, and the eldest daughter, are to be voted for by the father, the husband, and the eldest brother, then why are not the children to be voted for in complete family relation by the patriarchal head? Why not go back to the tribal custom of the desert, and let the patriarch do all the voting? To be sure, it would change the whole form of our government; but, if it is good for the family, it is just as good for classes.
But people say, "She should act through her father, husband, brother, or son." But why should she? Have you ever made a case for why a girl should rely on her father to vote for her, while a younger boy, who is not nearly as clever, should vote for himself? There’s no argument for it. If the grandmother, mother, wife, and eldest daughter are to be represented by the father, husband, and eldest brother, then why shouldn’t the children be represented in full family relationships by the head of the family? Why not revert to the tribal customs of the desert, and let the patriarch handle all the voting? Sure, it would completely change how our government works; but if it's good for the family, it should be just as good for society as a whole.
In a frontier settlement is a log-cabin, and it is in a region which is infested by wolves. There are in the family a broken-down patient of a man, a mother, and three daughters. The house is surrounded by a pack of these voracious animals, and the inmates feel that their safety requires that the intruders should be driven away. There are three or four rifles in the house. The man creeps to one of the windows, and to the mother and daughters it is said, "You load the rifles, and hand them to me, and let me fire them." But they can load all the four rifles, and he can not fire half as fast as they can load; and I say to the mother, "Can you shoot?" She says, "Let me try;" and she takes a gun, and points it at the wolves, and pulls the trigger, and I see one of them throw his feet up in the air. "Ah!" I say, "I see you can shoot! You keep the rifle, and fire it yourself." And I say to the oldest daughter, "Can you shoot?" "I guess I can," she says. "Well, dare you?" "I dare do anything to save father and the family." And she takes one of the rifles, and pops over another of the pack. And I tell you, if the wolves knew that all the women were firing, they would flee from that cabin instanter. (Laughter). I do not object to a woman loading a man's rifle and letting him shoot; but I say that, if there are two rifles, she ought to load one of them, and shoot herself. And I do not see any use of a woman's influencing a man and loading him with a vote, and letting him go and fire it off at the ballot-box. (Laughter and applause).
In a frontier settlement, there’s a log cabin in an area overrun by wolves. The family consists of a worn-out man, a mother, and three daughters. The cabin is surrounded by a pack of these hungry creatures, and the family feels they must drive the intruders away for their safety. They have three or four rifles in the house. The man sneaks to one of the windows and tells the mother and daughters, “You load the rifles and hand them to me, and I’ll fire them.” However, they can load all four rifles, and he can’t shoot as quickly as they can load. I ask the mother, “Can you shoot?” She replies, “Let me try,” and takes a gun, aims at the wolves, and pulls the trigger. I see one of the wolves fall. “Ah!” I say, “I see you can shoot! You keep the rifle and shoot yourself.” Then I ask the oldest daughter, “Can you shoot?” “I think I can,” she says. “Well, do you dare?” “I’d do anything to save my father and the family.” She grabs one of the rifles and shoots another wolf. I tell you, if the wolves knew that all the women were firing, they would run away from that cabin immediately. (Laughter). I don’t mind a woman loading a man’s rifle and letting him shoot; but I believe that if there are two rifles, she should load one of them and shoot herself. And I don’t see the point in a woman influencing a man and handing him a vote, only to let him go and use it at the ballot box. (Laughter and applause).
It is said, again, "Woman is a creature of such an excitable nature that, if she were to mingle with men in public affairs, it would introduce a kind of vindictive acrimony, and politics would become intolerable." Oh, if I really thought so; if I thought that the purity of politics would be sullied, I would not say another word! (Laughter). I do not want to take anything from the celestial graces of politics! (Renewed laughter).[Pg 166] I will admit that woman is an excitable creature, and I will admit that politics needs no more excitement; but sometimes, you know, things are homœopathic. A woman's excitement is apt to put out a man's; and if she should bring her excitability into politics, it is likely that it would neutralize the excitement that is already there, and that there would be a grand peace! (Laughter). But, not to trifle with it, woman is excitable. Woman is yet to be educated. Woman is yet to experience the reactionary influence of being a public legislator and thinker. And let her sphere be extended beyond the family and the school, so that she should be interested in, and actively engaged in, promoting the welfare of the whole community, and in the course of three generations the reaction on her would be such that the excitement that she would bring into public affairs would be almost purely moral inspiration. It would be the excitement of purity and disinterested benevolence.
It is often said, "Women are so excitable that if they got involved in public affairs, it would lead to vindictive bitterness, making politics unbearable." Oh, if I really believed that; if I thought politics would be tainted, I wouldn't say another word! (Laughter). I don’t want to diminish the noble qualities of politics! (Renewed laughter). [Pg 166] I admit that women can be excitable, and I agree that politics doesn't need more excitement; but sometimes, you know, it's like a homeopathic remedy. A woman's excitement can cancel out a man's; and if she brings her enthusiasm into politics, it could likely balance the existing energy, creating a great peace! (Laughter). But, without ignoring the issue, women are excitable. Women still need education. Women need to experience the effects of being public legislators and thinkers. If their roles expand beyond the home and classroom, allowing them to care about and actively contribute to the welfare of the entire community, in three generations the impact on them would be so significant that the energy they bring into public life would be mostly about moral inspiration. It would be excitement driven by purity and selfless kindness.
It is said, furthermore, "Woman might vote for herself, and take office." Why not? A woman makes as good a postmistress as a man does a postmaster. Woman has been tried in every office from the throne to the position of the humblest servant; and where has she been found remiss? I believe that multitudes of the offices that are held by men are mere excuses for leading an effeminate life; and that with their superior physical strength it behooves them better to be actors out of doors, where the severity of climate and the elements is to be encountered, and leave indoor offices to women, to whom they more properly belong. But, women, you are not educated for these offices. I hear bad reports of you. It is told me that the trouble in giving places to women is that they will not do their work well; that they do not feel the sense of conscience. They have been flattered so long, they have been called "women" so long, they have had compliments instead of rights so long, that they are spoiled; but when a generation of young women shall have been educated to a stern sense of right and duty, and shall take no compliments at the expense of right, we shall have no such complaints as these. And when a generation of women, working with the love of God and true patriotism in their souls, shall have begun to hold office, meriting it, and being elected to it by those that would rather have a woman than a man in office, then you may depend upon it that education has qualified them for the trusts which are committed to them. We have tried "old women" in office, and I am convinced that it would be better to have real women than virile old women in public stations. (Laughter and applause). For my own sake, give me a just, considerate, true, straight-forward, honest-minded, noble-hearted woman, who has been able, in the fear of God, to bring up six boys in the way they should go, and settle them in life. If there is anything harder in this nation than that, tell me what it is. A woman that can bring up a family of strong-brained children, and make good citizens of them, can be President without any difficulty. (Applause).
It is said, moreover, "A woman might vote for herself and hold office." Why not? A woman can do as good a job as a postmistress as a man does as a postmaster. Women have been tested in every role from the throne to the most humble servant; and where have they fallen short? I believe that many of the positions held by men are just excuses for living a soft life; with their greater physical strength, they should be working outdoors, where they have to face harsh weather and elements, and leave indoor jobs to women, who are more suited for them. But, women, you aren’t trained for these positions. I hear negative things about you. I'm told that the issue with hiring women is that they won’t do their jobs well; they lack a sense of responsibility. They’ve been praised for so long, they’ve been called "women" for so long, they've received compliments instead of rights for so long, that they’ve become spoiled; but when a generation of young women has been educated with a strong sense of right and duty, and stops accepting compliments at the cost of what’s right, we won’t hear these complaints anymore. And when a generation of women, fueled by a love for God and true patriotism, begins to hold office, deserving it and being elected by those who would prefer a woman in those roles, then you can be sure that education has prepared them for the responsibilities entrusted to them. We have had "old women" in office, and I’m convinced it would be better to have real women rather than tough old women in public positions. (Laughter and applause). For my part, give me a just, considerate, honest, straightforward, noble-hearted woman who has been able, in the fear of God, to raise six boys in the right way and set them up for life. If there’s anything harder in this nation than that, tell me what it is. A woman who can raise a family of strong-minded children and turn them into good citizens can easily be President. (Applause).
Let me now close with one single thought in connection with this objection. I protest in the name of my countrywomen against the aspersion which is cast upon them by those who say that woman is not fit to hold office or discharge public trusts. The name of what potentate to-day,[Pg 167] if you go round the world, would probably, in every nation on the earth, bring down most enthusiasm and public approbation? If I now, here in your midst, shall mention the name of Queen Victoria, your cheers will be a testimony to your admiration of this noble woman. (Great applause). Though it be in a political meeting, or any other public gathering, no man can mention her name without eliciting enthusiasm and tokens of respect. It is a controversy to-day between woman aristocratic and woman democratic (applause); and I claim that what it is right for an aristocratic woman to do—what it is right for a duchess, or a queen, or an empress to do—it is right for the simplest and plainest of my countrywomen to do, that has no title, and no credentials, except the fact that God made her a woman. All that I claim for the proudest aristocrat I claim for all other women. (Applause). I do not object to a woman's being a queen, or a president, if she has the qualifications which fit her to be one. And I claim that, where there is a woman that has the requisite qualifications for holding any office in the family, in the church, or in the state, there is no reason why she should not be allowed to hold it. And we shall have a perfect crystal idea of the state, with all its contents, only when man understands the injunction, "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder."[63] (Great applause).
Let me wrap up with one key thought related to this objection. I stand up for my fellow women against the unfair claim that women aren't fit to hold office or take on public responsibilities. Which notable figure today, if you travel the world, would likely receive the most enthusiasm and approval in every nation? If I mention Queen Victoria right now, your cheers will show your admiration for this remarkable woman. (Great applause). Whether at a political event or any other public meeting, no one can mention her name without sparking enthusiasm and respect. Today, we have a debate between aristocratic women and democratic women (applause); I argue that what is acceptable for an aristocratic woman—a duchess, queen, or empress—is also right for the simplest and most ordinary women in my country who hold no title or credentials other than the fact that God made them women. Everything I argue for the highest aristocrat, I argue for all women. (Applause). I’m not against a woman being a queen or president if she has the qualifications for it. I believe that if a woman has the necessary qualifications to hold any position in the family, church, or state, there's no reason she shouldn't be allowed to do so. We'll only get a clear understanding of the state and everything it entails when men recognize the principle, "What God has joined together, let no one separate." (Great applause).
Susan B. Anthony read the following appeal to the Congress of the United States for the enfranchisement of woman:[Pg 168]
Susan B. Anthony read the following appeal to the Congress of the United States for women's suffrage:[Pg 168]
ADDRESS TO CONGRESS.
Adopted by the Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention, held in New York City, Thursday, May 10, 1866.
Adopted by the Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention, held in New York City on Thursday, May 10, 1866.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
We have already appeared many times during the present session before your honorable body, in petitions, asking the enfranchisement of woman; and now, from this National Convention we again make our appeal, and urge you to lay no hand on that "pyramid of rights," the Constitution of the Fathers," unless to add glory to its height and strength to its foundation.
We have already spoken many times during this session before your esteemed group, in petitions asking for women's rights; and now, from this National Convention, we once again make our appeal and urge you not to interfere with that "pyramid of rights," the Constitution of the Fathers," unless to enhance its glory and strengthen its foundation.
We will not rehearse the oft-repeated arguments on the natural rights of every citizen, pressed as they have been on the nation's conscience for the last thirty years in securing freedom for the black man, and so grandly echoed on the floor of Congress during the past winter. We can not add one line or precept to the inexhaustible speech recently made by Charles Sumner in the Senate, to prove that "no just government can be formed without the consent of the governed;" to prove the dignity, the education, the power, the necessity, the salvation of the ballot in the hand of every man and woman; to prove that a just government and a true church rest alike on the sacred rights of the individual.
We won’t go over the repeated arguments about the natural rights of every citizen, which have been pressed on the nation’s conscience for the last thirty years in the fight for freedom for Black people, and were powerfully echoed in Congress this past winter. We can’t add anything to the powerful speech recently given by Charles Sumner in the Senate, which proves that “no just government can be formed without the consent of the governed”; highlights the dignity, education, power, necessity, and salvation of the ballot in the hands of every man and woman; and establishes that a just government and a true church are built on the sacred rights of the individual.
As you are familiar with that speech of the session on "EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL," so convincing in facts, so clear in philosophy, and so elaborate in quotations from the great minds of the past, without reproducing the chain of argument, permit us to call your attention to a few of its unanswerable assertions on the ballot:
As you know from that speech in the session on "EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL," which was so convincing in its facts, so clear in its philosophy, and so detailed with quotes from great thinkers of the past, without going over the whole argument, let us draw your attention to a few of its undeniable points about the ballot:
I plead now for the ballot, as the great guarantee; and the only sufficient guarantee—being in itself peacemaker, reconciler, schoolmaster and protector—to which we are bound by every necessity and every reason; and I speak also for the good of the States lately in rebellion, as well as for the glory and safety of the Republic, that it may be an example to mankind.
I now ask for the vote, as the key guarantee; and the only true guarantee—acting as a peacemaker, reconciler, teacher, and protector—that we are obligated to support for every valid reason. I also speak for the benefit of the States that were recently in rebellion, as well as for the honor and safety of the Republic, so that it can serve as an example to humanity.
Ay, sir, the ballot is the Columbiad of our political life, and every citizen who has it is a full-armed Monitor.
Sure, here is the modernized version: Yeah, sir, the ballot is the cannon of our political life, and every citizen who has one is fully equipped for battle.
The ballot is schoolmaster. Reading and writing are of inestimable value, but the ballot teaches what these can not teach.
The ballot is the teacher. Reading and writing are incredibly valuable, but the ballot teaches what they cannot.
Plutarch records that the wise men of Athens charmed the people by saying that Equality causes no war, and "both the rich and the poor repeated it."
Plutarch notes that the wise men of Athens impressed the people by stating that Equality causes no war, and "both the rich and the poor echoed it."
The ballot is like charity, which never faileth, and without which man is only as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. The ballot is the one thing needful, without which rights of testimony and all other rights will be no better than cobwebs, which the master will break through with impunity. To him who has the ballot all other things shall be given—protection, opportunity, education, a homestead. The ballot is like the Horn of Abundance, out of which overflow rights of every kind, with corn, cotton, rice, and all the fruits of the earth. Or, better still, it is like the hand of the body, without which man, who is now only a little lower than the angels, must have continued only a little above the brutes. They are fearfully and wonderfully made; but as is the hand in the work of civilization, so is the ballot in the work of government. "Give me the ballot, and I can move the world."
The ballot is like charity, which never fails, and without it, a person is just noise, like clanging brass or a ringing cymbal. The ballot is essential; without it, the rights to speak out and all other rights are worthless, like cobwebs that the powerful can break through without consequence. Whoever has the ballot can access everything else—protection, opportunity, education, and a place to call home. The ballot is like the Horn of Abundance, from which flow all kinds of rights, along with crops like corn, cotton, rice, and all the fruits of the earth. Or, even better, it’s like a hand on the body; without it, humanity, which is just slightly above the angels, would remain barely above the animals. People are fearfully and wonderfully made, but just as the hand is crucial for civilization, the ballot is essential for government. "Give me the ballot, and I can change the world."
Do you wish to see harmony truly prevail, so that industry, society, government, civilization, may all prosper, and the Republic may wear a crown of true greatness? Then do not neglect the ballot.[Pg 169]
Do you want to see real harmony so that business, society, government, and civilization can all thrive, and the Republic can achieve genuine greatness? Then don’t overlook the importance of voting.[Pg 169]
Lamartine said, "Universal Suffrage is the first truth and only basis of every national republic."
Lamartine said, "Universal Suffrage is the fundamental truth and the only foundation of every national republic."
In regard to "Taxation without representation," Mr. Sumner quotes from Lord Coke:
In relation to "Taxation without representation," Mr. Sumner references Lord Coke:
The Supreme Power cannot take from any man any part of his property without consent in person, or by representation.
The Supreme Power can't take any part of a person's property without their consent in person or through representation.
Taxes are not to be laid on the people, but by their consent in person, or by representation.
Taxes should not be imposed on people without their consent, either directly or through representation.
I can see no reason to doubt but that the imposition of taxes, whether on trade, or on land, or houses, or ships, or real or personal, fixed or floating, property in the colonies, is absolutely irreconcilable with the rights of the colonies, as British subjects, and as men. I say men, for in a state of nature no man can take any property from me without my consent. If he does, he deprives me of my liberty and makes me a slave. The very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not represented, appears to me to deprive them of one of their most essential rights as freemen, and if continued seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right. For what one civil right is worth a rush, after a man's property is subject to be taken from him at pleasure without his consent?
I see no reason to doubt that imposing taxes—whether on trade, land, houses, ships, or any type of property in the colonies—is completely incompatible with the rights of the colonies as British subjects and as human beings. I say human beings because in a natural state, no one can take my property without my consent. If someone does, they take away my freedom and make me a slave. The very act of taxing those who aren't represented seems to strip them of one of their most essential rights as free people, and if it continues, it effectively cancels out every civil right. What good is any civil right if a person's property can be taken at any time without their consent?
In demanding suffrage for the black man you recognize the fact that as a freedman he is no longer a "part of the family," and that, therefore, his master is no longer his representative; hence, as he will now be liable to taxation, he must also have representation. Woman, on the contrary, has never been such a "part of the family" as to escape taxation. Although there has been no formal proclamation giving her an individual existence, she has always had the right to property and wages, the right to make contracts and do business in her own name. And even married women, by recent legislation, have been secured in these civil rights. Woman now holds a vast amount of the property in the country, and pays her full proportion of taxes, revenue included. On what principle, then, do you deny her representation? By what process of reasoning Charles Sumner was able to stand up in the Senate, a few days after these sublime utterances, and rebuke 15,000,000 disfranchised tax-payers for the exercise of their right of petition merely, is past understanding. If he felt that this was not the time for woman to even mention her right to representation, why did he not take breath in some of his splendid periods, and propose to release the poor shirtmakers, milliners and dressmakers, and all women of property, from the tyranny of taxation?
In advocating for voting rights for Black men, you acknowledge that as freed individuals, they are no longer considered a "part of the family," and thus, their former masters no longer represent them; therefore, since they will now be subject to taxes, they must also have representation. Women, on the other hand, have never been so much a "part of the family" that they could avoid taxation. Although there hasn't been an official declaration granting them individual status, women have always had the right to own property and earn wages, to enter contracts, and conduct business in their own names. Recently, legislation has also secured these civil rights for married women. Women now own a significant amount of property in the country and pay their fair share of taxes, including revenue. So, on what basis do you deny them representation? How Charles Sumner could stand before the Senate just days after making such profound statements and chastise 15 million disenfranchised taxpayers for simply exercising their right to petition is beyond comprehension. If he believed it wasn't the right time for women to even bring up their right to representation, why didn’t he take a moment during his impressive speeches to suggest freeing poor shirtmakers, milliners, dressmakers, and all women who own property from the burden of taxation?
We propose no new theories. We simply ask that you secure to all the practical application of the immutable principles of our government, without distinction of race, color or sex. And we urge our demand now, because you have the opportunity and the power to take this onward step in legislation. The nations of the earth stand watching and waiting to see if our Revolutionary idea, "all men are created equal," can be realized in government. Crush not, we pray you, the million hopes that hang on our success. Peril not another bloody war. Men and parties must pass away, but justice is eternal. And they only who work in harmony with its laws are immortal. All who have carefully noted the proceedings of this Congress, and contrasted your speeches with those made under the old régime of slavery, must have seen the added power and eloquence that greater freedom gives. But still you propose no action on your grand ideas. Your Joint Resolutions, your Reconstruction[Pg 170] Reports, do not reflect your highest thought. The constitution, in basing representation on "respective numbers," covers a broader ground than any you have yet proposed. Is not the only amendment needed to Article 1st, Section 3d, to strike out the exceptions which follow "respective numbers?" And is it not your duty, by securing a republican form of government to every State, to see that these "respective numbers" are made up of enfranchised citizens? Thus bringing your legislation up to the Constitution—not the Constitution down to your party possibilities!! The only tenable ground of representation is Universal Suffrage, as it is only through Universal Suffrage that the principle of "Equal Rights to All" can be realized. All prohibitions based on race, color, sex, property, or education, are violations of the republican idea; and the various qualifications now proposed are but so many plausible pretexts to debar new classes from the ballot-box. The limitations of property and intelligence, though unfair, can be met; as with freedom must come the repeal of statute-laws that deny schools and wages to the negro. So time makes him a voter. But color and sex! Neither time nor statutes can make black white, or woman man! You assume to be the representatives of 15,000,000 women—American citizens—who already possess every attainable qualification for the ballot. Women read and write, hold many offices under government, pay taxes, and the penalties of crime, and yet are allowed to exercise but the one right of petition.
We’re not introducing any new theories. We’re simply asking you to ensure that the fundamental principles of our government apply to everyone without regard to race, color, or gender. And we urge you to take action now, because you have the chance and the power to make this important change in legislation. The nations of the world are watching and waiting to see if our revolutionary idea, "all people are created equal," can be realized in government. Please don’t crush the millions of hopes resting on our success. Don’t risk another bloody war. People and parties will come and go, but justice is eternal. Only those who work in harmony with its laws will truly endure. Anyone who has closely observed the actions of this Congress and compared your speeches with those made during the old régime of slavery must see the added strength and eloquence that greater freedom brings. Yet you still propose no action on your ambitious ideas. Your Joint Resolutions and your Reconstruction[Pg 170] Reports do not reflect your highest aspirations. The Constitution, which bases representation on "respective numbers," covers broader ground than anything you have yet suggested. Isn’t the only amendment needed to Article 1, Section 3, to remove the exceptions that follow "respective numbers"? And isn’t it your responsibility, by ensuring a republican form of government for every state, to see that these "respective numbers" consist of enfranchised citizens? This would elevate your legislation to meet the Constitution—not lower the Constitution to fit your party’s ambitions! The only valid basis for representation is Universal Suffrage, as it is only through Universal Suffrage that the principle of "Equal Rights for All" can be achieved. Any prohibitions based on race, color, gender, property, or education violate the republican idea; the various qualifications currently suggested are simply excuses to exclude new groups from the ballot. While the limits of property and education are unfair, they can be addressed; with freedom must come the repeal of laws that deny education and wages to Black individuals. Over time, that will make them voters. But color and gender! Neither time nor laws can change Black to white or woman to man! You claim to represent 15 million women—American citizens—who already meet every attainable qualification for the ballot. Women can read and write, hold many government positions, pay taxes, and face the consequences of crime, yet are only allowed to exercise the one right to petition.
For twenty years we have labored to bring the statute laws of the several States into harmony with the broad principles of the Constitution, and have been so far successful that in many, little remains to be done but to secure the right of suffrage. Hence, our prompt protest against the propositions before Congress to introduce the word "male" into the Federal Constitution, which, if successful, would block all State action in giving the ballot to woman. As the only way disfranchised citizens can appear before you, we availed ourselves of the sacred right of petition. And, as our representatives, it was your duty to give those petitions a respectful reading and a serious consideration. How well a Republican Senate performed that duty, is already inscribed on the page of history. Some tell us it is not judicious to press the claims of women now; that this is not the time. Time? When you propose legislation so fatal to the best interests of woman and the nation, shall we be silent till the deed is done? No! As we love republican ideas, we must resist tyranny. As we honor the position of American Senator, we must appeal from the politician to the man.
For twenty years, we have worked to align the laws of the various States with the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and we've made significant progress so that in many cases, there's little left to do but secure voting rights. That's why we swiftly protested the proposals before Congress to add the word "male" to the Federal Constitution, which would prevent any State from granting women the right to vote. Since the only way disenfranchised citizens can present their concerns is through petitions, we exercised our sacred right to do so. As our representatives, you had the responsibility to give those petitions a respectful reading and serious consideration. How well the Republican Senate did that is already recorded in history. Some tell us it's not wise to push for women's rights now; that this isn't the right time. Time? When you propose legislation that would harm the best interests of women and the nation, should we remain silent until it's too late? No! Because we value republican ideals, we must fight against tyranny. Because we respect the position of American Senator, we must appeal to the humanity of the individual, not just the politician.
With man, woman shared the dangers of the Mayflower on a stormy sea, the dreary landing on Plymouth Rock, the rigors of a New England winter, and the privations of a seven years' war. With him she bravely threw off the British yoke, felt every pulsation of his heart for freedom, and inspired the glowing eloquence that maintained it through the century. With you, we have just passed through the agony and death, the resurrection and triumph, of another revolution, doing all in our power to mitigate its horrors and gild its glories. And now, think you we have no souls to fire, no brains to weigh your arguments; that, after education[Pg 171] such as this, we can stand silent witnesses while you sell our birthright of liberty, to save from a timely death an effete political organization? No, as we respect womanhood, we must protest against this desecration of the magna charta of American liberties; and with an importunity not to be repelled, our demand must ever be: "No compromise of human rights"—"No admission in the Constitution of inequality of rights, or disfranchisement on account of color or sex."
With men, women shared the dangers of the Mayflower on a stormy sea, the dreary landing on Plymouth Rock, the hardships of a New England winter, and the struggles of a seven-year war. Together, they bravely threw off the British control, felt every pulse of freedom in their hearts, and inspired the passionate speeches that sustained it through the century. With you, we have just gone through the pain and loss, the revival and victory, of another revolution, doing everything we can to ease its horrors and celebrate its achievements. And now, do you think we have no passion to ignite, no intelligence to consider your arguments; that, after receiving an education[Pg 171] like this, we can remain silent witnesses while you sell our rights to liberty to protect an outdated political organization from a timely demise? No, because we value womanhood, we must stand against this violation of the foundational principles of American freedoms; and with a persistence that cannot be ignored, our demand will always be: "No compromise of human rights" — "No acceptance in the Constitution of inequality in rights, or disenfranchisement based on race or gender."
In the oft-repeated experiments of class and caste, who can number the nations that have risen but to fall? Do not imagine you come one line nearer the demand of justice by enfranchising but another shade of manhood; for, in denying representation to woman you still cling to the same principle on which all the governments of the past have been wrecked. The right way, the safe way, is so clear, the path of duty is so straight and simple, that we who are equally interested with yourselves in the result, conjure you to act not for the passing hour, not with reference to transient benefits, but to do now the one grand deed that shall mark the progress of the century—proclaim Equal Rights to All. We press our demand for the ballot at this time in no narrow, captious or selfish spirit; from no contempt of the black man's claims, nor antagonism with you, who in the progress of civilization are now the privileged order; but from the purest patriotism, for the highest good of every citizen, for the safety of the Republic, and as a spotless example to the nations of the earth.
In the often-repeated experiments of class and caste, who can count the nations that have risen only to fall? Don’t think you’re getting closer to justice by giving voting rights to just another group of men; by denying representation to women, you still hold on to the same principle that has caused all previous governments to fail. The right path, the safe path, is so clear; the path of duty is so straightforward and simple, that we who are equally invested in the outcome urge you to act not for the moment, not for temporary rewards, but to accomplish now the one significant act that will define the progress of this century—proclaim Equal Rights to All. We are pressing our demand for the ballot at this time not out of a narrow, petty, or selfish perspective; not out of disdain for the black man's rights, nor in opposition to you, who currently hold privileges in the progress of civilization; but out of the purest patriotism, for the greatest good of every citizen, for the safety of the Republic, and to serve as a flawless example to the nations of the world.
Mr. Beecher was followed by Wendell Phillips, Frances Dana Gage, Frances Watkins Harper; the Financial Committee[64] meantime passed through the audience for the material aid to carry forward the work. Miss Anthony presented the following resolution, and moved its adoption, which was seconded by Martha C. Wright:
Mr. Beecher was followed by Wendell Phillips, Frances Dana Gage, Frances Watkins Harper; the Financial Committee[64] meanwhile moved through the audience to gather the financial support needed to continue their work. Miss Anthony proposed the following resolution and moved for its adoption, which was seconded by Martha C. Wright:
Whereas, By the act of Emancipation and the Civil Rights bill, the negro and woman now hold the same civil and political status, alike needing only the ballot; and whereas the same arguments apply equally to both classes, proving all partial legislation fatal to republican institutions, therefore,
Whereas, through the Emancipation Act and the Civil Rights Bill, Black individuals and women now share the same civil and political status, both only needing the right to vote; and whereas the same arguments apply to both groups, demonstrating that any partial legislation threatens republican institutions, therefore,
Resolved, That the time has come for an organization that shall demand Universal Suffrage, and that hereafter we shall be known as the "American Equal Rights Association."
Resolved, That the time has come for an organization that will demand Universal Suffrage, and from now on we shall be known as the "American Equal Rights Association."
Miss Anthony said: Our friend Mrs. Mott desires me to explain the object of this change, which she would gladly do but for a severe cold, which prevents her from making herself heard. For twenty years we have pressed the claims of woman to the right of representation in the government. The first National Woman's Rights Convention was held in Worcester, Mass., in 1850, and each successive year conventions were held in different cities of the Free States—Worcester, Syracuse, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and New York—until the rebellion. Since then, till now, we have held no conventions. Up to this hour, we have looked to State action only for the recognition of our rights; but now, by[Pg 172] the results of the war, the whole question of suffrage reverts back to Congress and the U. S. Constitution. The duty of Congress at this moment is to declare what shall be the basis of representation in a republican form of government. There is, there can be, but one true basis; and that is that taxation must give representation; hence our demand must now go beyond woman—it must extend to the farthest bound of the principle of the "consent of the governed," as the only authorized or just government. We, therefore, wish to broaden our Woman's Rights platform, and make it in name—what it ever has been in spirit—a Human Rights platform. It has already been stated that we have petitioned Congress the past winter to so amend the Constitution as to prohibit disfranchisement on account of sex. We were roused to this work by the several propositions to prohibit negro disfranchisement in the rebel States, which at the same time put up a new bar against the enfranchisement of women. As women we can no longer seem to claim for ourselves what we do not for others—nor can we work in two separate movements to get the ballot for the two disfranchised classes—the negro and woman—since to do so must be at double cost of time, energy, and money.
Miss Anthony said: Our friend Mrs. Mott wants me to explain the reason for this change, which she would do herself if it weren't for a bad cold that makes it hard for her to be heard. For twenty years, we have stressed women's claims to the right to representation in government. The first National Woman's Rights Convention took place in Worcester, Mass., in 1850, and every year since, conventions have been held in different cities in the Free States—Worcester, Syracuse, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and New York—until the rebellion. Since then, we haven't held any conventions. Up until now, we have only looked to State action for recognition of our rights; but now, because of[Pg 172] the outcomes of the war, the entire issue of suffrage falls back to Congress and the U.S. Constitution. Congress's responsibility right now is to define what the basis of representation will be in a republican government. There's only one true basis for this: taxation must lead to representation; therefore, our demand must now extend beyond women—it needs to reach the fullest extent of the principle of the "consent of the governed," as the only legitimate or fair government. We want to expand our Women's Rights platform so that in name—it can reflect what it has always been in spirit—a Human Rights platform. We've already mentioned that we petitioned Congress this past winter to amend the Constitution to make sure no one is disenfranchised because of their sex. We were motivated to take this action by the various proposals to prevent the disenfranchisement of Black people in the rebel states, which at the same time created a new barrier against the enfranchisement of women. As women, we can no longer seem to claim rights for ourselves that we don't also claim for others—nor can we fight for two separate movements to gain the ballot for both disenfranchised groups—the Black community and women—since doing so would waste double the time, energy, and resources.
New York is to hold a Constitutional Convention the coming year. We want to make a thorough canvass of the entire State, with lectures, tracts, and petitions, and, if possible, create a public sentiment that shall send genuine Democrats and Republicans to that Convention who shall strike out from our Constitution the two adjectives "white male," giving to every citizen, over twenty-one, the right to vote, and thus make the Empire State the first example of a true republican form of government. And what we propose to do in New York, the coming eighteen months, we hope to do in every other State so soon as we can get the men, and the women, and the money, to go forward with the work. Therefore, that we may henceforth concentrate all our forces for the practical application of our one grand, distinctive, national idea—Universal Suffrage—I hope we will unanimously adopt the resolution before us, thus resolving this Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention into the "American Equal Rights Association."
New York will hold a Constitutional Convention next year. We want to thoroughly canvass the entire state with lectures, pamphlets, and petitions, and, if possible, create a public sentiment that will send genuine Democrats and Republicans to that Convention who will remove the adjectives "white male" from our Constitution, granting every citizen over twenty-one the right to vote, thus making the Empire State the first example of a true republican form of government. What we plan to do in New York over the next eighteen months, we hope to replicate in every other state as soon as we can gather the men, women, and funds to move forward with the work. Therefore, in order to concentrate all our efforts on the practical application of our one grand, distinctive national idea—Universal Suffrage—I hope we will unanimously adopt the resolution before us, thus transforming this Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention into the "American Equal Rights Association."
The Resolution was unanimously adopted.
The Resolution was unanimously adopted.
Stephen S. Foster said: I wish to suggest that it will be necessary, first, to adopt a form of Constitution, and that it is a very important question. Upon it will depend much of the success of our movement. We have been deeply thrilled by the eloquence of our friend, Mr. Beecher. We have all felt that his utterances were the essential truth of God; and the bright picture he drew before us is a possibility, if we do our duty. But this state of things will never be realized by us, unless it is from a united, persevering effort, giving a new impetus to the Woman's Rights movement. I think it necessary that we should have a more perfect organization than we can prepare this morning, at this late hour, and I therefore move that we adjourn to meet in the vestry this afternoon at four o'clock, to perfect an organization, and take such further measures for the prosecution of our cause as may then and there be deemed expedient. (The motion was carried.)
Stephen S. Foster said: I want to propose that we need to create a Constitution, and that’s a really important issue. A lot of the success of our movement will depend on it. We’ve been really inspired by the speeches from our friend, Mr. Beecher. We all felt that what he said was the essential truth from God; and the hopeful vision he painted for us is achievable if we do our part. However, we won’t reach this state unless we make a united, consistent effort to give new energy to the Woman's Rights movement. I believe it’s important for us to have a better organization than what we can put together this morning, given the late hour, so I propose that we adjourn and meet in the vestry this afternoon at four o'clock, to finalize our organization and take any further steps for advancing our cause that we find necessary. (The motion was carried.)
A large audience assembled in the Lecture-room, at four o'clock. Susan B. Anthony took the Chair and said, the first thing, in order to complete the new organization, would be to fix upon a form of Constitution. Parker Pillsbury, from the Business Committee, reported one which was considered article by article, and adopted. There was an interesting discussion relative to the necessity of a preamble, in which the majority sympathized with Lucretia Mott, who expressed herself specially desirous that there should be one, and that it should state the fact that this new organization was the outgrowth of the Woman's Rights movement. Mrs. Stanton gave her idea of what the preamble should be; and Mrs. Mott moved that Mrs. Stanton write out her thought, and that it be accepted as the preamble of the Constitution.[65] The motion was adopted. Miss[Pg 174] Anthony proposed a list of names as officers[66] of the Association. Mrs. Stanton thanked the Convention for the honor proposed, to make her President, but said she should prefer to see Lucretia Mott in that office; that thus that office might ever be held sacred in the memory that it had first been filled by one so loved and honored by all. "I shall be happy as Vice-President to relieve my dear friend of the arduous duties of her office, if she will but give us the blessing of her name as President." Mrs. Stanton then moved that Mrs. Mott be the President, which was seconded by many voices, and carried by a unanimous vote.
A large audience gathered in the lecture room at four o'clock. Susan B. Anthony took the chair and said that the first thing to do in order to finalize the new organization was to establish a constitution. Parker Pillsbury, from the Business Committee, presented one that was discussed and approved article by article. There was an engaging conversation about the need for a preamble, where most people agreed with Lucretia Mott, who expressed her strong desire for one that acknowledged this new organization as a continuation of the Woman's Rights movement. Mrs. Stanton shared her vision for the preamble, and Mrs. Mott proposed that Mrs. Stanton write it out and that it be accepted as the preamble of the Constitution. The motion was approved. Miss Anthony suggested a list of names for the officers of the Association. Mrs. Stanton expressed her gratitude for the honor of being nominated as President but stated that she would prefer to see Lucretia Mott in that role so that it would always be remembered as being held by someone so loved and respected by all. "I will be happy to serve as Vice-President to help my dear friend manage the demanding responsibilities of her position if she will bless us with her name as President." Mrs. Stanton then moved for Mrs. Mott to be the President, which was supported by many voices and unanimously passed.
Mrs. Mott, escorted to the Chair by Stephen S. Foster, remarked that her age and feebleness unfitted her for any public duties, but she rejoiced in the inauguration of a movement broad enough to cover class, color, and sex, and would be happy to give her name and influence, if thus she might encourage the young and strong to carry on the good work. On motion of Theodore Tilton, Mrs. Stanton was made first Vice-President. The rest of the names were approved.
Mrs. Mott, led to the Chair by Stephen S. Foster, said that her age and frailty made her unfit for any public duties, but she was excited about the start of a movement that was wide enough to include all classes, races, and genders. She would be glad to lend her name and support if it would encourage the young and strong to continue the important work. On Theodore Tilton's motion, Mrs. Stanton was appointed as the first Vice-President. The other names were also approved.
Mrs. Stanton said, It had been the desire of her heart to see the Anti-Slavery and Woman's Rights organizations merged into an Equal Rights Association, as the two questions were now one. With emancipation, all that the black man asks is the right of suffrage. With the special legislation of the last twenty years, all that woman asks is the right of suffrage. Hence it seems an unnecessary expenditure of force and substance for the same men and women to meet in convention on Tuesday to discuss the right of one class to the ballot, and on Thursday to discuss the right of another class to the same. Has not the time come, Mrs. President, to bury the black man and the woman in the citizen, and our two organizations in the broader work of reconstruction? They who have been trained in the school of anti-slavery; they who, for the last thirty years, have discussed the whole question of human rights, which involves every other question of trade, commerce, finance, political economy, jurisprudence, morals and religion, are the true statesmen for the new republic—the best enunciators of our future policy of justice and equality. Any work short of this is narrow and partial and fails to meet the requirements of the hour. What is so plain to me, may, I trust, be so to all before the lapse of many months, that all who have worked together thus far, may still stand side by side in this crisis of our nation's history.
Mrs. Stanton said it had always been her dream to see the Anti-Slavery and Women's Rights organizations come together as an Equal Rights Association, since the two issues are now one. With emancipation, all the black man wants is the right to vote. With the special laws of the past twenty years, all that women want is the right to vote. Therefore, it seems like an unnecessary use of energy and resources for the same men and women to gather on Tuesday to discuss one group's voting rights and then again on Thursday to discuss another group's rights to vote. Hasn't the time come, Mrs. President, to unify the black man and the woman within the citizen and merge our two organizations into the larger goal of reconstruction? Those who have been educated in the fight against slavery; those who have spent the last thirty years discussing the entire issue of human rights—which includes every other issue related to trade, commerce, finance, political economy, law, ethics, and religion—are the true leaders for the new republic and the best spokespeople for our future policy of justice and equality. Any effort short of this is limited and fails to meet the current needs. What seems so obvious to me, I hope will become clear to everyone before too long, so that all who have worked together so far can continue to stand united during this pivotal moment in our nation's history.
James Mott said, he rejoiced that the women had seen fit to re-organize[Pg 175] their movement into one for equal rights to all, that he felt the time had come to broaden our work. He felt the highest good of the nation demanded the recognition of woman as a citizen. We could have no true government until all the people gave their consent to the laws that govern them.
James Mott said he was glad that the women decided to restructure[Pg 175] their movement to focus on equal rights for everyone, and he believed it was time to expand our efforts. He felt that the greatest good for the nation required recognizing women as citizens. We couldn't have a genuine government until everyone consented to the laws that govern them.
Stephen S. Foster said, Many seemed to think that the one question for this hour was negro suffrage. The question for every man and woman, he thought, was the true basis of the reconstruction of our government, not the rights of woman, or the negro, but the rights of all men and women. Suffrage for woman was even a more vital question than for the negro; for in giving the ballot to the black man, we bring no new element into the national life—simply another class of men. And for one, he could not ask woman to go up and down the length and breadth of the land demanding the political recognition of any class of disfranchised citizens, while her own rights are ignored. Thank God, the human family are so linked together, that no one man can ever enjoy life, liberty, or happiness, so long as the humblest being is crippled in a single right. I have demanded the freedom of the slave the last thirty years, because he was a human being, and I now demand suffrage for the negro because he is a human being, and for the same reason I demand the ballot for woman. Therefore, our demand for this hour is equal suffrage to all disfranchised classes, for the one and the same reason—they are all human beings.
Stephen S. Foster said, Many people seemed to think that the main issue right now was Black suffrage. He believed that the real question for every man and woman was the genuine foundation of rebuilding our government—not just the rights of women or Black people, but the rights of all individuals. Women's suffrage was even more crucial than that of Black men; by granting the vote to Black men, we’re not adding anything new to the national landscape—just another group of men. Personally, he couldn’t ask women to travel across the country advocating for the political recognition of any class of disenfranchised citizens while their own rights are overlooked. Thank God, the human family is so interconnected that no one person can truly enjoy life, liberty, or happiness as long as the most disadvantaged individual is deprived of even one right. For the past thirty years, I have fought for the freedom of the slave because he is a human being, and now I demand suffrage for Black people because they are human beings, and for the same reason, I demand the vote for women. Therefore, our demand right now is equal suffrage for all disenfranchised classes, for one simple reason—they are all human beings.
Martha C. Wright said: Some one had remarked that we wished to merge ourselves into an Equal Rights Association to get rid of the odious name of Woman's Rights. This she repudiated as unworthy and untrue. Every good cause had been odious some time, even the name Christian has had its odium in all nations. We desire the change, because we feel that at this hour our highest claims are as citizens, and not as women. I for one have always gloried in the name of Woman's Rights, and pitied those of my sex who ignobly declared they had all the rights they wanted. We take the new name for the broader work because we see it is no longer woman's province to be merely a humble petitioner for redress of grievances, but that she must now enter into the fullness of her mission, that of helping to make the laws, and administer justice.
Martha C. Wright said: Someone had mentioned that we wanted to join an Equal Rights Association to ditch the unpleasant label of Woman's Rights. She rejected this as unworthy and untrue. Every noble cause has faced disdain at some point, even the term Christian has experienced its share of negativity in all nations. We want this change because we believe that right now, our most important claims are as citizens, not as women. Personally, I've always taken pride in the title of Woman's Rights and felt sorry for those of my gender who shamefully claimed they had all the rights they needed. We adopt the new name for the broader mission because we recognize that it's no longer just women's role to be a humble petitioner for justice; she must now fully embrace her mission, which includes helping to create laws and carry out justice.
Aaron M. Powell presented the following resolution:
Aaron M. Powell presented the following resolution:
Resolved, That in view of the Constitutional Convention to be held in the State of New York the coming year, it is the duty of this Association to demand such an amendment of the Constitution as shall secure equal rights to all citizens, without distinction of color, sex, or race.
Resolved, That in light of the Constitutional Convention taking place in New York State next year, this Association has the responsibility to advocate for an amendment to the Constitution that ensures equal rights for all citizens, regardless of color, gender, or race.
Miss Anthony seconded the resolution, and urged the importance of making a thorough canvass of the State with lectures, tracts, and petitions.[67] Mr. Powell, Mrs. Gage, and others, advocated the concentration[Pg 176] of all the energies of the Association for the coming year on the State of New York; after which the resolution was adopted.
Miss Anthony supported the resolution and emphasized the importance of doing a comprehensive campaign across the State with lectures, pamphlets, and petitions.[67] Mr. Powell, Mrs. Gage, and others promoted the idea of focusing all the Association's efforts for the upcoming year on the State of New York; following that, the resolution was passed.
Parker Pillsbury: Perhaps we ourselves do not appreciate the magnitude of the enterprise we are here to inaugurate. If successful, we close to-day one epoch in human history, and enter on another of results more millennial than have been seen before. We give now a new definition to the word Liberty. We clothe our divinity with new honors. The ancients worshiped in her temple, but to them all, even the devoutest, she was ever an "Unknown God." In all ages, men sing her praises, but know not her law. Our revolutionary fathers were blind as others—blinder than many others. They declared all men free and equal. They fought long and valiantly for their evangel, baptizing it in the blood of many battles, came home triumphant, and then constructed a despotism which their own immortal Jefferson declared was fraught with more woes in one hour, to myriads of its citizens, than would be endured in whole ages of the worst they themselves had ever known! That government they named a Republic. Under it we held millions of slaves, and were providing to hold many millions more, when God sent a thunderbolt and dashed it in pieces before our eyes and gave our slaves their freedom. Now our wise men and counselors, our statesmen and sages, are seeking how the government and Union may be reconstructed. But they are laying again false foundations. Of three immense classes, they proscribe two and provide for one; and that one perhaps a minority of the whole. Half our people are degraded for their sex; one-sixth for the color of their skin. And this is the republican and democratic definition of freedom. The ruling class boasts two qualities, in virtue of which it claims the right to rule all others. It is male, not female—white, not colored. For neither of these surely is it responsible. For being women and colored, the proscribed classes are no more responsible. A more cruel, unrighteous, unjust distinction was never made under heaven. By it we are driven into this new revolution; a revolution which is to eclipse all that have gone before, as far as the glories of Calvary outshone the shadows and terrors of Sinai. Even the Anti-Slavery Society can only demand equality for the male half of mankind. And the Woman's Rights movement contemplated only woman in its demand. But with us liberty means freedom, equality, and fraternity, irrespective of sex or complexion. It is a gospel that was unknown to the ancients; hidden even from the wise and prudent among our revolutionary fathers. Revolutionary mothers we seem never to have had. As in Eden, "Adam was first found, then Eve," so in our revolution; but Eve has come to-day, demanding her portion of the equal inheritance, a mystery, a wonder, a "new thing under the sun," the declaration of King Solomon to the contrary[Pg 177] notwithstanding. And here and to-day we lay new foundations. For the first time, law and liberty are to be founded in nature and the government of the moral universe. For the first time is it demanded that Justice be made our chief corner-stone. The ancient republics, not thus underpinned, fell. Our old foundations, too, are fallen. In God's wisdom, not in man's foolishness, let us henceforth build. And the work of our hands, feeble as we seem to-day, shall survive all the present kingdoms and dominions of the world.
Parker Pillsbury: Maybe we don't fully understand the significance of the venture we're about to start. If we succeed, we will close one chapter in human history today and open another that promises results more far-reaching than anything we've seen before. We are redefining Liberty. We are honoring our ideals in new ways. The ancients worshiped at her altar, but to them, even the most devoted, she was always an "Unknown God." Throughout history, people have sung her praises but have never fully understood her laws. Our revolutionary forefathers were as blind as anyone—perhaps even more so than many. They proclaimed that all men are free and equal. They fought hard and courageously for this ideal, shedding blood in many battles, returned home as victors, and then built a government that their own revered Jefferson said caused more suffering in one hour for countless citizens than they had endured in whole ages of their worst experiences! They called that government a Republic. Under it, we held millions of slaves and were prepared to enslave millions more until God struck, shattering it before our eyes and granting freedom to our slaves. Now, our wise leaders and thinkers, our politicians and philosophers, are working to rebuild the government and the Union. But they are once again laying false foundations. Of three huge groups, they exclude two and only cater to one, which may be just a minority. Half of our people are degraded because of their gender; one-sixth face discrimination because of their skin color. And this is the republican and democratic definition of freedom. The ruling class boasts two characteristics that it claims grant them the right to rule all others: they are male, not female—white, not colored. Neither group can truly hold responsibility for these characteristics, just as the excluded groups cannot be held accountable for being women or people of color. A more cruel, unfair, and unjust distinction has never been made under heaven. This is what drives us into a new revolution; a revolution that will outshine all previous ones, just as the triumphs of Calvary eclipse the shadows and fears of Sinai. Even the Anti-Slavery Society is limited to demanding equality for the male half of humanity. The Woman's Rights movement has only focused on women in its requests. But for us, liberty means freedom, equality, and brotherhood, regardless of sex or race. This is a gospel that the ancients didn't know; hidden even from the wise and prudent among our revolutionary fathers. It seems we've never had revolutionary mothers. Just like in Eden, "Adam was created first, then Eve," so it is with our revolution; but today, Eve has come forward, claiming her share of the equal inheritance, a mystery, a wonder, a "new thing under the sun," despite King Solomon's declaration to the contrary[Pg 177]. And here and now we lay new foundations. For the first time, law and liberty are to be grounded in nature and the governance of the moral universe. For the first time, we demand that Justice be our primary cornerstone. The ancient republics, lacking this support, fell. Our old foundations have crumbled too. Let us build from God's wisdom, not man's folly. Although our efforts may seem weak today, the work we do will endure beyond all current kingdoms and dominions of the world.
Miss Anthony remarked that Theodore Tilton was in the house, and had not yet spoken. She would like to hear his opinion.
Miss Anthony mentioned that Theodore Tilton was in the house and hadn't spoken yet. She wanted to hear what he thought.
Mr. Tilton replied that of course Miss Anthony was speaking in pleasantry when she thus ingeniously pretended not to know his opinion. This pretense was only a piece of strategy to compel him to make a speech. Both she and he had lately been co-workers in a local association for just such a purpose as to-day's enterprise meditated—"The New York Equal Rights Association," of which he had had the honor to be president, and Miss Anthony to be secretary—an association which both its secretary and its president were only too glad to see superseded by a larger and more general movement. The apple tree bears more blossoms which fall off than come to fruit. Our local association was the necessary first blossom which had to be blown away by the wind. No—he would rather say it was a blossom which had ripened to-day into golden fruit. And now, said he, in this consecrated house, at this sunset hour, amid these falling shadows, with a president in the chair whose well-spent life has been crowned with every virtue, let us make a covenant with each other such as was made by the original members of the American Anti-Slavery Society—a mutual pledge of diligent and earnest labor, not for the abolition of chattel slavery, but for the political rights of all classes, without regard to color or sex. Are we only a handful? We are more than formed the Anti-Slavery Society—which grew into a force that shook the nation. Who knows but that to-night we are laying the corner-stone of an equally grand movement? Let us, therefore, catch at this moment the cheering pretoken of the prophecy that declares, "At evening time there shall be light!"
Mr. Tilton replied that, of course, Miss Anthony was joking when she cleverly pretended not to know his opinion. This act was just a tactic to get him to speak. Both of them had recently worked together in a local association for the very purpose of today's initiative—"The New York Equal Rights Association," of which he had the honor of being president and Miss Anthony the secretary—an association that both its secretary and its president were eager to see replaced by a larger, more comprehensive movement. The apple tree produces more blossoms that fall off than those that bear fruit. Our local association was the essential first blossom that had to be swept away by the wind. No—he would rather say it was a blossom that has ripened today into golden fruit. And now, he said, in this sacred space, at this sunset hour, amidst these casting shadows, with a president in the chair whose well-lived life has been filled with every virtue, let us make a promise to each other similar to the agreement made by the original members of the American Anti-Slavery Society—a shared commitment to diligent and earnest work, not for the abolition of chattel slavery, but for the political rights of all people, regardless of color or gender. Are we just a small group? We are more than those who formed the Anti-Slavery Society, which grew into a force that shook the nation. Who knows if tonight we are laying the foundation for an equally significant movement? Let us, therefore, seize this moment as a hopeful sign of the prophecy that says, "At evening time there shall be light!"
A motion was made to adjourn, when the President, Lucretia Mott, made a few closing remarks, showing that all great achievements in the progress of the race must be slow, and were ever wrought out by the few, in isolation and ridicule—but, said she, let us remember in our trials and discouragements, that if our lives are true, we walk with angels—the great and good who have gone before us, and God is our Father. As she uttered her few parting words of benediction, the fading sunlight through the stained windows, fell upon her pure face, a celestial glory seemed about her, and a sweet and peaceful influence pervaded every heart. And all responded to Theodore Tilton when he said, "this closing meeting of the Convention was one of the most beautiful, delightful, and memorable which any of its participants ever enjoyed."[Pg 178]
A motion was made to adjourn, and the President, Lucretia Mott, shared a few closing thoughts, emphasizing that all major achievements in the progress of humanity take time and are usually accomplished by a few individuals, often facing isolation and ridicule. But, she said, let's remember that during our struggles and discouragements, if we live truthfully, we walk with angels—the great and good who have come before us, and God is our Father. As she expressed her final words of blessing, the fading sunlight filtering through the stained glass windows illuminated her pure face, creating a celestial aura around her, and a sweet, peaceful feeling filled every heart. Everyone agreed with Theodore Tilton when he remarked, "this final meeting of the Convention was one of the most beautiful, delightful, and memorable experiences for any of its participants." [Pg 178]
The Convention adjourned to meet in Boston May 31, 1866, where a large, enthusiastic meeting was held, of which we find the following report by Charles K. Whipple.
The Convention ended and agreed to reconvene in Boston on May 31, 1866, where a big, enthusiastic meeting took place, and we have the following report by Charles K. Whipple.
From the National Anti-Slavery Standard of June 9, 1866.
From the National Anti-Slavery Standard of June 9, 1866.
The meeting next in interest as in time, among the crowded assemblies of Anniversary week, was that of the Equal Rights Association, called and managed by those intelligent and excellent women who have for years labored in behalf of Woman's Rights. A large portion of the community have been accustomed to sneer at these ladies as self-seeking and fanatical. The new position they have taken shows, on the contrary, the largeness of their views, the breadth of their sympathy, and the practical good sense which govern their operations. Their proceedings show their full appreciation of the fact that the rights of men and the rights of women must stand or fall together.
The next important meeting during Anniversary week was the Equal Rights Association, organized and run by those smart and dedicated women who have worked for years to promote Women’s Rights. Many people in the community have mockingly regarded these women as self-serving and radical. However, the new stance they’ve taken reveals the depth of their perspectives, the extent of their empathy, and the common sense that guides their actions. Their activities demonstrate their complete understanding that the rights of men and the rights of women are interconnected and must rise or fall together.
Mrs. Dall called the meeting to order, and introduced as its president, Martha C. Wright, of Auburn, N. Y., in the absence of Lucretia Mott, the president of the Association. Mrs. Wright made some well-chosen introductory remarks; Miss Susan B. Anthony read letters of friendly greeting from Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison, and then a very admirable report was read by Mrs. Dall, summing up the advance made in the woman's cause the past year.... The freedom of the platform was an admirable feature of this Convention. Early in the proceedings it was announced that any member of the audience, male or female, was entitled to speak on the topics under debate, and would be made welcome. Among those who addressed the Convention were Parker Pillsbury, Henry C. Wright, Aaron M. Powell, Dr. Sarah Young, Rev. Olympia Brown (minister of a church at Weymouth), Susan B. Anthony, Stephen S. Foster, Mr. Tooker, Ira Stewart, Charles C. Burleigh, Wendell Phillips, Frances Ellen Harper, Anna E. Dickinson. The mention of these names is enough to indicate that there was abundance of good speaking. No time was lost, and the hours of three sessions were pleasantly and profitably filled.
Mrs. Dall called the meeting to order and introduced Martha C. Wright from Auburn, N.Y., as president, since Lucretia Mott, the president of the Association, was absent. Mrs. Wright made some thoughtful opening remarks; Miss Susan B. Anthony read letters of warm greetings from Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison, and then Mrs. Dall delivered an impressive report summarizing the progress made in the women's cause over the past year.... The freedom of speech was an excellent aspect of this Convention. Early on, it was announced that anyone in the audience, regardless of gender, could speak on the topics being discussed and would be welcomed. Among those who spoke at the Convention were Parker Pillsbury, Henry C. Wright, Aaron M. Powell, Dr. Sarah Young, Rev. Olympia Brown (a minister from Weymouth), Susan B. Anthony, Stephen S. Foster, Mr. Tooker, Ira Stewart, Charles C. Burleigh, Wendell Phillips, Frances Ellen Harper, and Anna E. Dickinson. Just mentioning these names shows that there was no shortage of great speeches. No time was wasted, and the three sessions were filled with engaging and productive discussions.
Mr. Pillsbury said the word "male," as a restriction upon the action of women, is unknown to the Federal Constitution, as well as the word "black," and that its introduction into that document should be resisted in the most strenuous manner, since we can never have a true democracy while the work of government is monopolized by a privileged class.... Wendell Phillips, admitting that the suffrage is the great question of the hour, thought, nevertheless, that in view of the peculiar circumstances of the negro's position, his claim to this right might fairly be considered to have precedence.... This hour, then, is preëminently the property of the negro. Nevertheless, said Mr. Phillips, I willingly stand here to plead the woman's cause, because the Republican party are seeking to carry their purpose by newly introducing the word "male" into the Constitution. To prevent such a corruption of the National Constitution, as well as for the general welfare of the community, male and female, I wish to excite interest everywhere in the maintenance[Pg 179] of woman's right to vote. This woman's meeting was well conducted, and met with success in every way.....
Mr. Pillsbury argued that the term "male," used to limit the rights of women, doesn’t appear in the Federal Constitution, just like the word "black," and that adding it to the document should be fought against vigorously, as we can never achieve true democracy while a privileged class holds all the power of government. Wendell Phillips, while acknowledging that suffrage is the major issue of our time, believed that given the unique situation of African Americans, their claim to this right should take priority. Therefore, this moment primarily belongs to the African American community. However, Phillips stated that he is here to advocate for women’s rights, as the Republican Party is trying to push their agenda by inserting the word "male" into the Constitution. To prevent this distortion of the National Constitution, and for the overall well-being of everyone, both men and women, I want to raise awareness everywhere about maintaining women's right to vote. This women’s meeting was well-organized and successful in every aspect.
Frances D. Gage, in a letter to the National Anti-Slavery Standard, May 26, 1866, speaking of her attendance of the anniversary meetings in New York, said: "If the Anti-Slavery work has fallen somewhat behind our hope, that of the Woman's Rights movement has far outstripped our most sanguine expectations. When the war-cry was heard in 1861, the advance-guard of the Woman's Rights party cried 'halt!' And for five years we have stood waiting while the grand drama of the Rebellion was passing. Not as idle spectators, but as the busiest and most unwearied actors on the boards. We have, as our manly men assert, fought half the battle, and helped to win the victory.
Frances D. Gage, in a letter to the National Anti-Slavery Standard, May 26, 1866, talking about her experience at the anniversary meetings in New York, said: "If the Anti-Slavery movement has fallen a bit short of our hopes, the Woman's Rights movement has completely exceeded our wildest expectations. When the call to action was sounded in 1861, the pioneers of the Woman's Rights party said 'stop!' And for five years, we have been waiting while the great drama of the Rebellion unfolded. Not as passive onlookers, but as the most active and tireless participants. We have, as our brave men assert, fought half the battle and contributed to the victory."
"Wendell Phillips said, 'Women made this war!' By the same process of reasoning women may claim that 'they made the peace,' that 'they broke the chains of the slave, and redeemed the land from its most direful curse.' Be this true or otherwise, one fact is patent to every mind—woman to-day is an acknowledged power! And when we met at the Church of the Puritans last week, we found Woman's Rights filling its halls and galleries as never before; with a Beecher and a Tilton to defend our cause, but not one sneerer or opposer to open his or her lips. Who now will dare call us 'infidels,' since Bishop Simpson, Henry Ward Beecher, and Dr. Tyng champion our cause, and proclaim it 'woman's duty to vote for the good of humanity'? Who will now dare sneer while the leading minds of Europe—among them Ruskin, John Stuart Mill, Mazzini, Victor Hugo—must share the odium with those hitherto called 'strong-minded?'
"Wendell Phillips said, 'Women made this war!' By the same reasoning, women can assert that 'they made the peace,' that 'they broke the chains of the slave, and redeemed the land from its most terrible curse.' Whether this is true or not, one thing is clear to everyone—women today are a recognized force! When we gathered at the Church of the Puritans last week, we saw Woman's Rights filling its halls and galleries like never before; with a Beecher and a Tilton supporting our cause, but not a single person to sneer or oppose us. Who will now dare call us 'infidels,' since Bishop Simpson, Henry Ward Beecher, and Dr. Tyng advocate for us, declaring it 'women's duty to vote for the good of humanity'? Who will now dare scoff while the leading thinkers of Europe—among them Ruskin, John Stuart Mill, Mazzini, Victor Hugo—share the disdain with those previously labeled 'strong-minded?'"
"It was with pain that I heard Wendell Phillips say on our platform, 'Albany can not help you; your throne is the world of fashion!'—meaning women. If we are given over to fashion, frivolity, and vice, does it follow that rights and privileges, duties and responsibilities will not help us? If just governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and taxation without representation is tyranny, then Albany can help us in just so much as a good and just government will help the people who live under its rules and laws. No one would at this day, if a friend to the negro, say to him, 'A vote can not help you!' Then why say it to women?
"It was painful to hear Wendell Phillips say on our platform, 'Albany can’t help you; your throne is the world of fashion!'—referring to women. If we are caught up in fashion, frivolity, and vice, does that mean that rights and privileges, duties and responsibilities won’t help us? If just governments get their power from the consent of the governed, and taxation without representation is tyranny, then Albany can help us just as much as a good and just government will help the people living under its rules and laws. No one today, if they care about Black people, would say to them, 'A vote can't help you!' So why say it to women?"
"Our Woman's Rights Convention has now taken the broad platform of 'Equal Rights,' and upon that will work in time to come. And our meeting in New York seemed proof—if proof was wanting—that all we need now is to ask and receive. Our worst enemy, our greatest hindrance, is woman herself; and her indifference is the legitimate result of long-denied privileges and responsibilities of which she has not learned the necessity. If, as Mr. Beecher asserted, 'to vote is a duty,' then it is the duty of every man and woman to work to secure that right to every human being of adult years.
"Our Women's Rights Convention has now embraced the broader goal of 'Equal Rights,' and we will focus on that in the future. Our meeting in New York seemed to show—if any proof was needed—that all we have to do now is ask and receive. Our biggest enemy, our greatest obstacle, is woman herself; and her indifference is a natural result of long-ignored rights and responsibilities that she hasn't learned to value. If, as Mr. Beecher stated, 'voting is a duty,' then it is the responsibility of every man and woman to work towards securing that right for every adult."
"Since our meeting, the House of Representatives at Washington has passed, by more than three to one, the amendment of the Reconstruction Committee. If the Senate concurs, then, to save the four million negroes of the South, or rather to save the Republican party (the people[Pg 180] agreeing), seventeen millions of women, governed without their own consent, are proclaimed a disfranchised class by the Constitution of the United States, hitherto unpolluted by any such legislation. Let us, then, work for this, too, that seventeen million women shall not be left without the power considered so necessary to the negro for his preservation and protection; the power to help govern himself. Let us never forget his claim, but strengthen it, by not neglecting our own."
"Since our meeting, the House of Representatives in Washington has passed the amendment from the Reconstruction Committee by more than a three-to-one margin. If the Senate agrees, then, to protect the four million Black people in the South, or rather to safeguard the Republican party (with the people agreeing), seventeen million women, governed without their consent, are declared a disenfranchised class by the Constitution of the United States, which has never been tainted by such legislation before. So, let’s also strive for this: that seventeen million women are not left without the power considered crucial for Black people’s preservation and protection; the power to help govern themselves. Let’s never forget their claim, but strengthen it by not neglecting our own."
At the November election of this year, Mrs. Stanton offered herself as a candidate for Congress; in order to test the constitutional right of a woman to run for office. This aroused some discussion on this phase of the question, and many were surprised to learn that while women could not vote, they could hold any office in which their constituents might see fit to place them. Theodore Tilton gives the following graphic description of this event in "The Eminent Women":
At the November election this year, Mrs. Stanton put herself forward as a candidate for Congress to test whether a woman has the constitutional right to run for office. This sparked some discussions on this topic, and many were surprised to find out that while women couldn't vote, they could hold any position that their constituents decided to give them. Theodore Tilton provides this vivid description of the event in "The Eminent Women":
In a cabinet of curiosities I have laid away as an interesting relic, a little white ballot, two inches square, and inscribed:
In a cabinet of curiosities, I have set aside an intriguing relic: a small white ballot, measuring two inches square, and marked:
For Representative to Congress,
ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.Mrs. Stanton is the only woman in the United States who, as yet, has been a candidate for Congress. In conformity with a practice prevalent in some parts of this country, and very prevalent in England, she nominated herself. The public letter in which she proclaimed herself a candidate was as follows:
Mrs. Stanton is the only woman in the United States who has, so far, run for Congress. Following a practice common in some areas of this country and quite common in England, she nominated herself. The public letter in which she announced her candidacy was as follows:
To the Electors of the Eighth Congressional District:
To the Voters of the Eighth Congressional District:
Although, by the Constitution of the State of New York woman is denied the elective franchise, yet she is eligible to office; therefore, I present myself to you as a candidate for Representative to Congress. Belonging to a disfranchised class, I have no political antecedents to recommend me to your support,—but my creed is free speech, free press, free men, and free trade,—the cardinal points of democracy. Viewing all questions from the stand-point of principle rather than expediency, there is a fixed uniform law, as yet unrecognized by either of the leading parties, governing alike the social and political life of men and nations. The Republican party has occasionally a clear vision of personal rights, though in its protective policy it seems wholly blind to the rights of property and interests of commerce; while it recognizes the duty of benevolence between man and man, it teaches the narrowest selfishness in trade between nations. The Democrats, on the contrary, while holding sound and liberal principles on trade and commerce, have ever in their political affiliations maintained the idea of class and caste among men—an idea wholly at variance with the genius of our free institutions and fatal to high civilization. One party fails at one point and one at another.[Pg 181]
Although the Constitution of the State of New York denies women the right to vote, they are still eligible for office; therefore, I present myself to you as a candidate for Representative to Congress. As someone from a disfranchised group, I don’t have any political background to earn your support—but my beliefs are in free speech, free press, free men, and free trade—the core principles of democracy. Looking at all issues from a principled perspective instead of a pragmatic one, there is a consistent law that has not yet been recognized by either of the major parties, which governs both the social and political lives of individuals and nations. The Republican party sometimes clearly sees personal rights, but their protective policies often ignore property rights and commercial interests; while they acknowledge the responsibility of kindness among people, they promote the narrowest form of selfishness in international trade. On the other hand, while the Democrats endorse sound and progressive principles regarding trade and commerce, their political alignments have perpetuated the concept of class and caste among people—an idea that contradicts the essence of our free institutions and is detrimental to advanced civilization. One party stumbles in one area, and the other in another.[Pg 181]
In asking your suffrages—believing alike in free men and free trade—I could not represent either party as now constituted. Nevertheless, as an Independent Candidate, I desire an election at this time, as a rebuke to the dominant party for its retrogressive legislation in so amending the National Constitution as to make invidious distinctions on the ground of sex. That instrument recognizes as persons all citizens who obey the laws and support the State, and if the Constitutions of the several States were brought into harmony with the broad principles of the Federal Constitution, the women of the Nation would no longer be taxed without representation, or governed without their consent. Not one word should be added to that great charter of rights to the insult or injury of the humblest of our citizens. I would gladly have a voice and vote in the Fortieth Congress to demand universal suffrage, that thus a republican form of government might be secured to every State in the Union.
In seeking your support—believing in both free individuals and free trade—I can't represent either party as they currently are. However, as an Independent Candidate, I want an election now to send a message to the dominant party for its backward legislation that changes the National Constitution to create unfair distinctions based on gender. That document recognizes all citizens who follow the laws and support the State as individuals, and if the State constitutions were aligned with the broad principles of the Federal Constitution, women across the Nation wouldn't be taxed without representation or governed without their agreement. No additional wording should be added to that great charter of rights that insults or harms even the least of our citizens. I would gladly have a voice and vote in the Fortieth Congress to advocate for universal suffrage, ensuring that every State in the Union has a republican form of government.
If the party now in the ascendency makes its demand for "Negro Suffrage" in good faith, on the ground of natural right, and because the highest good of the State demands that the republican idea be vindicated, on no principle of justice or safety can the women of the nation be ignored. In view of the fact that the Freedmen of the South and the millions of foreigners now crowding our shores, most of whom represent neither property, education, nor civilization, are all in the progress of events to be enfranchised, the best interests of the nation demand that we outweigh this incoming pauperism, ignorance, and degradation, with the wealth, education, and refinement of the women of the republic. On the high ground of safety to the Nation, and justice to citizens, I ask your support in the coming election.
If the party that's currently in power genuinely demands "Negro Suffrage" based on natural rights and because the greatest benefit to the State requires the affirmation of republican principles, then there’s no justification for ignoring the women of the nation. Considering that the Freedmen in the South and the millions of immigrants arriving at our shores, most of whom lack property, education, or social development, are on the path to being granted voting rights, the best interests of the nation call for us to balance this influx of poverty, ignorance, and decline with the wealth, education, and sophistication of the women of the republic. On the basis of promoting national safety and justice for all citizens, I ask for your support in the upcoming election.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
New York, Oct. 10, 1866.
New York, Oct. 10, 1866.
The New York Herald, though, of course, with no sincerity, since that journal is never sincere in anything—warmly advocated Mrs. Stanton's election. "A lady of fine presence and accomplishments in the House of Representatives," it said (and said truly), "would wield a wholesome influence over the rough and disorderly elements of that body." The Anti-Slavery Standard, with genuine commendation, said: "The electors of the Eighth District would honor themselves and do well by the country in giving her a triumphant election." The other candidates in the same district were Mr. James Brooks, Democrat, and Mr. Le Grand B. Cannon, Republican. The result of the election was as follows: Mr. Brooks received 13,816 votes, Mr. Cannon 8,210, and Mrs. Stanton 24. It will be seen that the number of sensible people in the district was limited! The excellent lady, in looking back upon her successful defeat, regrets only that she did not, before it became too late, procure the photographs of her two dozen unknown friends.[68]
The New York Herald, though, of course, without any sincerity, since that paper is never honest about anything—strongly supported Mrs. Stanton's election. "A woman of great presence and skills in the House of Representatives," it noted (and accurately), "would have a positive impact on the rough and unruly elements of that group." The Anti-Slavery Standard, with genuine praise, stated: "The voters in the Eighth District would do themselves proud and benefit the country by electing her in a landslide." The other candidates in the same district were Mr. James Brooks, Democrat, and Mr. Le Grand B. Cannon, Republican. The election results were as follows: Mr. Brooks received 13,816 votes, Mr. Cannon 8,210, and Mrs. Stanton 24. It’s clear that the number of reasonable people in the district was limited! The distinguished lady, reflecting on her notable defeat, only wishes she had gotten photos of her two dozen unknown supporters before it was too late.[68]
The years of 1866 and '67 were marked by unusual activity among the friends of this movement in both England and America. John Stuart Mill, a member of Parliament, proposed an amendment to the "Household Suffrage Bill," by striking out the word "man," sustained by many able speeches, which finally carried the measure triumphantly there. New York held a Constitutional Convention, Michigan a Commission, and Kansas submitted the proposition of woman suffrage to a vote of her people. Twenty thousand petitions were rolled up and presented in the Constitutional Convention, asking that the word "male" be stricken from Article II, sec. 1, and as many more were poured into Congress and the Legislatures of several of the States. A series of conventions, commencing in Albany, were held in all the chief cities of New York.[69]
The years 1866 and '67 saw a surge of activity among supporters of this movement in both England and America. John Stuart Mill, a member of Parliament, proposed an amendment to the "Household Suffrage Bill," removing the word "man," and backed it with many strong speeches, ultimately leading to the successful passage of the measure. New York held a Constitutional Convention, Michigan formed a Commission, and Kansas put the question of woman suffrage to a vote among its citizens. Twenty thousand petitions were collected and presented at the Constitutional Convention, requesting the removal of the word "male" from Article II, sec. 1, with as many more submitted to Congress and the Legislatures of several states. A series of conventions began in Albany and were held in all the major cities of New York.[69]
THE AMERICAN EQUAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
The labors of this year are well rounded out with a grand National Convention,[70] during Anniversary week, in New York, which[Pg 183] assembled at the Church of the Puritans, May 9th, 1867, at 10 o'clock a.m. Elizabeth Cady Stanton called the meeting to order and said: "In the absence of our venerable President (Lucretia Mott), Robert Purvis, one of the Vice-Presidents, will take the chair."
The efforts of this year culminate in a significant National Convention,[70] during Anniversary week in New York. It gathered at the Church of the Puritans on May 9th, 1867, at 10 o'clock a.m. Elizabeth Cady Stanton opened the meeting and stated, "Since our esteemed President (Lucretia Mott) is not here, Robert Purvis, one of the Vice-Presidents, will take the chair."
Mr. Purvis said: I regret the absence of Mrs. Mott. It is needless to say that no one has higher claims upon the nation's gratitude for what has been accomplished in the glorious work of Anti-Slavery, and for what is now being accomplished in the still greater, because more comprehensive work for freedom contemplated by this Society, than our honored and beloved President, Lucretia Mott. (Applause). It is with no ordinary feelings that I congratulate the friends of this Association on the healthful, hopeful, animating, inspiring signs of the times. Our simple yet imperative demand, founded upon a just conception of the true idea of our republican government, is equality of rights for all, without regard to color, sex, or race; and, inseparable from the citizen, the possession of that power, that protection, that primal element of republican freedom—the ballot.
Mr. Purvis said: I regret that Mrs. Mott is not here. It goes without saying that no one deserves the nation’s gratitude more for the amazing achievements in the Anti-Slavery movement and for the even greater, broader efforts for freedom that this Society is now pursuing than our esteemed and beloved President, Lucretia Mott. (Applause). I am genuinely pleased to congratulate the supporters of this Association on the encouraging, hopeful, motivating signs of our times. Our straightforward yet essential demand, based on a fair understanding of the true idea of our republican government, is equal rights for everyone, regardless of color, gender, or race; and, essential to being a citizen, the right to that power, that protection, that fundamental element of republican freedom—the ballot.
Lucretia Mott here entered the hall, and, at the request of Mr. Purvis, took the chair, and called for the Secretary's Report.
Lucretia Mott entered the hall and, at Mr. Purvis's request, took the chair and asked for the Secretary's Report.
Susan B. Anthony said: It is my duty to present to you at this time a written Report of all that has been done during the past year; but those of us who have been active in this movement, have been so occupied in doing the work, that no one has found time to chronicle the progress of events. With but half a dozen live men and women, to canvass the State of New York, to besiege the Legislature and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention with tracts and petitions, to write letters and send documents to every State Legislature that has moved on this question, to urge Congress to its highest duty in the reconstruction, by both public and private appeals, has been a work that has taxed every energy and dollar at our command. Money being the vital power of all movements—the wood and water of the engine—and, as our work through the past winter has been limited only by the want of it, there is no difficulty in reporting on finance. The receipts of our Association, during the year, have amounted to $4,096.78; the expenditures, for lectures and conventions, for printing and circulating tracts and documents, to $4,714.11—leaving us in debt $617.33.
Susan B. Anthony said: It’s my responsibility to give you a written report of everything that has been done over the past year. However, those of us who have been actively involved in this movement have been so busy with the work that none of us has had the time to document our progress. With just a handful of dedicated men and women working to canvas the State of New York, pressure the Legislature and delegates at the Constitutional Convention with pamphlets and petitions, write letters, and send documents to every State Legislature addressing this issue, and urging Congress to fulfill its duty during the reconstruction through both public and private appeals, we have pushed ourselves to the limit of our energy and resources. Since funding is crucial for all movements—the fuel that drives the engine—and because our efforts over the past winter have only been restrained by a lack of it, there is no issue in reporting our financial status. The total income for our Association this year has been $4,096.78; the expenditures for lectures, conventions, printing, and distributing pamphlets and documents have reached $4,714.11—leaving us with a debt of $617.33.
The Secretary then rapidly rehearsed the signs of progress. She spoke of the discussion in the United States Senate on the Suffrage bill, through three entire days, resulting in a vote of nine Senators in favor of extending[Pg 184] suffrage to the women as well as black men of the District of Columbia; of the action of the Legislatures of Kansas and Wisconsin to strike the words "white male" from their constitutions; of the discussions and minority votes in the Legislatures of Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Missouri; of the addresses of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucy Stone before the Judiciary Committees of the New York and New Jersey Legislatures; of the demand for household suffrage by the women of England, earnestly maintained by John Stuart Mill in the British Parliament—all showing that the public mind everywhere is awake on this question of equal rights to all. Every mail brings urgent requests from the West for articles for their papers, for lectures and tracts on the question of suffrage. In Kansas they are planning mass conventions, to be held throughout the State through September and October; and they urge us to send out at least a dozen able men and women, with 100,000 tracts, to help them educate the people into the grand idea of universal suffrage, that they may carry the State at the November election.
The Secretary quickly went over the signs of progress. She talked about the discussion in the United States Senate on the Suffrage bill, which took three full days, resulting in a vote of nine Senators in favor of extending[Pg 184] suffrage to women as well as black men in the District of Columbia; the actions taken by the Legislatures of Kansas and Wisconsin to remove the words “white male” from their constitutions; the discussions and minority votes in the Legislatures of Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Missouri; the presentations by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucy Stone before the Judiciary Committees of the New York and New Jersey Legislatures; and the demand for household suffrage by women in England, passionately supported by John Stuart Mill in the British Parliament—all demonstrating that public awareness everywhere is engaged on this issue of equal rights for all. Every mail brings urgent requests from the West for articles for their papers, for lectures and pamphlets on the issue of suffrage. In Kansas, they are organizing mass conventions to be held across the State during September and October, and they are urging us to send out at least a dozen skilled men and women, along with 100,000 pamphlets, to help educate people on the important idea of universal suffrage, so they can carry the State in the November election.
Two of our agents, Lucy Stone and Henry B. Blackwell, are already in Kansas, speaking in all her towns and cities—in churches, school-houses, barns, and the open air; traveling night and day, by railroad, stage, and ox-cart; scaling the rocky divides, and fording the swollen rivers—their hearts all aglow with enthusiasm, greeted everywhere by crowded audiences, brave men and women, ready to work for the same principles for which they have suffered in the past, that Kansas, the young and beautiful hero of the West, may be the first State in the Union to realize a genuine Republic. The earnest, loyal people of Kansas have resolved to teach the nation to-day the true principle of reconstruction, as they taught the nation, twelve years ago, the one and only way in which to escape from the chains of slavery. They ask us to help them. So do Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and New York. But for this vast work, as I have already shown you, we have an empty treasury. We ask you to replenish it. If you will but give your money generously—if you will but oil the machinery—this Association will gladly do the work that shall establish universal suffrage, equal rights to all, in every State in the Union.
Two of our agents, Lucy Stone and Henry B. Blackwell, are already in Kansas, speaking in all her towns and cities—in churches, schools, barns, and outdoors; traveling day and night by train, coach, and ox-cart; climbing rocky hills and crossing swollen rivers—their hearts full of enthusiasm, welcomed everywhere by large audiences of brave men and women, ready to fight for the same principles for which they’ve suffered in the past, so that Kansas, the young and beautiful hero of the West, can be the first state in the Union to achieve a true Republic. The dedicated and loyal people of Kansas have decided to show the nation today the real principle of rebuilding, just as they taught the nation twelve years ago the only way to break free from the chains of slavery. They are asking for our help. So are Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and New York. But for this massive task, as I’ve already pointed out, we have an empty treasury. We are asking you to fill it. If you will kindly donate your money generously—if you will simply help get things moving—this Association will gladly do the work that will establish universal suffrage and equal rights for everyone in every state in the Union.
The President (Mrs. Mott) said: The report which we have had, although not written, is most interesting. A great deal of it is new to me. There are so many actively engaged in the cause, that it is fitting that some of us older ones should give place to them. That is the natural order, and every natural order is divine and beautiful. Therefore, I feel glad of the privilege—although my filling the office of President has been a mere nominal thing—to withdraw from the chair and to yield the place to our friend Robert Purvis, one of our Vice-Presidents. The cause is dear to my heart, and has been from my earliest days. Being a native of the island of Nantucket, where women were thought something of, and had some connection with the business arrangements of life, as well as with their homes, I grew up so thoroughly imbued with woman's rights that it was the most important question of my life from a very early day. I hail this more public movement for its advocacy, and have been glad that I had strength enough to co-operate to some extent. I have attended most of the regular meetings, and I now feel almost ashamed, old as I am,[Pg 185] to be so ignorant of what has happened during the last year. We need a paper—an organ that shall keep those who can not mingle actively in our public labors better informed. The Standard has done much; and I find in many other papers a disposition to do justice, to a great extent, to our cause. It is not ridiculed as it was in the beginning. We do not have the difficulties, the opposition, and the contumely to confront that we had at an early day. I am very glad to find such an audience here to-day; and far be it from me to occupy the time so as to prevent Mr. May, Mr. Burleigh, and others, from having their proper place.
The President (Mrs. Mott) said: The report we received, even though it wasn’t written down, is really interesting. There’s a lot in it that’s new to me. So many people are actively involved in this cause that it makes sense for those of us who are older to step aside. That's the natural order, and every natural order is both divine and beautiful. So, I’m glad to have the opportunity—though my role as President has mostly been just a title—to step down and hand over the position to our friend Robert Purvis, one of our Vice-Presidents. This cause is very dear to me and has been since I was young. Growing up on Nantucket, where women had some recognition and were involved in both business and home life, I became deeply committed to women's rights, making it the most important issue in my life from an early age. I welcome this more public movement advocating for it and I’m happy that I had enough strength to contribute in some way. I’ve attended most of the regular meetings, and I now feel almost embarrassed, at my age,[Pg 185] to be so unaware of what has happened in the past year. We need a publication—an outlet that keeps those who can’t participate in our public activities more informed. The Standard has done a lot, and I see many other papers willing to give credit to our cause. It’s no longer ridiculed as it was in the beginning. We don’t face the same difficulties, opposition, and scorn that we did back then. I’m really pleased to see such an audience here today; I certainly don’t want to take up time and prevent Mr. May, Mr. Burleigh, and others from having their chance to speak.
Mr. Purvis resumed the chair, and introduced Mrs. Stanton, who spoke to the following resolutions:
Mr. Purvis took his seat again and introduced Mrs. Stanton, who addressed the following resolutions:
Resolved, That government, of all sciences, is the most exalted and comprehensive, including, as it does, all the political, commercial, religious, educational, and social interests of the race.
Resolved, That government, of all disciplines, is the most important and all-encompassing, as it includes all the political, commercial, religious, educational, and social interests of humanity.
Resolved, That to speak of the ballot as an "article of merchandise," and of the science of government as the "muddy pool of politics," is most demoralizing to a nation based on universal suffrage.
Resolved, That talking about the ballot as an "item for sale," and about the science of government as the "murky waters of politics," is very discouraging for a nation built on universal voting rights.
In considering the question of suffrage, there are two starting points: one, that this right is a gift of society, in which certain men, having inherited this privilege from some abstract body and abstract place, have now the right to secure it for themselves and their privileged order to the end of time. This principle leads logically to governing races, classes, families; and, in direct antagonism to our idea of self-government, takes us back to monarchies and despotisms, to an experiment that has been tried over and over again, 6,000 years, and uniformly failed.
When we think about the issue of voting rights, there are two key points to consider: first, the idea that this right is a privilege granted by society, where certain individuals, who have inherited this advantage from some vague authority and undefined place, now have the right to secure it for themselves and their privileged group indefinitely. This idea logically leads to ruling over races, classes, and families; and, in direct opposition to our concept of self-governance, it takes us back to monarchies and tyrannies, to an experiment that has been repeated for 6,000 years and has consistently failed.
Ignoring this point of view as untenable and anti-republican, and taking the opposite, that suffrage is a natural right—as necessary to man under government, for the protection of person and property, as are air and motion to life—we hold the talisman by which to show the right of all classes to the ballot, to remove every obstacle, to answer every objection, to point out the tyranny of every qualification to the free exercise of this sacred right. To discuss this question of suffrage for women and negroes, as women and negroes, and not as citizens of a republic, implies that there are some reasons for demanding this right for these classes that do not apply to "white males."
Ignoring this viewpoint as unreasonable and anti-republican, and instead believing that the right to vote is a natural right—just as essential to individuals under government for protecting their person and property as air and movement are to life—we possess the key to demonstrate the right of all classes to have a say in elections. This allows us to eliminate every barrier, address every objection, and highlight the injustice of any conditions that hinder the free exercise of this sacred right. To discuss the issue of voting rights for women and Black people specifically as women and Black people, rather than as citizens of a republic, suggests that there are reasons for granting this right to these groups that do not apply to "white men."
The obstinate persistence with which fallacious and absurd objections are pressed against their enfranchisement—as if they were anomalous beings, outside all human laws and necessities—is most humiliating and insulting to every black man and woman who has one particle of healthy, high-toned self-respect. There are no special claims to propose for women and negroes, no new arguments to make in their behalf. The same already made to extend suffrage to all white men in this country, the same John Bright makes for the working men of England, the same made for the emancipation of 22,000,000 Russian serfs, are all we have to make for black men and women. As the greater includes the less, an argument for universal suffrage covers the whole question, the rights of all citizens. In thus relaying the foundations of government, we settle all these side issues of race, color, and sex, end class legislation, and remove forever the fruitful cause of the jealousies, dissensions, and revolutions of the[Pg 186] past. This is the platform of the American Equal Rights Association. "We are masters of the situation." Here black men and women are buried in the citizen. As in the war, freedom was the key-note of victory, so now is universal suffrage the key-note of reconstruction.
The stubborn way that false and ridiculous objections are pushed against their right to vote—as if they were strange beings, outside of all human laws and needs—is incredibly humiliating and insulting to any black man or woman who has even a shred of healthy, high self-respect. There are no special claims to make for women and Black people, no new arguments to support them. The same arguments that were used to extend voting rights to all white men in this country, the same ones John Bright used for working-class men in England, the same ones made for the freedom of 22 million Russian serfs, are all we need for Black men and women. Since the greater includes the lesser, an argument for universal suffrage covers the entire issue, the rights of all citizens. By laying the groundwork for government in this way, we address all these side issues of race, color, gender, and class legislation, and eliminate once and for all the root cause of the jealousies, conflicts, and revolutions of the[Pg 186] past. This is the platform of the American Equal Rights Association. "We are in control of the situation." Here, Black men and women are included as citizens. Just as freedom was the key to victory in the war, universal suffrage is the key to reconstruction now.
"Negro suffrage" may answer as a party cry for an effete political organization through another Presidential campaign; but the people of this country have a broader work on hand to-day than to save the Republican party, or, with some abolitionists, to settle the rights of races. The battles of the ages have been fought for races, classes, parties, over and over again, and force always carried the day, and will until we settle the higher, the holier question of individual rights. This is our American idea, and on a wise settlement of this question rests the problem whether our nation shall live or perish.
"Black suffrage" might serve as a rallying cry for a worn-out political group looking to secure another Presidential campaign; however, the people of this country have a bigger task ahead right now than just saving the Republican party or, alongside some abolitionists, determining the rights of different races. The struggles throughout history have been fought for races, classes, and parties time and time again, and force always won those battles, and it will continue to do so until we address the greater, more important issue of individual rights. This is our American principle, and the resolution of this issue determines whether our nation will thrive or fade away.
The principle of inequality in government has been thoroughly tried, and every nation based on that idea that has not already perished, clearly shows the seeds of death in its dissensions and decline. Though it has never been tried, we know an experiment on the basis of equality would be safe; for the laws in the world of morals are as immutable as in the world of matter. As the Astronomer Leverrier discovered the planet that bears his name by a process of reason and calculation through the variations of other planets from known laws, so can the true statesman, through the telescope of justice, see the genuine republic of the future amid the ruins of the mighty nations that have passed away. The opportunity now given us to make the experiment of self-government should be regarded by every American citizen as a solemn and a sacred trust. When we remember that a nation's life and growth and immortality depend on its legislation, can we exalt too highly the dignity and responsibility of the ballot, the science of political economy, the sphere of government? Statesmanship is, of all sciences, the most exalted and comprehensive, for it includes all others. Among men we find those who study the laws of national life more liberal and enlightened on all subjects than those who confine their researches in special directions. When we base nations on justice and equality, we lift government out of the mists of speculation into the dignity of a fixed science. Everything short of this is trick, legerdemain, sleight of hand. Magicians may make nations seem to live, but they do not. The Newtons of our day who should try to make apples stand in the air or men walk on the wall, would be no more puerile in their experiments than are they who build nations outside of law, on the basis of inequality.
The idea of inequality in government has been tested thoroughly, and every nation founded on that principle that hasn’t already collapsed clearly shows signs of decay in its conflicts and decline. Although it hasn’t been tried, we believe an experiment based on equality would be safe, because the laws in the moral realm are as fixed as those in the physical realm. Just like the astronomer Leverrier discovered the planet named after him through reasoning and calculations based on the variations of other planets from known laws, a true statesman can, through the lens of justice, envision the true republic of the future amidst the ruins of the great nations that have fallen. The chance we have now to experiment with self-government should be seen by every American citizen as a serious and sacred responsibility. When we remember that a nation's life, growth, and longevity depend on its laws, can we really overstate the significance and responsibility of the ballot, the principles of political economy, and the role of government? Statesmanship is, above all sciences, the most elevated and comprehensive, as it encompasses all others. Among people, those who study the laws of national life are generally more open-minded and knowledgeable about all topics compared to those who limit their research to specific areas. When we base nations on justice and equality, we elevate government from mere speculation into the dignity of a solid science. Anything less than this is just a trick, an illusion, sleight of hand. Magicians may make nations appear to thrive, but they don't truly thrive. Today's Newtons who attempt to make apples float in the air or men walk on walls are just as foolish in their experiments as those who build nations outside of lawful principles, based on inequality.
What thinking man can talk of coming down into the arena of politics? If we need purity, honor, self-sacrifice and devotion anywhere, we need them in those who have in their keeping the life and prosperity of a nation. In the enfranchisement of woman, in lifting her up into this broader sphere, we see for her new honor and dignity, more liberal, exalted and enlightened views of life, its objects, ends and aims, and an entire revolution in the new world of interest and action where she is soon to play her part. And in saying this, I do not claim that woman is better than man, but that the sexes have a civilizing power on each other. The distinguished historian, Henry Thomas Buckle, says: "The[Pg 187] turn of thought of women, their habits of mind, their conversation, invariably extending over the whole surface of society, and frequently penetrating its intimate structure, have, more than all other things put together, tended to raise us into an ideal world, and lift us from the dust into which we are too prone to grovel." And this will be her influence in exalting and purifying the world of politics. When woman understands the momentous interests that depend on the ballot, she will make it her first duty to educate every American boy and girl into the idea that to vote is the most sacred act of citizenship—a religious duty not to be discharged thoughtlessly, selfishly or corruptly; but conscientiously, remembering that, in a republican government, to every citizen is entrusted the interests of the nation. Would you fully estimate the responsibility of the ballot, think of it as the great regulating power of a continent, of all our interests, political, commercial, religious, educational, social and sanitary!
What thoughtful person would consider getting involved in politics? If we need purity, honor, self-sacrifice, and devotion anywhere, it's in those who hold the fate and prosperity of a nation. In giving women the right to vote and bringing them into this broader sphere, we see new honor and dignity for them, along with more open, elevated, and informed views on life, its purposes, and its goals. This represents a total shift in the new world of interests and actions where women will soon take their role. And in saying this, I’m not claiming that women are better than men; rather, both genders have a civilizing effect on each other. The distinguished historian, Henry Thomas Buckle, states: "The[Pg 187] mindset of women, their ways of thinking, their conversations, which often cover the entirety of society and frequently dig deep into its fundamental structure, have, more than anything else combined, helped to elevate us into an ideal world and raise us from the dust where we tend to linger." This will shape their influence in uplifting and purifying the political sphere. Once women grasp the critical interests tied to voting, they will prioritize educating every American boy and girl to recognize that voting is the most sacred act of citizenship—a civic duty that shouldn’t be approached carelessly, selfishly, or dishonestly; but thoughtfully, remembering that in a republic, every citizen holds the nation’s interests in their hands. To truly appreciate the responsibility that comes with voting, think of it as the main force regulating a continent, overseeing all our political, commercial, religious, educational, social, and health interests!
To many minds, this claim for the ballot suggests nothing more than a rough polling-booth where coarse, drunken men, elbowing each other, wade knee-deep in mud to drop a little piece of paper two inches long into a box—simply this and nothing more. The poet Wordsworth, showing the blank materialism of those who see only with their outward eyes, says of his Peter Bell:
To many people, this idea of the ballot seems nothing more than a messy polling station where rowdy, drunk men jostle each other, stomping through mud to drop a small piece of paper into a box—just this and nothing more. The poet Wordsworth, highlighting the shallow materialism of those who see only with their physical eyes, says of his Peter Bell:
"A primrose on the river's brim
A yellow primrose was to him,
And it was nothing more."
So our political Peter Bells see the rough polling-booth in this great right of citizenship, and nothing more. In this act, so lightly esteemed by the mere materialist, behold the realization of that great idea struggled for in the ages and proclaimed by the Fathers, the right of self-government. That little piece of paper dropped into a box is the symbol of equality, of citizenship, of wealth, of virtue, education, self-protection, dignity, independence and power—the mightiest engine yet placed in the hand of man for the uprooting of ignorance, tyranny, superstition, the overturning of thrones, altars, kings, popes, despotisms, monarchies and empires. What phantom can the sons of the Pilgrims be chasing, when they make merchandise of a power like this? Judas Iscariot, selling his Master for thirty pieces of silver, is a fit type of those American citizens who sell their votes, and thus betray the right of self-government. Talk not of the "muddy pool of politics," as if such things must need be. Behold, with the coming of woman into this higher sphere of influence, the dawn of the new day, when politics, so called, are to be lifted into the world of morals and religion; when the polling-booth shall be a beautiful temple, surrounded by fountains and flowers and triumphal arches, through which young men and maidens shall go up in joyful procession to ballot for justice and freedom; and when our election days shall be kept like the holy feasts of the Jews at Jerusalem. Through the trials of this second revolution shall not our nation rise up, with new virtue and strength, to fulfill her mission in leading all the peoples of the earth to the only solid foundation of government, "equal rights to all." ...[Pg 188]
So, our political leaders only see the rough polling place as part of this great right of citizenship, and nothing more. In this action, which is often dismissed by materialists, lies the realization of that great idea fought for over the ages and proclaimed by the Founding Fathers: the right of self-government. That small piece of paper dropped into a box symbolizes equality, citizenship, wealth, virtue, education, self-protection, dignity, independence, and power—the most powerful tool ever given to humanity for tearing down ignorance, tyranny, superstition, and for toppling thrones, altars, kings, popes, despotisms, monarchies, and empires. What illusion are the descendants of the Pilgrims pursuing when they commercialize such power? Judas Iscariot, who sold his Master for thirty pieces of silver, is a fitting example of those American citizens who sell their votes and betray the right of self-government. Don’t speak of the "muddy pool of politics" as if it’s a necessity. With the rise of women into this higher sphere of influence, we can see the dawn of a new day when what we call politics will be elevated into the realm of morals and religion; when the polling place will become a beautiful temple, surrounded by fountains and flowers and triumphal arches, where young men and women will joyfully march to cast their votes for justice and freedom; and when our election days will be celebrated like the holy feasts of the Jews in Jerusalem. Through the challenges of this second revolution, shall we not see our nation rise with new virtue and strength to fulfill its mission of leading all the peoples of the Earth to the only solid foundation of government: "equal rights for all." ...[Pg 188]
Our danger lies, not in the direction of despotism, in the one-man power, in centralization; but in the corruption of the people....
Our threat doesn't come from tyranny, from one person holding all the power, or from centralization; it comes from the corruption of the people...
It is in vain to look for a genuine republic in this country until the women are baptized into the idea, until they understand the genius of our institutions, until they study the science of government, until they hold the ballot in their hands and have a direct voice in our legislation. What is the reason, with the argument in favor of the enfranchisement of women all on one side, without an opponent worthy of consideration—while British statesmen, even, are discussing this question—the Northern men are so dumb and dogged, manifesting a studied indifference to what they can neither answer nor prevent? What is the reason that even abolitionists who have fearlessly claimed political, religious and social equality for women for the last twenty years, should now, with bated breath, give her but a passing word in their public speeches and editorial comments—as if her rights constituted but a side issue of this grave question of reconstruction? All must see that this claim for male suffrage is but another experiment in class legislation, another violation of the republican idea. With the black man we have no new element in government, but with the education and elevation of women we have a power that is to develop the Saxon race into a higher and nobler life, and thus, by the law of attraction, to lift all races to a more even platform than can ever be reached in the political isolation of the sexes. Why ignore 15,000,000 women in the reconstruction? The philosophy of this silence is plain enough. The black man crowned with the rights of citizenship, there are no political Ishmaelites left but the women. This is the last stronghold of aristocracy in the country. Sydney Smith says: "There always has been, and always will be, a class of men in the world so small that, if women were educated, there would be nothing left below them."
It’s pointless to search for a true republic in this country until women embrace the idea, understand the essence of our institutions, study the science of government, hold the ballot in their hands, and have a direct say in our laws. Why is it that, with the argument for women’s suffrage so overwhelmingly on one side and no serious opposition, British politicians are debating this issue while Northerners remain silent and stubborn, showing a deliberate indifference to what they can neither answer nor stop? Why have even abolitionists, who boldly advocated for political, religious, and social equality for women for the past twenty years, now only mention her rights in passing during public speeches and editorial comments, as if her rights are just a secondary concern in this serious issue of reconstruction? Everyone should recognize that this push for male suffrage represents yet another experiment in class legislation and another violation of the republican ideal. With the black man, we don’t introduce anything new to the government, but the education and elevation of women could empower the Saxon race to a higher and nobler existence, and consequently uplift all races to a more equitable level than what can ever be achieved in the political separation of the sexes. Why exclude 15,000,000 women from the reconstruction? The reason for this silence is clear. With the black man granted the rights of citizenship, the only remaining political outsiders are women. This is the last bastion of aristocracy in the country. Sydney Smith says, "There has always been, and will always be, a small class of men in the world so elite that, if women were educated, there would be nothing left beneath them."
It is a consolation to the "white male," to the popinjays in all our seminaries of learning, to the ignorant foreigner, the boot-black and barber, the idiot—for a "white male" may vote if he be not more than nine-tenths a fool—to look down on women of wealth and education, who write books, make speeches, and discuss principles with the savans of their age. It is a consolation for these classes to be able to say, "well, if woman can do these things, they can't vote after all." I heard some boys discoursing thus not long since. I told them they reminded me of a story I heard of two Irishmen the first time they saw a locomotive with a train of cars. As the majestic fire-horse, with all its grace and polish, moved up to a station, stopped, and snorted, as its mighty power was curbed, then slowly gathered up its forces again and moved swiftly on—"be jabers," says Pat, "there's muscle for you. What are we beside that giant?" They watched it intently till out of sight, seemingly with real envy, as if oppressed with a feeling of weakness and poverty before this unknown power; but rallying at last, one says to the other: "No matter, Pat; let it snort and dash on—it can't vote, after all."
It comforts the "white male," the show-offs in all our schools, the clueless foreigners, the shoeshiners and barbers, the fools—because a "white male" can vote as long as he isn't more than nine-tenths an idiot—to look down on educated and wealthy women who write books, make speeches, and discuss ideas with the thinkers of their time. It makes these groups feel better to claim, "Well, if women can do all that, they still can't vote." I overheard some boys talking like this not too long ago. I told them they reminded me of a story I heard about two Irishmen who saw a locomotive for the first time, pulling a train of cars. As the magnificent engine, in all its grace and polish, approached a station, stopped, and puffed steam, as its immense power was restrained, and then slowly resumed its strength and moved quickly on—"be jabers," says Pat, "that’s some serious strength. What are we next to that giant?" They watched it closely until it disappeared, appearing genuinely envious, as if feeling weak and poor in the presence of this unknown power; but finally, one turns to the other and says: "No worries, Pat; let it puff and rush on—it still can't vote, anyway."
Poor human nature wants something to look down on. No privileged order ever did see the wrongs of its own victims, and why expect the "white male citizen" to enfranchise woman without a struggle—by a scratch of the[Pg 189] pen to place themselves on a dead level with their lowest order? And what a fall would that be, my countrymen. In none of the nations of modern Europe is there a class of women so degraded politically as are the women of these Northern States. In the Old World, where the government is the aristocracy, where it is considered a mark of nobility to share its offices and powers—there women of rank have certain hereditary rights which raise them above a majority of the men, certain honors and privileges not granted to serfs or peasants. In England woman may be Queen, hold office, and vote on some questions. In the Southern States even the women were not degraded below their working population, they were not humiliated in seeing their coachmen, gardeners, and waiters go to the polls to legislate on their interests; hence there was a pride and dignity in their bearing not found in the women of the North, and pluck in the chivalry before which Northern doughfaceism has ever cowered. But here, where the ruling class, the aristocracy, is "male," no matter whether washed or unwashed, lettered or unlettered, rich or poor, black or white, here in this boasted northern civilization, under the shadow of Bunker Hill and Faneuil Hall, which Mr. Phillips proposes to cram down the throat of South Carolina—here women of wealth and education, who pay taxes and are amenable to law, who may be hung, even though not permitted to choose the judge, the juror, or the sheriff who does the dismal deed, women who are your peers in art, science, and literature—already close upon your heels in the whole world of thought—are thrust outside the pale of political consideration with traitors, idiots, minors, with those guilty of bribery, larceny, and infamous crime. What a category is this in which to place your mothers, wives, and daughters. I ask you, men of the Empire State, where on the footstool do you find such a class of citizens politically so degraded? Now, we ask you, in the coming Constitutional Convention, to so amend the Second Article of our State Constitution as to wipe out this record of our disgrace.
Poor human nature always finds something to look down on. No privileged group ever recognizes the wrongs done to its victims, so why would we expect the "white male citizen" to grant women the right to vote without a fight—by a mere stroke of the[Pg 189] pen that would put them on equal footing with their lowest class? And what a drop that would be, my fellow countrymen. In none of the countries in modern Europe is there a group of women as politically marginalized as the women in these Northern States. In the Old World, where the government is run by the aristocracy, having a say in its offices and powers is seen as a mark of nobility—there women of status enjoy certain hereditary rights that elevate them above many men, with honors and privileges not granted to serfs or peasants. In England, women can be Queen, hold office, and vote on certain issues. In the Southern States, even the women were not looked down upon compared to their working-class populace; they didn’t have to witness their coachmen, gardeners, and waiters voting on matters that affected them, which gave them a sense of pride and dignity not found in Northern women, and courage in the chivalry that Northern weakness has always bowed to. But here, where the ruling class, the aristocracy, is "male," whether educated or not, rich or poor, black or white—in this celebrated Northern civilization, under the shadows of Bunker Hill and Faneuil Hall, which Mr. Phillips wants to force upon South Carolina—here women of wealth and education, who pay taxes and are subject to the law, who could be executed even though they can’t choose the judge, the juror, or the sheriff who carries out that grim task, women who are your equals in art, science, and literature—already close behind you in the entire realm of thought—are pushed outside the boundaries of political consideration, along with traitors, idiots, minors, and those guilty of bribery, theft, and other crimes. What a category is this to place your mothers, wives, and daughters in. I ask you, men of the Empire State, where else do you find such a politically degraded class of citizens? Now, we ask you, in the upcoming Constitutional Convention, to amend the Second Article of our State Constitution to erase this mark of our disgrace.
"But," say you, "women themselves do not make the demand." Mr. Phillips said on this platform, a year ago, that "the singularity of this cause is, that it has to be carried on against the wishes and purposes of its victims," and he has been echoed by nearly every man who has spoken, on this subject during the past year. Suppose the assertion true, is it a peculiarity of this reform?... Ignorant classes always resist innovations. Women looked on the sewing-machine as a rival for a long time. Years ago the laboring classes of England asked bread; but the Cobdens, the Brights, the Gladstones, the Mills have taught them there is a power behind bread, and to-day they ask the ballot. But they were taught its power first, and so must woman be. Again, do not those far-seeing philosophers who comprehend the wisdom, the beneficence, the morality of free trade urge this law of nations against the will and wishes of the victims of tariffs and protective duties? If you can prove to us that women do not wish to vote, that is no argument against our demand. There are many duties in life that ignorant, selfish, unthinking women do not desire to do, and this may be one of them.
"But," you say, "women themselves don’t want this." Mr. Phillips mentioned on this platform a year ago that "the uniqueness of this cause is that it has to be pursued against the wishes and intentions of its victims," and many men who have spoken on this topic over the past year have echoed him. Even if this statement is true, is it something specific to this reform?... Ignorant groups have always resisted change. For a long time, women viewed the sewing machine as competition. Years ago, the working class in England demanded bread; but figures like Cobden, Bright, Gladstone, and Mill have shown them that there is more to life than just bread, and today they demand the ballot. They were first educated about its power, and the same must happen for women. Furthermore, don’t those forward-thinking philosophers who understand the benefits, morality, and wisdom of free trade advocate for this law of nations even against the will of those affected by tariffs and protective duties? If you can prove to us that women don’t want to vote, that doesn’t provide an argument against our demand. There are many responsibilities in life that ignorant, selfish, and unthinking women may not want to take on, and this might be one of them.
"But," says Rev. O. B. Frothingham, in a recent sermon on this subject, "they who first assume political responsibilities must necessarily lose something of the feminine element." In the education[Pg 190] and elevation of woman we are yet to learn the true manhood and womanhood, the true masculine and feminine elements. Dio Lewis is rapidly changing our ideas of feminine beauty. In the large waists and strong arms of the girls under his training, some dilettante gentleman may mourn a loss of feminine delicacy. So in the wise, virtuous, self-supporting, common-sense women we propose as the mothers of the future republic, the reverend gentleman may see a lack of what he considers the feminine element. In the development of sufficient moral force to entrench herself on principle, need a woman necessarily lose any grace, dignity, or perfection of character? Are not those who have advocated the rights of women in this country for the last twenty years as delicate and refined, as moral, high-toned, educated, just, and generous as any women in the land? I have seen women in many countries and classes, in public and private; but have found none more pure and noble than those I meet on this platform. I have seen our venerable President in converse with the highest of English nobility, and even the Duchess of Sutherland did not eclipse her in grace, dignity, and conversational power. Where are there any women, as wives and mothers, more beautiful in their home life than Lucretia Mott and Lucy Stone, or Antoinette Brown Blackwell? Let the freedmen of the South Sea Islands testify to the faithfulness, the devotion, the patience, and tender mercy of Frances D. Gage, who watched over their interests, teaching them to read and work for two long years. Some on our platform have struggled with hardship and poverty—been slaves even in "the land of the free and the home of the brave," and bear the scars of life's battle. But is a self-made woman less honorable than a self-made man? Answer our arguments. When the Republic is in danger, no matter for our manners. When our soldiers came back from the war, wan, weary, and worn, maimed, halt, blind, wrinkled, and decrepit—their banners torn, their garments stained with blood—who, with a soul to feel, thought of anything but the glorious work they had done? What if their mothers on this platform be angular, old, wrinkled, and gray? They, too, have fought a good fight for freedom, and proudly bear the scars of the battle. We alone have struck the key-note of reconstruction. While man talks of "equal, impartial, manhood suffrage," we give the certain sound, "universal suffrage." While he talks of the rights of races, we exalt the higher, the holier idea proclaimed by the Fathers, and now twice baptized in blood, "individual rights." To woman it is given to save the Republic.
"But," says Rev. O. B. Frothingham in a recent sermon on this topic, "those who first take on political responsibilities must inevitably lose some of the feminine qualities." In the education[Pg 190] and advancement of women, we still have to discover the true essence of manhood and womanhood, the real masculine and feminine characteristics. Dio Lewis is quickly changing our perception of feminine beauty. In the larger waists and strong arms of the girls he's training, some cultured gentlemen may lament a loss of feminine delicacy. Similarly, in the wise, virtuous, self-sufficient, practical women we envision as the mothers of the future republic, the reverend gentleman may see a deficiency of what he deems the feminine element. Does a woman necessarily lose any grace, dignity, or perfection of character while developing enough moral strength to stand firm on her principles? Are those who have championed women's rights in this country for the past twenty years not as delicate, refined, moral, educated, just, and generous as any women in the country? I have encountered women from many countries and backgrounds, in both public and private settings; yet I have found none more pure and noble than those I meet on this platform. I have seen our esteemed President engage with the highest ranks of English nobility, and even the Duchess of Sutherland did not outshine her in grace, dignity, and conversational skill. Where are there any women, as wives and mothers, more beautiful in their family life than Lucretia Mott, Lucy Stone, or Antoinette Brown Blackwell? Let the freedmen of the South Sea Islands bear witness to the faithfulness, devotion, patience, and tender compassion of Frances D. Gage, who cared for their interests, teaching them to read and work for two long years. Some on our platform have endured hardship and poverty—been enslaved even in "the land of the free and the home of the brave," and carry the marks of life's struggles. But is a self-made woman any less honorable than a self-made man? Respond to our arguments. When the Republic is at risk, our manners don’t matter. When our soldiers returned from the war, frail, weary, and worn, maimed, limping, blind, wrinkled, and aged—their banners torn, their clothes stained with blood—who, with a heart to feel, thought of anything other than the glorious work they had accomplished? What if the mothers on this platform are angular, old, wrinkled, and gray? They, too, have fought a good fight for freedom, and proudly carry the scars of battle. We alone have struck the chord of reconstruction. While men talk of "equal, impartial manhood suffrage," we offer a clear sound, "universal suffrage." While he speaks of the rights of races, we uplift the higher, holier idea declared by the Founding Fathers, and now twice sanctified in blood, "individual rights." It is the duty of women to save the Republic.
Rev. Samuel J. May said: I wish to give my testimony most earnestly and solemnly to the conviction, which has continually increased in my soul since my attention was first called to the subject, that this is a fundamental question. How can we expect that our government will be well conducted when one-half, and that too what we have been accustomed to call the "better half," of its constituency is disfranchised, and unable to influence it as it should? It is now twenty-two years since I delivered my first public discourse on this subject; and when I have insisted, as I have done during that time, that women should be allowed to take part in the government, it has always been thrown in my teeth that women were governing the nation after all through their influence over their husbands, brothers, and sons. I was delighted with the remarks of Mrs. Stanton on this subject. In the first place, women can not influence their husbands, nor educate their sons, as they should do, because they are not properly informed, and have no inducement to become informed. Were they to feel a responsibility, doubtless the better part of them would prepare themselves to discharge their duty; but knowing that they have nothing to do with the government of the country, you can hardly persuade our young women to study the subject. Years ago I insisted that the Constitution of the United States should be introduced into the common schools of the city where I live, to be studied by girls as well as boys. Yet I hardly know half a dozen girls there who have taken the least interest in it. Why? Because, when any allusion is made to women's participation in the government, it has been met with a sneer, which so many dread more than they do a bullet; and this has doubtless deterred them from it.
Rev. Samuel J. May said: I want to share my testimony earnestly and seriously about the belief that has grown stronger in me since I first started thinking about this issue — that this is a fundamental question. How can we expect our government to be well-run when half of its constituents, especially those we often call the "better half," are disenfranchised and unable to make the influence they should? It’s been twenty-two years since I gave my first public talk on this topic, and during that time, when I’ve insisted that women should have a say in the government, I’ve often been told that women are already governing the nation through their influence over their husbands, brothers, and sons. I was encouraged by Mrs. Stanton's comments on this matter. First of all, women cannot influence their husbands or educate their sons as they should because they lack proper information and have no motivation to seek it out. If they felt a sense of responsibility, many of them would likely prepare themselves to fulfill that duty; but knowing they have no role in the government, it’s hard to convince young women to study the issue. Years ago, I argued that the Constitution of the United States should be taught in the public schools where I live, for both girls and boys to study. Yet I hardly know more than a few girls there who have shown any interest in it. Why? Because whenever there’s a mention of women participating in government, it’s met with ridicule, which many fear more than a bullet, and this has certainly discouraged them from engaging in it.
I was glad, too, to hear the reply so successfully made to the objection that women do not demand this right. That is no reason why they should not be required to exercise it. It is their right because it is their duty. It is their duty because it is their right. We have the most glorious inheritance that God ever gave to a nation, the privilege of governing ourselves. Where does self-government begin? Where does it reside? In the individual. No individual that can not govern himself can contribute in the least toward the government of the country in which he lives. He becomes a burden, if not a curse. Knowing that women have the same moral powers as men, the same intellectual powers, the same affections, that they are governed by the same laws, and amenable to the same government, who can doubt that if they were made sensible of their responsibilities in the government of the country, and that they can not contribute in the least to the well-being of the community unless they[Pg 192] can contribute those virtues and graces which constitute the true government of one's self; this would have the most inspiring and elevating influence upon them? Think you they would continue to be the servants of mere fashion, as too many of them now are? By our refusal to act in accordance with the eternal principles of righteousness set forth in the Declaration of Independence and in the preamble of the Constitution of the country, we have been brought into a terrible civil war, which has resulted in a disorganized condition requiring reconstruction. Why should we not see to it that our country as a whole, and that each individual State of the country, shall be reconstructed on this true basis, so that, if possible, nothing may be left to be done hereafter to improve the foundations on which this nation rests?
I was also pleased to hear the solid response to the argument that women don't demand this right. Just because they don't ask for it doesn’t mean they shouldn't be expected to use it. It’s their right because it’s their responsibility. It’s their responsibility because it’s their right. We’ve inherited the greatest privilege that God has ever given to a nation: the ability to govern ourselves. Where does self-government start? Where does it exist? In the individual. Anyone who can’t govern themselves can’t contribute anything to the government of the country they live in. They become a burden, if not a curse. Knowing that women have the same moral and intellectual abilities as men, the same feelings, and that they are subject to the same laws and government, who can deny that if they were made aware of their responsibilities in the governance of the nation, and realized they can’t contribute to the well-being of the community unless they can contribute those virtues and qualities that truly define self-governance, it would have a profoundly inspiring and uplifting effect on them? Do you think they would continue to be mere followers of fleeting trends, as too many of them are today? By refusing to act according to the fundamental principles of justice outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the preamble of the Constitution, we've plunged into a horrific civil war that has left us in a chaotic state needing reconstruction. Why shouldn't we ensure that our nation as a whole, and each individual state, is rebuilt on this true foundation, so that, hopefully, nothing more will need to be done in the future to enhance the principles on which this country stands?
Many say, "One thing at a time. You have been struggling for the abolition of slavery and obtained that; and now claim the political rights of the colored men, and will undoubtedly get them. Why can't you be satisfied?" Because that would leave a tremendous wrong at the foundation of our country. What will be the consequence, God only knows, should we dare to go on with such a fatal mistake in the basis of our institutions. It is presumption to suppose that we can do this without incurring, sooner or later, awful consequences. We can not predict what they will be; but that they will be great our past experiences should teach us. It was thought a very little matter to leave our Constitution indefinite as to the rights of colored men. Our fathers in the meetings held to ratify the Constitution, said they had done all that could be expected, said that the death-blow was struck at the institution of slavery, that it would soon die a natural death; and thus they quieted those who were distrustful because slavery was not explicitly abolished in the Constitution. The people, engaged in their various pursuits, ambitious for office, eager for wealth, let this seed of wrong become a mighty upas tree that covered our republic all over, and scattered everywhere its poisonous fruits. Shall we dare to go on for another period of our national existence knowing that at the foundation of our government there is a tremendous wrong?
Many people say, "One thing at a time. You worked hard to end slavery and achieved that; now you're fighting for the political rights of Black men, and you'll definitely get those too. Why can't you just be satisfied?" Because doing so would leave a huge injustice at the core of our country. Only God knows what might happen if we continue making such a serious mistake in the foundation of our institutions. It's arrogant to think we can do this without facing terrible consequences eventually. We can’t predict what those consequences will be, but our past experiences should show us they'll be significant. It was once thought to be a minor issue to leave our Constitution unclear about the rights of Black men. Our founding fathers, during the ratification meetings, claimed they had done all that could be expected and insisted that the institution of slavery had been dealt a fatal blow and would soon die out naturally; this calmed those who were worried about slavery not being explicitly abolished in the Constitution. Meanwhile, people, focused on their own ambitions for office and wealth, allowed this seed of injustice to grow into a huge poisonous tree that spread its toxic fruits all over our republic. Should we really continue another phase of our national existence knowing there's a massive injustice at the foundation of our government?
What should the government of a nation be? Ought it not to be as much as possible like the government of a well-ordered family? Can you think of any model so good as the divine model set before us in the family? What would the family be with a father and without a mother? To whom do you owe the most—your father or your mother? Who controlled the family most effectually? Some thirty years ago, being chairman of the Board of Education in my district, I proposed to put a woman into a school where the male teachers had been set at nought year after year. It stood the lowest in rank when she took it; but in less than a month its character was obviously changed, and at the end of the term it stood number three in point of character as well as in scholarship. Men are not governed by the fear of punishment. They are governed by a strong, persistent manifestation of the consciousness of a right to govern them; and that is pressed upon them more effectually by the influence of a mother or a sister than of a father or a brother. Just so it will be in the government of our country, when women shall[Pg 193] educate and prepare themselves to take part in that government, with their almost instinctive perception of the right, the true, and the good.
What should the government of a nation be like? Shouldn’t it aim to resemble the structure of a well-organized family as much as possible? Can you think of any model better than the ideal one presented to us in the family? What would a family look like with a father but no mother? Who do you owe more to—your father or your mother? Who had more influence over the family? About thirty years ago, when I was chair of the Board of Education in my area, I suggested hiring a woman for a school where male teachers had been disregarded year after year. It was the lowest-ranked school when she started; however, in less than a month, its reputation had noticeably improved, and by the end of the term, it was ranked third in both character and academics. Men aren’t driven by the fear of punishment; they’re influenced by a strong, persistent awareness of their right to be governed. This awareness is more effectively reinforced by the presence of a mother or sister than by a father or brother. Similarly, this will apply to the governance of our country when women [Pg 193] educate and prepare themselves to engage in that governance, equipped with their almost instinctive understanding of what is right, true, and good.
And if our fathers and mothers were what they might and should be, the children would be so well trained that they would govern themselves, and there would be very little need of the instrumentality of a political organization. If women understood that it was not only their right, but their duty, to educate themselves to be citizens of the State, we should have, instead of the trifling topics which now occupy their attention in our domestic circles, the consideration of great questions; and doubtless their finer perceptions often would help to settle great questions aright; and they who should go forth from that family circle into the various relations of life, would go prepared to advocate the right, to illustrate the truth, and at the ballot-box to give their votes for the true and the right. It is my first conviction respecting the future well-being of our country, that it is to be measured exactly by our treatment of the colored man. My second conviction is that the well-being of our country never will be effectually provided for until the better half of humanity is educated and instructed, and required to take part in the enactment of the laws and in their administration.
And if our parents were what they could and should be, the kids would be so well-behaved that they could take care of themselves, and there would be very little need for a political organization. If women understood that it was not only their right but also their duty to educate themselves as citizens of the State, we would be discussing important issues instead of the trivial topics that currently fill our domestic circles. Their sharper insights would likely help address significant matters correctly, and those who left the family home for various roles in life would be ready to advocate for what's right, share the truth, and vote for what's just at the ballot box. My primary belief about the future well-being of our country is that it hinges on how we treat the colored community. My second belief is that our country’s well-being will never be genuinely ensured until the better half of humanity is educated, informed, and required to participate in making and enforcing laws.
Mrs. Mott then introduced the venerable Sojourner Truth, who was greeted with loud cheers, after which she said:
Mrs. Mott then introduced the respected Sojourner Truth, who was met with loud cheers, after which she said:
My friends, I am rejoiced that you are glad, but I don't know how you will feel when I get through. I come from another field—the country of the slave. They have got their liberty—so much good luck to have slavery partly destroyed; not entirely. I want it root and branch destroyed. Then we will all be free indeed. I feel that if I have to answer for the deeds done in my body just as much as a man, I have a right to have just as much as a man. There is a great stir about colored men getting their rights, but not a word about the colored women; and if colored men get their rights, and not colored women theirs, you see the colored men will be masters over the women, and it will be just as bad as it was before. So I am for keeping the thing going while things are stirring; because if we wait till it is still, it will take a great while to get it going again. White women are a great deal smarter, and know more than colored women, while colored women do not know scarcely anything. They go out washing, which is about as high as a colored woman gets, and their men go about idle, strutting up and down; and when the women come home, they ask for their money and take it all, and then scold because there is no food. I want you to consider on that, chil'n. I call you chil'n; you are somebody's chil'n, and I am old enough to be mother of all that is here. I want women to have their rights. In the courts women have no right, no voice; nobody speaks for them. I wish woman to have her voice there among the pettifoggers. If it is not a fit place for women, it is unfit for men to be there.
My friends, I’m happy that you’re happy, but I’m not sure how you’ll feel when I’m finished. I come from a different place—the land of slavery. They’ve gained some freedom—it's good that slavery is partially gone; but not completely. I want it completely gone. Then we will all be truly free. I believe that if I’m held accountable for my actions just like any man, I deserve the same rights as any man. There’s a lot of talk about men of color getting their rights, but no mention of women of color; and if men of color get their rights while women of color do not, then the men will just end up dominating the women, and it will be just as bad as it was before. So, I’m in favor of keeping the momentum going while things are active; because if we wait until it calms down, it’ll take a long time to get it back up again. White women tend to be more educated and informed than women of color, who often don’t know much at all. They often take on washing jobs, which is about the highest position a woman of color can reach, while their men tend to be idle, just strutting around; and when the women come home, they demand money, take all of it, and then complain about having no food. I want you to think about that, kids. I call you kids; you belong to someone, and I’m old enough to be a mother to all of you here. I want women to have their rights. In the courts, women have no rights, no voice; nobody stands up for them. I want women to have their say in those places filled with petty lawyers. If it’s not a suitable place for women, then it’s not suitable for men either.
I am above eighty years old; it is about time for me to be going. I have been forty years a slave and forty years free, and would be here forty years more to have equal rights for all. I suppose I am kept here because something remains for me to do; I suppose I am yet to help to[Pg 194] break the chain. I have done a great deal of work; as much as a man, but did not get so much pay. I used to work in the field and bind grain, keeping up with the cradler; but men doing no more, got twice as much pay; so with the German women. They work in the field and do as much work, but do not get the pay. We do as much, we eat as much, we want as much. I suppose I am about the only colored woman that goes about to speak for the rights of the colored women. I want to keep the thing stirring, now that the ice is cracked. What we want is a little money. You men know that you get as much again as women when you write, or for what you do. When we get our rights we shall not have to come to you for money, for then we shall have money enough in our own pockets; and may be you will ask us for money. But help us now until we get it. It is a good consolation to know that when we have got this battle once fought we shall not be coming to you any more. You have been having our rights so long, that you think, like a slave-holder, that you own us. I know that it is hard for one who has held the reins for so long to give up; it cuts like a knife. It will feel all the better when it closes up again. I have been in Washington about three years, seeing about these colored people. Now colored men have the right to vote. There ought to be equal rights now more than ever, since colored people have got their freedom. I am going to talk several times while I am here; so now I will do a little singing. I have not heard any singing since I came here.
I’m over eighty years old; it’s about time for me to leave. I’ve spent forty years as a slave and forty years free, and I’d stay for another forty if it meant equal rights for everyone. I think I’m still here because there’s something left for me to do; I believe I’m meant to help break the chain. I’ve done a lot of work—just as much as any man—but didn’t get paid as much. I used to work in the fields and bind grain, keeping up with the men who harvest; they did no more than I did but earned twice the pay. The same goes for the German women. They work in the fields and do just as much, but they don’t get what they deserve either. We do the same amount, we eat the same amount, we want the same amount. I guess I’m one of the few Black women who advocates for the rights of Black women. I want to keep the momentum going now that we’ve started to make some progress. What we need is a little financial support. You men know that you earn a lot more than women for the same work. Once we get our rights, we won’t have to come to you for money anymore because we’ll have enough in our own pockets; maybe you’ll even ask us for help. But please support us now until we can stand on our own. It’s reassuring to know that after we win this battle, we won’t be coming to you again. You’ve had our rights for so long that you think, like a slaveholder, that you own us. I know it’s tough for someone who’s held power for so long to let go; it’s painful. But it will feel a lot better when it’s over. I’ve been in Washington for about three years, advocating for these Black folks. Now Black men have the right to vote. There should be equal rights now more than ever since Black people have gained their freedom. I plan to speak several times while I’m here, so for now, I’ll do a little singing. I haven’t heard any singing since I arrived.
Accordingly, suiting the action to the word, Sojourner sang, "We are going home." "There, children," said she, "in heaven we shall rest from all our labors; first do all we have to do here. There I am determined to go, not to stop short of that beautiful place, and I do not mean to stop till I get there, and meet you there, too."
Accordingly, putting action to her words, Sojourner sang, "We're going home." "Listen, kids," she said, "in heaven we’ll rest from all our hard work; first, we need to finish everything we have to do here. I'm set on getting there, and I won’t stop until I reach that beautiful place, and I plan to meet you there, too."
Charles C. Burleigh said: I consider it among the good omens with which the Society enters upon its new year of labor, that its workers have been so busy, as appears from the informal report of the Secretary this morning, that really they have not had time to let the left hand know what the right hand was doing. It shows an earnestness, a determination, a vigor, an industry, which can not co-exist with a cause of righteousness like the one before us without hopeful results. There is no narrow question here. We are not contending for Woman's Suffrage or Negro Suffrage, but for a broad principle of right applicable to the whole race. Those in opposition to us have really nothing to stand upon. While we may fairly assume that the burden of proof lies upon those who urge objections, that ours is the affirmative case, and all that we are bound to do is to answer objections; yet in this reform, as in others which have preceded it, its enemies not being willing to take the burden of proof, we have undertaken to do their work as well as our own. We are willing, therefore, for the sake of meeting every cavil, for the sake of fighting every shadow of objection, to take the laboring oar which the other side should take, and to prove the objections unfounded which they have not yet attempted to prove well-founded.
Charles C. Burleigh said: I see it as a positive sign as the Society begins its new year of work that our members have been so engaged, as noted in the Secretary's informal report this morning, that they haven't even had time to coordinate their efforts. This demonstrates dedication, determination, energy, and hard work that can't exist alongside a righteous cause like ours without bringing about positive outcomes. This isn't a narrow issue. We're not just fighting for Women's Suffrage or African American Suffrage; we're advocating for a broad principle of justice that applies to everyone. Those who oppose us really don't have a solid foundation. While we can reasonably expect that the burden of proof falls on those who oppose us, since we have the affirmative case, and all we need to do is respond to objections; in this reform, as with previous ones, because its opponents are unwilling to take on that burden, we've taken on their responsibilities as well as our own. Therefore, we're ready to tackle every nitpick and fight every hint of opposition by taking on the work that the other side should be doing, and to demonstrate that their objections are baseless, which they haven't yet shown to be valid.
We are told sometimes that women ought not to share with men in the rights we claim for humanity, because of the difference of sex; that there[Pg 195] is a sex of soul as well as of body. This is an objection practically cutting its own throat; because if it is true that there is a diversity of sex in soul which ought to be recognized in political institutions as well as in social arrangements, how can you rightly determine woman's proper place in society by the standard of a man's intellect? How can man's intellect determine what kind of legislation suits the condition of woman? The very fact, then, of the diversity of the masculine understanding and masculine spirit, proves the necessity of assigning to woman a share in the work which is to be done affecting woman. Manifestly one of these two things must be true: Either there is no such essential difference worthy to be taken into account, in which case woman has the same rights as man, and there is no necessity for making a distinction; or there is an essential difference, in which case man is not competent to do the work of legislating for the whole of society without the aid of woman. We might just as well let one effigy stand in the tailor's shop, as the standard of measurement of every garment the tailor is to make, and also of every garment the dressmaker is to make as to found the legislation for all upon one standard. If you recognize a difference, let your legislation proceed from both elements of the body politic which your legislation is to affect.
We sometimes hear that women shouldn't share the rights we claim for humanity because of the difference between the sexes; that there[Pg 195] is a difference in soul as well as in body. This argument essentially undermines itself; because if it's true that there is a difference in the soul that should be acknowledged in political systems as well as in social structures, how can you properly determine a woman's place in society by measuring it against a man's intellect? How can a man's understanding decide what kind of laws are suitable for women? The very existence of a difference in masculine understanding and spirit highlights the need to include women in the work that impacts them. Clearly, one of these two statements must be true: Either there is no significant difference worth considering, in which case women have the same rights as men and there's no need for distinction; or there is a significant difference, in which case men aren't qualified to legislate for all of society without women's input. It would be just as unreasonable to use one mannequin in a tailor's shop as the standard for every garment the tailor and dressmaker are to create as it is to base all legislation on a single standard. If you acknowledge a difference, let your laws be shaped by both parts of the body politic that your legislation is meant to influence.
It is said also, that if you allow women to vote, the logic of your argument will go further and require that women shall be voted for and they may chance to receive votes enough for election; and they may even go to the State Legislature or to Congress. Suppose such a thing should happen, would a city which is represented in the Congress of the United States by John Morrissey and Fernando Wood, have reason to blush if by some singular good fortune she should chance to be represented by Elizabeth Cady Stanton? (Applause.) Would the halls of Congress suffer any loss of dignity, or any loss of efficiency, even if John Morrissey's place should be vacated to make room for Mrs. Stanton, or if some Pennsylvania Democrat should be allowed to remain at home while Lucretia Mott occupied his chair? (Applause.) Is it so terrible that women who can utter sentiments as noble and elevating as those to which you have listened, who can sustain them by logic as clear, and who can expose with such delicate wit the ridiculous absurdity of the opposite side, should have a voice in the counsels of the nation? Somebody says that "the child is father to the man." You know who govern the children. Who governed you when you were children? Is it not as safe that woman should govern in the halls of national legislation as in the family and in the school? You will find in hundreds of schools, governed a few years ago by men, only women for teachers to-day. I remember that in a building which contained some three hundred pupils, the last man employed as a teacher was an assistant teacher under the supervision of a woman as principal; a woman who has vindicated her right to the place by her admirable administration, and her admirable adaptation to the business of teaching, so that she has become, as it were, a fixture in that schoolhouse. And that is only one case among many. And if woman excels in government in those spheres in which she has had an opportunity to prove her ability, it is at least safe to try the experiment further.[Pg 196]
It's also said that if you let women vote, the logic of your argument will extend further and demand that women be voted for, and they might actually get enough votes to be elected; they could even join the State Legislature or Congress. If that were to happen, would a city represented in the U.S. Congress by John Morrissey and Fernando Wood really have to feel embarrassed if, by some amazing luck, it ended up being represented by Elizabeth Cady Stanton? (Applause.) Would Congress lose any dignity or effectiveness if John Morrissey's spot was given to Mrs. Stanton, or if a Pennsylvania Democrat stayed home while Lucretia Mott took his seat? (Applause.) Is it so shocking that women, who can express such noble and uplifting ideas that you've just heard, who can support them with clear logic, and who can cleverly point out the absurdities of the opposing view, should have a say in the nation's decision-making? Someone once said, "the child is father to the man." You know who raises the children. Who took care of you when you were kids? Isn't it just as safe for women to govern in the national legislature as it is in the family and the classroom? You’ll find in hundreds of schools that were once run by men, there are now only women teaching. I remember that in a building with about three hundred students, the last male teacher was an assistant under a female principal; a woman who has proven her right to lead through her excellent administration and her great talent for teaching, making her basically a permanent fixture in that school. And that's just one example among many. If women have excelled in governance in areas where they’ve had the chance to show their skills, it's at least reasonable to try expanding that opportunity. [Pg 196]
We have just seen one folly, one absurdity refuted by the simple process of trying an experiment. The time was when it was deemed altogether unwomanly, and repugnant to female delicacy and refinement, for a woman to ink the ends of her fingers in handling a pen; for a woman to be what was derisively called a "blue-stocking," or a literary woman. It was thought that nothing but pedantry, nothing but slatternly habits and neglected housekeeping, could come of it. But who would be willing to banish from the literary world to-day such names as Browning, Hemans, Stowe, and Gage? And if I were to fill out the catalogue of names, I might close my speech at the end of it, having tired you all with the length of the recital. So it was said that women should not appear on the public platform. But who now would banish the women who have delighted such vast congregations, and who have drawn such applause from all classes and conditions of men? Who, to-day, considers it improper for Lucy Stone, Anna Dickinson, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Gage, to appear upon a public platform? Who is willing to shut the pulpit against Mrs. Mott, when she has filled it with such acceptance, in so many places, and on so many occasions? Step by step, woman has advanced toward her right position. Step by step, as she advanced, she has proved her right, to the satisfaction of caviling skepticism itself....
We just witnessed one mistake, one absurdity overturned by simply conducting an experiment. There was a time when it was considered entirely unfeminine and against the idea of delicacy and refinement for a woman to get ink on her fingers from using a pen; for a woman to take on the label of a "blue-stocking," or a literary woman. People believed that it would lead only to pretentiousness, unkempt habits, and messy housekeeping. However, who would want to exclude from the literary world today names like Browning, Hemans, Stowe, and Gage? If I were to list more names, I might have to end my speech because you’d be tired of hearing it go on. It was once said that women shouldn’t speak publicly. But who would now exclude the women who have captivated large audiences and received applause from all walks of life? Who today thinks it's inappropriate for Lucy Stone, Anna Dickinson, Mrs. Stanton, and Mrs. Gage to take the stage? Who would deny Mrs. Mott the pulpit, given her acceptance and impact in so many places and on so many occasions? Step by step, women have progressed toward their rightful place. Step by step, as they moved forward, they proved their right to do so, even to the satisfaction of the most doubtful skeptics….
She would now go a step further. She demands the rights, not of womanhood, but of humanity. And I feel just as confident that what she demands will be conceded, in reference to her political rights, as that it has been conceded with regard to these other rights, which are now settled in the estimation of thinking and reasoning people. The tide sets that way, clearly and strongly. Kansas is not to go alone, in granting this right to woman. The agitation is to go on; and the more you resist the current of events, the more earnestly will the agitation be continued until reason shall be convinced; until prejudice shall be overcome by the power of conviction; until men are constrained, from very shame, to withdraw from a position which no argument, no experience can justify, which no consideration of decency will palliate.
She is ready to take it a step further. She demands rights, not just for women, but for all people. I am just as confident that her demands for political rights will be granted as I am that the other rights, which are now accepted by thoughtful and rational individuals, have already been recognized. The movement is clearly and strongly in that direction. Kansas will not be the only place to give this right to women. The push for change will continue; the more you try to resist the flow of events, the more determined the campaign will be until reason prevails; until biases are overcome by the power of persuasion; until men are forced, out of shame, to abandon a stance that no argument or experience can justify, and that no sense of decency can excuse.
One objection to our claim is, that the right of voting should not belong to human beings as individuals, but rather to households of human beings. This is not a denial of equality in all respects, but an allegation that the right belongs neither to the man nor to the woman, but to the household; and that for the household, as its representative, the man casts the ballot. Suppose I concede that, what then? Why should the head of the household, or rather the hand of the household, be masculine rather than feminine? We have heard the argument over and over again that woman should leave to man the counting-house, the work-bench, and all the duties supposed peculiarly to appertain to masculine humanity, and should attend to "household" matters. If, then, suffrage is a household matter, why should not woman attend to it, in her feminine capacity, as peculiarly within her domestic province, and relieve man from the interruption of his appropriate duties?
One objection to our claim is that the right to vote shouldn't belong to individuals but rather to households. This doesn't deny equality in all respects but suggests that the right belongs to the household rather than to the man or the woman, and the man casts the ballot as its representative. Suppose I agree with that—what then? Why should the head of the household, or rather the hand of the household, be masculine instead of feminine? We've heard the argument repeatedly that women should leave the counting house, the workshop, and all the tasks thought to be specifically for men, and focus on "household" matters. So, if voting is a household issue, why can't women handle it in their feminine role, as part of their domestic responsibilities, and let men focus on their appropriate duties?
Rev. Mr. Ray inquired what was the basis for the right of suffrage, if suffrage was not, as Mr. Burleigh had said yesterday in another place, a natural right. If it does not belong to the individual whence does it come?[Pg 197] The Sultan of Turkey may claim that the right belongs to him, and that he may delegate that right to whomsoever he will to assist him in the government of the people. But in a Republic the right must be in the individual; and if so, it belongs to woman as well as to man, to black as well as to white persons. If the right of suffrage is not a natural right, why has not the Constitutional Convention about to meet the right to limit the suffrage, if they think it will secure the best interest of the State?
Rev. Mr. Ray asked what the foundation of the right to vote is if, as Mr. Burleigh mentioned yesterday elsewhere, it’s not a natural right. If it doesn’t belong to the individual, where does it come from?[Pg 197] The Sultan of Turkey might argue that the right belongs to him and that he can give it to whoever he chooses to help him govern the people. But in a Republic, the right must reside with the individual; and if that’s the case, it belongs to women as well as men, and to Black people as well as white people. If the right to vote isn't a natural right, why doesn’t the upcoming Constitutional Convention have the authority to limit suffrage if they believe it would benefit the State?
Frances D. Gage said: I have but little to say because it is almost two o'clock, and hungry and weary people are not good listeners to speeches. I shall confine my remarks therefore to one special point brought up this morning and not fully discussed. Sojourner Truth gave us the whole truth in about fifteen words: "If I am responsible for the deeds done in my body, the same as the white male citizen is, I have a right to all the rights he has to help him through the world." I shall speak for the slave woman at the South. I have always lifted my voice for her when I have spoken at all. I will not give up the slave woman into the hands of man, to do with her as he pleases hereafter. I know the plea that was made to me in South Carolina, and down in the Mississippi valley. They said, "You give us a nominal freedom, but you leave us under the heel of our husbands, who are tyrants almost equal to our masters." The former slave man of the South has learned his lesson of oppression and wrong of his old master; and they think the wife has no right to her earnings. I was often asked, "Why don't the Government pay my wife's earnings to me?" When acting for the Freedman's Aid Society, the orders came to us to compel marriage, or to separate families. I issued the order as I was bound to do, as General Superintendent of the Fourth Division under General Saxton. The men came to me and wanted to be married, because they said if they were married in the church, they could manage the women, and take care of their money, but if they were not married in the church the women took their own wages and did just as they had a mind to. But the women came to me and said, "We don't want to be married in the church, because if we are our husbands will whip the children and whip us if they want to; they are no better than old masters." The biggest quarrel I had with the colored people down there, was with a plantation man because I would not furnish a nurse for his child. "No, Nero," said I, "I can not hire a nurse for your child while Nancy works in the cotton field." "But what is we to do? I'se a poor miserable man and can't work half the time, and Nancy is a good strong hand; and we must have a nurse." He went away in utter disgust, and declared to the people outside that I had got the miserablest notion he had ever heard, to spoil a good field hand like his Nancy to nurse her own baby.
Frances D. Gage said: I don’t have much to say because it’s almost two o'clock, and tired and hungry people aren’t great listeners to speeches. So, I’ll focus my comments on one specific point that was brought up this morning but not fully discussed. Sojourner Truth summed it all up in about fifteen words: "If I am responsible for the actions of my body, just like a white male citizen is, I have a right to all the rights he has to help him navigate the world." I will speak for the enslaved woman in the South. I have always spoken up for her whenever I had the chance. I will not let the enslaved woman be handed over to man, to do with her whatever he wants going forward. I know the argument that was presented to me in South Carolina and throughout the Mississippi Valley. They said, "You give us a false sense of freedom, but you leave us under the control of our husbands, who are nearly as tyrannical as our masters." The former enslaved men of the South have learned their lessons on oppression and wrong from their old masters; they believe their wives have no right to their earnings. I was often asked, "Why doesn’t the Government pay my wife's earnings to me?" When I was working for the Freedman's Aid Society, we received orders to either enforce marriage or separate families. I issued that order as I was required to do, as General Superintendent of the Fourth Division under General Saxton. Men came to me wanting to get married because they said that if they were married in the church, they could control their wives and manage their money, but if they weren’t married in the church, the women would keep their own wages and do whatever they wanted. However, the women came to me and said, "We don’t want to get married in the church, because if we do, our husbands will beat the children and us if they want to; they’re no better than old masters." The biggest argument I had with the Black community down there was with a plantation owner because I wouldn’t provide a nurse for his child. "No, Nero," I told him, "I can’t hire a nurse for your child while Nancy works in the cotton field." "But what are we supposed to do? I’m a poor, miserable man and can’t work half the time, and Nancy is a strong worker; we need a nurse." He left in total frustration and told people outside that I had the worst idea he had ever heard, to ruin a good field hand like Nancy by making her nurse her own baby.
We were told the other day by Wendell Phillips, upon the Anti-Slavery platform, that it takes people forty years to outgrow an old idea. The slave population of the South is not yet removed a hundred years from the barbarism of Africa, where women have no rights, no privileges, but are trampled under foot in all the savageism of the past. And the slave man has looked on to see his master will everything as he willed, and he has learned the lesson from his master. Mr. Higginson told us that the[Pg 198] slave-master never understood the slave. I know that to be the fact. Neither does man understand woman to-day, because she has always been held subservient to him. Now it is proposed to give manhood the suffrage in all these Southern States, and to leave the poor slave woman bound under the ban of the direst curse of slavery to him who is the father of her children. It is decreed upon all the statute books of slavery, that the child shall follow the condition of the mother. That has been the decree from the beginning of this awful slave system; that the whitest woman, the child of a slave mother, whose hair curled down to her waist, and whose blue eyes of beauty were a lure to the statesmen of the South, should be a slave, though the Governor of the State were her father. Are you to leave her there yet, and desecrate marriage, by making it such a bond of slavery that the woman shall say, "I do not want to be married, to suffer oppression!" Are you to force prostitution and wrong upon those people by these unjust laws? Are you to compel wickedness and crime? Are you going to let it stand upon the statute books of the Southern States that the only woman free to work for her own child shall be the mother of illegitimate children? That is the consequence of what you are doing to the people who in all time past, since they have lived upon this continent, have been denied the right of sacred marriage; and who must have, as Wendell Phillips tells us, forty years to outgrow the past, or to educate them.
We were told recently by Wendell Phillips at the Anti-Slavery platform that it takes people forty years to move on from an old idea. The enslaved population of the South is not yet a hundred years removed from the brutality of Africa, where women have no rights or privileges and are oppressed by the harshness of history. The enslaved man has witnessed his master exert control as he wished, and he has learned that lesson from his master. Mr. Higginson mentioned that the slave master never truly understood the slave. I know that to be true. Similarly, men today do not understand women, because women have always been seen as subordinate to them. Now, the plan is to grant men the right to vote in all these Southern States, while leaving the enslaved women subjected to the harshest curse of slavery under the man who is the father of their children. It is established in all the laws of slavery that a child's status follows that of the mother. That has been the rule from the start of this terrible slave system; that the fairest woman, a child of an enslaved mother, whose hair curled down to her waist and beautiful blue eyes captivated Southern politicians, will be a slave, even if the Governor of the State is her father. Are you really going to leave her there and tarnish marriage by making it such a bond of slavery that the woman must say, "I don’t want to be married, to suffer oppression?" Are you going to force immorality and injustice upon these people with these unfair laws? Will you compel wrongdoing and crime? Are you going to allow the laws of the Southern States to stand, dictating that the only woman free to care for her own child will be the mother of illegitimate children? That is the outcome of what you are doing to people who, throughout their time here, have been denied the right to sacred marriage; and who, as Wendell Phillips says, need forty years to move past it or to be educated.
We are told by Mr. Phillips to flood the South with spelling-books. Who is to carry them there? Who, to-day, is teaching the Southern people;—for I am talking now in behalf of the colored woman of the South, forgetting my own degradation. Who have carried the spelling-book to the South? The women of the North, gathering up their strength, have been sent down by all these great societies to teach. The colored men of the South are to vote, while they deny the ballot to their teacher! It is said that women do not want to vote in this country. I tell you, it is a libel upon womanhood. I care not who says it. I am in earnest. They do want to vote. Fifty-two thousand pulpits in this country have been teaching women the lesson that has been taught them for centuries, that they must not think about voting. But when 52,000 pulpits, or 52,000 politicians, at the beginning of this war, lifted up their voices and asked of women, "Come out and help us," did they stand back? In every hamlet, in every village, in every cabin, and every palace, in every home in the whole United States, they rose up and went to work. They worked for the Government; they worked for the nation; they worked for their sons, their husbands, their fathers, their brothers, their friends. They worked night and day. Who found women to stand back when this great public opinion that had been crushing them so long and forbidding them to work, at last lifted itself up and said, "You may work"? (Applause).
Mr. Phillips tells us to flood the South with spelling books. Who's going to take them there? Who's teaching the Southern people today? I'm speaking up for the colored women in the South, putting aside my own struggles. Who brought the spelling book to the South? It was the women from the North, gathering their strength, sent by all these major organizations to teach. The colored men in the South can vote, while they're denying the ballot to their teacher! They say women don't want to vote in this country. I say that's false and disrespectful to womanhood, no matter who says it. I mean this seriously. They do want to vote. Fifty-two thousand pulpits across this nation have been teaching women for centuries that they shouldn't think about voting. But when 52,000 pulpits or politicians called out to women at the start of this war, asking, "Come help us," did they hold back? No. In every town, every village, every cabin, every mansion, in every home across the United States, they stepped up and got to work. They worked for the government; they worked for the nation; they worked for their sons, husbands, fathers, brothers, and friends. They worked day and night. Who found women standing back when this long-suppressed public opinion finally said, "You can work"? (Applause).
I have been traveling all winter long, with a few intervals of rest, talking not upon Equal Rights, but upon the subject of Temperance; and whenever I said to my crowded audiences that we must give to woman the right to vote that she may purify the nation of this great sin, there went up shouts and clapping of hands of men and women. They are ready for this work. What we want is to crystallize the public opinion of all ranks of society in its favor.[Pg 199] There is great fear that if woman is allowed to vote, she will lose something of her high and excellent character. If it is right for woman to have the suffrage, it is not right to talk of expediency. If giving woman the ballot will cause her to lose her prestige, it is because she ought to lose it. If she gains physical strength and loses that effeminate delicacy that provides for nothing and cares for nothing but its own selfish, quiet enjoyment, I shall rejoice with joy unspeakable. My strong hands have tilled the fields; and in my early childhood have harnessed the horse, and brought the wood to the door; have led him to the blacksmith's shop to be shod. These are things I do not often tell in public. I have braved public opinion; I have tilled my garden; I have brought myself up from fainting weakness occasioned by accident and broken bones. I have taken care of myself, supported myself, and asked nothing from the world; I find my womanhood not one bit degraded. (Applause). A thousand times in the last years, in this struggle for bread, have I been asked, "Why don't you let your sons support you?" My answer is, "My six sons have their own duties. My six boys have their own labors. God gives me strength to earn my own bread, and I will do it as long as I can." (Applause). That is what I want to teach the womanhood of the country. I did not mean to talk so long; but I assure you I talk in earnest. If I sometimes, by a slip of the tongue, make some little mistake—for I have not been educated in the schools, (a log cabin schoolhouse in the wilderness gave me all I have)—you will excuse me, for I mean no injustice to any one. And if to-night it will not crowd some better woman or man from the platform, I shall be glad to speak to you again.
I’ve been traveling all winter, taking brief breaks, and instead of focusing on Equal Rights, I’ve been discussing Temperance. Whenever I tell my packed audiences that we need to grant women the right to vote so they can help rid the nation of this major sin, the crowd erupts in cheers and applause from both men and women. They’re ready for this change. What we need to do is rally public opinion across all levels of society in support of it.[Pg 199] There’s a significant fear that if women are allowed to vote, they will somehow lose their admirable and excellent character. If it's just, then women should have the right to vote, and it’s not right to talk about what’s expedient. If giving women the vote diminishes their status, it’s because they need to lose it. If they gain physical strength and lose that delicate femininity that cares only for its own selfish comfort, I will rejoice profoundly. My strong hands have worked the fields, and as a child, I harnessed the horse and gathered firewood. I’ve led him to the blacksmith to get shod. These are things I don't often share publicly. I have defied public opinion; I have tended my garden; I have recovered from the faintness caused by accidents and broken bones. I’ve taken care of myself, supported myself, and didn’t ask anything from the world; I find my womanhood hasn’t been degraded at all. (Applause). Countless times in recent years, during this struggle to make ends meet, I’ve been asked, “Why don’t you let your sons take care of you?” My response is, “My six sons have their own responsibilities. My six boys have their own work. God gives me strength to earn my own living, and I’ll keep doing it as long as I can.” (Applause). That’s what I want to convey to the women of this country. I didn’t mean to speak for so long, but I assure you I’m sincere in my words. If I occasionally make a small mistake due to a slip of the tongue—for I haven’t been formally educated (having learned everything I know in a log cabin schoolhouse in the wilderness)—please forgive me, as I mean no harm to anyone. And if tonight I won’t take the spot of someone more deserving on this stage, I’d be happy to speak to you again.
Mrs. Mott.—The argument that has been made that women do not want to vote is like that which we had to meet in the early days of the Anti-Slavery enterprise, that the slaves did not want to be free. I remember that in one of our earliest Woman's Rights Conventions, in Syracuse, a resolution was offered to the effect that as the assertion that the slave did not want his freedom, and would not take it if offered to him, only proved the depth of his degradation, so the assertion that woman had all the rights she wanted only gave evidence how far the influence of the law and customs, and the perverted application of the Scriptures, had encircled and crushed her. This was fifteen or twenty years ago. Times are altered since. In the temperance reformation, and in the great reformatory movements of our age, woman's powers have been called into action. They are beginning to see that another state of things is possible for them, and they are beginning to demand their rights. Why should this church be granted for such a meeting as this, but for the progress of the cause? Why are so many women present, ready to respond to the most ultra and most radical sentiments here, but that woman has grown and is able to assume her rights?
Mrs. Mott.—The argument that women don’t want to vote is similar to the one we faced in the early days of the Anti-Slavery movement, claiming that slaves didn’t want to be free. I remember in one of our first Woman's Rights Conventions in Syracuse, a resolution was proposed stating that the claim that slaves didn’t want their freedom, and wouldn’t accept it if offered, only highlighted how deeply degraded they were. Similarly, the idea that women have all the rights they want shows just how much the law, customs, and the twisted interpretation of the Scriptures have trapped and stifled them. That was fifteen or twenty years ago. Times have changed since then. In the temperance movement and the major reform efforts of our time, women’s abilities have been brought to the forefront. They are beginning to realize that a different situation is possible for them, and they are starting to demand their rights. Why should this church be made available for a meeting like this, if not to further the cause? Why are so many women here, ready to support the most extreme and radical ideas expressed, if not because women have grown and are ready to claim their rights?
In many of the States the laws have been so modified that the wife now stands in a very different position as regards the right of property and other rights, from that which she occupied fifteen or twenty years ago. You see the same advance in the literary world. I remember when Maria Edgeworth and her sister first published their works, that they were afraid to publish their own name, and borrowed the name of their father. So Frances Power Cobbe was not able to write over her own name, and she issued her "Intuitive Morals" without a name; and her father was so much pleased with the[Pg 200] work, without knowing it was his daughter's, that it led to an acknowledgment after a while.
In many states, the laws have changed so much that wives now have a very different status regarding property rights and other rights compared to fifteen or twenty years ago. You can see the same progress in the literary world. I remember when Maria Edgeworth and her sister first published their works; they were hesitant to use their own names and borrowed their father's name instead. Likewise, Frances Power Cobbe couldn't write under her own name and published her "Intuitive Morals" anonymously. Her father was so impressed with the[Pg 200] work, unaware that it was his daughter's, that it eventually led to a recognition of her authorship.
Stephen S. Foster: Will you give us the evidence that the statement that the women of this country do not want the ballot is not true? I should be glad to believe that; but in my experience the worst opposition to the progress of Woman's Rights has come from woman herself. The greatest indifference to the cause is to be found among women, and not among men. I wish it were not so. I hope I am mistaken. But I believe nine out of every ten of our public speakers will tell you that they find more help, more sympathy from men than from women.
Stephen S. Foster: Can you provide evidence that the claim that women in this country don’t want the right to vote is false? I would love to believe that; however, in my experience, the strongest opposition to advancing women’s rights has often come from women themselves. The greatest apathy towards the cause is found among women, not men. I wish that weren’t the case. I hope I'm wrong. But I truly believe that nine out of ten public speakers will say they receive more support and sympathy from men than from women.
Rev. S. J. May: I should like to have that question settled, so far as the women present are concerned. Will as many of you as will vote when the right is awarded to you, please to manifest it by rising.
Rev. S. J. May: I would like to settle that question, at least for the women here. Can those of you who will vote when you are given the right, please show it by standing up?
Nearly the whole of the ladies present immediately arose. Indeed, those on the platform, could not see a single woman who retained her seat.
Almost all the women present quickly stood up. In fact, those on the platform couldn't see a single woman who stayed seated.
Mrs. Gage: During the last fifteen years, with the utmost industry I could use in ascertaining the public opinion in this country, I have never found one solitary instance of a woman, whom I could meet alone by her fireside, where there was no fear of public opinion, or the minister, or the law-maker, or her father, or her husband, who did not tell me she would like to vote. [Applause]. I never found a slave in my life, who, removed from the eye of the people about him, would not tell me he wanted liberty—never one. I have been in the slave States for years. I have been in the slave-pens, and upon the plantations, and have stood beside the slave as he worked in the sugar cane and the cotton-field; and I never found one who dared in the presence of white men to say he wanted freedom. When women and young girls are asked if they want to vote, they are almost always in just that situation where they are afraid to speak what they think; and no wonder they so often say they do not want to vote.
Mrs. Gage: Over the past fifteen years, with all the effort I could put into understanding public opinion in this country, I have never encountered a single woman, whom I could meet privately in her home—where there was no fear of judgment from society, the minister, lawmakers, her father, or her husband—who didn’t express a desire to vote. [Applause]. I have never met a slave in my life, who, away from the watchful eyes of those around him, wouldn’t tell me he wanted freedom—never one. I have spent years in slaveholding states. I’ve been in slave pens, and on plantations, standing beside slaves as they labored in the sugar cane and cotton fields; and I never found one who would dare express a desire for freedom in front of white men. When women and young girls are asked if they want to vote, they are often in a situation where they feel too intimidated to say what they really think; it’s no surprise they frequently say they don’t want to vote.
EVENING SESSION.
The meeting was called to order by the President, Mrs. Mott, who introduced as the first speaker Col. Charles E. Moss, of Missouri.
The meeting began with the President, Mrs. Mott, introducing Col. Charles E. Moss from Missouri as the first speaker.
Mr. Moss said: This is a subject upon which I have thought for a number of years; and I have become fully convinced that no reason can be assigned for extending the right of suffrage to any of the male sex, that does not equally apply to the female.
Mr. Moss said: This is a topic I've been thinking about for years; and I've become completely convinced that there’s no justification for extending the right to vote to any man that doesn’t also apply to women.
When our fathers formed the national Constitution, they made it their duty to secure to every State a republican form of government. No government can be republican in form, unless it is so in substance and in fact; based upon the consent of the governed. After the troublesome war we have just passed through, we are called upon not only to reconstruct the ten unrepresented States of the nation, but to purify the republicanism of our government in the Northern States and make it more consistent with our professions. It is a fit time, then, to take up the subject of suffrage, and to[Pg 201] base it upon a well-established principle. Some say that the right of suffrage is a privilege, to be given or withheld at pleasure. That does not seem to me a very safe foundation for so important a right. It is either a privilege or a natural right. If we recognize it as a natural right we have a peaceable, safe, legal mode of resistance against the disfranchisement of the people. If we admit it to be a privilege to be granted or withheld, no man and no woman has any legal right to interpose any objection to his own disfranchisement. But I see that our friend has come in who was expected first to address you, and I will not take up more of your time.
When our forefathers created the national Constitution, they made it their responsibility to ensure that every State had a republican form of government. No government can truly be republican unless it is fundamentally based on the consent of the people. After the challenging war we've just experienced, we are tasked not only with reconstructing the ten unrepresented States of the nation but also with refining the republicanism of our government in the Northern States to align it better with our values. Now is the right time to discuss suffrage and to[Pg 201] base it on a solid principle. Some argue that the right to vote is a privilege that can be granted or revoked at will. To me, that doesn’t seem like a strong foundation for such an important right. It is either a privilege or a natural right. If we acknowledge it as a natural right, we have a peaceful and legal way to fight against the disenfranchisement of the people. If we accept it as a privilege that can be given or taken away, then no man or woman has any legal grounds to object to their own disenfranchisement. But I see our friend who was expected to speak first has arrived, so I won't take up more of your time.
Parker Pillsbury was next introduced and said: The resolutions just read refer to the comparative longevity of nations and of individual men, and of their respective performance, while existence lasts.
Parker Pillsbury was next introduced and said: The resolutions just read talk about how long nations and individual people last, and how well they perform during their existence.
Among nations have arisen Franklins and Washingtons, Humboldts and Howards; but what individual nation of any period has been the Plato or Pythagoras, the Howard or the Humboldt of all the rest? or has achieved proportionally, so long a life? or expired at last in sunsets of serenity and glory, and been embalmed and enshrined in the tears and gratitude of mankind? It is often said that the life of a nation is as the life of an individual; with beginning, progress, decay, and dissolution. But the resemblance holds only in part. Consciousness comes to an individual, and self-respect; and from that hour growth and greatness (it may be) begin. But with nations it is not so. The world has not made the same demand of nations as of individuals, and so nothing is expected of them. Nations, hitherto, were badly brought up. In the light of a thousand years hence, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries will be "darker ages" than the eighth and ninth are to-day. Accepting three-score and ten as the common life of an individual, a degree at least of honorable manhood is often achieved, both in personal virtues, and in noble performance.
Among nations have emerged Franklins and Washingtons, Humboldts and Howards; but which individual nation at any time has been the Plato or Pythagoras, the Howard or the Humboldt of all others? Or has lived as long in proportion? Or faded away finally in sunsets of peace and glory, and been preserved and honored in the tears and gratitude of humanity? It is often said that the life of a nation is like the life of an individual; it begins, progresses, decays, and ultimately dissolves. But the comparison is only partially accurate. An individual gains self-awareness and self-respect; and from that moment, growth and greatness (possibly) start. But it’s different for nations. The world has not expected the same things from nations as it has from individuals, so people expect little from them. Nations, up till now, have been poorly raised. Looking ahead a thousand years, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries will seem like “dark ages” compared to the eighth and ninth centuries today. Considering seventy years as the average lifespan of an individual, a significant degree of honorable maturity is often reached, both in personal virtues and in noble achievements.
The canticles of the Almanac used to run:
The canticles of the Almanac used to run:
At ten, a child; at twenty, wild;
At thirty, strong, if ever;
At forty, wise; at fifty, rich;
At sixty, good, or never.
But at what age has any nation of any period or place become wise, rich, or even strong; to say nothing of good?
But at what age has any nation at any time or place become wise, wealthy, or even powerful, not to mention virtuous?
The Roman Catholic Church is older than any civilized government on the globe. Lord Macaulay says:
The Roman Catholic Church is older than any civilized government in the world. Lord Macaulay says:
It is the only institution left standing which carries the mind back to the time when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when tigers and camel leopards bounded in the Flavian Amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, compared with the line of the supreme Pontiffs, traced back in unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century, to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond stretches the august dynasty, until it fades into the twilight of fable! She saw the commencement of all the governments on the globe, and of all the ecclesiastical establishments now existing; and there is no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all!"
It is the only institution still standing that takes us back to the time when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when tigers and leopards roamed the Flavian Amphitheatre. The most prominent royal families are just a recent phenomenon compared to the line of the supreme Pontiffs, which stretches back in an unbroken line from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the 19th century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the 8th; and even further back lies the great dynasty, fading into the twilight of mythology! She witnessed the beginning of all the governments around the world and all the religious institutions that still exist today; and there is no guarantee that she won't be around to see the end of them all!
The world has an accepted chronology of six thousand years. Its history and experience in government reach back forty centuries. It would be an interesting inquiry with what results governments have existed so long, especially[Pg 202] in the later periods and among the most enlightened of the nations. Charles the Fifth boasted that his empire saw no setting sun. It included Spain and all her vast American provinces, over large part of which to-day wave our own Stars and Stripes. The national escutcheon bore two globes; and the coin, the two Pillars of Hercules, the then acknowledged boundary of the Eastern world, with the motto "More beyond." Spain, under Philip Second, dictated law, learning, religion, especially religion, to unknown millions, not alone in Europe, but in North and South America, Africa and all the Indies. And now in the remote south-western corner of Europe is all that remains of this mighty power of the sixteenth century.
The world has an accepted timeline of six thousand years. Its history and experience in government stretch back forty centuries. It would be an interesting investigation to see the results of governments lasting this long, especially[Pg 202] in the later periods and among the most enlightened nations. Charles the Fifth claimed that his empire had no sunset. It included Spain and all her vast American territories, over large parts of which our own Stars and Stripes now fly. The national emblem featured two globes, and the coin depicted the two Pillars of Hercules, the then-recognized boundary of the Eastern world, with the motto "More beyond." Spain, under Philip II, enforced laws, education, and religion—especially religion—to countless millions, not just in Europe but also in North and South America, Africa, and all the Indies. And now, in the far southwestern corner of Europe, is all that remains of this powerful empire from the sixteenth century.
France in the eighth century under Charlemagne, was another mistress of the globe. And Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope, "Sovereign of the New Empire of the West." And yet, in less than fifty years all that mountain of magnificence exploded; and many rival nations sprang from its lava streams of blood and ashes! A remnant, too, of France was preserved; and its history for almost eight hundred years, "may be traced, like the tracks of a wounded man through a crowd, by the blood;" until it culminated in the French Revolution ("suicide of the eighteenth century," as Carlyle calls that terrible phenomenon) and Napoleon Bonaparte! And he also summoned to his coronation the Roman Pontiff, like his great predecessor of a thousand years before. And beneath the solemn arches and arcades of Notre Dame, was crowned by Pope Pius the Seventh—"The high and mighty Napoleon, the first Emperor of the French!" Plunging remorselessly into the most desolating wars, he soon astonished the civilized world with his successes. He made himself master of almost half the globe. The reign of Napoleon was an earthquake which, for fifteen years, shook the sea and the land, carrying down innumerable human lives in the general cataclysm. But he sunk at last! He aspired to the very heaven of heavens in his ambitions; and his conquests were the wonder and terror of mankind. But he left France smaller, weaker, poorer, and more debased and depraved than he found her.
France in the eighth century, under Charlemagne, was another power of the world. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope as the "Sovereign of the New Empire of the West." Yet, in less than fifty years, all that grandeur fell apart, and many rival nations emerged from its ruins of blood and ashes! A remnant of France was preserved, and its history for nearly eight hundred years can be traced "like the tracks of a wounded man through a crowd, by the blood;" until it reached its peak in the French Revolution (which Carlyle calls the "suicide of the eighteenth century") and Napoleon Bonaparte! He, too, invited the Pope to his coronation, just like his great predecessor a thousand years earlier. Under the solemn arches of Notre Dame, he was crowned by Pope Pius VII—"The high and mighty Napoleon, the first Emperor of the French!" He plunged relentlessly into devastating wars, soon astonishing the civilized world with his victories. He became the master of almost half the globe. Napoleon’s reign was an earthquake that shook the land and sea for fifteen years, claiming countless lives in the chaos. But he ultimately fell! He aimed for the highest heights with his ambitions, and his conquests inspired both wonder and fear in humanity. However, he left France smaller, weaker, poorer, and more debased and depraved than he found it.
Just eight hundred years ago last September, William the Norman landed in Britain and commenced its subjugation. Since that period, the history of Great Britain has not differed materially from that of other European nations. As the sun is said never to set on the British domain, so the thunder of its war-guns has reverberated almost continually in some corner of the globe. To trace her history, however rapidly, even had we time, could give no pleasure to this audience, and would add nothing to my present argument. It is sufficient to say that, with real estate almost immeasurable, with personal property incalculable, with a wealth of material resources of every conceivable description, absolutely unknown and unknowable, she yet contrives to support her costly establishment by a system of oppressive taxation almost unparalleled in the annals of the human race. Some of you must remember the graphic but not exaggerated description of British taxation given by Sidney Smith in the Edinburgh Review. It was almost fifty years ago; but no less revenue must be raised in some way, still. He said:
Just eight hundred years ago last September, William the Norman landed in Britain and began its conquest. Since then, the history of Great Britain has been quite similar to that of other European countries. Just like it’s said that the sun never sets on the British Empire, the sound of its cannons has constantly echoed somewhere around the world. While we could quickly go through her history, doing so wouldn’t entertain this audience, and it wouldn’t support my current point. It's enough to say that, despite having vast lands, countless personal possessions, and an immeasurable wealth of resources, Britain somehow manages to maintain its expensive government through a system of heavy taxation that is nearly unmatched in history. Some of you might recall the vivid yet accurate description of British taxation provided by Sidney Smith in the Edinburgh Review. This was nearly fifty years ago, but the need to raise the same amount of revenue still exists. He said:
We have taxes upon everything which enters into the mouth, or covers the back, or is placed under the feet; taxes upon everything which it is pleasant to see, hear, feel, smell, or taste; taxes upon warmth, light, and locomotion; taxes on everything on earth, and in the waters under the earth; taxes on everything that comes from abroad, or is[Pg 203] grown at home; taxes on the raw material, taxes on every fresh value added to it by the industry of man; taxes on the sauces which pamper man's appetite, and the drugs that restore him to health; taxes on the ermine which decorates the judge, and on the rope which hangs the criminal; on the poor man's salt and the rich man's spice; on the ribbons of the bride, on the shroud of the corpse, and the brass nails of the coffin. The school-boy whips his taxed top; the beardless youth rides his taxed horse, with a taxed saddle and bridle, on a taxed road; and the dying Englishman, pouring his medicine, which has paid seven per cent., into a spoon that has paid fifteen per cent., flings himself back upon his chintz-bed, which has paid twenty-two per cent., and expires in the arms of an apothecary who has paid a license of a hundred pounds for the privilege of putting him to death. His whole property is then taxed from two to ten per cent. Besides the probate, large fees are demanded for burying him in the chancel. His virtues are then handed down to posterity on taxed marble, and he is gathered to his fathers, to be taxed no more!
We have taxes on everything that goes into our mouths, covers our bodies, or touches the ground; taxes on everything that's nice to see, hear, feel, smell, or taste; taxes on warmth, light, and transportation; taxes on everything on land and in the waters below; taxes on everything that’s imported or grown locally; taxes on raw materials, and taxes on every added value created by people's work; taxes on the sauces that satisfy our cravings and the medicines that heal us; taxes on the fur that adorns the judge and on the rope that hangs the criminal; on the poor man's salt and the rich man's spices; on the bride's ribbons, on the corpse's shroud, and the brass nails of the coffin. The schoolboy plays with his taxed top; the young man rides his taxed horse, with a taxed saddle and bridle, on a taxed road; and the dying Englishman, pouring his medicine, which has a seven percent tax, into a spoon that has a fifteen percent tax, collapses onto his chintz bed, which has a twenty-two percent tax, and dies in the arms of a pharmacist who has paid a hundred pounds for the right to help him pass away. His entire estate is then taxed from two to ten percent. Besides the probate fees, hefty charges are demanded for burying him in the church. His good deeds are then commemorated on taxed marble, and he is laid to rest with his ancestors, no longer subject to taxes!
And we are told, what is doubtless true, that the enormous debt of Great Britain is the chain that binds its many parts together, and preserves its nationality. No nation, then, ever maintained a more precarious existence. Chartism in Scotland, Repeal in Ireland, Trades Strikes everywhere, East India Wars, Irish Famines, Fenianism, Reform Leagues, Reform Riots, Bread Riots—all these attest how volcanic is its under stratum, and what dangers impend above. In some of the gloomy gorges of the Alps, there are seasons of the year when no traveler passes but at the expense of life, on account of the terrible "thunderbolts of snow" that hang suspended on the sides or summits of the mountains. None can know their hour; but descend they must, by all the laws of gravitation, with resistless energy, sweeping all before them. At such times, all who pass creep along with trembling caution. They move in single file, at a distance from each other, hurrying fast as possible, with velvet step, avoiding all noise, even whispers—the guides meanwhile muffling the bells of the mules, lest the slightest vibration communicated to the air should untie the tremulous mass overhead and entomb them forever. Great Britain, with her frightful debt, her terrible taxation, her dissatisfied, restless, beggared myriads of the lower working classes, her remorseless aristocracy, her bloated spirit of caste, her enforced but heartless religion, has hung a more terrible avalanche over her head than ever leaped down the heights of the Tyrol.
And we're told, which is definitely true, that the massive debt of Great Britain is the chain that holds its many parts together and keeps its identity intact. No nation, then, has ever had a more unstable existence. Chartism in Scotland, Repeal in Ireland, trade strikes everywhere, East India Wars, Irish famines, Fenianism, Reform Leagues, Reform Riots, Bread Riots—all these show how explosive the situation is beneath the surface and what threats are looming above. In some of the dark gorges of the Alps, there are times of the year when no traveler passes without risking their life due to the terrible "thunderbolts of snow" that hang suspended on the mountainsides or peaks. No one can predict when they will fall; but fall they must, by all the laws of gravity, with unstoppable force, sweeping everything in their path. During such times, everyone passes through with cautious fear. They move in a single line, keeping their distance from one another, hurrying as fast as they can, with silent steps, avoiding all noise, even whispers—the guides meanwhile muffling the bells of the mules, so that the slightest vibration in the air doesn’t disturb the unstable mass above and bury them forever. Great Britain, with its terrifying debt, its crushing taxation, its dissatisfied, restless, impoverished masses of the working class, its ruthless aristocracy, its inflated sense of class, and its forced but soulless religion, has an even more dreadful avalanche looming over it than any that has ever rushed down from the Tyrol.
Such are examples of success or failure in attempts at government, among the proudest and most prosperous nations of the Old World, in modern and what are called enlightened times. If seventy years be the life of a man, what should be the life of a nation? Half the children born die under five years old. But proportionably a greater mortality prevails among nations and governments. Not one nation has ever yet attained an honorable manhood. There is something rotten in the state of every Denmark.
Such are examples of success or failure in attempts at governing among the proudest and most prosperous nations of the Old World, in modern and what are called enlightened times. If seventy years is the life of a person, what should be the lifespan of a nation? Half the children born die before turning five. But there is an even higher rate of mortality among nations and governments. Not one nation has ever achieved honorable maturity. There is something rotten in the state of every Denmark.
Will you tell me Democracy, Republicanism, consecrated by Christianity, is the remedy for all these ills? Let us look, then, at the best example. Our own nation is not yet a hundred years old, but it had behind it in the beginning, the chronicles of forty or sixty centuries, written mostly in tears and blood. At the end of an eight years' revolutionary war, our new governmental columns were reared, not, like some pagan temples, on human skulls, but on the imbruted bodies and extinguished souls of five hundred thousand chattel slaves. We had our Declaration of Independence, our war of Revolution, and a new Constitution and code of laws. We had a Washington[Pg 204] for our first President, a John Jay for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and a constellation of senators, statesmen, and sages who challenged the respect and admiration of mankind. We closed that dispensation with James Buchanan as Chief Magistrate, and Roger B. Taney as Chief-Justice, with his diabolical Dred Scott Decision, and with a war of Treason and Rebellion which deluged the land in the blood of more than half a million of men. We had multiplied our slaves to four millions, with new cruelties and horrors added to the system, and at least ten generations of them were lost in unknown graves. The new Republican President pledged his official word and honor to the rebels already in arms, that, would they but return to their allegiance, he would favor amendments to the Constitution that should not only render slave property more secure than ever before, but also make all its old guarantees and safeguards, Fugitive Slave law and all, forever "irrevocable" by any act or decree of Congress! So were we endeavoring to bulwark and balustrade our slave-system about, in the name of a Christian Republicanism, when it was struck by the lightnings of a righteous retribution, and the world is rid of it forever. And our old nationality went down in the ruin. Now we are divided, distracted, deranged in currency, commerce, diplomacy, with State and Federal liabilities resting on the people, amounting to not less than six thousand millions of dollars, not to speak of current expenditures which are also appalling; with a President whose weakness finds no parallel but in his wickedness, with a Secretary of State who has become his full counterpart in both, and a Senate too cowardly, or too corrupt, to impeach the one or to seek the removal of the other!
Will you tell me that democracy and republicanism, blessed by Christianity, are the solutions to all these problems? Let’s take a look at the best example. Our nation is not yet a hundred years old, but from the very start, it carried the weight of forty or sixty centuries, mostly chronicled in tears and blood. After eight years of revolutionary war, our new government was established, not like some pagan temples built on human skulls, but on the brutalized bodies and extinguished souls of five hundred thousand enslaved people. We had our Declaration of Independence, our Revolutionary War, and a new Constitution and set of laws. We had Washington[Pg 204] as our first President, John Jay as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and a brilliant group of senators, statesmen, and thinkers who commanded the respect and admiration of the world. We ended that era with James Buchanan as President and Roger B. Taney as Chief Justice, known for his infamous Dred Scott Decision, alongside a war of treason and rebellion that drenched the land in the blood of over half a million men. We had increased our number of enslaved people to four million, with added cruelties and horrors to the system, and at least ten generations were lost in unmarked graves. The new Republican President promised the rebels in arms that if they returned to loyalty, he would support amendments to the Constitution that would not only make slave property more secure than ever before but also ensure that all its previous guarantees and safeguards, including the Fugitive Slave Law, would be permanently "irrevocable" by any act or decree of Congress! Thus, we tried to fortify our slave system in the name of a Christian Republicanism when it was struck by the lightnings of just retribution, and the world is rid of it forever. In the wake of that, our old nation collapsed. Now we are divided, distracted, and confused in terms of currency, commerce, and diplomacy, with state and federal debts resting on the people, amounting to no less than six billion dollars, not to mention the current expenditures which are also shocking; with a President whose weakness is matched only by his wickedness, a Secretary of State who mirrors him in both respects, and a Senate that is either too cowardly or too corrupt to impeach one or remove the other!
For more than two years we have been attempting to restore the fragments of our once boasted Union. With the history and experience of forty centuries shining back upon us, so far we have failed. And under any existing or proposed policy we shall fail. By all the claims of justice and righteousness, we deserve to fail; for we are still defying those claims. The son of Priam, a priest of Apollo, was commissioned to offer a sacrifice to propitiate the god of the sea. But the offering not being acceptable, there came up two enormous serpents from the deep and attacked the priest and his two sons who stood with him at the altar. The father attempted to defend his sons; but the serpents falling upon him, enfolded him and them in their complicated coils, and strangled them to a terrible death. Let this government beware. The very union proposed will only bind and hold us together as in the deadly folds of a serpent more fearful than all the fabled monsters of the past! And so, hitherto, republics are no exception to the general law. Rickets in infancy, convulsions in childhood, or premature rheumatisms, have brought the nations of history to untimely deaths. Material interests may flourish, and nations grow great and powerful, make wars and conquests, and rule the world. The ancients did all this, but where are those haughty omnipotences now? Charlemagne did but little less, and in half a century his magnificence was brought to nought. Spain survived a little longer in its glory and grandeur; but now the scanty blood-splash on the map describes it well. The United States, young among the nations, the mother earth six thousand years old at their birth, wet-nursed by forty centuries of history, and schooled by all the experience of the ages, with almost half a globe for their inheritance, with Christianity[Pg 205] faith and Republicanism their form of government, they survived a precocious childhood and then fell a victim to their own vices and crimes. To-day they are in the hands of many physicians, though of doubtful reputation, who seem far less desirous to cure the patient than to divide and share the estate.
For over two years, we've been trying to put back together the pieces of our once-proud Union. With the lessons from forty centuries looking back at us, we've so far failed. And under any current or suggested policy, we will continue to fail. By all standards of justice and righteousness, we deserve to fail because we are still going against those principles. The son of Priam, a priest of Apollo, was tasked with making a sacrifice to appease the god of the sea. But when the offering was rejected, two giant serpents emerged from the depths and attacked the priest and his two sons, who were with him at the altar. The father tried to protect his sons, but the serpents wrapped around him and them in their deadly coils, strangling them to a horrific death. This government should take heed. The very union being proposed will only bind us together like the deadly grip of a serpent more terrifying than all the mythical monsters of the past! So far, republics are no exception to the general rule. Rickets in childhood, convulsions in youth, or early-onset rheumatism have led historical nations to premature ends. Material interests may thrive, allowing nations to become great and powerful, wage wars, and dominate the world. The ancients did all of this, but where are those proud powers now? Charlemagne achieved nearly as much, yet within fifty years, his grandeur was reduced to nothing. Spain lasted a bit longer in its glory and magnificence, but now, only a small mark on the map remains to represent it. The United States, young among nations, was born into a world that's over six thousand years old, nurtured by forty centuries of history, and educated by the experiences of ages, with almost half the globe as their legacy, and Christianity[Pg 205] as their faith along with a Republican government, survived a troubled childhood only to fall prey to their own vices and crimes. Today, they find themselves in the care of many so-called physicians, whose reputations are questionable, and who seem more interested in dividing and seizing the estate than actually curing the patient.
My main point is this—we have had enough of the past in government. It is time to change. Literally almost, more than metaphorically, the "times are rotten ripe." We come to-day to demand—first an extension of the right of suffrage to every American citizen, of whatever race, complexion or sex. Manhood or male-hood suffrage is not a remedy for evils such as we wish removed. The Anti-Slavery Society demands that; and so, too, do large numbers of both the political parties. Even Andrew Johnson at first recommended it, in the reconstruction of the rebel States, for three classes of colored men. The New York Herald, in the exuberance of its religious zeal, demanded that "members of Christian Churches" be added as a fourth estate to the three designated by the President. The Woman's Rights Society contemplated suffrage only for woman. But we, as an Equal Rights Association, recognize no distinctions based on sex, complexion or race. The Ten Commandments know nothing of any such distinctions. No more do we. The right of suffrage is as old, as sacred and as universal as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is indeed the complement and safeguard of these and all civil and political rights to every citizen. The right to life would be nothing without the right to acquire and possess the means of its support. So it were mockery to talk of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, until the ballot in the hand of every citizen seals and secures it. The right of the black man to a voice in the government was not earned at Olustee or Port Hudson. It was his when life began, not when life was paid for it under the battle-axe of war. It was his with Washington and Jefferson, James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln. Not one of them could ever produce a higher, holier claim. Nor can any of us. We are prating about giving the right of suffrage to black male citizens, as complacently as we once gave our compassion and corn to famishing Ireland. But this famine of freedom and justice exists because we have produced it. Had our fleets and armies robbed Ireland of its last loaf, and left its myriads of inhabitants lean, ghastly skeletons, our charity would not have been more a mockery when we sent them bread to preserve them alive, than it is now when we talk of giving the ballot to those whom God created free and equal with ourselves.
My main point is this—we’ve had enough of the past in government. It’s time for a change. Literally almost, more than metaphorically, the "times are rotten ripe." We come today to demand—first, that every American citizen, regardless of race, skin color, or gender, has the right to vote. Granting suffrage only to men isn’t a solution for the issues we want to address. That’s what the Anti-Slavery Society calls for, and so do many people from both political parties. Even Andrew Johnson initially recommended it during the reconstruction of the rebel States for three groups of black men. The New York Herald, in its fervent religious enthusiasm, called for "members of Christian Churches" to be added as a fourth group to the three designated by the President. The Woman's Rights Society focused only on suffrage for women. But we, as an Equal Rights Association, recognize no distinctions based on gender, skin color, or race. The Ten Commandments don’t recognize any such distinctions, and neither do we. The right to vote is as old, sacred, and universal as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s actually the complement and safeguard of these and all civil and political rights for every citizen. The right to life means nothing without the right to acquire and possess the means to support it. So it’s absurd to talk about liberty and the pursuit of happiness until the ballot in the hands of every citizen secures that. The right of black men to have a voice in the government wasn’t earned at Olustee or Port Hudson. It was theirs from the moment life began, not when life was paid for with the sacrifices of war. It belonged to them alongside Washington and Jefferson, James Buchanan, and Abraham Lincoln. None of them could ever present a higher or more sacred claim. Nor can any of us. We’re talking about giving the right to vote to black male citizens as casually as we once extended our compassion and resources to starving Ireland. But this famine of freedom and justice exists because we caused it. If our fleets and armies stripped Ireland of its last loaf, leaving its many inhabitants as thin, ghostly skeletons, our charity would not have been more of a mockery when we sent them bread to keep them alive than it is now when we talk about giving the ballot to those whom God created free and equal with ourselves.
And in the plenitude of our generosity, we even propose to extend the gift to woman also. It is proposed to make educated, cultivated, refined, loyal, tax-paying, government-obeying woman equal to the servants who groom her horses, and scour the pots and pans of her kitchen. Our Maria Mitchells, our Harriet Hosmers, Harriet Beecher Stowes, Lydia Maria Childs, and Lucretia Motts, with millions of the mothers and matrons of quiet homes, where they preside with queenly dignity and grace, are begging of besotted, debauched white male citizens, legal voters, soaked in whisky, simmered in tobacco, and parboiled in every shameless vice and sin, to recognize them also as human, and graciously accord to them the rights of intelligent beings!
And in our generosity, we even suggest extending the gift to women too. It’s proposed that educated, cultured, refined, loyal, tax-paying, law-abiding women be considered equal to the servants who take care of their horses and clean their kitchens. Our Maria Mitchells, Harriet Hosmers, Harriet Beecher Stowes, Lydia Maria Childs, and Lucretia Motts, along with millions of mothers and homemakers who lead with dignity and grace, are pleading with misguided, debauched white male citizens—those legal voters, soaked in whiskey, clouded by tobacco, and steeped in every shameless vice—to recognize them as human and graciously grant them the rights of intelligent beings!
And, singularly enough, in some of the States, it is proposed to grant the prayer. But the wisest and best men have no idea that they are only restoring[Pg 206] what they have so long held by force, based on fraud and falsehood. They only propose to give woman the boon which they claim was theirs by heavenly inheritance. But they are too late with their sublime generosity. For God gave that when he gave life and breath, passions, emotions, conscience, and will. Give gold, give lands, give honors, give office, give title of nobility, if you must: but talk not of giving natural, inalienable and heaven-derived endowments. God alone bestows these. He alone has them to give. Our trade in the right of suffrage is contraband. It is bold buccaneering on the commerce of the moral universe. If we have our neighbor's right of suffrage and citizenship in our keeping, no matter of what color, or race, or sex, then we have stolen goods in our possession—and God's search-warrant will pursue us forever, if those goods be not restored. And then we impudently assert that "all just governments derive their powers, from the consent of the governed." But when was the consent of woman ever asked to one single act on all the statute books? We talk of "trial by jury of our peers!" In this country of ours, women have been fined, imprisoned, scourged, branded with red hot irons and hung; but when, or where, or for what crime or offense, was ever woman tried by a jury of her peers?
And interestingly enough, in some of the states, there’s a proposal to grant the request. But the wisest and best men have no idea that they are only restoring[Pg 206] something they have long held through force, built on fraud and deception. They only intend to give women the gift that they claim was theirs by divine right. But they are too late with their noble generosity. God already gave that when He granted life and breath, passions, emotions, conscience, and will. You can give money, land, honors, positions, or titles of nobility if you must, but don’t talk about giving natural, inalienable, and divinely granted rights. God alone gives those. He alone has them to give. Our trade in the right to vote is illegal. It’s bold piracy in the moral universe. If we possess our neighbor's right to vote and citizenship, no matter their color, race, or gender, then we have stolen property—and God’s search warrant will follow us forever until we return it. Yet we audaciously claim that "all just governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed." But when was a woman ever asked for her consent regarding any single law on the books? We speak of "trial by jury of our peers!" In our country, women have been fined, imprisoned, whipped, branded with hot irons, and hanged; but when, where, or for what crime was any woman ever tried by a jury of her peers?
Suffrage was never in the hands of tyrants or of governments, but by usurpation. It was never given by them to any of us. We brought it; not bought it; nor conquered it; nor begged it; nor earned it; nor inherited it. It was man's inalienable, irrepealable, inextinguishable right from the beginning. It is so still; the same yesterday, to-day, and while earthly governments last. It came with the right to see and hear; to breathe and speak; to think and feel; to love and hate; to choose and refuse; or it did not come at all. The right to see came with the eye and the light: did it not? and the right to breathe, with the lungs and the air; and all these from the same infinite source. And has not also the moral and spiritual nature its inalienable rights? Have the mere bodily organs, which are but the larder of worms, born of the dust, and dust their destiny—have they power and prerogative that are denied to the reason, the understanding, the conscience, the will, those attributes which constitute responsibility, accountability, and immortality? Or shall God give the power to choose, or refuse obedience to his law and reign, leaving the human will free as his own; and must mortal man, the mushroom of yesterday and perished to-morrow, usurp a higher and more dreadful prerogative, and compel support of and submission to laws in which the subject has no voice in making, executing, or even consenting, on pain of perpetual imprisonment, banishment, or death?
Suffrage was never controlled by tyrants or governments, but was taken through usurpation. It was never granted to any of us by them. We claimed it; we didn't buy it, conquer it, beg for it, earn it, or inherit it. It has always been an inalienable, irrepealable, inextinguishable right of humanity from the very beginning. It still is; the same yesterday, today, and as long as earthly governments exist. It came with the right to see and hear, to breathe and speak, to think and feel, to love and hate, to choose and refuse; or it didn't come at all. The right to see came with the eye and the light, didn’t it? And the right to breathe came with the lungs and the air; all these from the same infinite source. And doesn't the moral and spiritual nature also have its inalienable rights? Do mere bodily organs, which are just the food for worms, born from dust and destined to return to it—do they have power and rights that are denied to reason, understanding, conscience, and will, which are the attributes that constitute responsibility, accountability, and immortality? Or does God grant the power to choose or refuse obedience to His law and reign, keeping the human will as free as His own; while mortal man, who is like a mushroom that existed yesterday and will perish tomorrow, usurps a higher and more terrible prerogative, forcing support of and submission to laws that the subjects have no voice in creating, executing, or even consenting to, under the threat of perpetual imprisonment, banishment, or death?
Must a brave soldier fight and bleed for the government, and, pruned of limbs, plucked of eyes, and scarred all over with the lead and iron hail of war—must he now hobble on his crutches up to a Republican, Democratic, yea, and a Christian throne, and beg the boon of a ballot in that government, in defense of which he periled all, and lost all but bare life and breath, only because an African instead of a more indulgent sun looked upon him or his ancestors in their allotment of life? And then, when the claim of immortal manhood is superadded, the inalienable rights of the soul, in and of themselves, the rights of the reason, the understanding, the conscience, the will—what desperation is that which treads down all these claims, and rushes into seats of higher authority than were ever claimed by the eternal God, and[Pg 207] denies him that right altogether! No white male citizen was ever born with three ballots in his hand, one his own by birthright, and to be used without restraint, the others to be granted, given to women and to colored men at his pleasure or convenience! Such an idea should never have outraged our common humanity. And any bill or proposal for what is called "manhood suffrage," while it ignores womanhood suffrage, whether coming from the President or the Republican party and sanctioned by the Anti-Slavery Society, should be repudiated as at war with the whole spirit and genius of a true Democracy, and a deadly stab into the very heart of justice itself.
Must a brave soldier fight and suffer for the government, and, after losing limbs, eyesight, and being scarred all over from the bullets and shrapnel of war—must he now struggle on crutches to a Republican, Democratic, or even a Christian throne, begging for the right to vote in that government, which he risked everything for, losing all but his bare life and breath, simply because an African sun, rather than a more lenient one, shone down on him or his ancestors? And then, when we add the claim of immortal human dignity, the inalienable rights of the soul, the rights of reason, understanding, conscience, and will—what madness is it that tramples all these claims and rushes into seats of authority that were never claimed by the eternal God, and denies him that right altogether! No white male citizen was ever born with three ballots in his hand, one his own by birthright, to be used freely, while the others are to be granted to women and people of color at his whim! Such an idea should never have offended our shared humanity. Any bill or proposal for what is called "manhood suffrage," while dismissing womanhood suffrage, whether it comes from the President or the Republican party and backed by the Anti-Slavery Society, should be rejected as being in direct opposition to the very spirit and essence of true Democracy, and a serious blow to the core of justice itself.
I have referred to the age of the Roman Catholic Church. Lord Macaulay, in accounting for her astonishing longevity as compared with other institutions, turns with felicitous insight to female influence as one of the principal causes. In her system, he says, she assigns to devout women spiritual functions, dignities, and even magistracies. In England, if a pious and devout woman enter the cells of a prison to pray with the most unhappy and degraded of her sex, she does so without any authority from the Church. Indeed, the Protestant Church places the ban of its reprobation on any such irregularity. "At Rome, the Countess of Huntingdon would have a place in the calendar as St. Selina, and Mrs. Fry would be Foundress and First Superior of the Blessed Order of Sisters of the Jails." But even Macaulay overlooks another element of power and permanence in the economy of the Catholic Church. God, as Father, and as Son, and as Holy Ghost, might inspire reverence and dread only in hearts that, at the shrine of the ever blessed Mary, Mother of God, would kindle into humble, holy and lasting love. Frances Power Cobbe, though deprecating the doctrine of "Mariolatry," as she terms the worship of the Virgin, yet says of it, "The Catholic world has found a great truth, that love, motherly tenderness and pity is a divine and holy thing, worthy of adoration.... What does this wide-spread sentiment regarding this new divinity indicate? It can surely only point to the fact that there was something lacking in the elder creed, which, as time went on, became a more and more sensible deficiency, till at last the instinct of the multitude filled it up in this amazing manner." When Theodore Parker, in his morning prayer on a beautiful summer Sunday, addressed the All-loving as "Our Father and our Mother," he struck a chord which will one day vibrate through the heart of universal humanity. It was a thought worth infinitely more than all the creeds of Christendom.
I have mentioned the age of the Roman Catholic Church. Lord Macaulay, in explaining her remarkable longevity compared to other institutions, insightfully points to female influence as a key factor. He notes that in her system, she assigns devout women spiritual roles, honors, and even leadership positions. In England, if a religious and devoted woman enters a prison to pray with the most unfortunate and marginalized women, she does so without any official authority from the Church. In fact, the Protestant Church condemns any such irregularity. "In Rome, the Countess of Huntingdon would be recognized in the calendar as St. Selina, and Mrs. Fry would be the Foundress and First Superior of the Blessed Order of Sisters of the Jails." However, Macaulay overlooks another aspect of power and longevity in the Catholic Church's structure. God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, might inspire awe and fear only in those hearts that, at the altar of the ever-blessed Mary, Mother of God, would ignite into humble, holy, and enduring love. Frances Power Cobbe, while criticizing the doctrine of "Mariolatry," as she calls the worship of the Virgin, still states, "The Catholic world has discovered a profound truth: that love, maternal tenderness, and compassion are divine and sacred, deserving of worship... What does this widespread sentiment regarding this new divinity indicate? It can only suggest that something was missing in the older creed, which, over time, became an increasingly evident shortcoming, until finally, the collective instinct of the people filled it in this remarkable way." When Theodore Parker, in his morning prayer on a beautiful summer Sunday, addressed the All-loving as "Our Father and our Mother," he struck a chord that will one day resonate through the hearts of all humanity. It was an idea worth far more than all the creeds of Christianity.
What if woman should even abuse the use of the ballot at first? Man has been known to fail at first in a new pursuit. A maker of microscopes told me that, in a new attempt on a different kind of object-glass, he failed forty-nine times, but the fiftieth was a complete success. The poet of Scotland intimates that even Creative Nature herself improved at a second trial;
What if women misuse their right to vote at first? Men have often struggled initially when trying something new. A designer of microscopes once told me that in experimenting with a different type of lens, he failed forty-nine times, but the fiftieth attempt was a total success. The Scottish poet suggests that even Creative Nature herself improved with a second try;
"Her 'prentice hand she tried on man;
And then she made the lasses, o!"
Must we be told that woman herself does not ask the ballot? Then I submit to such, if such there be, the question is not one of privilege, but of duty—of solemn responsibility. If woman does not desire the ballot, demand it, take it, she sins against her own nature and all the holiest instincts of humanity, and can not too soon repent. After all, the question of suffrage[Pg 208] is one of justice and right. Unless human government be in itself an unnatural and impious usurpation, whoever renders it support and submission has a natural right to an equal voice in enacting and executing the laws. Nor can one man, or millions on millions of men acquire or possess the power to withhold that right from the humblest human being of sane mind, but by usurpation, and by rebellion against the constitution of the moral universe. It would be robbery, though the giving of the right should induce all the predicted and dreaded evils of tyrants, cowards and white male citizens. Be justice done though the heavens fall and the hells arise! Nay, it is only justice, reared as a lightning-rod, that can shield any governmental fabric when the very heavens are falling in righteous retribution.
Must we be reminded that women themselves do not ask for the right to vote? Then I pose this question to those who think otherwise: this is not just a matter of privilege, but of duty—a serious responsibility. If women do not want the vote, demand it, or take it, they are going against their own nature and the most sacred instincts of humanity, and they need to change that quickly. After all, the issue of suffrage[Pg 208] is one of justice and rights. Unless human governance is inherently an unnatural and immoral takeover, anyone who supports and submits to it has a natural right to an equal voice in making and enforcing the laws. No individual, or even millions of individuals, can rightfully deny that right to the most humble person with a sane mind—that is nothing but usurpation and a rebellion against the moral order of the universe. It would be theft, even if granting that right leads to all the feared consequences of tyrants, cowards, and white male citizens. Let justice be done, even if the skies fall and hells rise! Indeed, only justice, standing firm like a lightning rod, can protect any government when the heavens are falling in righteous retaliation.
The past mortality must last among nations, so long as they set at nought the Divine economy and purpose in their formation. The human body may yield to decay and die, though the soul be imperishable and eternal. But nations, like souls, need not die. Streams of new life flow into them, like rivers into the sea; and why should not the sea and the nations on its shores, roll on together with the ages? When governments shall learn to lay their foundations in righteousness, with eternal justice the chief corner-stone; when equal and impartial liberty shall be the acknowledged birthright of all, then will national life begin to be prolonged; and the death of a nation, were it possible, should be as though more than a Pleiad had expired. No more would nation then lift up sword against nation; and the New Jerusalem would indeed descend from God out of heaven and dwell among men.
The past consequences of mortality will continue among nations as long as they ignore the divine purpose for their existence. The human body can decay and die, but the soul is everlasting. However, nations, like souls, don’t have to die. New life flows into them, like rivers flowing into the sea; so why shouldn’t the sea and the nations along its shores continue together through the ages? When governments recognize the need to build their foundations on righteousness, with eternal justice as the cornerstone, and when equal and fair liberty becomes the recognized birthright of everyone, then national life will truly extend; and the death of a nation, if it were possible, would feel like losing more than a Pleiad. No longer would nations go to war against each other; the New Jerusalem would indeed come down from God out of heaven and live among people.
Susan B. Anthony made an appeal for contributions to the funds of the Association, to enable it to carry on its work, especially in Kansas.
Susan B. Anthony asked for donations to support the Association's funds, so it could continue its work, particularly in Kansas.
Mrs Rose said: After all, we come down to the root of all evil—to money. It is rather humiliating, after the discourse that we have just heard, that told us of the rise, and progress, and destruction of nations, of empires, and of republics, that we have to come down to dollars and cents. We live in an entirely practical age. I can show you in a few words that if we only had sufficient of that root of all evil in our hands, there would be no need of holding these meetings. We could obtain the elective franchise without making a single speech. Give us $1,000,000, and we will have the elective franchise at the very next session of our Legislature. (Laughter and applause). But as we have not the $1,000,000 we want 1,000,000 voices. There are always two ways of obtaining an object. If we had had the money, we could have bought the Legislature and the elective franchise long before now. But as we have not, we must create a public opinion, and for that we must have voices.
Mrs Rose said: In the end, it all boils down to one thing—money. It’s pretty embarrassing, after the talk we just heard about the rise, progress, and downfall of nations, empires, and republics, that we have to talk about dollars and cents. We live in a completely practical era. I can quickly show you that if we just had enough of that root of all evil, we wouldn’t even need to have these meetings. We could obtain the right to vote without giving a single speech. Just give us $1,000,000, and we’ll secure the right to vote in the very next session of our Legislature. (Laughter and applause). But since we don’t have the $1,000,000, we need 1,000,000 voices. There are always two ways to get what you want. If we had the money, we could have bought the Legislature and the right to vote long ago. But since we don’t, we need to create public opinion, and for that, we must have voices.
I have always thought I was convinced not only of the necessity but of the great importance of obtaining the elective franchise for woman; but recently I have become satisfied that I never felt sufficiently that importance until now. Just read your public papers and see how our Senators and our members of the House are running round through the Southern States to hold meetings, and to deliver public addresses. To whom? To the freedmen. And why now, and why not ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago? Why do they get up meetings for the colored men, and call them fellow-men, brothers, and gentlemen? Because the freedman has that talisman in his hands which the politician is looking after? Don't you perceive, then, the importance of the elective franchise? Perhaps when we have the elective franchise in our[Pg 209] hands, these great senators will condescend to inform us too of the importance of obtaining our rights.
I’ve always believed that getting the right to vote for women is not just necessary but extremely important; however, I recently realized I didn’t truly grasp that importance until now. Just look at the news and see how our Senators and House members are rushing around the Southern States to hold meetings and give speeches. To whom? To the freedmen. And why now, and why not ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago? Why are they organizing meetings for Black men and calling them fellow men, brothers, and gentlemen? Because the freedman holds the key that politicians are after, right? Don’t you see the significance of the right to vote? Maybe when we have the right to vote in our[Pg 209] hands, these important senators will finally take the time to let us know the significance of claiming our rights.
You need not be afraid that when woman has the franchise, men will ever disturb her. I presume there are present, as there always are such people, those of timid minds, chicken-hearted, who so admire and respect woman that they are dreadfully afraid lest, when she comes to the ballot-box, rude, uncouth, and vulgar men will say something to disturb her. You may set your hearts all at rest. If we once have the elective franchise, upon the first indication that any man will endeavor to disturb a woman in her duty at the polls, Congress will enact another Freedman's Bureau—I beg pardon, a Freedwoman's Bureau—to protect women against men, and to guard the purity of the ballot-box at the same time. I have sometimes been asked, even by sensible men, "If woman had the elective franchise, would she go to the polls to mix with rude men?" Well, would I go to the church to mix with rude men? And should not the ballot-box be as respectable, and as respected, and as sacred as the church? Aye, infinitely more so, because it is of greater importance. Men can pray in secret, but must vote in public. (Applause). Hence the ballot-box, of the two, ought to be the most respected; and it would be if women were once there; but it never will be until they are there.
You don’t have to worry that when women get the right to vote, men will disturb them. I’m sure there are some timid people here, as there always are, who admire and respect women but are scared that when they go to the ballot box, rude and vulgar men will say something to upset them. You can relax. Once we have the right to vote, at the first sign of any man trying to disturb a woman doing her duty at the polls, Congress will create a Freedwoman's Bureau to protect women from men and keep the ballot box secure at the same time. I’ve been asked, even by reasonable men, "If women had the right to vote, would they want to go to the polls and deal with rude men?" Well, would I go to church to mix with rude men? Shouldn't the ballot box be just as respected and sacred as the church? Yes, even more so because it’s more important. Men can pray in private but must vote in public. (Applause). Therefore, the ballot box should be the most respected of the two, and it would be if women were included; but it will never be until they are.
Our rights are as old as humanity itself. Yet we are obliged to ask man to give us the ballot, because he has it in his own hand. It is ours, and at the same time we ask for it; and have sent our petitions to Congress. We have been told that the Republic is not destroyed; it has been destroyed root and branch, because, if it were not, there would be no need to reconstruct it. And we have asked Congress, in the reconstruction, to place it upon a sound foundation. Why have all former republics vanished out of existence? Simply because they were built upon the sand. In the erection of a building, in proportion to the height of the walls must be the depth and soundness of the foundation. If the foundation is shallow or unsound, the higher you raise your superstructure the surer its downfall. That is the reason a republic has not existed as long as a monarchy, because it embraced principles of human rights in its superstructure which it denied in its foundation. Hence, before this Republic could count a hundred years, it has had one of the mightiest revolutions that ever occurred in any country or in any period of human existence. Its foundation was laid wrong. It made a republic for white men alone. It discriminated against color; it discriminated against sex; and at the same time it pronounced that all men are created free and equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It raised its superstructure to the clouds; and it has fallen as low as any empire could fall. It is divided. A house divided against itself can not stand. A wrong always operates against itself and falls back on the wrong-doer. We have proclaimed to the world universal suffrage; but it is universal suffrage excluding the negro and the woman, who are by far the largest number in this country. It is not the majority that rules here, but the minority. White men are in the minority in this nation. White women, black men, and black women compose the large majority of the nation. Yet in spite of this fact, in spite of common sense, in spite of justice, while our members of Congress can prate so long about justice, and human rights,[Pg 210] and the rights of the negro, they have not the moral courage to say anything for the rights of woman.
Our rights are as old as humanity itself. Yet we have to ask men to give us the vote because they hold it in their own hands. It belongs to us, and at the same time, we’re asking for it; we've sent our petitions to Congress. We've been told that the Republic isn’t destroyed; it has indeed been destroyed completely because if it weren’t, there would be no need to rebuild it. And we have asked Congress, in the rebuilding process, to establish it on a solid foundation. Why have all previous republics disappeared? Simply because they were built on shaky ground. When constructing a building, the height of the walls must be matched by the depth and strength of the foundation. If the foundation is weak or shallow, the taller you make the structure, the more certain its collapse will be. That’s why a republic hasn’t lasted as long as a monarchy; it was built on principles of human rights that it denied at its foundation. Thus, before this Republic could reach a hundred years, it experienced one of the greatest revolutions ever seen in any country or period of history. Its foundation was flawed. It established a republic only for white men. It discriminated based on color; it discriminated based on gender; and at the same time, it declared that all men are created free and equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It built its structure high into the sky, but it has fallen as low as any empire could. It is divided. A house divided against itself cannot stand. A wrong always works against itself and eventually falls back on the wrongdoer. We have proclaimed universal suffrage; but it is universal suffrage that excludes Black people and women, who represent the vast majority in this country. It is not the majority that rules here, but the minority. White men are in the minority in this nation. White women, Black men, and Black women make up the large majority of the nation. Yet despite this fact, despite common sense, despite justice, while our members of Congress can go on and on about justice and human rights, and the rights of Black people, they lack the moral courage to speak up for women’s rights.[Pg 210]
In proportion to power is responsibility. Our Republican senators and members of Congress have taken upon themselves great power. They have made great professions. There is a very good maxim, "Of him to whom much is given, much shall be required." In proportion to their claims to be friends of human freedom, lovers of human rights, do we demand of them our rights and justice.
In proportion to power is responsibility. Our Republican senators and members of Congress have taken on considerable power. They have made significant promises. There's a well-known saying, "To whom much is given, much will be required." In line with their claims of being supporters of human freedom and advocates for human rights, we expect them to uphold our rights and deliver justice.
It is a shame to talk about licensing a social evil. It is a shame to this Republic. It is a violation of woman's nature. It is an insult to womanhood; and if woman has one drop of pure blood stirring in her heart, she must revolt against it. At the same time, I say to the Legislature that, if you enact laws against social evils, whatever those laws are, let them be alike for man and for woman. (Applause.) If you want to derive a revenue from the corruption of the community, let it be drawn alike from both sexes. The social evil belongs to both; the social remedy must belong to both. Do not degrade woman any more than she is already degraded. Perchance she is driven, through your injustice, to that step to maintain her wretched existence, because every office of emolument is barred against her. Let woman have the franchise; let all the avenues of society be thrown open before her, according to her powers and her capacities, and there will be no need to talk about social evils.
It's shameful to talk about allowing a social injustice. It's a disgrace to this country. It goes against a woman's nature. It insults womanhood; and if a woman has even a drop of dignity in her heart, she must rise up against it. At the same time, I urge the Legislature that, if you make laws against social injustices, whatever those laws are, they should be the same for both men and women. (Applause.) If you want to profit from the corruption in the community, let that profit come equally from both genders. The social injustice affects both; the social solution must serve both. Don’t degrade women any more than they are already degraded. Maybe she feels forced, because of your unfairness, to take that path to survive, since every opportunity for earning a living is closed to her. Give women the right to vote; let all paths in society be open to her based on her abilities and skills, and there will be no need to discuss social injustices.
Major James Haggerty said: It is no new thing for me to be found among Anti-Slavery people. I believe it was among Anti-Slavery people that I received my American culture. I see the old faces here upon this platform and in this house—some that I first met when I landed in this country, in 1856—Parker Pillsbury, as remorseless as ever; Mrs. Stanton, as bold and strong for the truth as ever. I see the same uncompromising people here, and I feel that I have been as uncompromising as any of them; for, although I have been and am identified with the Republican party in politics, no man ever heard me, on any platform, compromise the rights of another. Woman's Rights is an idea against which my prejudices array themselves, but my logic says, if you would be a true man, you must raise your voice for equal rights. (Applause.) I have seen the effect of the suffrage. In the District of Columbia, during the election, I saw men who had been called doughfaces walk up to the black man and profess to be so much more Anti-Slavery than the best Anti-Slavery men, that I have got the idea that it will not be five years before the northern Democrat will be swearing to the black men that he has negro blood in his veins: (Laughter.) ...
Major James Haggerty said: It’s not new for me to be among Anti-Slavery folks. I believe it’s among Anti-Slavery people that I got my American culture. I see familiar faces here on this platform and in this room—some I first met when I arrived in this country in 1856—Parker Pillsbury, as relentless as ever; Mrs. Stanton, as brave and strong for the truth as ever. I see the same determined people here, and I feel I’ve been just as steadfast as any of them; because, even though I’ve been and am part of the Republican party politically, no one has ever heard me compromise the rights of another from any platform. Women’s Rights is an idea I have biases against, but my reasoning tells me that if you want to be a true man, you must speak up for equal rights. (Applause.) I’ve witnessed the impact of suffrage. In the District of Columbia during the election, I saw men who were once called doughfaces walk up to black men and claim to be more Anti-Slavery than the best Anti-Slavery advocates, leading me to believe that in five years, northern Democrats will be telling black men that they have black blood in their veins. (Laughter.) ...
I come upon this platform to-night to identify myself with this new effort. I hope you may prosper; and so far as a dollar of mine, or my voice may go, you shall have it. I confess candidly that it is logic that drives me here, in spite of my prejudices. It is the discourses of Mrs. Stanton, of Mrs. Mott, of others that have spoken and written; and it is coming in contact with strong womanly mind. If we accept the convictions that come to us, we shall be all right; and I will do as the lady who has just spoken said that she would do—not be governed by mere party, but by the moral bearings of the questions that arise, and vote upon the side of God and justice. (Applause.)[Pg 211]
I come to this platform tonight to support this new effort. I hope you succeed; and as far as my money or my voice can help, you’ll have it. I honestly admit that it’s logic that brings me here, despite my biases. It’s the speeches of Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Mott, and others who have spoken and written; and it’s engaging with strong women thinkers. If we embrace the beliefs that come to us, we’ll be alright; and I will do as the lady who just spoke mentioned she would do—not be swayed by just party lines, but by the moral implications of the issues that arise, and vote on the side of what’s right and just. (Applause.)[Pg 211]
Frances D. Gage said: Mrs. President—It seems to be my fate to come in at the eleventh hour. We have been talking about the right to the ballot. Why do we want it? What does it confer? We closed our argument at three o'clock to-day by a discussion whether the women of this country and the colored men of this country wanted the ballot. I said it was a libel on woman to say she did not want it; and I repeat that assertion.... Last evening I attended the meeting of the National Temperance Association at Cooper Institute. A great audience was assembled there to listen to the arguments against the most gigantic evil that now pervades the American Republic. Men took the position that only a prohibitory law could put an end to the great evil of intemperance. New York has its two hundred millions of invested capital to sell death and destruction to the men of this country who are weak enough to purchase. There are eight thousand licensed liquor establishments in this city, to drag down humanity. It was asserted there by Wendell Phillips that intemperance had its root in our Saxon blood, that demanded a stimulus; and he argued from that standpoint. If intemperance has its root in the Saxon blood, that demands a stimulus, why is it that the womanhood of this nation is not at the grog-shops to-day? Are women not Saxons? It was asserted, both by Mr. Phillips and President Hopkins, of Union College, that the liquor traffic must be regulated by law. A man may do what he likes in his own house, said they; he may burn his furniture; he may take poison; he may light his cigar with his greenbacks; but if he carries his evil outside of his own house, if he increases my taxes, if he makes it dangerous for me or for my children to walk the streets, then it may be prohibited by law. I was at Harrisburgh, a few days ago, at the State Temperance Convention. Horace Greeley asserted that there was progress upon the subject of temperance; and he went back to the time when ardent spirits were drank in the household, when every table had its decanter, and the wife, children, and husband drank together. Now, said he, it is a rare thing to find the dram-bottle in the home. It has been put out. But what put the dram-bottle out of the home? It was put out because the education and refinement and power of woman became so strong in the home, that she said, "It must go out; we can't have it here." (Applause.) Then the voters of the United States, the white male citizens, went to work and licensed these nuisances that could not be in the home, at all the corners of the streets. I demand the ballot for woman to-day, that she may vote down these nuisances, the dram-shops, there also, as she drove them out of the home. (Applause.)
Frances D. Gage said: Mrs. President—It seems I'm destined to arrive just in time. We've been discussing the right to vote. Why do we want it? What does it give us? We wrapped up our argument today at three o'clock by debating whether the women of this country and the men of color in this country wanted the vote. I stated that it’s an insult to women to say they don’t want it; and I stand by that statement.... Last night, I went to a meeting of the National Temperance Association at Cooper Institute. A large crowd gathered to hear about the most significant issue affecting our country today. Some men argued that only a prohibition law could eliminate the major problem of alcohol abuse. New York has two hundred million dollars invested in selling death and destruction to those weak enough to buy it. There are eight thousand licensed liquor businesses in this city dragging humanity down. Wendell Phillips claimed that alcohol abuse is rooted in our Saxon heritage, which craves stimulation; he made his argument from that perspective. If alcohol abuse is indeed a function of Saxon blood seeking stimulation, then why are women of this nation not at the bars today? Are women not Saxons? Both Mr. Phillips and President Hopkins of Union College stated that the liquor trade needs to be regulated by law. They said a man can do what he wants in his own home; he can burn his furniture; he can poison himself; he can light his cigar with his cash; but if he brings his problems outside his home, if he raises my taxes, if he puts me or my children in danger when walking the streets, then it can be prohibited by law. A few days ago, I was at the State Temperance Convention in Harrisburgh. Horace Greeley claimed there was progress regarding temperance, recalling a time when hard liquor was common in households, where every table had a decanter, and the wife, children, and husband drank together. He said now it's rare to find a liquor bottle in homes. But what caused the liquor bottle to disappear from homes? It vanished because the education, refinement, and power of women became so strong in the household that they said, "It must go; we can’t have it here." (Applause.) Then the voters of the United States, the white male citizens, went out and licensed these nuisances that couldn't exist in homes, right at the corners of streets. I demand the vote for women today, so they can eliminate these nuisances, the bars, just as they drove them out of home. (Applause.)
What privilege does the vote give to the "white male citizen" of the United States? Did you ever analyze a voter—hold him up and see what he was? Shall I give you a picture of him? Not as my friend Parker Pillsbury has drawn the picture to-night will I draw it. What is the "white male citizen"—the voter in the Republic of the United States? More than any potentate or any king in all Europe. Louis Napoleon dares not walk the streets of his own city without his body-guard around him with their bayonets. The Czar of Russia is afraid for his own life among his people. Kings and potentates are always afraid; but the "free white male citizen" of the United States, with the ballot in his hand, goes where he lists, does what he pleases. He owns himself, his earnings, his genius, his talent, his[Pg 212] eloquence, his power, all there is of him. All that God has given him is his, to do with as he pleases, subject to no power but such laws as have an equal bearing upon every other man in like circumstances, and responsible to no power but his own conscience and his God. He builds colleges; he lifts up humanity or he casts it down. He is the lawgiver, the maker as it were of the nation. His single vote may turn the destiny of the whole Republic for good or ill. There is no link in the chain of human possibilities that can add one single power to the "white male citizen" of America.
What privilege does voting give to the "white male citizen" of the United States? Have you ever examined a voter—taken a close look at who he really is? Should I paint a picture of him? Not in the way my friend Parker Pillsbury did tonight. What does it mean to be a "white male citizen"—the voter in the Republic of the United States? More than any ruler or king in all of Europe. Louis Napoleon can't walk the streets of his own city without his bodyguards with their guns. The Czar of Russia fears for his own life among his people. Kings and rulers are always living in fear; but the "free white male citizen" of the United States, with a ballot in hand, goes wherever he wants, does whatever he pleases. He owns himself, his earnings, his talents, his skills, his eloquence, his power—everything about him. Everything God has given him belongs to him, to use as he sees fit, subject only to laws that apply equally to every other man in similar situations, and accountable only to his own conscience and his God. He builds colleges; he uplifts humanity or tears it down. He is the lawmaker, in a sense, the creator of the nation. His single vote can change the fate of the entire Republic for better or worse. There is no part of the chain of human possibilities that can give the "white male citizen" of America even one additional power.
Now we ask that you shall put into the hands of every human being this same power to go forward and do good works wherever it can. The country has rung within the last few days because one colored girl, with a little black blood in her veins, has been cast out of the Pittsburgh Methodist College. It ought to ring until such a thing shall be impossible. But when Cambridge and Yale and Union and all the other institutions of the country, West Point included, aided by national patronage, shut out every woman in the land, who has anything to say? There is not a single college instituted by the original government patronage of lands to public schools and colleges, that allows a woman to set her foot inside of its walls as a student. Is this no injustice? Is it no wrong? When men stand upon the public platform and deliver elaborate essays on women and their right of suffrage, they talk about their weakness, their devotion to fashion and idleness. What else have they given women to do? Almost every profession in the land is filled by men; every college sends forth the men to fill the highest places. When the law said that no married woman should do business in her own name, sue or be sued, own property, own herself or her earnings, what had she to do? That laid the foundation for precisely the state of things you see to-day. But I deny that, as a class, the women of America, black or white, are idle. We are always busy. What have we done? Look over this audience, go out upon your streets, go through the world where you will, and every human soul you meet is the work of woman. She has given it life; she has educated it, whether for good or evil, because God gave her the holiest mission ever laid upon the heart of a human soul—the mission of the mother.
Now we ask that you give every person the same power to move forward and do good wherever they can. The country has been buzzing lately because one Black girl, with a little bit of Black ancestry, was expelled from Pittsburgh Methodist College. It should continue to resonate until such a thing becomes impossible. But when schools like Cambridge, Yale, Union, and many others across the country, including West Point, with support from the government, exclude every woman, who can speak up? There isn’t a single college established with government land grants for public schools and colleges that lets a woman step inside as a student. Is that not an injustice? Is that not wrong? When men stand on public stages and deliver lengthy speeches about women and their right to vote, they talk about women’s weaknesses, their preoccupation with fashion and idleness. What else have they allowed women to do? Almost every profession is dominated by men; every college graduates men to take on the top positions. When the law stated that no married woman could conduct business in her own name, sue or be sued, own property, or even claim her own earnings, what options did she have? That set the stage for the situation we see today. But I challenge the notion that women in America, Black or white, are idle. We are always busy. What have we done? Look around this audience, walk down your streets, explore the world, and every human being you meet is the result of a woman’s influence. She has given life to them; she has educated them, whether for better or worse, because God entrusted her with the most sacred mission ever assigned to a human being—the mission of motherhood.
We are told that home is woman's sphere. So it is, and man's sphere, too, for I tell you that that is a poor home which has not in it a man to feel that it is the most sacred place he knows. If duty requires him to go out into the world and fight its battles, who blames him, or puts a ban upon him? Men complain that woman does not love home now; that she is not satisfied with her mission. I answer that this discontent arises out of the one fact, that you have attempted to mould seventeen millions of human souls in one shape, and make them all do one thing. Take away your restrictions, open all doors, leave women at liberty to go where they will. The caged bird forgets how to build its nest. The wing of the eagle is as strong to soar to the sun as that of her mate, who never says to her, "back, feeble one, to your nest, and there brood in dull inactivity until I give you permission to leave!" But when her duties called her there, who ever found her unfaithful to her trust? The foot of the wild roe is as strong and swift in the race as that of her antlered companion. She goes by his side, she feeds in the same pasture, drinks from the same running brook, but is ever true also to her maternal duties and cares. If we are a nation of imbeciles, if womanhood[Pg 213] is weak, it is the laws and customs of society which have made us what we are. If you want health, strength, energy, force, temperance, purity, honesty, deal justly with the mothers of this country: then they will give you nobler and stronger men than higgling politicians, or the grog-shop emissaries that buy up the votes of your manhood. It has been charged upon woman that she does nothing well. What have you given us to do well? What freedom have you given us to act independently and earnestly? When I was in San Domingo, I found a little colony of American colored people that went over there in 1825. They retained their American customs, and especially their little American church, outside of the Catholic, which overspread the whole country. In an obscure room in an old ruin they sung the old hymns, and lived the old life of the United States. I asked how this thing was, and they answered that among those that went over so long ago were a few from Chester County, Pennsylvania, who were brought up among the Quakers, and had learned to read. Wherever a mother had learned to read, she had educated all her children so that they could read; but wherever there was a mother that could not read, that family had lapsed off from the old customs of the past....
We’re told that home is a woman’s place. It’s true, but it’s also a man’s place, because I say a home without a man who values it as the most sacred space he knows is a poor one. If duty calls him to go out into the world and face its challenges, who can blame him or judge him for it? Men complain that women don’t love home anymore, that they’re not happy with their role. I say this dissatisfaction comes from trying to shape seventeen million people into one mold and expecting them all to do the same thing. Remove your restrictions, open all the doors, let women go wherever they choose. A caged bird forgets how to build her nest. The eagle’s wings are just as strong for reaching the sun as her mate's, who never says to her, “stay back, weak one, in your nest and just sit there until I say you can leave!” But when her responsibilities pull her there, who has ever found her unfaithful to her commitments? The wild doe runs just as fast and strong as her antlered partner. She walks alongside him, grazing in the same field, drinking from the same flowing stream, but she’s always committed to her maternal duties and cares. If we are a nation of fools, if womanhood[Pg 213] is weak, it’s the laws and customs of society that have made us this way. If you want health, strength, energy, power, self-control, purity, and honesty, treat the mothers of this nation fairly: then they will raise nobler and stronger men than the shallow politicians or the barroom goons who buy votes with your manhood. It has been said that women don’t do anything well. What have you allowed us to do well? What freedom have you given us to act independently and sincerely? When I was in San Domingo, I found a small colony of American black people who had moved there in 1825. They kept their American traditions, especially their little American church, apart from the Catholic one that covered the whole country. In a small room in an old ruin, they sang the old hymns and lived the old life of the United States. I asked how this was possible, and they said that among those who went over so long ago were a few from Chester County, Pennsylvania, who had been raised among the Quakers and had learned to read. Wherever a mother learned to read, she educated all her children to read as well; but wherever a mother couldn’t read, that family fell away from the old traditions of the past….
A friend of mine, writing from Charleston the other day, just after the ballot went down there, says that he was told by a colored man, "I met my old master, and he bowed so low to me I didn't hardly know which was the negro and which was the white man." When we hold the ballot, we shall stand just there. Men will forget to tell us that politics are degrading. They will bow low, and actually respect the women to whom they now talk platitudes, and silly flatteries; sparkling eyes, rosy cheeks, pearly teeth, ruby lips, the soft and delicate hands of refinement and beauty, will not be the burden of their song; but the strength, the power, the energy, the force, the intellect, and the nerve, which the womanhood of this country will bring to bear, and which will infuse itself through all the ranks of society, must make all its men and women wiser and better. [Applause].
A friend of mine wrote from Charleston the other day, right after the election there. He mentioned that a Black man told him, "I ran into my old master, and he bowed so low to me I could hardly tell who was the Black man and who was the white man." When we gain the right to vote, we’ll be right there. People will forget to say that politics are degrading. They’ll bow deeply and actually respect the women they currently treat with empty compliments and silly flattery. The sparkling eyes, rosy cheeks, bright smiles, red lips, and soft, delicate hands of beauty and refinement won’t be the focus anymore; it will be the strength, the power, the energy, the intellect, and the determination that the women of this country will bring to society, and that will spread through all levels of society, making all men and women wiser and better. [Applause].
The Association then adjourned until Friday morning, 10½ o'clock.
The Association then adjourned until Friday morning at 10:30.
SECOND DAY.
Friday Morning, May 10, 1867.
Friday Morning, May 10, 1867.
Charles L. Remond objected to the last of the resolution, and desired that the word "colored" might be stricken out. It might be that colored men would obtain their rights before women; but if so, he was confident they would heartily acquiesce in admitting women also to the right of suffrage.
Charles L. Remond objected to the last part of the resolution and wanted the word "colored" removed. It could be that men of color would get their rights before women, but if that happened, he was sure they would fully support granting women the right to vote as well.
The President (Mrs. Mott) said that woman had a right to be a little jealous of the addition of so large a number of men to the voting class, for the colored men would naturally throw all their strength upon the side of those opposed to woman's enfranchisement.
The President (Mrs. Mott) said that women have a right to feel a bit jealous about so many men joining the voting class, because the colored men would likely lend their support to those against women's right to vote.
George T. Downing wished to know whether he had rightly understood that Mrs. Stanton and Mrs. Mott were opposed to the enfranchisement of the colored man, unless the ballot should also be accorded to woman at the same time.
George T. Downing wanted to confirm if he correctly understood that Mrs. Stanton and Mrs. Mott were against giving the vote to Black men unless women also received the right to vote at the same time.
Mrs. Stanton said: All history proves that despotisms, whether of one man or millions, can not stand, and there is no use of wasting centuries of men and means in trying that experiment again. Hence I have no faith or interest in any reconstruction on that old basis. To say that politicians always do one thing at a time is no reason why philosophers should not enunciate the broad principles that underlie that one thing and a dozen others. We do not take the right step for this hour in demanding suffrage for any class; as a matter of principle I claim it for all. But in a narrow view of the question as a matter of feeling between classes, when Mr. Downing puts the question to me, are you willing to have the colored man enfranchised before the woman, I say, no; I would not trust him with all my rights; degraded, oppressed himself, he would be more despotic with the governing power than even our Saxon rulers are. I desire that we go into the kingdom together, for individual and national safety demand that not another man be enfranchised without the woman by his side.
Mrs. Stanton said: All of history shows that tyrannies, whether led by one person or millions, cannot endure, and there's no point in wasting centuries of people and resources on trying that experiment again. So, I have no confidence or interest in any reconstruction based on that old model. Just because politicians typically focus on one thing at a time doesn’t mean philosophers shouldn’t express the broader principles that underlie that single issue and many others. We are not taking the right step by demanding voting rights for just one class; as a principle, I advocate for it for everyone. But if we look at the question narrowly in terms of feelings between classes, when Mr. Downing asks me if I would support giving voting rights to Black men before women, I say no; I wouldn't trust him with all my rights. Being oppressed himself, he could be even more tyrannical with power than our Saxon rulers are. I wish for us to move forward together, because for both individual and national safety, we cannot enfranchise another man without enfranchising the woman at his side.
Stephen S. Foster, basing the demand for the ballot upon the natural right of the citizen, felt bound to aid in conferring it upon any citizen deprived of it irrespective of its being granted or denied to others. Even, therefore, if the enfranchisement of the colored man would probably retard the enfranchisement of woman, we had no right for that reason to deprive him of his right. The right of each should be accorded at the earliest possible moment, neither being denied for any supposed benefit to the other.[Pg 215]
Stephen S. Foster believed that the right to vote is a natural right of every citizen, so he felt it was his duty to help ensure that any citizen who was denied this right could obtain it, regardless of whether others received it. Even if allowing black men to vote might slow down the suffrage movement for women, we had no right to take away his right for that reason. Each individual's right should be granted as soon as possible, without one being denied for the supposed benefit of the other.[Pg 215]
Charles L. Remond said that if he were to lose sight of expediency, he must side with Mrs. Stanton, although to do so was extremely trying; for he could not conceive of a more unhappy position than that occupied by millions of American men bearing the name of freedmen while the rights and privileges free men are still denied them.
Charles L. Remond stated that if he were to ignore practicality, he would have to support Mrs. Stanton, even though doing so was very challenging; because he could not imagine a more miserable situation than that faced by millions of American men labeled as freedmen while the rights and privileges of free men are still denied to them.
Mrs. Stanton said: That is equaled only by the condition of the women by their side. There is a depth of degradation known to the slave women that man can never feel. To give the ballot to the black man is no security to the woman. Saxon men have the ballot, yet look at their women, crowded into a few half-paid employments. Look at the starving, degraded class in our 10,000 dens of infamy and vice if you would know how wisely and generously man legislates for woman.
Mrs. Stanton said: That is matched only by the situation of the women alongside them. There's a level of degradation that slave women experience that men can never understand. Giving the vote to black men doesn't guarantee security for women. Saxon men have the vote, yet look at their women, forced into a few low-paying jobs. Check out the starving, downtrodden class in our 10,000 places of sin and vice if you want to see how wisely and generously men create laws for women.
Rev. Samuel J. May, in reply to Mr. Remond's objection to the resolution, said that the word "colored" was necessary to convey the meaning, since there is no demand now made for the enfranchisement of men, as a class. His amendment would take all the color out of the resolution. No man in this country had made such sacrifices for the cause of liberty as Wendell Phillips; and if just at this moment, when the great question for which he has struggled thirty years seemed about to be settled, he was unwilling that anything should be added to it which might in any way prejudice the success about to crown his efforts, it was not to be wondered at. He was himself of the opinion, on the contrary, that by asking for the rights of all, we should be much more likely to obtain the rights of the colored man, than by making that a special question. He would rejoice at the enfranchisement of colored men, and believed that Mrs. Stanton would, though that were all we could get at the time. Yet, if we rest there, and allow the reconstruction to be completed, leaving out the better half of humanity, we must expect further trouble; and it might be a more awful and sanguinary civil war than that which we have just experienced.
Rev. Samuel J. May, in response to Mr. Remond's objection to the resolution, stated that the word "colored" was necessary to express the meaning, since there is currently no demand being made for the enfranchisement of men as a whole. His amendment would take all distinction from the resolution. No man in this country has made as many sacrifices for the cause of liberty as Wendell Phillips; and if at this critical moment, when the significant issue he has fought for over thirty years seems close to resolution, he is reluctant to add anything that could potentially hinder the success of his efforts, that's understandable. He believes, on the contrary, that by advocating for the rights of everyone, we would be much more likely to secure the rights of colored people than by singling that out as a special issue. He would celebrate the enfranchisement of colored men and feels that Mrs. Stanton would too, even if that were all we could achieve at this time. However, if we stop there and let the reconstruction be finalized, neglecting to include half of humanity, we should anticipate further issues; and it could lead to an even more horrific and bloody civil war than the one we've just gone through.
George T. Downing desired that the Convention should express its opinion upon the point he had raised; and, therefore, offered the following resolution:
George T. Downing wanted the Convention to share its thoughts on the issue he had brought up; so, he proposed the following resolution:
Resolved, That while we regret that the right sentiment, which would secure to women the ballot, is not as general as we would have it, nevertheless we wish it distinctly understood that we rejoice at the increasing sentiment which favors the enfranchisement of the colored man.
Resolved, That while we regret that the supportive attitude needed to give women the right to vote isn’t as widespread as we would like, we want to make it clear that we are pleased with the growing support for the voting rights of men of color.
Mr. Downing understood Mrs. Stanton to refuse to rejoice at a part of the good results to be accomplished, if she could not achieve the whole, and he wished to ask if she was unwilling the colored man should have the vote until the women could have it also? He said we had no right to refuse an act of justice upon the assumption that it would be followed by an act of injustice.
Mr. Downing understood that Mrs. Stanton was not ready to celebrate any part of the good outcomes unless she could achieve the whole thing. He wanted to ask if she was against letting the Black man vote until women could vote too. He stated that we had no right to deny justice based on the belief that it would lead to injustice.
Mrs. Stanton replied she demanded the ballot for all. She asked for reconstruction on the basis of self-government; but if we are to have further class legislation, she thought the wisest order of enfranchisement was to take the educated classes first. If women are still to be represented by men, then I say let only the highest type of manhood stand at the helm of State. But if all men are to vote, black and white, lettered and unlettered, washed and unwashed, the safety of the nation as well as the interests of woman demand[Pg 216] that we outweigh this incoming tide of ignorance, poverty, and vice, with the virtue, wealth, and education of the women of the country. With the black man you have no new force in government—it is manhood still; but with the enfranchisement of woman, you have a new and essential element of life and power. Would Horace Greeley, Wendell Phillips, Gerrit Smith, or Theodore Tilton be willing to stand aside and trust their individual interests, and the whole welfare of the nation, to the lowest strata of manhood? If not, why ask educated women, who love their country, who desire to mould its institutions on the highest idea of justice and equality, who feel that their enfranchisement is of vital importance to this end, why ask them to stand aside while 2,000,000 ignorant men are ushered into the halls of legislation?
Mrs. Stanton responded that she demanded voting rights for everyone. She advocated for a reconstruction based on self-government; however, if we’re going to have more class legislation, she believed the smartest approach to enfranchisement was to prioritize the educated classes first. If women are still to be represented by men, then I say let only the best among men lead the government. But if all men, regardless of being black or white, educated or uneducated, or clean or unclean, are to vote, then the safety of the nation and the interests of women require[Pg 216] that we counter this incoming wave of ignorance, poverty, and vice with the virtue, wealth, and education of the women in our country. With the empowerment of black men, there’s no new force in government—it’s still just manhood; but with the enfranchisement of women, a new and vital element of life and power is introduced. Would Horace Greeley, Wendell Phillips, Gerrit Smith, or Theodore Tilton be willing to stand aside and trust their own interests and the overall welfare of the nation to the least capable men? If not, then why ask educated women, who care about their country and want to shape its institutions based on the highest ideals of justice and equality, and who believe their enfranchisement is crucial to achieving this, to step aside while 2,000,000 ignorant men are brought into the legislative process?
Edward M. Davis asked what had been done with Mr. Burleigh's amendment.
Edward M. Davis asked what had happened with Mr. Burleigh's amendment.
The Chair—No action was taken upon it, as no one seconded it.
The Chair—No action was taken on it because no one supported it.
Abby Kelly Foster said: I am in New York for medical treatment, not for speech-making; yet I must say a few words in relation to a remark recently made on this platform—that "The negro should not enter the kingdom of politics before woman, because he would be an additional weight against her enfranchisement." Were the negro and woman in the same civil, social, and religious status to-day, I should respond aye, with all my heart, to this sentiment. What are the facts? You say the negro has the civil rights bill, also the military reconstruction bill granting him suffrage. It has been well said, "he has the title deed to liberty, but is not yet in the possession of liberty." He is treated as a slave to-day in the several districts of the South. Without wages, without family rights, whipped and beaten by thousands, given up to the most horrible outrages, without that protection which his value as property formerly gave him. Again, he is liable without farther guarantees, to be plunged into peonage, serfdom or even into chattel slavery. Have we any true sense of justice, are we not dead to the sentiment of humanity if we shall wish to postpone his security against present woes and future enslavement till woman shall obtain political rights?
Abby Kelly Foster said: I am in New York for medical treatment, not for giving speeches; still, I need to say a few words about a comment made recently on this platform—that "The Black man shouldn't enter politics before women, because he would be an additional weight against her gaining the right to vote." If Black people and women had the same civil, social, and religious status today, I would wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. What are the facts? You say that Black people have the civil rights bill and also the military reconstruction bill granting them the right to vote. It has been aptly said, "he has the title deed to liberty, but is not yet enjoying liberty." He is treated like a slave today in many parts of the South. Without wages, denied family rights, whipped and beaten by thousands, subjected to horrific abuses, without the protection that his value as property once provided. Moreover, he can still be forced into peonage, serfdom, or even chattel slavery without any further guarantees. Do we have any real sense of justice? Are we not ignoring our humanity if we wish to delay his protection against current suffering and future enslavement until women achieve political rights?
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher said: It seems that my modesty in not lending my name has been a matter of some grief. I will try hereafter to be less modest. When I get my growth I hope to overcome that. I certainly should not have been present to-day, except that a friend said to me that some who were expected had not come. When a cause is well launched and is prospering, I never feel specially called to help it. When a cause that I believe to be just is in the minority, and is struggling for a hearing, then I should always be glad to be counted among those who were laboring for it in the days when it lacked friends. I come to bear testimony, not as if I had not already done it, but again, as confirmed by all that I have read, whether of things written in England or spoken in America, in the belief that this movement is not the mere progeny of a fitful and feverish ism—that it is not a mere frothing eddy whose spirit is but the chafing of the water upon the rock—but that it is a part of that great tide which follows the drawing of heaven itself. I believe it to be so. I trust that it will not be invidious if I say, therefore, I hope the friends of this cause will not fall out by the way. If the division of opinion amounts merely to this, that you have two blades, and therefore can cut, I have no objection to it; but if there is such[Pg 217] a division of opinion in respect to mere details, how important those details are, among friends that are one at the bottom where principles are, that there is to be a falling out there, I shall exceedingly regret it; I shall regret that our strength is weakened, when we need it to be augmented most, or concentrated.
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher said: It seems that my reluctance to lend my name has caused some disappointment. I will try to be less modest in the future. When I grow up, I hope to overcome that. I definitely wouldn’t have been here today if a friend hadn’t told me that some expected attendees were absent. When a cause is well-established and thriving, I don’t feel particularly compelled to help it. However, when a cause I believe in is in the minority and struggling for attention, I’m always glad to stand with those who supported it when it had few allies. I come to bear witness, not as if I hadn’t already done so, but again, confirmed by everything I’ve read, whether it’s from England or spoken in America, believing that this movement is not just a fleeting trend—that it’s not merely a superficial reaction, but part of a significant force driven by something greater. I truly believe that. I hope it won’t seem out of place if I say that I wish the friends of this cause won’t end up at odds. If the disagreement is simply about having two perspectives and thus the ability to discuss, I have no issue with that; but if there's such a division over details—how important those details may be—among friends who fundamentally agree on principles that it leads to a split, I would deeply regret that. I would regret that our collective strength is diminished just when we need it to be stronger and more focused.
All my lifetime the great trouble has been that in merely speculative things theologians have been such furious logicians, have picked up their premises, and rushed with them with race-horse speed to such remote conclusions, that in the region of ideas our logical minds have become accustomed to draw results as remote as the very eternities from any premises given. My difficulty on the other hand, has been that in practical matters, owing to the existence of this great mephitic swamp of slavery, men have been utterly unwilling to draw conclusions at all; and that the most familiar principles of political economy or politics have been enunciated, and then always docked off short. Men would not allow them to go to their natural results, in the class of questions in society. We have had raised up before us the necessity of maintaining the Union by denying conclusions. The most dear and sacred and animating principles of religion have been restrained, because they would have such a bearing upon slavery, and men felt bound to hold their peace. Our most profound and broadly acknowledged principles of liberty have been enunciated and passed over, without carrying them out and applying them to society, because it would interrupt the peace of the nation. That time is passed away; and as the result of it has come in a joy and a perfect appetite on the part of the public.
All my life, the biggest issue has been that when it comes to purely theoretical matters, theologians have been such intense logicians. They’ve grabbed their starting points and raced ahead to conclusions so far-fetched that our logical minds have become used to reaching ideas that are as distant as eternity from the initial premises. My struggle, on the other hand, has been that in practical matters, due to the existence of this terrible swamp of slavery, people have been completely unwilling to draw any conclusions at all. The most basic principles of political economy or politics have been stated, only to be abruptly cut short. People wouldn’t let them reach their natural conclusions in societal questions. We’ve faced the necessity of upholding the Union by denying outcomes. The most cherished, sacred, and inspiring principles of religion have been held back because of their implications for slavery, and people felt compelled to stay silent. Our most fundamental and widely accepted principles of liberty have been declared and overlooked, without being fully realized and applied to society, because it would disrupt the nation's peace. That time has passed; and as a result, there has come a joy and a strong desire from the public.
I have been a careful observer for more than thirty-five years, for I came into public life, I believe, about the same time with the lady who has just sat down (Mrs. Foster), although I am not so much worn by my labors as she seems to have been. For thirty-five years I have observed in society its impetus checked, and a kind of lethargy and deadness in practical ethics, arising from fear of this prejudicial effect upon public economy. I have noticed that in the last five years there has been a revolution as perfect as if it had been God's resurrection in the graveyard. The dead men are living, and the live men are thrice alive. I can scarcely express my sense of the leap the public mind and the public moral sense have taken within this time. The barrier is out of the way. That which made the American mind untrue logically to itself is smitten down by the hand of God; and there is just at this time an immense tendency in the public mind to carry out all principles to their legitimate conclusions, go where they will. There never was a time when men were so practical, and so ready to learn. I am not a farmer, but I know that the spring comes but once in the year. When the furrow is open is the time to put in your seed, if you would gather a harvest in its season. Now, when the red-hot plowshare of war has opened a furrow in this nation, is the time to put in the seed. If any man says to me, "Why will you agitate the woman's question, when it is the hour for the black man?" I answer, it is the hour for every man, black or white. (Applause.) The bees go out in the morning to gather the honey from the morning-glories. They take it when they are open, for by ten o'clock they are shut, and they never open again until the next crop comes. When the public mind is open, if you have anything to say, say it. If you have any[Pg 218] radical principles to urge, any organizing wisdom to make known, don't wait until quiet times come. Don't wait until the public mind shuts up altogether.
I’ve been paying close attention for over thirty-five years, since I entered public life around the same time as the lady who just sat down (Mrs. Foster), although I don’t seem as worn out by my work as she does. For thirty-five years, I've watched society become stagnant, with a sort of lethargy and dullness in practical ethics, stemming from the fear of its negative impact on public economics. In the last five years, though, I've seen a complete transformation, as impactful as if God had resurrected the dead. The dead are alive, and those who are living are more vibrant than ever. I can hardly express how much the public mindset and moral compass have shifted during this time. The barriers have been removed. That which caused the American thought process to be logically untrue has been struck down by God's hand; and right now, there is a strong movement in the public mindset to pursue all principles to their rightful conclusions, regardless of where that may lead. There has never been a time when people were so practical and eager to learn. I may not be a farmer, but I understand that spring comes only once a year. When the ground is ready, that’s the time to plant your seeds if you want to reap a harvest when it’s due. Now, as the intense plow of war has opened a field in this nation, is the time to sow those seeds. If someone asks me, "Why push the women's issue when it's the moment for the Black man?" I would say, it's the moment for every person, regardless of color. (Applause.) Just like bees go out in the morning to collect nectar from morning glories, they take it when the flowers are open because by ten o’clock, they close up and won’t open again until the next season. When the public mindset is open, if you have something to say, say it. If you have any radical principles to advocate or any organizational insights to share, don’t wait for calmer times. Don’t wait until the public mindset closes off completely.
War has opened the way for impulse to extend itself. But progress goes by periods, by jumps and spurts. We are in the favored hour; and if you have great principles to make known, this is the time to advance those principles. If you can organize them into institutions, this is the time to organize them. I therefore say, whatever truth is to be known for the next fifty years in this nation let it be spoken now—let it be enforced now. The truth that I have to urge is not that women have the right of suffrage—not that Chinamen or Irishmen have the right of suffrage—not that native born Yankees have the right of suffrage—but that suffrage is the inherent right of mankind. I say that man has the right of suffrage as I say that man has the right to himself. For although it may not be true under the Russian government, where the government does not rest on the people, and although under our own government a man has not a right to himself, except in accordance with the spirit and action of our own institutions, yet our institutions make the government depend on the people, and make the people depend on the government; and no man is a full citizen, or fully competent to take care of himself, or to defend himself, who has not all those rights that belong to his fellows. I therefore advocate no sectional rights, no class rights, no sex rights, but the most universal form of right for all that live and breathe on the continent. I do not put back the black man's emancipation; nor do I put back for a single day or for an hour his admission. I ask not that he should wait. I demand that this work shall be done, not upon the ground that it is politically expedient now to enfranchise black men; but I propose that you take expediency out of the way, and that you put a principle that is more enduring than expediency in the place of it—manhood and womanhood suffrage for all. That is the question. You may just as well meet it now as at any other time. You never will have so favorable an occasion, so sympathetic a heart, never a public reason so willing to be convinced as to-day. If anything is to be done for the black man, or the black woman, or for the disfranchised classes among the whites, let it be done, in the name of God, while his Providence says, "Come; come all, and come welcome."
War has opened the way for impulse to expand. But progress happens in periods, jumps, and bursts. We are in a crucial moment; if you have important principles to share, now is the time to promote them. If you can form them into institutions, this is the time to do it. So I say, whatever truth is to be recognized in this nation for the next fifty years, let it be said now—let it be upheld now. The truth I want to emphasize is not that women have the right to vote—not that Chinese or Irish people have the right to vote—not that native-born Americans have the right to vote—but that voting is the fundamental right of all humanity. I claim that everyone has the right to vote just as much as they have the right to their own existence. For while it may not be true under the Russian regime, where the government does not derive its power from the people, and although under our own government an individual does not have the right to themselves without adhering to the spirit and function of our institutions, our institutions make the government reliant on the people, and the people dependent on the government. No person is a full citizen, nor capable of taking care of themselves or defending themselves, if they lack all the rights that belong to their peers. Therefore, I support no regional rights, no class rights, no gender rights, but the most universal form of rights for everyone on this continent. I do not hold back the emancipation of Black individuals; I do not delay their inclusion for even a day or an hour. I do not ask for them to wait. I demand that this work gets done, not because it is politically convenient right now to give Black individuals the vote; instead, I propose that we remove convenience from the equation and replace it with a principle that is more lasting than expediency—universal suffrage for all people, regardless of gender. That is the question. You might as well confront it now as at any other time. You will never have a more favorable moment, a more sympathetic audience, or a public reason so ready to be swayed as you do today. If anything is to be achieved for Black men or women, or for the disenfranchised among white individuals, let it be done, in the name of God, while His Providence calls out, "Come; come all, and come welcome."
But I take wisdom from some with whom I have not always trained. If you would get ten steps, has been the practical philosophy of some who are not here to-day, demand twenty, and then you will get ten. Now, even if I were to confine—as I by no means do—my expectation to gaining the vote for the black man, I think we should be much more likely to gain that by demanding the vote for everybody. I remember that when I was a boy Dr. Spurzheim came to this country to advocate phrenology, but everybody held up both hands—"Phrenology! You must be running mad to have the idea that phrenology can be true!" It was not long after that, mesmerism came along; and then the people said, "Mesmerism! We can go phrenology; there is some sense in that; but as for mesmerism—!" Very soon spiritualism made its appearance, and then the same people began to say, "Spiritualism! Why it is nothing but mesmerism; we can believe in that; but as for spiritualism—!" (Laughter.) The way to get a man to take a position is to[Pg 219] take one in advance of it, and then he will drop into the one you want him to take. So that if, being crafty, I desire to catch men with guile, and desire them to adopt suffrage for colored men, as good a trap as I know of is to claim it for women also. Bait your trap with the white woman, and I think you will catch the black man. (Laughter.) I would not, certainly, have it understood that we are standing here to advocate this universal application of the principle merely to secure the enfranchisement of the colored citizen. We do it in good faith. I believe it is just as easy to carry the enfranchisement of all as the enfranchisement of any class, and easier to carry it than carry the enfranchisement of class after class—class after class. (Applause.)
But I learn from people I haven't always trained with. If you aim for ten steps, as some people who aren't here today would say, ask for twenty, and then you'll get ten. Now, even if I were to limit—though I absolutely don't—my expectation to just gaining the vote for Black men, I believe we'd be much more likely to achieve that by asking for the vote for everyone. I remember when I was a kid, Dr. Spurzheim came to this country to promote phrenology, and everyone was shocked—"Phrenology! You must be crazy to think that can be true!" Not long after that, mesmerism came along, and then people said, "Mesmerism! We can understand phrenology; there's some logic in that; but as for mesmerism—!" Very soon, spiritualism appeared, and the same people began to say, "Spiritualism! It's just mesmerism; we can believe in that; but as for spiritualism—!" (Laughter.) The way to get someone to take a position is to take one that's a bit ahead of it, and then they'll settle into the one you want them to take. So if, being clever, I want to win people over subtly and get them to support voting rights for people of color, one effective strategy I know is to also advocate for it for women. Bait your trap with the white woman, and I think you'll catch the Black man. (Laughter.) I certainly don't want it to be understood that we're here advocating for this universal application of the principle just to secure the voting rights of the colored citizen. We genuinely believe it. I think it’s just as easy to achieve the enfranchisement of all as it is to achieve the enfranchisement of any single group, and it’s easier to do it all at once than to go class by class—class by class. (Applause.)
I make this demand because I have the deepest sense of what is before us. We have entered upon an era such as never before has come to any nation. We are at a point in the history of the world where we need a prophet, and have none to describe to us those events rising in the horizon thick and fast. Sometimes it seems to me that that Latter Day glory which the prophets dimly saw, and which saints have ever since, with faintness of heart, longed for and prayed for with wavering faith, is just before us. I see the fountains of the great deep broken up. I think we are to have a nation born in a day among us, greater in power of thought, greater in power of conscience, greater therefore in self-government, greater still in the power of material development. Such thrift, such skill, such enterprise, such power of self-sustentation I think is about to be developed, to say nothing of the advance already made before the nations, as will surprise even the most sanguine and far-sighted. Nevertheless, while so much is promised, there are all the attendant evils. It is a serious thing to bring unwashed, uncombed, untutored men, scarcely redeemed from savagery, to the ballot-box. It is a dangerous thing to bring the foreigner, whose whole secular education was under the throne of the tyrant, and put his hand upon the helm of affairs in this free nation. It is a dangerous thing to bring men without property, or the expectation of it, into the legislative halls to legislate upon property. It is a dangerous thing to bring woman, unaccustomed to and undrilled in the art of government, suddenly into the field to vote. These are dangerous things; I admit it. But I think God says to us, "By that danger I put every man of you under the solemn responsibility of preparing these persons effectually for their citizenship." Are you a rich man, afraid of your money? By that fear you are called to educate the men who you are afraid will vote against you. We are in a time of danger. I say to the top of society, just as sure as you despise the bottom, you shall be left like the oak tree that rebelled against its own roots—better that it be struck with lightning. Take a man from the top of society or the bottom, and if you will but give himself to himself, give him his reason, his moral nature, and his affections; take him with all his passions and his appetites, and develop him, and you will find he has the same instinct for self-government that you have. God made a man just as much to govern himself as a pyramid to stand on its own bottom. Self-government is a boon intended for all. This is shown in the very organization of the human mind, with its counterbalances and checks.... We are underpinning and undergirding society. Let us put under it no political expediency, but the great principle of manhood and womanhood, not merely cheating ourselves by a partial measure, but carrying[Pg 220] the nation forward to its great and illustrious future, in which it will enjoy more safety, more dignity, more sublime proportions, and a health that will know no death. (Applause.)
I make this demand because I clearly understand what we’re facing. We’ve entered an era that no nation has ever experienced before. We are at a pivotal moment in world history where we need a visionary, yet we have no one to guide us through the events that are rapidly approaching. Sometimes, it feels like that promised glory, which the prophets barely foresaw and which saints have longed for and prayed for with shaky faith, is just around the corner. I see the very foundations of our society shifting. I believe we are about to witness a nation that will emerge overnight, stronger in thought, in conscience, in self-governance, and even more so in material growth. The level of resourcefulness, skill, enterprise, and self-sustainability that will emerge will astonish even the most optimistic and far-sighted among us. However, alongside all this promise, there are serious challenges. It’s a significant issue to bring uneducated, unrefined individuals—barely removed from savagery—to the ballot box. It’s risky to let those whose secular education was shaped under oppressive regimes have a say in the affairs of this nation. It’s precarious to allow those without property or any chance of acquiring it to make decisions about it in our legislative bodies. It’s also risky to introduce women, who lack experience in governance, suddenly into the voting arena. I acknowledge these are dangerous situations. Yet, I believe God is telling us, "Through this danger, I place the weighty responsibility on each of you to prepare these individuals for effective citizenship." Are you wealthy and wary of your money? That fear calls you to educate those you worry will vote against you. We are in a time of risk. I say to the elite: just as you look down on the less fortunate, you risk being left behind like an oak tree that rebels against its roots—better it should be struck by lightning. Whether a person comes from the top or the bottom of society, if you allow them the space to grow, giving them reason, moral values, and their emotions; if you embrace all their passions and desires and help them develop, you’ll find they possess the same instinct for self-governance that you do. God created each person to govern themselves just as much as a pyramid is built to stand on its own base. Self-governance is a right meant for everyone. This is evident in the very structure of the human mind, with its checks and balances.... We are laying the foundation for society. Let’s build it not on political convenience, but on the core principles of humanity, not just fooling ourselves with half-measures, but advancing [Pg 220] the nation toward a future of greatness where it will experience greater safety, greater dignity, greater elevation, and a vitality that knows no end. (Applause.)
Henry C. Wright said that circumstances had made Wendell Phillips and others, leaders in the Anti-Slavery movement, as they had made Mrs. Stanton and others leaders in this; and while they all desired the enfranchisement of both classes, it was no more than right that each should devote his energies to his own movement. There need not be, and should not be any antagonism between the two.
Henry C. Wright said that circumstances had turned Wendell Phillips and others into leaders of the Anti-Slavery movement, just as they had done for Mrs. Stanton and others in their cause; and while they all wanted to secure rights for both groups, it was only fair that each should focus on their own movement. There shouldn't be, and there doesn't need to be, any conflict between the two.
Miss Anthony said—The question is not, is this or that person right, but what are the principles under discussion. As I understand the difference between Abolitionists, some think this is harvest time for the black man, and seed-sowing time for woman. Others, with whom I agree, think we have been sowing the seed of individual rights, the foundation idea of a republic for the last century, and that this is the harvest time for all citizens who pay taxes, obey the laws and are loyal to the government. (Applause.)
Miss Anthony said—The question isn’t about whether this or that person is right, but rather what principles are being discussed. From what I gather about the differences among Abolitionists, some believe this is the time for the black man to reap the rewards, while it’s just the beginning for women. Others, like me, believe we’ve been planting the seeds of individual rights—the core idea of a republic—for the last hundred years, and that this is the time for all citizens who pay taxes, follow the laws, and are loyal to the government to reap the benefits. (Applause.)
Mr. Remond said: In an hour like this I repudiate the idea of expediency. All I ask for myself I claim for my wife and sister. Let our action be based upon the rock of everlasting principle. No class of citizens in this country can be deprived of the ballot without injuring every other class. I see how equality of suffrage in the State of New York is necessary to maintain emancipation in South Carolina. Do not moral principles, like water, seek a common level? Slavery in the Southern States crushed the right of free speech in Massachusetts and made slaves of Saxon men and women, just as the $250 qualification in the Constitution of this State degrades and enslaves black men all over the Union.
Mr. Remond said: In a moment like this, I reject the idea of expediency. Everything I wish for myself, I also want for my wife and sister. Let our actions be grounded in enduring principles. No group of citizens in this country can be denied the right to vote without harming every other group. I understand how equal voting rights in New York are essential to uphold freedom in South Carolina. Don’t moral principles, like water, strive to reach a common level? Slavery in the Southern States suppressed free speech in Massachusetts and turned Saxon men and women into slaves, just as the $250 requirement in this state's Constitution demeans and enslaves Black men across the nation.
Mr. Pillsbury protested against the use of the few last moments of this meeting in these discussions. We should be now only "a committee of ways and means," and future work should be the business in hand. Mr. Downing presented an unnecessary issue. Government will never ask us which should enter into citizenship first, the woman or the colored man, or whether we prefer one to the other. Indeed government has given the colored man the ballot already. We are demanding suffrage equally, not unequally. Mrs. Stanton's private opinion, be it what it may, has nothing to do with the general question. The white voters are mostly opposed to woman's suffrage. So will the colored men be, probably; at least so she believes, as Mrs. Mott also suggested very strongly, and a million or more of them added to the present opposition and indifference, are not a slight consideration. Mrs. Stanton does not believe in loving her neighbor better than herself. Justice to one class does not mean injustice to another. Woman has as good a right to the ballot as the black man—no better. Were I a colored man, and had reason to believe that should woman obtain her rights she would use them to the prejudice of mine, how could I labor very zealously in her behalf? It should be enough for Mr. Downing and all who stand with him that Mrs. Stanton does not demand one thing for herself as to rights, or time of obtaining them, which she does not cheerfully, earnestly demand for all others, regardless of color or sex.
Mr. Pillsbury expressed his frustration about using the final moments of this meeting for these discussions. We should only focus on being "a committee of ways and means," and our future tasks should be the priority. Mr. Downing raised an irrelevant issue. The government will never ask us who should gain citizenship first, the woman or the colored man, or whether we prefer one over the other. In fact, the government has already given the colored man the right to vote. We're advocating for equal suffrage, not unequal. Mrs. Stanton's personal views, whatever they may be, have nothing to do with the broader question. Most white voters are against women's suffrage. Colored men will likely be, too; at least that's what she thinks, as Mrs. Mott strongly suggested, and the addition of a million or more of them to the existing opposition and indifference is not something to ignore. Mrs. Stanton doesn't believe in loving her neighbor better than herself. Justice for one group doesn't mean injustice for another. Women have just as much right to vote as black men—no more. If I were a colored man and believed that if women gained their rights, they would use them to my disadvantage, how could I advocate earnestly for her cause? It should be enough for Mr. Downing and everyone who supports him that Mrs. Stanton doesn’t demand anything for herself regarding rights or the timing of achieving them that she doesn't equally and passionately demand for everyone else, regardless of color or gender.
Miss Anthony read the following telegram from Lucy Stone:[Pg 221]
Miss Anthony read the following telegram from Lucy Stone:[Pg 221]
"Atchison, Kansas, May 10, 1867.
"Atchison, Kansas, May 10, 1867.
"Impartial Suffrage, without regard to color or sex, will succeed by overwhelming majorities. Kansas leads the world!
"Fair voting, regardless of race or gender, will triumph by huge margins. Kansas is leading the way!"
Lucy Stone."
Lucy Stone."
Miss Anthony also read a hopeful and interesting letter from Hon. S. N. Wood, of Kansas, showing his plans for the canvass of that State.
Miss Anthony also read a hopeful and interesting letter from Hon. S. N. Wood of Kansas, outlining his plans for the campaign in that state.
Josephine Griffing said: I am well satisfied that this Convention ought not to adjourn until a similar plan is laid out for all the States in the Union, and especially for the District of Columbia. This being a national convention, it seems peculiarly appropriate that it should begin its work at the District of Columbia. The proposition has already been made there, and the parties have discussed its merits. The question of the franchise arose from the great fact that at the South there were four millions of people unrepresented. The fact of woman's being also unrepresented is now becoming slowly understood. It is easier now to talk and act upon that subject in the District of Columbia than ever before, or than it will be again. Even the President has said that if woman in the District of Columbia shall intelligently ask for the right of franchise, he shall by no means veto it. To my mind the enfranchisement of woman is a settled fact. We can not reconstruct this government until the franchise shall be given not merely to the four millions but to the fifteen millions. We can not successfully reconstruct our government unless we go to the foundation. Let us apply all the force we can to the lever, for we have a great body to lift. No matter how ready the public is, we can accomplish nothing unless we have some plan, and unless we have workers. I presume none of us are aware how many laws there are upon the statute books disabling our rights. When the Judges in the District of Columbia were to decide who were to vote and who were not to vote, the question arose who could be appointed officers of the city; and it was found that there was a law that no one could be appointed a judge of elections who had not paid a tax upon real estate in the District of Columbia, a law which almost defeats all the work which has been done during the canvass of the last eight weeks in that District. There is work yet to be done there, and so we shall find it at every step. I am thankful with all my heart and soul that the people have at last consented to the enfranchisement of two millions of black men. I recognize that, as the load is raised one inch, we must work by degrees, accepting every inch, every hair's breadth gained toward the right. I welcome the enfranchisement of the negro as a step toward the enfranchisement of woman.
Josephine Griffing said: I am fully convinced that this Convention should not adjourn until we have a similar plan established for all the States in the Union, especially for the District of Columbia. Since this is a national convention, it makes perfect sense for it to kick off its work in the District of Columbia. The proposal has already been discussed there, and its merits have been considered. The issue of voting rights stems from the fact that four million people in the South are unrepresented. The unrepresentation of women is slowly gaining recognition now. It’s easier than ever to speak about and act on this topic in the District of Columbia, and it may not be as easy again in the future. Even the President has stated that if women in the District of Columbia intelligently ask for voting rights, he would not veto it. To me, the enfranchisement of women is a done deal. We cannot rebuild this government until voting rights are granted not only to four million but also to fifteen million. We cannot successfully reassemble our government unless we get to the root of the issue. Let’s apply all our effort to this cause because we have a significant task ahead of us. Regardless of how ready the public is, we can achieve nothing without a clear plan and dedicated workers. I doubt any of us realize how many laws exist that undermine our rights. When the Judges in the District of Columbia were deciding who could vote, the question came up about who could be appointed as city officials; they found that there was a law stating that no one could be appointed as a judge of elections unless they had paid property tax in the District of Columbia, a law that nearly derailed all the efforts made during the last eight weeks of canvassing in that District. There is still work to be done there, just as we will find at every turn. I am truly grateful that the people have finally agreed to the enfranchisement of two million Black men. I understand that as we make progress, it will be a gradual effort, embracing every little gain towards our rights. I see the enfranchisement of Black men as a step forward toward the enfranchisement of women.
Miss Anthony said we seem to be blessed with telegrams, with cheering news from Kansas, and read the following from S. N. Wood:
Miss Anthony said we seem to be fortunate to receive telegrams, bringing uplifting news from Kansas, and read the following from S. N. Wood:
Atchison, Kansas, May 10, 1867.
Atchison, Kansas, May 10, 1867.
"With the help of God and Lucy Stone, we shall carry Kansas! The world moves!
"With God's help and Lucy Stone, we'll take Kansas! The world is changing!"
Sam Wood."
Sam Wood."
Sojourner Truth was called for and said: I am glad to see that men are getting their rights, but I want women to get theirs, and while the water is stirring I will step into the pool. Now that there is a great stir about colored men's getting their rights is the time for women to step in and have theirs. I am sometimes told that "Women aint fit to vote. Why, don't you know that a woman had seven devils in her: and do you suppose a woman is fit to rule the nation?" Seven devils aint no account; a man had a legion in him. [Great laughter]. The devils didn't know where to go; and so they asked that they might go into the swine. They thought that was as good a place as they came out from. [Renewed laughter]. They didn't ask to go into sheep—no, into the hog; that was the selfishest beast; and man is so selfish that he has got women's rights and his own too, and yet he won't give women their rights. He keeps them all to himself. If a woman did have seven devils, see how lovely she was when they were cast out, how much she loved Jesus, how she followed Him. When the devils were gone out of the man, he wanted to follow Jesus, too, but Jesus told him to go home, and didn't seem to want to have him round. And when the men went to look for Jesus at the sepulchre they didn't stop long enough to find out whether he was there or not; but Mary stood there and waited, and said to Him, thinking it was the gardener, "Tell me where they have laid Him and I will carry Him away." See what a spirit there is. Just so let women be true to this object, and the truth will reign triumphant.
Sojourner Truth was called to speak and said: I'm happy to see men getting their rights, but I want women to have theirs too, and while there's a lot of excitement, I will jump in. Now that there's a big movement for colored men to get their rights, it's the perfect time for women to step up and claim theirs. Sometimes I'm told that "Women aren’t fit to vote. Don’t you know a woman had seven demons in her? Do you really think a woman is capable of ruling the nation?" Seven demons don’t mean much; a man had a legion inside him. [Great laughter]. The demons didn’t know where to go, so they asked to enter the pigs. They thought that would be just as good as where they came from. [Renewed laughter]. They didn’t ask to go into sheep—no, into pigs; that’s the most selfish animal. And men are so selfish that they keep both their rights and women's rights for themselves, refusing to grant women theirs. If a woman did have seven demons, look how beautiful she became once they were gone, how much she loved Jesus and followed Him. When the demons left the man, he wanted to follow Jesus too, but Jesus told him to go home, as if He didn’t want him around. And when the men went to look for Jesus at the tomb, they didn’t stop long enough to find out if He was there; but Mary stood and waited, and said to Him, thinking He was the gardener, "Tell me where you've laid Him and I’ll carry Him away." See the spirit in that. Just like that, if women stay true to this goal, the truth will reign victorious.
Alfred H. Love (President of the Universal Peace Society) said: Your President paid the Universal Peace Society two visits; and some of us, in turn, are here to reciprocate. The Universal Peace Society, knowing that we must have purity before we can have peace, knowing that we need our mothers, wives, and daughters with us, knowing that we need the morality, the courage, and the patience of the colored man with us, adopted as our first resolution that the ballot is a peacemaker, and that with equality there can be no war; and in another resolution we have said that women and colored men are entitled to the ballot. Therefore, you have us upon the same platform, working for you in the best way we can. We mean no cowardly peace; we mean such a peace as demands justice and equality, and world-wide philanthropy. I put the ballot of to-day under my foot, and say I can not use it until the mother that reared me can have the same privilege; until the colored man, who is my equal, can have it.
Alfred H. Love (President of the Universal Peace Society) said: Your President visited the Universal Peace Society twice; and some of us are here to return the favor. The Universal Peace Society understands that we need purity to achieve peace, that we need our mothers, wives, and daughters with us, and that we need the morality, courage, and patience of our African American brothers. This is why our first resolution states that the ballot is a peacemaker, and that there can be no war without equality. In another resolution, we declared that women and people of color are entitled to the ballot. So, we are all on the same platform, working for you in the best way we know how. We do not seek a cowardly peace; we want a peace that demands justice and equality, along with global philanthropy. I put the ballot of today under my foot and say I cannot use it until the mother who raised me has the same privilege, and until the Black man, who is my equal, can have it too.
E. H. Heywood of Boston, said he could hardly see what business men had upon this platform, considering how largely responsible they are for the conditions against which women struggle, except to confess their sins. Men had usurped the government, and shut up women in the kitchen. It was a sad fact that woman did not speak for herself. It was because she was[Pg 223] crowded so low that she could not speak. Woman wanted not merely the right to vote, but the right to labor. The average life of the factory girl in Lowell was only four years, as shown by a legislative investigation. New avenues for labor must be opened. It is said that the women on this platform are coquetting with the Democrats. Why shouldn't they? The Democrats say, "Talk of negro suffrage, and then refuse women the right to vote. All I have to say is, when the negroes of Connecticut go to the polls, my wife and daughter will go, too."
E. H. Heywood from Boston mentioned that he could barely understand why businessmen were on this platform, given how much they are to blame for the challenges women face—unless it's to admit their wrongdoings. Men have taken over the government and restricted women to the kitchen. It's unfortunate that women aren't advocating for themselves. It's because they are [Pg 223] held down so much that they can't find their voice. Women want not just the right to vote, but also the right to work. The average lifespan of a factory girl in Lowell was only four years, according to a legislative investigation. We need to create new opportunities for work. It's said that the women on this platform are flirting with the Democrats. Why shouldn't they? The Democrats argue, "Talk about Black suffrage, yet deny women the right to vote. All I can say is, when the Black citizens of Connecticut cast their votes, my wife and daughter will participate, too."
EVENING SESSION.
The meeting was called to order by Mrs. Stanton.
The meeting was officially started by Mrs. Stanton.
Miss Anthony read another letter from Hon. S. N. Wood, of Kansas, received since the Morning Session.
Miss Anthony read another letter from Hon. S. N. Wood of Kansas, received since the morning session.
Frances D. Gage was then introduced: It is not to-day as it was before the war. It is not to-day as it was before woman took her destiny in her hand and went out upon the battle-fields, and into the camp, and endured hunger and cold for the sake of her country. The whole country has been vitalized by this war. What if woman did not carry the bayonet on the battle-field? She carried that which gave more strength and energy. Traveling through Illinois, I saw the women bind the sheaf, bring in the harvest and plow the fields, that men might fight the battles. When such women come up now and ask for the right of suffrage, who will deny their request? In the winter of 1860, the law was passed in New York giving to married women the right to their own earnings. It was said frequently then that women did not want the right to their own earnings. We were asked if we wanted to create separation in families. But did any revolution or any special trouble grow out of this recognition of woman's right? You see women everywhere to-day earnestly striving to find a place to earn their bread. Madame Demorest has become a leader of fashion, teaching women to make up what Stewart imports; and she has a branch establishment in every large city in the Union clear to Montana. I do not know but some of those ladies cutting out garments, and setting the fashions of the day, might aspire to the Presidential chair; and perhaps they would be quite as capable as the present incumbent—a tailor. [Applause].
Frances D. Gage was then introduced: It's not the same today as it was before the war. It's not the same today as it was before women took control of their own lives and stepped onto the battlefields, into the camps, and endured hunger and cold for their country. The entire nation has been energized by this war. So what if women didn't carry weapons on the front lines? They carried something that provided even more strength and energy. While traveling through Illinois, I saw women binding sheaves, bringing in the harvest, and plowing the fields so that men could fight the battles. When women like these come forward now and ask for the right to vote, who could deny them? In the winter of 1860, a law was passed in New York giving married women the right to their own earnings. Back then, it was often said that women didn’t want the right to their own income. We were asked if we wanted to create rifts in families. But did any upheaval or special trouble arise from this acknowledgment of women’s rights? You see women everywhere today striving passionately to find a way to earn their living. Madame Demorest has become a fashion leader, teaching women to create what Stewart imports; she now has a branch in every major city across the country, even as far as Montana. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those ladies cutting fabric and setting today’s trends aspired to the presidency; they might be just as capable as the current officeholder—a tailor. [Applause].
Three years ago I found myself without the means of life. I wanted a home. I had read about the beauties of a home, and woman's appropriate sphere; and so I got a little home, and went into it, and tried to get work. My old eyes would not see to sew nicely, I was too feeble to wash, and so I tended the garden. After a year had gone by I found that staying in this beautiful home, and placing myself in woman's sphere had not brought me a dollar to pay my bills. So setting all these theories at defiance, I said I will go and lecture; and I went out into the lecturing field. I have money to pay my bills to-day; but I could not have it were I to cling to the sphere of home. If a woman is doing the work of a good man's home, she is doing her part, and she will not desire to go out from it for any ordinary cause. But if she can make two dollars to his one, allowing him to carry out his part of the appointments of life, why should not she do it? When we can be allowed to do the thousand things that womanly hands can do as well as[Pg 224] those of men, we shall make our lives useful. But take my word for it, as an old mother, with her grandchildren gathered about her, you will not find woman deserting the highest instincts of her nature, or leaving the home of her husband and children.
Three years ago, I found myself without a way to make a living. I wanted a home. I had read about the joys of having a home and a woman's rightful place, so I got a little house, moved in, and tried to find work. My old eyes couldn't see well enough to sew neatly, I was too weak to wash clothes, so I took care of the garden. After a year, I realized that staying in this lovely home and sticking to a woman's role hadn't brought in a single dollar to pay my bills. So, defying all those theories, I said I would go out and lecture; and I stepped into the world of public speaking. Today, I have money to cover my bills, but I wouldn't have it if I had clung to the idea of staying at home. If a woman is managing the responsibilities of a good man's home, she's playing her part, and she won't want to leave it for any trivial reason. But if she can earn two dollars while he earns one, allowing him to fulfill his role in life, why shouldn’t she? When we can be given the opportunity to do all the things that women can do just as well as men, we will make our lives meaningful. But believe me, as an older mother with her grandchildren around her, you won’t find a woman abandoning her deepest instincts or leaving her home with her husband and children.
Why do you scold us, poor weak women, for being fashionable and dressy, when snares are set at every corner to tempt us? What would become of your dry-goods merchants and your commerce if we did not wear handsome dresses—if the women of this country were to become thus sensible to-day? Your great stores on Broadway would be closed, and your stalwart six-feet men would have to find something else to do besides measuring tapes and ribbons. The whole country would undergo a transformation. But it would be better for the country. It would not take five years to pay the national debt, interest and all, if you will apply the money spent by men for tobacco and whisky—if men will learn to be decent. I think it is a great deal better to wear a pretty flower or ribbon than to smoke cigars. It is a great deal better, and less damaging to the conscience, to wear a handsome silk dress, than for a man to put "an enemy into his mouth to steal away his brains."
Why do you scold us, poor weak women, for being stylish and dressed up when there are temptations everywhere? What would happen to your clothing stores and businesses if we stopped wearing nice clothes—if the women of this country suddenly decided to be sensible? Your big stores on Broadway would shut down, and your strong six-foot men would have to find something else to do besides measuring fabric and ribbons. The whole country would change. But it would be better for the nation. It wouldn’t take five years to pay off the national debt, interest and all, if you redirected the money men spend on tobacco and whiskey—if men learned to behave. I think it’s much better to wear a pretty flower or ribbon than to smoke cigars. It's definitely better, and less harmful to the conscience, to wear a beautiful silk dress than for a man to "put an enemy into his mouth to steal away his brains."
I honestly and conscientiously believe that we ought to make the rights of humanity equal for all classes of the community of adult years and of sound mind. I do not ask that the girl should vote at eighteen, but at twenty-one—the same age with the boy; and having raised both boys and girls, I think I have a right to say that. Give us freedom from these miserable prejudices, these restrictions and tyrannies of society, and let us judge for ourselves. If it is true, as science asserts, that girls inherit more of the character of their father, while the boys follow in a more direct line their mother, then how is it possible that women should not have the same aspirations as men? I was born a mechanic, and made a barrel before I was ten years old. The cooper told my father, "Fanny made that barrel, and has done it quicker and better than any boy I have had after six months' training." My father looked at it and said, "What a pity that you were not born a boy, so that you could be good for something. Run into the house, child, and go to knitting." So I went and knit stockings, and my father hired an apprentice boy, and paid him two dollars a week for making barrels. Now, I was born to make barrels, but they would not let me. Thousands of girls are born with mechanical fingers. Thousands of girls have a muscular development that could do the work of the world as well as men; and there are thousands of men born to effeminacy and weakness.
I genuinely believe that we should make the rights of all people equal, regardless of their social class, as long as they are adults and of sound mind. I don't think girls should vote at eighteen, but at twenty-one—just like boys. Having raised both sons and daughters, I feel I can say that. Let's be free from these terrible prejudices and societal restrictions, and allow us to make our own choices. If science is right that girls inherit more of their father's traits while boys inherit more from their mother, then how can we say that women don’t have the same aspirations as men? I was born to be a craftsman and made a barrel before I turned ten. The barrel maker told my dad, "Fanny made that barrel, and she did it faster and better than any boy I’ve had after six months of training." My dad looked at it and said, "What a shame you weren't born a boy so you could be good for something. Go inside and knit." So, I went and knitted stockings while my dad hired a boy apprentice and paid him two dollars a week to make barrels. I was meant to make barrels, but they wouldn’t let me. Many girls are born with skilled hands. Many girls have the physical strength to do work in the world just as well as men do; and there are countless men who are born weak and effeminate.
Mrs. Stanton then addressed the meeting. As her line of argument was a summary of that recently made before the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature, and already published, it need not here be repeated.
Mrs. Stanton then spoke to the meeting. Since her argument was a recap of what she had recently presented to the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature, and it has already been published, it doesn’t need to be repeated here.
Miss Anthony announced that they would have another opportunity to hear Sojourner Truth, and, for the information of those who did not know, she would say that Sojourner was for forty years a slave in this State. She is not a product of the barbarism of South Carolina, but of the barbarism of New York, and one of her fingers was chopped off by her cruel master in a moment of anger.
Miss Anthony announced that they would have another chance to hear Sojourner Truth, and for those who didn’t know, she mentioned that Sojourner had been a slave in this state for forty years. She is not a product of the brutality of South Carolina, but of the brutality of New York, and one of her fingers was cut off by her cruel master in a fit of anger.
Sojourner Truth said: I have lived on through all that has taken place these forty years in the anti-slavery cause, and I have plead with all the force[Pg 225] I had that the day might come that the colored people might own their soul and body. Well, the day has come, although it came through blood. It makes no difference how it came—it did come. (Applause). I am sorry it came in that way. We are now trying for liberty that requires no blood—that women shall have their rights—not rights from you. Give them what belongs to them; they ask it kindly too. (Laughter). I ask it kindly. Now I want it done very quick. It can be done in a few years. How good it would be. I would like to go up to the polls myself. (Laughter). I own a little house in Battle Creek, Michigan. Well, every year I got a tax to pay. Taxes, you see, be taxes. Well, a road tax sounds large. Road tax, school tax, and all these things. Well, there was women there that had a house as well as I. They taxed them to build a road, and they went on the road and worked. It took 'em a good while to get a stump up. (Laughter). Now, that shows that women can work. If they can dig up stumps they can vote. (Laughter). It is easier to vote than dig stumps. (Laughter). It doesn't seem hard work to vote, though I have seen some men that had a hard time of it. (Laughter). But I believe that when women can vote there won't be so many men that have a rough time gettin' to the polls. (Great laughter). There is danger of their life sometimes. I guess many have seen it in this city. I lived fourteen years in this city. I don't want to take up time, but I calculate to live. Now, if you want me to get out of the world, you had better get the women votin' soon. (Laughter). I shan't go till I can do that.
Sojourner Truth said: I have lived through everything that has happened over these forty years in the anti-slavery movement, and I have done everything I could to make sure that one day, people of color would own their own lives and bodies. Well, that day has come, although it came through violence. It doesn’t matter how it came—it did come. (Applause). I regret that it happened this way. We are now fighting for freedom that doesn't require bloodshed—that women should have their rights—not rights bestowed by you. Just give them what is theirs; they’re asking for it kindly too. (Laughter). I’m asking for it kindly. Now, I want it done quickly. It can be achieved in just a few years. How wonderful that would be! I would love to go to the polls myself. (Laughter). I own a small house in Battle Creek, Michigan. Well, every year I have to pay taxes. Taxes, you see, are taxes. Well, a road tax sounds significant. Road tax, school tax, and all these other things. Well, there were women there who owned houses too. They were taxed to build a road, and they went out and worked on it. It took them quite a while to remove a stump. (Laughter). Now, that shows that women can work. If they can dig up stumps, they can vote. (Laughter). It’s easier to vote than to dig up stumps. (Laughter). Voting doesn't seem like hard work, although I’ve seen some men who struggled with it. (Laughter). But I believe that when women vote, fewer men will have a tough time getting to the polls. (Great laughter). There’s a risk to their lives sometimes. I guess many have noticed this in this city. I lived here for fourteen years. I don’t want to take up too much time, but I plan to stay. Now, if you want me to leave this world, you better get women voting soon. (Laughter). I won’t go until I can do that.
Charles Lenox Remond said: It requires a rash man to rise at this stage of the meeting, with the hope of detaining the audience even for a few moments. But in response to your call I rise to add my humble word to the many eloquent words already uttered in favor of universal suffrage. The present moment is one of no ordinary interest. Since this platform is the only place in this country where the whole question of human rights may now be considered, it seemed to me fitting that the right of the colored man to a vote should have a place at the close of the meeting; and especially in this State, since the men who are to compose the Convention called for the amendment of the Constitution of this State, will, within a few short weeks, pass either favorably or unfavorably upon that subject. I remember that Henry B. Stanton once said at a foreign Court, "Let it be understood that I come from a country where every man is a sovereign." At that time the language of our friend was but a glittering generality, for there were very many who could not be styled sovereigns in any sense of the term. But I desire that the remark of Mr. Stanton shall be verified in the State of New York this very year. I demand that you so amend your Constitution as to recognize the equality of the black man at the ballot box, at least until he shall have proved himself a detriment to the interests and welfare of our common country. It is no novelty that two colored men were members of the last Legislature of Massachusetts; for more than forty years ago a black man was a member of the Massachusetts Legislature. People seem to have forgotten our past history. The first blood shed in the Revolutionary war ran from the veins of a black man; and it is remarkable that the first blood shed in the recent rebellion also ran from the veins of a black man. What does it mean, that black men, first and foremost in the defense of the American nation and in devotion to the country, are to-day disfranchised in the State of Alexander Hamilton and John Jay?
Charles Lenox Remond said: It takes a bold person to stand up at this stage of the meeting, hoping to keep the audience engaged even for a little while. But in response to your call, I’m here to add my humble input to the many powerful speeches already given in support of universal suffrage. This moment is extremely important. Since this platform is the only place in this country where we can discuss the entire issue of human rights, it makes sense that the right of Black men to vote should be addressed at the end of the meeting; especially in this State, since the individuals who will be part of the Convention called to amend the State Constitution will soon decide whether to support or oppose this issue. I recall that Henry B. Stanton once remarked at a foreign court, "Let it be understood that I come from a country where every man is a sovereign." Back then, his statement was merely an impressive statement, since there were many who couldn’t be called sovereigns in any way. But I want Mr. Stanton’s statement to be validated in New York State this year. I urge you to amend your Constitution to recognize the equality of Black men at the ballot box, at least until they can prove themselves harmful to the interests and well-being of our shared country. It’s not a new idea that two Black men served in the last Massachusetts Legislature; over forty years ago, a Black man was part of the Massachusetts Legislature. People seem to have forgotten our history. The first blood spilled in the Revolutionary War came from a Black man; and it’s significant that the first blood shed in the recent Civil War also came from a Black man. What does it say that Black men, who were among the first to defend the American nation and showed loyalty to the country, are now denied the right to vote in the State of Alexander Hamilton and John Jay?
These were the last conventions ever held in "the Church of the Puritans," as it soon passed into other hands, and not one stone was left upon another; not even an odor of sanctity about the old familiar corner where so much grand work had been done for humanity. The building is gone, the congregation scattered, but the name of George B. Cheever, so long the honored pastor, will not soon be forgotten.[74]
These were the last meetings ever held in "the Church of the Puritans," as it soon changed ownership, and not a single stone was left standing; not even a trace of the sacredness that once filled the old familiar corner where so much important work had been done for humanity. The building is gone, the congregation is scattered, but the name of George B. Cheever, who was the respected pastor for so long, will not be forgotten anytime soon.[74]
In a letter to the National Anti-Slavery Standard, dated Concord, April 20, 1867, Parker Pillsbury, under the title, "The Face of the Sky," says:
In a letter to the National Anti-Slavery Standard, dated Concord, April 20, 1867, Parker Pillsbury, under the title, "The Face of the Sky," says:
I have just read in the papers of last week what follows:
I just read in last week’s newspapers what follows:
Mr. Phillips, in the Anti-Slavery Standard says: "All our duty is to press constantly on the nation the absolute need of three things. 1st. The exercise of the whole police power of the government while the seeds of republicanism get planted. 2d. The Constitutional Amendment securing universal suffrage in spite of all State Legislation. 3d. A Constitutional Amendment authorizing Congress to establish common schools, etc. To these necessaries," Mr. Phillips adds, "we must educate the public mind."
Mr. Phillips, in the Anti-Slavery Standard, says: "Our job is to continually emphasize to the nation the essential need for three things. First, the full use of the government's police power as we plant the seeds of republicanism. Second, a Constitutional Amendment ensuring universal suffrage regardless of any State legislation. Third, a Constitutional Amendment allowing Congress to create public schools, etc. To these essentials," Mr. Phillips adds, "we need to educate the public."
Mr. Greeley in the Tribune says: "We are most anxious that our present State Constitution shall be so amended as to secure prompt justice through[Pg 228] the courts, preclude legislative and municipal corruption, and secure responsibility by concentrating executive power." Through the approaching Constitutional Convention, he says the people "can secure justice through reformed courts, fix responsibility for abuses of executive power;—in short, they can increase the value of property and the reward of honest labor."
Mr. Greeley in the Tribune says: "We are very eager for our current State Constitution to be amended in a way that ensures quick justice through[Pg 228] the courts, prevents corruption in legislative and municipal bodies, and establishes accountability by concentrating executive power." He states that through the upcoming Constitutional Convention, the people "can achieve justice with reformed courts, hold executive power accountable for its abuses;—in short, they can enhance property values and the rewards of honest work."
Mr. Tilton, in The Independent, in allusion to the recent Republican defeat in Connecticut, concludes; "the policy of negro suffrage is clearly seen to be the only policy for the National welfare." ... "What then, is the next step," he asks, "in the progress of reconstruction?" In italics he answered, "We must make Impartial Suffrage the rule and practice of the Northern as well as the Southern States." He proposes a new amendment to the Federal Constitution which will secure to every American citizen, black and white, North and South, the American citizen's franchise. What is meant in this article of the Independent by impartial suffrage is understood by these words in another part of it. "The Republican party in Connecticut was abundantly strong enough to secure Impartial Suffrage. But it chose, instead, to insult its black-faced brethren, and refused their alliance." Mr. Raymond, in the New York Times, speaks without a stammer on the suffrage question. It declares, "In New York suffrage is now absolutely universal for all citizens except the colored people; and upon them it is only restricted by a slight property qualification."
Mr. Tilton, in The Independent, referring to the recent Republican defeat in Connecticut, concludes: "the policy of Black suffrage is clearly the only policy for the nation’s well-being." ... "So, what is the next step," he asks, "in the progress of reconstruction?" He answers in italics, "We must make Impartial Suffrage the standard and practice in both the Northern and Southern States." He suggests a new amendment to the Federal Constitution that will guarantee every American citizen, regardless of race or region, the right to vote. The meaning of impartial suffrage in this article from the Independent is explained in another section: "The Republican party in Connecticut was more than capable of ensuring Impartial Suffrage. Yet, it chose instead to insult its Black brothers and sisters, refusing their partnership." Mr. Raymond, in the New York Times, speaks clearly on the suffrage issue. It states, "In New York, suffrage is currently completely universal for all citizens except for Black individuals; for them, it is only limited by a minor property requirement."
A correspondent of the Boston Congregationalist, in a letter from New York, tells us, "A Constitutional Convention is to be held shortly in this State, and we expect to see universal suffrage adopted.... The Strong-Minded Women aim to secure female voting, but they will fail, as they should." The Congregationalist has also an editorial article headed, "The steps to Reconstruction," in which it speaks excellently of "a millennium of Republican governments," and of Impartial Suffrage in them, as near at hand. But it too speaks only of freedmen to be clothed with the rights of citizenship in the millennial, latter-day glory so soon to be. Over the black male citizen this editor shouts, "chattel, contraband, soldier, citizen, voter, counselor, magistrate, representative, senator,—these all shall be the successive steps of his wonderful progress!!"
A writer for the Boston Congregationalist, in a letter from New York, says, "A Constitutional Convention is coming up in this State, and we expect to see universal suffrage approved.... The Strong-Minded Women are trying to secure voting rights for women, but they will fail, as they should." The Congregationalist also features an editorial titled "The Steps to Reconstruction," which speaks highly of "a millennium of Republican governments," and the prospect of Impartial Suffrage in them being just around the corner. However, it also only talks about freedmen gaining the rights of citizenship in this upcoming millennial, glorious future. Over the black male citizen, this editor exclaims, "chattel, contraband, soldier, citizen, voter, counselor, magistrate, representative, senator—these all will be the incredible steps of his amazing progress!!"
I have produced these as the best representatives of the different styles or types of the radical or progressive movement in the work of reconstructing the government. That the Standard and Independent believe fully in the right of women to Equal Suffrage and citizenship is known to every attentive reader of those journals. But at an hour like this, it is painful to witness anything like agreement even, with the language of the others I have cited.... To rob the freed slave of citizenship to-day is as much a crime as was slavery before the war on Sumter; and to withhold the divinely conferred gift from woman is every way as oppressive, cruel, and unjust as if she were a black man....
I have presented these as the best examples of the various styles or types within the radical or progressive movement focused on government reform. It's well-known among regular readers of the Standard and Independent that they fully support women's right to Equal Suffrage and citizenship. However, during a time like this, it's disheartening to see any semblance of agreement with the language used by others I've mentioned... Denying citizenship to the freed slave today is just as much a crime as slavery was before the war at Fort Sumter; and withholding this divinely granted right from women is just as oppressive, cruel, and unjust as if she were a Black man...
FOOTNOTES:
[60] Call for the Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention.—The Convention will be held in the City of New York, at the Church of the Puritans, Union Square, on Thursday, the 10th of May, 1866, at 10 o'clock. Addresses will be delivered by Ernestine L. Rose, Frances D. Gage, Wendell Phillips, Theodore Tilton, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and (probably) Lucretia Mott and Anna E. Dickinson.
[60] Call for the Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention.—The Convention will take place in New York City, at the Church of the Puritans, Union Square, on Thursday, May 10, 1866, at 10 AM. Talks will be given by Ernestine L. Rose, Frances D. Gage, Wendell Phillips, Theodore Tilton, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and (likely) Lucretia Mott and Anna E. Dickinson.
Those who tell us the republican idea is a failure, do not see the deep gulf between our broad theory and partial legislation; do not see that our Government for the last century has been but the repetition of the old experiments of class and caste. Hence, the failure is not in the principle, but in the lack of virtue on our part to apply it. The question now is, have we the wisdom and conscience, from the present upheavings of our political system, to reconstruct a government on the one enduring basis that has never yet been tried—"Equal Rights to All."
Those who say that the republican idea has failed don’t recognize the significant gap between our broad principles and limited laws; they don't see that our government for the past century has merely repeated old experiments with class and caste. Therefore, the failure isn’t in the principle itself, but in our own lack of integrity in applying it. The question now is, do we have the wisdom and conscience, given the current turmoil in our political system, to build a government on the one lasting foundation that has yet to be tried—"Equal Rights to All."
From the proposed class legislation in Congress, it is evident we have not yet learned wisdom from the experience of the past; for, while our representatives at Washington are discussing the right of suffrage for the black man, as the only protection to life, liberty and happiness, they deny that "necessity of citizenship" to woman; by proposing to introduce the word "male" into the Federal Constitution. In securing suffrage but to another shade of manhood, while we disfranchise fifteen million tax-payers, we come not one line nearer the republican idea. Can a ballot in the hand of woman, and dignity on her brow, more unsex her than do a scepter and a crown? Shall an American Congress pay less honor to the daughter of a President than a British Parliament to the daughter of a King? Should not our petitions command as respectful a hearing in a republican Senate as a speech of Victoria in the House of Lords? Do we not claim that here all men and women are nobles—all heirs apparent to the throne? The fact that this backward legislation has roused so little thought or protest from the women of the country, but proves what some of our ablest thinkers have already declared, that the greatest barrier to a government of equality was the aristocracy of its women. For, while woman holds an ideal position above man and the work of life, poorly imitating the pomp, heraldry, and distinction of an effete European civilization, we as a nation can never realize the divine idea of equality.
From the proposed class legislation in Congress, it’s clear we haven’t learned from our past experiences; while our representatives in Washington are debating the voting rights for black men as the only safeguard for life, liberty, and happiness, they deny that "necessity of citizenship" to women by suggesting adding the word "male" to the Federal Constitution. By granting suffrage only to another group of manhood while disenfranchising fifteen million taxpayers, we stray further from the republican idea. Can a ballot in a woman's hand and dignity on her forehead feminize her more than a scepter and crown? Should an American Congress show less respect to the daughter of a President than a British Parliament shows to the daughter of a King? Shouldn't our petitions receive as much respect in a republican Senate as a speech by Victoria in the House of Lords? Don’t we claim that here all men and women are nobles—all heirs apparent to the throne? The fact that this regressive legislation has sparked so little thought or protest from the women of the country only highlights what some of our most insightful thinkers have already pointed out: that the biggest obstacle to a government of equality is the aristocracy among its women. As long as women occupy an idealized position above men and life's work, poorly mimicking the pageantry, heraldry, and distinction of a fading European civilization, we as a nation can never achieve the divine idea of equality.
To build a true republic, the church and the home must undergo the same upheavings we now see in the State;—for, while our egotism, selfishness, luxury and ease are baptized in the name of Him whose life was a sacrifice,—while at the family altar we are taught to worship wealth, power and position, rather than humanity, it is vain to talk of a republican government:—The fair fruits of liberty, equality and fraternity must be blighted in the bud, till cherished in the heart of woman. At this hour the nation needs the highest thought and inspiration of a true womanhood infused into every vein and artery of its life; and woman needs a broader, deeper education, such as a pure religion and lofty patriotism alone can give. From the baptism of this second revolution should she not rise up with new strength and dignity, clothed in all those "rights, privileges and immunities" that shall best enable her to fulfill her highest duties to Humanity, her Country, her Family and Herself?
To create a real republic, both the church and the home need to experience the same changes we're witnessing in the State;—because as long as our selfishness, greed, luxury, and comfort are endorsed in the name of Him whose life was a sacrifice,—and as long as we’re taught at the family altar to value wealth, power, and status over humanity, it’s pointless to talk about a republican government:—The true benefits of liberty, equality, and brotherhood will remain stunted until they are embraced in the heart of women. Right now, the nation requires the highest thoughts and inspirations of authentic womanhood to flow through every part of its existence; and women need a broader, deeper education that only a pure religion and noble patriotism can provide. From the rise of this second revolution, shouldn’t she emerge with new strength and dignity, equipped with all those "rights, privileges, and immunities" that will enable her to fulfill her highest responsibilities to Humanity, her Country, her Family, and Herself?
On behalf of the National Woman's Rights Central Committee,
On behalf of the National Women's Rights Central Committee,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, President.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, President.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary.
New York (48 Beekman street), March 31, 1866.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary.
New York (48 Beekman Street), March 31, 1866.
[61] Ernestine L. Rose, Wendell Phillips, John T. Sargeant, O. B. Frothingham, Frances D. Gage, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Theodore Tilton, Lucretia Mott, Martha C. Wright, Stephen S. and Abbey Kelley Foster, Margaret Winchester and Parker Pillsbury.
[61] Ernestine L. Rose, Wendell Phillips, John T. Sargeant, O. B. Frothingham, Frances D. Gage, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Theodore Tilton, Lucretia Mott, Martha C. Wright, Stephen S. Foster, Abbey Kelley Foster, Margaret Winchester, and Parker Pillsbury.
[62] As this was the first time Mr. Beecher had honored the platform, we give copious extracts from his speech in preference to those who were so often reported in the first volume. This speech is published in full in tract form, and can be obtained from the Secretary of the National Woman's Suffrage Association.
[62] Since this was Mr. Beecher's first time speaking on the platform, we are providing extensive excerpts from his speech rather than focusing on those who were frequently covered in the first volume. This speech is fully available in pamphlet form and can be obtained from the Secretary of the National Woman's Suffrage Association.
A COLLOQUY.
A COLLOQUY.
When Mr. Beecher took his seat, Mr. Tilton rose and said:
When Mr. Beecher sat down, Mr. Tilton stood up and said:
Mrs. President: In the midst of the general hilarity produced throughout the house by my friend's speech, I myself have been greatly solemnized by being made (as you have witnessed) the public custodian of his New Testament. (Laughter). At first I shared in your gratification at seeing that he carried so much of the Scripture with him. (Laughter). But I found, on looking at the fly-leaf, that the book after all, was not his own, but the property of a lady—I will not mention her name. (Laughter). I have, therefore, no right to accept my friend's gift of what is not his own. Now I remember that when he came home from England, he told me a story of a company of ten ministers who sat down to dine together. A dispute arose among them as to the meaning of a certain passage of Scripture—for aught I know the very passage in Galatians which he just now tried to quote, but couldn't. (Laughter). Some one said, "Who has a New Testament?" It was found that no one had a copy. Pretty soon, however, when the dinner reached the point of champagne, some one exclaimed, "Who has a corkscrew?" And it was found that the whole ten had, every man, a corkscrew in his pocket! (Laughter). Now, as there is no telling where a Brooklyn minister who made a temperance speech at Cooper Institute last night is likely to take his dinner to-day, I charitably return the New Testament into my friend's own hands. (Great merriment).
Mrs. President: In the midst of the overall laughter in the room from my friend's speech, I have been made quite serious by being appointed (as you have seen) the public keeper of his New Testament. (Laughter). At first, I was pleased to see that he had so much of the Scripture with him. (Laughter). However, when I looked at the flyleaf, I discovered that the book actually belonged to a lady—I won’t mention her name. (Laughter). So, I have no right to accept my friend's gift of something that isn’t his. I recall that when he returned from England, he shared a story about a group of ten ministers who gathered for dinner. They got into a debate over the meaning of a certain Bible passage—for all I know, it might be the very passage in Galatians that he just tried to quote but couldn't. (Laughter). Someone asked, "Who has a New Testament?" and it turned out no one had a copy. However, when dinner progressed to the champagne course, someone shouted, "Who has a corkscrew?" and it was discovered that all ten had a corkscrew in their pockets! (Laughter). Now, since we can't predict where a Brooklyn minister who gave a temperance speech at Cooper Institute last night might have dinner today, I generously return the New Testament to my friend. (Great merriment).
Mr. Beecher—Now I know enough about champagne to know that it don't need any corkscrew. (Laughter).
Mr. Beecher—Now I know enough about champagne to know that it doesn't need any corkscrew. (Laughter).
Mr. Tilton—How is it that you know so much more about corkscrews than about Galatians? (Laughter).
Mr. Tilton—How come you know so much more about corkscrews than you do about Galatians? (Laughter).
Mr. Beecher, after making some playful allusions to the story of the ten ministers, remarked that he gave it as it was given to him, but that he could not vouch for its truthfulness, as he was not present on the occasion.
Mr. Beecher, after making some lighthearted references to the tale of the ten ministers, noted that he was sharing it as it was told to him, but he couldn't guarantee its accuracy since he wasn't there when it happened.
[64] Susan B. Anthony, Frances E. W. Harper, Sarah H. Hallock, Edwin A. Studwell, Dr. C. S. Lozier, Margaret E. Winchester, Mary F. Gilbert, Dr. Laura A. Ward, Edward M. Davis, Mrs. Calhoun.
[64] Susan B. Anthony, Frances E. W. Harper, Sarah H. Hallock, Edwin A. Studwell, Dr. C. S. Lozier, Margaret E. Winchester, Mary F. Gilbert, Dr. Laura A. Ward, Edward M. Davis, Mrs. Calhoun.
[65] CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN EQUAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
[65] CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN EQUAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
Preamble.—Whereas, by the war, society is once more resolved into its original elements, and in the reconstruction of our government we again stand face to face with the broad question of natural rights, all associations based on special claims for special classes are too narrow and partial for the hour; Therefore, from the baptism of this second revolution—purified and exalted through suffering—seeing with a holier vision that the peace, prosperity, and perpetuity of the Republic rest on Equal Rights to All, we, to-day, assembled in our Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention, bury the woman in the citizen, and our organization in that of the American Equal Rights Association.
Preamble.—Whereas, because of the war, society has once again broken down to its basic elements, and as we work to rebuild our government, we find ourselves confronting the important issue of natural rights. Any groups focused on specific claims for particular classes are too limited and one-sided for this moment; Therefore, with the start of this second revolution—purified and uplifted through hardship—and with a clearer understanding that the peace, prosperity, and longevity of the Republic rely on Equal Rights for All, we, gathered today at our Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention, unite the woman with the citizen, and our organization with that of the American Equal Rights Association.
Article I.—This organization shall be known as The American Equal Rights Association.
Article I.—This group will be called The American Equal Rights Association.
Art. II.—The object of this Association shall be to secure Equal Rights to all American citizens, especially the right of suffrage, irrespective of race, color, or sex.
Art. II.—The purpose of this Association is to ensure Equal Rights for all American citizens, particularly the right to vote, regardless of race, color, or gender.
Art. III.—Any person who consents to the principles of this Association and contributes to its treasury, may be a member, and be entitled to speak and vote in its meetings.
Art. III.—Anyone who agrees with the principles of this Association and contributes to its funds can be a member and has the right to speak and vote in its meetings.
Art. IV.—The Officers of this Association shall be, a President, Vice-Presidents, Corresponding Secretaries, a Recording Secretary, a Treasurer, and an Executive Committee of not less than seven, nor more than fifteen members.
Art. IV.—The officers of this association will be a President, Vice Presidents, Corresponding Secretaries, a Recording Secretary, a Treasurer, and an Executive Committee of at least seven and no more than fifteen members.
Art. V.—The Executive Committee shall have power to enact their by-laws, fill any vacancy in their body and in the offices of Secretary and Treasurer; employ agents, determine what compensation shall be paid to agents, and to the Corresponding Secretaries, direct the Treasurer in the application of all moneys, and call special meetings of the Society. They shall make arrangements for all meetings of the Society, make an annual written report of their doings, the expenditures and funds of the Society, and shall hold stated meetings, and adopt the most energetic measures in their power to advance the objects of the Society.
Art. V.—The Executive Committee will have the authority to create their own by-laws, fill any vacancies in their group and in the roles of Secretary and Treasurer; hire agents, decide on the compensation for agents and the Corresponding Secretaries, guide the Treasurer in managing all funds, and convene special meetings of the Society. They will organize all Society meetings, provide an annual written report detailing their activities, expenses, and the Society's finances, hold regular meetings, and take the most effective actions within their capacity to promote the Society's objectives.
Art. VI.—The Annual Meeting of the Association shall be held each year at such time and place as the Executive Committee may direct, when the accounts of the Treasurer shall be presented, the annual report read, appropriate addresses delivered, the officers chosen, and such other business transacted as shall be deemed expedient.
Art. VI.—The Annual Meeting of the Association will take place every year at a time and location determined by the Executive Committee, during which the Treasurer will present the accounts, the annual report will be read, relevant speeches will be made, officers will be elected, and any other necessary business will be conducted.
Art. VII.—Any Equal Rights Association, founded on the same principles, may become auxiliary to this Association. The officers of each auxiliary shall be ex officio members of the Parent Association, and shall be entitled to deliberate and vote in the transactions of its concerns.
Art. VII.—Any Equal Rights Association that is based on the same principles can join this Association as an auxiliary. The officers of each auxiliary will be ex officio members of the Parent Association and will have the right to discuss and vote on its matters.
Art. VIII.—This constitution may be amended, at any regular meeting of the Society, by a vote of two-thirds of the members present, provided the amendments proposed have been previously submitted in writing to the Executive Committee, at least one month before the meeting at which they are to be proposed.
Art. VIII.—This constitution can be changed at any regular meeting of the Society by a two-thirds vote of the members present, as long as the proposed amendments have been submitted in writing to the Executive Committee at least one month before the meeting where they will be discussed.
Done in the City of New York on the tenth day of May, in the year 1866.
Done in the City of New York on the 10th day of May, in the year 1866.
[66] President, Elizabeth Cady Stanton; Vice-Presidents, Frederick Douglass, Frances D. Gage, Robert Purvis, Theodore Tilton, Josephine S. Griffing, Martha C. Wright, Rebecca W. Mott; Corresponding Secretaries, Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Griffith, Caroline M. Severance; Recording Secretary, Henry B. Blackwell; Treasurer, Ludlow Patton; Executive Committee, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, Edwin A. Studwell, Margaret E. Winchester, Aaron M. Powell, Susan B. Anthony, Parker Pillsbury, Elizabeth Gay, Mary F. Gilbert, Stephen S. Foster, Lydia Mott, Antoinette B. Blackwell, Wendell Phillips Garrison.
[66] President, Elizabeth Cady Stanton; Vice Presidents, Frederick Douglass, Frances D. Gage, Robert Purvis, Theodore Tilton, Josephine S. Griffing, Martha C. Wright, Rebecca W. Mott; Corresponding Secretaries, Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Griffith, Caroline M. Severance; Recording Secretary, Henry B. Blackwell; Treasurer, Ludlow Patton; Executive Committee, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, Edwin A. Studwell, Margaret E. Winchester, Aaron M. Powell, Susan B. Anthony, Parker Pillsbury, Elizabeth Gay, Mary F. Gilbert, Stephen S. Foster, Lydia Mott, Antoinette B. Blackwell, Wendell Phillips Garrison.
[67] Miss Anthony reported from the Finance Committee the receipt of $255.50, as follows: Jessie Benton Fremont, $50; Abby Hutchinson Patton, $50; Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, $20; Gerrit Smith, $10; Mrs. Dr. Densmore, $10; James and Lucretia Mott, $10 Martha C. Wright, $8: Elizabeth S. Miller, $5; Eliza W. Osborn, $5; Margaret E. Winchester, $5; and the balance in sums of $1 each, from as many different persons, whose names were enrolled as members of the Equal Rights Association. Miss A. further stated that the proceedings would be published in pamphlet form at the earliest possible day, and that announcement of their place of sale would be made through the Tribune, Anti-Slavery Standard, and other papers.
[67] Miss Anthony reported from the Finance Committee that they received $255.50, which included contributions from: Jessie Benton Fremont, $50; Abby Hutchinson Patton, $50; Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, $20; Gerrit Smith, $10; Mrs. Dr. Densmore, $10; James and Lucretia Mott, $10; Martha C. Wright, $8; Elizabeth S. Miller, $5; Eliza W. Osborn, $5; Margaret E. Winchester, $5; and the remaining amount in $1 contributions from various other individuals who were listed as members of the Equal Rights Association. Miss A. also mentioned that the proceedings would be published in pamphlet form as soon as possible, and that the announcement of where to buy them would be made through the Tribune, Anti-Slavery Standard, and other newspapers.
[68] At a reception one evening in Washington at the residence of Hon. Schuyler Colfax, he rallied Mrs. Stanton on her defeat, regretting that as Speaker of the House he had never had the pleasure of introducing "the Lady from New York." Hon. William D. Kelly, standing near, remarked by way of consolation, "There is still hope for Mrs. Stanton; she received the same number of votes I did the first time I ran for Congress (2,400), the only difference is, her ciphers were on the wrong side (0024).
[68] At a reception one evening in Washington at the home of Hon. Schuyler Colfax, he joked with Mrs. Stanton about her loss, expressing regret that as Speaker of the House he had never had the chance to introduce "the Lady from New York." Hon. William D. Kelly, who was nearby, offered some encouragement, saying, "There’s still hope for Mrs. Stanton; she got the same number of votes I did the first time I ran for Congress (2,400), the only difference is, her numbers were on the wrong side (0024).
[69] The speakers were Rev. Olympia Brown, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Frederick Douglass, Henry B. Blackwell, Sarah P. Remond, Parker Pillsbury, Jane Elizabeth Jones, Charles Lenox Remond, Bessie Bisbee, and Louise Jacobs.
[69] The speakers were Rev. Olympia Brown, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Frederick Douglass, Henry B. Blackwell, Sarah P. Remond, Parker Pillsbury, Jane Elizabeth Jones, Charles Lenox Remond, Bessie Bisbee, and Louise Jacobs.
THE CALL.
THE CALL.
The first Annual Meeting of the American Equal Rights Association will be held in the City of New York, at the Church of the Puritans, on Thursday and Friday, the 9th and 10th of May, 1867, commencing on Thursday morning, at 10 o'clock.
The first Annual Meeting of the American Equal Rights Association will take place in New York City at the Church of the Puritans on Thursday and Friday, May 9th and 10th, 1867, starting Thursday morning at 10 o'clock.
The object of this Association is to "secure Equal Rights to all American citizens, especially the Right of Suffrage, irrespective of race, color, or sex." American Democracy has interpreted the Declaration of Independence in the interest of slavery, restricting suffrage and citizenship to a white male minority.
The goal of this Association is to "ensure Equal Rights for all American citizens, particularly the Right to Vote, regardless of race, color, or gender." American Democracy has interpreted the Declaration of Independence in a way that supports slavery, limiting voting rights and citizenship to a white male minority.
The black man is still denied the crowning right of citizenship, even in the nominally free States, though the fires of civil war have melted the chains of chattelism, and a hundred battle fields attest his courage and patriotism. Half our population are disfranchised on the ground of sex; and though compelled to obey the laws and taxed to support the government, they have no voice in the legislation of the country.
The Black man is still denied the basic right of citizenship, even in the so-called free states, even though the civil war has ended slavery, and countless battlefields show his courage and patriotism. Half of our population is disenfranchised because of their gender; and although they are forced to obey the laws and pay taxes to support the government, they have no say in the country's legislation.
This Association, then, has a mission to perform, the magnitude and importance of which can not be over-estimated. The recent war has unsettled all our governmental foundations. Let us see that in their restoration, all these unjust proscriptions are avoided. Let Democracy be defined anew, as the government of the people, and the whole people.
This Association has an important mission to accomplish, one that is incredibly significant. The recent war has disrupted all our governmental foundations. We must ensure that in rebuilding them, we avoid all these unfair exclusions. Let’s redefine Democracy as the government of the people, and the whole people.
Let the gathering, then, at this anniversary be, in numbers and character, worthy, in some degree, the demands of the hour. The black man, even the black soldier, is yet but half emancipated, nor will he be, until full suffrage and citizenship are secured to him in the Federal Constitution. Still more deplorable is the condition of the black woman; and legally, that of the white woman is no better! Shall the sun of the nineteenth century go down on wrongs like these, in this nation, consecrated in its infancy to justice and freedom? Rather let our meeting be pledge as well as prophecy to the world of mankind, that the redemption of at least one great nation is near at hand.
Let this anniversary gathering be, in both number and character, somewhat worthy of the demands of our time. The Black man, even the Black soldier, is still only half free, and he won’t be truly free until full voting rights and citizenship are secured to him in the Federal Constitution. The situation of the Black woman is even more distressing; and legally, the situation of the white woman isn't any better! Should the sun of the nineteenth century set on such injustices in a nation that was dedicated to justice and freedom from its very beginning? Instead, let our meeting be both a promise and a sign to the world that the redemption of at least one great nation is coming soon.
There will be four sessions—Thursday, May 9th, at 10 o'clock a.m., and 8 o'clock p. m.; Friday, May 13th, at 10 a.m., and 8 p.m. The speakers will be Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Gen. Rufus Saxton, Frances D. Gage, Parker Pillsbury, Robert Purvis, Mary Grew, Ernestine L. Rose, Charles Lenox Remond, Frederick Douglass, Lucy Stone, Henry B. Blackwell, Rev. Olympia Brown, Sojourner Truth (Mrs. Stowe's "Lybian Sybil"), Rev. Samuel J. May, and others.
There will be four sessions—Thursday, May 9th, at 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; Friday, May 13th, at 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The speakers will include Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Gen. Rufus Saxton, Frances D. Gage, Parker Pillsbury, Robert Purvis, Mary Grew, Ernestine L. Rose, Charles Lenox Remond, Frederick Douglass, Lucy Stone, Henry B. Blackwell, Rev. Olympia Brown, Sojourner Truth (Mrs. Stowe's "Lybian Sybil"), Rev. Samuel J. May, and others.
On behalf of the American Equal Rights Association,
On behalf of the American Equal Rights Association,
LUCRETIA MOTT, President.
LUCRETIA MOTT, President.
Susan B. Anthony, Cor. Secretary.
Henry B. Blackwell, Rec. Secretary.
New York, 12th March, 1867.
Susan B. Anthony, Corresponding Secretary.
Henry B. Blackwell, Recording Secretary.
New York, March 12, 1867.
[71] Resolved, That as republican institutions are based on individual rights, and not on the rights of races or sexes, the first question for the American people to settle in the reconstruction of the government, is the rights of individuals.
[71] Resolved, That since democratic institutions rely on individual rights rather than the rights of races or genders, the primary issue for the American people to address in rebuilding the government is the rights of individuals.
Resolved, That the present claim for "manhood suffrage," marked with the words "equal," "impartial," "universal," is a cruel abandonment of the slave women of the South, a fraud on the tax-paying women of the North, and an insult to the civilization of the nineteenth century.
Resolved, That the current demand for "manhood suffrage," highlighted with terms like "equal," "impartial," and "universal," is a harsh betrayal of the enslaved women in the South, a deception on the tax-paying women in the North, and an affront to the values of the nineteenth century.
Resolved, That the proposal to reconstruct our government on the basis of manhood suffrage, which emanated from the Republican party and has received the recent sanction of the American Anti-Slavery Society, is but a continuation of the old system of class and caste legislation, always cruel and prescriptive in itself, and ending in all ages in national degradation and revolution.
Resolved, That the idea of revamping our government based on universal manhood suffrage, which originated from the Republican Party and has recently been endorsed by the American Anti-Slavery Society, is merely a continuation of the old system of class and caste laws, always oppressive and restrictive in nature, ultimately leading to national decline and upheaval throughout history.
On motion of Miss Anthony, a Finance Committee was appointed, consisting of Harriet Purvis, Mary F. Gilbert, Charles Lenox Remond, and Anna Rice Powell.
On the motion of Miss Anthony, a Finance Committee was formed, made up of Harriet Purvis, Mary F. Gilbert, Charles Lenox Remond, and Anna Rice Powell.
On motion of Charles C. Burleigh, a Business Committee was appointed, consisting of Ernestine L. Rose, Susan B. Anthony, Parker Pillsbury, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frances D. Gage, and Samuel J. May.
On the motion of Charles C. Burleigh, a Business Committee was formed, made up of Ernestine L. Rose, Susan B. Anthony, Parker Pillsbury, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frances D. Gage, and Samuel J. May.
[72] Resolved, That the ballot alike to women and men means bread, education, self-protection, self-reliance, and self-respect; to the wife it means the control of her own person, property, and earnings; to the mother it means the equal guardianship of her children; to the daughter it means diversified employment and a fair day's wages for a fair day's work; to all it means free access to skilled labor, to colleges and professions, and to every avenue of advantage and preferment.
[72] Resolved, That the vote for both women and men represents food, education, personal safety, independence, and dignity; for the wife, it signifies control over her own body, property, and income; for the mother, it means equal rights in raising her children; for the daughter, it offers varied job opportunities and equal pay for equal work; for everyone, it provides access to skilled jobs, colleges, professions, and all pathways to opportunities and advancement.
Resolved, That Henry Ward Beecher, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Frederick Douglass, be invited to represent the Equal Rights Association in the Constitutional Convention to be held in this State in the month of June next.
Resolved, That Henry Ward Beecher, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Frederick Douglass be invited to represent the Equal Rights Association at the Constitutional Convention taking place in this state next June.
Resolved, That while we are grateful to Wendell Phillips, Theodore Tilton, and Horace Greeley, for the respectful mention of woman's right to the ballot in the journals through which they speak, we ask them now, when we are reconstructing both our State and National Governments, to demand that the right of suffrage be secured to all citizens—to women as well as black men, for, until this is done, the government stands on the unsafe basis of class legislation.
Resolved, That while we appreciate Wendell Phillips, Theodore Tilton, and Horace Greeley for acknowledging women's right to vote in their publications, we now urge them, as we rebuild our State and National Governments, to advocate for the voting rights to be guaranteed for all citizens—women as well as Black men. Until this is achieved, the government remains on the unstable ground of class-based legislation.
Resolved, That on this our first anniversary we congratulate each other and the country on the unexampled progress of our cause, as seen: 1. In the action of Congress extending the right of suffrage to the colored men of the States lately in rebellion, and in the very long and able discussion of woman's equal right to the ballot in the United States Senate, and the vote upon it. 2. In the action of the Legislatures of Kansas and Wisconsin, submitting to the people a proposition to extend the ballot to woman. 3. In the agitation upon the same measure in the Legislatures of several other States. 4. In the friendly tone of so large a portion of the press, both political and religious; and finally, in the general awaking to the importance of human elevation and enfranchisement, abroad as well as at home; particularly in Great Britain, Russia, and Brazil; and encouraged by past successes and the present prospect, we pledge ourselves to renewed and untiring exertions, until equal suffrage and citizenship are acknowledged throughout our entire country, irrespective of sex or color.
Resolved, That on this first anniversary, we congratulate each other and the nation on the unprecedented progress of our cause, as seen: 1. In Congress's decision to grant the right to vote to Black men in the States that recently rebelled, and in the extensive and compelling discussion in the United States Senate about women's equal right to vote, as well as the vote on it. 2. In the Kansas and Wisconsin Legislatures putting forward a proposal to give women the right to vote. 3. In the momentum around the same issue in the Legislatures of several other States. 4. In the supportive tone from a significant portion of the press, both political and religious; and finally, in the growing awareness of the importance of human uplift and voting rights, both at home and abroad; especially in Great Britain, Russia, and Brazil; and motivated by past achievements and current opportunities, we commit ourselves to renewed and tireless efforts until equal voting rights and citizenship are recognized across the entire country, regardless of sex or color.
[73] President, Lucretia Mott; Vice-presidents, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, N. Y., Frederick Douglass, N. Y., Henry Ward Beecher, N. Y., Charles Lenox Remond, Mass., Elizabeth B. Chace, R. I., C. Prince, Conn., Frances D. Gage, N. J., Robert Purvis, Penn., Josephine S. Griffing, D. C., Thomas Garret, Del., Stephen H. Camp, Ohio, Euphemia Cochrane, Mich., Mary A. Livermore, Ill., Mrs. Isaac H. Sturgeon, Mo., Amelia Bloomer, Iowa, Sam N. Wood, Kansas, Virginia Penny, Kentucky; Recording Secretaries, Henry B. Blackwell, Hattie Purvis; Corresponding Secretaries, Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Griffith, Caroline M. Severance; Treasurer, John F. Merritt; Executive Committee, Ernestine L. Rose, Edwin A. Studwell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Martha C. Wright, Lucy Stone, Parker Pillsbury, Elizabeth Gay, Theodore Tilton, Mary F. Gilbert, Edward S. Bunker, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Susan B. Anthony, Margaret E. Winchester, Aaron M. Powell, James Haggarty, George T. Downing.
[73] President: Lucretia Mott; Vice Presidents: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, N.Y., Frederick Douglass, N.Y., Henry Ward Beecher, N.Y., Charles Lenox Remond, Mass., Elizabeth B. Chace, R.I., C. Prince, Conn., Frances D. Gage, N.J., Robert Purvis, Penn., Josephine S. Griffing, D.C., Thomas Garret, Del., Stephen H. Camp, Ohio, Euphemia Cochrane, Mich., Mary A. Livermore, Ill., Mrs. Isaac H. Sturgeon, Mo., Amelia Bloomer, Iowa, Sam N. Wood, Kansas, Virginia Penny, Kentucky; Recording Secretaries: Henry B. Blackwell, Hattie Purvis; Corresponding Secretaries: Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Griffith, Caroline M. Severance; Treasurer: John F. Merritt; Executive Committee: Ernestine L. Rose, Edwin A. Studwell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Martha C. Wright, Lucy Stone, Parker Pillsbury, Elizabeth Gay, Theodore Tilton, Mary F. Gilbert, Edward S. Bunker, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Susan B. Anthony, Margaret E. Winchester, Aaron M. Powell, James Haggarty, George T. Downing.
[74] The night before Dr. Cheever was to preach his farewell sermon to his people in the Church of the Puritans, Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton, walking slowly up Broadway arm in arm, cogitating, as usual, where a good word could be said for woman, bethought themselves of the Doctor's forthcoming sermon. As he had fought a grand battle for anti-slavery in his church, they felt that it would be peculiarly fitting for him, in his last sermon, to make some mention of the rights of women.
[74] The night before Dr. Cheever was set to give his farewell sermon to his congregation at the Church of the Puritans, Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton, walking slowly up Broadway arm in arm, were thinking, as always, about where they could make a good case for women's rights. They considered the Doctor's upcoming sermon and felt it would be particularly appropriate for him to mention women's rights in his final address, especially since he had valiantly fought for anti-slavery in his church.
Accordingly they turned into University Place, and soon found themselves in his parlor, where they were heartily welcomed by Mrs. Cheever. Miss Anthony, who was generally the spokesman on all audacious errands, said, "We want to see the Doctor just five minutes; we know that it is Saturday evening, that he is busy with his sermon, and sees no one at this time, but our errand is one of momentous importance, and what we have in our minds must be said now or never. While we were explaining to Mrs. Cheever, the folding doors quietly rolled back, and there stood the Doctor. He laughed heartily when we made known our mission, and said, "I have the start of you this time; what you ask is already written in my sermon; come into my library and you shall hear it. We listened with great satisfaction, expressed our thanks and started, when Miss A. suddenly turned and said, "That is excellent, Doctor, now pray do not forget to give it with unction to-morrow."
They turned onto University Place and soon found themselves in his living room, where Mrs. Cheever warmly welcomed them. Miss Anthony, who usually spoke up for all bold ventures, said, "We just need to see the Doctor for five minutes; we know it’s Saturday evening, and he’s busy working on his sermon and doesn’t see anyone right now, but what we need to discuss is incredibly important, and it has to be said now or never." While we were explaining to Mrs. Cheever, the folding doors quietly opened, and there stood the Doctor. He laughed heartily when we revealed our purpose and said, "You’re in luck; what you’re asking for is already part of my sermon. Come into my library, and you can hear it." We listened with great satisfaction, expressed our thanks, and were about to leave when Miss A. suddenly turned and said, "That sounds excellent, Doctor; now please don’t forget to deliver it with passion tomorrow."
Many wondered that Dr. Cheever, a rigid blue Presbyterian, should express such radical sentiments on so unpopular a reform. But his conversion was due, no doubt, to the fact that the women of his church had nobly sustained him all through his anti-slavery battle while the wealth and conservatism of the congregation forbade the discussion of that subject in the pulpit. The votes of the women, year after year, secured his position, until his failing health ended the contest, and the sale of the edifice changed the Church of the Puritans into Tiffany's brilliant jewelry establishment.
Many were surprised that Dr. Cheever, a strict blue Presbyterian, would express such progressive views on such an unpopular reform. But his change of heart was likely because the women in his church had strongly supported him throughout his fight against slavery, while the wealth and conservatism of the congregation prevented any discussion of that issue in the pulpit. The votes of the women, year after year, secured his position until his declining health put an end to the struggle, and the sale of the building transformed the Church of the Puritans into Tiffany's sparkling jewelry store.
[75] MEMORIAL OF THE AMERICAN EQUAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
[75] MEMORIAL OF THE AMERICAN EQUAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
The undersigned, Officers and Representatives of the American Equal Rights Association, respectfully but earnestly protest against any change in the Constitution of the United States, or legislation by Congress, which shall longer violate the principle of Republican Government, by proscriptive distinctions in rights of suffrage or citizenship, on account of color or sex. Your Memorialists would respectfully represent, that neither the colored man's loyalty, bravery on the battle field and general good conduct, nor woman's heroic devotion to liberty and her country, in peace and war, have yet availed to admit them to equal citizenship, even in this enlightened and republican nation.
The undersigned, Officers and Representatives of the American Equal Rights Association, respectfully but urgently protest against any change in the Constitution of the United States or any legislation by Congress that continues to violate the principle of Republican Government through discriminatory distinctions in voting rights or citizenship based on color or gender. Your Memorialists would respectfully point out that neither the loyalty and bravery of men of color on the battlefield, nor women's heroic dedication to liberty and their country, in both peace and war, have been sufficient to grant them equal citizenship in this enlightened and republican nation.
We believe that humanity is one in all those intellectual, moral and spiritual attributes, out of which grow human responsibilities. The Scripture declaration is, "so God created man in his own image: male and female created he them." And all divine legislation throughout the realm of nature recognizes the perfect equality of the two conditions. For male and female are but different conditions. Neither color nor sex is ever discharged from obedience to law, natural or moral; written or unwritten. The commands, thou shalt not steal, nor kill, nor commit adultery, know nothing of sex in their demands; nothing in their penalty. And hence we believe that all human legislation which is at variance with the divine code, is essentially unrighteous and unjust. Woman and the colored man are taxed to support many literary and humane institutions, into which they never come, except in the poorly paid capacity of menial servants. Woman has been fined, whipped, branded with red-hot irons, imprisoned and hung; but when was woman ever tried by a jury of her peers?
We believe that humanity shares a common set of intellectual, moral, and spiritual qualities that give rise to human responsibilities. The scripture says, "God created man in His own image: male and female He created them." All divine laws throughout nature acknowledge the equal value of both genders. Male and female are simply different states of being. Neither race nor gender is exempt from following the law, whether it's natural or moral, written or unwritten. Commands like "you shall not steal," "you shall not kill," and "you shall not commit adultery" apply to everyone equally, with no consideration of gender in their requirements or consequences. Therefore, we believe that any human law that contradicts divine principles is fundamentally wrong and unjust. Women and people of color are taxed to support many literary and humanitarian institutions, but they rarely benefit from them, often only appearing in poorly paid roles as servants. Women have been fined, whipped, branded with hot irons, imprisoned, and hanged; but when has a woman ever been tried by a jury of her peers?
Though the nation declared from the beginning that "all just governments derive their power from the consent of the governed," the consent of woman was never asked to a single statute, however nearly it affected her dearest womanly interests or happiness. In the despotisms of the old world, of ancient and modern times, woman, profligate, prostitute, weak, cruel, tyrannical, or otherwise, from Semiramis and Messalina, to Catherine of Russia and Margaret of Anjou, have swayed, unchallenged, imperial scepters; while in this republican and Christian land in the nineteenth century, woman, intelligent, refined in every ennobling gift and grace, may not even vote on the appropriation of her own property, or the disposal and destiny of her own children. Literally she has no rights which man is bound to respect; and her civil privileges she holds only by sufferance. For the power that gave, can take away, and of that power she is no part. In most of the States, these unjust distinctions apply to woman, and to the colored man alike. Your Memorialists fully believe that the time has come when such injustice should cease.
Though the nation stated from the start that "all just governments derive their power from the consent of the governed," the consent of women was never sought for any law, no matter how closely it impacted their most cherished interests or happiness. In the tyrannies of the old world, both ancient and modern, women—whether they were licentious, exploited, weak, cruel, tyrannical, or otherwise—like Semiramis and Messalina, to Catherine of Russia and Margaret of Anjou, have wielded imperial power without challenge; yet in this republic and Christian nation in the nineteenth century, women, who are knowledgeable and refined in every noble quality and virtue, are not even allowed to vote on the allocation of their own property or the fate and future of their own children. In reality, she has no rights that men are obligated to honor, and her civil privileges exist only at the mercy of others. The power that granted her rights can revoke them, and she is excluded from that power. In many states, these unfair distinctions apply to both women and people of color. Your Memorialists firmly believe that the time has come for such injustice to end.
Woman and the colored man are loyal, patriotic, property-holding, tax-paying, liberty-loving citizens; and we can not believe that sex or complexion should be any ground for civil or political degradation. In our government, one-half the citizens are disfranchised by their sex, and about one-eighth by the color of their skin; and thus a large majority have no voice in enacting or executing the laws they are taxed to support and compelled to obey, with the same fidelity as the more favored class, whose usurped prerogative it is to rule. Against such outrages on the very name of republican freedom, your memorialists do and must ever protest. And is not our protest pre-eminently as just against the tyranny of "taxation without representation," as was that thundered from Bunker Hill, when our revolutionary fathers fired the shot that shook the world?
Women and people of color are loyal, patriotic, property-owning, tax-paying, and freedom-loving citizens; and we cannot believe that gender or skin color should be grounds for civil or political degradation. In our government, half of the citizens are disenfranchised due to their gender, and about one-eighth because of their skin color; as a result, a large majority have no say in creating or enforcing the laws they are taxed to support and required to obey, just as faithfully as the more privileged class, which has taken the right to rule. Against such violations of true republican freedom, we, the petitioners, must always protest. And isn't our protest just as valid against the tyranny of "taxation without representation" as the one echoed from Bunker Hill when our founding fathers fired the shot that changed the world?
And your Memorialists especially remember, at this time, that our country is still reeling under the shock of a terrible civil war, the legitimate result and righteous retribution of the vilest slave system ever suffered among men. And in restoring the foundations of our nationality, your memorialists most respectfully and earnestly pray that all discriminations on account of sex or race may be removed; and that our Government may be republican in fact as well as form; a government by the people, and the whole people; for the people, and the whole people.
And your memorialists especially remember, at this time, that our country is still recovering from the shock of a terrible civil war, the rightful outcome and just punishment for the worst slave system ever endured by humanity. In rebuilding the foundations of our nation, your memorialists respectfully and earnestly ask that all discrimination based on sex or race be removed; and that our Government may be republican in fact as well as form; a government by the people, and for the people, and of the people.
In behalf of the American Equal Rights Association,
In support of the American Equal Rights Association,
| Theodore Tilton, Frederick Douglas, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, |
} | Vice-Presidents. | Lucretia Mott, President. Susan B. Anthony, Secretary. |
CHAPTER XIX.
THE KANSAS CAMPAIGN—1867.
The Battle Ground of Freedom—Campaign of 1867—Liberals did not Stand by their Principles—Black Men Opposed to Woman Suffrage—Republican Press and Party Untrue—Democrats in Opposition—John Stuart Mill's Letters and Speeches Extensively Circulated—Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone Opened the Campaign—Rev. Olympia Brown Followed—60,000 Tracts Distributed—Appeal Signed by Thirty-one Distinguished Men—Letters from Helen E. Starrett, Susan E. Wattles, Dr. R. S. Tenney, Lieut. Governor J. P. Root, Rev. Olympia Brown—The Campaign closed by ex-Governor Robinson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and the Hutchinson Family—Speeches and Songs at the Polls in every Ward in Leavenworth Election Day—Both Amendments lost—9,070 Votes for Woman Suffrage, 10,843 for Negro Suffrage.
The Battle Ground of Freedom—Campaign of 1867—Liberals did not stand by their principles—Black men were against woman suffrage—Republican press and party were untrue—Democrats were in opposition—John Stuart Mill's letters and speeches were widely circulated—Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone launched the campaign—Rev. Olympia Brown followed—60,000 tracts were distributed—An appeal was signed by thirty-one distinguished men—Letters came from Helen E. Starrett, Susan E. Wattles, Dr. R. S. Tenney, Lieutenant Governor J. P. Root, Rev. Olympia Brown—The campaign concluded with ex-Governor Robinson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and the Hutchinson Family—Speeches and songs were held at the polls in every ward on Election Day in Leavenworth—Both amendments failed—9,070 votes for woman suffrage, 10,843 for Negro suffrage.
As Kansas was the historic ground where Liberty fought her first victorious battles with Slavery, and consecrated that soil forever to the freedom of the black race, so was it the first State where the battle for woman's enfranchisement was waged and lost for a generation. There never was a more hopeful interest concentrated on the legislation of any single State, than when Kansas submitted the two propositions to her people to take the words "white" and "male" from her Constitution.
As Kansas was the historic site where Liberty first fought and won battles against Slavery, dedicating that land forever to the freedom of Black people, it was also the first State where the fight for women's right to vote was fought and lost for a generation. There has never been a greater hope focused on the legislation of any single State than when Kansas asked its citizens to remove the words "white" and "male" from its Constitution.
Those awake to the dignity and power of the ballot in the hands of all classes, to the inspiring thought of self-government, were stirred as never before, both in Great Britain and America, upon this question. Letters from John Stuart Mill and other friends, with warm words of encouragement, were read to thousands of audiences, and published in journals throughout the State. Eastern women who went there to speak started with the full belief that their hopes so long deferred were at last to be realized. Some even made arrangements for future homes on that green spot where at last the sons and daughters of earth were to stand equal before the law. With no greater faith did the crusaders of old seize their shields and start on their perilous journey to wrest from the infidel the Holy Sepulcher, than did these defenders of a sacred principle enter Kansas, and with hope sublime consecrate themselves to labor for woman's[Pg 230] freedom; to roll off of her soul the mountains of sorrow and superstition that had held her in bondage to false creeds, and codes, and customs for centuries. There was a solemn earnestness in the speeches of all who labored in that campaign. Each heart was thrilled with the thought that the youngest civilization in the world was about to establish a government based on the divine idea—the equality of all mankind—proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth, and echoed by the patriots who watched the dawn of the natal day of our Republic. Here at last the mothers of the race, the most important actors in the grand drama of human progress were for the first time to stand the peers of men.
Those who recognized the dignity and power of the ballot in the hands of all people were more inspired than ever before, both in Great Britain and America, on this issue. Letters from John Stuart Mill and other supporters, filled with encouraging words, were shared with thousands of audiences and published in newspapers across the state. Eastern women who traveled there to speak believed wholeheartedly that their long-held hopes were finally about to come true. Some even made plans for future homes in that green place where at last the sons and daughters of the earth would stand equal before the law. With no less determination than the crusaders of old who took up their shields and embarked on their dangerous journey to reclaim the Holy Sepulcher from the infidels, these champions of a sacred principle entered Kansas, dedicating themselves to the labor for women's freedom; to lift from her soul the burdens of sorrow and superstition that had oppressed her under false beliefs, codes, and customs for centuries. There was a serious commitment in the speeches of all involved in that campaign. Every heart was stirred by the idea that the youngest civilization in the world was about to create a government based on the divine principle—the equality of all humanity—proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth and echoed by the patriots who witnessed the dawn of our Republic. Here, at last, the mothers of humanity, the most crucial figures in the grand story of human progress, were for the first time to stand as equals to men.
These women firmly believed that Republicans and Abolitionists who had advocated their cause for years would aid them in all possible efforts to carry the Constitutional Amendment that was to enfranchise the women of the State. They looked confidently for encouragement, and inspiring editorials in certain Eastern journals. With Horace Greeley at the head of the New York Tribune, Theodore Tilton of the Independent, and Wendell Phillips of the Anti-Slavery Standard, they felt they had a strong force in the press of the East to rouse the men of Kansas to their duty. But, alas! they all preserved a stolid silence, and the Liberals of the State were in a measure paralyzed by their example. Though the amendment to take the word "male" from the Constitution was a Republican measure, signed by a Republican Governor, and advocated by leading men of that party throughout the campaign, yet the Republican party, as such, the Abolitionists and black men were all hostile to the proposition, because they said to agitate the woman's amendment would defeat negro suffrage.
These women strongly believed that Republicans and Abolitionists, who had supported their cause for years, would help them in every possible way to pass the Constitutional Amendment that would grant voting rights to women in the State. They were hopeful for encouragement and motivating editorials in some Eastern publications. With Horace Greeley leading the New York Tribune, Theodore Tilton of the Independent, and Wendell Phillips from the Anti-Slavery Standard, they felt they had powerful allies in the Eastern press to motivate the men of Kansas to take action. But, unfortunately, they all remained completely quiet, and the Liberals in the State were somewhat immobilized by their inaction. Even though the amendment to remove the word "male" from the Constitution was a Republican initiative, backed by a Republican Governor, and promoted by leading figures of that party throughout the campaign, the Republican party itself, along with the Abolitionists and black men, opposed the idea. They argued that pushing for the women's amendment would hinder the fight for black suffrage.
Eastern politicians warned the Republicans of Kansas that "negro suffrage" was a party measure in national politics, and that they must not entangle themselves with the "woman question." On all sides came up the cry, this is "the negro's hour." Though the Republican State Central Committee adopted a resolution leaving all their party speakers free to express their individual sentiments, yet they selected men to canvass the State, who were known to be unscrupulous and disreputable, and violently opposed to woman suffrage.[76] The[Pg 231] Democratic party[77] was opposed to both amendments and to the new law on temperance, which it was supposed the women would actively support.
Eastern politicians warned the Republicans in Kansas that "Black suffrage" was a key issue in national politics, and they shouldn’t get involved in the "woman question." The call went up from all sides that this was "the Black man's hour." Even though the Republican State Central Committee passed a resolution allowing their speakers to share their personal views, they still chose canvassers known to be unscrupulous and disreputable, and who were strongly against woman suffrage.[76] The[Pg 231] Democratic party[77] opposed both amendments and the new temperance law, which it was expected women would actively support.
The Germans in their Conventions passed a resolution[78] against the new law that required the liquor dealers to get the signatures of one-half the women, as well as the men, to their petitions before the authorities could grant them license. In suffrage for women they saw rigid Sunday laws and the suppression of their beer gardens. The liquor dealers throughout the State were bitter and hostile to the woman's amendment. Though the temperance party had passed a favorable resolution[79] in their State Convention, yet some of their members were averse to all affiliations with the dreaded question, as to them, what the people might drink seemed a subject of greater importance than a fundamental principle of human rights. Intelligent[Pg 232] black men, believing the sophistical statements of politicians, that their rights were imperiled by the agitation of woman suffrage, joined the opposition. Thus the campaign in Kansas was as protracted as many sided.
The Germans in their conventions passed a resolution[78] against the new law that required liquor dealers to get the signatures of half the women, as well as the men, on their petitions before the authorities could grant them a license. They saw women’s suffrage as a threat to strict Sunday laws and the closure of their beer gardens. The liquor dealers across the state were resentful and opposed to the women's amendment. Although the temperance party passed a favorable resolution[79] in their State Convention, some of their members were resistant to any connection with the dreaded issue because, to them, what people might drink seemed more important than a basic principle of human rights. Intelligent[Pg 232] Black men, misled by the deceptive claims of politicians, believed that their rights were threatened by the push for women's suffrage, and joined the opposition. Thus, the campaign in Kansas was prolonged and complicated.
From April until November, the women of Kansas, and those who came to help them, worked with indomitable energy and perseverance. Besides undergoing every physical hardship, traveling night and day in carriages, open wagons, over miles and miles of the unfrequented prairies, climbing divides, and through deep ravines, speaking in depots, unfinished barns, mills, churches, school-houses, and the open air, on the very borders of civilization, where-ever two or three dozen voters could be assembled.
From April to November, the women of Kansas, along with those who came to support them, worked tirelessly and with determination. They faced numerous physical challenges, traveling day and night in carriages and open wagons across endless stretches of rarely traveled prairies, climbing hills and navigating deep valleys. They spoke in train stations, unfinished barns, mills, churches, schools, and outdoors, wherever a couple of dozen voters could gather, often on the fringes of civilization.
Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone opened the campaign in April. The following letters show how hopeful they were of success, and how enthusiastically they labored to that end. Even the New York Tribune prophesied victory.[80]
Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone launched the campaign in April. The following letters reveal their optimism about success and the enthusiasm they put into their efforts. Even the New York Tribune predicted they would win.[80]
At Gov. Robinson's House, four miles north of
Lawrence, Kansas, April, 5, 1867.At Gov. Robinson's House, four miles north of
Lawrence, Kansas, April 5, 1867.Dear Mrs. Stanton:—We report good news! After half a day's earnest debate, the Convention at Topeka, by an almost unanimous vote, refused to separate "the two questions" male and white. A delegation from Lawrence came up specially to get the woman dropped. The good God upset a similar delegation from Leavenworth bent on the same object, and prevented them from reaching Topeka at all. Gov. Robinson, Gov. Root, Col. Wood, Gen. Larimer, Col. Ritchie, and "the old guard" generally were on hand. Our coming out did good. Lucy spoke with all her old force and fire. Mrs. Nichols was there—a strong list of permanent officers was nominated—and a State Impartial Suffrage Association was organized. The right men were put upon the committees, and I do not believe that the Negro Suffrage men can well bolt or back out now.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:—We have great news! After half a day's serious discussion, the Convention in Topeka, with almost unanimous support, decided not to separate "the two questions" of male and white. A group from Lawrence came specifically to have the women's issue removed. Fortunately, a similar group from Leavenworth, which aimed for the same outcome, was stopped by divine intervention before they could reach Topeka. Gov. Robinson, Gov. Root, Col. Wood, Gen. Larimer, Col. Ritchie, and the rest of the old guard were present. Our participation made a positive impact. Lucy spoke with all her usual passion and intensity. Mrs. Nichols was also there—a strong list of permanent officers was nominated—and we established a State Impartial Suffrage Association. The right people were appointed to the committees, and I truly believe that the supporters of Negro Suffrage can’t easily walk away or back out now.
The effect is wonderful. Papers which have been ridiculing woman suffrage and sneering at "Sam Wood's Convention" are now on our side. We have made the present Gov. Crawford President of the Association, Lieut.-Gov. Green Vice-President. Have appointed a leading man in every judicial district member of the Executive Committee, and have some of the[Pg 233] leading Congregational, Old School, and New School Presbyterian ministers committed for both questions; have already secured a majority of the newspapers of the State, and if Lucy and I succeed in "getting up steam" as we hope in Lawrence, Wyandotte, Leavenworth, and Atchison, the woman and the negro will rise or fall together, and shrewd politicians say that with proper effort we shall carry both next fall.
The effect is incredible. Newspapers that used to mock women's suffrage and make fun of "Sam Wood's Convention" are now supporting us. We have made the current Governor Crawford the President of the Association, and Lieutenant Governor Green the Vice-President. We’ve appointed a prominent person from every judicial district to the Executive Committee, and we have commitments from some of the[Pg 233] leading Congregational, Old School, and New School Presbyterian ministers for both issues; we've already gained the support of most newspapers in the state. If Lucy and I manage to "gain momentum" as we plan in Lawrence, Wyandotte, Leavenworth, and Atchison, both women and Black people will rise or fall together, and savvy politicians say that with the right effort, we can win on both fronts next fall.
During the Convention Lucy got a dispatch from Lawrence as follows: "Will you lecture for the Library Association? State terms, time, and subject." Lucy replied: "Will lecture Saturday evening; subject, 'Impartial Suffrage'; terms, one hundred dollars, payable to Kansas State Impartial Suffrage Association." The prompt reply was: "We accept your terms." Gen. Larimer, of Leavenworth, went down next day to try to arrange a similar lyceum meeting there. In the afternoon came a dispatch from D. R. Anthony, saying: "Meeting arranged for Tuesday night." This is especially good, because we were informed that he had somewhat favored dropping the woman, but whether this was so or not, he will now be all right as befits the brother of Susan B. Anthony.
During the Convention, Lucy received a message from Lawrence that said: "Will you give a lecture for the Library Association? Please state your terms, time, and topic." Lucy replied: "I will lecture on Saturday evening; the topic will be 'Impartial Suffrage'; my fee is one hundred dollars, payable to the Kansas State Impartial Suffrage Association." The quick response was: "We accept your terms." Gen. Larimer from Leavenworth went down the next day to try to set up a similar lecture event there. In the afternoon, Lucy received another message from D. R. Anthony, saying: "Meeting arranged for Tuesday night." This is particularly good news, since we had heard that he was somewhat inclined to drop the woman from the event, but whether that was true or not, he will now be supportive as befits the brother of Susan B. Anthony.
We are announced to speak every night but Sundays from April 7 to May 5 inclusive. We shall have to travel from twenty to forty miles per day. If our voices and health hold out, Col. Wood says the State is safe. We had a rousing convention—three sessions—at Topeka, and a crowded meeting the night following. We find a very strong feeling against Col. S. N. Wood among politicians, but they all respect and dread him. He has warmer friends and bitterer enemies than almost any man in the State. But he is true as steel. My judgment of men is rarely deceived, and I pronounce S. N. Wood a great man and a political genius. Gov. Robinson is a masterly tactician, cool, wary, cautious, decided, and brave as a lion. These two men alone would suffice to save Kansas. But when you add the other good and true men who are already pledged, and the influences which have been combined, I think you will see next fall an avalanche vote—"the caving in of that mighty sandbank" your husband once predicted on a similar occasion.
We are scheduled to speak every night except Sundays from April 7 to May 5, inclusive. We’ll need to travel between twenty and forty miles a day. If our voices and health hold up, Col. Wood believes the State is secure. We had an enthusiastic convention—three sessions—at Topeka, followed by a packed meeting the next night. There’s a strong sentiment against Col. S. N. Wood among politicians, but they all respect and fear him. He has more loyal friends and more fierce enemies than almost anyone in the State. But he is reliable. My judgment of people is usually accurate, and I consider S. N. Wood to be a great man and a political genius. Gov. Robinson is an excellent strategist—cool, cautious, decisive, and as brave as a lion. These two alone would be enough to save Kansas. But when you add all the other good and trustworthy individuals who are already committed, along with the combined influences, I think you’ll see an overwhelming vote next fall—“the caving in of that mighty sandbank” your husband once predicted during a similar situation.
Now, Mrs. Stanton, you and Susan and Fred. Douglass must come to this State early next September; you must come prepared to make sixty speeches each. You must leave your notes behind you. These people won't have written sermons. And you don't want notes. You are a natural orator, and these people will give you inspiration! Everything has conspired to help us in this State. Gov. Robinson and Sam. Wood have quietly set a ball in motion which nobody in Kansas is now strong enough to stop. Politicians' hair here is fairly on end. But the fire is in the prairie behind them, and they are getting out their matches in self-defense to fire their foreground. This is a glorious country, Mrs. S., and a glorious people. If we succeed here, it will be the State of the Future.
Now, Mrs. Stanton, you, Susan, and Fred Douglass need to come to this state early next September; you must come ready to give sixty speeches each. You should leave your notes behind. These people won’t want written sermons. And you don’t need notes. You are a natural speaker, and these people will inspire you! Everything is coming together to help us in this state. Governor Robinson and Sam Wood have quietly set things in motion that nobody in Kansas can stop now. The politicians here are really on edge. But the fire is in the prairie behind them, and they are getting their matches out for self-defense to ignite their foreground. This is a wonderful country, Mrs. S., and a wonderful people. If we succeed here, it will be the State of the Future.
Henry B. Blackwell.
Henry B. Blackwell.
With kind regards,
With kind regards,
P. S.—So you see we have the State Convention committed to the right side, and I do believe we shall carry it. All the old settlers are for it. It is only the later comers who say, "If I were a black man I should not want the woman question hitched to me." These men tell what their wives have done, and then ask, shall such women be left without a vote?
P. S.—So you see we have the State Convention on our side, and I really think we’ll win. All the long-time residents support it. It's just the newcomers who say, "If I were a Black man, I wouldn’t want the women’s issue connected to me." These men talk about what their wives have accomplished and then ask, should such women be denied the right to vote?
L. S.
L. S.
D. R. Anthony's House, Leavenworth,}
April 10, 1867.}D. R. Anthony's House, Leavenworth,}
April 10, 1867.}Dear Mrs. Stanton:—We came here just in the nick of time. The papers were laughing at "Sam Wood's Convention," the call for which was in the papers with the names of Beecher, Tilton, Ben Wade, Gratz Brown, E. C. Stanton, Anna Dickinson, Lucy Stone, etc., as persons expected or invited to be at the convention. The papers said: "This is one of Sam's shabbiest tricks. Not one of these persons will be present, and he knows it," etc., etc. Our arrival set a buzz going, and when I announced you and Susan and Aunt Fanny for the fall, they began to say "they guessed the thing would carry." Gov. Robinson said he could not go to the Topeka Convention, for he had a lawsuit involving $1,000 that was to come off that very day, but we talked the matter over with him, showed him what a glorious hour it was for Kansas, etc., etc., and he soon concluded to get the suit put off and go to the convention. Ex-Gov. Root, of Wyandotte, joined with him and us, though he had not intended to go. We went to Topeka; and the day and evening before the convention, pulled every wire and set every honest trap. Gov. Robinson has a long head, and he arranged the "platform" so shrewdly, carefully using the term "impartial," which he said meant right, and we must make them use it, so that there would be no occasion for any other State Association. In this previous meeting, the most prominent men of the State were made officers of the permanent organization. When the platform was read, with the names of the officers, and the morning's discussion was over, everybody then felt that the ball was set right. But in the p.m. came a Methodist minister and a lawyer from Lawrence as delegates, "instructed" to use the word "impartial," "as it had been used for the last two years," to make but one issue, and to drop the woman. The lawyer said, "If I was a negro, I would not want the woman hitched on to my skirts," etc. He made a mean speech. Mrs. Nichols and I came down upon him, and the whole convention, except the Methodist, was against him. The vote was taken whether to drop the woman, and only the little lawyer from Lawrence, with a hole in his coat and only one shoe on, voted against the woman. After that it was all one way. The papers all came out right, I mean the Topeka papers. One editor called on us, said we need not mention that he had called, but he wanted to assure us that he had always been right on this question. That the mean articles in his paper had been written by a subordinate in his office in his absence, etc. That the paper was fully committed, etc., etc. That is a fair specimen of the way all the others have done, till we got to this place. Here the Republicans had decided to drop the woman, Anthony with the others, and I think they are only waiting to see the result of our meetings, to announce their decision. But the Democrats all over the State are preparing to take us up. They are a small minority, with nothing to lose, and utterly unscrupulous, while all who will work with Sam Wood will work with anybody. I fully expect we shall carry the State. But it will be necessary to have a good force here in the fall, and you will have to come. Our meetings are everywhere crowded to overflowing, and in every case the papers speak well of them. We have meetings for every night till the 4th of May. By that time we shall be well tired out. But we shall see the country, and I hope have done some good. There is no such love of[Pg 235] principle here as I expected to find. Each man goes for himself, and "the devil take the hindmost." The women here are grand, and it will be a shame past all expression if they don't get the right to vote. One woman in Wyandotte said she carried petitions all through the town for female suffrage, and not one woman in ten refused to sign. Another in Lawrence said they sent up two large petitions from there. So they have been at the Legislature, like the heroes they really are, and it is not possible for the husbands of such women to back out, though they have sad lack of principle and a terrible desire for office.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:—We arrived just in time. The newspapers were mocking "Sam Wood's Convention," which included the names of Beecher, Tilton, Ben Wade, Gratz Brown, E. C. Stanton, Anna Dickinson, Lucy Stone, and others as expected guests. The papers said, "This is one of Sam's shabbiest tricks. Not one of these people will show up, and he knows it," among other things. Our arrival created a buzz, and when I mentioned you, Susan, and Aunt Fanny for the fall, people started to think that it might actually work. Governor Robinson said he couldn’t attend the Topeka Convention because he had a $1,000 lawsuit scheduled for that same day, but after we discussed it with him and highlighted how significant this moment was for Kansas, he decided to postpone the lawsuit and attend the convention. Ex-Governor Root from Wyandotte joined him and us, even though he hadn’t originally planned to go. We traveled to Topeka, and the day and night before the convention, we pulled every string and set up every honest strategy. Gov. Robinson is quite clever; he designed the "platform" in a shrewd way, carefully using the term "impartial," which he said meant fair, and we had to make sure they used it to avoid the need for any other State Association. During the prior meeting, the most prominent men of the State were appointed as officers of the permanent organization. Once the platform was read and the names of the officers were announced, everyone felt the situation was on the right track. But in the p.m., a Methodist minister and a lawyer from Lawrence arrived as delegates, "instructed" to use the word "impartial," "as it had been used for the last two years," to focus on just one issue and forget about women. The lawyer stated, "If I were Black, I wouldn’t want a woman tied to my coattails," and he made a nasty speech. Mrs. Nichols and I confronted him, and the whole convention, except for the Methodist, was against him. When a vote was taken on whether to exclude women, only the little lawyer from Lawrence, in a tattered coat and wearing one shoe, voted against women. After that, the support was unanimous. The Topeka newspapers all reported positively. One editor visited us; he asked us not to mention his visit but wanted to assure us he had always supported this cause. He explained that the harsh articles in his paper were written by someone else during his absence and that the paper was fully on board with our mission. This is a typical example of how the others have acted until we arrived here. The Republicans decided to exclude women, including Anthony, and they seem to be waiting to see the results of our meetings before announcing their decision. Meanwhile, the Democrats across the State are gearing up to support us. They are a small group with little to lose and no scruples, while anyone willing to collaborate with Sam Wood will team up with anyone. I genuinely believe we will win the State. However, it will be essential to have a strong presence here in the fall, and you’ll need to come. Our meetings are packed every night, and the papers consistently report favorably on them. We have meetings scheduled every night until May 4th. By then, we will be quite worn out. But we’ll see the country, and I hope we can make an impact. The passion for principle here is not what I had anticipated. Each person is looking out for themselves, and “the devil take the hindmost.” The women here are remarkable, and it would be an indescribable shame if they don’t gain the right to vote. One woman in Wyandotte stated that she collected petitions for female suffrage throughout the town, and not one woman in ten declined to sign. Another in Lawrence mentioned that two large petitions were sent from there. So they have actively approached the Legislature, proving themselves to be true heroes, and it’s hard for their husbands to back out, even if they lack principle and have a desperate desire for office.
L. S.
L. S.
Yours,
Yours,
Junction City, Kansas, April 20.
Junction City, Kansas, April 20.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:
Dear Mrs. Stanton:
We have had one letter from you, and have written you twice. To-day I inclose an article by Col. Wood, which is so capital that it ought to be printed. I wish you would take it to Tilton (not Oliver), and if he says he will publish it, let him have it; but if he hesitates, send it at once to the Chicago Republic, and ask them to mark the article in some of their exchanges. Perhaps the Northern Methodist, The Banner of Light, and the Liberal Christian would insert it. I shall not be back to the May meeting; indeed, it would be better if we could stay till June 1st, and go all along the Northern tier of counties. I think this State will be right at the fall election. The Independent is taken in many families here, and they are getting right on the question of impartial suffrage. But there will have to be a great deal of work to carry the State. We have large, good meetings everywhere. If the Independent would take up this question, and every week write for it, as it does for the negro, that paper alone could save this State; and with this, all the others.
We’ve received one letter from you and have written to you twice. Today, I’ve enclosed an article by Col. Wood that is so excellent it deserves to be published. I wish you would take it to Tilton (not Oliver), and if he agrees to publish it, let him have it; but if he hesitates, send it right away to the Chicago Republic and ask them to highlight the article in some of their exchanges. Perhaps the Northern Methodist, The Banner of Light, and the Liberal Christian would publish it. I won’t be back for the May meeting; in fact, it would be better if we could stay until June 1st and travel through the Northern counties. I believe this state will be ready for the fall election. The Independent is read in many households here, and they are starting to support the cause of impartial suffrage. However, a lot of work will be required to win over the state. We have large, positive meetings everywhere. If the Independent would take on this issue and write about it weekly, like it does for the African American community, that paper alone could save this state; and with that, all the others.
What a pity it does not see the path that would leave it with more than Revolutionary honors! I am thankful beyond expression for what it does, but I am pained for what it might do. With its 75,000 subscribers, and five times that number of readers, what can the poor little Standard do for us, compared with that? I shall try and write a letter to the convention. May strike the true note! I hope not a man will be asked to speak at the convention. If they volunteer very well, but I have been for the last time on my knees to Phillips or Higginson, or any of them. If they help now, they should ask us, and not we them. Is Susan with you?
What a shame it doesn’t see the way to achieve more than just Revolutionary recognition! I’m incredibly grateful for what it does, but it hurts to think about what it could do. With its 75,000 subscribers and five times that many readers, what can the poor little Standard do for us compared to that? I’ll try to write a letter to the convention. Maybe it will hit the right note! I hope no one is asked to speak at the convention. If they choose to, that’s fine, but I’ve been on my knees to Phillips, Higginson, or any of them for the last time. If they want to help now, they should come to us, not the other way around. Is Susan with you?
L. S.
L. S.
Junction City, Kansas, April 21, 1867.
Junction City, Kansas, April 21, 1867.
Dear Friends, E. C. Stanton and Susan B. Anthony:
Dear Friends, E. C. Stanton and Susan B. Anthony:
You will be glad to know that Lucy and I are going over the length and breadth of this State speaking every day, and sometimes twice, journeying from twenty-five to forty miles daily, sometimes in a carriage and sometimes in an open wagon, with or without springs. We climb hills and dash down ravines, ford creeks, and ferry over rivers, rattle across limestone ledges, struggle through muddy bottoms, fight the high winds on the high rolling upland prairies, and address the most astonishing (and astonished) audiences in the most extraordinary places. To-night it may be a log school house, to-morrow a stone church; next day a store with planks for seats, and in one place, if it had not rained, we should have held forth in an unfinished court house, with only four stone walls but no roof whatever.
You'll be happy to know that Lucy and I are traveling all over this state, speaking every day, and sometimes twice a day, covering twenty-five to forty miles daily, sometimes in a carriage and other times in an open wagon, with or without springs. We climb hills and dash down ravines, cross creeks, and ferry over rivers, rattle across rocky ledges, struggle through muddy areas, battle the strong winds on the high rolling prairies, and engage the most amazing (and amazed) audiences in the most unusual places. Tonight it might be a log schoolhouse, tomorrow a stone church; the next day a store with planks for seats, and in one spot, if it hadn’t rained, we would have spoken in an unfinished courthouse, with just four stone walls and no roof at all.
The people are a queer mixture of roughness and intelligence, recklessness,[Pg 236] and conservatism. One swears at women who want to wear the breeches; another wonders whether we ever heard of a fellow named Paul; a third is not going to put women on an equality with niggers. One woman told Lucy that no decent woman would be running over the country talking nigger and woman. Her brother told Lucy that "he had had a woman who was under the sod, but that if she had ever said she wanted to vote he would have pounded her to death!"
The people are a strange mix of roughness and intelligence, recklessness, [Pg 236] and conservatism. One person curses at women who want to wear pants; another wonders if we’ve ever heard of someone named Paul; a third insists that women should never be considered equal to Black people. One woman told Lucy that no respectable woman would be traveling around the country talking about race and women's rights. Her brother told Lucy that "he had a wife who was gone, but if she had ever said she wanted to vote, he would have beaten her to death!"
The fact is, however, that we have on our side all the shrewdest politicians and all the best class of men and women in this State. Our meetings are doing much towards organizing and concentrating public sentiment in our favor, and the papers are beginning to show front in our favor. We fought and won a pitched battle at Topeka in the convention, and have possession of the machine. By the time we get through with the proposed series of meetings, it will be about the 20th of May, if Lucy's voice and strength hold out. The scenery of this State is lovely. In summer it must be very fine indeed, especially in this Western section the valleys are beautiful, and the bluffs quite bold and romantic.
The truth is, though, that we have the smartest politicians and the best people on our side in this state. Our meetings are really helping to organize and rally public support for us, and the newspapers are starting to back us up. We fought and won a big battle at Topeka during the convention, and now we control the whole operation. By the time we finish the planned series of meetings, it will be around May 20th, assuming Lucy's voice and strength hold up. The scenery in this state is beautiful. In the summer, it must be stunning, especially in this western part where the valleys are gorgeous and the bluffs are bold and picturesque.
I think we shall probably succeed in Kansas next fall if the State is thoroughly canvassed, not else. We are fortunate in having Col. Sam N. Wood as an organizer and worker. We owe everything to Wood, and he is really a thoroughly noble, good fellow, and a hero. He is a short, rather thick set, somewhat awkward, and "slouchy" man, extremely careless in his dress, blunt and abrupt in his manner, with a queer inexpressive face, little blue eyes which can look dull or flash fire or twinkle with the wickedest fun. He is so witty, sarcastic, and cutting, that he is a terrible foe, and will put the laugh even on his best friends. The son of a Quaker mother, he held the baby while his wife acted as one of the officers, and his mother another, in a Woman's Rights Convention seventeen years ago. Wood has helped off more runaway slaves than any man in Kansas. He has always been true both to the negro and the woman. But the negroes dislike and distrust him because he has never allowed the word white to be struck out, unless the word male should be struck out also. He takes exactly Mrs. Stanton's ground, that the colored men and women shall enter the kingdom together, if at all. So, while he advocates both, he fully realizes the wider scope and far greater grandeur of the battle for woman. Lucy and I like Wood very much. We have seen a good deal of him, first at Topeka, again at Cottonwood Falls, his home, and on the journey thence to Council Grove and to this place. Our arrangements for conveyances failed, and Wood with characteristic energy and at great personal inconvenience brought us through himself. It is worth a journey to Kansas to know him for he is an original and a genius. If he should die next month I should consider the election lost. But if he live, and we all in the East drop other work and spend September and October in Kansas, we shall succeed. I am glad to say that our friend D. R. Anthony is out for both propositions in the Leavenworth Bulletin. But his sympathies are so especially with the negro question that we must have Susan out here to strengthen his hands. We must have Mrs. Stanton, Susan, Mrs. Gage, and Anna Dickinson, this fall. Also Ben Wade and Carl Schurz, if possible. We must also try to get 10,000 each of Mrs. Stanton's address, of Lucy Stone's address, and of Mrs. Mills article on the Enfranchisement of Women, printed for us by the Hovey Fund.[Pg 237]
I think we’ll probably succeed in Kansas next fall if we thoroughly campaign in the state; otherwise, we won't. We’re lucky to have Col. Sam N. Wood as our organizer and worker. We owe everything to Wood; he’s truly a noble, good guy, and a hero. He’s short, kind of stocky, a bit awkward, and slouchy, very careless about his appearance, blunt and straightforward in his manner, with a peculiar, expressionless face and little blue eyes that can look dull, spark with intensity, or twinkle with the most mischievous fun. He’s so witty, sarcastic, and cutting that he’s a formidable opponent, and he can even make his closest friends laugh at their own expense. The son of a Quaker mother, he held the baby while his wife served as an officer, and his mother as another, in a Women’s Rights Convention seventeen years ago. Wood has helped more runaway slaves than anyone else in Kansas. He has always been true to both the African American community and women. However, the African Americans dislike and distrust him because he hasn’t allowed the word “white” to be removed unless the word "male" is removed, too. He completely agrees with Mrs. Stanton that colored men and women should enter the movement together, if at all. So, while he supports both causes, he fully understands the broader significance and much larger importance of the fight for women's rights. Lucy and I like Wood a lot. We’ve spent quite a bit of time with him, first in Topeka, then at his home in Cottonwood Falls, and on the journey from there to Council Grove and here. Our plans for transportation fell through, and Wood, showing his characteristic energy and at great personal inconvenience, took care of us himself. It’s worth traveling to Kansas just to know him, as he is truly original and a genius. If he were to die next month, I would consider the election lost. But if he lives, and if we in the East drop everything else and spend September and October in Kansas, we will succeed. I’m happy to report that our friend D. R. Anthony is supporting both propositions in the Leavenworth Bulletin. However, his sympathies are particularly aligned with the issue of African Americans, so we need to have Susan here to support him. We need Mrs. Stanton, Susan, Mrs. Gage, and Anna Dickinson this fall. Also, it would be great to have Ben Wade and Carl Schurz, if we can. We must also try to get 10,000 copies each of Mrs. Stanton’s speech, Lucy Stone’s speech, and Mrs. Mills’ article on the Enfranchisement of Women printed for us by the Hovey Fund.[Pg 237]
Kansas is to be the battle ground for 1867. It must not be allowed to fail.
Kansas is set to be the battleground for 1867. We can't let it fail.
The politicians here, except Wood and Robinson, are generally "on the fence." But they dare not oppose us openly. And the Democratic leaders are quite disposed to take us up. If the Republicans come out against us the Democrats will take us up. Do not let anything prevent your being here September 1 for the campaign, which will end in November. There will be a big fight and a great excitement. After the fight is over Mrs. Stanton will never have use for notes or written speeches any more.
The politicians here, except for Wood and Robinson, are mostly "on the fence." But they won’t openly oppose us. The Democratic leaders are pretty inclined to support us. If the Republicans come out against us, the Democrats will definitely back us. Make sure nothing stops you from being here on September 1 for the campaign, which will wrap up in November. There’s going to be a huge fight and a lot of excitement. After the battle is done, Mrs. Stanton won’t have any use for notes or written speeches anymore.
Henry B. Blackwell.
Henry B. Blackwell.
Yours truly,
Yours truly,
Fort Scott, May 1, 1867.
Fort Scott, May 1, 1867.
Dear Susan:
Dear Susan:
I have just this moment read your letter, and received the tracts; the "testimonies" I mean. We took 250 pounds of tracts with us, and we have sowed them thick; and Susan, the crop will be impartial suffrage in the fall. It will carry, beyond a doubt, in this State. Now, as I can not be in New York next week, I want you to see Aunt Fanny and Anna Dickinson, and get them pledged to come here in the fall. We will raise the pay somehow. You and Mrs. Stanton will come, of course. I wish Mrs. Harper to come. I don't know if she is in New York; please tell her I got her letter, and will either see or correspond with her when I get home. There is no time to write here. We ride all day, and lecture every night, and sometimes at noon too. So there is time for nothing else. I am sorry there is no one to help you, Susan, in New York. I always thought that when this hour of our bitter need come—this darkest hour before the dawn—Mr. Higginson would bring his beautiful soul and his fine, clear intellect to draw all women to his side; but if it is possible for him to be satisfied at such an hour with writing the best literary essays, it is because the power to help us has gone from him. The old lark moves her nest only when the farmer prepares to cut his grass himself. This will be the way with us; as to the Standard, I don't count upon it at all. Even if you get it, the circulation is so limited that it amounts almost to nothing. I have not seen a copy in all Kansas. But the Tribune and Independent alone could, if they would urge universal suffrage, as they do negro suffrage, carry this whole nation upon the only just plane of equal human rights. What a power to hold, and not use! I could not sleep the other night, just for thinking of it; and if I had got up and written the thought that burned my very soul, I do believe that Greeley and Tilton would have echoed the cry of the old crusaders, "God wills it;" and rushing to our half-sustained standard, would plant it high and firm on immutable principles. They MUST take it up. I shall see them the very first thing when I go home. At your meeting next Monday evening, I think you should insist that all of the Hovey fund used for the Standard and Anti-Slavery purposes, since slavery is abolished, must be returned with interest to the three causes which by the express terms of the will were to receive all of the fund when slavery was abolished. You will have a good meeting, I am sure, and I hope you will not fail to rebuke the cowardly use of the terms "universal," and "impartial," and "equal," applied to hide a dark skin, and an unpopular client. All this talk about the infamous thirteen who voted against "negro suffrage" in New Jersey, is unutterably contemptible from the lips or pen of[Pg 238] those whose words, acts, and votes are not against ignorant and degraded negroes, but against every man's mother, wife, and daughter. We have crowded meetings everywhere. I speak as well as ever, thank God! The audiences move to tears or laughter, just as in the old time. Harry makes capital speeches, and gets a louder cheer always than I do, though I believe I move a deeper feeling. The papers all over the State are discussing pro and con. The whole thing is working just right. If Beecher is chosen delegate at large to your Constitutional Convention, I think the word male will go out before his vigorous cudgel. I do not want to stay here after the 4th, but Wood and Harry have arranged other meetings up to the 18th or 20th of May, so that we shan't be back even for the Boston meetings.
I just read your letter and got the tracts—the "testimonies," I mean. We took 250 pounds of tracts with us, and we've distributed them widely; Susan, the harvest will be equal voting rights in the fall. It will definitely succeed in this State. Since I can't be in New York next week, I want you to meet Aunt Fanny and Anna Dickinson and get them committed to come here in the fall. We'll figure out the funding somehow. You and Mrs. Stanton will come, of course. I hope Mrs. Harper can come too. I’m not sure if she’s in New York; please tell her I received her letter and will either meet with her or correspond when I get home. There’s no time to write here. We ride all day and lecture every night, sometimes even at noon. So there isn’t time for anything else. I’m sorry there’s no one to help you, Susan, in New York. I always thought that when this time of our desperate need came—this darkest hour before the dawn—Mr. Higginson would bring his wonderful spirit and sharp intellect to rally all women to his side; but if he can be satisfied at such a time just by writing great literary essays, it means he’s lost the power to help us. The old lark only moves her nest when the farmer gets ready to cut his grass himself. This will be our situation; regarding the Standard, I don’t depend on it at all. Even if you do get it, its circulation is so limited that it amounts to almost nothing. I haven’t seen a copy of it in all of Kansas. But the Tribune and Independent, if they would push for universal suffrage the way they do for Black suffrage, could elevate this whole nation onto the only fair ground of equal human rights. What a powerful position to hold, yet not use! I couldn't sleep the other night just thinking about it; and if I had gotten up to write down the thought that burned in my soul, I truly believe that Greeley and Tilton would have echoed the cry of the old crusaders, "God wills it," and rushed to our barely held banner, planting it high and firm on unwavering principles. They MUST take it up. I will see them first thing when I get home. At your meeting next Monday evening, I think you should insist that all of the Hovey fund utilized for the Standard and Anti-Slavery efforts, now that slavery is abolished, must be returned with interest to the three causes that were meant to receive all of the fund when slavery ended. I'm sure you will have a good meeting, and I hope you won’t hesitate to criticize the cowardly use of the terms "universal," "impartial," and "equal," used to disguise a dark skin and an unpopular cause. All this talk about the disgraceful thirteen who voted against "Black suffrage" in New Jersey is utterly despicable coming from those whose words, actions, and votes are not against ignorant and degraded Black people, but against every man’s mother, wife, and daughter. We have packed meetings everywhere. I speak as well as ever, thank God! The audiences are moved to tears or laughter, just like in the old days. Harry gives great speeches and always gets a louder cheer than I do, though I feel I resonate deeper emotions. Newspapers all over the State are debating the issue. Everything is progressing as it should. If Beecher is chosen as a delegate at large to your Constitutional Convention, I believe the word "male" will be removed before his strong influence. I don’t want to stay here after the 4th, but Wood and Harry have set up other meetings until the 18th or 20th of May, so we won’t be back for the Boston meetings either.
Lucy Stone.
Lucy Stone.
Very truly,
Very truly,
In a letter dated Atchison, May 9, 1867, Lucy Stone says: I should be so glad to be with you to-morrow, and to know this minute whether Phillips has consented to take the high ground which sound policy as well as justice and statesmanship require. I can not send you a telegraphic dispatch as you wish, for just now there is a plot to get the Republican party to drop the word "male," and also to agree to canvass only for the word "white." There is a call, signed by the Chairman of the State Central Republican Committee; to meet at Topeka on the 15th, to pledge the party to the canvass on that single issue. As soon as we saw the call and the change of tone of some of the papers, we sent letters to all those whom we had found true to principle, urging them to be at Topeka and vote for both words. This effort of ours the Central Committee know nothing of, and we hope they will be defeated, as they will be sure to be surprised. So, till this action of the Republicans is settled, we can affirm nothing. Everywhere we go we have the largest and most enthusiastic meetings, and any one of our audiences would give a majority for woman suffrage. But the negroes are all against us. There has just now left us an ignorant black preacher named Twine, who is very confident that women ought not to vote. These men ought not to be allowed to vote before we do, because they will be just so much more dead weight to lift.
In a letter dated Atchison, May 9, 1867, Lucy Stone says: I would be so happy to be with you tomorrow, and to know right now whether Phillips has agreed to take the strong stance that good policy, justice, and statesmanship require. I can't send you a telegram like you want, because right now there's a plot to get the Republican party to drop the word "male," and also to agree to campaign only for the word "white." There's a call, signed by the Chair of the State Central Republican Committee, to meet in Topeka on the 15th to commit the party to focus on that single issue. As soon as we saw the call and noticed the change in tone from some of the papers, we sent letters to everyone we found to be principled, urging them to be in Topeka and vote for both words. The Central Committee doesn't know anything about our effort, and we hope they will be defeated because they'll surely be surprised. So, until this action by the Republicans is resolved, we can’t confirm anything. Everywhere we go, we have the largest and most excited meetings, and any one of our audiences would vote for woman suffrage. But the Black community is against us. We just had an ignorant Black preacher named Twine who is very sure that women shouldn’t vote. These men shouldn’t be allowed to vote before we do, because they would just be extra dead weight to carry.
Mr. Frothingham's course of lectures, happily, is over. Were you ever so cruelly hurt by any course of lectures before? "If it had been an enemy I could have borne it." But for this man, wise, educated, and good, who thinks he is our friend, to do just the things that our worst enemies will be glad of, is the unkindest cut of all. Ninety-nine pulpits out of every hundred have taught that women should not meddle in politics; as large a proportion of papers have done the same; and by every hearthstone the lesson is repeated to the little girl; and when she has learned it, and grows up, and does not throw away the teaching of a life time, Mr. Frothingham accepts this effect for a cause, and blames the unhappy victim, when he should stand by her side, and with all his power of persuasion win her away from her false teaching, to accept the truth and the nobler life that comes with it. But, thank God, the popular pulse is setting in the right direction.
Mr. Frothingham's lecture series is finally over. Have you ever been so painfully affected by a lecture series before? "If it had been an enemy, I could have handled it." But for this man, who is wise, educated, and good, and believes he is our friend, to do the very things that our worst enemies would be pleased with, is the harshest blow of all. Ninety-nine out of a hundred preachers have taught that women shouldn’t get involved in politics; the same goes for a large percentage of newspapers; and at every home, little girls are being taught this lesson. When they grow up and don’t discard what they've been taught their whole lives, Mr. Frothingham mistakes this effect for a cause and blames the unfortunate victim when he should be supporting her and using all his persuasive powers to lead her away from her misguided teachings, towards the truth and the greater life that comes with it. But, thank God, the public sentiment is moving in the right direction.
We must see Wade, and Garfield, and Julian, and when Sumner proposes, as he says he shall, to make negro suffrage universal, they must insist upon our claim; urged not for our sake merely, but that the government may be[Pg 239] based upon the consent of the governed. There is safety in no other way. We shall leave for home on the 20th. We had the largest meeting we have yet had in the State at Leavenworth night before last. Your brother and his wife called upon us at Col. Coffin's. They are well. But Dan don't want the Republicans to take us up. Love to Mrs. Stanton.
We need to meet with Wade, Garfield, and Julian, and when Sumner suggests, as he says he will, to make Black suffrage universal, they must push for our claim; it's not just for our benefit, but so that the government can be[Pg 239] based on the consent of the governed. There’s no other way to ensure safety. We’ll be heading home on the 20th. We had the largest meeting we’ve had in the state at Leavenworth the night before last. Your brother and his wife visited us at Col. Coffin's. They’re doing well. But Dan doesn’t want the Republicans to support us. Send my love to Mrs. Stanton.
Lucy Stone.
Lucy Stone.
P. S.—The papers here are coming down on us, and every prominent reformer, and charging us with being Free Lovers. I have to-day written a letter to the editor, saying that it has not the shadow of a foundation.
P. S.—The media are piling on us, with every well-known reformer accusing us of being Free Lovers. Today, I wrote a letter to the editor stating that there’s absolutely no basis for these claims.
Rev. Olympia Brown arrived in the State in July, where her untiring labors, for four months were never equaled by man or woman. Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony, and the Hutchinson family followed her early in September. What these speakers could not do with reason and appeal, the Hutchinsons, by stirring the hearts of the people with their sweet ballads, readily accomplished. Before leaving New York Miss Anthony published 60,000 tracts, which were distributed in Kansas with a liberal hand under the frank of Senators Ross and Pomeroy. Thus the thinking and unthinking in every school district were abundantly supplied with woman suffrage literature, such as Mrs. Mill's splendid article in the Westminster Review, the best speeches of John Stuart Mill, Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips, George William Curtis, Elizabeth Cady Stanton's argument before the Constitutional Convention, Parker Pillsbury's "Mortality of Nations," Thomas Wentworth Higginson's "Woman and her Wishes," Henry Ward Beecher's "Woman's Duty to Vote," and Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols' "Responsibility of Woman." There was scarcely a log cabin in the State that could not boast one or more of these documents, which the liberality of a few eastern friends[81] enabled the "Equal Rights Association" to print and circulate.[Pg 240]
Rev. Olympia Brown arrived in the state in July, where her tireless efforts over the next four months were unmatched by anyone. Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony, and the Hutchinson family joined her in early September. What these speakers couldn’t achieve through reason and appeals, the Hutchinsons accomplished by moving people's hearts with their beautiful songs. Before leaving New York, Miss Anthony published 60,000 pamphlets, which were distributed generously in Kansas with endorsements from Senators Ross and Pomeroy. This way, both the informed and uninformed in every school district were abundantly supplied with literature on women’s suffrage, including Mrs. Mill's excellent article in the Westminster Review, the best speeches of John Stuart Mill, Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips, George William Curtis, Elizabeth Cady Stanton's argument before the Constitutional Convention, Parker Pillsbury's "Mortality of Nations," Thomas Wentworth Higginson's "Woman and her Wishes," Henry Ward Beecher's "Woman's Duty to Vote," and Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols' "Responsibility of Woman." There was hardly a log cabin in the state that couldn't claim one or more of these documents, which the generosity of a few friends from the East enabled the "Equal Rights Association" to print and distribute.[Pg 240]
The opposition were often challenged to debate this question in public, but uniformly refused, knowing full well, since their powder in this battle consisted of vulgar abuse and ridicule, that they had no arguments to advance. But it chanced that on one occasion by mistake, a meeting was appointed for the opposing forces at the same time and place where Olympia Brown was advertised to speak. This gave her an opportunity of testing her readiness in debate with Judge Sears. Of this occasion a correspondent says:
The opposition was often challenged to publicly debate this issue but consistently declined, fully aware that their ammunition in this battle consisted of insults and mockery, leaving them without any solid arguments to present. However, there was one instance when a meeting for the opposing side was accidentally scheduled at the same time and place as Olympia Brown's speech. This allowed her the chance to test her debating skills against Judge Sears. A correspondent reported on this event:
Discussion at Oskaloosa.—To the Editor of the Kansas State Journal: For the first time during the canvass for Universal Suffrage, the opponents of the two wrongs, "Manhood Suffrage" and "Woman Suffrage," met in open debate at this place last evening. The largest church in the place was crowded to its utmost, every inch of space being occupied. Judge Gilchrist was called to the chair, and first introduced Judge Sears, who made the following points in favor of Manhood Suffrage:
Discussion at Oskaloosa.—To the Editor of the Kansas State Journal: For the first time during the campaign for Universal Suffrage, the opponents of the two issues, "Manhood Suffrage" and "Woman Suffrage," faced off in an open debate here last evening. The largest church in town was completely packed, every available space filled. Judge Gilchrist was appointed to chair the meeting and first introduced Judge Sears, who presented the following arguments in favor of Manhood Suffrage:
1st. That in the early days of the Republic no discrimination was made against negroes on account of color.
1st. That in the early days of the Republic, no discrimination was made against Black people because of their color.
He proved from the constitutions and charters of the original thirteen States, that all of them, with the exception of South Carolina, allowed the colored freeman the ballot, upon the same basis and conditions as the white man. That we were not conferring a right, but restoring one which the fathers in their wisdom had never deprived the colored man of. He showed[Pg 241] how the word white had been forced into the State constitutions, and advocated that it should be stricken out, it being the last relic of the "slave power."
He demonstrated through the constitutions and charters of the original thirteen states that all of them, except for South Carolina, granted voting rights to colored freemen on the same terms and conditions as to white men. He argued that we were not granting a new right, but restoring one that the founders, in their wisdom, had never taken away from the colored man. He illustrated[Pg 241] how the term "white" had been forcibly included in the state constitutions and advocated for its removal, as it was the last remnant of the "slave power."
2d. That the negro needed the ballot for his protection and elevation.
2d. That the Black person needed the right to vote for their protection and advancement.
3d. That he deserved the ballot. He fought with our fathers side by side in the war of the revolution. He did the same thing in the war of 1812, and in the war of the rebellion. He fought for us because he was loyal and loved the old flag. If any class of men had ever earned the enjoyment of franchise the negro had.
3d. That he deserved the right to vote. He fought alongside our fathers in the Revolutionary War. He did the same in the War of 1812 and the Civil War. He fought for us because he was loyal and loved the old flag. If any group of people ever earned the right to vote, it was the Black man.
4th. The Republican party owed it to him.
4th. The Republican party was indebted to him.
5th. The enfranchisement of the negro was indispensable to reconstruction of the late rebellious States upon a basis that should secure to the loyal men of the South the control of the government in those States. Congress had declared it was necessary, and the most eminent men of the nation had failed to discover any other means by which the South could be restored to the Union, that should secure safety, prosperity, and happiness. There was not loyalty enough in the South among the whites to elect a loyal man to an inferior office.
5th. Granting freedom to Black people was essential for rebuilding the recently rebellious states on a foundation that would ensure loyal individuals in the South could govern those states. Congress had stated it was necessary, and the most respected leaders in the nation were unable to find any other way to bring the South back into the Union that would guarantee safety, prosperity, and happiness. There wasn't enough loyalty among the white population in the South to elect a loyal person to even a minor office.
Upon each one of these points the Judge elaborated at length, and made really a fine speech, but his evident disconcertion showed that he knew what was to follow. It was expected that when Miss Brown was introduced many would leave, owing to the strange feeling against Female Suffrage in and about Oscaloosa; but not one left, the crowd grew more dense. A more eloquent speech never was uttered in this town than Miss Brown delivered; for an hour and three-quarters the audience was spell-bound as she advanced from point to point. She had been longing for such an opportunity, and had become weary of striking off into open air; and she proved how thoroughly acquainted she was with her subject as she took up each point advanced by her opponent, not denying their truth, but showing by unanswerable logic that if it were good under certain reasons for the negro to vote, it was ten times better for the same reasons for the women to vote.
Upon each one of these points, the Judge elaborated at length and gave a really impressive speech, but his obvious discomfort showed that he knew what was coming next. It was expected that when Miss Brown was introduced, many would leave due to the strange sentiment against female suffrage in and around Oscaloosa; but not a single person left, and the crowd grew even larger. A more eloquent speech had never been delivered in this town than the one given by Miss Brown; for an hour and three-quarters, the audience was captivated as she moved from point to point. She had been eager for such an opportunity and had grown tired of speaking to open air; and she demonstrated how well-versed she was in her subject as she addressed each point made by her opponent, not denying their truth but showing through undeniable logic that if it was justified for the negro to vote under certain reasons, it was ten times more justified for women to vote for the same reasons.
The argument that the right to vote is not a natural right, but acquired as corporate bodies acquire their rights, and that the ballot meant "protection," was answered and explained fully. She said the ballot meant protection; it meant much more; it means education, progress, advancement, elevation for the oppressed classes, drawing a glowing comparison between the working classes of England and those of the United States. She scorned the idea of an aristocracy based upon two accidents of the body. She paid an eloquent tribute to Kansas, the pioneer in all reforms, and said that it would be the best advertisement that Kansas could have to give the ballot to women, for thousands now waiting and uncertain, would flock to our State, and a vast tide of emigration would continually roll toward Kansas until her broad and fertile prairies would be peopled. It is useless to attempt to report her address, as she could hardly find a place to stop. When she had done, her opponent had nothing to say, he had been beaten on his own ground, and retired with his feathers drooping. After Miss Brown had closed, some one in the audience called for a vote on the female proposition. The vote was put, and nearly every man and woman in the house rose simultaneously, men that had fought the proposition from the first arose, even[Pg 242] Judge Sears himself looked as though he would like to rise, but his principles, much tempted, forbade. After the first vote, Judge Sears called for a vote on his, the negro proposition, when about one-half the house arose. Verily there was a great turning to the Lord that day, and many would have been baptized, but there was no water. When Mrs. Stanton has passed through Oscaloosa, her fame having gone before her, we can count on a good majority for Female Suffrage....
The argument that the right to vote isn't a natural right, but something that groups gain like a corporation gaining rights, and that the ballot represented "protection," was thoroughly addressed. She explained that the ballot meant protection, but it meant so much more; it signifies education, progress, advancement, and uplift for the oppressed classes, drawing a strong comparison between the working classes in England and those in the United States. She rejected the notion of an aristocracy based on mere physical traits. She honored Kansas as a leader in reforms and said that allowing women to vote would be the best promotion for the state because thousands who are currently hesitant would flock there, creating a steady stream of migration until Kansas's vast and fertile prairies were filled. It’s pointless to try to summarize her speech since she hardly paused. When she finished, her opponent had nothing left to say; he was defeated on his own turf and left looking defeated. After Miss Brown concluded, someone from the audience called for a vote on the women’s proposition. The vote was taken, and nearly every man and woman in the room stood up together, even men who had opposed the idea from the start, including Judge Sears, who appeared like he wanted to support it, but his principles held him back. After the initial vote, Judge Sears called for a vote on his proposal concerning the African American community, and about half the room stood up. Truly, there was a major shift happening that day, and many would have liked to be baptized, but there was no water available. Once Mrs. Stanton had passed through Oscaloosa, with her reputation preceding her, we can expect a solid majority for Female Suffrage...
* * * *
* * * *
Oscaloosa, October 11, 1867.
Oscaloosa, October 11, 1867.
Salina, Kansas, Sept. 12, 1867.
Salina, Kansas, Sept. 12, 1867.
Dear Friend:—We are getting along splendidly. Just the frame of a Methodist church with sidings and roof, and rough cotton-wood boards for seats, was our meeting place last night here; and a perfect jam it was, with men crowded outside at all the windows. Two very brave young Kentuckian sprigs of the law had the courage to argue or present sophistry on the other side. The meeting continued until eleven o'clock. To-day we go to Ellsworth, the very last trading post on the frontier. A car load of wounded soldiers went East on the train this morning; but the fight was a few miles West of Ellsworth. No Indians venture to that point.
Dear Friend:—We’re doing really well. Last night, we met in just the frame of a Methodist church, with its siding and roof, and rough cottonwood boards for seats; it was packed, with men crowding outside all the windows. Two very brave young lawyers from Kentucky had the nerve to argue or present weak points on the opposing side. The meeting went on until eleven o'clock. Today, we head to Ellsworth, the very last trading post on the frontier. A car full of wounded soldiers left for the East on the train this morning, but the battle happened just a few miles West of Ellsworth. No Indians go to that area.
Our tracts gave out at Solomon, and the Topeka people failed to fill my telegraphic order to send package here. It is enough to exhaust the patience of any "Job" that men are so wanting in promptness. Our tracts do more than half the battle; reading matter is so very scarce that everybody clutches at a book of any kind. If only reformers would supply this demand with the right and the true—come in and occupy the field at the beginning—they might mould these new settlements. But instead they wait until everything is fixed, and the comforts and luxuries obtainable, and then come to find the ground preoccupied.
Our pamphlets ran out in Solomon, and the people in Topeka didn’t fulfill my telegram order to send a package here. It’s enough to wear out anyone's patience when people are so slow to respond. Our pamphlets do more than half the work; reading material is so scarce that everyone grabs any book they can find. If only reformers would meet this demand with what’s right and true—if they would step in and take charge from the start—they could shape these new communities. But instead, they wait until everything is settled and the comforts and luxuries are available, and then they come to find that the space is already taken.
Send 2,000 of Curtis' speeches, 2,000 of Phillips', 2,000 of Beecher's, and 1,000 of each of the others, and then fill the boxes with the reports of our last convention; they are the best in the main because they have everybody's speeches together.
Send 2,000 of Curtis' speeches, 2,000 of Phillips', 2,000 of Beecher's, and 1,000 of each of the others, and then fill the boxes with the reports from our last convention; they are the best overall because they include everyone's speeches together.
S. B. A.
S. B. A.
Home of Ex-Gov. Robinson,
Lawrence, Kansas, Sept. 15, 1867.Home of Ex-Gov. Robinson,
Lawrence, Kansas, Sept. 15, 1867.I rejoice greatly in the $100 from the Drapers.[82] That makes $250 paid toward the tracts. I am very sorry Mr. J. can not get off Curtis and Beecher. There is a perfect greed for our tracts. All that great trunk full were sold and given away at our first fourteen meetings, and we in return received $110, which a little more than paid our railroad fare—eight cents per mile—and hotel bills. Our collections thus far fully equal those at the East. I have been delightfully disappointed, for everybody said I couldn't raise money in Kansas meetings. I wish you were here to make the tour of this beautiful State, in which to live fifty years hence will be charming; but now, alas, the women especially see hard times; to come actually in contact with all their discomforts and privations spoils the poetry of pioneer life.[Pg 243] The opposition, the "Anti-Female Suffragists," are making a bold push now; but all prophesy a short run for them. They held a meeting here the day after ours, and the friends say, did vastly more to make us converts than we ourselves did. The fact is nearly every man of the movers is like Kalloch, notoriously wanting in right action toward woman. Their opposition is low and scurrilous, as it used to be fifteen and twenty years ago at the East. Hurry on the tracts.
I'm really excited about the $100 from the Drapers.[82] That brings the total to $250 paid for the tracts. I'm truly sorry Mr. J. can't get off Curtis and Beecher. There’s such a strong demand for our tracts. We sold and gave away a whole trunk full at our first fourteen meetings, and in return, we received $110, which nearly covered our train fare—eight cents per mile—and hotel expenses. So far, our donations have matched those back East. I've been pleasantly surprised because everyone said I couldn't raise money at the Kansas meetings. I wish you were here to travel across this beautiful state, where living in fifty years will be amazing; but right now, unfortunately, the women in particular are facing tough times; experiencing their discomforts and struggles takes away from the idealism of pioneer life.[Pg 243] The opposition, the "Anti-Female Suffragists," are making a strong push right now; but everyone predicts they won't last long. They held a meeting here the day after ours, and supporters claim they did a lot more to convert people than we did. The truth is almost every man involved is like Kalloch, known for not treating women right. Their opposition is petty and malicious, just like it used to be fifteen or twenty years ago back East. Please hurry with the tracts.
S. B. A.
S. B. A.
As ever,
As ever,
Seeing that the republican vote must be largely against the woman's amendment, the question arose what can be done to capture enough democratic votes to outweigh the recalcitrant republicans. At this auspicious moment George Francis Train appeared in the State as an advocate of woman suffrage. He appealed most effectively to the chivalry of the intelligent Irishmen, and the prejudices of the ignorant; conjuring them not to take the word "white" out of their constitution unless they did the word "male" also; not to lift the negroes above the heads of their own mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters. The result was a respectable democratic vote in favor of woman suffrage.
Seeing that the Republican vote was likely to be mostly against the women's amendment, the question came up about how to gain enough Democratic votes to surpass the stubborn Republicans. At this crucial time, George Francis Train entered the State as a supporter of women's suffrage. He effectively appealed to the chivalry of educated Irish men and the biases of the uneducated, urging them not to remove the word "white" from their constitution unless they also removed the word "male"; not to elevate the status of Black people over that of their own mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters. As a result, there was a significant Democratic vote in favor of women's suffrage.
In a discussion with General Blunt at a meeting in Ottawa, Mr. Train said:
In a conversation with General Blunt during a meeting in Ottawa, Mr. Train said:
You say, General, that women in politics would lower the standard. Are politicians so pure, politics so exalted, the polls so immaculate, men so moral, that woman would pollute the ballot and contaminate the voters? Would revolvers, bowie-knives, whisky barrels, profane oaths, brutal rowdyism, be the feature of elections if women were present? Woman's presence purifies the atmosphere. Enter any Western hotel and what do you see, General? Sitting around the stove you will see dirty, unwashed-looking men, with hats on, and feet on the chairs; huge cuds of tobacco on the floor, spittle in pools all about; filth and dirt, condensed tobacco smoke, and a stench of whisky from the bar and the breath (applause, and "that's so,") on every side. This, General, is the manhood picture. Now turn to the womanhood picture; she, whom you think will debase and lower the morals of the elections. Just opposite this sitting room of the King, or on the next floor, is the sitting room of the Queen, covered chairs, clean curtains, nice carpets, books on the table, canary birds at the window, everything tidy, neat and beautiful, and according to your programme the occupants of this room will so demoralize the occupants of the other as to completely undermine all society.
You say, General, that having women in politics would lower the standard. Are politicians really that pure, politics so noble, the polls so clean, and men so moral that women would spoil the ballot and taint the voters? Would guns, knives, barrels of whiskey, foul language, and rowdy behavior be the norm during elections if women were around? A woman’s presence cleans up the atmosphere. Walk into any Western hotel, and what do you see, General? You’ll find dirty, unkempt men sitting around the stove, wearing hats and putting their feet on the chairs; huge wads of tobacco on the floor, spit pools everywhere; filth and grime, dense tobacco smoke, and the smell of whiskey from the bar and their breath (applause, and “that’s right,”) all around. This, General, is your picture of manhood. Now, let’s look at the picture of womanhood; the one you believe will corrupt and degrade the morals of elections. Just across from this sitting area of the King, or on the next floor, is the sitting area of the Queen, with upholstered chairs, clean curtains, nice carpets, books on the table, canary birds by the window, everything tidy, neat, and lovely. According to your plan, the people in this room will demoralize those in the other room so much that it will completely undermine all of society.
Did man put woman in the parlor? Did woman put man in that bar room? Are the instincts of woman so low that unless man puts up a bar, she will immediately fall into man's obscene conversation and disreputable habits? No, General, women are better than men, purer, nobler, hence more exalted, and so far from falling to man's estate, give her power and she will elevate man to her level.
Did man put woman in the parlor? Did woman put man in that bar room? Are women's instincts so low that if man doesn't set boundaries, she will quickly get involved in his inappropriate conversations and questionable habits? No, General, women are better than men, purer, nobler, and therefore more elevated, and instead of sinking to man's level, give her power and she will lift him up to hers.
One other point, General, in reply to your argument. You say woman's sphere is at home with her children, and paint her as the sovereign of her[Pg 244] own household. Let me paint the picture of the mother at the washtub, just recovering from the birth of her last child as the Empress. Six little children, half starved and shivering with cold, are watching and hoping that the Emperor will arrive with a loaf of bread, he having taken the wash money to the baker's. They wait and starve and cry, the poor emaciated Empress works and prays, when lo! the bugle sounds. It is the Emperor staggering into the yard. The little famished princesses' mouths all open are waiting for their expected food. Your friend, General, the Emperor, however, was absent minded, and while away at the polls voting for the license for his landlord, left the wash money on deposit with the bar-keeper (laughter) who wouldn't give it back again, and the little Queen birds must starve another day, till the wash-tub earns them a mouthful of something to eat. Give that woman a vote and she will keep the money she earns to clothe and feed her children, instead of its being spent in drunkenness and debauchery by her lord and master....
One more thing, General, in response to your argument. You say a woman's role is at home with her kids, and depict her as the ruler of her[Pg 244] household. Let me show you the image of a mother at the laundry, just recovering from having her last child, like an Empress. Six little kids, half-starved and shivering, are watching and hoping that the Emperor will come home with a loaf of bread since he took the laundry money to the bakery. They wait, starve, and cry, while the poor, thin Empress works and prays. Suddenly, the bugle sounds. It’s the Emperor stumbling into the yard. The hungry little princesses are all waiting with open mouths for the food they expect. Your friend, General, the Emperor, was distracted and while out voting for a license for his landlord, left the laundry money with the bartender (laughter) who wouldn’t give it back. That means the little Queen birds will have to starve another day until the laundry work earns them something to eat. Give that woman a vote, and she’ll keep the money she earns to clothe and feed her children instead of letting it be wasted on her husband’s drinking and debauchery.
You say, General, that you intend to vote for negro suffrage and against woman suffrage. In other words, not satisfied with having your mother, your wife, your sisters, your daughters, the equals politically of the negro—by giving him a vote and refusing it to woman, you wish to place your family politically still lower in the scale of citizenship and humanity. This particular twist, General, is working in the minds of the people, and the democrats, having got you where Tommy had the wedge, intend to hold you there. Again you say that Mrs. Cady Stanton was three days in advance of you in the border towns, calling you the Sir John Falstaff of the campaign. I am under the impression, General, that these strong minded woman's rights women are more than three days in advance of you. (Loud cheers.) Falstaff was a jolly old brick, chivalrous and full of gallantry, and were he stumping Kansas with his ragged regiment, he would do it as the champion of woman instead of against her. (Loud cheers.) Hence Mrs. Stanton owes an apology to Falstaff, not to General Blunt. (Laughter and cheers.)
You say, General, that you plan to vote for Black suffrage and against women's suffrage. In other words, not satisfied with having your mother, your wife, your sisters, and your daughters be politically equal to Black people—by giving them the vote and denying it to women, you're trying to push your family even lower in the hierarchy of citizenship and humanity. This particular perspective, General, is making an impression on the people, and the Democrats, having you in a tough spot, plan to exploit that. Again, you mention that Mrs. Cady Stanton was three days ahead of you in the border towns, calling you the Sir John Falstaff of the campaign. I believe, General, that these strong-minded women fighting for their rights are actually more than three days ahead of you. (Loud cheers.) Falstaff was a lively old guy, chivalrous and full of gallantry, and if he were campaigning in Kansas with his ragged regiment, he would do it as a champion of women instead of against them. (Loud cheers.) So, Mrs. Stanton owes an apology to Falstaff, not to General Blunt. (Laughter and cheers.)
One more point, General. You have made a terrific personal attack on Senator Wood, calling him everything that is vile. I do not know Mr. Wood. Miss Anthony has made all my arrangements; but perhaps you will allow me to ask you if Mr. Wood is a democrat? (Laughter and applause from the democrats.) Gen. Blunt—No, he is a republican, (laughter) and chairman of the woman suffrage committee. Mr. Train—Good. I understand you and your argument against Wood is so forcible, (and Mr. Train said this with the most biting sarcasm, every point taking with the audience.) I believe with you that Wood is a bad man, (laughter) a man of no principle whatever. (Laughter.) A man who has committed all the crimes in the calendar, (loud laughter) who, if he has done what you have said, ought to be taken out on the square and hung, and well hung too. (Laughter and cheers.) Having admitted that I am converted to the fact of Wood's villainy, (laughter) and you having admitted that he is not a democrat, but a republican, (laughter) I think it is time the honest democratic and republican voters should rise up in their might and wipe off all those corrupt republican leaders from the Kansas State committee. (Loud cheers.) Democrats do your duty on the fifth of November and vote for woman suffrage. (Applause.) The effect of turning the General's own words back upon[Pg 245] his party was perfectly electric, and when the vote was put for woman's suffrage it was almost unanimous. Mr. Train saying amid shouts of laughter, that he supposed that a few henpecked men would say "No" here, because they didn't dare to say their souls were their own at home....
One more thing, General. You've launched a huge personal attack on Senator Wood, calling him all sorts of horrible things. I don’t know Mr. Wood. Miss Anthony has set everything up for me; but could I ask if Mr. Wood is a Democrat? (Laughter and applause from the Democrats.) Gen. Blunt—No, he’s a Republican, (laughter) and the chair of the woman suffrage committee. Mr. Train—Good. I see that your argument against Wood is really strong, (and Mr. Train said this with sharp sarcasm, hitting every point with the audience.) I agree with you that Wood is a bad guy, (laughter) a person with no principles at all. (Laughter.) A person who has committed every crime imaginable, (loud laughter) who, if he’s done what you say, should be taken out and hanged, and I mean well-hung too. (Laughter and cheers.) Having accepted that I’m convinced of Wood's wrongdoing, (laughter) and you admitting he’s not a Democrat but a Republican, (laughter) I think it’s time for honest Democratic and Republican voters to rise up and get rid of all those corrupt Republican leaders from the Kansas State committee. (Loud cheers.) Democrats, do your duty on the fifth of November and vote for woman suffrage. (Applause.) The impact of turning the General's own words back on his party was electrifying, and when the vote for woman suffrage was taken, it was nearly unanimous. Mr. Train, amid bursts of laughter, remarked that he expected a few henpecked men would say "No" here because they didn’t dare admit their souls belonged to them at home....
Mr. Train continued: Twelve o'clock at night is a late hour to take up all your points, General; but the audience will have me talk. Miss Anthony gave you, General, a very sarcastic retort to your assertion that every woman ought to be married. (Laughter.) She told you that to marry, it was essential to find some decent man, and that could not be found among the Kansas politicians who had so gallantly forsaken the woman's cause. (Loud laughter.) She said, as society was organized there was not one man in a thousand worthy of marriage—marrying a man and marrying a whisky barrel were two distinct ideas. (Laughter and applause.) Miss Anthony tells me that your friend Kalloch said at Lawrence that of all the infernal humbugs of this humbugging Woman's Rights question, the most absurd was that woman should assume to be entitled to the same wages for the same amount of labor performed, as man. Do you mean to say that the school mistress, who so ably does her duty, should only receive three hundred dollars, while the school master, who performs the same duty, gets fifteen hundred? (Shame.) All the avenues of employment are blocked against women. Embroidering, tapestry, knitting-needle, sewing needle have all been displaced by machinery; and women speakers, women doctors, and women clerks, are ridiculed and insulted till every modest woman fairly cowers before her Emperor Husband, her King, her Lord, for fear of being called "strong minded." (Laughter and applause.) Why should not the landlady of that hotel over the way share the profits of their joint labors with the landlord? She works as hard—yet he keeps all the money, and she goes to him, instead of being an independent woman, for her share of the profits, as a beggar asking for ten dollars to buy a bonnet or a dress. (Applause from the ladies.) Nothing is more contemptible than this slavery to the husband on the question of money. (Loud applause.) Give the sex votes and men will have more respect for women than to treat them as children or as dolls. (Applause.) The ten-year old boy will say to his women relatives, "Oh you don't know anything, you are only a woman," and when man wishes to insult his fellow man, he calls him a woman—and if the insult is intended to be more severe, he will speak of a cabinet statesman even as an "old woman." The General and Mr. Kalloch are afraid that women will be corrupted by going to the polls, yet they as lawyers have no hesitation in bringing a young and beautiful girl into court where a curiosity seeking audience are staring at her; where the judge makes her unveil her face, and the jury watch every feature, turning an honest blush into guilt. (Applause.)
Mr. Train continued: Midnight is a late time to discuss everything, General; but the audience wants to hear me speak. Miss Anthony gave you a pretty sarcastic reply to your claim that every woman should be married. (Laughter.) She told you that to get married, a woman first needs to find a decent man, and that’s not something you’ll find among the Kansas politicians who have turned their backs on women’s rights. (Loud laughter.) She mentioned that, given how society is set up, there isn’t one man in a thousand who is truly worthy of marriage—marrying a man and marrying a whisky barrel are entirely different things. (Laughter and applause.) Miss Anthony told me that your friend Kalloch said at Lawrence that of all the ridiculous frauds in this ridiculous Woman's Rights debate, the most absurd was the idea that a woman should expect to earn the same pay for the same work as a man. Are you seriously saying that the school mistress, who does her job so well, should only be paid three hundred dollars, while the school master, doing the exact same job, gets fifteen hundred? (Shame.) All job opportunities are shut off from women. Jobs like embroidery, tapestry, knitting, and sewing have all been taken over by machines; and women speakers, women doctors, and women clerks face ridicule and insults until every respectable woman shrinks back before her Husband Emperor, her King, her Lord, afraid of being labeled "strong-minded." (Laughter and applause.) Why shouldn’t the landlady of that hotel over there share the profits from their work with the landlord? She works just as hard—yet he keeps all the money, and she has to go to him, instead of being an independent woman, to ask for her share of the profits, like a beggar asking for ten dollars to buy a bonnet or a dress. (Applause from the ladies.) Nothing is more shameful than this financial subservience to the husband. (Loud applause.) Grant women the right to vote, and men will show more respect for women, no longer treating them like children or dolls. (Applause.) Ten-year-old boys will tell their female relatives, “Oh, you don’t know anything, you’re just a woman,” and when a man wants to insult another man, he calls him a woman—and if he wants to be even more insulting, he’ll refer to a cabinet statesman as an "old woman." The General and Mr. Kalloch worry that women will be corrupted by voting, yet they, as lawyers, have no problem bringing a young and attractive girl into court where a curious audience is staring at her; where the judge forces her to unveil her face, and the jury watches every detail, turning an honest blush into shame. (Applause.)
Woman first, and negro last, is my programme; yet I am willing that intelligence should be the test, although some men have more brains in their hands than others in their heads. (Laughter.) Emmert's Resolution, introduced into your Legislature last year, disfranchising, after July 4, 1870, all of age who can not read the American Constitution, the State Constitution, and the Bible, in the language in which he was educated, (applause) expresses my views.
Woman first, and Black individuals last, is my agenda; however, I believe intelligence should be the criterion, even though some people are more skilled with their hands than others are with their minds. (Laughter.) Emmert's Resolution, which was introduced in your Legislature last year, that would disenfranchise anyone of age who cannot read the American Constitution, the State Constitution, and the Bible in the language they were educated in, (applause) reflects my opinions.
Again you alluded to the Foreign Emissary—who had no interest in Kansas.[Pg 246] Do you mean me, General? General Blunt—No, sir. Thank you. The other four Foreign Emissaries are women, noble, self-sacrificing women, bold, never-tiring, unblemished reputation; women who have left their pleasant Eastern homes for a grand idea, (loud applause,) and to them and them alone is due the credit of carrying Kansas for woman suffrage. General Blunt—It won't carry. Train—Were I a betting man I would wager ten thousand dollars that Kansas will give 5,000 majority for women. (Loud cheers from Blunt's own audience of anti-women men.) As an advertisement to this beautiful State, it is worth untold millions.
Again you mentioned the Foreign Emissary—who had no interest in Kansas.[Pg 246] Are you referring to me, General? General Blunt—No, sir. Thank you. The other four Foreign Emissaries are women, noble, self-sacrificing women, bold, tireless, and of impeccable reputation; women who have left their comfortable Eastern homes for a grand cause, (loud applause,) and it is to them and them alone that we owe the credit for advancing woman suffrage in Kansas. General Blunt—It won't happen. Train—If I were a betting man, I would wager ten thousand dollars that Kansas will approve women’s suffrage by a majority of 5,000. (Loud cheers from Blunt's own audience of anti-women men.) As a promotion for this beautiful State, it's worth untold millions.
Kansas will win the world's applause,
As the sole champion of woman's cause.
So light the bonfires! Have the flags unfurled,
To the Banner State of all the World!
(Loud cheers.)
No, General, these women are no foreign emissaries. They came expecting support. They thought the republicans honest. They forgot that the democrats alone were their friends. (Applause.) They forgot that it was the Republican party that publicly insulted them in Congress. That it was Charles Sumner who wished to insert the word "male" in the amendment of the Federal Constitution two years ago, when the old Constitution, by having neither male nor female, had left it an open question. No, Mrs. Cady Stanton, Miss Susan B. Anthony, Mrs. Lucy Stone, and Miss Olympia Brown are the "foreign emissaries" that will alone have the credit of emancipating women in Kansas. Your trimming politicians left them in the lurch. Not one of you was honest. (Applause.) Even those who assumed to be their friends by saying nothing on the woman, and everything on the negro, are worse than you and Kalloch. (Applause.) Mr. Kalloch and Leggett and Sears have helped the woman's cause by opposing it, (cheers,) while the milk-and-water republican committee and speakers and press have damaged woman by their sneaking, cowardly way of advocacy. (That's so.)
No, General, these women are not foreign representatives. They came expecting support. They believed the Republicans were honest. They overlooked the fact that the Democrats were their only true allies. (Applause.) They forgot that it was the Republican party that publicly insulted them in Congress. It was Charles Sumner who wanted to include the word "male" in the amendment to the Federal Constitution two years ago, when the old Constitution, lacking any gender reference, left the issue open. No, Mrs. Cady Stanton, Miss Susan B. Anthony, Mrs. Lucy Stone, and Miss Olympia Brown are the "foreign emissaries" who will solely be credited with emancipating women in Kansas. Your compromising politicians abandoned them. Not one of you was sincere. (Applause.) Even those who pretended to be their friends by ignoring women's issues and focusing solely on the rights of Black individuals are worse than you and Kalloch. (Applause.) Mr. Kalloch and Leggett and Sears have inadvertently supported the women’s cause by opposing it, (cheers,) while the wishy-washy Republican committee, speakers, and media have hindered the progress of women with their sneaky, cowardly approach to advocacy. (That's so.)
Mr. Train at Leavenworth, the day before the election: "A great empire, and little minds go ill together," said Lord Bacon. "The sober second thought of the people," said Van Buren, "is never wrong, and always efficient." To-morrow it will be shown by voting for our mother and our sister. (Loud applause.) Never before were so many rats fleeing from a sinking ship. (Laughter.) A few staunch men will receive their reward. Falsehood passes away. Truth is eternal. (Applause.) The woman suffrage association wants a few thousand dollars to pay off this expensive canvass. Miss Anthony has distributed two thousand pounds weight of tracts and pamphlets. (Applause.) Mrs. Stanton, Miss Olympia Brown and Mrs. Lucy Stone, have been for months in all parts of the State. Kansas has furnished no part of the fund which makes her to-morrow the envy of the world. (Cheers.) For the benefit of the Association I have promised on my return from Omaha to make seven speeches in the largest cities; the entire proceeds to be given to this grand cause—I paying my own expenses as in this campaign. (Loud cheers for Train.) We commence at St. Louis about the 20th, thence to Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Boston and New York. (Cheers.) The burden of my thought will be the future of America; my mission, with the aid[Pg 247] of women, to reconstruct the country and save the nation. (Cheers.) To-morrow our amendment will pass with a startling majority. The other two will be lost. (Applause.) The negro can wait and go to school. And as all are now loyal, the war over, and no rebels exist, no American in this land must be marked by the stain of attainder or impeachment. (Cheers.) No so-called rebel must be disfranchised. I represent the people, and they speak to-morrow in Kansas, emancipating woman, (loud cheers), and declaring that no Hungary, no Poland, no Venice, no Ireland—crushed and disheartened—shall exist in New America. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. Train at Leavenworth, the day before the election: "A great empire and small minds don’t mix well," said Lord Bacon. "The thoughtful reflection of the people," said Van Buren, "is never wrong and always effective." Tomorrow it will be shown by voting for our mother and our sister. (Loud applause.) Never before have so many rats been fleeing from a sinking ship. (Laughter.) A few loyal men will receive their reward. Falsehood fades away. Truth is eternal. (Applause.) The woman suffrage association needs a few thousand dollars to cover this expensive campaign. Miss Anthony has distributed two thousand pounds of tracts and pamphlets. (Applause.) Mrs. Stanton, Miss Olympia Brown, and Mrs. Lucy Stone have been traveling all over the State for months. Kansas hasn’t provided any part of the funding which makes her the envy of the world tomorrow. (Cheers.) To support the Association, I’ve promised to make seven speeches in the largest cities after I return from Omaha; all proceeds will go to this great cause—I’m covering my own expenses just like in this campaign. (Loud cheers for Train.) We’ll start in St. Louis around the 20th, then to Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Boston, and New York. (Cheers.) The focus of my message will be the future of America; my mission, with the support of women, is to rebuild the country and save the nation. (Cheers.) Tomorrow our amendment will pass by a surprising majority. The other two will not make it. (Applause.) The Black community can wait and go to school. And since everyone is now loyal, the war is over, and there are no rebels left, no American in this country should be marked by the stain of disqualification or impeachment. (Cheers.) No so-called rebel should be disenfranchised. I represent the people, and they will speak tomorrow in Kansas, freeing women, (loud cheers), and declaring that no Hungary, no Poland, no Venice, no Ireland—crushed and disheartened—shall exist in New America. (Loud cheers.)
But Kansas being republican by a large majority, there was no chance of victory. For although the women were supported by some of the best men in the State, such as Gov. Crawford, Ex-Gov. Robinson, United States Senators Pomeroy and Ross, and a few of the ablest editors, the opposition was too strong to be conquered. With both parties, the press, the pulpit and faithless liberals as opponents, the hopes of the advocates of woman suffrage began to falter before the election.
But Kansas was predominantly Republican, so there was no chance of winning. Even though the women had support from some of the most respected men in the state, like Gov. Crawford, former Gov. Robinson, U.S. Senators Pomeroy and Ross, and a few influential editors, the opposition was too strong to overcome. With both political parties, the media, the church, and unfaithful liberals against them, the hopes of those advocating for women's suffrage started to wane before the election.
The action of the Michigan Commission, in refusing to submit a similar amendment to her people, and the adverse report of Mr. Greeley in the Constitutional Convention of New York, had also their depressing influence. Nevertheless, when election day came, the vote was nearly equal for both propositions. With all the enginery of the controlling party negro suffrage had a little over 10,000 votes, while woman suffrage without press or party, friends or politicians, had 9,000 and some over. And this vote for woman's enfranchisement represented the best elements in the State, men of character and conscience, who believed in social order and good government.
The Michigan Commission's decision to not present a similar amendment to its citizens and Mr. Greeley's negative report at the New York Constitutional Convention had a discouraging impact. Still, when election day arrived, the votes for both propositions were almost equal. Despite the efforts of the dominant party, Black suffrage received just over 10,000 votes, while women’s suffrage, without any press support, political backing, or endorsements, garnered around 9,000 votes. This vote for women's voting rights came from the most principled people in the state—individuals of integrity and moral conviction who valued social order and good governance.
When Eastern Republicans learned that the action of their party in Kansas was doing more damage than the question of woman to the negro, since the pioneers, who knew how bravely the women had stood by their side amid all dangers, were saying, "if our women can not vote, the negro shall not;" they began to take in the situation, and a month before the election issued the following appeal, signed by some of the most influential men of the nation. It was published in the New York Tribune October 1st, and copied by most of the papers throughout the State of Kansas:
When Eastern Republicans found out that their party's actions in Kansas were causing more harm than the issue of women's rights to the Black community, since the pioneers—who knew how courageously the women had supported them through all dangers—were saying, "If our women can't vote, then neither shall the Black community," they started to understand the situation. A month before the election, they issued the following appeal, signed by some of the country's most influential figures. It was published in the New York Tribune on October 1st and was picked up by most newspapers across the State of Kansas:
To the Voters of the United States:
To the Voters of the United States:
In this hour of national reconstruction we appeal to good men of all parties, to Conventions for amending State Constitutions, to the Legislature of every State, and to the Congress of the United States, to apply the principles of the Declaration of Independence to women; "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." The only form of consent[Pg 248] recognized under a Republic is suffrage. Mere tacit acquiescence is not consent; if it were, every despotism might claim that its power is justly held. Suffrage is the right of every adult citizen, irrespective of sex or color. Women are governed, therefore they are rightly entitled to vote.
In this time of rebuilding our nation, we call on good people from all political parties, on conventions to change state constitutions, on every state legislature, and on the U.S. Congress, to extend the principles of the Declaration of Independence to women: "Governments get their legitimate powers from the consent of the governed." The only form of consent[Pg 248] recognized in a republic is the right to vote. Simply going along with something is not real consent; if it were, any dictatorship could claim that its authority is rightful. The right to vote is for every adult citizen, regardless of gender or race. Since women are governed, they are rightly entitled to vote.
The problem of American statesmanship is how to incorporate in our institutions a guarantee of the rights of every individual. The solution is easy. Base government on the consent of the governed, and each class will protect itself.[83]
The challenge of American leadership is how to ensure that our systems protect the rights of every individual. The answer is simple. Build government on the consent of the governed, and each group will defend its own interests.[83]
But the appeal was too late, the mischief done was irreparable. The action of the Republican party had created a hostile feeling between the women and the colored people. The men of Kansas in their speeches would say, "What would be to us the comparative advantage of the amendments? If negro suffrage passes, we will be flooded with ignorant, impoverished blacks from every State of the Union. If woman suffrage passes, we invite to our borders people of character and position, of wealth and education, the very element Kansas needs to-day. Who can hesitate to decide, when the question lies between educated women and ignorant negroes?" Such appeals as these were made by men of Kansas to hundreds of audiences. On this appeal the New York Tribune said editorially:
But the appeal came too late; the damage was done and couldn't be fixed. The actions of the Republican party had created tension between women and people of color. The men of Kansas would say in their speeches, "What would the benefits of the amendments be for us? If we allow Black people to vote, we'll be swamped with uneducated, poor Black individuals from every state in the country. If we allow women to vote, we'll attract people of character and status, of wealth and education—the very type that Kansas needs right now. Who can possibly hesitate when the choice is between educated women and uneducated Black people?" These kinds of arguments were made by men from Kansas to hundreds of audiences. In response, the New York Tribune stated editorially:
Kansas—Woman as a Voter.—We publish herewith an appeal, most influentially signed, to the voters of Kansas, urging them to support the pending Constitutional Amendment whereby the Right of Suffrage is extended to Women under like conditions with men. The gravity combined with the comparative novelty of the proposition should secure it the most candid and thoughtful consideration.
Kansas—Woman as a Voter.—We present an important appeal, signed by many influential people, to the voters of Kansas, urging them to support the upcoming Constitutional Amendment that would extend the right to vote to women on the same basis as men. The seriousness of this issue, along with its relative novelty, should ensure it receives careful and thoughtful consideration.
We hold fast to the cardinal doctrine of our fathers' Declaration of Independence—that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." If, therefore, the women of Kansas, or of any other State, desire, as a class, to be invested with the Right of Suffrage, we hold it their clear right to be. We do not hold, and can not admit, that a small minority of the sex, however earnest and able, have any such right.
We firmly believe in the core principle of our forefathers' Declaration of Independence—that "governments get their rightful powers from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the women of Kansas, or any other state, want to be granted the Right to Vote as a group, we believe they have every right to do so. We do not accept, nor can we acknowledge, that a small minority of women, no matter how passionate and capable, have that right.
It is plain that the experiment of Female Suffrage is to be tried; and, while we regard it with distrust, we are quite willing to see it pioneered by Kansas. She is a young State, and has a memorable history, wherein her women have borne an honorable part. She is preponderantly agricultural, with but one city of any size, and very few of her women are other than pure and intelligent. They have already been authorized to vote on the question[Pg 249] of liquor license, and in the choice of school officers, and, we are assured, with decidedly good results. If, then, a majority of them really desire to vote, we, if we lived in Kansas, should vote to give them the opportunity.
It’s clear that the experiment of allowing women to vote is about to take place; and while we have some reservations, we’re more than willing for Kansas to lead the way. It’s a young state with a significant history where its women have played a vital role. Most of its population is involved in agriculture, with only one sizable city, and most of the women there are both genuinely good and smart. They’ve already been given the chance to vote on issues like liquor licenses and the selection of school officials, and we’ve heard that the outcomes have been quite positive. So, if a majority of them truly want to vote, if we lived in Kansas, we would support giving them that opportunity.
Upon a full and fair trial, we believe they would conclude that the right of suffrage for woman was, on the whole, rather a plague than a profit, and vote to resign it into the hands of their husbands and fathers. We think so, because we now so seldom find women plowing, or teaming, or mowing (with machines), though there is no other obstacle to their so doing than their own sense of fitness, and though some women, under peculiar circumstances, laudably do all these things. We decidedly object to having ten women in every hundred compel the other ninety to vote, or allow the ten to carry elections against the judgment of the ninety; but, if the great body of the women of Kansas wish to vote, we counsel the men to accord them the opportunity. Should the experiment work as we apprehend, they will soon be glad to give it up.
After a thorough and fair trial, we think they would conclude that women's right to vote is, overall, more of a burden than a benefit, and would choose to hand it over to their husbands and fathers. We believe this because we rarely see women plowing, driving teams, or using mowers (with machines), even though there’s nothing stopping them except their own feelings about what they should do, and although some women, in special circumstances, commendably do all these tasks. We strongly oppose having ten women out of every hundred forcing the other ninety to vote, or allowing the ten to sway elections against the wishes of the ninety; however, if a significant number of women in Kansas want to vote, we advise the men to give them that chance. If the experiment goes as we expect, they will likely be eager to give it up soon.
Whereupon, the Atchison Daily Champion, John A. Martin, editor, retorted:
Whereupon, the Atchison Daily Champion, edited by John A. Martin, replied:
Take it Yourselves.—Thirty-one gentlemen, all but six of whom live in States that have utterly refused to have anything to do with the issue of "female suffrage," unite in an address, to apply, as they say, the "principles of the Declaration of Independence to women;" and make a specious, flimsy, and ridiculous little argument in favor of their appeal.
Take it Yourselves.—Thirty-one men, all but six of whom live in states that have completely rejected the idea of "women's voting rights," come together in a statement to apply, as they put it, the "principles of the Declaration of Independence to women;" and present a superficial, weak, and silly argument to support their appeal.
It is a pity that comments in the main so sensible, should be marred by a few statements as ridiculous as is the trashy address to which the article refers. It is the old cry that "female suffrage," a novel proposition, although justly regarded with distrust and suspicion by all right-thinking people; although not demanded by even a considerable minority of the women themselves; and although an "experiment" which may rudely disturb the best elements of our society and civilization, may be tried in Kansas! "We regard it with distrust," says the Tribune, "but are quite willing to see it tried in Kansas." "Upon a full and fair trial," it continues, "we believe they (the women) would conclude that the right of suffrage for women was, on the whole, rather a plague than a profit, and vote to resign it into the hands of their husbands and fathers." But it "decidedly objects to having ten women in every hundred compel the other ninety to vote, or to allow the ten to carry elections against the judgment of ninety." These expressions of grave doubt as to the expediency of "female suffrage," together with the fact that the editor of the Tribune, in his report as chairman of the Suffrage Committee in the New York Constitutional Convention, declared this new hobby "an innovation revolutionary and sweeping, openly at war with a distribution of duties and functions between the sexes as venerable and pervading as government itself," make the Tribune's recommendation that we shall "try the experiment in Kansas" rather amusing as well as impudent.
It's unfortunate that the mostly sensible comments are tainted by a few statements as ridiculous as the trashy address mentioned in the article. The old argument that "female suffrage," a new idea, is rightly viewed with distrust and skepticism by all reasonable people; that it’s not even demanded by a significant minority of women themselves; and that it’s an "experiment" that could disrupt the best parts of our society and civilization, is something that might be tried in Kansas! "We are suspicious of it," says the Tribune, "but we're willing to see it tried in Kansas." "In a full and fair trial," it continues, "we believe they (the women) would realize that the right to vote for women is, on the whole, more of a burden than a benefit, and would vote to hand it over to their husbands and fathers." However, it "strongly opposes the idea of having ten women in every hundred forcing the other ninety to vote, or letting those ten influence elections against the will of ninety." These serious doubts about the practicality of "female suffrage," along with the fact that the editor of the Tribune, in his report as chairman of the Suffrage Committee in the New York Constitutional Convention, referred to this new idea as "a revolutionary and sweeping innovation, in direct conflict with the long-standing distribution of roles and responsibilities between the sexes," makes the Tribune's suggestion that we "try the experiment in Kansas" both amusing and cheeky.
There is not a man nor a woman endowed with ordinary common sense who does not know that Kansas is the last State that should be asked to try this dangerous and doubtful experiment. Our society is just forming, our institutions are crude. Ever since the organization of the Territory, we have[Pg 250] lived a life of wild excitement, plunging from one trouble into another so fast that we have never had a breathing-spell, and we need, more than any other people on the globe, immunity from disturbing experiments on novel questions of doubtful expediency. We can not afford to risk our future prosperity and happiness in making an innovation so questionable. We want peace, and must have it. Let Massachusetts or New York, or some older State, therefore, try this nauseating dose. If it does not kill them, or if it proves healthful and beneficial, we guarantee that Kansas will not be long in swallowing it. But the stomach of our State, if we may be permitted to use the expression, is, as yet, too tender and febrific to allow such a fearful deglutition.
There isn’t a man or woman with basic common sense who doesn’t realize that Kansas is the last place that should be asked to take on this risky and uncertain experiment. Our society is still forming, and our institutions are rough around the edges. Since the Territory was organized, we have[Pg 250] been living a life of constant turmoil, jumping from one issue to another so quickly that we haven’t had a moment to catch our breath. We need, more than anyone else on the planet, protection from disruptive experiments on new and questionable ideas. We can’t afford to jeopardize our future success and happiness with such a dubious innovation. We want peace, and we need it. So let Massachusetts or New York, or some other older state, try this unpleasant approach. If it doesn’t harm them, or if it turns out to be beneficial, we guarantee that Kansas won’t take long to embrace it. But the constitution of our state, if we may put it that way, is still too fragile and feverish to handle such a terrifying challenge.
REMINISCENCES BY HELEN EKIN STARRETT.
After the first Constitutional Convention in which Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols did such valuable service for the cause of woman, the question of woman suffrage in some shape or other was introduced into every succeeding Legislature. In January, 1867, the Legislature met at Topeka. Immediately upon the organization of the Senate on the 9th, Hon. B. F. Simpson of Miami Co., introduced an amendment to strike the word "white" from the suffrage clause of the State Constitution. Hon. S. N. Wood, Senator from Chase Co., within five minutes introduced a resolution to strike the word "male" from the same clause. This resolution was made the special order for Thursday the 10th, when it passed the Senate by a vote of nineteen to five. Of the five noes, four were Republicans, the other a Democrat. Thus Mr. Wood, although he started second, got ahead in the passing of his resolution. The resolution of Hon. B. F. Simpson was referred to the committee of the whole. When it came up Hon. S. N. Wood moved to amend by also striking out the word "male," and in this shape it passed.
After the first Constitutional Convention, where Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols contributed significantly to the cause of women, the issue of women's suffrage was raised in every subsequent Legislature. In January 1867, the Legislature convened in Topeka. Right after the Senate was organized on the 9th, Hon. B. F. Simpson from Miami County proposed an amendment to remove the word "white" from the suffrage clause of the State Constitution. Within five minutes, Hon. S. N. Wood, Senator from Chase County, introduced a resolution to remove the word "male" from the same clause. This resolution was scheduled for discussion on Thursday the 10th, and it passed the Senate with a vote of nineteen to five. Of the five no votes, four were Republicans, and one was a Democrat. Therefore, Mr. Wood, even though he was second to introduce his proposal, succeeded in getting it passed first. Hon. B. F. Simpson's resolution was sent to the committee of the whole. When it was addressed, Hon. S. N. Wood moved to amend it by also removing the word "male," and with that amendment, it passed.
The House amended by striking out the amendment of Mr. Wood. The Senate, however, insisted on its re-instatement; the Democrats and a majority of the Republicans standing by Mr. Wood. The fight continued for over a month. The question came up in all stages and shapes from the House; but Mr. Wood was always ready for them with his woman suffrage amendment, and the Senate stood by him. The friends of negro suffrage tried hard to get him to yield and let their resolution through, but he was firm in his refusal, saying he advocated both, "but if we can have but one, let the negro wait." On the 12th day of February Hon. W. W. Updegraff, a member of the House and an ardent supporter of both woman and negro suffrage, went to Mr. Wood and urged a compromise. After a long discussion two separate resolutions were prepared by Mr. Wood, one for woman suffrage, the other for negro suffrage, and these Mr. Updegraff introduced into the House the same day. The next day the vote on the woman suffrage resolution came up and stood fifty-two to twenty-five. Not being a two-thirds vote, the resolution was lost.
The House made changes by removing Mr. Wood's amendment. However, the Senate insisted on putting it back; the Democrats and a majority of Republicans supported Mr. Wood. The battle went on for over a month. The issue came up in various forms from the House, but Mr. Wood was always prepared with his woman suffrage amendment, and the Senate backed him. Supporters of black suffrage worked hard to convince him to relent and let their resolution pass, but he firmly refused, stating he supported both, "but if we can have only one, let the black wait." On February 12th, Hon. W. W. Updegraff, a House member and a strong advocate for both woman and black suffrage, approached Mr. Wood and suggested a compromise. After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Wood drafted two separate resolutions, one for woman suffrage and the other for black suffrage, which Mr. Updegraff introduced into the House that same day. The following day, the vote on the woman suffrage resolution was held and resulted in fifty-two in favor and twenty-five against. Since it did not receive a two-thirds majority, the resolution failed.
On the 14th the negro suffrage resolution came up and passed by a vote of sixty-one to fourteen. The vote on woman suffrage was then re-considered, and after an assurance from Mr. Updegraff that negro suffrage could be secured in no other way, it passed by a vote of sixty-two to nineteen, getting[Pg 251] one more vote than negro suffrage. These resolutions were promptly reported to the Senate, and on motion of S. N. Wood, the woman suffrage resolution was passed by over a two-thirds vote. The negro suffrage resolution was amended, and after a bitter fight was passed. Thus these separate resolutions were both submitted to a vote of the people. The Legislature adjourned about the 12th of March. Hon. S. N. Wood immediately prepared a notice of a meeting to be held in Topeka on the 2d of April to organize a canvass for impartial suffrage without regard to sex or color. This was published in the State Record with the statement that it was by the request of Hon. S. N. Wood; it was copied by all the papers of the State. Mr. Wood, ex-Governor Robinson, and others, wrote to many prominent advocates East asking them to be present at the Topeka meeting. It was soon known that Lucy Stone and Henry B. Blackwell would be there, and a very great and general interest was aroused on the question.
On the 14th, the resolution for Black suffrage came up and passed with a vote of sixty-one to fourteen. The vote on women’s suffrage was then reconsidered, and after Mr. Updegraff assured everyone that Black suffrage wouldn’t be secured any other way, it passed with a vote of sixty-two to nineteen, getting[Pg 251] one more vote than Black suffrage. These resolutions were quickly reported to the Senate, and upon the motion of S. N. Wood, the women’s suffrage resolution was passed by a two-thirds majority. The Black suffrage resolution was amended and, after a tough battle, was passed. Therefore, both resolutions were submitted to a vote by the people. The Legislature adjourned around the 12th of March. Hon. S. N. Wood immediately prepared a notice for a meeting to be held in Topeka on April 2nd to organize a campaign for impartial suffrage, regardless of sex or color. This was published in the State Record at the request of Hon. S. N. Wood and was picked up by all the state’s newspapers. Mr. Wood, ex-Governor Robinson, and others wrote to many prominent advocates in the East, inviting them to attend the Topeka meeting. It soon became known that Lucy Stone and Henry B. Blackwell would be there, generating significant interest in the issue.
April 2d at length arrived, and although it was a season of terrible mud and rain, and there were no railroads, a very large audience assembled. Hon. S. N. Wood rode eighty miles on horseback to attend the meeting. Lucy Stone and Mr. Blackwell were present. A permanent organization was effected, with Governor S. J. Crawford as President; Lieutenant-Governor Green, Vice-President; Rev. Lewis Bodwell and Miss Mary Paty, Recording Secretaries; and S. N. Wood, Corresponding Secretary. A letter was at once prepared and addressed to all the prominent men in the State, asking them to aid in the canvass. Letters in reply poured in from the gentlemen addressed, giving assurance of sympathy and declaring themselves in favor of the movement. A thorough canvass of the State was at once inaugurated. Lucy Stone was invited and lectured in Lawrence, Leavenworth, Topeka, and Atchison, to crowded houses, giving the proceeds to the cause.
April 2nd finally arrived, and even though it was a time of awful mud and rain, and there were no railroads, a very large crowd showed up. Hon. S. N. Wood traveled eighty miles on horseback to attend the meeting. Lucy Stone and Mr. Blackwell were there. A permanent organization was formed, with Governor S. J. Crawford as President; Lieutenant-Governor Green as Vice-President; Rev. Lewis Bodwell and Miss Mary Paty as Recording Secretaries; and S. N. Wood as Corresponding Secretary. A letter was quickly prepared and sent to all the prominent men in the State, asking them to support the campaign. Replies came pouring in from the gentlemen addressed, expressing their support and saying they were in favor of the movement. A thorough campaign across the State was immediately launched. Lucy Stone was invited to speak and gave lectures in Lawrence, Leavenworth, Topeka, and Atchison, drawing big crowds and donating the proceeds to the cause.
Hon. S. N. Wood gave his whole time to the canvass, speaking with Lucy Stone and Mr. Blackwell in nearly all the towns in the western and northern part of the State. Mrs. Stone and Mr. Blackwell visited nearly every organized county. As we have said before, there were no railroads, and it was at an immense expense of bodily fatigue that they accomplished their journeys, often in the rudest conveyances and exposed to the raw, blustering winds of a Kansas spring. Their meetings, however, were "ovations." Men and women everywhere were completely won by the gentle, persuasive, earnest addresses of Lucy Stone, while their newly aroused interest was informed and strengthened by the logical arguments and irresistible facts of Mr. Blackwell.
Hon. S. N. Wood dedicated all his time to the campaign, speaking alongside Lucy Stone and Mr. Blackwell in almost every town in the western and northern parts of the State. Mrs. Stone and Mr. Blackwell visited nearly every organized county. As mentioned before, there were no railroads, and it took a huge toll on their physical stamina to make their journeys, often using very basic transportation and facing the harsh, cold winds of a Kansas spring. However, their meetings were "ovations." Men and women everywhere were completely captivated by Lucy Stone's gentle, persuasive, and passionate speeches, while their newly sparked interest was further informed and strengthened by Mr. Blackwell's logical arguments and compelling facts.
The religious denominations in Kansas from the first gave their countenance to the movement, and clergymen of all denominations were found speaking in its favor. At Olathe, the Old School Presbytery was in session at the time of Lucy Stone's meeting there. It was an unheard-of occurrence that the body adjourned its evening session to allow her to occupy the church. All the members of the Presbytery who heard her were enthusiastic in her praise. We remember a meeting in Topeka at which the Rev. Dr. Ekin,[84] then pastor of the Old School Presbyterian church, very effectively summed up in a public address all the arguments of the opposition by relating the story of the Canadian Indian who, when told of the greatness of England,[Pg 252] and also that it was governed by a queen, a woman, turned away with an incredulous expression of contempt, exclaiming, "Ugh! Squaw!" The effect upon the audience was tremendous. At the same time letters of cheer and encouragement were pouring in from prominent workers all over the country. John Stuart Mill, of England, wrote to Hon. S. N. Wood full of hope and interest for the success of the movement:
The religious groups in Kansas initially supported the movement, and ministers from all backgrounds were speaking in its favor. At Olathe, the Old School Presbytery was meeting during Lucy Stone's event. It was unusual for them to pause their evening session to let her use the church. All the members of the Presbytery who listened to her were enthusiastic in their praise. We recall a meeting in Topeka where Rev. Dr. Ekin,[84] then pastor of the Old School Presbyterian church, effectively summarized all the arguments against the movement by sharing the story of a Canadian Indian who, after hearing about the greatness of England and that it was ruled by a queen, a woman, turned away with an incredulous and contemptuous look, exclaiming, "Ugh! Squaw!" The impact on the audience was immense. Meanwhile, letters of encouragement and support were flooding in from notable activists across the country. John Stuart Mill from England wrote to Hon. S. N. Wood, expressing hope and interest in the success of the movement:
Blackheath Park, Kent, England, June 2, 1867.
Blackheath Park, Kent, England, June 2, 1867.
Dear Sir: Being one who takes as deep and as continuous an interest in the political, moral, and social progress of the United States as if he were himself an American citizen, I hope I shall not be intrusive if I express to you as the executive organ of the Impartial Suffrage Association, the deep joy I felt on learning that both branches of the Legislature of Kansas had, by large majorities, proposed for the approval of your citizens an amendment to your constitution, abolishing the unjust political privileges of sex at one and the same stroke with the kindred privilege of color. We are accustomed to see Kansas foremost in the struggle for the equal claims of all human beings to freedom and citizenship. I shall never forget with what profound interest I and others who felt with me watched every incident of the preliminary civil war in which your noble State, then only a Territory, preceded the great nation of which it is a part, in shedding its blood to arrest the extension of slavery.
Dear Sir: As someone who cares deeply about the political, moral, and social progress of the United States, almost as if I were an American citizen myself, I hope I'm not being intrusive by expressing my great joy at learning that both chambers of the Kansas Legislature have, by large majorities, proposed an amendment to your constitution for the approval of your citizens. This amendment aims to eliminate the unfair political privileges based on sex, while also addressing the related issue of racial privilege in one fell swoop. We’ve come to expect Kansas to be at the forefront of the fight for equal rights for all individuals regarding freedom and citizenship. I will always remember how keenly I and others who shared my views observed every event during the early civil war when your brave State, then just a Territory, led the charge in shedding blood to stop the expansion of slavery for the greater nation it belongs to.
Kansas was the herald and protagonist of the memorable contest, which at the cost of so many heroic lives, has admitted the African race to the blessings of freedom and education, and she is now taking the same advanced position in the peaceful but equally important contest which, by relieving half the human race from artificial disabilities belonging to the ideas of a past age, will give a new impulse and improved character to the career of social and moral progress now opening for mankind. If your citizens, next November, give effect to the enlightened views of your Legislature, history will remember that one of the youngest States in the civilized world has been the first to adopt a measure of liberation destined to extend all over the earth, and to be looked back to (as is my fixed conviction) as one of the most fertile in beneficial consequences of all the improvements yet effected in human affairs. I am, sir, with the warmest wishes for the prosperity of Kansas,
Kansas was the leader and main character in the memorable battle that, at the cost of many brave lives, granted the African race the gifts of freedom and education. Now, it is taking the same proactive stance in the peaceful but equally significant struggle that, by freeing half the human race from outdated limitations, will energize and enhance the social and moral progress that is beginning for humanity. If your citizens support the progressive ideas of your Legislature next November, history will remember that one of the youngest States in the civilized world was the first to adopt a freeing measure meant to spread across the globe and will be seen (as I firmly believe) as one of the most beneficial changes in human affairs. I am, sir, extending my warmest wishes for the success of Kansas,
J. Stuart Mill.
J. Stuart Mill.
Yours very truly,
Yours very truly,
To S. N. Wood, Topeka, Kansas, U. S. A.
To S. N. Wood, Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A.
Rev. Olympia Brown came to Kansas the 1st of July, and made an effective and extensive canvass of the State, often holding three meetings a day. Other speakers, both from home and abroad, were vigorously engaged in the work, and the friends of the movement believed, not without cause, that Kansas would be the first State to grant suffrage to women. Had the election been held in May while the tide of public opinion ran so high in their favor, there is little doubt that both resolutions would have been carried unanimously. To explain the causes that led to the defeat of both propositions, I quote from a letter of Hon. S. N. Wood, in reply to questions addressed him as to certain facts of the campaign. He writes: "About May 2d, C. V. Eskridge of Emporia wrote a very scurrilous article against woman suffrage. It filled three columns of The News. In it he denounced the lady speakers[Pg 253] in the most abusive manner, ridiculing them with insulting epithets. About the middle of May F. H. Drenning, Chairman of the Republican State Committee, called a meeting of that committee to make arrangements to canvass the State for negro suffrage. The committee met and published an address in favor of manhood suffrage, and said nothing as to woman suffrage. Shortly afterwards the same committee summoned C. V. Eskridge, T. C. Sears, P. B. Plumb, I. D. Snoddy, B. F. Simpson, J. B. Scott, H. N. Bent, Jas. G. Blunt, A. Akin, and G. W. Crawford—all opposed to woman suffrage—to make a canvass for negro suffrage. They were instructed that "they would be allowed to express their own sentiments on other questions." This meant that these men would favor negro suffrage, but would oppose woman suffrage. This at once antagonized the two questions, and we all felt that the death blow had been struck at both."
Rev. Olympia Brown arrived in Kansas on July 1st and actively campaigned across the state, often holding three meetings a day. Other speakers, both local and from elsewhere, were also heavily involved, and supporters of the movement were rightfully optimistic that Kansas would be the first state to grant women the right to vote. If the election had taken place in May, when public opinion was strongly in their favor, it’s likely that both resolutions would have passed without opposition. To explain the reasons behind the defeat of both proposals, I’ll quote a letter from Hon. S. N. Wood, in response to inquiries about certain aspects of the campaign. He writes: "Around May 2nd, C. V. Eskridge from Emporia wrote a very derogatory article against woman suffrage, which took up three columns in The News. In it, he harshly criticized the female speakers[Pg 253], using insulting language. By mid-May, F. H. Drenning, Chairman of the Republican State Committee, called a meeting of that committee to plan a campaign for black suffrage. The committee convened and issued a statement supporting male suffrage, without mentioning woman suffrage at all. Soon after, the same committee summoned C. V. Eskridge, T. C. Sears, P. B. Plumb, I. D. Snoddy, B. F. Simpson, J. B. Scott, H. N. Bent, Jas. G. Blunt, A. Akin, and G. W. Crawford—all opponents of woman suffrage—to campaign for black suffrage. They were told that "they would be allowed to express their own opinions on other matters." This indicated that these men would support black suffrage while opposing woman suffrage. This immediately set the two issues against each other, and we all felt that a significant blow had been dealt to both."
Early in September, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony came to the State to assist in the canvass; and certainly if indefatigable labor and eloquent addresses could have repaired the mischief done by the State Republican Committee, the cause would yet have triumphed. At all places where they spoke they had crowded houses, and everywhere made the warmest friends by their truly admirable personal qualities.[85] The amount of work performed by these two ladies was immense. Mrs. Stanton, escorted by Ex-Gov. Robinson spoke in nearly every county of the State. Miss Anthony[Pg 254] remained at Lawrence working indefatigably in planning and advertising meetings, distributing tracts, sending posters to different places, and attending to all the minutiæ and drudgery of an extensive campaign. Often have I regarded with admiration the self-sacrificing spirit with which she arranged matters for others, did the hard and disagreeable work, and then saw others carry off the honor and glory, without once seeming to think of her services or the recognition due them.[86]
Early in September, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony arrived in the state to help with the campaign; and surely, if tireless effort and impactful speeches could have fixed the damage done by the State Republican Committee, the cause would have succeeded. Everywhere they spoke, they drew large crowds and made strong friendships thanks to their genuinely admirable personal qualities.[85] The amount of work these two women did was huge. Mrs. Stanton, accompanied by Ex-Gov. Robinson, spoke in almost every county in the state. Miss Anthony[Pg 254] stayed in Lawrence, working tirelessly on organizing and promoting meetings, distributing pamphlets, sending posters to various places, and handling all the details and hard work of a large campaign. I have often admired her selfless attitude as she managed everything for others, took on the difficult and unpleasant tasks, and then watched as others received the credit and accolades, without ever seeming to think about her contributions or the recognition they deserved.[86]
In a letter, summing up the campaign, Hon. S. N. Wood said, "On the 25th of September, an address was published signed by over forty men, the most prominent in the State; such men as Senator Pomeroy, Senator Ross, Gov. Crawford, Lt. Gov. Green, Ex-Gov. Robinson, and others, in favor of woman suffrage, but the cause of both began to lag. Sears, Eskridge, Kalloch, Plumb, Simpson, Scott, Bent, and others, made a very bitter campaign against woman suffrage. About the middle of October George Francis Train commenced a canvass of the State for woman suffrage and the questions became more and more antagonized. The last few days a regular Kilkenny fight was carried on." I will here take occasion to record that several of the gentlemen who then canvassed the State against woman suffrage have since announced a reconsideration of their views; some of them have even stated that were the question to come up again they would publicly advocate it.
In a letter summarizing the campaign, Hon. S. N. Wood stated, "On September 25th, an address was published signed by over forty prominent men in the State, including Senator Pomeroy, Senator Ross, Gov. Crawford, Lt. Gov. Green, Ex-Gov. Robinson, and others, in support of woman suffrage, but the cause for both started to lose momentum. Sears, Eskridge, Kalloch, Plumb, Simpson, Scott, Bent, and others, ran a very aggressive campaign against woman suffrage. Around mid-October, George Francis Train began traveling across the State to promote woman suffrage, and the controversy intensified. In the last few days, there was a full-blown battle. I would like to mention that several of the individuals who campaigned against woman suffrage at that time have since changed their views; some have even said that if the issue comes up again, they would support it publicly."
An address was prepared by the Woman's Impartial Suffrage Association of Lawrence[87] which was widely circulated and copied even in England. This address was signed by a large number of the prominent ladies of Lawrence. Miss Anthony often said that Lawrence was the headquarters of the movement. Every clergyman, every judge, both the papers and a large proportion of the prominent citizens were in favor of it. And with our State University located here with over three hundred students, one half of whom are ladies, we still claim Lawrence as the headquarters of the friends of woman suffrage.
An address was created by the Woman's Impartial Suffrage Association of Lawrence[87] that was widely shared and even copied in England. This address was signed by many notable women of Lawrence. Miss Anthony often stated that Lawrence was the center of the movement. Every clergyman, every judge, along with both the newspapers and a significant number of the prominent citizens supported it. With our State University located here, hosting over three hundred students, half of whom are women, we still consider Lawrence the headquarters of the advocates for women's suffrage.
The work of George Francis Train has been much and variously commented upon. Certainly when he was in Kansas he was at the height of his prosperity and popularity, and in appearance, manners and conversation, was a perfect, though somewhat unique specimen of a courtly, elegant gentleman. He was full of enthusiasm and confident he would be the next President. He drew immense and enthusiastic audiences everywhere, and was a special favorite with the laboring classes on account of the reforms[Pg 255] he promised to bring about when he should be President. Well do I remember one poor woman, a frantic advocate of woman suffrage, who button-holed everybody who spoke a word against Train to beg them to desist; assuring them "that he was the special instrument of Providence to gain for us the Irish vote."
The work of George Francis Train has been discussed a lot in different ways. When he was in Kansas, he was at the peak of his success and popularity. In terms of looks, manners, and conversation, he was a perfect, yet somewhat unique example of a refined and classy gentleman. He was full of enthusiasm and believed he would be the next President. He attracted large and excited audiences everywhere and was especially popular among the working class because of the reforms[Pg 255] he promised to implement once he became President. I vividly remember a desperate woman, a passionate supporter of women's suffrage, who cornered anyone who spoke against Train, pleading with them to stop, assuring them "that he was the special instrument of Providence to secure the Irish vote for us."
Both propositions got about 10,000 votes, and both were defeated. After the canvass the excitement died away and the Suffrage Associations fell through, but the seed sown has silently taken root and sprung up everywhere. Or rather, the truths then spoken, and the arguments presented, sinking into the minds and hearts of the men and women who heard them, have been like leaven, slowly but surely operating until it seems to many that nearly the whole public sentiment of Kansas is therewith leavened. A most liberal sentiment prevails everywhere toward women. Many are engaged in lucrative occupations. In several counties ladies have been elected superintendents of public schools. In Coffey County, the election of Mary P. Wright, was contested on the ground that by the Constitution a woman was ineligible to the office. The case was decided by the Supreme Court in her favor. By our laws women vote on all school questions and avail themselves very extensively of the privilege. Our property laws are conceded to be the most just to women of any State in the Union. It is believed by many that were the question of woman suffrage again submitted to the people it would be carried by an overwhelming majority.
Both proposals received about 10,000 votes each and were both rejected. After the canvass, the excitement faded, and the Suffrage Associations dissolved, but the ideas shared have quietly taken root and emerged all over. More accurately, the truths spoken and arguments presented have sunk into the minds and hearts of those who heard them, acting like leaven—slowly but steadily influencing public opinion until it seems that nearly everyone in Kansas supports these ideas. There’s a very progressive attitude towards women everywhere. Many are involved in well-paying jobs. In several counties, women have been elected as public school superintendents. In Coffey County, the election of Mary P. Wright was contested on the basis that the Constitution stated a woman could not hold the office. The Supreme Court ruled in her favor. Under our laws, women can vote on all school issues and they widely exercise that right. Our property laws are considered the fairest to women of any State in the Union. Many believe that if the issue of woman suffrage were presented to the public again, it would pass by a significant majority.
The following letter from Susan E. Wattles, the widow of the pioneer, Augustus Wattles, shows woman's interest in the great struggle to make Kansas the banner State of universal freedom and franchise.
The following letter from Susan E. Wattles, the widow of the pioneer, Augustus Wattles, illustrates a woman's interest in the significant effort to make Kansas the leading state for universal freedom and voting rights.
Mound City, December 30, 1881.
Mound City, December 30, 1881.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—Here, as in New York, the first in the woman suffrage cause were those who had been the most earnest workers for freedom. They had come to Kansas to prevent its being made a slave State. The most the women could do was to bear their privations patiently, such as living in a tent in a log cabin, without any floor all winter, or in a cabin ten feet square, and cooking out of doors by the side of a log, giving up their beds to the sick, and being ready, night or day, to feed the men who were running for their lives. Then there was the ever present fear that their husbands would be shot. The most obnoxious had a price set upon their heads. A few years ago a man said: "I could have got $1,000 once for shooting Wattles, and I wish now I had done it." When in Ohio, our house was often the temporary home of the hunted slave; but in Kansas it was the white man who ran from our door to the woods because he saw strangers coming.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—Here, just like in New York, the leaders in the woman suffrage movement were those who had been the most dedicated advocates for freedom. They came to Kansas to stop it from becoming a slave state. The most the women could do was endure their hardships silently, like living in a tent or a log cabin with no floor all winter, or in a cramped ten-foot square cabin, cooking outdoors next to a log, giving up their beds for the sick, and being ready, day or night, to feed the men who were fleeing for their lives. There was also the constant fear that their husbands would be shot. The most hated individuals had prices on their heads. A few years ago, a man said: "I could have gotten $1,000 for shooting Wattles, and I wish I had done it." When we were in Ohio, our home was often a temporary refuge for runaway slaves; but in Kansas, it was the white man who fled from our door into the woods because he spotted strangers approaching.
After the question of a free State seemed settled, we who had thought and talked on woman's rights before we came to Kansas, concluded that now was the woman's hour. We determined to strive to obtain Constitutional rights, as they would be more secure than Legislative enactments. On the 13th of February, 1858, we organized the Moneka Woman's Rights Society. There were only twelve of us, but we went to work circulating petitions and writing to every one in the Territory whom we thought would aid us. Our number was afterwards increased to forty; fourteen of them were men. We sent[Pg 256] petitions to Territorial Legislatures, Constitutional Conventions, State Legislatures, and Congress. Many of the leading men were advocates of women's rights. Governor Robinson, S. N. Wood, and Erastus Heath, with their wives, were constant and efficient workers. Mrs. Robinson wrote a book on "Life in Kansas." "Allibone's Dictionary of Authors" says: "Mrs. Robinson is an accomplished lady, the wife of Governor Robinson. She possessed the knowledge of events and literary skill necessary to produce an interesting and trustworthy book, and one which will continue to have a permanent value. The women of Kansas suffered more than the men, and were not less heroic. Their names are not known; they were not elected to office; they had none of the exciting delights of an active out-door life on these attractive prairies; they endured in silence; they took care of the home, of the sick. If 'home they brought her warrior dead, she nor swooned nor uttered sigh.' It is fortunate that a few of these truest heroes have left a printed record of pioneer life in Kansas."
After the question of a free State seemed resolved, those of us who had thought and talked about women's rights before arriving in Kansas decided that this was women's moment. We were determined to fight for Constitutional rights, as they would be more secure than Legislative acts. On February 13, 1858, we established the Moneka Woman's Rights Society. There were only twelve of us, but we got to work circulating petitions and reaching out to everyone in the Territory whom we thought could support us. Eventually, our group grew to forty members, fourteen of whom were men. We sent[Pg 256] petitions to Territorial Legislatures, Constitutional Conventions, State Legislatures, and Congress. Many prominent men supported women's rights. Governor Robinson, S. N. Wood, and Erastus Heath, along with their wives, were dedicated and effective advocates. Mrs. Robinson wrote a book about "Life in Kansas." "Allibone's Dictionary of Authors" states: "Mrs. Robinson is an accomplished lady, the wife of Governor Robinson. She had the knowledge of events and literary talent needed to create an interesting and reliable book, one that will continue to hold lasting value. The women of Kansas suffered more than the men and were equally heroic. Their names are not well-known; they weren't elected to office; they had none of the exciting joys of outdoor life on these beautiful prairies; they endured quietly; they managed the home and cared for the sick. If 'home they brought her warrior dead, she neither swooned nor uttered sigh.' It's fortunate that a few of these true heroes have left behind a documented account of pioneer life in Kansas."
The last vigorous effort we made in circulating petitions was when Congress was about extending to the colored men the right to vote. Many signed then for the first time. One woman said, "I know my husband does not believe in women voting, but he hates the negroes, and would not want them placed over me." I saw in The Liberator that a bequest to the woman's rights cause had been made by a gentleman in Boston, and I asked Wendell Phillips if we could have some of it in Kansas. He directed me to Susan B. Anthony, and you gave us $100. This small sum we divided between two lecturers, and paying for tracts. John O. Wattles lectured and distributed tracts in Southern Kansas. We were greatly rejoiced when we found, by corresponding with Mrs. Nichols, that she intended to work for our cause whether she had any compensation or not. Kansas women can never be half thankful enough for what she did for them. There has never been a time since, when the same amount of effort would have accomplished as much; and the little money we gave her could scarcely have paid her stage fare.
The last strong push we made to gather petitions was when Congress was about to give the right to vote to Black men. Many people signed for the first time. One woman said, "I know my husband doesn’t believe in women voting, but he hates Black people and wouldn’t want them to have more power than me." I saw in The Liberator that a man in Boston had left money to support the women’s rights movement, so I asked Wendell Phillips if we could get some of it in Kansas. He directed me to Susan B. Anthony, and you sent us $100. We split this small amount between two speakers and used some for pamphlets. John O. Wattles gave lectures and handed out pamphlets in Southern Kansas. We were thrilled when we learned through Mrs. Nichols that she was willing to work for our cause without any compensation. The women of Kansas can never be grateful enough for all she did for them. There hasn't been a time since when the same level of effort would have achieved as much, and the little money we gave her could barely cover her travel costs.
When the question was submitted in 1867, and the men were to decide whether women should be allowed to vote, we felt very anxious about the result. We strongly desired to make Kansas the banner State for Freedom. We did all we could to secure it, and some of the best speakers from the East came to our aid. Their speeches were excellent, and were listened to by large audiences, who seemed to believe what they heard; but when voting day came, they voted according to their prejudices, and our cause was defeated. My work has been very limited. I have only been able to talk and circulate tracts and papers. I took The Una, The Lily, The Sybil, The Pittsburg Visitor, The Revolution, Woman's Journal, Ballot Box, and National Citizen; got all the subscribers I could, and scattered them far and near. When I gave away The Revolution, my husband said, "Wife, that is a very talented paper; I should think you would preserve that." I replied: "They will continue to come until our cause is won, and I must make them do all the good they can." I am delighted with the "Suffrage History." I do not think you can find material to make the second volume as interesting. I knew of most of the incidents as they transpired, yet they are full of interest and significance to me now. My book is now lent where I think it will be highly appreciated.
When the question was raised in 1867 about whether women should be allowed to vote, we felt very anxious about the outcome. We really wanted Kansas to be the leading state for Freedom. We did everything we could to make that happen, and some of the best speakers from the East came to help us. Their speeches were outstanding and attracted large audiences who seemed to believe what they heard; but when voting day arrived, they voted based on their biases, and our cause was defeated. My efforts have been quite limited. I've only been able to talk and distribute tracts and papers. I took The Una, The Lily, The Sybil, The Pittsburg Visitor, The Revolution, Woman's Journal, Ballot Box, and National Citizen; gathered as many subscribers as I could, and spread them far and wide. When I gave away The Revolution, my husband said, "Wife, that's a very impressive paper; I would think you would keep that." I replied, "They will keep coming until our cause is won, and I need to make sure they do as much good as possible." I'm really pleased with the "Suffrage History." I don’t think you can find material to make the second volume as engaging. I was aware of most of the events as they happened, yet they are still full of interest and meaning for me now. My book is currently lent out where I believe it will be greatly valued.
Mrs. R. S. Tenney, M.D., one of the most earnest and efficient women of Lawrence, adds another testimony to the spirit of that historic canvass:
Mrs. R. S. Tenney, M.D., one of the most dedicated and capable women in Lawrence, contributes another account to the spirit of that historic campaign:
Independence, Kansas, Nov. 23, 1881.
Independence, Kansas, Nov. 23, 1881.
Dear Miss Anthony:—So you and Mrs. Stanton are about to burn at the stake the injustice of the men and measures of Kansas in 1867, and would like me to help pile on the fagots, which I will most gladly do, believing it right that the wrong and wickedness of every clime and nation should be stabbed or burned till they are entirely dead. While the opponents of woman suffrage in 1867 thought they had achieved a great victory, it was only an overwhelming defeat for a future day, a day when Col. John A. Martin, Judge T. C. Sears, Col. D. W. Houston, G. H. Hoyt, then Attorney-General, Col. J. D. Snoddy, Benj. F. Simpson, Hon. P. B. Plumb, Jacob Stottler, Rev. S. E. McBurney, of the Methodist church, and Rev. I. S. Kalloch, of the Baptist, and a host of others I might mention, will be ashamed of the position which they occupied, and the doctrines they advocated.
Dear Miss Anthony:—So you and Mrs. Stanton are about to bring attention to the injustice of the men and policies in Kansas in 1867, and you want my help to add to the efforts, which I will gladly do, believing it’s right to confront and eliminate the wrongs and evils from every land and nation. While those against women’s suffrage in 1867 thought they had won a significant victory, it was just a major defeat for the future—a future where Col. John A. Martin, Judge T. C. Sears, Col. D. W. Houston, G. H. Hoyt, then Attorney-General, Col. J. D. Snoddy, Benj. F. Simpson, Hon. P. B. Plumb, Jacob Stottler, Rev. S. E. McBurney of the Methodist Church, Rev. I. S. Kalloch of the Baptist Church, and many others I could name will look back and be ashamed of their stance and the beliefs they supported.
Although the question of woman suffrage was submitted to the people by a Republican Legislature, prominent Republicans refused to recognize it as a party measure, and the consideration the Legislature bestowed upon the intelligent wives and mothers of the young commonwealth, was evidenced by associating them in a bill with ex-slaves and traitors. Rev. Richard Cordley said that "if the women had waited till the negroes were enfranchised, he would have worked for their cause most heartily." As though women were the arbiters of their own fate; had convened in legislative assembly and submitted their own case to the people. Revs. McBurney and Kalloch, C. V. Eskridge and Judge Sears were in the field working with might and main against woman suffrage; while Gov. Crawford was President of the Impartial Suffrage Association of the State, and Judge Wood, Secretary. Such old time radicals as Hon. Chas. Robinson, the first Free State Governor of Kansas, worked hard and well. Prof. John Horner, Senator Ross, Rev. Wm. Starrett, Mr. J. M. Chase, and many others also did good work. Hon. Sidney Clark left his post in the House of Representatives at Washington, and canvassed the State for a re-election, having it in his power to say many things and do much good for the cause of woman, but he did it not. He returned to his own city, Lawrence, to make his last great speech on the eve of election, to find to his great consternation, that the only hall had been engaged by the President of the Woman Suffrage Association of the city for a meeting of their party on that eve. In vain did the honorable gentleman and his friends strive to get possession of that hall. It was paid for and booked to R. S. Tenney. Poor Sidney then sought permission to address their woman suffrage audience, but being refused, he was obliged to betake himself to a dry-goods box in the street, where he tried to interest the rabble, while Col. Horner, Rev. Mr. Starrett, and others, had a fine, large audience in the hall.
Although the issue of women's suffrage was brought to the public by a Republican Legislature, many prominent Republicans refused to see it as a party initiative. The Legislature's approach to the educated wives and mothers of the young commonwealth was evident in lumping them together with former slaves and traitors in a bill. Rev. Richard Cordley stated that "if the women had waited until the Black citizens were granted the right to vote, he would have supported their cause wholeheartedly." As if women were in charge of their own destiny; as if they had gathered in a legislative assembly and presented their own case to the public. Revs. McBurney and Kalloch, C. V. Eskridge, and Judge Sears actively campaigned against women's suffrage, while Gov. Crawford served as President of the Impartial Suffrage Association of the State and Judge Wood was the Secretary. Notable radicals like Hon. Chas. Robinson, the first Free State Governor of Kansas, worked tirelessly for the cause. Prof. John Horner, Senator Ross, Rev. Wm. Starrett, Mr. J. M. Chase, and many others also contributed significantly. Hon. Sidney Clark left his position in the House of Representatives in Washington and campaigned in the State for re-election, knowing he could have said much and done a lot for women’s rights, but he chose not to. He returned to his city, Lawrence, to give his final big speech the night before the election, only to find, to his dismay, that the only hall available had been booked by the President of the Woman Suffrage Association for their party meeting that night. Despite the honorable gentleman and his friends trying unsuccessfully to gain access to the hall, it was reserved and paid for by R. S. Tenney. Poor Sidney then asked to speak to the women's suffrage audience but was denied, so he had to stand on a dry-goods box in the street, attempting to engage the crowd, while Col. Horner, Rev. Mr. Starrett, and others had a large, attentive audience inside the hall.
It is to be greatly regretted that the Republican party that had accomplished such great good when the nation was in its hour of trouble, should have allowed such discord to enter its ranks and thereby defeat both woman and negro suffrage. But Kansans have made great progress since 1867, and many who voted against the proposition then would to-day vote and work heartily for it, and doubtless, if submitted again it would be carried[Pg 258] by a large majority. A recent conversation with Ex-Gov. Potter, who voted against it, confirms this opinion, and Senator Plumb is softening. A noticeable feature of the meetings of the political campaign of 1880, was the presence of large numbers of women. On the eve of the election, at a full meeting in the largest hall in this place, a woman surprised the people by asking the chairman's permission to speak, and amid rounds of applause, poured forth such sentiments as compelled quite a number of prominent Republican men to declare themselves in favor of woman suffrage, an issue which was voluntarily recommended by many speakers in both Democratic and Greenback meetings. Gov. J. P. St. John is now making himself heard in his temperance speeches in favor of woman suffrage. The recent passage of the Prohibitory Amendment is significant that our people are awake and ready to welcome the greatest good to the greatest number, which means equal rights to all at an early day.
It's really unfortunate that the Republican Party, which did so much good during the nation's toughest times, has let so much conflict arise within its ranks and thus hinder both women's and Black suffrage. However, Kansans have made significant progress since 1867, and many who opposed the proposition back then would now enthusiastically support and advocate for it. If it were put to a vote again, it would likely pass by a large majority[Pg 258]. A recent discussion with Ex-Gov. Potter, who was against it, supports this view, and Senator Plumb is starting to come around. A notable aspect of the 1880 political campaign meetings was the large number of women who attended. On the night before the election, during a packed meeting in the biggest hall here, a woman astonished the crowd by asking the chairman for permission to speak. Amid loud applause, she expressed views that led several prominent Republican men to publicly declare their support for women's suffrage, a subject that many speakers in both Democratic and Greenback events recommended. Gov. J. P. St. John is now voicing his support for women's suffrage in his temperance speeches. The recent passing of the Prohibitory Amendment shows that our people are alert and ready to embrace the greatest good for the greatest number, which means equal rights for everyone soon.
R. S. Tenney.
R. S. Tenney.
March 14, 1882.
March 14, 1882.
Dear Friends:—God bless the women that worked for woman's suffrage in Kansas! Foremost among those who were residents of the State was Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols, of Wyandotte, and to her, more than all other Kansas women, was due the influence which gave woman even the small recognition in the constitution under which the State was admitted, above what is found in other State constitutions of the nation; for this Mrs. Nichols labored with the zeal and heroism born of a great noble heart, whose every pulsation is for humanity in the elevation of woman to her proper political as well as social position. It was largely through her instrumentality that such God-ordained women as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, and Olympia Brown, came to Kansas as eloquent missionaries in the great work of attempting to give the women of this State the legal right to vote with their husbands, sons and brothers. And though, through the opposition of unwise and prejudiced men, the desired majority for woman's suffrage was not then obtained; the seed sown by these self-sacrificing angels of humanity will yet bring forth most glorious results. The efforts of the Hutchinson troupe of sweet singers in this direction will not be forgotten. John, the patriarch, with his bright son Henry and beautiful daughter Viola, made a musical trio whose soul-stirring songs were only excelled in purity of thought and delightful harmony of execution, by their intense, whole-hearted desire that the cause for which they prayed and sang with so much earnestness might be crowned with success. Mr. Henry B. Blackwell, Lucy Stone's husband, was indefatigable in his efforts, working early and late for the good cause. Of the women of the State of Kansas who were active, a large number of names might be given.[88] But Kansas best remembers and most honors in the remembrance, those women who left their comfortable and elegant homes on the Atlantic slope, and with no hope of reward save the consciousness of having worked for God and humanity, traveled over the then wild prairies[Pg 259] of Kansas in all sorts of rude vehicles, talking in groves, school-houses, and cabins, eating and sleeping as pioneers sleep and eat, for weeks and months, making the beautiful rolling prairies, filled with fertile valleys and flowery knolls, vocal with their eloquent, earnest appeals in behalf of woman's rights and against woman's wrongs; and through the vote carried for woman's wrongs the fervid, eloquent words then uttered by woman's tongue, welling up as they did from noble hearts heated to redness in the furnace of love for human justice, left an influence which has steadily and surely increased, and will thus continue until Kansas shall give woman equal rights and privileges with man.
Dear Friends:—God bless the women who fought for women's suffrage in Kansas! Leading the charge was Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols from Wyandotte, who played a crucial role in securing even the minimal recognition of women in the state's constitution, more so than in other states in the nation. Mrs. Nichols worked with the passion and bravery of a truly noble heart, dedicated to advancing humanity and elevating women to their rightful political and social status. It was largely thanks to her efforts that remarkable women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, and Olympia Brown arrived in Kansas as passionate advocates for granting women the legal right to vote alongside their husbands, sons, and brothers. Although opposing forces of unwise and biased men prevented the majority needed for women's suffrage at that time, the seeds planted by these selfless champions of humanity will eventually lead to great outcomes. The contributions of the Hutchinson group of talented singers will always be remembered. John, the patriarch, along with his son Henry and daughter Viola, formed a musical trio whose inspiring songs were matched only by their sincere wish for success in the cause they fervently supported. Mr. Henry B. Blackwell, Lucy Stone's husband, tirelessly dedicated himself to the cause, working late into the night. Many women from Kansas could be named for their activism.[88] But Kansas especially remembers and honors those women who left their comfortable homes on the East Coast, motivated only by the desire to work for God and humanity. They traveled across the untamed prairies[Pg 259] of Kansas in various rough vehicles, speaking in groves, schoolhouses, and cabins, living like pioneers for weeks and months. They made the beautiful rolling plains, filled with fertile valleys and flowery knolls, resonate with their passionate and sincere calls for women's rights and against injustices faced by women. The powerful, heartfelt words spoken by these women, fueled by their deep love for justice, have left an enduring impact that will continue to grow until Kansas grants women equal rights and benefits alongside men.
J. P. Root.
J. P. Root.
Sincerely yours,
Sincerely yours,
Racine, Wisconsin, March 16, 1882.
Racine, Wisconsin, March 16, 1882.
Dear Susan:—You ask me to write an account of my experiences in Kansas; with unquestioning obedience I attempt what you require, although many records and documents are wanting which should have been kept, had I anticipated your command. But when in Kansas, I no more thought of appearing in history, than the butterfly flitting from flower to flower thinks of being dried and put in a museum.
Dear Susan:—You’ve asked me to share my experiences in Kansas; without hesitation, I’m trying to fulfill your request, even though many records and documents that should have been kept are missing, as I didn’t expect you would ask for them. But when I was in Kansas, I didn’t think about being part of history any more than a butterfly flitting from flower to flower thinks about getting dried and put in a museum.
I have never kept a diary, have never counted the number of miles I have traveled, the meals eaten, calls made, pages written, or words spoken. I have tried to do the pressing duty of each hour, leaving the results and records to take care of themselves. You will not, therefore, be surprised that I am unable to furnish even the "round unvarnished tale," but must be content with glimpses as memory, after the lapse of fourteen years, supplies them.
I’ve never kept a diary, never tracked how many miles I’ve traveled, meals I’ve eaten, calls I’ve made, pages I’ve written, or words I’ve spoken. I’ve focused on doing what needed to be done in each moment, letting the results and records sort themselves out. So, you won’t be surprised that I can’t provide even the “straightforward story,” but I’ll have to settle for snippets as my memory recalls them after fourteen years.
I am glad to have an opportunity, through your valuable history, of paying my respects to the good people whom I met in Kansas, few of whom I shall ever see again in this life, but whose earnest words go with me every day, a constant source of encouragement and of strength. It would be but justice to record the names of all those who gave generous aid and sympathy in the woman suffrage campaign of '67; brave pioneers they were, who had learned loyalty to principle through many bitter experiences; some of them had been friends and companions of brave old John Brown, and, trained in the great Anti-Slavery struggle, filled with the love of liberty, they knew how to stand for the right. But their names are recorded on high in letters of living light, and they little need our poor faltering testimony. "Their reward is with them, and their reward is sure." To-day, looking back over the years, Kansas is to me a memory of grand, rolling prairies stretching far away; of fertile fields; of beautiful osage orange hedges; of hospitable homes; of brave and earnest women; kind and true men; and of some of the most dishonest politicians the world has ever seen.
I’m thankful for the chance to pay my respects to the wonderful people I met in Kansas through your valuable history. I likely won’t see many of them again in this life, but their heartfelt words inspire me every day, providing constant encouragement and strength. It would be only fair to recognize the names of everyone who offered generous support and sympathy during the woman suffrage campaign of '67. They were brave pioneers who learned loyalty to their principles through many tough experiences; some were friends and companions of the courageous John Brown. Trained in the great Anti-Slavery struggle and filled with a passion for freedom, they knew how to stand up for what’s right. Their names, however, are written high in letters of living light, and they don’t really need our hesitant acknowledgment. "Their reward is with them, and their reward is sure." Today, looking back over the years, Kansas reminds me of grand, rolling prairies stretching far into the distance; fertile fields; beautiful osage orange hedges; welcoming homes; brave and earnest women; kind and genuine men; and some of the most dishonest politicians the world has ever seen.
I went to Kansas, through an arrangement made by Lucy Stone with leaders of the Republican party there, whereby they were to furnish comfortable conveyance over the State, with a lady as traveling companion, and also to arrange and preside over all the meetings; these were to be Republican meetings in which it was thought best that a woman should present the claims of the woman suffrage amendment, which had been submitted to the vote of the men of the State by a strongly Republican Legislature.[Pg 260]
I traveled to Kansas, thanks to an arrangement Lucy Stone made with Republican party leaders there. They were to provide comfortable transportation throughout the state, with a woman accompanying me, and also to organize and lead all the meetings. These would be Republican meetings where it was deemed important for a woman to advocate for the woman suffrage amendment that had been put to a vote by a strongly Republican Legislature.[Pg 260]
The Kansas Republicans so far complied with their part of this arrangement that on my arrival, the 1st of July, I found appointments made and thoroughly advertised for the whole of July and August; two lectures for every week day, and a preaching service for every Sunday. As it proved, these appointments were at great distances from each other, often requiring a journey of twenty, thirty, forty, and even fifty miles across a country scarcely settled at all, to reach some little village where there would be a school-house or some public building in which a meeting could be held. All were eager to hear, and the entire settlement would attend the lecture, thus giving an astonishingly large audience in proportion to the size of the place.
The Kansas Republicans have fulfilled their part of the agreement so that when I arrived on July 1st, I found schedules set and widely publicized for all of July and August; there were two lectures every weekday and a preaching service every Sunday. As it turned out, these events were spaced far apart, often requiring a trip of twenty, thirty, forty, or even fifty miles across a mostly unsettled area to reach some small village with a schoolhouse or public building where a meeting could take place. Everyone was eager to listen, and the entire community would show up for the lecture, creating an impressively large audience relative to the town's size.
The country was then new and public conveyances few, and the Republicans having failed to furnish the stipulated carriage and escort, the speaker was dependent almost entirely upon the people in each little place for the means to pursue the journey. Many a time some kind man, with a genuine chivalry worthy of the days of knighthood, has left his half-mown field or his sorghum boiling in the kettle, to escort the woman suffrage advocate to the next appointment; and although the road often seemed long and perilous and many an hour was spent in what appeared a hopeless endeavor to find our way over the almost trackless prairie, yet somehow we always came to the right place at last; and I scarcely recollect an instance of failure to meet an appointment from July 1st to Nov. 5th.
The country was new, and there were few public transportation options. Since the Republicans didn't provide the promised carriage and escort, the speaker had to rely mostly on people in each small town for the means to continue the journey. Many times, a kind person, showing a genuine sense of chivalry reminiscent of the days of knighthood, would leave his half-mown field or the sorghum boiling in the kettle to take the woman suffrage advocate to her next appointment. Even though the roads often felt long and dangerous, and many hours were spent seemingly trying to find our way across the nearly trackless prairie, we somehow always ended up in the right place. I can hardly recall a time when we failed to meet an appointment from July 1st to November 5th.
In those four months I traveled over the greater part of Kansas, held two meetings every day, and the latter part of the time three meetings every day, making in all between two and three hundred speeches, averaging an hour in length; a fact that tends to show that women can endure talk and travel at least, as well as men; especially when we recollect how the Hon. Sidney Clark, then candidate for Congress, canvassed, in the beautiful autumn weather, a small portion of the State which I had traveled over amid the burning heat of July and August; he spoke once a day instead of twice; he rested on Sundays; he had no anxiety about the means of travel, his conveyance being furnished at hand; he was supported by a large constituency, and expected to be rewarded by office and honors; yet with all these advantages, he broke down in health and was obliged to give up a part of his appointments, and the Republican papers said: "It was not strange, as no human being could endure without loss of health such constant speaking, with such long and tedious journeys as Mr. Clark had undertaken."
During those four months, I traveled across most of Kansas, held two meetings every day, and later even three meetings daily, totaling between two and three hundred speeches, each averaging about an hour long. This shows that women can handle talking and traveling just as well as men can. Especially when we remember that Hon. Sidney Clark, who was then running for Congress, campaigned in the lovely autumn weather over a small part of the state that I had covered during the scorching heat of July and August. He spoke once a day instead of twice, took Sundays off, had no worries about travel arrangements since his transportation was ready for him, had support from a large constituency, and expected to gain office and recognition. Yet despite all these advantages, he ended up breaking down in health and had to cancel some of his appointments. Republican newspapers commented, “It’s not surprising, as no one could manage such constant speaking and long, tiring journeys like Mr. Clark had undertaken without suffering health-wise.”
It is deemed, in certain quarters, wicked heresy to complain of or criticise the Republican party, that has done so much in freeing the slaves and in bringing the country victoriously through the war of the rebellion; but if there is to be any truth in history we must set it down, to stand forever a lasting disgrace to the party that in 1867, in Kansas, its leaders selfishly and meanly defeated the woman suffrage amendment.
It is considered, in some circles, a terrible heresy to criticize or complain about the Republican Party, which has done so much to free the slaves and lead the country through the Civil War successfully. However, if history is to be truthful, we must acknowledge that it will forever be a lasting disgrace for the party that, in 1867, in Kansas, its leaders selfishly and unfairly defeated the woman suffrage amendment.
As the time for the election drew nigh, those political leaders who had been relied upon as friends of the cause were silent, others were active in their opposition. The Central Committee issued a circular for the purpose of preventing loyal Republicans from voting for woman suffrage; not content with this, the notorious I. S. Kalloch, and others of the same stripe, were sent out under the auspices of the Republican party to blackguard[Pg 261] and abuse the advocates of woman's cause while professedly speaking upon "manhood suffrage." And Charles Langston, the negro orator, added his mite of bitter words to make the path a little harder for women, who had spent years in pleading the cause of the colored man.
As the election approached, the political leaders who were once seen as allies of the movement fell silent, while others actively opposed it. The Central Committee released a notice aimed at stopping loyal Republicans from voting for woman suffrage. Not satisfied with this, the infamous I. S. Kalloch and others like him were sent out under the banner of the Republican party to slander[Pg 261] and insult the advocates for women's rights, all while pretending to discuss "manhood suffrage." Charles Langston, the Black orator, also added his harsh words to further complicate things for women, who had spent years advocating for the rights of Black men.
And yet, with all the obstacles which the dominant party could throw in our way; without organization, without money, without political rewards to offer, without any of the means by which elections are usually carried, we gained one-third of all the votes cast! Surely it was a great triumph of principle; and had the leading Republicans, even one or two of them, stood boldly for the measure which they themselves had submitted, Kansas might have indeed been a "free State"; the first to enfranchise women; the advance guard in the great progressive movements of the time; and her leading politicians might have gone down in history as wise, far-seeing statesmen who loved principles better than office, and who gained the rewards of the world because they sought "first the kingdom of God and His righteousness." As it was, their favorite measure, "negro suffrage," was defeated for that time, and several of those who sold their birthright of truth and justice for a miserable mess of pottage in the shape of office and emoluments, lost even the poor reward for which they had trafficked.
And yet, despite all the obstacles the ruling party threw our way; without organization, without funds, without political incentives to offer, and lacking the usual resources for winning elections, we managed to secure a third of all the votes cast! This was definitely a significant victory for principle; had even just one or two of the leading Republicans genuinely supported the measure they proposed, Kansas could have truly become a "free State"; the first to grant women the right to vote; at the forefront of the major progressive movements of the time; and its leading politicians might have been remembered as wise, forward-thinking leaders who valued principles over their positions, gaining recognition because they sought "first the kingdom of God and His righteousness." Instead, their preferred measure, "black suffrage," was defeated at that time, and many of those who traded their birthright of truth and justice for a measly bowl of soup in the form of office and perks ended up losing even the small rewards they had bargained for.
As for us, the advocates of suffrage who labored there in that first woman's suffrage campaign, we have forgotten, in part, the bitterness of disappointment and defeat; we think no more of the long and wearisome journeys under the hot sun of southern Kansas; the anxiety and uncertainty; the nervous tremor when night has overtaken us wandering on the prairie, not knowing what terrible pitfalls might lie before; the mobs which sometimes made the little log school-house shake with their missiles; the taunts and jeers of the opposition; all this is passed, but the great principle of human rights which we advocated remains, commending itself more and more to the favor of all good men, confirmed by every year's experience, and destined at no distant day to find expression in law.
As for us, the supporters of suffrage who worked on that first women’s suffrage campaign, we have partly forgotten the pain of disappointment and failure; we no longer dwell on the long and exhausting travels under the hot sun of southern Kansas; the anxiety and uncertainty; the nervous shakes when night fell upon us as we wandered the prairie, unsure of what dangers might lie ahead; the mobs that sometimes made the little log schoolhouse tremble with their projectiles; the insults and taunts from the opposition; all of this is behind us, but the fundamental principle of human rights that we stood for remains, gaining more and more support from good people, reinforced by each year’s experiences, and destined soon to be expressed in law.
Olympia Brown.
Olympia Brown.
Sincerely Yours,
Sincerely Yours,
The day before the election immense meetings were held in all the chief cities. In Leavenworth Mr. Train spoke for two hours in Laing's Hall, and then took the evening train for Atchison. Mrs. Stanton entered the hall just as he left, and made only a short speech, reserving herself for the evening, when, Daniel R. Anthony in the chair, she made her final appeal to the voters of the State. She was followed by several of the leading gentlemen in short speeches, fully indorsing both amendments. The Bulletin, in speaking of the meeting, said:
The day before the election, huge rallies took place in all the major cities. In Leavenworth, Mr. Train spoke for two hours at Laing's Hall, and then caught the evening train to Atchison. Mrs. Stanton arrived at the hall just as he was leaving and gave a brief speech, saving her energy for later that evening. When Daniel R. Anthony was in the chair, she made her final appeal to the voters of the State. She was followed by several prominent gentlemen who gave short speeches fully supporting both amendments. The Bulletin commented on the meeting, saying:
Laing's Hall was crowded to overflowing last evening to listen to a discourse from Mrs. Stanton, on the main issues pending in this State, and to be decided to-day. The speech of Mrs. Stanton was mainly in behalf of female suffrage. Speeches were also made by Col. J. C. Vaughan, Col. Jennison, Col. Moonlight, and Col. Anthony. The best of feeling prevailed throughout.
Laing's Hall was packed last night for a talk by Mrs. Stanton about the key issues facing our State that were set to be decided today. Mrs. Stanton's speech focused primarily on women's voting rights. Speeches were also delivered by Col. J. C. Vaughan, Col. Jennison, Col. Moonlight, and Col. Anthony. Overall, there was a great atmosphere throughout the event.
Susan B. Anthony spoke to an equally large audience in Atchison, and Olympia Brown to another in an adjoining town.[Pg 262]
Susan B. Anthony spoke to a large crowd in Atchison, and Olympia Brown spoke to another group in a nearby town.[Pg 262]
The morning of the election two spacious barouches containing the several members of the Hutchinson family—John, his son Henry and daughter Viola; with Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Daniel R. and Mrs. J. Merritt Anthony, visited in succession the four polling booths in Leavenworth and addressed the voters in short, earnest speeches as to their duty as citizens. Mrs. Stanton made a special appeal to Irishmen, quoting to them the lofty sentiments of Edmund Burke on human liberty. She told them of visiting O'Connell in his own house, and attending one of his great repeal meetings, of his eloquent speech in the World's Anti-Slavery Convention, and his genial letters to Lucretia Mott, in favor of woman's right to vote. After three cheers for O'Connell, they shouted, "Go on, go on." The Hutchinsons then sang their stirring ballad, "The good time coming." The reception at each booth was respectful, and at the end of the speech or song there followed three hearty cheers for "woman suffrage."[89]
On the morning of the election, two large carriages filled with members of the Hutchinson family—John, his son Henry, and daughter Viola—along with Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Daniel R., and Mrs. J. Merritt Anthony, visited the four polling places in Leavenworth one after another. They spoke to the voters in brief, passionate speeches about their responsibilities as citizens. Mrs. Stanton made a particular appeal to the Irish, quoting Edmund Burke's noble thoughts on human freedom. She shared her experiences of visiting O'Connell at his home and attending one of his major repeal meetings, mentioning his powerful speech at the World's Anti-Slavery Convention and his warm letters to Lucretia Mott in support of women's voting rights. After three cheers for O'Connell, the crowd shouted, "Go on, go on." The Hutchinsons then performed their inspiring song, "The good time coming." The reception at each booth was respectful, and after each speech or song, there were three enthusiastic cheers for "woman suffrage."[89]
The Leavenworth Commercial of Nov. 14, 1867, had the following editorial:
The Leavenworth Commercial on November 14, 1867, published this editorial:
A Contrast.—Miss Susan B. Anthony and Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton left yesterday afternoon for St. Louis, from whence they go to Omaha, and from that place, in company with Geo. Francis Train, start on a general lecturing tour through the principal cities of the West and East. Their subject, of course, in all the places at which they will speak, will be, "Woman Suffrage"; and we believe they will speak with far more than ordinary encouragement. Kansas, the only State in which the subject was ever submitted—though under the most adverse of circumstances—has spoken in a manner which has rather nerved than dispirited these tried and faithful champions of their own sex.
A Contrast.—Miss Susan B. Anthony and Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton left yesterday afternoon for St. Louis, from where they will head to Omaha, and from that location, along with Geo. Francis Train, embark on a lecture tour through the main cities of the West and East. Their topic, of course, at all the locations where they will speak, will be "Woman Suffrage"; and we believe they will present with much more than usual encouragement. Kansas, the only state that has ever voted on the subject—despite the most unfavorable conditions—has responded in a way that has invigorated rather than discouraged these seasoned and dedicated advocates for their own gender.
The two propositions were submitted, in this State, under circumstances wholly dissimilar. While negro suffrage was specially championed and made the principal plank in the Republican party—made almost a test of membership and of loyalty to it and the government—female suffrage stood, not simply as an ignored proposition, but as one against which was arrayed all party organizations, whether Republican, Democratic or German. And yet, notwithstanding this ignoring of the question, notwithstanding the combined and active opposition of these powerful and controlling organizations, nearly as many votes were cast for female suffrage as for negro suffrage.
The two proposals were presented in this state under completely different circumstances. While Black suffrage was strongly supported and became a key issue for the Republican Party—almost a requirement for membership and loyalty to the party and the government—women's suffrage was not only overlooked but faced active opposition from all party groups, whether Republican, Democratic, or German. Yet, despite this disregard for the issue and the united and vigorous resistance from these influential organizations, nearly as many votes were cast for women's suffrage as for Black suffrage.
And if we go outside of our State, and take a look at the influences that[Pg 263] were brought to bear upon our citizens, the result seems still more striking and remarkable. On the side of negro suffrage stood Congress, and its policy in the South; also all the leading radical journals in the country, and that branch of the pulpit to which radicals had been taught to look for political wisdom as well as orthodox religious sermons. The whole enginery of the radical party, and of that party's tactics, was brought to bear upon the State. Party pride, party prejudices, and religious beliefs were each and all fervidly appealed to on behalf of negro suffrage. But in respect to woman suffrage, matters were far different. Even those in the East, whose eminence and eloquence had served to throw broadcast the ideas that it was sought to give form and reality to in this State, as the final testing hour neared, gradually withdrew their aid and counsel; and in a manner sympathiless and emotionless as marble statuary, from their calm Eastern retreats watched the unequal contest. When Stephen A. Douglas said he "didn't care a d——n whether slavery was voted up or voted down in Kansas," he but expressed in a forcible and emphatic manner the feelings of many of the Eastern "friends" of woman suffrage in the recent campaign. We repeat then, when we consider the many obstacles thrown in the way of the advocates of this measure, of the indifference with which the masses look upon anything new in government, and their indisposition to change, that the degree of success of these advocates is not only remarkable, but one in which they have a just right to feel proud and triumphant.
And if we look beyond our state and examine the influences that[Pg 263] affected our citizens, the outcome seems even more striking and noteworthy. On the side of Black suffrage stood Congress and its policies in the South, along with all the major radical newspapers in the country, and that part of the church that radicals had been taught to rely on for political insight as well as traditional religious sermons. The entire machinery of the radical party and its strategies were directed at the state. Pride in the party, party biases, and religious beliefs were all passionately appealed to in support of Black suffrage. However, when it came to women's suffrage, the situation was quite different. Even those in the East, whose prominence and eloquence had helped spread the ideas that were being shaped in this state, gradually withdrew their support and guidance as the final critical moment approached; from their calm Eastern homes, they watched the unfair contest with all the sympathy of cold marble statues. When Stephen A. Douglas said he "didn't care a d——n whether slavery was voted up or down in Kansas," he was expressing the strong feelings of many Eastern "friends" of women’s suffrage during the recent campaign. So, when we consider the numerous obstacles faced by the advocates of this measure, the indifference of the masses toward anything new in government, and their reluctance to change, we can see that the degree of success achieved by these advocates is not only remarkable but something they can justifiably feel proud and triumphant about.
And to these two ladies, to their indomitable wills and courage, to their eloquence and energies, is due much of the merit of the work performed in the State. We would not rob others of their glories, or their triumphs. Yet these two came to us as pioneers. Through the highways and byways of all the long years of their past lives we find the tracings of their deep earnestness and devotion to the principles which first found ways and means of development in Kansas. We find them giving utterance to these thoughts in the days of their first inception, and in words of burning eloquence closing the campaign which gave them over for decision and arbitrament to the great jury and final arbiter, the people. But in the recent election, as is well known, these ladies were not successful to the full extent of their wishes. They have the proud consciousness of knowing, however, that their work has been commensurate with the combined efforts of party organizations. Congressmen, Senators, presses, ministers, etc., and that the people of Kansas are not more averse to giving the franchise to woman than to the negro. With this evidence of the result of their efforts they can afford to wait, and, in the spirit of a Lowell, found their faith in the future, as when he says:—
And to these two women, their unstoppable determination and bravery, their eloquence and energy, is responsible for much of the credit for the work done in the State. We don’t want to take away from the achievements of others. Yet these two came to us as trailblazers. Throughout the winding paths of their long lives, we see traces of their deep commitment and devotion to the principles that initially found ways to grow in Kansas. We hear them expressing these ideas in the early days, and with passionate words, they closed the campaign that handed the decision over to the great jury and final judge, the people. However, in the recent election, it is well known that these women were not completely successful in achieving their goals. They take pride in knowing, though, that their work has matched the combined efforts of political parties. Congress members, Senators, newspapers, ministers, and others have contributed, and the people of Kansas are no less willing to grant women the right to vote than they are to African Americans. With this outcome of their efforts, they can afford to be patient and, in the spirit of Lowell, trust in the future, as he says:—
But humanity sweeps onward! where to-day the martyr stands,
On the morrow crouches Judas with the silver in his hands.
Far in front the cross stands ready, and the crackling fragments burn,
While the hooting mob of yesterday in silent awe return,
To glean up the scattered ashes into history's golden urn.
And again—
And again—
Careless seems the great avenger; history's pages but record
One death-struggle in the grapple 'twixt old systems and the Word.[Pg 264]
Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne;
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God in the darkness keeping watch above His own.
After speaking in all the chief cities from Leavenworth to New York,[90] Mrs. Stanton and Miss Susan B. Anthony turned their attention to the establishment in the city of New York of a woman suffrage paper, called The Revolution.[91] The funds for this enterprise were provided by two Democrats, David Melliss, the financial editor of the World, and George Francis Train. The editors were Parker Pillsbury and Elizabeth Cady Stanton; the owner and publisher, Susan B. Anthony. This affiliation with Mr. Train and other Democrats, together with the aggressive tone of The Revolution, called down on Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton severe criticism from some of their friends, while they received sincere praise from others. In reviewing the situation, they have had no reason to regret their course, feeling that their determination to push their cause, and accept help from whatever quarter it was proffered, aroused lukewarm friends to action, who, though hostile at first to the help of Democrats, soon came to appreciate the difficulty of carrying on a movement with the press, pulpit, politicians, and philanthropists all in the opposition.
After speaking in all the major cities from Leavenworth to New York,[90] Mrs. Stanton and Miss Susan B. Anthony shifted their focus to starting a woman suffrage newspaper in New York City, called The Revolution.[91] The funding for this project came from two Democrats, David Melliss, the financial editor of the World, and George Francis Train. The editors were Parker Pillsbury and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, while the owner and publisher was Susan B. Anthony. This connection with Mr. Train and other Democrats, along with the bold tone of The Revolution, led to strong criticism from some of their friends, while others offered genuine praise. In looking back, they felt no regret about their decisions, believing that their resolve to advance their cause and accept help from any source inspired hesitant supporters to take action, who, despite initially opposing help from Democrats, eventually recognized the challenge of sustaining a movement with the media, religious leaders, politicians, and philanthropists all against them.
Abolitionists were severe in their denunciations against these ladies, because, while belonging to anti-slavery associations, they affiliated with the bitter enemies of the negro and all his defamers. To which they replied: "So long as opposition to slavery is the only test for a free pass to your platform and membership of your association, and you do not shut out all persons opposed to woman suffrage, why should we not accept all in favor of woman suffrage to our platform and association, even though they be rabid pro-slavery Democrats? Your test of faithfulness is the negro, ours is the woman; the broadest platform, to which no party has as yet risen, is humanity." Reformers can be as bigoted and sectarian and as ready to malign each other, as the Church in its darkest periods has been to persecute its dissenters.
Abolitionists harshly criticized these women because, even though they were part of anti-slavery groups, they associated with those who strongly opposed Black people and attacked their character. In response, they said: "As long as opposing slavery is the only requirement for joining your platform and your group, and as you don’t exclude anyone against women's suffrage, why shouldn’t we accept everyone in favor of women's suffrage into our platform and group, even if they are extremely pro-slavery Democrats? Your measure of loyalty is based on support for Black people, while ours is based on support for women; the most inclusive platform, which no party has yet achieved, is one that embraces all of humanity." Reformers can be just as narrow-minded and factional, and just as quick to criticize one another, as the Church has been in its darkest times when persecuting dissenters.
So utterly had the women been deserted in the Kansas campaign by those they had the strongest reason to look to for help, that at times all effort seemed hopeless. The editors of the New York Tribune and the Independent can never know how wistfully, from day to day, their papers were searched for some inspiring editorials[Pg 265] on the woman's amendment, but naught was there; there were no words of hope and encouragement, no eloquent letters from an Eastern man that could be read to the people; all were silent. Yet these two papers, extensively taken all over Kansas, had they been as true to woman as to the negro, could have revolutionized the State. But with arms folded, Greeley, Curtis, Tilton, Beecher, Higginson, Phillips, Garrison, Frederick Douglass, all calmly watched the struggle from afar, and when defeat came to both propositions, no consoling words were offered for woman's loss, but the women who spoke in the campaign were reproached for having "killed negro suffrage."
The women involved in the Kansas campaign felt completely abandoned by those they most relied on for support, making some days feel hopeless. The editors of the New York Tribune and the Independent will never understand how desperately their papers were searched each day for uplifting editorials[Pg 265] on the women's amendment, but nothing was found; there were no words of hope or encouragement, no powerful letters from someone in the East to share with the public; everything was silent. However, these two newspapers, widely read across Kansas, could have transformed the State if they had been as supportive of women as they were of Black Americans. Instead, Greeley, Curtis, Tilton, Beecher, Higginson, Phillips, Garrison, and Frederick Douglass stood by with their arms crossed, watching the struggle from a distance, and when defeat came to both causes, no comforting words were offered for women's loss; instead, the women who spoke during the campaign were blamed for "killing Black suffrage."
We wondered then at the general indifference to that first opportunity of realizing what all those gentlemen had advocated so long; and, in looking back over the many intervening years, we still wonder at the stolid incapacity of all men to understand that woman feels the invidious distinctions of sex exactly as the black man does those of color, or the white man the more transient distinctions of wealth, family, position, place, and power; that she feels as keenly as man the injustice of disfranchisement. Of the old abolitionists who stood true to woman's cause in this crisis, Robert Purvis, Parker Pillsbury, and Rev. Samuel J. May were the only Eastern men. Through all the hot debates during the period of reconstruction, again and again, Mr. Purvis arose and declared, that he would rather his son should never be enfranchised, unless his daughter could be also, that, as she bore the double curse of sex and color, on every principle of justice she should first be protected. These were the only men who felt and understood as women themselves do the degradation of disfranchisement.
We were surprised by the overall indifference to that first chance to achieve what all those men had supported for so long; and, looking back over the many years since, we still find it hard to understand how all men fail to see that a woman feels the unfair distinctions of gender just like a Black man feels the unfair distinctions of race, or how a white man feels the more fleeting distinctions of wealth, family, status, place, and power; that she experiences the injustice of being denied the right to vote just as intensely as a man does. Of the old abolitionists who remained committed to women's rights during this time, only Robert Purvis, Parker Pillsbury, and Rev. Samuel J. May were notable men from the East. Throughout all the heated debates during the reconstruction period, Mr. Purvis repeatedly stated that he would prefer his son never be given the right to vote if his daughter couldn’t have it too, arguing that, since she faced the dual burdens of gender and race, her rights should come first based on every principle of justice. These were the only men who truly felt and understood the humiliation of being disenfranchised, just like the women themselves did.
Twenty years ago, as now, the Gibraltar of our difficulties was the impossibility of making the best men feel that woman is aggravated by the endless petty distinctions because of sex, precisely as the most cultivated man, black or white, suffers the distinctions of color, wealth, or position. Take a man of superior endowments, once powerful and respected, who through unfortunate circumstances is impoverished and neglected; he sees small men, unscrupulous, hard, grinding men taking places of trust and influence, making palace homes for themselves and children, while his family in shabby attire are ostracised in the circle where by ancestry and intelligence they belong, made to feel on all occasions the impassable gulf that lies between riches and poverty. That man feels for himself and doubly for his children the humiliation. And yet with the ever-turning wheel of fortune such distinctions are transient; yours to-day, mine[Pg 266] to-morrow. That glorious Scotch poet, Robert Burns, from the depths of his poverty and despair, might exclaim in an inspired moment on the divine heights where the human soul can sometimes mount:
Twenty years ago, just like today, our main challenge was getting the best men to understand that women are frustrated by the endless petty distinctions based on sex, just as the most educated man, regardless of race, faces discrimination based on color, wealth, or status. Imagine a talented man who was once powerful and respected but has become poor and ignored due to unfortunate circumstances; he sees lesser men, who are unscrupulous and ruthless, taking positions of trust and influence, building nice homes for themselves and their families, while his own family, dressed in shabby clothes, is ostracized from the social circles to which they rightfully belong due to ancestry and intelligence. This man feels a deep humiliation for himself and even more so for his children. Yet, as fortune changes its course, such distinctions are temporary; what belongs to you today might belong to me tomorrow. That great Scottish poet, Robert Burns, from the depths of his poverty and despair, could once proclaim in a moment of inspiration on the divine heights where the human spirit can occasionally rise:
But the wail through many of his sad lines shows that he had tasted the very dregs of the cup of poverty, and hated all distinctions based on wealth.
But the sadness in many of his lines reveals that he had experienced the worst of poverty and despised all differences based on wealth.
When a colored man of education and wealth like Robert Purvis, of Philadelphia, surrounded with a family of cultivated sons and daughters, was denied all social communion with his neighbors, equal freedom and opportunity for himself and children, in public amusements, churches, schools, and means of travel because of race, he felt the degradation of color. The poor white man might have said, If I were Robert Purvis, with a good bank account, and could live in my own house, ride in my own carriage, and have my children well fed and clothed, I should not care if we were all as black as the ace of spades. But he had never tried the humiliation of color, and could not understand its peculiar aggravations, as he did those of poverty. It is impossible for one class to appreciate the wrongs of another. The coarser forms of slavery all can see and deplore, but the subjections of the spirit, few either comprehend or appreciate. In our day women carrying heavy burdens on their shoulders while men walk by their side smoking their pipes, or women harnessed to plows and carts with cows and dogs while men drive, are sights which need no eloquent appeals to move American men to pity and indignation. But the subtle humiliations of women possessed of wealth, education, and genius, men on the same plane can not see or feel, and yet can any misery be more real than invidious distinctions on the ground of sex in the laws and constitution, in the political, religious, and moral position of those who in nature stand the peers of each other? And not only do such women suffer these ever-recurring indignities in daily life, but the literature of the world proclaims their inferiority and divinely decreed subjection in all history, sacred and profane, in science, philosophy, poetry, and song.
When an educated and wealthy Black man like Robert Purvis from Philadelphia, surrounded by a family of well-educated sons and daughters, was denied social interaction with his neighbors and equal freedom and opportunities for himself and his children in public events, churches, schools, and transportation because of his race, he felt the sting of being judged by the color of his skin. A poor white man might have thought, "If I were Robert Purvis, had a good bank balance, owned my house, rode in my own carriage, and made sure my kids were well-fed and dressed, I wouldn’t care if we were as black as the ace of spades." But he had never experienced the humiliation that comes with race and couldn't grasp its unique frustrations the way he understood those of poverty. It’s impossible for one social class to understand the wrongs faced by another. Everyone can see and lament the more obvious forms of slavery, but few recognize or appreciate the spiritual subjugations. In our time, seeing women carrying heavy loads while men stroll by smoking their pipes or women tied to plows and carts alongside cows and dogs while men drive is enough to stir pity and outrage in American men without any need for passionate speeches. Yet, the subtle humiliations faced by women who hold wealth, education, and talent go unnoticed and unfelt by men on the same level. But can any suffering be more real than the unjust distinctions made on the basis of gender in laws and the constitution, and in the political, religious, and moral standing of those who are, by nature, equal? Not only do these women endure constant indignities in daily life, but the world's literature also proclaims their inferiority and divinely mandated subordination throughout history, in both sacred and secular texts, in science, philosophy, poetry, and song.
And here is the secret of the infinite sadness of women of genius; of their dissatisfaction with life, in exact proportion to their development. A woman who occupies the same realm of thought with man, who can explore with him the depths of science, comprehend the steps of progress through the long past and prophesy those of the momentous future, must ever be surprised and aggravated with[Pg 267] his assumptions of headship and superiority, a superiority she never concedes, an authority she utterly repudiates. Words can not describe the indignation, the humiliation a proud woman feels for her sex in disfranchisement.
And this is the secret behind the deep sadness of intelligent women: their dissatisfaction with life grows in direct relation to their personal development. A woman who competes intellectually with men, who can dive into the depths of science with them, understand the historical progress made, and predict the significant advancements of the future, will always be surprised and frustrated by his claims of leadership and superiority—superiority she never accepts and authority she completely rejects. No words can capture the outrage and humiliation a proud woman feels for her gender when faced with disenfranchisement.
In a republic where all are declared equal an ostracised class of one half of the people, on the ground of a distinction founded in nature, is an anomalous position, as harassing to its victims as it is unjust, and as contradictory as it is unsafe to the fundamental principles of a free government. When we remember that out of this degraded political status, spring all the special wrongs that have blocked woman's success in the world of work, and degraded her labor everywhere to one half its value; closed to her the college doors and all opportunities for higher education, forbade her to practice in the professions, made her a cipher in the church, and her sex, her motherhood a curse in all religions; her subjection a text for bibles, a target for the priesthood; seeing all this, we wonder now as then at the indifference and injustice of our best men when the first opportunity offered in which the women of any State might have secured their enfranchisement.
In a republic where everyone is said to be equal, having an ostracized class consisting of half the population based on a distinction made by nature is a strange situation. This is as harmful to its victims as it is unjust, and it contradicts the core principles of a free government. When we consider that this degraded political status leads to all the specific injustices that have hindered women's success in the workforce and diminished the value of their labor, while also closing the doors of colleges and opportunities for higher education, prohibiting them from practicing in professions, rendering them invisible in the church, and making their gender and motherhood burdensome in all religions; where their subjugation is cited in bibles and targeted by the priesthood; looking at all this, we can’t help but be shocked, just as we were then, by the indifference and injustice of our best men when the first chance arose for the women of any State to gain their right to vote.
It was not from ignorance of the unequal laws, and false public sentiment against woman, that our best men stood silent in this Kansas campaign; it was not from lack of chivalry that they thundered forth no protests, when they saw noble women, who had been foremost in every reform, hounded through the State by foul mouthed politicians; it was not from lack of money and power, of eloquence of pen and tongue, nor of an intellectual conviction that our cause was just, that they came not to the rescue, but because in their heart of hearts they did not grasp the imperative necessity of woman's demand for that protection which the ballot alone can give; they did not feel for her the degradation of disfranchisement.
It wasn't due to ignorance of the unfair laws and misguided public opinion against women that our best men remained silent during this Kansas campaign; it wasn't because they lacked chivalry that they didn't speak out when they saw strong women, who had always been at the forefront of every reform, chased through the State by crude politicians; it wasn't because they lacked money and power, or the ability to speak or write well, or the belief that our cause was just, that they didn't come to the rescue, but because deep down they didn't understand the urgent need for women's demand for the protection that only the ballot can provide; they didn't recognize the humiliation of being denied the right to vote.
The fact of their silence deeply grieved us, but the philosophy of their indifference we thoroughly comprehended for the first time and saw as never before, that only from woman's standpoint could the battle be successfully fought, and victory secured. "It is wonderful," says Swift, "with what patience some folks can endure the sufferings of others." Our liberal men counseled us to silence during the war, and we were silent on our own wrongs; they counseled us again to silence in Kansas and New York, lest we should defeat "negro suffrage," and threatened if we were not, we might fight the battle alone. We chose the latter, and were defeated. But standing alone we learned our power; we repudiated man's counsels forevermore; and solemnly vowed that there should never be another[Pg 268] season of silence until woman had the same rights everywhere on this green earth, as man.
The fact that they were silent really upset us, but for the first time, we fully understood their indifference. We realized, more clearly than ever, that the fight could only be won from a woman's perspective, and that's how we could achieve victory. "It's amazing," Swift said, "how patiently some people can bear the suffering of others." Our progressive men advised us to stay quiet during the war, and we kept quiet about our own injustices. They advised us once more to remain silent in Kansas and New York so we wouldn't undermine “Black suffrage,” and threatened that if we didn't, we might have to fight alone. We chose to fight alone and faced defeat. However, by standing alone, we discovered our strength; we rejected men's advice for good, and we vowed that there would never again be another[Pg 268] season of silence until women had the same rights everywhere on this planet as men.
While we hold in loving reverence the names of such men as Charles Sumner, Horace Greeley, William Lloyd Garrison, Gerrit Smith, Wendell Phillips and Frederick Douglass, and would urge the rising generation of young men to emulate their virtues, we would warn the young women of the coming generation against man's advice as to their best interests, their highest development. We would point for them the moral of our experiences: that woman must lead the way to her own enfranchisement, and work out her own salvation with a hopeful courage and determination that knows no fear nor trembling. She must not put her trust in man in this transition period, since, while regarded as his subject, his inferior, his slave, their interests must be antagonistic.
While we admire and honor figures like Charles Sumner, Horace Greeley, William Lloyd Garrison, Gerrit Smith, Wendell Phillips, and Frederick Douglass, and encourage the younger generation of men to follow their example, we want to caution the upcoming generation of women against relying on men's advice regarding their best interests and personal growth. We emphasize the lesson from our experiences: women need to take the lead in their own empowerment and pursue their own liberation with optimistic courage and unwavering determination. They shouldn’t depend on men during this transitional period, as being seen as their subordinate, inferior, or servant means their interests will likely conflict.
But when at last woman stands on an even platform with man, his acknowledged equal everywhere, with the same freedom to express herself in the religion and government of the country, then, and not till then, can she safely take counsel with him in regard to her most sacred rights, privileges, and immunities; for not till then will he be able to legislate as wisely and generously for her as for himself.
But when women finally stand on the same level as men, recognized as their equals everywhere, with the same freedom to express themselves in the country's religion and government, only then, and not before, can they confidently consult with men about their most fundamental rights, privileges, and protections; because only then will men be able to create laws as wisely and generously for women as they do for themselves.
FOOTNOTES:
[76] Disagreements in the Republican State Central Committee—The Suffrage Question.—The Kansas State Journal publishes a letter from Judge Samuel N. Wood, in which he declares himself unqualifiedly in favor of impartial suffrage. He says:
[76] Disagreements in the Republican State Central Committee—The Suffrage Question.—The Kansas State Journal publishes a letter from Judge Samuel N. Wood, in which he states that he is completely in favor of fair suffrage. He says:
"I have not opposed, and shall not oppose negro suffrage. It should be adopted because they are a part of the governed, and must have a voice in the Government, just as much as women should. What I have had to do with is the inconsistency and hypocrisy of those who advocate negro suffrage and oppose Woman suffrage; the inconsistency and hypocrisy of those negroes who claim rights for themselves that they are not willing other human beings with equal intelligence should also enjoy."
"I have not opposed, and will not oppose, Black suffrage. It should be embraced because they are part of the governed and deserve a voice in the government, just like women do. What I've been focused on is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of those who support Black suffrage but oppose women's suffrage; the hypocrisy and inconsistency of those Black individuals who demand rights for themselves but aren't willing to extend those same rights to other people with equal intelligence."
The same paper says that at the meeting of the Republican State Central Committee in Leavenworth, last week, the following resolution was offered and laid on the table, by a vote of two yeas to one nay:
The same paper states that at the meeting of the Republican State Central Committee in Leavenworth last week, the following resolution was proposed and tabled, with a vote of two in favor and one against:
Resolved, That the Republican State Central Committee do not indorse, but distinctly repudiate, as speakers, in behalf and under the auspices of the Republican party, such persons as have defamed, or do hereafter defame, in their public addresses, the women of Kansas, or those ladies who have been urging upon the people of Kansas the propriety of enfranchising the women of the State.
Resolved, That the Republican State Central Committee does not support, but clearly rejects, as speakers on behalf of the Republican party, anyone who has slandered, or will in the future slander, in their public speeches, the women of Kansas, or those women who have been advocating for the enfranchisement of women in the State.
Mr. Taylor, who offered the resolution, has accordingly published the following protest:
Mr. Taylor, who presented the resolution, has now released the following protest:
The undersigned, a member of the Republican State Central Committee of Kansas, protests against the action of the Committee this day had, so far as relates to the placing of the names of I. S. Kalloch, C. V. Eskridge, and P. B. Plumb, on the list of speakers to canvass the State in behalf of Republican principles, for the reason that they have within the last few weeks, in public addresses published articles, used ungentlemanly, indecent, and infamously defamatory language, when alluding to a large and respectable portion of the women of Kansas, and to women now engaged in canvassing the State in favor of impartial suffrage.
The undersigned, a member of the Kansas Republican State Central Committee, expresses concern about the Committee's decision today to include the names of I. S. Kalloch, C. V. Eskridge, and P. B. Plumb as speakers who will promote Republican principles across the State. This protest is due to the fact that, in recent weeks, during public speeches and published articles, they have used disrespectful, inappropriate, and slanderous language when referring to many respectable women in Kansas and to those women currently campaigning for fair voting rights.
R. B. TAYLOR.
R. B. TAYLOR.
[77] Democratic Resolution.—Resolved, That we are opposed to all the proposed amendments to our State Constitution, and to all unjust, intolerant, and proscriptive legislation, whereby a portion of our fellow citizens are deprived of their social rights and religious privileges.
[77] Democratic Resolution.—Resolved, That we oppose all the suggested changes to our State Constitution, as well as any unfair, intolerant, and exclusionary laws that strip a part of our fellow citizens of their social rights and religious freedoms.
[78] Action of the Germans.—St. Louis, Sept. 26.—A special dispatch to the Republican from Wyandotte, Kansas, says: "The German Convention, which was held at Topeka on Monday last, adopted resolutions against Sunday and temperance laws, and declared that they would not support any man for State, Legislative, or municipal office who would not give his written pledge to oppose such laws. An unsuccessful effort was made to commit the Germans to negro suffrage. The female suffrage question was not touched."
[78] Action of the Germans.—St. Louis, Sept. 26.—A special report to the Republican from Wyandotte, Kansas, states: "The German Convention, which took place in Topeka last Monday, passed resolutions against Sunday laws and temperance laws, declaring that they would not support any candidate for state, legislative, or local office who would not give a written promise to oppose such laws. An attempt was made to endorse negro suffrage, but it was unsuccessful. The issue of female suffrage was not addressed."
[79] State Temperance Convention.—Lawrence, Kansas, Sept. 26.—A mass State Temperance Convention was held here last night, and was addressed by Senator Pomeroy, ex-Gov. Robinson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony. Resolutions were passed committing the Temperance people to female suffrage, and to prevent the repeal of the Temperance law of last winter, to the abrogation of which the Germans pledged themselves in their Convention on the 23d.
[79] State Temperance Convention.—Lawrence, Kansas, Sept. 26.—A large State Temperance Convention took place here last night, featuring speeches from Senator Pomeroy, former Governor Robinson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony. Resolutions were passed committing the Temperance supporters to women’s voting rights and to preventing the repeal of last winter’s Temperance law, which the Germans vowed to overturn during their convention on the 23rd.
[80] The New York Tribune, May 29, 1867: "Womanhood suffrage is now a progressive cause beyond fear of cavil. It has won a fair field where once it was looked upon as an airy nothing, and it has gained champions and converts without number. The young State of Kansas is fitly the vanguard of this cause, and the signs of the agitation therein hardly allow a doubt that the citizenship of women will be ere long recognized in the law of the State. Fourteen out of twenty newspapers of Kansas are in favor of making woman a voter. Governor Crawford, ex-Governors Robinson and Root, Judge Schuyler, Col. Ritchie, and Lieut.-Gov. Green, are the leaders of the wide-spread Impartial League, which has among its orators Mistresses Stanton, Stone, and Susan B. Anthony. The vitality of the Kansas movement is indisputable, and whether defeated or successful in the present contest, it will still hold strongly fortified ground." ...
[80] The New York Tribune, May 29, 1867: "Women's suffrage is now a progressive cause that's beyond doubt. It has gained a solid platform where it was once dismissed as insignificant, and it has gathered countless supporters and advocates. The young State of Kansas is rightly at the forefront of this movement, and the signs of activism there leave little doubt that the citizenship of women will soon be recognized in the state laws. Fourteen out of twenty newspapers in Kansas support granting voting rights to women. Governor Crawford, former Governors Robinson and Root, Judge Schuyler, Col. Ritchie, and Lieutenant Governor Green are the leaders of the widespread Impartial League, which includes speakers like Ms. Stanton, Ms. Stone, and Susan B. Anthony. The strength of the Kansas movement is undeniable, and whether it faces defeat or success in the current fight, it will remain on solid ground." ...
[81] Mrs. Sarah B. Shaw, after having contributed $150 for Kansas, wrote the following:
[81] Mrs. Sarah B. Shaw, after donating $150 for Kansas, wrote the following:
North Shore, September 22, 1867.
North Shore, September 22, 1867.
Dear Miss Anthony:—If I were a rich woman I would inclose a check of $1,000 instanter. Mr. Gay read your letter and said he wished he had $500 to give. So you see if the right people only had the money how the work would be done. Mr. Shaw says: "Tell Miss Anthony if the women in Kansas vote on the schools and the dram shops, I think the work is done there." I have not in my mind one person who could give money who would, so I can not help you.... I am very sorry to send you only this dry morsel, a stone when you want bread, but I can only give you my earnest wishes, though I will not fail to do my best. I have already sent your letter to a rich friend, who has reformed all her life, but I do not know at all how she stands on the woman question. Believe me, dear Miss Anthony,
Dear Miss Anthony:—If I were a wealthy woman, I would immediately enclose a check for $1,000. Mr. Gay read your letter and mentioned that he wishes he had $500 to contribute. So you can see how much progress could be made if the right people had the funding. Mr. Shaw says: "Tell Miss Anthony that if the women in Kansas vote on schools and bars, I think that work is complete there." I can’t think of a single person who has money and would donate, so I’m unable to help you.... I'm really sorry to send you just this meager response, a stone when you need bread, but I can only express my sincere wishes, although I'll do my best. I've already forwarded your letter to a wealthy friend who has spent her life advocating for change, though I really don’t know her stance on women's issues. Believe me, dear Miss Anthony,
Sarah B. Shaw.
Sarah B. Shaw.
Sincerely yours,
Sincerely yours,
Office of the American Equal Rights Association, }
No. 37 Park Row (Room 17). New York, Aug. 23, 1867. }Office of the American Equal Rights Association, }
No. 37 Park Row (Room 17). New York, Aug. 23, 1867. }Dear Lydia:— ... I am just in from Staten Island, where Mrs. Gay had $10 from Frank Shaw waiting for me. I went on purpose to go to Mrs. Shaw, and persevered; the glorious result is $150 more. Such a splendid woman; worthy the noble boy she gave in the war, and worthy her noble son-in-law, George William Curtis. Lydia, we shall go on to triumph in Kansas! The St. Louis Democrat publishes Mr. Curtis' speech in full, with a splendid editorial. The St. Louis Journal gives the speech and the Democrat's editorial "as a matter of news." I have 60,000 tracts now going to press; all the old editions were gone, and we have to begin new with an empty treasury; but I tell them all, "go ahead;" we must, and will, succeed.
Dear Lydia:— ... I just got back from Staten Island, where Mrs. Gay had $10 from Frank Shaw waiting for me. I went specifically to see Mrs. Shaw, and after some persistence, the amazing result is an additional $150. What a wonderful woman; she's deserving of the brave son she lost in the war, and her remarkable son-in-law, George William Curtis. Lydia, we are going to achieve great things in Kansas! The St. Louis Democrat published Mr. Curtis' speech in full, along with an outstanding editorial. The St. Louis Journal features the speech and the Democrat's editorial "as a matter of news." I currently have 60,000 tracts being printed; all the old editions are gone, and we have to start fresh with an empty treasury, but I keep telling everyone, "let's move forward;" we must, and we will, succeed.
Susan B. Anthony.
Susan B. Anthony.
Affectionately yours,
Affectionately yours,
Templeton, Mass., Sept. 21, 1867, }
On way to Green Mountains. }Templeton, Mass., Sept. 21, 1867, }
On the way to the Green Mountains. }Dear Miss Anthony:—Mrs. Severance desires me to inclose to you this check, $50, and say that it is a contribution by friends at and about Boston, to aid you in the good work of reconstruction on the subject of woman's right to the ballot in Kansas.
Dear Miss Anthony:—Mrs. Severance asked me to send you this check for $50 and let you know that it’s a contribution from friends in and around Boston to support your important work on women's voting rights in Kansas.
T. C. Severance.
T. C. Severance.
Yours truly,
Yours truly,
Auburn, Sept. 17, 1867.
Auburn, Sept. 17, 1867.
Dear Mr. Pillsbury:—You may be very sure I would have answered Susan's letter sooner if I had been able to inclose any such sum as she hoped to obtain. All that I can do is to inclose a draft for $30—ten from our daughter Eliza, ten from William and Ellen, and ten from myself.... We can only feel grateful for the self-sacrificing labors of those who have gone to Kansas, and hopeful that better success may attend the efforts there, than here or in Michigan.... I was very glad that Mrs. Stanton could go.... We shall miss Mrs. Frances D. Gage. I always considered her word as effective as any on our Woman's Rights platform. Her rest has come.... Our children were in Syracuse on Sunday; they heard a beautiful valedictory from Samuel J. May, recounting the varied incidents of his life, lamenting his short-comings, and advising them to choose a younger man for the duties he was no longer able to perform alone. He is so well beloved by his congregation that the probability is they will get an associate for him.
Dear Mr. Pillsbury:—You can be sure I would have replied to Susan's letter sooner if I could have enclosed the amount she was hoping to get. All I can do is send a check for $30—$10 from our daughter Eliza, $10 from William and Ellen, and $10 from me.... We can only appreciate the selfless efforts of those who have gone to Kansas and remain hopeful that they will have better success there than we have had here or in Michigan.... I was very glad that Mrs. Stanton could attend.... We'll miss Mrs. Frances D. Gage. I always thought her words were as impactful as anyone else's on our Woman's Rights platform. She has found her rest.... Our children were in Syracuse on Sunday; they heard a beautiful farewell address from Samuel J. May, reflecting on the various moments of his life, lamenting his shortcomings, and encouraging them to choose a younger person for the duties he can no longer handle alone. He is so loved by his congregation that it's likely they will find an associate for him.
Martha C. Wright.
Martha C. Wright.
Your friend,
Your friend,
[83] James W. Nye, Nevada; Charles Robinson, S. N. Wood, Samuel C. Pomeroy, E. G. Ross, Sidney Clark, S. G. Crawford, Kansas; Wm. Loughridge, Iowa; Robert Collyer, Illinois; Geo. W. Julian, H. D. Washburn, Indiana; R. E. Trowbridge, John F. Driggs, Michigan; Benjamin F. Wade, Ohio; J. W. Broomall, William D. Kelley, Pennsylvania; Henry Ward Beecher, Gerrit Smith, George William Curtis, New York; Dudley S. Gregory, George Polk, John G. Foster, James L. Hayes, Z. H. Pangborn, New Jersey; William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Samuel E. Sewell, Oakes Ames, Massachusetts; William Sprague, Thomas W. Higginson, Rhode Island; Calvin E. Stowe, Connecticut.
[83] James W. Nye, Nevada; Charles Robinson, S. N. Wood, Samuel C. Pomeroy, E. G. Ross, Sidney Clark, S. G. Crawford, Kansas; Wm. Loughridge, Iowa; Robert Collyer, Illinois; Geo. W. Julian, H. D. Washburn, Indiana; R. E. Trowbridge, John F. Driggs, Michigan; Benjamin F. Wade, Ohio; J. W. Broomall, William D. Kelley, Pennsylvania; Henry Ward Beecher, Gerrit Smith, George William Curtis, New York; Dudley S. Gregory, George Polk, John G. Foster, James L. Hayes, Z. H. Pangborn, New Jersey; William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Samuel E. Sewell, Oakes Ames, Massachusetts; William Sprague, Thomas W. Higginson, Rhode Island; Calvin E. Stowe, Connecticut.
[85] All were prepared beforehand to do Mrs. Stanton homage for her talents and fame, but many persons who had formed their ideas of Miss Anthony from the unfriendly remarks of opposition papers in other States had conceived a prejudice against her. Perhaps I can not better illustrate how she everywhere overcame and dispelled this prejudice than by relating my own experience. A convention was called at Lawrence, and the friends of woman suffrage were called upon to entertain the strangers who might come from abroad. Ex-Gov. Robinson, who from the first had given his influence to the movement, was now giving his whole time to the canvass. He called upon me to know if I would entertain Mrs. Stanton. In those days houses were small, help was scarce and inefficient, and in our family were two babies and an invalid sister. But the pleasure and honor of entertaining Mrs. Stanton was too great to allow these circumstances to prevent. We prepared our own room for the guest chamber and had all things in readiness when I received a note from Ex-Gov. Robinson stating that Mrs. Stanton had found relatives in town with whom she would stop, but that Miss Anthony would come instead. I hastily put on bonnet and shawl saying, "I don't want Miss Anthony, and I won't have her, and I am going to tell Gov. Robinson so." At the gate I met a dignified, quaker looking lady with a small satchel and a black and white shawl on her arm. Offering her hand she said, "I am Miss Anthony, and I have been sent to you for entertainment during the Convention." I have often wondered if Miss Anthony remembers my confusion, and the apologies I stammered out about no help, sickness in the family, no spare room and how I was just on my way to tell Gov. Robinson that I could not entertain any one. Half disarmed by her genial manner and frank, kindly face, I led the way into the house and said I would have her stay to tea and then we would see what farther arrangements could be made. While I was looking after tea Miss Anthony won the hearts of the babies; and seeing the door of my sister's sick room open, she went in and in a short time had so won the heart and soothed instead of exciting the nervous sufferer, entertaining her with accounts of the outside world from which she had been so long shut off, that by the time tea was over, I was ready to do anything if Miss Anthony would only stay with us. And stay she did for over six weeks, and we parted from her as from a beloved and helpful friend. I found afterwards that in the same way she disarmed prejudice and made the most ardent friends wherever she became personally known.
[85] Everyone was ready to show Mrs. Stanton respect for her skills and reputation, but many people who had formed their opinions of Miss Anthony based on negative comments from opposing newspapers in other states had developed a bias against her. I can best demonstrate how she consistently broke down and dispelled this bias by sharing my own experience. A convention was scheduled in Lawrence, and supporters of women's suffrage were asked to host guests who might come from out of town. Ex-Gov. Robinson, who had always supported the movement, was now dedicating his entire time to the campaign. He reached out to see if I could host Mrs. Stanton. Back then, homes were small, help was hard to find and unreliable, and in our household were two babies and an ill sister. However, the joy and honor of hosting Mrs. Stanton was too significant to let those circumstances stop me. We prepared our own room for her and had everything ready when I got a note from Ex-Gov. Robinson saying that Mrs. Stanton had found relatives in town to stay with, but that Miss Anthony would come instead. I quickly put on my bonnet and shawl, saying, "I don’t want Miss Anthony, and I won’t have her, and I’m going to tell Gov. Robinson so." At the gate, I met a dignified lady with a Quaker look, carrying a small bag and a black and white shawl over her arm. She offered her hand and said, “I’m Miss Anthony, and I’ve been sent to you for hospitality during the convention.” I often wonder if Miss Anthony remembers my awkwardness and the apologies I stumbled through about the lack of help, illness in the family, no extra room, and how I was just about to tell Gov. Robinson that I couldn’t host anyone. Half disarmed by her warm demeanor and friendly face, I led her into the house and said I would have her stay for tea and then we could figure out what other arrangements might be made. While I was preparing tea, Miss Anthony charmed the babies; and noticing the door to my sister's sickroom open, she went in and soon won over the heart of the nervous patient, calming her instead of exciting her by sharing stories of the outside world from which she had been isolated for so long. By the time tea was finished, I was willing to do anything if Miss Anthony would just stay with us. And stay she did for over six weeks, and we said goodbye to her as if she were a beloved and helpful friend. I later realized that she similarly disarmed prejudice and made passionate friends wherever she became personally acquainted.
H. E. S.
H. E. S.
[86] Of course it is nothing new to say that Mrs. Stanton was the object of admiration and honor everywhere. Miss Anthony looked after her interests and comfort in the most cheerful and kindly manner, occasionally complaining good naturedly of Mrs. Stanton's carelessness in leaving various articles of her wearing apparel scattered over the State, and of the trouble she had in recovering a gold watch which Mrs. Stanton had left hanging on the bed post in a little hotel in Southern Kansas. I remember one evening of the Convention in Lawrence when the hall was crowded with an eager and expectant audience. Miss Anthony was there early, looking after everything, seats, lights, ushers, doorkeepers, etc. Presently Gov. Robinson came to her and said, "Where's Mrs. Stanton? It's time to commence." "She's at Mrs. —— waiting for some of you men to go for her with a carriage," was the reply. The hint was quickly acted upon and Mrs. Stanton, fresh, smiling and unfatigued, was presented to the audience. H. E. S.
[86] It’s definitely not new to say that Mrs. Stanton was admired and respected everywhere. Miss Anthony took care of her needs and comfort in the most cheerful and kind way, sometimes jokingly complaining about Mrs. Stanton’s habit of leaving pieces of her clothing spread across the state, and about the hassle she had in retrieving a gold watch that Mrs. Stanton had left on the bedpost in a small hotel in Southern Kansas. I remember one evening during the Convention in Lawrence when the hall was packed with an eager audience. Miss Anthony was there early, managing everything—seats, lights, ushers, doorkeepers, and so on. Eventually, Gov. Robinson approached her and asked, "Where's Mrs. Stanton? It's time to start." "She's at Mrs. —— waiting for some of you men to bring her in a carriage," was her response. The suggestion was quickly acted on, and Mrs. Stanton, looking fresh, smiling, and not at all tired, was introduced to the audience. H. E. S.
[88] Mrs. Gov. Charles Robinson, Mrs. Lieut-Gov. J. P. Root, Mrs. R. B. Taylor, Mrs. Mary T. Gray—whose husbands were also active workers—Mrs. Lucy B. Armstrong, Mrs. Judge Humphrey, Mrs. Starrett, Mrs. Archibald, Mrs. Elsie Stewart, "Mother Bickerdike," and many others.
[88] Mrs. Governor Charles Robinson, Mrs. Lieutenant Governor J. P. Root, Mrs. R. B. Taylor, Mrs. Mary T. Gray—whose husbands were also actively involved—Mrs. Lucy B. Armstrong, Mrs. Judge Humphrey, Mrs. Starrett, Mrs. Archibald, Mrs. Elsie Stewart, "Mother Bickerdike," and many others.
[89] Nov. 6, 1867.—The associated press item in The Evening Journal said: "Leavenworth, Kansas, Nov. 5th. Out of about 3,500 registered voters, only 2,600 voted here to-day. Negro suffrage received only about 700. Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony, who have been canvassing the State, visited the polls in each ward and addressed the voters, probably the first occurrence of the kind in this country. They were accompanied by the Hutchinson family, and were received with hearty cheers for woman suffrage."
[89] Nov. 6, 1867.—The Associated Press report in The Evening Journal stated: "Leavenworth, Kansas, Nov. 5th. Out of around 3,500 registered voters, only 2,600 cast their ballots today. Black suffrage garnered only about 700 votes. Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony, who have been campaigning across the state, visited the polls in each district and spoke to the voters, likely the first time this has happened in the country. They were joined by the Hutchinson family and received with enthusiastic cheers for women's suffrage."
[91] The first number was published January 6, 1868, and ten thousand copies, under the frank of the Hon. James Brooks, were scattered throughout the country.
[91] The first issue was released on January 6, 1868, and ten thousand copies, sent with the approval of Hon. James Brooks, were distributed across the nation.
CHAPTER XX.
NEW YORK CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Constitution Amended once in Twenty Years—Mrs. Stanton Before the Legislature Claiming Woman's Right to Vote for Members to the Convention—An Immense Audience in the Capitol—The Convention Assembled June 4th, 1867. Twenty Thousand Petitions Presented for Striking the Word "Male" from the Constitution—"Committee on the Right of Suffrage, and the Qualifications for Holding Office." Horace Greeley, Chairman—Mr. Graves, of Herkimer, Leads the Debate in favor of Woman Suffrage—Horace Greeley's Adverse Report—Leading Advocates Heard before the Convention—Speech of George William Curtis on Striking the Word "Man" from Section 1, Article 11—Final Vote, 19 For, 125 Against—Equal Rights Anniversary of 1868.
Constitution Amended once in Twenty Years—Mrs. Stanton Before the Legislature Claiming Women's Right to Vote for Members to the Convention—An Immense Audience in the Capitol—The Convention Assembled June 4th, 1867. Twenty Thousand Petitions Presented for Striking the Word "Male" from the Constitution—"Committee on the Right to Vote, and the Qualifications for Holding Office." Horace Greeley, Chairman—Mr. Graves, of Herkimer, Leads the Debate in favor of Women’s Suffrage—Horace Greeley’s Disapproving Report—Leading Advocates Heard before the Convention—Speech of George William Curtis on Removing the Word "Man" from Section 1, Article 11—Final Vote, 19 For, 125 Against—Equal Rights Anniversary of 1868.
This was the first time in the history of the woman suffrage movement that the Constitution of New York was to be amended, and the general interest felt by women in the coming convention was intensified by the fact that such an opportunity for their enfranchisement would not come again in twenty years. The proposition of the republican party to strike the word "white" from the Constitution and thus extend the right of suffrage to all classes of male citizens, placing the men of the State, black and white, foreign and native, ignorant and educated, vicious and virtuous, all alike, above woman's head, gave her a keener sense of her abasement than she had ever felt before. But having neither press nor pulpit to advocate her cause, and fully believing this amendment would pass as a party measure, she used every means within her power to arouse and strengthen the agitation, in the face of the most determined opposition of friends and foes. Meetings were held in all the chief towns and cities in the State, and appeals and petitions scattered in every school district; these were so many reminders to the women everywhere that they too had some interest in the Constitution under which they lived, some duties to perform in deciding the future policy of the Government.
This was the first time in the history of the women's suffrage movement that the New York Constitution was set to be amended, and the general interest among women in the upcoming convention was heightened by the fact that such a chance for their voting rights wouldn't come again for another twenty years. The Republican Party's proposal to remove the word "white" from the Constitution and extend the right to vote to all male citizens, placing men of the State—black and white, foreign and native, uneducated and educated, immoral and moral—above women, made her acutely aware of her inequality like never before. However, without any press or religious leaders to support her cause, and believing that this amendment would pass as a party initiative, she did everything she could to spark and bolster the movement, despite facing strong opposition from both allies and enemies. Meetings were organized in all the major towns and cities in the State, and appeals and petitions were distributed in every school district; these served as reminders to women everywhere that they too had a stake in the Constitution they lived under and responsibilities to take on in shaping the Government's future policies.
This campaign cost us the friendship of Horace Greeley and the support of the New York Tribune, heretofore our most powerful and faithful allies. In an earnest conversation with Mrs. Stanton[Pg 270] and Miss Anthony, Mr. Greeley said: "This is a critical period for the Republican party and the life of the Nation. The word "white" in our Constitution at this hour has a significance which "male" has not. It would be wise and magnanimous in you to hold your claims, though just and imperative, I grant, in abeyance until the negro is safe beyond peradventure, and your turn will come next. I conjure you to remember that this is "the negro's hour," and your first duty now is to go through the State and plead his claims." "Suppose," we replied, "Horace Greeley, Henry J. Raymond and James Gordon Bennett were disfranchised; what would be thought of them, if before audiences and in leading editorials they pressed the claims of Sambo, Patrick, Hans and Yung Fung to the ballot, to be lifted above their own heads? With their intelligence, education, knowledge of the science of government, and keen appreciation of the dangers of the hour, would it not be treasonable, rather than magnanimous, for them, leaders of the metropolitan press, to give the ignorant and unskilled a power in government they did not possess themselves? To do this would be to place on board the ship of State officers and crew who knew nothing of chart or compass, of the safe pathway across the sea, and bid those who understand the laws of navigation to stand aside. No, no, this is the hour to press woman's claims; we have stood with the black man in the Constitution over half a century, and it is fitting now that the constitutional door is open that we should enter with him into the political kingdom of equality. Through all these years he has been the only decent compeer we have had. Enfranchise him, and we are left outside with lunatics, idiots and criminals for another twenty years." "Well," said Mr. Greeley, "if you persevere in your present plan, you need depend on no further help from me or the Tribune." And he kept his word. We have seen the negro enfranchised, and twenty long years pass away since the war, and still woman's turn has not yet come; her rights as a citizen of the United States are still unrecognized, the oft-repeated pledges of leading Republicans and Abolitionists have not been redeemed.
This campaign cost us the friendship of Horace Greeley and the backing of the New York Tribune, which had been our strongest and most loyal allies. In a serious discussion with Mrs. Stanton[Pg 270] and Miss Anthony, Mr. Greeley said: "This is a crucial moment for the Republican party and the survival of the Nation. The word 'white' in our Constitution carries a meaning now that 'male' does not. It would be wise and generous of you to put your claims, though just and necessary, on hold until the black community is securely protected, and then your time will come. I urge you to remember that this is 'the black man's hour,' and your primary responsibility right now is to go through the State and advocate for his rights." "What if," we replied, "Horace Greeley, Henry J. Raymond, and James Gordon Bennett were denied the vote; what would people think of them if, in front of audiences and in major articles, they pushed for the voting rights of Sambo, Patrick, Hans, and Yung Fung, putting their needs above their own? Given their intelligence, education, understanding of government, and sharp awareness of the risks at this time, wouldn’t it be betrayal, not generosity, for them as leaders of the major press to give power in the government to those who lack it themselves? Doing so would mean putting people on the ship of State who know nothing about navigation or the safe routes across the sea, while those who do understand how to navigate are told to step aside. No, this is the time to advocate for women's rights; we have supported the black man in the Constitution for more than fifty years, and now that the constitutional door is open, it is right that we enter with him into the political arena of equality. Throughout all these years, he has been the only respectable companion we’ve had. If he is granted the vote, we will be left out with the insane, the uneducated, and the criminals for another twenty years." "Well," said Mr. Greeley, "if you continue with this plan, you should not expect any more help from me or the Tribune." And he kept his promise. We have seen the black community granted the vote, and twenty long years have passed since the war, yet it is still not women's turn; her rights as a citizen of the United States remain unrecognized, and the repeatedly assured commitments from leading Republicans and Abolitionists have not been fulfilled.
As soon as the Constitutional Convention was called by the Legislature of New York, Mrs. Stanton appeared before that body asking not only that the word "male" be stricken from Sec. 1, Art. 2, but that women be permitted to vote for members to that Convention, giving many precedents and learned opinions in favor of her demand. In the Assembly Chamber on the afternoon of Jan. 23, 1867, an immense audience of judges, lawyers, members of the Legislature, and ladies of fashion greeted her. On being introduced by[Pg 271] the Hon. Chas. J. Folger,[92] Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mrs. Stanton said:
As soon as the Legislature of New York called the Constitutional Convention, Mrs. Stanton appeared before that assembly, asking not only for the removal of the word "male" from Sec. 1, Art. 2, but also for women to be allowed to vote on members of that Convention. She presented many precedents and expert opinions supporting her request. In the Assembly Chamber on the afternoon of Jan. 23, 1867, a large audience made up of judges, lawyers, lawmakers, and fashionable women welcomed her. When introduced by[Pg 271] the Hon. Chas. J. Folger,[92] Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mrs. Stanton said:
Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee and Members of the Legislature:
Members of the Judiciary Committee and the Legislature:
I appear before you at this time, to urge on you the justice of securing to all the people of the State the right to vote for delegates to the coming Constitutional Convention. The discussion of this right involves the consideration of the whole question of suffrage; and especially those sections of your Constitution which interpose insurmountable qualifications to its exercise. As representatives of the people, your right to regulate all that pertains to the coming Constitutional Convention is absolute. It is for you to say when and where this convention shall be held; how many delegates shall be chosen, and what classes shall be represented. This is your right. It is the opinion of many of the ablest men of the country that, in a revision of a constitution, the State is, for the time being, resolved into its original elements, and that all disfranchised classes should have a voice in such revision and be represented in such convention. To secure this to the people of the State, is clearly your duty.
I come before you now to emphasize the importance of ensuring that all the people of the State have the right to vote for delegates to the upcoming Constitutional Convention. Discussing this right brings us to the entire issue of suffrage, particularly those sections of your Constitution that place major obstacles to exercising that right. As representatives of the people, you have complete authority over everything related to the upcoming Constitutional Convention. It's up to you to decide when and where this convention takes place; how many delegates will be chosen, and who will be represented. This is your responsibility. Many of the most knowledgeable people in the country believe that when revising a constitution, the State is essentially broken down to its basic elements, and that all disenfranchised groups should have a say in this revision and be represented at the convention. Ensuring this for the people of the State is clearly your obligation.
Says Judge Beach Lawrence, in a letter to Hon. Charles Sumner: "A State Constitution must originate with and be assented to by a majority of the people, including as well those whom it disfranchises as those whom it invests with the suffrage." And as there is nothing in the present Constitution of the State of New York to prevent women, or black men from voting for, or being elected as delegates to a Constitutional Convention, there is no reason why the Legislature should not enact that the people elect their delegates to said Convention irrespective of sex or color. The Legislatures of 1801 and 1821 furnish you a precedent for extending to disfranchised classes the right to vote for delegates to a Constitutional Convention. Though the Constitution of the State restricted the right of suffrage to every male inhabitant who possessed a freehold to the value of £20, or rented a tenement at the yearly value of forty shillings, and had been rated and actually paid taxes to the State, the Legislatures of those years passed laws setting aside all property limitations, and providing that all men—black and white, rich and poor—should vote for delegates to said Conventions. The act recommending a convention for the purpose of considering the parts of the Constitution of this State, respecting the number of Senators and Members of Assembly—and also for the consideration of the 23d article of said Constitution, relative to the right of nomination to office—"but with no other power or authority whatsoever," passed April 6, 1801. Session Laws 1801, chap. 69, page 190, sec. 2, says:
Says Judge Beach Lawrence, in a letter to Hon. Charles Sumner: "A State Constitution must come from and be approved by a majority of the people, including both those who are denied the right to vote and those who are given it." And since there’s nothing in the current Constitution of New York preventing women or Black men from voting for or being elected as delegates to a Constitutional Convention, there's no reason why the Legislature shouldn't allow the people to elect their delegates to that Convention regardless of sex or race. The Legislatures of 1801 and 1821 provide a precedent for extending the right to vote for delegates to a Constitutional Convention to disenfranchised groups. Although the State Constitution limited the right to vote to every male inhabitant who owned property worth £20, rented a tenement valued at forty shillings a year, and had been rated and actually paid taxes to the State, the Legislatures of those years passed laws removing all property restrictions and allowing all men—Black and white, rich and poor—to vote for delegates to those Conventions. The act calling for a convention to consider parts of the State Constitution regarding the number of Senators and Members of Assembly—and also to examine the 23rd article of that Constitution concerning the right of nomination to office—"but with no other power or authority whatsoever," passed on April 6, 1801. Session Laws 1801, chap. 69, page 190, sec. 2, says:
And be it further enacted, that the number of delegates chosen shall be the same as the number of Members of Assembly from the respective cities and counties of the State, and that all free male citizens of this State, of the age of twenty-one years and upward, shall be admitted to vote for such delegates, and that any person of that description shall be eligible.
And it is further enacted that the number of delegates elected will be the same as the number of Assembly Members from the various cities and counties of the State. All free male citizens of this State, aged twenty-one and older, will be allowed to vote for these delegates, and any person who meets this criteria will be eligible.
The above law was passed by the Legislature of 1801, which derived its authority from the first Constitution of the State.
The above law was passed by the Legislature in 1801, which got its authority from the first Constitution of the State.
The act recommending a convention of the people of this State, passed March 13, 1821. Session Laws of 1821, act 90, page 83, sec. 1. "Persons entitled to vote":
The act suggesting a convention of the people of this State, passed on March 13, 1821. Session Laws of 1821, act 90, page 83, sec. 1. "Individuals eligible to vote":
All free male citizens, of the age of twenty-one years or upward, who shall possess a freehold in this State, or who shall have been actually rated and paid taxes to this State, or who shall have been actually enrolled in the militia of this State, or in a legal, volunteer, or uniform corps, and shall have served therein either as an officer or private, or who shall have been or now are, by law, exempt from taxation or militia duty, or who shall have been assessed to work on the public roads and highways, and shall have worked thereon, or shall have paid a commutation therefor according to law, shall be allowed during the three days of such election to vote by ballot as aforesaid in the town or ward in which they shall actually reside.
All free male citizens who are twenty-one years old or older, and who own property in this State, or who have actually been assessed and paid taxes to this State, or who have been enrolled in the militia of this State or in a legal volunteer or uniform group, and have served either as an officer or a private, or who are legally exempt from taxes or militia duty, or who have been required to work on public roads and highways and have done so, or who have paid a fee to avoid that obligation according to the law, will be allowed to vote by ballot during the three days of the election in the town or ward where they actually live.
Extract from Sec. 6th, Act 90:
Extract from Sec. 6th, Act 90:
And be it further enacted, that the number of delegates to be chosen shall be the same as the number of Members of Assembly from the respective cities and counties of this State, and that the same qualification for voters shall be required on the election for delegates, as is prescribed in the first section of this act, and none other.... And that all persons entitled to vote by this law for delegates, shall be eligible to be elected.
And it’s further enacted that the number of delegates chosen will be equal to the number of Members of Assembly from the various cities and counties of this State, and the same voter qualifications required for the election of delegates will be as stated in the first section of this act, and no others... And all individuals eligible to vote under this law for delegates shall also be eligible to be elected.
Extracts from the first Constitution of the State of New York, under and by virtue of which the Legislatures sat, which passed the acts of 1801 and 1821, from which the extracts above are taken. Sec. 7. Qualification of electors:
Extracts from the first Constitution of the State of New York, under which the Legislatures operated, which passed the acts of 1801 and 1821, from which the extracts above are taken. Sec. 7. Qualification of electors:
That every male inhabitant of full age, who shall have personally resided for six months within one of the counties of this State, immediately preceding the day of election, shall at such election be entitled to vote for representatives of the said county in Assembly, if during the time aforesaid, he shall have been a freeholder possessing a freehold of the value of £20, within the said county, or have rented a tenement therein of a yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to this State.
That every male resident of legal age, who has lived personally for six months in one of the counties of this State right before the election day, is entitled to vote for representatives of that county in the Assembly, as long as during that time, he has been a property owner with a freehold worth £20 in that county, or has rented a property there valued at forty shillings per year, and has been assessed and actually paid taxes to this State.
Sec. 10. And this Convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that the Senate of the State of New York shall consist of twenty-four freeholders, to be chosen out of the body of the freeholders, and they be chosen by the freeholders of this State, possessed of freeholds of the value of £100 over and above all debts charged thereon.
Sec. 10. This Convention also, in the name and with the authority of the good people of this State, declares and establishes that the Senate of the State of New York will consist of twenty-four property owners, selected from among the property owners, and they will be elected by the property owners of this State who hold freeholds valued at £100 or more, after deducting all debts associated with them.
By section 17, the qualifications for voters for Governor are made the same as those for Senators.
By section 17, the qualifications for voting for Governor are now the same as those for Senators.
The laws above quoted show this striking fact: Those men, black and white, prohibited from voting for members of the Assembly, were permitted to vote for delegates to said Conventions; and more than this, on each occasion they were eligible to seats in the body called to frame the fundamental law—the fundamental law from which Governors, Senators, and Members derive their existence.
The laws mentioned above reveal an interesting fact: Both black and white men who were banned from voting for Assembly members were allowed to vote for delegates to those Conventions. Furthermore, on each occasion, they were also eligible to hold seats in the group tasked with creating the fundamental law—the law that gives authority to Governors, Senators, and Members.
The Constitutional Convention of Rhode Island, in 1842, affords another precedent of the power of the Legislature to extend the suffrage to disfranchised classes.
The Constitutional Convention of Rhode Island in 1842 provides another example of the Legislature's power to grant voting rights to disenfranchised groups.
The disfranchisement of any class of citizens is in express violation of the spirit of our own Constitution. Art. 1, sec. 1:
The disenfranchisement of any group of citizens directly goes against the spirit of our Constitution. Art. 1, sec. 1:
No member of this State shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land and the judgment of his peers.
No member of this State can be denied the right to vote or deprived of any rights or privileges given to any citizen, except by the law and the judgment of their peers.
Now, women, and negroes not worth two hundred and fifty dollars, however weak and insignificant, are surely "members of the State." The law of the land is equality. The question of disfranchisement has never been submitted to the judgment of their peers. A peer is an equal. The "white male citizen" who so pompously parades himself in all our Codes and Constitutions, does not recognize women and negroes as his equals; therefore, his judgment in their case amounts to nothing. And women and negroes constituting a majority of the people of the State, do not recognize a "white male" minority as their rightful rulers. On our republican theory that the majority governs, women and negroes should have a voice in the government of the State; and being taxed, should be represented.
Now, women and Black individuals who are valued at less than two hundred and fifty dollars, no matter how weak and insignificant they may seem, are definitely "members of the State." The law of the land demands equality. The issue of disenfranchisement has never been brought before the judgment of their peers. A peer is an equal. The "white male citizen" who proudly shows off his status in all our Codes and Constitutions doesn't see women and Black individuals as his equals; therefore, his opinion on the matter means nothing. Since women and Black individuals make up the majority of the population in the State, they do not accept a "white male" minority as their rightful rulers. According to our republican belief that the majority governs, women and Black individuals should have a say in the government of the State; and since they are taxed, they should be represented.
In the recent debate in the Senate of the United States, on the question of suffrage, Senator Anthony, of Rhode Island, said:
In the recent debate in the U.S. Senate about the issue of voting rights, Senator Anthony from Rhode Island stated:
Nor is it a fair statement of the case to say, that the man represents the woman, because it is an assumption on the part of the man—it is an involuntary representation on the part of the woman. Representation implies a certain delegated power, and a certain responsibility on the part of the representative toward the party represented. A representation to which the represented party does not assent, is no representation at all; but is adding insult to injury. When the American Colonies complained that they ought not to be taxed unless they were represented in the British Parliament, it would have been rather a singular answer to tell them that they were represented by Lord North, or even by the Earl of Chatham. The gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber, who say that the States lately in rebellion are entitled to immediate representation in this Chamber, would hardly be satisfied if we should tell them that my friend from Massachusetts represented South Carolina, and my friend from Michigan represented Alabama. They would hardly be satisfied with that kind of representation. Nor have we any more right to assume that the women are satisfied with the representation of the men. Where has been the assembly at which this right of representation was conferred? Where was the compact made? It is wholly an assumption.
It's not fair to say that men represent women, because that's just a man's assumption—it’s an involuntary representation for women. Representation suggests a certain delegated power and responsibility from the representative to the represented party. A representation that the represented party does not agree to isn't really a representation at all; it's just adding insult to injury. When the American Colonies argued they shouldn’t be taxed without representation in the British Parliament, it would have been quite strange to tell them they were represented by Lord North or the Earl of Chatham. The people on the other side of the Chamber who say that states that recently rebelled deserve immediate representation here wouldn't be happy if we claimed that my friend from Massachusetts represented South Carolina and my friend from Michigan represented Alabama. They wouldn't accept that kind of representation. Similarly, we have no right to assume that women are satisfied with men's representation. Where has the assembly been that granted this right to represent? Where was the agreement made? It's entirely an assumption.
"White males" are the nobility of this country; they are the privileged order, who have legislated as unjustly for women and negroes as have the nobles of England for their disfranchised classes. The existence of the English House of Commons is a strong fact to prove that one class can not legislate for another. Perhaps it may be necessary, in this transition period of our civilization, to create a Lower House for women and negroes, lest the dreadful example of Massachusetts, nay, worse, should be repeated here, and women, as well as black men, take their places beside our Dutch nobility in the councils of the State. If the history of England has proved that white men of different grades can not legislate with justice for one another, how can you, Honorable Gentlemen, legislate for women and negroes, who, by your customs, creeds and codes, are placed under the ban of inferiority? If you dislike this view of the case, and claim that woman is your superior, and, therefore, you place her above all troublesome legislation, to shield her by your protecting care from the rough winds of life, I have simply to say, your statute books are a sad commentary on that position. Your laws degrade, rather than exalt woman; your customs cripple, rather than free; your system of taxation is alike ungenerous and unjust.
"White males" are the elite of this country; they are the privileged group that has legislated as unjustly for women and Black people as their counterparts in England have for the disenfranchised classes. The existence of the English House of Commons strongly indicates that one class cannot legislate for another. It may be necessary, during this transitional phase of our society, to create a Lower House for women and Black people, to avoid the terrible example set by Massachusetts, or worse, where women and Black men take their places alongside our Dutch elite in the government. If the history of England shows that white men of different backgrounds cannot legislate fairly for each other, how can you, Honorable Gentlemen, legislate for women and Black people, who, by your customs and codes, are placed under the stigma of inferiority? If you disagree with this perspective and claim that women are your equals, thereby placing her above all bothersome legislation to protect her from the harsh realities of life, I simply say that your laws are a disappointing testament to that belief. Your laws demean, rather than uplift, women; your customs hinder, rather than liberate; your tax system is equally unkind and unjust.
In demanding suffrage for the black man of the South, the dominant party recognizes the fact that as a freedman he is no longer a part of the family therefore his master is no longer his representative, and as he will now[Pg 274] be liable to taxation, he must also have representation. Woman, on the contrary, has never been such a part of the family as to escape taxation. Although there has been no formal proclamation giving her an individual existence, unmarried women have always had the right to property and wages; to make contracts and do business in their own name. And even married women, by recent legislation in this State, have been secured in some civil rights, at least as well secured as those classes can be who do not hold the ballot in their own hands. Woman now holds a vast amount of property in the country, and pays her full proportion of taxes, revenue included; on what principle, then, do you deny her representation? If you say women are "virtually represented" by the men of their household, I give you Senator Sumner's denial, in his great speech on Equal Rights in the First Session of the 39th Congress. Quoting from James Otis, he says: "No such phrase as virtual representation was known in law or constitution. It is altogether a subtlety and illusion, wholly unfounded and absurd. We must not be cheated by any such phantom or any other fiction of law or politics, or any monkish trick of deceit or hypocrisy."
In demanding voting rights for Black men in the South, the ruling party acknowledges that now that he's free, he is no longer part of the family; thus, his former master is not his representative anymore. Since he will now[Pg 274] be subject to taxation, he must also have representation. Women, on the other hand, have never been part of the family in a way that allows them to avoid taxes. Although there hasn’t been an official declaration granting them individual status, unmarried women have always had the right to own property and earn wages, make contracts, and conduct business in their own name. Even married women, thanks to recent laws in this state, have gained some civil rights, at least to the extent that those without the vote can. Women now own a significant amount of property in the country and pay their fair share of taxes, including revenue; so what basis do you have for denying them representation? If you argue that women are "virtually represented" by the men in their households, I refer you to Senator Sumner's statement in his important speech on Equal Rights during the First Session of the 39th Congress. Citing James Otis, he said: "No such term as virtual representation was recognized in law or the constitution. It's just a trick and an illusion, completely unfounded and ridiculous. We must not be misled by any such phantom, or any other legal or political fiction, or any deceitful trick."
In regard to taxation without representation, Lord Coke says: "The supreme power can not take from any man any part of his property without his consent in person or by representation. Taxes are not to be laid on the people" (are not women and negroes people?) "without their consent in person or by representation. The very act of taxing those who are not represented appears to me to deprive them of one of their most essential rights as freemen, and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right; for what one civil right is worth a rush, after a man's property is subject to be taken from him without his consent?" In view of such opinions, is it too much to ask the men of New York, either to enfranchise women of wealth and education, or else release them from taxation? If we can not be represented as individuals, we should not be taxed as individuals. If the "white male" will do all the voting, let him pay all the taxes. There is no logic so powerful in opening the eyes of men to their real interests as a direct appeal to their pockets. Such a release from taxation can be supported, too, by your own Constitution. In Art. 2, Sec. 1, you say, "And no person of color shall be subject to direct taxation, unless he shall be seized and possessed of such real estate as aforesaid," referring to the $250 qualification. Now, a poor widow who owns a lot worth a hundred dollars or less, is taxed. Why this partiality to the black man? He may live in the quiet possession of $249 worth of property, and not be taxed a cent. Is it on the ground of color or sex, that the black man finds greater favor in the eyes of the law than the daughters of the State? In order fully to understand this partiality, I have inquired into your practice with regard to women of color. I find that in Seneca Falls there lives a highly estimable colored woman, by the name of Abby Gomore, who owns property to the amount of a thousand dollars, in village lots. She now pays, and always has paid, from the time she invested her first hundred dollars, the same taxes as any other citizen—just in proportion to the value of her property, or as it is assessed. After excluding women and "men of color" not worth $250, from representation, your Constitution tells us what other persons are excluded from the right of suffrage. Art. 2, Sec. 2.[Pg 275]
In terms of taxation without representation, Lord Coke says: "The supreme power cannot take any part of a person's property without their consent, either in person or through representation. Taxes shouldn't be imposed on people" (are women and Black individuals not considered people?) "without their consent, in person or through representation. The very act of taxing those who aren't represented seems to me to take away one of their most essential rights as free individuals, and if it continues, it appears to completely disenfranchise them from every civil right; because what value does any civil right have when a person's property can be taken without their consent?" Given these views, is it too much to ask the men of New York to either give voting rights to educated and wealthy women or exempt them from taxes? If we can't be represented as individuals, we shouldn't be taxed as individuals. If "white males" are the only ones voting, then let them pay all the taxes. There's no argument more effective in making people see their true interests than a direct appeal to their wallets. This exemption from taxation can also be supported by your own Constitution. In Art. 2, Sec. 1, it states, "No person of color shall be subject to direct taxation unless they own real estate valued as stated above," referring to the $250 qualification. Now, a poor widow who owns a lot worth a hundred dollars or less is taxed. Why this bias in favor of Black men? They might live quietly with $249 worth of property and not be taxed at all. Is the preferential treatment based on race or gender, making Black men more favored in the eyes of the law than the daughters of the State? To fully grasp this favoritism, I've looked into your treatment of women of color. I found that in Seneca Falls, there is a highly respected Black woman named Abby Gomore, who owns property worth a thousand dollars in village lots. She currently pays, and has always paid since she invested her first hundred dollars, the same taxes as any other citizen—just proportionate to the value of her property, or as it is assessed. After excluding women and "men of color" worth less than $250 from representation, your Constitution specifies who else is excluded from the right to vote. Art. 2, Sec. 2.[Pg 275]
Laws may be passed excluding from the right of suffrage all persons who have been or may be convicted of bribery, or larceny, or of any infamous crime, and for depriving every person who shall make, or become directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager depending upon the result of any election, from the right to vote at such election.
Laws can be enacted to prevent anyone who has been or may be convicted of bribery, theft, or any serious crime from voting, and to take away the voting rights of anyone who makes or becomes directly or indirectly involved in any bet or wager related to the outcome of an election.
How humiliating! For respectable and law-abiding women and "men of color," to be thrust outside the pale of political consideration with those convicted of bribery, larceny, and infamous crime; and worse than all, with those who bet on elections—for how lost to all sense of honor must that "white male citizen" be who publicly violates a wise law to which he has himself given an intelligent consent. We are ashamed, Honored Sirs, of our company. The Mohammedan forbids a "fool, a madman, or a woman" to call the hours for prayers. If it were not for the invidious classification, we might hope it was tenderness rather than contempt that moved the Mohammedan to excuse woman from so severe a duty. But for the ballot, which falls like a flake of snow upon the sod, we can find no such excuse for New York legislators. Art. 2, Sec. 3, should be read and considered by the women of the State, as it gives them a glimpse of the modes of life and surroundings of some of the privileged classes of "white male citizens" who may go to the polls:
How humiliating! For respectable and law-abiding women and "men of color" to be pushed out of political consideration along with those convicted of bribery, theft, and other serious crimes; and even worse, alongside those who gamble on elections—how far removed from any sense of honor must that "white male citizen" be who openly breaks a wise law he has knowingly agreed to. We are ashamed, Honored Sirs, of our company. The Muslim faith doesn’t allow a "fool, a madman, or a woman" to call for prayer times. If it weren't for the unfair classification, we might hope it was kindness rather than disdain that led the Muslim to excuse women from such a heavy responsibility. But for the ballot, which falls like a flake of snow onto the ground, we can find no such justification for New York legislators. Article 2, Section 3, should be read and considered by the women of the State, as it gives them a glimpse into the lives and surroundings of some of the privileged "white male citizens" who may vote:
For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged in navigating the waters of the State, or of the United States, or of the high seas; nor while a student of any seminary of learning; nor while kept at any alms-house or other asylum, at public expense; nor while confined in any public prison.
For voting purposes, no one will be considered to have gained or lost their residency due to being present or absent while working for the United States; while navigating the waters of the State, the United States, or the high seas; while attending any educational institution; while residing in any public assistance facility; or while being held in any public jail.
What an unspeakable privilege to have that precious jewel—the human soul—in a setting of white manhood, that thus it can pass through the prison, the asylum, the alms-house, the muddy waters of the Erie canal, and come forth undimmed to appear at the ballot-box at the earliest opportunity, there to bury its crimes, its poverty, its moral and physical deformities, all beneath the rights, privileges, and immunities of a citizen of the State. Just imagine the motley crew from the ten thousand dens of poverty and vice in our large cities, limping, raving, cringing, staggering up to the polls, while the loyal mothers of a million soldiers whose bones lay bleaching on every Southern plain, stand outside sad and silent witnesses of this wholesale desecration of republican institutions. When you say it would degrade woman to go to the polls, do you not make a sad confession of your irreligious mode of observing that most sacred right of citizenship? The ballot-box, in a republican government, should be guarded with as much love and care as was the Ark of the Lord among the Children of Israel. Here, where we have no heaven-anointed kings or priests, law must be to us a holy thing; and the ballot-box the holy of holies; for on it depends the safety and stability of our institutions. I, for one, gentlemen, am not willing to be thus represented. I claim to understand the interests of the nation better than yonder pauper in your alms-house, than the unbalanced graduate from your asylum and prison, or the popinjay of twenty-one from your seminary of learning, or the traveler on the tow-path of the Erie canal. No wonder that with such voters as Art. 2, Sec. 3 welcomes to the polls, we have these contradictory laws and constitutions. No wonder that with such voters, sex and color should be exalted above loyalty, virtue, wealth[Pg 276] and education. I warn you, legislators of the State of New York, that you need the moral power of wise and thoughtful women in your political councils, to outweigh the incoming tide of poverty, ignorance, and vice that threatens our very existence as a nation. Have not the women of the republic an equal interest with yourselves in the government, in free institutions, in progressive ideas, and in the success of the most liberal political measures? Remember, in your last election, the republican majority in this State was only fourteen thousand, all told. If you would not see the liberal party swamped in the next Presidential campaign, treble your majority by enfranchising those classes who would support it in all just and merciful legislation....
What an incredible privilege to have that precious jewel—the human soul—within the context of white manhood, allowing it to experience the prison, the asylum, the poorhouse, the muddy waters of the Erie Canal, and emerge untainted to cast a vote at the first chance, to bury its crimes, poverty, and physical or moral deformities beneath the rights, privileges, and protections of a citizen of the State. Just picture the mixed group coming from the thousands of places of poverty and vice in our big cities, limping, shouting, groveling, and staggering to the polls, while the faithful mothers of a million soldiers whose bones lie scattered across every Southern field stand outside, sorrowful and silent witnesses to this blatant violation of republican values. When you argue that it would degrade women to go to the polls, aren't you admitting your own lack of respect for the sacred right of citizenship? The ballot box in a republic should be treated with as much care and reverence as the Ark of the Covenant among the Children of Israel. Here, where we don’t have kings or priests appointed by heaven, law must be a sacred trust for us; and the ballot box must be the most sacred of all, for the safety and stability of our institutions depend on it. I, for one, gentlemen, am unwilling to be represented this way. I believe I understand the interests of the nation better than that pauper in your poorhouse, the unstable graduate from your asylum and prison, the flashy young adult from your school, or the traveler along the Erie Canal. It's no surprise that with such voters welcomed by Art. 2, Sec. 3 at the polls, we have contradictory laws and constitutions. It’s no surprise that with such voters, sex and color are prioritized over loyalty, virtue, wealth, and education. I caution you, legislators of the State of New York, that you need the moral influence of wise and thoughtful women in your political discussions to counteract the rising wave of poverty, ignorance, and vice threatening our very survival as a nation. Don't women of the republic have the same stake in government, free institutions, progressive ideas, and the success of the most generous political measures as you do? Remember, in your last election, the republican majority in this State was only fourteen thousand, total. If you don’t want to see the liberal party overwhelmed in the next Presidential campaign, increase your majority threefold by allowing those groups who would support it in all fair and compassionate legislation to vote....
The extension of suffrage is the political idea of our day, agitating alike the leading minds of both continents. The question of debate in the long past has been the rights of races. This, in our country, was settled by the war, when the black man was declared free and worthy to bear arms in defense of the republic, and the last remnants of aristocracy were scattered before our northern hosts like chaff in the whirlwind. We have now come to the broader idea of individual rights. An idea already debated ably in Congress and out, by Republicans, Democrats and Abolitionists, who, in common with the best writers and thinkers of the day the world over, base all rights of society and government on those of the individual. Each one of you has a right to everything in earth and air, on land and sea, to the whole world of thought, to all that is needful for soul and body, and there is no limit to the exercise of your rights, but in the infringement of the rights of another; and the moment you pass that limit you are on forbidden ground, you violate the law of individual life, and breed disorder and confusion in the whole social system. Where, gentlemen, did you get the right to deny the ballot to all women and black men not worth $250? If this right of suffrage is not an individual right, from what place and body did you get it? Is this right of franchise a conventional arrangement, a privilege that society or government may grant or withhold at pleasure? In the Senate of the United States, in the recent discussion on the "bill to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia," Gratz Brown said:
The expansion of voting rights is the key political issue of our time, sparking discussion among influential thinkers on both continents. The longstanding debate has been about the rights of different races. In our country, this was resolved through war, when it was declared that Black individuals were free and had the right to serve in defense of the republic, while the remnants of aristocracy were swept away by our northern forces like chaff in the wind. We have now moved on to the broader concept of individual rights. This idea has been vigorously debated in Congress and beyond, by Republicans, Democrats, and Abolitionists, who, along with the best writers and thinkers worldwide, believe all rights of society and government are based on individual rights. You each have the right to everything in the world—air, land, sea, and the entire realm of ideas—everything that is essential for your mind and body. The only limit to your rights is when they infringe upon someone else's rights; cross that line, and you enter forbidden territory, violating the principles of individual life and creating chaos within the entire social structure. Where, gentlemen, do you find the right to deny the vote to all women and Black men who aren’t worth $250? If this right to vote isn’t an individual right, where did it come from? Is the right to vote just a societal privilege that can be given or taken away at will? In the recent Senate discussion on the "bill to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia," Gratz Brown said:
Mr. President, I say here on the floor of the American Senate, I stand for universal suffrage; and, as a matter of fundamental principle, do not recognize the right of society to limit it on any ground of race or sex. I will go farther and say, that I recognize the right of franchise as being intrinsically a natural right. I do not believe that society is authorized to impose any limitations upon it that do not spring out of the necessities of the social state itself. Sir, I have been shocked, in the course of this debate, to hear Senators declare this right only a conventional and political arrangement, a privilege yielded to you and me, and others; not a right in any sense, only a concession! Mr. President, I do not hold my liberties by any such tenure. On the contrary, I believe that whenever you establish that doctrine; whenever you crystallize that idea in the public mind of this country, you ring the death-knell of American liberties!!
Mr. President, I stand here in the American Senate to advocate for universal suffrage; and, as a matter of principle, I do not accept society's right to limit it based on race or gender. I will go further and assert that the right to vote is fundamentally a natural right. I don't believe society has the authority to impose any restrictions on it that do not arise from the actual needs of our social state. Sir, I have been appalled during this debate to hear Senators claim that this right is merely a conventional political arrangement, a privilege granted to you, me, and others; not a right in any true sense, just a concession! Mr. President, I do not base my freedoms on such terms. On the contrary, I believe that whenever you adopt that belief; whenever you solidify that idea in the public consciousness of this country, you mark the beginning of the end for American freedoms!
The demand we to-day make, is not the idiosyncrasy of a few discontented minds, but a universal movement. Woman is everywhere throwing off the lethargy of ages, and is already close upon you in the whole realm of thought—in art, science, literature and government. Everything heralds the dawn of the new era when moral power is to govern nations.[Pg 277] In asking you, Honorable Gentlemen, to extend suffrage to woman, we do not press on you the risk and responsibility of a new step, but simply to try a measure that has already proved wise and safe the world over. So long as political power was absolute and hereditary, woman shared it with man by birth. In Hungary and some provinces of France and Germany, women holding this inherited right confer their right of franchise on their husbands. In 1858, in the old town of Upsal, the authorities granted the right of suffrage to fifty women holding real estate, and to thirty-one doing business in their own name. The representative their votes elected was to sit in the House of Burgesses. In Ireland, the Court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, restored to women, in 1864, the old right of voting for town commissioners. In 1864, too, the government of Moravia decided that all women who are tax-payers had the right to vote. In Canada, in 1850, an electoral privilege was conferred on women, in the hope that the Protestant might balance the Roman Catholic power in the school system. "I lived," says a friend of mine, "where I saw this right exercised for four years by female property holders, and never heard the most cultivated man, even Lord Elgin, object to its results." Women vote in Austria, Australia, Holland and Sweden, on property qualifications. There is a bill now before the British Parliament, presented by John Stuart Mill, asking for household suffrage, accompanied by a petition from eleven thousand of the best educated women in England.
The demand we make today isn't just the complaint of a few unhappy individuals; it's a widespread movement. Women are shaking off the inertia of the past everywhere, and they are already stepping into the entire sphere of thought—in art, science, literature, and government. Everything signals the arrival of a new era where moral authority will lead nations.[Pg 277] When we ask you, Honorable Gentlemen, to grant women the right to vote, we're not asking you to take on the risk and responsibility of a new venture, but merely to try an approach that has already been proven to be wise and safe worldwide. As long as political power was absolute and passed down through families, women shared it with men by birth. In Hungary and some regions of France and Germany, women with inherited rights pass their voting rights to their husbands. In 1858, in the old town of Upsal, authorities allowed fifty women who owned property, and thirty-one women running their own businesses, to vote. The representative they elected was to sit in the House of Burgesses. In Ireland, the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin reinstated women's right to vote for town commissioners in 1864. That same year, the government of Moravia decided that all women who paid taxes had the right to vote. In Canada, in 1850, women were granted electoral privileges, hoping to balance Protestant and Roman Catholic power in the school system. "I lived," says a friend of mine, "where I saw this right exercised for four years by female property owners, and never heard even the most educated man, not even Lord Elgin, complain about the outcomes." Women vote in Austria, Australia, the Netherlands, and Sweden based on property qualifications. There is currently a bill before the British Parliament, presented by John Stuart Mill, advocating for household suffrage, along with a petition from eleven thousand of the most educated women in England.
Would you be willing to admit, gentlemen, that women know less, have less virtue, less pride and dignity of character under Republican institutions than in the despotisms and monarchies of the old world? Your Codes and Constitutions savor of such an opinion. Fortunately, history furnishes a few saving facts, even under our Republican institutions. From a recent examination of the archives of the State of New Jersey we learn that, owing to a liberal Quaker influence, women and negroes exercised the right of suffrage in that State thirty-one years—from 1776 to 1807—when "white males" ignored the constitution, and arbitrarily assumed the reins of government. This act of injustice is sufficient to account for the moral darkness that seems to have settled down upon that unhappy State. During the dynasty of women and negroes, does history record any social revolution peculiar to that period? Because women voted there, was the institution of marriage annulled, the sanctity of home invaded, cradles annihilated, and the stockings, like Governor Marcy's pantaloons, mended by the State? Did the men of that period become mere satellites of the dinner-pot, the wash-tub, or the spinning-wheel? Were they dwarfed and crippled in body and soul, while their enfranchised wives and mothers became giants in stature and intellect? Did the children, fully armed and equipped for the battle of life, spring, Minerva-like, from the brains of their fathers? Were the laws of nature suspended? Did the sexes change places? Was everything turned upside down? No, life went on as smoothly in New Jersey as in any other State in the Union. And the fact that women did vote there, created so slight a ripple on the popular wave, and made so ordinary a page in history, that probably nine-tenths of the people of this country never heard of its existence, until recent discussions in the United States Senate brought out the facts of the case. In Kansas, women vote for school officers and are themselves eligible[Pg 278] to the office of trustee. There is a resolution now before the Legislature of Ohio to strike the words "white male" from the Constitution of that State. The Hon. Mr. Noel, of Missouri, has presented a bill in the House of Representatives to extend suffrage to the women of the District of Columbia.
Would you be willing to admit, gentlemen, that women know less, have less virtue, and have less pride and dignity of character under Republican institutions than in the despotisms and monarchies of the old world? Your Codes and Constitutions imply such an opinion. Thankfully, history provides some saving facts, even under our Republican institutions. From a recent look at the archives of the State of New Jersey, we find that, due to a liberal Quaker influence, women and Black people had the right to vote in that State for thirty-one years—from 1776 to 1807—while "white males" ignored the constitution and seized control of the government. This act of injustice is enough to explain the moral darkness that seems to have settled over that unfortunate State. During the time when women and Black individuals voted, does history document any social upheaval unique to that period? Because women voted there, was the institution of marriage dissolved, the sanctity of home invaded, cradles destroyed, and the stockings, much like Governor Marcy's pantaloons, mended by the State? Did the men of that time become mere supporters of the kitchen, laundry, or spinning wheel? Were they diminished and incapacitated in body and soul, while their empowered wives and mothers became giants in stature and intellect? Did children, fully prepared for life's battles, spring forth, like Minerva, from their fathers’ minds? Were the laws of nature suspended? Did the sexes swap roles? Was everything turned upside down? No, life continued as smoothly in New Jersey as in any other State in the Union. The fact that women voted there made such a minor impact on public life and created such a normal chapter in history that probably nine-tenths of the people in this country never knew it existed until recent discussions in the United States Senate revealed the facts. In Kansas, women vote for school officers and are also eligible for the position of trustee. There is a resolution currently before the Legislature of Ohio to remove the words "white male" from the Constitution of that State. The Hon. Mr. Noel, of Missouri, has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to extend voting rights to the women of the District of Columbia.
I think, Honorable Gentlemen, I have given you facts enough to show that you need not hesitate to give the ballot to the women of New York, on the ground that it is a new thing; for, as you see, the right has long ago been exercised by certain classes of women in many countries. And if it were a new thing, and had never been heard of before, that would be no argument against the experiment. Had the world never done a new thing, Columbus would not have discovered this country, nor the ocean telegraph brought our old enemy—Great Britain—within friendly speaking distance. When it was proposed to end slavery in this country, croakers and conservatives protested because it was a new thing, and must of necessity produce a social convulsion. When it was proposed to give woman her rights of property in this State, the same classes opposed that on the same ground; but the spirit of the age carried both measures over their heads and "nobody was hurt."
I believe, Honorable Gentlemen, I've provided enough facts to show that you shouldn't hesitate to grant the ballot to the women of New York simply because it's something new; as you can see, certain groups of women in many countries have long exercised this right. And even if it were something brand new that had never been seen before, that wouldn’t be an argument against trying it out. If the world had never attempted anything new, Columbus wouldn’t have discovered this country, nor would the ocean telegraph have brought our former enemy—Great Britain—within friendly conversation range. When it was suggested to end slavery in this country, pessimists and conservatives raised objections because it was a new idea and supposedly would lead to a social upheaval. When the idea of giving women their property rights in this State was proposed, the same groups opposed it for the same reason; however, the spirit of the age pushed both measures through, and "nobody was hurt."
You Republicans can not oppose our demand on that ground, for your present party-cry "negro suffrage" is a new thing, and startling too, in the ears of the Southern States, and a very inconsistent thing, so long as the $250 qualification remains in your Constitution. "If you would know your faults," says Cicero, "ask your enemies." Hear his Excellency Andrew Johnson, in his veto on the District of Columbia Bill; he says: "It hardly seems consistent with the principles of right and justice, that representatives of States where suffrage is either denied the colored man or granted to him on qualifications requiring intelligence or property, should compel the people of the District of Columbia to try an experiment which their constituents have thus far shown an unwillingness to try for themselves." Senator Sumner, a leading radical, expresses the same opinion. In the debate on the admission of Nebraska, he says: "When we demand equal rights of the Southern States, we must not be so inconsistent as to admit any new State with a constitution disfranchising citizens on account of color. Congress must be itself just, if it would recommend it to others. Reconstruction must begin at home." Consistency is a jewel. Every thoughtful person must see that Northern representatives are in no condition to reconstruct the South until their own State Constitutions are purged of all invidious distinctions among their citizens. As the fountain rises no higher than its source, how can New York press on South Carolina a civilization she has never tried herself. But say you, we can coerce the South to do what we have no right to force on a loyal State. Has not each State a right to amend her own Constitution and establish a genuine republic within her own boundaries? "Let each man mend one," says the old proverb, "and the world is mended." Let each State bring its own Constitution into harmony with the Federal Constitution, and the Union will be a republic.
You Republicans can’t oppose our demand on that basis, because your current party slogan "negro suffrage" is something new and quite shocking to the Southern States, and it’s very inconsistent as long as the $250 qualification remains in your Constitution. "If you want to know your faults," says Cicero, "ask your enemies." Listen to his Excellency Andrew Johnson in his veto of the District of Columbia Bill; he states: "It hardly seems consistent with the principles of right and justice that representatives of States, where suffrage is either denied to the colored man or granted on conditions requiring intelligence or property, should compel the people of the District of Columbia to try an experiment that their constituents have clearly shown an unwillingness to undertake themselves." Senator Sumner, a prominent radical, shares this view. In the debate over Nebraska's admission, he states: "When we demand equal rights from the Southern States, we shouldn’t be so inconsistent as to admit any new State with a constitution that disenfranchises citizens based on color. Congress must be just itself if it wants to recommend justice to others. Reconstruction must begin at home." Consistency is key. Every thoughtful person can see that Northern representatives are not in a position to reconstruct the South until their own State Constitutions are free of all discriminatory distinctions among their citizens. Just as a fountain can't rise higher than its source, how can New York impose upon South Carolina a civilization she has never attempted herself? But you say we can force the South to do what we have no right to enforce on a loyal State. Doesn’t each State have the right to amend its own Constitution and establish a true republic within its own borders? "Let each man fix his own," as the old saying goes, "and the world will be fixed." Let each State align its own Constitution with the Federal Constitution, and the Union will be a republic.
We are soon to hold a convention to revise the Constitution of the State of New York; and it is the duty of the people to insist that it be so amended as to make all its citizens equal before the law. Could the Empire State now take the lead in making herself a genuine republic, all the States would,[Pg 279] in time, follow her example, and the problem of reconstruction be thus settled to the satisfaction of all. Example is more powerful than precept in all cases. Were our constitutions free from all class distinctions, with what power our representatives could now press their example on the Southern States. Is there anything more rasping to a proud spirit than to be rebuked for shortcomings by those who are themselves guilty of the grossest violations of law and justice? Does the North think it absurd for its women to vote and hold office, the South thinks the same of its negroes. Does the North consider its women a part of the family to be represented by the "white male citizen," so views the South her negroes. And thus viewing them, the South has never taxed her slaves; but our chivalry never fails to send its tax-gatherers to the poorest widow that owns a homestead. Would you press impartial suffrage on the South, recognize it first at home. Would you have Congress do its duty in the coming session, let the action of every State Legislature teach it what that duty is. The work of this hour is a broader one than the reconstruction of the Rebel States. It is the lifting of the entire nation into higher ideas of justice and equality. It is the realization of what the world has never yet seen, a genuine republic.
We are about to hold a convention to revise the Constitution of the State of New York, and it’s the responsibility of the people to demand that it be changed to ensure all citizens are equal under the law. If the Empire State were to lead by becoming a true republic, all the states would eventually follow her example, and the issue of reconstruction could be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Actions speak louder than words. If our constitutions had no class distinctions, our representatives would have greater influence when urging the Southern states to follow suit. Is there anything more infuriating to a proud spirit than to be criticized for shortcomings by those who themselves are guilty of the worst abuses of law and justice? If the North finds it ridiculous for women to vote and hold office, the South feels the same about its Black citizens. If the North views its women as part of the household represented by the “white male citizen,” the South views its Black citizens similarly. Because of this perspective, the South has never taxed its enslaved people; yet, our so-called chivalry never hesitates to send tax collectors to the poorest widow who owns a homestead. If you want to push for equal voting rights in the South, you should first recognize it at home. If you want Congress to fulfill its responsibilities in the coming session, let the actions of every state legislature show what that responsibility is. The task at hand is broader than just reconstructing the Rebel States; it involves elevating the entire nation to higher standards of justice and equality. It’s about achieving something the world has never truly seen: a genuine republic.
As the ballot is the key to reconstruction, a right knowledge of its use and power is the first step in the work before us. Hence, the consideration of the question of suffrage is the duty of every American citizen.
As voting is essential for rebuilding, understanding how to use it and its power is the first step in the task ahead. Therefore, considering the issue of voting rights is the responsibility of every American citizen.
The legal disabilities to the exercise of suffrage (for persons of sound mind and body) in the several States, are five—age, color, sex, property and education. As age depends on a fixed law, beyond the control of fallible man, viz., the revolution of the earth around the sun, it must be impartial, for, nolens volens, all men must revolve with their native planet; and as no Republican or Democratic majority can make the earth stand still, even for a Presidential campaign, they must in time perform that journey often enough to become legal voters. As the right to the ballot is not based on intelligence, it matters not that some boys of eighteen do know more than some men of thirty. Inasmuch as boys are not bound by any contract—except marriage—can not sell a horse, or piece of land, or be sued for debt until they are twenty-one, this qualification of age seems to be in harmony with the laws of the land, and based on common sense.
The legal restrictions on voting rights (for people who are mentally and physically capable) in various states are five: age, race, gender, property, and education. Since age is determined by a fixed natural law—specifically, the revolution of the Earth around the sun—it must be impartial, because, whether we like it or not, everyone has to move along with the planet they are born on; and since no majority, whether Republican or Democratic, can stop the Earth from spinning, even for an election, people will inevitably grow old enough to become eligible voters. As the right to vote is not based on intelligence, it doesn't matter that some eighteen-year-olds may know more than some thirty-year-olds. Since young people are not bound by any contracts—except for marriage—cannot sell a horse or piece of land, or be sued for debts until they're twenty-one, this age requirement seems to align with the law and is grounded in common sense.
As to color and sex, neither time, money or education can make black white, or woman man; therefore such insurmountable qualifications, not to be tolerated in a republican government, are unworthy our serious consideration. "Qualifications," says Senator Sumner, "can not be in their nature permanent or insurmountable. Color can not be a qualification any more than size, or quality of the hair. A permanent or insurmountable qualification is equivalent to a deprivation of the suffrage. In other words, it is the tyranny of taxation without representation; and this tyranny, I insist, is not intrusted to any State in the Union."
As for color and gender, neither time, money, nor education can change a black person into a white person, or a woman into a man; therefore, such insurmountable qualifications, which should not be accepted in a democratic government, are not worthy of our serious attention. "Qualifications," says Senator Sumner, "cannot be inherently permanent or insurmountable. Color cannot be a qualification any more than size or hair quality. A permanent or insurmountable qualification is equivalent to taking away the right to vote. In other words, it is the oppression of taxation without representation; and I strongly assert that this oppression is not allowed by any State in the Union."
As to property and education, there are some plausible arguments in favor of such qualifications, but they are all alike unsatisfactory, illogical and unjust. A limited suffrage creates a privileged class, and is based on the false idea that government is the natural arbiter of its citizens, while in fact it is the creature of their will. In the old days of the colonies when the property qualification was five pounds—that being just the price of a jackass—Benjamin[Pg 280] Franklin facetiously asked, "If a man must own a jackass in order to vote, who does the voting, the man or the jackass?" If reading and money-making were a sure gauge of character, if intelligence and virtue were twin sisters, these qualifications might do; but such is not the case. In our late war black men were loyal, generous and heroic without the alphabet or multiplication table, while men of wealth, educated by the nation, graduates of West Point, were false to their country and traitors to their flag. There was a time in England's history, when the House of Lords even, could neither read nor write. Before the art of printing, were all men fools? Were the Apostles and martyrs worth $250? The early Christians, the children of art, science and literature, have in all ages struggled with poverty, while they blessed the world with their inspirations. The Hero of Judea had not where to lay His head!! As capital has ever ground labor to the dust, is it just and generous to disfranchise the poor and ignorant because they are so? If a man can not read, give him the ballot, it is schoolmaster. If he does not own a dollar give him the ballot, it is the key to wealth and power. Says Lamartine, "universal suffrage is the first truth and only basis of every national republic." "The ballot," says Senator Sumner, "is the columbiad of our political life, and every citizen who has it is a full-armed monitor."
Regarding property and education, there are some reasonable arguments for these qualifications, but they all fall short, are illogical, and unfair. Limited voting rights create a privileged class and are based on the mistaken belief that the government naturally controls its citizens, while in reality, it is created by their will. Back in the colonial days when the property requirement was five pounds—which was just the cost of a donkey—Benjamin[Pg 280] Franklin humorously asked, "If someone has to own a donkey to vote, is it the person or the donkey who gets to vote?" If reading and wealth were accurate measures of character, if intelligence and virtue were inseparable, these qualifications might make sense; but that's not how it is. In our recent war, black men showed loyalty, generosity, and heroism without reading or arithmetic skills, while wealthy men, educated by the country and West Point graduates, betrayed their nation and their flag. There was a time in England's history when even the House of Lords couldn't read or write. Were all men fools before the invention of printing? Were the Apostles and martyrs each worth $250? Early Christians, who were the supporters of art, science, and literature, have always faced poverty while enriching the world with their ideas. The Hero of Judea had no place to rest his head!! Since capital has always oppressed labor, is it fair and kind to deny the poor and ignorant the right to vote simply because they are that way? If someone can’t read, give them the ballot; it’s a teacher. If they don’t have a dollar, give them the ballot; it’s the key to wealth and power. As Lamartine says, "universal suffrage is the first truth and only foundation of every national republic." "The ballot," says Senator Sumner, "is the columbiad of our political life, and every citizen who possesses it is a fully equipped defender."
But while such grand truths are uttered in the ears of the world, by an infamous amendment of the Federal Constitution, the people have sanctioned the disfranchisement of a majority of the loyal citizens of the nation. With sorrow we learn that the Legislature of New York has ratified this change of the Constitution.
But while such important truths are spoken to the world, through a notorious amendment to the Federal Constitution, the people have approved the disenfranchisement of a majority of the loyal citizens of the nation. We are saddened to hear that the Legislature of New York has ratified this change to the Constitution.
Happily for the cause of freedom, the organization we represent here to-day, "The American Equal Rights Association," has registered its protest in the archives of the State against this desecration of the last will and testament of the Fathers. It was a mistake for you to confirm to-day what Congress proposed a year ago. Recent debates in the Senate show a hearty repentance for their past action, and an entire revolution in their opinions on this whole question. It was gratifying to find in the discussion of the District Franchise Bill, how unanimously the Senate favored the extension of suffrage. The thanks of the women of the Nation are especially due to Senator Cowan for his motion to strike out the word "male," and to the nine distinguished Senators who voted for his amendment. It was pleasant to see into what fraternal relations this question at once brought all opposing elements. The very able and exhaustive manner in which both Republicans and Democrats pressed their claims to the ballot, through two entire sessions of the Senate, is most encouraging to the advocates of the political rights of women.
Happily for the cause of freedom, the organization we represent here today, "The American Equal Rights Association," has officially protested against the violation of the last will and testament of the Founding Fathers. It was a mistake for you to endorse today what Congress suggested a year ago. Recent debates in the Senate show a strong remorse for their previous actions and a complete shift in their views on this entire issue. It was encouraging to see how unanimously the Senate supported the extension of voting rights during the discussion of the District Franchise Bill. The women of the nation especially owe their thanks to Senator Cowan for his motion to remove the word "male," as well as to the nine distinguished Senators who voted for his amendment. It was nice to see how this question brought together all opposing groups in a fraternal manner. The very skilled and thorough way in which both Republicans and Democrats advocated for voting rights during two full sessions of the Senate is very encouraging to those who support women's political rights.
In view of this liberal discussion in the Senate, and the recent action of Congress on the Territories, it is rather singular that our Republican Governor, in referring to the Constitutional Convention in his late message, while recommending consideration of many minor matters, should have failed to call attention to Art. 2d, Sec. 1, of the Constitution, which denies the fundamental rights of citizenship. As the executive head of the party in this State whose political capital is "negro suffrage," it would have been highly proper for our worthy Governor to have given his opinion on that odious $250 clause in the Constitution. No doubt our judiciary, our criminal legislation,[Pg 281] our city governments need reforming; our railroads, prisons and schools need attention; but all these are of minor consideration to the personal and property rights of the man himself. Said Lalor Shiels, in the House of Commons, "strike the Constitution to the center and the lawyer sleeps in his closet. But touch the cobwebs in Westminster Hall and the spiders start from their hiding places."
In light of the open discussions in the Senate and Congress's recent actions regarding the Territories, it's quite unusual that our Republican Governor, while addressing the Constitutional Convention in his recent message, chose to highlight several minor issues but completely overlooked Article 2d, Section 1 of the Constitution, which denies essential citizenship rights. As the leader of the party in this state that champions "black suffrage," it would have been entirely appropriate for our esteemed Governor to express his views on that objectionable $250 clause in the Constitution. No doubt our judiciary, criminal laws, and city governments need reform; our railroads, prisons, and schools require attention too; but all these are secondary to the personal and property rights of individuals. Lalor Shiels stated in the House of Commons, "strike the Constitution to the center and the lawyer sleeps in his closet. But touch the cobwebs in Westminster Hall and the spiders start from their hiding places."
I have called your attention, gentlemen, to some of the flaws in your Constitution that you may see that there is more important work to be done in the coming Convention than any to which Governor Fenton has referred in his message. I would also call your attention to the fact, that while His Excellency suggests the number of delegates at large to be chosen by the two political parties, he makes no provision for the representatives of women and "men of color" not worth $250. I would, therefore, suggest to your honorable body that you provide for the election of an equal number of delegates at large from the disfranchised classes. But a response to our present demand does not legitimately thrust on you the final consideration of the whole broad question of suffrage, on which many of you may be unprepared to give an opinion. The simple point we now press is this: that in a revision of our Constitution, when the State is, as it were, resolved into its original elements, all the people should be represented in the Convention which is to enact the laws by which they are to be governed the next twenty years. Women and negroes, being seven-twelfths of the people, are a majority; and according to our republican theory, are the rightful rulers of the nation. In this view of the case, honorable gentlemen, is it not a very unpretending demand we make, that we shall vote once in twenty years in revising and amending our State Constitution?
I have brought to your attention, gentlemen, some of the flaws in your Constitution so you can see that there’s more important work to be done in the upcoming Convention than what Governor Fenton mentioned in his message. I also want to point out that while His Excellency proposes the number of delegates at large to be chosen by the two political parties, he doesn’t include any provisions for the representation of women and "men of color" who aren’t worth $250. Therefore, I suggest that you ensure the election of an equal number of delegates at large from the disenfranchised groups. However, addressing our current demand doesn’t necessarily require you to consider the entire broad question of suffrage, on which many of you might not feel ready to give an opinion. The key point we’re making is this: in revising our Constitution, while the State is essentially broken down to its original elements, all the people should be represented in the Convention that will create the laws by which they will be governed for the next twenty years. Women and black individuals, who make up seven-twelfths of the population, are a majority; and according to our republican principles, they are the rightful rulers of the nation. Given this perspective, honorable gentlemen, isn’t it a modest request we’re making to be able to vote once every twenty years on revising and amending our State Constitution?
But, say you, the majority of women do not make the demand. Grant it. What then? When you proclaimed emancipation, did you go to slaveholders and ask if a majority of them were in favor of freeing their slaves? When you ring the changes on "negro suffrage" from Maine to California, have you proof positive that a majority of the freedmen demand the ballot? On the contrary, knowing that the very existence of republican institutions depends on the virtue, education and equality of the people, did you not, as wise statesmen, legislate in all these cases for the highest good of the individual and the nation? We ask that the same far-seeing wisdom may guide your decision on the question now before you. Remember, the gay and fashionable throng who whisper in the ears of statesmen, judges, lawyers, merchants, "We have all the rights we want," are but the mummies of civilization, to be brought back to life only by earthquakes and revolutions. Would you know what is in the soul of woman, ask not the wives and daughters of merchant princes; but the creators of wealth—those who earn their bread by honest toil—those who, by a turn in the wheel of fortune, stand face to face with the stern realities of life.
But, you might say, most women don’t make the demand. That’s true. So what? When you declared emancipation, did you go to slaveholders and ask if most of them supported freeing their slaves? When you talk about "black suffrage" from Maine to California, do you have solid proof that most freedmen want the right to vote? On the contrary, knowing that the very existence of republican institutions relies on the virtue, education, and equality of the people, didn’t you, as wise leaders, make laws in all these cases for the best interest of both the individual and the nation? We ask that the same forward-thinking wisdom guides your decision on the issue now before you. Remember, the trendy and fashionable crowd who whisper in the ears of politicians, judges, lawyers, and businessmen, "We have all the rights we want," are just the remnants of civilization, to be revived only by earthquakes and revolutions. If you want to know what’s in a woman’s soul, don’t ask the wives and daughters of wealthy merchants; instead, ask the creators of wealth—those who earn their living through honest work—those who, by a twist of fate, confront the harsh realities of life.
"If you would enslave a people," says Cicero, "first, through ease and luxury, make them effeminate." When you subsidize labor to your selfish interests, there is ever a healthy resistance. But, when you exalt weakness and imbecility above your heads, give it an imaginary realm of power, illimitable, unmeasured, unrecognized, you have founded a throne for woman on pride, selfishness and complacency, before which you may well stand appalled.[Pg 282] In banishing Madame De Stael from Paris, the Emperor Napoleon, even, bowed to the power of that scepter which rules the world of fashion. The most insidious enemy to our republican institutions, at this hour, is found in the aristocracy of our women. The ballot-box, that great leveler among men, is beneath their dignity. "They have all the rights they want." So, in his spiritual supremacy, has the Pope of Rome! But what of the multitude outside the Vatican!!!
"If you want to enslave a people," Cicero says, "first, make them weak and dependent through comfort and luxury." When you support labor for your own selfish reasons, there's always some pushback. But when you elevate weakness and stupidity above you, give it an imaginary realm of limitless power that’s unrecognized, you build a throne for women based on pride, selfishness, and complacency, and you may very well be left shocked.[Pg 282] In kicking Madame De Stael out of Paris, even Emperor Napoleon recognized the influence of that scepter that governs the world of fashion. The most dangerous threat to our republican values right now is the aristocracy of our women. The ballot box, that great equalizer among men, is beneath their dignity. "They have all the rights they want." Well, so does the Pope of Rome in his spiritual authority! But what about the masses outside the Vatican!!!
This speech was published in full by the Metropolitan press and many of the leading journals[93] of the State, with fair editorial comments.
This speech was fully published by the Metropolitan press and many of the leading journals[93] of the State, along with reasonable editorial comments.
On June 4th, 1867, the Constitutional Convention assembled in Albany, and on the 10th Mr. Graves of Herkimer, moved "that a committee of five be appointed by the chair to report at an early day whether the Convention should provide that when a majority of women voted that they wanted the right of suffrage, they should have it," and on the 19th the President, William A. Wheeler, appointed the committee[94] on the "right of suffrage, and the qualifications for holding office."
On June 4th, 1867, the Constitutional Convention met in Albany, and on the 10th, Mr. Graves of Herkimer suggested, "that the chair appoint a committee of five to report soon on whether the Convention should ensure that when a majority of women voted for the right to vote, they should receive it." Then, on the 19th, the President, William A. Wheeler, appointed the committee[94] on the "right to vote and the qualifications for holding office."
The first petition brought before the committee in favor of suffrage for women was presented by George William Curtis, of Richmond Co., sent by the friends of Human Progress from their Annual meeting at Waterloo.
The first petition brought to the committee advocating for women's suffrage was presented by George William Curtis of Richmond County, sent by the supporters of Human Progress from their Annual meeting at Waterloo.
Martin I. Townsend next presented a petition from William Johnson, Chairman of the "Colored Men's State Committee," praying for "equal manhood suffrage." Similar petitions, without any concert of action between the parties, were presented simultaneously whenever any discussion arose on the suffrage question. But in this Convention the demands made by the women were more pressing and multitudinous.
Martin I. Townsend next presented a petition from William Johnson, Chairman of the "Colored Men's State Committee," asking for "equal manhood suffrage." Similar petitions, without any coordinated effort between the groups, were presented at the same time whenever any discussion came up about the suffrage issue. However, in this Convention, the demands made by the women were more urgent and numerous.
Mr. Graves, June 21st, 1867, moved to take up his resolution, "That a committee of five be appointed by the chair to report to the convention at as early a day as possible, whether, in their opinion, a provision should be incorporated in the Constitution authorizing the women in this State to exercise the elective franchise, when they shall ask that right by a majority of[Pg 283] all the votes given by female citizens over twenty-one years of age, at an election called for that purpose, at which women alone shall have the right to vote."
Mr. Graves, on June 21st, 1867, proposed his resolution, "That the chair appoint a committee of five to report to the convention as soon as possible on whether they think a provision should be added to the Constitution allowing women in this State to vote when they request that right through a majority of[Pg 283] all votes cast by female citizens over twenty-one years of age in an election specifically held for this purpose, where only women will have the right to vote."
Mr. Graves said:—Mr. President. I do not desire at this time to discuss the merits of the resolution; but allow me to suggest that there are four classes of persons interested in the questions involved in it. The first class is what is opprobriously known as "strong-minded women," who claim the right to vote upon the ground that they are interested and identified with ourselves in the stability and permanency of our institutions, and that their property is made liable for the maintenance of our Government, while they have no right to choose the law-makers or select the persons who are to assess the value of their property liable to taxation. They claim that they are not untaught in the science of government to which the right of administration is denied to them.
Mr. Graves said:—Mr. President. I don’t want to talk about the merits of the resolution right now; however, I’d like to point out that there are four groups of people affected by the issues it raises. The first group is what is unflatteringly referred to as "strong-minded women," who argue for their right to vote because they are invested and connected to the stability and permanence of our institutions. They believe their property is at risk for supporting our Government while they have no say in choosing the lawmakers or determining the value of their property that is subject to taxation. They assert that they are knowledgeable enough about the principles of government to deserve a role in its administration.
The second class includes both males and females who sympathize with the first class, and who claim that there is no disparity in the intellect of men and women, when an equal opportunity is afforded by education for progress and advancement. They also claim that our country is diminishing all the time in moral integrity and virtue, and ask that a new element be introduced into our governmental affairs by which crime shall be lessened and the estimate of moral virtue be made higher.
The second group includes both men and women who support the first group and argue that there is no difference in intelligence between genders when education provides equal opportunities for growth and advancement. They also believe that our country is constantly losing moral integrity and virtue, and they advocate for introducing a new element into our government to reduce crime and elevate the value of moral virtue.
The third class urges that there should be no distinction between males and females in the exercise of the elective franchise, and they claim that it is anti-democratic that there should be a minority in this country to rule its destinies.
The third class insists that there should be no difference between males and females in exercising the right to vote, and they argue that it's anti-democratic for a minority in this country to control its future.
There is a fourth class who believe that the right to exercise the elective franchise is not inherent, but permissive, and that the people are the Government, and that this power of the elective franchise is under their immediate control, and they claim the right to become part and parcel of the Government which they help to support and maintain.
There’s a fourth group who think that the right to vote isn’t something you’re born with, but rather something that’s allowed. They believe that the people are the Government and that this voting power is directly in their control. They assert the right to be integral members of the Government that they help support and sustain.
Now these four classes, differing in opinion upon this great question, constitute a very large body of worthy, high-minded, and intelligent men and women of this State who have long sought to enlarge the elective franchise, and they claim the deliberate consideration of this body upon the ground of equality, as their innumerable petitions[95] to this Convention[Pg 284] fully show. This resolution gives to women themselves the power of discussing and comparing of minds to settle the question whether they will avail themselves of the desired right to exercise the power of voting. And as it differs from all other questions which have originated here with reference to this right of women to vote, I submit it is a proper resolution to be referred to a select committee to be appointed for that purpose.
Now, these four groups, who have different views on this important issue, make up a large number of respectable, principled, and smart men and women in this State who have long sought to expand voting rights. They request that this body consider their demands based on equality, as shown by their countless petitions[95] to this Convention[Pg 284]. This resolution empowers women to discuss and exchange ideas to determine whether they want to take advantage of the right to vote. Since this question is different from all others raised here about women's voting rights, I believe it should be sent to a special committee set up for this purpose.
Mr. Graves' resolution was referred to the Committee on Suffrage.
Mr. Graves' resolution was sent to the Committee on Suffrage.
June 27th Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony were granted a hearing[96] before the Convention, and at the close of their addresses were asked by different members to reply to various objections that readily suggested themselves. Among others, Mr. Greeley said: "Ladies, you will please remember that the bullet and ballot go together. If you vote, are you ready to fight?" "Certainly," was the prompt reply. "We are ready to fight, sir, just as you fought in the late war, by sending our substitutes." The colloquy between the members and the ladies, prolonged until a late hour, was both spicy and instructive.[97] On the 10th of July a hearing was granted to Lucy Stone,[98] which called out deep interest and consideration from the members of that body. Later still, George Francis Train[99] was most cordially received by the Convention.[Pg 285]
June 27th, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony were given a chance to speak[96] before the Convention, and at the end of their speeches, various members asked them to respond to different objections that came up. Among others, Mr. Greeley said: "Ladies, keep in mind that the bullet and the ballot go together. If you vote, are you ready to fight?" "Absolutely," they replied immediately. "We're ready to fight, sir, just like you fought in the recent war, by sending in our substitutes." The back-and-forth between the members and the ladies went on for quite a while and was both lively and informative.[97] On July 10th, Lucy Stone was given a hearing,[98] which generated significant interest and attention from the members of that group. Later on, George Francis Train[99] was warmly welcomed by the Convention.[Pg 285]
C. C. Dwight, June 26th, offered a resolution that "The Standing Committee on the Right of Suffrage be instructed to provide for women to vote as to whether they wanted the right to vote after the adoption of the New Constitution.
C. C. Dwight, June 26th, proposed a resolution that "The Standing Committee on the Right of Suffrage should be directed to arrange for women to vote on whether they wanted to have the right to vote after the New Constitution was adopted."
Mr. Merritt, July 11th, moved that "The question of Woman Suffrage be submitted at the election of 1868 or 1869. Referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Merritt, July 11th, proposed that "The issue of Women's Suffrage be put to a vote in the election of 1868 or 1869." It was referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Horace Greeley, Chairman of the Committee, in his report, after recommending universal "manhood suffrage," said:
Horace Greeley, Chair of the Committee, in his report, after advocating for universal "manhood suffrage," said:
Having thus briefly set forth the considerations which seem to us decisive in favor of the few and moderate changes proposed, we proceed to indicate our controlling reasons for declining to recommend other and in some respects more important innovations. Your committee does not recommend an extension of the elective franchise to women. However defensible in theory, we are satisfied that public sentiment does not demand and would not sustain an innovation so revolutionary and sweeping, so openly at war with a distribution of duties and functions between the sexes as venerable and pervading as government itself, and involving transformations so radical in social and domestic life. Should we prove to be in error on this head, the Convention may overrule us by changing a few words in the first section of our proposed article.
Having briefly outlined the key reasons that support the few moderate changes we propose, we will now explain why we do not recommend other, potentially more significant innovations. Your committee does not advocate for extending the right to vote to women. While there are theoretical arguments in favor, we believe that public sentiment does not support and would not uphold such a revolutionary and far-reaching change, which conflicts with long-established roles and responsibilities between the sexes, as ingrained as the government itself, and would bring about drastic changes in social and domestic life. If we are mistaken in this regard, the Convention can override us by slightly amending the first section of our proposed article.
Nor have we seen fit to propose the enfranchisement of boys above the age of eighteen years. The current ideas and usages in our day, but especially in this country, seem already to set too strongly in favor of the relaxation, if not total overthrow of parental authority, especially over half-grown boys. With the sincerest good-will for the class in question, we submit that they may spend the hours which they can spare from their labors and their lessons more usefully and profitably in mastering the wisdom of the sages and philosophers who have elucidated the science of government, than in attendance on midnight caucuses, or in wrangling around the polls.
Nor have we found it appropriate to suggest allowing boys over eighteen to vote. The current ideas and practices in our time, especially in this country, seem to strongly favor loosening, if not completely dismantling, parental authority, particularly over teenage boys. With genuine concern for this group, we propose that they could spend their free time more usefully and productively by studying the teachings of great thinkers and philosophers who have clarified the principles of government, rather than attending late-night meetings or arguing at the polls.
Albany, June 28, 1867.
Albany, June 28, 1867.
Horace Greeley, Chairman, Wm. H. Merrill,
Leslie W. Russell, Geo. Williams.Horace Greeley, Chairman, Wm. H. Merrill,
Leslie W. Russell, Geo. Williams.
Mr. Cassidy presented a minority report urging a separate submission of the question of negro suffrage, in which he said:
Mr. Cassidy presented a minority report calling for a separate discussion on negro suffrage, where he stated:
If the regeneration of political society is to be sought in the incorporation of this element into the constituency, it must be done by the direct and explicit vote of the electors. We are foreclosed from any other course by the[Pg 286] repeated action[100] of the State.... It would be unfair to the people to declare that whereas they have again and again refused to accept this change, therefore we will incorporate it into the Constitution, and compel them either to repeal that instrument, or to accept this measure.... As to the extension of suffrage to women, the undersigned reserve, for the present, any expression of opinion.
If we want to renew political society by including this element in the constituency, it has to be done through a direct and clear vote from the voters. We can't take any other approach because of the[Pg 286] consistent actions[100] of the State.... It would be unfair to the people to say that just because they have repeatedly turned down this change, we will now add it to the Constitution and force them to either repeal it or accept this measure.... Regarding the expansion of voting rights to women, the undersigned choose to withhold any opinion for now.
William Cassidy,
John G. Schumaker.William Cassidy,
John G. Schumaker.
The petitions[101] for woman suffrage were presented in the Convention until they reached in round numbers 20,000. The morning Mr. Greeley gave his report the galleries were crowded with ladies, and every member present, Democrat as well as Republican, was supplied with a petition. As it had been rumored about that Mr. Greeley's report would be against suffrage for women, the Democrats entered with great zest into the presentation. George William Curtis, at the special request[102] of the ladies, reserved his for the last,[Pg 287] and when he arose and said: "Mr. President, I hold in my hand a petition from Mrs. Horace Greeley and three hundred other women citizens of Westchester, asking that the word 'male' be stricken from the Constitution," the sensation throughout the house was as profound as unexpected. Mr. Greeley's chagrin was only equaled by the amusement of the other members, and of the ladies in the gallery. As he arose to read his report, it being the next thing in order, he was evidently embarrassed in view of such a flood of petitions from all parts of the State; from his own wife, and most of the ladies in his immediate social circle, by seeming to antagonize the measure.
The petitions[101] for women's suffrage kept coming in at the Convention until they totaled around 20,000. On the morning Mr. Greeley gave his report, the galleries were packed with women, and every member present, regardless of whether they were Democrat or Republican, had a petition in hand. Since there were rumors that Mr. Greeley's report would oppose women's suffrage, the Democrats eagerly jumped into the presentation. George William Curtis, at the ladies' special request[102], held his petition until the end,[Pg 287] and when he stood up and said, "Mr. President, I have a petition from Mrs. Horace Greeley and three hundred other women citizens of Westchester, asking that the word 'male' be removed from the Constitution," the reaction in the room was both shocking and intense. Mr. Greeley's embarrassment was matched only by the amusement of the other members and the women in the gallery. When he stood to read his report, which was the next item on the agenda, he clearly felt awkward, especially given the overwhelming number of petitions from across the State, including those from his own wife and many women in his social circle, that seemed to oppose his stance.
After Mr. Greeley's report, Mr. Graves made several efforts to get his resolution adopted in time for the women to vote upon it in the spring of 1868. Mr. Weed, of Clinton, also desired that the vote for the measure should consist of the majority of the women of the State. The great event of the Convention was the speech of George William Curtis on the report of the "Committee on the right of suffrage and the qualifications to hold office."[Pg 288]
After Mr. Greeley's report, Mr. Graves worked hard to get his resolution passed in time for women to vote on it in the spring of 1868. Mr. Weed from Clinton also wanted the vote on the measure to include the majority of the women in the state. The highlight of the Convention was George William Curtis's speech about the report of the "Committee on the right of suffrage and the qualifications to hold office."[Pg 288]
George William Curtis offered the following amendment:[103]
George William Curtis proposed this amendment:[103]
"In the first section, strike out the word 'man'; and wherever in that section the word 'he' occurs, add 'or she'; and wherever the word 'his' occurs, add 'or her.'"
"In the first section, remove the word 'man'; and wherever in that section the word 'he' appears, add 'or she'; and wherever the word 'his' is used, add 'or her.'"
Mr. Curtis said: In proposing a change so new to our political practice, but so harmonious with the spirit and principles of our Government, it is only just that I should attempt to show that it is neither repugnant to reason nor hurtful to the State. Yet I confess some embarrassment; for, while the essential reason of the proposition seems to me to be clearly defined, the objection to it is vague and shadowy. From the formal opening of the general discussion of the question in this country, by the Convention at Seneca Falls in 1848, down to the present moment, the opposition to the suggestion, so far as I am acquainted with it, has been only the repetition of a traditional prejudice, or the protest of mere sentimentality; and to cope with these is like wrestling with a malaria, or arguing with the east wind. I do not know, indeed, why the Committee have changed the phrase "male inhabitant or citizen," which is uniformly used in a constitutional clause limiting the elective franchise. Under the circumstances, the word "man" is obscure, and undoubtedly includes women as much as the word "mankind." But the intention of the clause is evident, and the report of the Committee makes it indisputable. Had they been willing to say directly what they say indirectly, the eighth line and what follows would read, "Provided that idiots, lunatics, persons under guardianship, felons, women, and persons convicted of bribery, etc., shall not be entitled to vote." In their report, the Committee omit to tell us why they politically class the women of New York with idiots and criminals. They assert merely that the general enfranchisement of women would be a novelty, which is true of every step of political progress, and is therefore a presumption in its favor; and they speak of it in a phrase which is intended to stigmatize it as unwomanly, which is simply an assumption and a prejudice. I wish to know, sir, and I ask in the name of the political justice and consistency of this State, why it is that half of the adult population, as vitally interested in good government as the other half, who own property, manage estates, and pay taxes, who discharge all the duties of good citizens, and are perfectly intelligent and capable, are absolutely deprived of political power, and classed with lunatics and felons. The boy will become a man and a voter; the lunatic may emerge from the cloud and resume his rights; the idiot, plastic under the tender hand of modern science, may be moulded into the full citizen; the criminal, whose hand still drips with the blood of his country and of liberty, may be pardoned and restored; but no age, no[Pg 289] wisdom, no peculiar fitness, no public service, no effort, no desire, can remove from woman this enormous and extraordinary disability. Upon what reasonable grounds does it rest? Upon none whatever. It is contrary to natural justice, to the acknowledged and traditional principles of the American Government, and to the most enlightened political philosophy. The absolute exclusion of women from political power in this State is simply usurpation. "In every age and country," says the historian Gibbon, nearly a hundred years ago, "the wiser or at least the stronger of the two sexes has usurped the powers of the State, and confined the other to the cares and pleasures of domestic life."
Mr. Curtis said: In suggesting a change that's new to our political landscape but aligns well with the essence and principles of our Government, it’s only fair that I try to show that it’s neither unreasonable nor harmful to the State. However, I admit I feel somewhat awkward; while the main reason for this proposal seems clear to me, the objections to it are vague and unclear. Since the Convention at Seneca Falls in 1848, which officially began the broader discussion on this topic in our country, the opposition I’m aware of has only repeated traditional biases or expressed mere sentimentality; tackling these objections feels like fighting against a common flu or arguing with the wind. I genuinely don’t understand why the Committee changed the term "male inhabitant or citizen," which has always been used in the constitutional clause that limits voting rights. In this context, the word "man" is ambiguous and certainly includes women just as "mankind" does. But the intent of the clause is obvious, and the Committee's report makes it absolutely clear. Had they been straightforward about what they imply, the eighth line and what follows would state, "Provided that idiots, lunatics, people under guardianship, felons, women, and those convicted of bribery, etc., shall not be allowed to vote." In their report, the Committee fails to explain why they politically categorize the women of New York alongside idiots and criminals. They merely claim that the broad enfranchisement of women would be a novelty, which is true for every step of political progress, and thus works in favor of the idea; they describe it in a way that aims to label it as unfeminine, which reflects nothing more than an assumption and bias. I want to know, sir, and I ask this in the name of political fairness and consistency in this State, why half of the adult population, equally invested in good governance as the other half, who own property, manage estates, pay taxes, fulfill all the responsibilities of good citizens, and are fully capable and intelligent, are completely stripped of political power and grouped with lunatics and felons. The boy will grow up to be a man and a voter; the lunatic might recover and regain his rights; the idiot, with the help of modern science, can become a full citizen; the criminal, whose hands are still stained with the blood of our country and liberty, might be pardoned and reinstated; but no age, wisdom, suitability, public service, effort, or desire can lift this significant and exceptional disability from women. What reasonable grounds support this? None at all. This is against natural justice, contradicts the recognized and established principles of American Government, and goes against enlightened political thought. The complete exclusion of women from political power in this State is simply usurpation. "In every age and country," says historian Gibbon, nearly a hundred years ago, "the wiser or at least the stronger of the two sexes has usurped the powers of the State, and confined the other to the cares and pleasures of domestic life."
The historical fact is that the usurping class, as Gibbon calls them, have always regulated the position of women by their own theories and convenience. The barbaric Persian, for instance, punished an insult to the woman with death, not because of her but of himself. She was part of him. And the civilized English Blackstone only repeats the barbaric Persian when he says that the wife and husband form but one person—that is the husband. Sir, it would be extremely amusing, if it were not tragical, to trace the consequences of this theory on human society and the unhappy effect upon the progress of civilization of this morbid estimate of the importance of men. Gibbon gives a curious instance of it, and an instance which recalls the spirit of the modern English laws of divorce. There was a temple in Rome to the goddess who presided over the peace of marriages. "But," says the historian, "her very name, Viriplaca—the appeaser of husbands—shows that repentance and submission were always expected from the wife," as if the offense usually came from her. In the "Lawe's resolution of Women's Rights," published in the year 1632, a book which I have not seen, but of which there are copies in the country, the anonymous and quaint author says, and with a sly satire: "It is true that man and woman are one person, but understand in what manner. When a small brooke or little river incorporateth with Rhodanus, Humber, or the Thames, the poor rivulet looseth her name; it is carried and recarried with the new associate—it beareth no sway—it possesseth nothing during coverture. A woman as soon as she is married is called covert—in Latine, nupta—that is, veiled; as it were overclouded and shadowed; she hath lost her streame. I may more truly, farre away, say to a married woman, her new self is her superior; her companion her master.... See here the reason of that which I touched before—that women have no voice in Parliament; they make no laws; they consent to none; they abrogate none. All of them are understood either married or to be married, and their desires are to their husbands."
The historical fact is that the ruling class, as Gibbon refers to them, have always shaped the role of women based on their own theories and conveniences. The barbaric Persian, for example, punished an insult to a woman with death, not for her sake but for his own. She was a part of him. And the civilized English Blackstone merely echoes the barbaric Persian when he states that husband and wife form just one person—that is, the husband. It would be quite amusing, if it weren't tragic, to trace the impact of this theory on human society and the negative effect this distorted view of men's importance has had on the progress of civilization. Gibbon provides an interesting example that echoes the spirit of modern English divorce laws. There was a temple in Rome dedicated to the goddess who oversaw the peace of marriages. "But," as the historian notes, "her very name, Viriplaca—the appeaser of husbands—indicates that repentance and submission were always expected from the wife," as if the offense usually originated with her. In the "Lawe's resolution of Women's Rights," published in 1632, a book I haven’t seen but is known to exist, the anonymous and witty author states, with a touch of satire: "It is true that man and woman are one person, but understand how. When a small brook or little river merges with the Rhone, Humber, or the Thames, the poor rivulet loses her name; it is carried along with the larger body—it holds no power—it possesses nothing while married. A woman, as soon as she is married, is called covert—in Latin, nupta—which means veiled; as if she has been overshadowed and her stream has been lost. I may even more accurately say to a married woman that her new self is her superior; her companion is her master.... Here lies the reason for what I mentioned earlier—that women have no voice in Parliament; they make no laws; they consent to none; they abrogate none. All of them are understood to be either married or to be married, and their wishes align with their husbands."
From this theory of ancient society, that woman is absorbed in man; that she is a social inferior and a subordinate part of man; springs the system of laws in regard to women which in every civilized country is now in course of such rapid modification, and it is this theory which so tenaciously lingers as a traditional prejudice in our political customs. But a State which, like New York, recognizes the equal individual rights of all its members, declaring that none of them shall be disfranchised unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers, and which acknowledges women as property-holders and taxable, responsible citizens, has wholly renounced the old Feudal and Pagan theory, and has no right to continue[Pg 290] the evil condition which springs from it. The honorable and eloquent gentleman from Onondaga said that he favored every enlargement of the franchise consistent with the safety of the State. Sir, I heartily agree with him, and it was the duty of the Committee in proposing to continue the exclusion of women, to show that it is necessary to the welfare and safety of the State that the whole sex shall be disfranchised. It is in vain for the Committee to say that I ask for an enlargement of the franchise and must, therefore, show the reason. Sir, I show the reason upon which this franchise itself rests, and which, in its very nature, forbids arbitrary exclusion; and I urge the enfranchisement of women on the ground that whatever political rights men have women have equally.
From this theory of ancient society, which sees women as being entirely dependent on men and as socially inferior, comes the system of laws regarding women that is currently undergoing rapid change in every civilized country. This theory stubbornly persists as a traditional bias in our political customs. However, a state like New York, which recognizes the equal individual rights of all its members—declaring that none shall be disenfranchised except by the law or judgment of their peers—and acknowledges women as property owners and taxable, responsible citizens, has completely abandoned the old feudal and pagan theory and has no justification to maintain[Pg 290] the harmful situation arising from it. The honorable and persuasive gentleman from Onondaga stated that he supports every expansion of the franchise that is consistent with the state's safety. Sir, I completely agree with him, and it was the Committee's responsibility, in trying to continue the exclusion of women, to demonstrate that it is necessary for the welfare and safety of the state to disenfranchise the entire gender. It is pointless for the Committee to claim that I am asking for an expansion of the franchise and must therefore provide justification. Sir, I present the rationale on which this franchise itself is based, which inherently prohibits arbitrary exclusion; and I advocate for the enfranchisement of women on the grounds that whatever political rights men have, women equally share.
I have no wish to refine curiously upon the origin of government. If any one insists, with the honorable gentleman from Broome, that there are no such things as natural political rights, and that no man is born a voter, I will not now stop to argue with him; but as I believe the honorable gentleman from Broome is by profession a physician and surgeon, I will suggest to him that if no man is born a voter, so no man is born a man, for every man is born a baby. But he is born with the right of becoming a man without hindrance; and I ask the honorable gentleman, as an American citizen and political philosopher, whether, if every man is not born a voter, he is not born with the right of becoming a voter upon equal terms with other men? What else is the meaning of the phrase which I find in the New York Tribune of Monday, and have so often found there, "The radical basis of government is equal rights for all citizens." There are, as I think we shall all admit, some kinds of natural rights. This summer air that breathes benignant around our national anniversary, is vocal with the traditional eloquence with which those rights were asserted by our fathers. From all the burning words of the time, I quote those of Alexander Hamilton, of New York, in reply, as my honorable friend the Chairman of the Committee will remember, to the Tory farmer of Westchester: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or dusty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." In the next year, Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, summed up the political faith of our fathers in the Great Declaration. Its words vibrate through the history of those days. As the lyre of Amphion raised the walls of the city, so they are the music which sing course after course of the ascending structure of American civilization into its place. Our fathers stood indeed upon technical and legal grounds when the contest with Great Britain began, but as tyranny encroached they rose naturally into the sphere of fundamental truths as into a purer air. Driven by storms beyond sight of land, the sailor steers by the stars; and our fathers, compelled to explore the whole subject of social rights and duties, derived their government from what they called self-evident truths. Despite the brilliant and vehement eloquence of Mr. Choate, they did not deal in glittering generalities, and the Declaration of Independence was not the passionate manifesto of a revolutionary war, but the calm and simple statement of a new political philosophy and practice.
I don't want to dwell too much on where government comes from. If someone insists, like the honorable gentleman from Broome, that natural political rights don't exist and that no one is born a voter, I won’t argue with him right now. However, since I believe the honorable gentleman from Broome is a doctor, I’d suggest that if no one is born a voter, then no one is born a man, because everyone is born a baby. But he is born with the right to become a man without barriers, and I ask the honorable gentleman, as an American citizen and political thinker, whether, if not every man is born a voter, he is not born with the right to become a voter on equal terms with other men? What else does it mean when I read in the New York Tribune on Monday, and have seen before, that "The radical basis of government is equal rights for all citizens"? I think we can all agree that there are some kinds of natural rights. This summer air surrounding our national anniversary speaks with the traditional eloquence through which those rights were proclaimed by our forefathers. From all the passionate words of that time, I quote Alexander Hamilton from New York in response, as my honorable friend the Chairman of the Committee will recall, to the Tory farmer of Westchester: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be searched for in old documents or dusty records. They are written like a sunbeam in the entire volume of human nature by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by human power." The next year, Thomas Jefferson from Virginia summarized the political beliefs of our forefathers in the Great Declaration. Its words resonate throughout the history of those days. Just as the lyre of Amphion built the walls of the city, they are the music that carries each layer of American civilization into place. Our forefathers did indeed start on technical and legal grounds when the struggle with Great Britain began, but as tyranny crept in, they naturally rose to the level of fundamental truths as if in purer air. Driven by storms far from sight of land, a sailor navigates by the stars; and our forefathers, forced to examine the entire topic of social rights and responsibilities, based their government on what they called self-evident truths. Despite the brilliant and passionate eloquence of Mr. Choate, they didn’t get caught up in flashy generalities, and the Declaration of Independence was not just the fervent manifesto of a revolutionary war, but a calm and straightforward statement of a new political philosophy and practice.
The rights which they declared to be inalienable are indeed what are[Pg 291] usually called natural, as distinguished from political rights, but they are not limited by sex. A woman has the same right to her life, liberty and property that a man has, and she has consequently the same right to an equality of protection that he has; and this, as I understand it, is what is meant by the phrase, the right of suffrage. If I have a natural right to that hand, I have an equal natural right to everything that secures to me its use, provided it does not harm the equal right of another; and if I have a natural right to my life and liberty, I have the same right to everything that protects that life and liberty which any other man enjoys. I should like my honorable friend, the Chairman of this Committee, to show me any right which God gave him, which he also gave to me, for which God gave him a claim to any defense which He has not given to me. And I ask the same question for every woman in this State. Have they less natural right to life, liberty, and property than my honorable friend the Chairman of the Committee; and is it not, to quote the words of his report, an extremely "defensible theory" that he can not justly deprive the least of those women of any protection of those rights which he claims for himself? No, sir, the natural, or what we call civil right, and its political defense, go together. This was the impregnable logic of the Revolution. Lord Gower sneered in Parliament at the American Colonists a century ago, as Mr. Robert Lowe sneers at the English Reformers to-day: "Let the Americans talk about their natural and divine rights.... I am for enforcing these measures." Dr. Johnson bellowed across the Atlantic, "Taxation, no Tyranny." James Otis spoke for America, for common sense, and for eternal justice, in saying, "No good reason, however, can be given in any country, why every man of a sound mind should not have his vote in the election of a representative. If a man has but little property to protect and defend, yet his life and liberty are things of some importance." And long before James Otis, Lord Somers said to a committee of the House of Commons, that the possession of the vote is the only true security which an Englishman has for the possession of his life and property.
The rights they declared to be inalienable are really what are[Pg 291] typically called natural rights, as opposed to political rights, but they are not restricted by gender. A woman has the same right to her life, liberty, and property as a man does, and she therefore has the same right to equal protection that he has; and this, as I understand it, is what the phrase "the right of suffrage" means. If I have a natural right to that hand, I also have an equal natural right to everything that ensures I can use it, as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s equal rights; and if I have a natural right to my life and liberty, I have the same right to everything that protects that life and liberty that any other man enjoys. I would like my esteemed friend, the Chairman of this Committee, to show me any right that God granted him, which he also extended to me, for which God gave him any form of defense that He hasn’t given me. And I ask the same question for every woman in this State. Do they have fewer natural rights to life, liberty, and property than my esteemed friend the Chairman of the Committee? And isn’t it, to quote his report, an extremely "defensible theory" that he cannot justly deny the slightest of those women any protection of the rights he claims for himself? No, sir, the natural, or what we call civil rights, and their political defense go hand in hand. This was the unassailable logic of the Revolution. Lord Gower mocked the American Colonists in Parliament a century ago, just as Mr. Robert Lowe mocks the English Reformers today: "Let the Americans talk about their natural and divine rights... I support enforcing these measures." Dr. Johnson shouted across the Atlantic, "Taxation, no Tyranny." James Otis represented America, common sense, and eternal justice when he said, "There’s no good reason in any country why every sound-minded man shouldn’t have his vote in the election of a representative. Even if a man has little property to protect and defend, his life and liberty still matter." Long before James Otis, Lord Somers told a committee of the House of Commons that having the vote is the only true security an Englishman has for keeping his life and property.
Every person, then, is born with an equal claim to every kind of protection of his natural rights which any other person enjoys. The practical question, therefore, is how shall this protection be best attained? and this is the question of government which, according to the Declaration, is established for the security of these rights. The British theory was that they could be better secured by an intelligent few than by the ignorant and passionate multitude. Goldsmith expressed it in singing:
Every person, then, is born with an equal claim to every kind of protection of their natural rights that any other person enjoys. The practical question, therefore, is how can this protection be best achieved? This is the question of government, which, according to the Declaration, is established for the security of these rights. The British theory was that these rights could be better protected by a wise few rather than by the uninformed and emotional masses. Goldsmith expressed it in song:
"For just experience shows in ever soil,
That those who think must govern those who toil."
But nobody denies that the government of the best is the best government; the only question is how to find the best, and common sense replies:
But no one disagrees that the best government is the one that works best; the only question is how to find that best one, and common sense answers:
"The good, 'tis true, are heaven's peculiar care;
But who but heaven shall show us who they are?"
Our fathers answered the question of the best and surest protection of natural right by their famous phrase, "the consent of the governed." That is to say, since every man is born with equal natural rights, he is entitled[Pg 292] to an equal protection of them with all other men; and since government is that protection, right reason and experience alike demand that every person shall have a voice in the government upon perfectly equal and practicable terms; that is, upon terms which are not necessarily and absolutely insurmountable by any part of the people.
Our founders addressed the question of how to best and most reliably protect natural rights with the well-known phrase, "the consent of the governed." This means that since everyone is born with equal natural rights, each person deserves equal protection of those rights just like everyone else. And because government is responsible for that protection, both good reasoning and real-life experience require that everyone has a say in the government under completely equal and achievable conditions; specifically, conditions that aren't impossible for any group of people to meet.
Now these terms can not rightfully be arbitrary. But the argument of the honorable gentleman from Schenectady, whose lucid and dignified discourse needs no praise of mine, and the arguments of others who have derived government from society, seemed to assume that the political people may exclude and include at their pleasure; that they may establish purely arbitrary tests, such as height, or weight, or color, or sex. This was substantially the squatter sovereignty of Mr. Douglas, who held that the male white majority of the settlers in a territory might deprive a colored minority of all their rights whatever; and he declared that they had the right to do it. The same right that this Convention has to hang me at this moment to that chandelier, but no other right. Brute force, sir, may do anything; but we are speaking of rights, and of rights under this Government, and I deny that the people of the State of New York can rightfully, that is, according to right reason and the principles of this Government derived from it, permanently exclude any class of persons or any person whatever from a voice in the Government, unless it can be clearly established that their participation in political power would be dangerous to the State; and, therefore, the honorable gentleman from Kings was logically correct in opposing the enfranchisement of the colored population, upon the ground that they were an inferior race, of limited intelligence, a kind of Chimpanzee at best. I think, however, sir, the honorable and scholarly gentleman—even he—will admit, that at Pillow, at Milliken's Bend, at Fort Wagner, the Chimpanzees did uncommonly well; yes, sir, as gloriously and immortally as our own fathers at Bunker Hill and Saratoga. "There ought to be no pariahs," says John Stuart Mill, "in a full grown and civilized nation; no persons disqualified except through their own default.... Every one is degraded, whether aware of it or not, when other people, without consulting him, take upon themselves unlimited power to regulate his destiny." "No arrangement of the suffrage, therefore, can be permanently satisfactory in which any person or class is peremptorily excluded; in which the electoral privilege is not open to all persons of full age who desire it." (Rep. G., p. 167.) And Thomas Hare, one of the acutest of living political thinkers, says that in all cases where a woman fulfills the qualification which is imposed upon a man, "there is no sound reason for excluding her from the parliamentary franchise. The exclusion is probably a remnant of the feudal law, and is not in harmony with the other civil institutions of the country. There would be great propriety in celebrating a reign which has been productive of so much moral benefit by the abolition of an anomaly which is so entirely without any justifiable foundation." (Hare, p. 280.)
Now these terms can't be arbitrary. But the argument from the honorable gentleman from Schenectady, whose clear and dignified speech doesn't need my praise, and the arguments of others who have derived government from society, seemed to assume that the political people can include and exclude as they wish; that they can establish completely arbitrary tests, like height, weight, color, or sex. This was essentially the squatter sovereignty of Mr. Douglas, who believed that the white male majority of the settlers in a territory could deny a colored minority all their rights; and he claimed they had the right to do so. The same right this Convention has to hang me from that chandelier at this moment, but no other right. Brute force, sir, can do anything; but we are talking about rights, and rights under this Government, and I deny that the people of the State of New York can rightfully, meaning according to right reason and the principles of this Government derived from it, permanently exclude any class of persons or any person from having a voice in the Government, unless it can be clearly shown that their participation in political power would be dangerous to the State; and therefore, the honorable gentleman from Kings was logically correct in opposing the enfranchisement of the colored population, based on the argument that they were an inferior race, of limited intelligence, a kind of Chimpanzee at best. I think, however, sir, the honorable and scholarly gentleman—even he—will admit that at Pillow, at Milliken's Bend, at Fort Wagner, the Chimpanzees performed extraordinarily well; yes, sir, as gloriously and immortally as our own fathers at Bunker Hill and Saratoga. "There ought to be no outcasts," says John Stuart Mill, "in a fully developed and civilized nation; no individuals disqualified except through their own faults.... Everyone is degraded, whether they realize it or not, when others, without consulting them, assume unlimited power to determine their fate." "No arrangement of the suffrage can be permanently satisfactory if any person or class is completely excluded; if the voting privilege is not available to all individuals of full age who desire it." (Rep. G., p. 167.) And Thomas Hare, one of the sharpest living political thinkers, states that in all cases where a woman meets the qualifications set for a man, "there is no valid reason for excluding her from the parliamentary franchise. The exclusion is likely a leftover from feudal law, and doesn't align with the other civil institutions of the country. It would be very appropriate to celebrate a reign that has produced so much moral benefit by abolishing an anomaly that is entirely without any justifiable basis." (Hare, p. 280.)
The Chairman of the Committee asked Miss Anthony, the other evening, whether, if suffrage was a natural right, it could be denied to children. Her answer seemed to me perfectly satisfactory. She said simply, "All that we ask is an equal and not an arbitrary regulation. If you have the right, we[Pg 293] have it." The honorable Chairman would hardly deny that to regulate the exercise of a right according to obvious reason and experience is one thing, to deny it absolutely and forever is another. And this is the safe practical rule of our government, as James Madison expressed it, that "it be derived from the great body of the people, not from an inconsiderable portion or favored class of it." When Mr. Gladstone, in his famous speech that startled England, said in effect, that no one could be justly excluded from the franchise, except upon grounds of personal unfitness or public danger, he merely echoed the sentiment of Joseph Warren, which is gradually seen to be the wisest and most practical political philosophy: "I would have such a government as should give every man the greatest liberty to do what he chooses, consistent with restraining him from doing any injury to another." Is not that the kind of government, sir, which we wish to propose for this State? And if every person in New York has a natural right to life, liberty, and property, and a co-existent claim to a share in the government which defends them, regulated only by perfectly equitable conditions, what are the practical grounds upon which it is proposed to continue the absolute and hopeless disfranchisement of half the adult population?
The Chairman of the Committee asked Miss Anthony the other evening whether, if suffrage is a natural right, it can be denied to children. Her answer seemed perfectly satisfactory to me. She simply said, "All that we ask is an equal and not an arbitrary regulation. If you have the right, we[Pg 293] have it." The honorable Chairman would hardly deny that regulating the exercise of a right based on obvious reason and experience is one thing, while denying it outright and forever is another. This aligns with the clear practical rule of our government, as James Madison put it, that "it be derived from the great body of the people, not from an inconsiderable portion or favored class of it." When Mr. Gladstone, in his famous speech that shocked England, essentially stated that no one should be justly excluded from voting, except on the grounds of personal unfitness or public danger, he was merely repeating the sentiment of Joseph Warren, which is becoming recognized as the wisest and most practical political philosophy: "I would have such a government as should give every man the greatest liberty to do what he chooses, consistent with restraining him from doing any injury to another." Isn't that the kind of government, sir, that we want to propose for this State? And if every person in New York has a natural right to life, liberty, and property, along with a corresponding claim to a stake in the government that protects them, regulated only by completely fair conditions, what are the practical reasons for continuing the absolute and hopeless disenfranchisement of half the adult population?
It is alleged that women are already represented by men? Where are they so represented? and when was the choice made? If I am told that they are virtually represented, I reply, with James Otis, that "no such phrase as virtual representation is known in law or Constitution. It is altogether a subtlety and illusion, wholly unfounded and absurd." I repeat, if they are represented, when was the choice made? Nobody pretends that they have ever been consulted. It is a mere assumption to the effect that the interest and affection of men will lead them to just and wise legislation for women as well as for themselves. But this is merely the old appeal for the political power of a class. It is just what the British parliament said to the colonies a hundred years ago. "We are all under the same government," they said: "Our interests are identical; we are all Britons; Britannia rules the wave; God save the King! and down with sedition and the Sons of Liberty!" The colonies chafed and indignantly protested, because the assumption that therefore fair laws were made was not true; because they were discovering for themselves what every nation has discovered—the truth that shakes England to-day, and brings Disraeli and the Tory party to their knees, and has already brought this country to blood—that there is no class of citizens, and no single citizen, who can safely be intrusted with the permanent and exclusive possession of political power. "There is no instance on record," says Buckle, in his history of civilization in England, "of any class possessing power without abusing it." It is as true of men as a class as it is of an hereditary nobility, or of a class of property-holders. Men are not wise enough, nor generous enough, nor pure enough, to legislate fairly for women. The laws of the most civilized nations depress and degrade women. The legislation is in favor of the legislating class. In the celebrated debate upon the Marriage Amendment Act in England, Mr. Gladstone said that "when the gospel came into the world woman was elevated to an equality with her stronger companion." Yet, at the very time he was speaking, the English law of divorce, made by men to regulate their domestic relations with women, was denounced by the law lords themselves as "disgusting and[Pg 294] demoralizing" in its operation, "barbarous," "indecent," "a disgrace to the country," and "shocking to the sense of right." Now, if the equality of which Mr. Gladstone spoke had been political as well as sentimental, does he or any statesman suppose that the law of divorce would have been what it then was, or that the law of England to-day would give all the earnings of a married woman to her husband, or that of France forbid a woman to receive any gift without her husband's permission?
It’s claimed that women are already represented by men? Where is this representation happening? And when was that decision made? If you say they are virtually represented, I respond, like James Otis, that "no such phrase as virtual representation is recognized in law or the Constitution. It's completely a subtlety and illusion, entirely unfounded and absurd." I ask again, if they are represented, when was the choice made? No one claims that they have ever been consulted. It’s just an assumption that men’s interests and kindness will lead to fair and wise legislation for women just like for themselves. But this is simply the old argument for the political power of a specific group. It’s exactly what the British Parliament said to the colonies a hundred years ago. "We are all under the same government," they asserted: "Our interests are identical; we are all Britons; Britannia rules the waves; God save the King! and down with sedition and the Sons of Liberty!" The colonies grew frustrated and protested angrily because the assumption that this meant fair laws were made was false; they were realizing what every nation has found out—the truth that shakes England today, brings Disraeli and the Tory party to their knees, and has already led this country to bloodshed—that no class of citizens, and no single citizen, can be safely trusted with the permanent and exclusive possession of political power. "There is no recorded instance," says Buckle, in his history of civilization in England, "of any class possessing power without abusing it." This is as true for men as a class as it is for an hereditary nobility or a class of property owners. Men are not wise enough, nor generous enough, nor pure enough to fairly legislate for women. The laws of the most civilized nations oppress and demean women. The legislation favors the group in power. In the famous debate on the Marriage Amendment Act in England, Mr. Gladstone mentioned that "when the gospel came into the world, woman was elevated to an equality with her stronger companion." Yet, at the same time he was speaking, the English divorce law, created by men to govern their domestic relationships with women, was condemned by the law lords themselves as "disgusting and demoralizing" in its effects, "barbarous," "indecent," "a disgrace to the country," and "shocking to the sense of right." Now, if the equality Mr. Gladstone mentioned had been political as well as sentimental, does he or any statesman think the divorce law would have been what it was back then, or that the law in England today would give all of a married woman's earnings to her husband, or that France would forbid a woman from receiving any gift without her husband's permission?
We ask women to confide in us, as having the same interests with them. Did any despot ever say anything else? And, if it be safe or proper for any intelligent part of the people to relinquish exclusive political power to any class, I ask the Committee, who proposed that women should be compelled to do this? To what class, however rich, or intelligent, or honest, they would themselves surrender their power? and what they would do if any class attempted to usurp that power? They know, as we all know, as our own experience has taught us, that the only security of natural right is the ballot. They know, and the instinct of the whole loyal land knows, that, when we had abolished slavery, the emancipation could be completed and secured only by the ballot in the hands of the emancipated class. Civil rights were a mere mocking name until political power gave them substance. A year ago, Gov. Orr of South Carolina told us that the rights of the freedmen were safest in the hands of their old masters. "Will you walk into my parlor, said the spider to the fly?" New Orleans, Memphis, and countless and constant crimes, showed what that safety was. Then, hesitating no longer, the nation handed the ballot to the freedmen, and said, "Protect yourselves!" And now Gov. Orr says that the part of wisdom for South Carolina is to cut loose from all parties, and make a cordial alliance with the colored citizens. Gov. Orr knows that a man with civil rights merely is a blank cartridge. Give him the ballot, and you add a bullet, and make him effective. In that section of the country, seething with old hatreds and wounded pride, and a social system upheaved from the foundation, no other measure could have done for real pacification in a century what the mere promise of the ballot has done in a year. The one formidable peril in the whole subject of reconstruction has been the chance that Congress would continue in the Southern States the political power in the hands of a class, as the report of the Committee proposes that we shall do in New York.
We ask women to trust us, as we share the same interests. Has any tyrant ever said anything different? If it’s safe or right for any knowledgeable segment of the population to give up exclusive political power to a certain group, I ask the Committee, who suggested that women should be forced to do this? To what group, no matter how wealthy, educated, or decent, would they willingly hand over their power? What would they do if any group tried to take that power away? They know, as we all know from our experiences, that the only guarantee of natural rights is the vote. They understand, and the instinct of the entire loyal nation understands, that when we abolished slavery, full emancipation could only be secured through the vote in the hands of those who were freed. Civil rights were just an empty phrase until political power gave them real meaning. A year ago, Gov. Orr of South Carolina told us that the rights of freedmen were safest in the hands of their former masters. "Will you walk into my parlor?" said the spider to the fly? New Orleans, Memphis, and countless ongoing crimes showed what that safety really meant. Then, without hesitation, the nation gave the vote to the freedmen and said, "Protect yourselves!" Now, Gov. Orr claims that the wise move for South Carolina is to break away from all parties and establish a friendly partnership with the black citizens. Gov. Orr knows that a person with only civil rights is just a blank cartridge. Give him the vote, and you add a bullet, making him effective. In that part of the country, filled with old resentments and hurt pride, and a social system completely upended, no other approach could have achieved real peace in a century like the mere promise of voting has accomplished in a year. The biggest threat in the whole reconstruction issue has been the possibility that Congress would keep political power in the Southern States within one class, as the Committee's report suggests we do in New York.
If I am asked what do women want the ballot for, I answer the question with another, what do men want it for? Why do the British workmen at this moment so urgently demand it? Look into the British laws regulating labor, and you will see why. They want the ballot because the laws affecting labor and capital are made by the capitalist class alone and are therefore unjust. I do not forget the progressive legislation of New York in regard to the rights of women. The Property Bill of 1860, and its supplement, according to the New York Tribune, redeemed five thousand women from pauperism. In the next year, Illinois put women in the same position with men, as far as property rights and remedies are concerned. I mention these facts with pleasure, as I read that Louis Napoleon will, under certain conditions, permit the French people to say what they think. But, if such reforms are desirable, they would certainly have been sooner and more wisely effected could women have been a positive political power. Upon[Pg 295] this point one honorable gentleman asked Mrs. Stanton whether the laws both for men and women were not constantly improving, and whether, therefore, it was not unfair to attribute the character of the laws about women to the fact that men made them. The reply is very evident. If women alone made the laws, legislation for both men and women would undoubtedly be progressive. Does the honorable gentleman think, therefore, that women only should make the laws?
If you ask me what women want the vote for, I’ll answer with another question: what do men want it for? Why are British workers demanding it so urgently right now? Take a look at the British laws about labor, and you’ll understand why. They want the vote because the laws governing labor and capital are set by the capitalist class alone and are therefore unfair. I haven’t forgotten the progressive laws in New York regarding women's rights. The Property Bill of 1860 and its supplement, according to the New York Tribune, saved five thousand women from poverty. The following year, Illinois granted women the same property rights and remedies as men. I mention these facts with pleasure, especially since I read that Louis Napoleon will, under certain conditions, allow the French people to express their thoughts. But if these reforms are necessary, they would certainly have been achieved sooner and more wisely if women had been a significant political force. On[Pg 295] this topic, one honorable gentleman asked Mrs. Stanton whether the laws for both men and women weren’t continually improving, and whether it was fair to blame the nature of the laws concerning women on the fact that men made them. The answer is clear. If women alone made the laws, legislation for both men and women would definitely be progressive. Does the honorable gentleman believe that only women should make the laws?
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that, in the ordinary and honorable sense of the words, women are represented. Laws are made for them by another class, and upon the theories which that class, without the fear of political opposition, may choose to entertain, and in direct violation of the principles upon which, in their own case, they tenaciously insist. I live, sir, in the county of Richmond. It has a population of some 27,000 persons. They own property, and manage it. They are taxed, and pay their taxes; and they fulfill the duties of citizens with average fidelity. But if the Committee had introduced a clause into the section they propose to this effect, "Provided that idiots, lunatics, persons under guardianship, felons, inhabitants of the county of Richmond, and persons convicted of bribery, shall not be entitled to vote," they would not have proposed a more monstrous injustice, nor a grosser inconsistency with every fundamental right and American principle, than in the clause they recommend; and in that case, sir, what do you suppose would have been my reception had I returned to my friends and neighbors, and had said to them, "The Convention thinks that you are virtually represented by the voters of Westchester and Chautauqua"?
It’s true, Mr. Chairman, that in the usual and respectful sense of the words, women are represented. Laws are made for them by another group, based on the ideas that group, without fear of political opposition, may choose to uphold, and in direct contradiction to the principles they stubbornly demand for themselves. I live, sir, in Richmond County. It has a population of about 27,000 people. They own property and manage it. They are taxed and pay their taxes, and they perform their duties as citizens with average reliability. But if the Committee had added a clause to the proposed section saying, "Provided that idiots, lunatics, persons under guardianship, felons, residents of Richmond County, and people convicted of bribery shall not be allowed to vote," they wouldn’t have suggested a more outrageous injustice or a greater inconsistency with every fundamental right and American principle than the clause they recommend; and in that case, sir, what do you think my reception would have been if I returned to my friends and neighbors and told them, "The Convention believes you are effectively represented by the voters of Westchester and Chautauqua"?
Mr. Chairman, I have no superstition about the ballot. I do not suppose it would immediately right all the wrongs of women, any more than it has righted all those of men. But what political agency has righted so many? Here are thousands of miserable men all around us; but they have every path opened to them. They have their advocates; they have their votes; they make the laws, and, at last and at worst, they have their strong right hands for defense. And here are thousands of miserable women pricking back death and dishonor with a little needle; and now the sly hand of science is stealing that little needle away. The ballot does not make those men happy nor respectable nor rich nor noble; but they guard it for themselves with sleepless jealousy, because they know it is the golden gate to every opportunity; and precisely the kind of advantage it gives to one sex, it would give to the other. It would arm it with the most powerful weapon known to political society; it would maintain the natural balance of the sexes in human affairs, and secure to each fair play within its sphere.
Mr. Chairman, I’m not superstitious about voting. I don’t think it would instantly fix all the issues women face, just like it hasn’t fixed everything for men. But what political power has solved so many problems? We have thousands of struggling men around us, but they have every opportunity available to them. They have advocates, they can vote, they create laws, and ultimately, they have their strong hands to defend themselves. Meanwhile, we have thousands of suffering women fending off despair and disgrace with just a small needle, and now the crafty hand of science is taking that needle away. Voting doesn’t make those men happy, respectable, wealthy, or noble; yet they guard it jealously because they know it’s the gateway to every opportunity. And just like the advantages it offers one sex, it would offer the same to the other. It would equip them with the most powerful tool in political society; it would restore the natural balance between the sexes in human affairs, ensuring that each has fair treatment within their sphere.
But, sir, the Committee tell us that the suffrage of women would be a revolutionary innovation; it would disturb the venerable traditions. Well, sir, about the year 1790, women were first recognized as school-teachers in Massachusetts. At that time, the New England "school-marm" (and I use the word with affectionate respect) was a revolutionary innovation. She has been abroad ever since, and has been by no means the least efficient, but always the most modest and unnoticed, of the great civilizing influences in this country. Innovation!—why, sir, when Sir Samuel Romilly proposed to abolish the death-penalty for stealing a handkerchief, the law officers of the crown said it would endanger the whole criminal law of England. When[Pg 296] the bill abolishing the slave-trade passed the House of Lords, Lord St. Vincent rose and stalked out, declaring that he washed his hands of the ruin of the British empire. When the Greenwich pensioners saw the first steamer upon the Thames, they protested that they did not like the steamer, for it was contrary to nature. When, at the close of the reign of Charles II., London had half a million of people, there was a fierce opposition to street-lamps,—such is the hostility of venerable traditions to an increase of light. When Mr. Jefferson learned that New York had explored the route of a canal, he benignly regarded it, in the spirit of our Committee, as, doubtless, "defensible in theory"; for he said that it was "a very fine project, and might be executed a century hence." And, fifty-six years ago, Chancellor Livingston wrote from this city, that the proposition of a railroad, shod with iron, to move heavy weights four miles an hour, was ingenious, perhaps "theoretically defensible"; but, upon the whole, the road would not be so cheap or convenient as a canal. In this country, sir, the venerable traditions are used to being disturbed. America was clearly designed to be a disturber of traditions, and to leave nobler precedents than she found. So, a few months ago, what the committee call a revolutionary innovation was proposed by giving the ballot to the freedmen in the District of Columbia. The awful results of such a revolution were duly set forth in one of the myriad veto messages of the President of the United States. But they have voted. If anybody proposed to disturb the election, it was certainly not the new voters. The election was perfectly peaceful, and not one of the presidential pangs has been justified. So with this reform. It is new in the extent proposed. It is as new as the harvest after the sowing, and it is as natural. The resumption of rights long denied or withheld never made a social convulsion: that is produced by refusing them. The West-Indian slaves received their liberty, praying upon their knees; and the influence of the enfranchisement of women will glide into society as noiselessly as the dawn increases into day.
But, sir, the Committee tells us that granting women the right to vote would be a groundbreaking change; it would disrupt long-standing traditions. Well, sir, back in 1790, women were first acknowledged as school teachers in Massachusetts. At that time, the New England "school-marm" (and I use that term with affectionate respect) was a revolutionary idea. She has been around ever since and has been one of the most effective, though always the most modest and unnoticed, of the many civilizing forces in this country. Innovation!—when Sir Samuel Romilly suggested getting rid of the death penalty for stealing a handkerchief, the crown's law officers said it would jeopardize the entire criminal justice system in England. When the bill to abolish the slave trade passed the House of Lords, Lord St. Vincent stood up and left, declaring that he was distancing himself from the downfall of the British Empire. When the Greenwich pensioners saw the first steamboat on the Thames, they complained that they didn’t like it because it was against nature. At the end of Charles II’s reign, when London had half a million people, there was strong opposition to streetlights—such is the resistance of long-standing traditions to more light. When Mr. Jefferson found out that New York had looked into building a canal, he kindly viewed it, like our Committee, as "defensible in theory"; he called it "a very fine project, and might be completed a century from now." And, fifty-six years ago, Chancellor Livingston wrote from this city that the idea of a railroad, fitted with iron, to move heavy loads at four miles per hour was clever, perhaps "theoretically defensible"; but overall, it wouldn’t be as cheap or convenient as a canal. In this country, sir, long-standing traditions are used to being upset. America was clearly meant to disturb traditions and to establish nobler precedents than it inherited. So, a few months ago, what the committee refers to as a revolutionary change was proposed by giving the vote to the freedmen in the District of Columbia. The dire consequences of such a revolution were laid out in one of the numerous veto messages from the President of the United States. But they have voted. If anyone tried to disrupt the election, it certainly wasn’t the new voters. The election went smoothly, and none of the presidential fears were validated. So it is with this reform. It is new in the proposed extent. It is as new as the harvest that follows the sowing, and it is just as natural. The restoration of rights that were long denied or held back never leads to social upheaval; that comes from denying those rights. The West Indian slaves received their freedom, praying on their knees; and the impact of women's enfranchisement will flow into society as quietly as dawn turns into day.
Or shall I be told that women, if not numerically counted at the polls, do yet exert an immense influence upon politics, and do not really need the ballot. If this argument was seriously urged, I should suffer my eyes to rove through this chamber and they would show me many honorable gentlemen of reputed political influence. May they, therefore, be properly and justly disfranchised? I ask the honorable Chairman of the Committee, whether he thinks that a citizen should have no vote because he has influence? What gives influence? Ability, intelligence, honesty. Are these to be excluded from the polls? Is it only stupidity, ignorance and rascality which ought to possess political power?
Or should I be told that women, even if they aren't counted at the polls, still have a huge influence on politics and don’t actually need the right to vote? If this argument were taken seriously, I could look around this room and see many respected gentlemen with recognized political influence. Should they, then, be justly denied the vote? I ask the honorable Chairman of the Committee if he believes a citizen should be disenfranchised simply because he has influence. What creates influence? Skill, intelligence, integrity. Should these traits be kept from the polls? Is it only ignorance, stupidity, and dishonesty that should hold political power?
Or, will it be said that women do not want the ballot and ought to be asked? And upon what principle ought they to be asked? When natural rights or their means of defense have been immemorially denied to a large class, does humanity, or justice, or good sense require that they should be registered and called to vote upon their own restoration? Why, Mr. Chairman, it might as well be said that Jack the Giant Killer ought to have gravely asked the captives in the ogre's dungeon whether they wished to be released. It must be assumed that men and women wish to enjoy their natural rights, as that the eyes wish light or the lungs an atmosphere. Did we[Pg 297] wait for emancipation until the slaves petitioned to be free? No, sir, all our lives had been passed in ingenious and ignominious efforts to sophisticate and stultify ourselves for keeping them chained; and when war gave us a legal right to snap their bonds, we did not ask them whether they preferred to remain slaves. We knew that they were men, and that men by nature walk upright, and if we find them bent and crawling, we know that the posture is unnatural whether they may think so or not. In the case of women we acknowledge that they have the same natural rights as ourselves—we see that they hold property and pay taxes, and we must of necessity suppose that they wish to enjoy every security of those rights that we possess. So when in this State, every year, thousands of boys come of age, we do not solemnly require them to tell us whether they wish to vote. We assume, of course, that they do, and we say to them, "Go, and upon the same terms with the rest of us, vote as you choose." But gentlemen say that they know a great many women who do not wish to vote, who think it is not ladylike, or whatever the proper term may be. Well, sir, I have known many men who have habitually abstained from politics because they were so "ungentlemanly," and who thought that no man could touch pitch without defilement. Now what would the honorable gentlemen who know women who do not wish to vote, have thought of a proposition that I should not vote, because my neighbors did not wish to? There may have been slaves who preferred to remain slaves—was that an argument against freedom? Suppose that there are a majority of the women of this State who do not wish to vote—is that a reason for depriving one woman who is taxed of her equal representation, or one innocent person of the equal protection of his life and liberty?
Or, will it be said that women don’t want the right to vote and should be asked? And on what basis should they be asked? When natural rights or their means of protection have been denied to a large group for so long, does humanity, justice, or common sense require that they be registered and consulted about their own restoration? Why, Mr. Chairman, it would be like saying that Jack the Giant Killer should have asked the captives in the ogre's dungeon if they wanted to be freed. We have to assume that men and women both want to enjoy their natural rights, just as eyes desire light and lungs need air. Did we wait for the slaves to ask for their freedom? No, sir, our lives were spent inventing complicated and shameful justifications for keeping them in chains; and when war gave us the legal right to break those chains, we didn’t ask them if they wanted to stay slaves. We knew they were human beings, and that by nature, humans walk upright; and if we find them bent and crawling, we know that position is unnatural, whether they realize it or not. In the case of women, we acknowledge that they have the same natural rights as we do—we see that they own property and pay taxes, so we must assume that they wish to enjoy all the security of those rights that we have. So, when in this state, every year, thousands of boys turn 18, we don’t solemnly ask them if they want to vote. We assume they do, and we say to them, "Go and vote as you like, just like the rest of us." But some gentlemen say they know many women who don’t want to vote, who think it’s not ladylike, or whatever the polite term might be. Well, sir, I have known many men who stayed away from politics because they thought it was "ungentlemanly," believing that no man could get involved without being tainted. Now, what would those honorable gentlemen, who know women who don’t want to vote, think of a proposition that I shouldn’t vote because my neighbors didn’t want me to? There may have been slaves who preferred to stay enslaved—was that a reason against freedom? Suppose there is a majority of women in this state who don’t want to vote—does that justify denying one woman who is taxed her equal representation, or denying one innocent person equal protection of his life and liberty?
Shall nothing ever be done by statesmen until wrongs are so intolerable that they take society by the throat? Did it show the wisdom of British Conservatism that it waited to grant the Reform bill of 1832 until England hung upon the edge of civil war? When women and children were worked sixteen hours a day in English factories, did it show practical good sense to delay a "short time" bill until hundreds of thousands of starving workmen agreed to starve yet more, if need be, to relieve the overwork of their families, and until the most pitiful procession the sun ever shone upon, that of the factory children, just as they left their work, marched through the streets of Manchester, that burst into sobs and tears at the sight? Yet if, in such instances, where there was so plausible an adverse appeal founded upon vested interests and upon the very theory of the government, it was unwise to wait until a general public outcry imperatively demanded the reform, how wholly needless to delay in this State a measure which is the natural result of our most cherished principles, and which threatens to disturb or injure nothing whatever. The amendment proposes no compulsion like the old New England law, which fined every voter who did not vote. If there are citizens of the State who think it unladylike or ungentlemanlike to take their part in the government, let them stay at home. But do not, I pray you, give them authority to detain wiser and better citizens from their duty.
Should nothing ever be done by politicians until wrongs become so unbearable that they choke society? Did it show the wisdom of British Conservatism to hold off on the Reform Bill of 1832 until England was on the brink of civil war? When women and children were working sixteen hours a day in English factories, did it make practical sense to delay a "short time" bill until hundreds of thousands of starving workers were willing to suffer even more, if necessary, to ease the overwork of their families? And until the most heartbreaking sight ever seen—factory children leaving their work, marching through the streets of Manchester, bursting into sobs and tears? If, in such cases where there was a convincing argument against intervention based on vested interests and government theory, it was unwise to wait until a public outcry demanded reform, how completely unnecessary it is to postpone in this State a measure that is the natural outcome of our most cherished principles and that threatens to disturb or harm nothing. The amendment doesn’t propose any compulsion like the old New England law that fined every voter who didn’t vote. If there are citizens in the State who think it’s unladylike or ungentlemanlike to participate in government, let them stay home. But please, do not give them the power to prevent wiser and better citizens from fulfilling their duty.
But I shall be told, in the language of the Report of the Committee, that the proposition is openly at war with the distribution of functions and duties between the sexes. Translated into English, Mr. Chairman, this means that it is unwomanly to vote. Well, sir, I know that at the very mention of the[Pg 298] political rights of women, there arises in many minds a dreadful vision of a mighty exodus of the whole female world, in bloomers and spectacles, from the nursery and kitchen to the polls. It seems to be thought that if women practically took part in politics, the home would be left a howling wilderness of cradles, and a chaos of undarned stockings and buttonless shirts. But how is it with men? Do they desert their workshops, their plows, and offices, to pass their time at the polls? Is it a credit to a man to be called a professional politician? The pursuits of men in the world, to which they are directed by the natural aptitude of sex, and to which they must devote their lives, are as foreign from political functions as those of women. To take an extreme case: there is nothing more incompatible with political duties in cooking and taking care of children than there is in digging ditches or making shoes, or in any other necessary employment, while in every superior interest of society growing out of the family, the stake of women is not less than men, and their knowledge is greater. In England, a woman who owns shares in the East-India Company may vote. In this country she may vote as a stockholder upon a railroad from one end of the country to another. But if she sells her stock, and buys a house with the money, she has no voice in the laying out of the road before her door, which her house is taxed to keep and pay for. And why, in the name of good sense, if a responsible human being may vote upon specific industrial projects, may she not vote upon the industrial regulation of the State? There is no more reason that men should assume to decide participation in politics to be unwomanly than that woman should decide for men that it is unmanly. It is not our prerogative to keep women feminine. I think, sir, they may be trusted to defend the delicacy of their own sex. Our success in managing ours has not been so conspicuous that we should urgently desire more labor of the same kind. Nature is quite as wise as we. Whatever their sex incapacitates women from doing they will not do. Whatever duty is consistent with their sex and their relation to society, they will properly demand to do until they are permitted.
But I’ll be told, using the language of the Committee's Report, that the proposal is directly opposed to the division of roles and responsibilities between men and women. In plain English, Mr. Chairman, this means that it’s considered unfeminine for women to vote. Well, sir, I know that just mentioning the political rights of women conjures up in many people’s minds a terrifying image of a large group of women, dressed in bloomers and wearing glasses, leaving their homes and kitchens to go to the polls. It seems some believe that if women were to participate in politics, the home would turn into a chaotic mess of cradles, unwashed laundry, and shirts missing buttons. But what about men? Do they abandon their workplaces, farms, and offices just to hang out at the polls? Is it admirable for a man to be referred to as a professional politician? The activities that men are drawn to in the world, based on their natural inclinations, are just as unrelated to politics as those of women. Take an extreme example: there’s nothing that conflicts with political duties in cooking and caring for children any more than there is in digging ditches or making shoes, or in any other essential job. In every major interest of society that stems from the family, women have as much at stake as men, and often more knowledge. In England, a woman who owns shares in the East-India Company can vote. Here, she can vote as a stockholder on a railroad that spans the country. But if she sells her stock and buys a house with the money, she has no say in how the road in front of her house— which she pays taxes for— is laid out. And why, in the name of common sense, should a responsible person be able to vote on specific industrial projects but not on the industrial regulations of the State? There’s no more reason for men to claim that participating in politics is unfeminine than for women to decide that it’s unmanly. It’s not our place to dictate how women should express their femininity. I believe, sir, that women can be trusted to maintain the delicacy of their own sex. Our success in managing our own role hasn’t been so remarkable that we need to encourage more of the same. Nature is just as wise as we are. Whatever their gender prevents women from doing, they won’t do. Whatever responsibilities align with their gender and their role in society, they will rightfully demand to fulfill until they are allowed to.
The reply to the assertion that participation in political power is unwomanly, and tends to subvert the family relation, is simple and unanswerable. It is that we can not know what is womanly until we see the folly of insisting that the theories of men settle the question. We know now what the convenience and feelings of men decide to be womanly. We shall know what is womanly in the same sense that we know what is manly, only when women have the same equality of development and the same liberty of choice as men. The amendment I offer is merely a prayer that you will remove from women a disability, and secure to them the same freedom of choice that we enjoy. If the instincts of sex, of maternity, of domesticity, are not persuasive enough to keep them in the truest sense women, it is the most serious defect yet discovered in the divine order of nature. When, therefore, the Committee declare that voting is at war with the distribution of functions between the sexes, what do they mean? Are not women as much interested in good government as men? There is fraud in the Legislature; there is corruption in the courts; there are hospitals, and tenement-houses, and prisons; there are gambling-houses, and billiard-rooms, and brothels; there are grog-shops at every corner, and I know not what enormous proportion of crime in the State proceeds from them; there are 40,000 drunkards in the State, and[Pg 299] their hundreds of thousands of children—all these things are subjects of legislation, and under the exclusive legislation of men the crime associated with all these things becomes vast and complicated. Have the wives, and mothers, and sisters of New York less vital interest in them, less practical knowledge of them and their proper treatment, than the husbands and fathers? No man is so insane as to pretend it. Is there then any natural incapacity in women to understand politics? It is not asserted. Are they lacking in the necessary intelligence? But the moment that you erect a standard of intelligence which is sufficient to exclude women as a sex, that moment most of the male sex would be disfranchised. Is it that they ought not to go to public political meetings? But we earnestly invite them. Or that they should not go to the polls? Some polls, I allow, in the larger cities, are dirty and dangerous places; and those it is the duty of the police to reform. But no decent man wishes to vote in a grog-shop, nor to have his head broken while he is doing it, while the mere act of dropping a ballot in a box is about the simplest, shortest, and cleanest that can be done. Last winter Senator Frelinghuysen, repeating, I am sure thoughtlessly, the common rhetoric of the question, spoke of the high and holy mission of women. But if people, with a high and holy mission, may innocently sit bare-necked in hot theatres to be studied through pocket-telescopes until midnight by any one who chooses, how can their high and holy mission be harmed by their quietly dropping a ballot in a box? What is the high and holy mission of any woman but to be the best and most efficient human being possible? To enlarge the sphere of duty and the range of responsibility, where there are adequate power and intelligence, is to heighten, not to lessen, the holiness of life.
The response to the claim that being involved in political power is unfeminine and disrupts family dynamics is straightforward and convincing. It's that we can't define what is feminine until we recognize the ridiculousness of letting men's theories determine that. We know what men consider feminine based on their convenience and feelings. We'll understand what is feminine in the same way we understand what is masculine only when women have equal opportunities for growth and the same freedom to choose as men. The amendment I propose is simply a request to eliminate a barrier for women and grant them the same freedom of choice that we have. If the instincts of femininity, motherhood, and domesticity aren't strong enough to keep women genuinely feminine, then that's a significant flaw in the natural order. So, when the Committee says that voting conflicts with the roles assigned to each gender, what do they mean? Aren't women just as invested in good governance as men? There’s dishonesty in the Legislature; there’s corruption in the courts; there are hospitals, tenement houses, and prisons; there are gambling spots, pool halls, and brothels; there are bars on every corner, and a significant amount of crime in the State stems from these places; there are 40,000 alcoholics in the State, and[Pg 299] their hundreds of thousands of children—these topics all require legislation, and under men’s sole control, the crime related to them becomes extensive and complicated. Do the wives, mothers, and sisters of New York have less at stake regarding these issues, or less practical knowledge about them than husbands and fathers? No man would be foolish enough to claim that. Is there then a natural inability for women to understand politics? No one argues that. Do they lack the necessary intelligence? However, the moment you create a standard of intelligence that excludes women as a group, most men would be disenfranchised as well. Is the issue that they shouldn’t attend public political meetings? But we actively encourage them to join. Or that they shouldn’t vote? Some polling places, I admit, in larger cities, can be dirty and unsafe; those are the ones that the police should improve. But no respectable man wants to vote in a bar or risk injury while doing so, and the act of casting a ballot is one of the simplest, quickest, and cleanest actions there is. Last winter, Senator Frelinghuysen, I’m sure thoughtlessly repeating common phrases, referred to the noble and sacred mission of women. But if individuals with a noble mission can innocently sit bare-necked in crowded theaters to be observed through telescopes until midnight by anyone who wishes, how can their high and holy mission be compromised by quietly dropping a ballot in a box? What is the noble mission of any woman but to become the best and most capable human being she can? Expanding one’s responsibilities and duties, where there is sufficient ability and intelligence, enhances rather than diminishes the sanctity of life.
But if women vote, they must sit on juries. Why not? Nothing is plainer than that thousands of women who are tried every year as criminals are not tried by their peers. And if a woman is bad enough to commit a heinous crime, must we absurdly assume that women are too good to know that there is such a crime? If they may not sit on juries, certainly they ought not to be witnesses. A note in Howell's State Trials, to which my attention was drawn by one of my distinguished colleagues in the convention, quotes an ancient work, "Probation by Witnesses," by Sir George Mackenzie, in which he says: "The reason why women are excluded from witnessing must be either that they are subject to too much compassion, and so ought not to be more received in criminal cases than in civil cases; or else the law was unwilling to trouble them, and thought it might learn them too much confidence, and make them subject to too much familiarity with men and strangers, if they were necessitated to vague up and down at all courts upon all occasions." Hume says this rule was held as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century. But if too much familiarity with men be so pernicious, are men so pure that they alone should make laws for women, and so honorable that they alone should try women for breaking them? It is within a very few years at the Liverpool Assizes in a case involving peculiar evidence, that Mr. Russell said: "The evidence of women is, in some respects, superior to that of men. Their power of judging of minute details is better, and when there are more than two facts and something be wanting, their intuitions supply the deficiency." "And precisely the qualities which fit them to give evidence," says Mrs. Dall, to whom we owe this fact, "fit them to sift and test it."[Pg 300]
But if women can vote, they should also serve on juries. Why not? It’s clear that thousands of women who are tried as criminals each year are not judged by their peers. And if a woman is bad enough to commit a serious crime, must we absurdly assume that women are too virtuous to recognize that such crimes exist? If they can’t serve on juries, then surely they shouldn’t be witnesses either. A note in Howell's State Trials, which was pointed out to me by one of my esteemed colleagues at the convention, cites an old work, "Probation by Witnesses," by Sir George Mackenzie, where he states: "The reason why women are excluded from giving testimony must be either that they are too compassionate and therefore should not be admitted in criminal cases any more than in civil cases; or else the law was reluctant to burden them, believing it might make them too confident and too familiar with men and strangers if they were required to appear in courts regularly." Hume notes that this rule was upheld as late as the early 1700s. But if too much familiarity with men is so harmful, are men so virtuous that they alone should create laws for women, and so honorable that they solely should judge women for breaking those laws? Just a few years ago, during a case at the Liverpool Assizes involving unusual evidence, Mr. Russell said: "The testimony of women is, in some ways, superior to that of men. Their ability to assess minute details is better, and when there are multiple facts and something is missing, their intuition fills in the gaps." "And the very qualities that enable them to provide testimony," says Mrs. Dall, from whom we learned this, "also make them suited to analyze and evaluate it."[Pg 300]
But, the objectors continue, would you have women hold office? If they are capable and desirous, why not? They hold office now most acceptably. In my immediate neighborhood, a postmistress has been so faithful an officer for seven years, that when there was a rumor of her removal, it was a matter of public concern. This is a familiar instance in this country. Scott's "Antiquary" shows that a similar service was not unknown in Scotland. In "Notes and Queries," ten years ago (Vol. II., Sec. 2, 1856, pp. 83, 204), Alexander Andrews says: "It was by no means unusual for females to serve the office of overseer in small rural parishes," and a communication in the same publication (First Series, Vol. II., p. 383) speaks of a curious entry in the Harleian Miscellany (MS. 980, fol. 153): "The Countess of Richmond, mother to Henry VII., was a Justice of the Peace. Mr. Atturney said if it was so, it ought to have been by commission, for which he had made many an hower's search for the record, but could never find it, but he had seen many arbitriments that were made by her. Justice Joanes affirmed that he had often heard from his mother of the Lady Bartlett, mother to the Lord Bartlett, that she was a Justice of the Peace, and did set usually upon the bench with the other Justices in Gloucestershire; that she was made so by Queen Mary, upon her complaint to her of the injuries she sustained by some of that county, and desiring for redress thereof; that as she herself, was Chief-Justice of all England, so this lady might be in her own county, which accordingly the Queen granted. Another example was alleged of one —— Rowse, in Suffolk, who usually at the assizes and sessions there held, set upon the bench among the Justices gladio cincta." The Countess of Pembroke was hereditary sheriff of Westmoreland, and exercised her office. Henry the VIIIth granted a commission of inquiry, under the great seal, to Lady Ann Berkeley, who opened it at Gloucester, and passed sentence under it. Henry VIII's daughter, Elizabeth Tudor, was Queen of England, in name and in fact, during the most illustrious epoch of English history. Was Elizabeth incompetent? Did Elizabeth unsex herself? Or do you say that she was an exceptional woman? So she was, but no more an exceptional woman than Alfred, Marcus Aurelius, or Napoleon were exceptional men. It was held by some of the old English writers that a woman might serve in almost any of the great offices of the kingdom. And, indeed, if Victoria may deliberate in council with her ministers, why may not any intelligent English woman deliberate in Parliament, or any such American woman in Congress? I mention Elizabeth, Maria Theresa, Catherine, and all the famous Empresses and Queens, not to prove the capacity of women for the most arduous and responsible office, for that is undeniable, but to show the hollowness of the assertion that there is an instinctive objection to the fulfillment of such offices by women. Men who say so do not really think so. The whole history of the voting and office-holding of women shows that whenever men's theories of the relation of property to the political franchise, or of the lineal succession of the government, require that women shall vote or hold office, the objection of impropriety and incapacity wholly disappears. If it be unwomanly for a woman to vote, or to hold office, it is unwomanly for Victoria to be Queen of England. Surely if our neighbors had thought they would be better represented in this convention by certain women, there is no good reason why they should have been compelled to send us. Why should I or any[Pg 301] person be forbidden to select the agent whom we think the most competent and truly representative of our will? There is no talent or training required in the making of laws which is peculiar to the male sex. What is needed is intelligence and experience. The rest is routine.
But the objectors continue, would you want women to hold office? If they are capable and want to, why not? They hold office now quite successfully. In my neighborhood, a postmistress has been such a dedicated officer for seven years that when there was a rumor she might be replaced, it became a public concern. This is a common example in this country. Scott's "Antiquary" shows that a similar role wasn't uncommon in Scotland. In "Notes and Queries," ten years ago (Vol. II., Sec. 2, 1856, pp. 83, 204), Alexander Andrews mentioned, "It was quite normal for women to serve as overseers in small rural parishes," and another entry in the same publication (First Series, Vol. II., p. 383) talks about a fascinating note in the Harleian Miscellany (MS. 980, fol. 153): "The Countess of Richmond, mother of Henry VII, was a Justice of the Peace. Mr. Attorney said if that were true, it should have been officially documented, for which he searched many times but could never find it; however, he had seen many decisions made by her. Justice Joanes confirmed that he often heard from his mother about Lady Bartlett, mother of Lord Bartlett, who was also a Justice of the Peace and regularly sat on the bench with other Justices in Gloucestershire; she was appointed so by Queen Mary after complaining to her about the injustices she suffered in that county, seeking redress. Just as Queen Mary was the Chief Justice of all England, this lady might be in her own county, which the Queen granted. Another example was of one — Rowse, in Suffolk, who often sat on the bench among the Justices gladio cincta. The Countess of Pembroke was the hereditary sheriff of Westmoreland and performed her duties. Henry VIII granted a commission of inquiry under the great seal to Lady Ann Berkeley, who opened it at Gloucester and passed judgment under it. Henry VIII's daughter, Elizabeth Tudor, was Queen of England, in name and in fact, during one of the most distinguished periods of English history. Was Elizabeth incapable? Did Elizabeth unsex herself? Or do you claim she was an exceptional woman? She was exceptional, but no more so than Alfred, Marcus Aurelius, or Napoleon were exceptional men. Some old English writers believed a woman could serve in almost any high office of the kingdom. Indeed, if Victoria can deliberate in council with her ministers, why can’t any educated English woman deliberate in Parliament, or any American woman in Congress? I mention Elizabeth, Maria Theresa, Catherine, and all the renowned Empresses and Queens, not to prove that women can handle the toughest and most responsible positions, which is undeniable, but to demonstrate the emptiness of the claim that there's an instinctive objection to women fulfilling such roles. Men who say this don’t genuinely believe it. The entire history of women's voting and holding office shows that whenever men's theories about property and political rights require women to vote or hold office, any objections about inappropriateness or incompetence completely vanish. If it is inappropriate for a woman to vote or hold office, it is likewise inappropriate for Victoria to be Queen of England. Surely, if our neighbors believed they would be better represented in this convention by certain women, there’s no good reason why they should have been forced to send us. Why should I or anyone [Pg 301] be prohibited from choosing the representative we believe is most capable and truly reflects our wishes? There is no special talent or training required to make laws that is unique to men. What is needed is intelligence and experience. The rest is just routine.
The capacity for making laws is necessarily assumed when women are permitted to hold and manage property and to submit to taxation. How often the woman, widowed, or married, or single, is the guiding genius of the family—educating the children, directing the estate, originating, counseling, deciding. Is there anything essentially different in such duties and the powers necessary to perform them from the functions of legislation? In New Jersey the Constitution of 1776 admitted to vote all inhabitants of a certain age, residence, and property. In 1797, in an act to regulate elections, the ninth section provides: "Every voter shall openly and in full view deliver his or her ballot, which shall be a single written ticket, containing the names of the persons for whom he or she votes." An old citizen of New Jersey says that "the right was recognized, and very little said or thought about it in any way." But in 1807 the suffrage was restricted to white male adult citizens of a certain age, residence, and property, and in 1844 the property qualification was abolished. At the hearing before the committee, the other evening, a gentleman asked whether the change of the qualification excluding women did not show that their voting was found to be inconvenient or undesirable. Not at all. It merely showed that the male property-holders out-voted the female. It certainly showed nothing as to the right or expediency of the voting of women. Mr. Douglas, as I said, had a theory that the white male adult squatters in a territory might decide whether the colored people in the territory should be enslaved. They might, indeed, so decide, and with adequate power they might enforce their decision. But it proved very little as to the right, the expediency, or the constitutionality of slavery in a territory. The truth is that men deal with the practical question of female suffrage to suit their own purposes. About twenty-five years ago the Canadian government by statute rigorously and in terms forbade women to vote. But in 1850, to subserve a sectarian purpose, they were permitted to vote for school trustees. I am ashamed to argue a point so plain. What public affairs need in this State is "conscience," and woman is the conscience of the race. If we in this convention shall make a wise Constitution, if the Legislatures that follow us in this chamber shall purify the laws and see that they are honorably executed, it will be just in the degree that we shall have accustomed ourselves to the refined, moral, and mental atmosphere in which women habitually converse.
The ability to create laws is necessarily assumed when women are allowed to own and manage property and to pay taxes. How often is the woman, whether widowed, married, or single, the driving force of the family—educating the children, managing the household, initiating ideas, giving advice, making decisions? Is there anything fundamentally different about these responsibilities and the powers needed to carry them out compared to legislative functions? In New Jersey, the Constitution of 1776 allowed all inhabitants of a certain age, residence, and property to vote. In 1797, an act to regulate elections included this provision: "Every voter shall openly and in full view deliver his or her ballot, which shall be a single written ticket, containing the names of the persons for whom he or she votes." An older resident of New Jersey shares that "the right was recognized, and very little said or thought about it in any way." However, in 1807, voting rights were limited to white male adult citizens of a certain age, residence, and property, and the property requirement was removed in 1844. During a recent committee hearing, a gentleman questioned whether the change in qualifications that excluded women indicated that their voting was deemed inconvenient or undesirable. Not at all. It simply showed that male property owners outvoted women. It certainly didn't indicate anything about the righteousness or practicality of women voting. Mr. Douglas had a theory that the white male adult settlers in a territory should determine whether the people of color there should be enslaved. They could, indeed, make such a decision and with sufficient power enforce it. But this proved very little about the rightness, practicality, or constitutionality of slavery in any territory. The truth is that men tackle the issue of women’s voting to serve their own interests. About twenty-five years ago, the Canadian government officially prohibited women from voting. Yet in 1850, to further a specific agenda, they were allowed to vote for school trustees. I feel embarrassed to have to argue such a clear point. What public affairs need in this state is "conscience," and women represent the conscience of the race. If we in this convention create a wise Constitution, and if the legislatures that follow us purify the laws and ensure they are honorably executed, it will be just to the extent that we have adapted ourselves to the refined, moral, and intellectual environment in which women typically engage.
But would you, seriously, I am asked, would you drag women down into the mire of politics? No, sir, I would have them lift us out of it. The duty of this Convention is to devise means for the improvement of the government of this State. Now, the science of government is not an ignoble science, and the practice of politics is not necessarily mean and degrading. If the making and administering of law has become so corrupt as to justify calling politics filthy, and a thing in which no clean hands can meddle without danger, may we not wisely remember, as we begin our work of purification, that politics have been wholly managed by men? How can we purify them? Is there no radical method, no force yet untried, a power not only of skillful[Pg 302] checks, which I do not undervalue, but of controlling character? Mr. Chairman, if we sat in this chamber with closed windows until the air became thick and fetid, should we not be fools if we brought in deodorizers—if we sprinkled chloride of lime and burned assafœtida, while we disdained the great purifier? If we would cleanse the foul chamber, let us throw the windows wide open, and the sweet summer air would sweep all impurity away and fill our lungs with fresher life. If we would purge politics let us turn upon them the great stream of the purest human influence we know.
But would you, seriously, I’m asked, would you drag women down into the mess of politics? No, sir, I want them to lift us out of it. The job of this Convention is to find ways to improve the government of this State. Now, the study of government is not a lowly pursuit, and practicing politics isn’t necessarily mean or degrading. If making and enforcing laws has become so corrupt that we must call politics dirty, and something no one with clean hands can touch without risk, shouldn’t we remember, as we start our work of cleansing, that politics has been completely run by men? How can we clean it up? Is there no radical method, no untried force, a power that isn’t just about careful checks—which I don’t underestimate—but also involves strong character? Mr. Chairman, if we sat in this room with the windows shut until the air became thick and stale, wouldn’t we be foolish if we just tried to cover up the smell—if we sprinkled lime and burned foul-smelling substances, while ignoring the real purifier? If we want to clean up this dirty chamber, let’s throw the windows wide open, and the fresh summer air would blow away all the impurities and fill our lungs with new life. If we want to clean up politics, let’s unleash the powerful stream of the purest human influence we know.
But I hear some one say, if they vote they must do military duty. Undoubtedly when a nation goes to war it may rightfully claim the service of all its citizens, men and women. But the question of fighting is not the blow merely, but its quality and persistence. The important point is, to make the blow effective. Did any brave Englishman who rode into the jaws of death at Balaklava serve England on the field more truly than Florence Nightingale? That which sustains and serves and repairs the physical force is just as essential as the force itself. Thus the law, in view of the moral service they are supposed to render, excuses clergymen from the field, and in the field it details ten per cent of the army to serve the rest, and they do not carry muskets nor fight. Women, as citizens, have always done, and always will do that work in the public defense for which their sex peculiarly fits them, and men do no more. The care of the young warriors, the nameless and innumerable duties of the hospital and home, are just as essential to the national safety as fighting in the field. A nation of men alone could not carry on a contest any longer than a nation of women. Each would be obliged to divide its forces and delegate half to the duties of the other sex.
But I hear someone say, if they vote, they must do military duty. Undoubtedly, when a nation goes to war, it can rightfully ask for the service of all its citizens, both men and women. But the question of fighting isn’t just about the act itself, but about its quality and persistence. The key point is to make the effort effective. Did any brave Englishman who charged into danger at Balaklava serve England on the battlefield more genuinely than Florence Nightingale? What sustains, supports, and repairs physical strength is just as essential as that strength itself. Thus, the law, considering the moral service they are expected to provide, excuses clergymen from combat, and within the army, ten percent is assigned to support the rest, and they don’t carry weapons or fight. Women, as citizens, have always done, and always will do, the work in public defense for which their gender uniquely qualifies them, and men do no more. The care of young warriors, along with countless duties in hospitals and at home, is just as crucial to national safety as fighting in the field. A nation of men alone couldn't sustain a conflict any longer than a nation of women. Each would need to divide its efforts and delegate half to the responsibilities of the other gender.
But while the physical services of war are equally divided between the sexes, the moral forces are stronger with women. It was the women of the South, we are constantly and doubtless very truly told, who sustained the rebellion, and certainly without the women of the North the Government had not been saved. From the first moment to the last, in all the roaring cities, in the remote valleys, in the deep woods, on the country hill-sides, on the open prairie, wherever there were wives, mothers, sisters, lovers, there were the busy fingers which, by day and by night, for four long years, like the great forces of spring-time and harvest, never failed. The mother paused only to bless her sons, eager for the battle; the wife to kiss her children's father, as he went; the sister smiled upon her brother, and prayed for the lover who marched away. Out of how many hundreds of thousands of homes and hearts they went who never returned. But those homes were both the inspiration and the consolation of the field. They nerved the arm that struck for them. When the son and husband fell in the wild storm of battle, the brave woman-heart broke in silence, but the busy fingers did not falter. When the comely brother and lover were tortured into idiocy and despair, that woman-heart of love kept the man's faith steady, and her unceasing toil repaired his wasted frame. It was not love of the soldier only, great as that was; it was knowledge of the cause. It was that supreme moral force operating through innumerable channels like the sunshine in nature, without which successful war would have been impossible. There are thousands and thousands of these women who ask for a voice in the government they have so defended. Shall we refuse them?[Pg 303]
But while the physical aspects of war are shared equally between men and women, the moral support comes more strongly from women. It was the women of the South, as we often hear and likely very accurately, who kept the rebellion alive, and certainly, without the women of the North, the Government wouldn’t have survived. From the very beginning to the very end, in bustling cities, in quiet valleys, in dense woods, on countryside hills, on the open prairie, wherever there were wives, mothers, sisters, and lovers, there were busy hands that, day and night, for four long years, like the vital forces of spring and harvest, never wavered. The mother paused only to bless her sons, eager for battle; the wife kissed her children’s father as he left; the sister smiled at her brother and prayed for the lover who marched off. From countless homes and hearts they went, many who never came back. But those homes inspired and comforted the fighters. They strengthened the hands that fought in their names. When the son or husband fell in the chaos of battle, the brave woman’s heart broke in silence, but her hands did not slow down. When the handsome brother or lover fell into madness and despair, that loving woman’s heart kept his faith strong, and her tireless efforts restored his weakened body. It was not just love for the soldier, great as that was; it was an understanding of the cause. It was that powerful moral force working through countless channels like sunlight in nature, without which a successful war would have been impossible. There are thousands of these women who seek a voice in the government they have fought so hard to protect. Should we deny them? [Pg 303]
I appeal again to my honorable friend, the Chairman of the Committee. He has made the land ring with his cry of universal suffrage and universal amnesty. Suffrage and amnesty to whom? To those who sought to smother the government in the blood of its noblest citizens, to those who ruined the happy homes and broke the faithful hearts of which I spoke. Sir, I am not condemning his cry. I am not opposing his policy. I have no more thirst for vengeance than he, and quite as anxiously as my honorable friend do I wish to see the harvests of peace waving over the battle-fields. But, sir, here is a New York mother, who trained her son in fidelity to God and to his country. When that country called, they answered. Mother and son gave, each after his kind, their whole service to defend her. By the sad fate of war the boy is thrown into the ghastly den at Andersonville. Mad with thirst, he crawls in the pitiless sun toward a muddy pool. He reaches the dead-line, and is shot by the guard—murdered for fidelity to his country. "I demand amnesty for that guard, I demand that he shall vote," cries the honorable Chairman of the Committee. I do not say that it is an unwise demand. But I ask him, I ask you, sir, I ask every honorable and patriotic man in this State, upon what conceivable ground of justice, expediency, or common sense shall we give the ballot to the New York boy's murderer and refuse it to his mother?
I appeal once more to my respected friend, the Chairman of the Committee. He has made the land resonate with his call for universal voting rights and complete forgiveness. Voting rights and forgiveness for whom? For those who tried to crush the government with the blood of its most honorable citizens, for those who destroyed the happy homes and broke the loyal hearts I mentioned. Sir, I am not condemning his call. I am not opposing his approach. I have no more desire for revenge than he does, and just as eagerly as my esteemed friend, I want to see peace flourishing over the battlefields. But, sir, here is a mother from New York, who raised her son to be loyal to God and to his country. When that country called, they both responded. Mother and son each gave their all to defend her. By the tragic fate of war, the boy ends up in the horrific prison at Andersonville. Driven mad by thirst, he crawls in the blazing sun toward a muddy puddle. He crosses the dead-line and is shot by the guard—murdered for his loyalty to his country. "I demand forgiveness for that guard; I demand that he should have the right to vote," says the honorable Chairman of the Committee. I am not saying it's an unwise demand. But I ask him, I ask you, sir, I ask every honorable and patriotic person in this State, on what possible basis of justice, practicality, or common sense should we give the right to vote to the killer of the New York boy and deny it to his mother?
Mr. Chairman, I have thus stated what I conceive to be the essential reasonableness of the amendment which I have offered. It is not good for man to be alone. United with woman in the creation of human society, their rights and interests in its government are identical, nor can the highest and truest development of society be reasonably conceived, so long as one sex assumes to prescribe limits to the scope and functions of the other. The test of civilization is the position of women. Where they are wholly slaves, man is wholly barbarous; and the measure of progress from barbarism to civilization is the recognition of their equal right with man to an unconstrained development. Therefore, when Mr. Mill unrolls his petition in Parliament to secure the political equality of women, it bears the names of those English men and women whose thoughts foretell the course of civilization. The measure which the report of the Committee declares to be radically revolutionary and perilous to the very functions of sex, is described by the most sagacious of living political philosophers as reasonable, conservative, necessary, and inevitable; and he obtains for it seventy-three votes in the same House in which out of about the same whole number of voters Charles James Fox, the idol of the British Whigs, used to be able to rally only forty votes against the policy of Pitt. The dawn in England will soon be day here. Before the American principle of equal rights, barrier after barrier in the path of human progress falls. If we are still far from its full comprehension and further from perfect conformity to its law, it is in that only like the spirit of Christianity, to whose full glory even Christendom but slowly approaches. From the heat and tumult of our politics we can still lift our eyes to the eternal light of that principle; can see that the usurpation of sex is the last form of caste that lingers in our society; that in America the most humane thinker is the most practical man, and the organizer of justice the most sagacious statesman.
Mr. Chairman, I have outlined what I believe to be the fundamental reasonableness of the amendment I’ve proposed. It’s not good for people to be alone. Together with women in building human society, their rights and interests in its government are the same; the highest and truest development of society can't be reasonably imagined as long as one gender tries to set limits on the scope and functions of the other. The measure of civilization is the status of women. When they are completely oppressed, men are utterly uncivilized; the shift from barbarism to civilization is marked by recognizing their equal right with men to develop freely. Therefore, when Mr. Mill presents his petition in Parliament to secure political equality for women, it carries the names of those English men and women whose ideas predict the future of civilization. The measure that the Committee's report deems fundamentally revolutionary and a threat to the very roles of gender is described by the wisest living political philosophers as reasonable, conservative, necessary, and inevitable; and he secures seventy-three votes in the same House where Charles James Fox, the idol of the British Whigs, could rally only forty votes against Pitt’s policies. The dawn in England will soon become day here. With the American principle of equal rights, each barrier in the way of human progress falls. If we still have a long way to go in fully understanding it and even further from perfectly following its principles, this is similar to the spirit of Christianity, which even Christendom approaches only slowly. Amid the heat and chaos of our politics, we can still raise our eyes to the eternal light of that principle; we can see that the oppression of gender is the last form of caste hanging on in our society; that in America, the most compassionate thinker is also the most practical person, and the organizer of justice is the most insightful statesman.
Mr. Gould, of Columbia, followed with a long speech in opposition,[Pg 304] and the discussion[104] continued through several days; but Mr. Curtis's amendment, in the Committee of the Whole, received 24 ayes against 63 nays; and on the final vote in the Convention, 19 ayes[105] against 125 nays.
Mr. Gould from Columbia gave a lengthy speech against it,[Pg 304] and the discussion[104] went on for several days. However, Mr. Curtis's amendment in the Committee of the Whole got 24 votes in favor and 63 against. In the final vote at the Convention, there were 19 votes for it[105] and 125 against.
Mr. Greeley, seemingly to atone for the disappointment of the women of the State in his adverse report, published the following editorial in The Tribune of July 26th, 1867:
Mr. Greeley, apparently trying to make up for the letdown of the women in the State from his negative report, published the following editorial in The Tribune on July 26th, 1867:
WOMEN IN POLITICS.
The Constitutional Convention of our State, yesterday, negatived—yeas 19, nays 125—the proposition that women should share with men the duties and responsibilities of voters at elections. This decision was preceded by an earnest, protracted discussion, in which the right and expediency of extending the elective franchise to women were most eloquently urged by George William Curtis, and less elaborately by several others. The judgment pronounced yesterday by the Convention must therefore be regarded as final.
The Constitutional Convention of our State yesterday rejected—yes 19, no 125—the proposal that women should have the same voting rights as men in elections. This decision followed a serious and lengthy discussion, where the case for granting women the right to vote was passionately made by George William Curtis, with support from a few others. The decision made by the Convention yesterday should be seen as final.
We do not, however, regard it as a verdict against a participation in public affairs by women. On the contrary, we hold that woman's influence not only is, but should be felt in legislation and government, and must increase in power as the race becomes more enlightened and humane. We only insist that she shall speak and be heard distinctly as woman, not mingled and confused with man. To make women voters at our elections as now held, and eligible to office in competition with men, would be far better calculated to corrupt woman than to reform man and purify politics. To have women mingle freely with men in primary meetings, caucuses, nominating conventions, investigating committees, juries, etc., etc., is not in our judgment calculated to elevate woman more than to reform existing abuses in legislation and practical politics. We should greatly prefer a system like this:
We don’t see this as a reason for women to stay out of public affairs. On the contrary, we believe that women’s influence is, and should be, felt in legislation and government, and it must grow stronger as humanity becomes more enlightened and compassionate. We just insist that women should speak and be heard clearly as women, not mixed up or confused with men. Allowing women to vote in our current elections and compete with men for office would likely do more harm to women than it would do to reform men and clean up politics. Having women mix freely with men in primary meetings, caucuses, nominating conventions, investigative committees, juries, etc., in our view, is not likely to uplift women or fix the existing problems in legislation and practical politics. We would much prefer a system like this:
Let the women of our State, after due discussion and consultation, hold a convention composed of delegates from the several counties, equal in number to the members of Assembly. To this Convention let none but women be admitted, whether as officers or spectators. Let this convention, keeping its debates wholly private, decide what department of legislative government may be safely assigned and set apart to woman. We would suggest all that relates to the family; marriage, divorce, separation from bed and board, the control and maintenance of children, education, the property rights of married women, inheritance, dower, etc., etc., as subjects that could wisely and safely be set apart to be legislated upon by woman alone. And we believe that if she (not a few women, but the sex) shall ever suggest and require such an apportionment[Pg 305] of legislative powers and duties, man will cheerfully concede it.
Let the women of our State, after proper discussion and consultation, hold a convention made up of delegates from the various counties, with the same number as members of the Assembly. Only women should be allowed in this convention, whether as officers or spectators. This convention should keep its debates completely private and determine which areas of legislative government can be safely assigned to women. We suggest topics related to family matters; marriage, divorce, separation, child custody and support, education, property rights for married women, inheritance, dower, etc., as subjects that could be effectively and safely legislated solely by women. We believe that if women as a whole ever propose and demand such a distribution of legislative powers and responsibilities, men will willingly agree to it.
"But would you have woman hold elections like ours"? No! we would not! We would have her teach us how to take the sense of the electors far more quietly and cheaply. When a department of legislation shall be assigned to woman, we would have her collect through school-district, or kindred organizations, the names of all female citizens who possess the qualifications, other than of sex, required from male voters at our elections. These being duly, lucidly registered, let, then, women in each Assembly district be designated to collect the votes of its women. Let them simply advertise the address to which votes should be sent and appoint a week wherein to collect them. Now, let every female citizen write her ballot and enclose it, signing her name to the address indicated; and due time having been allowed for votes to arrive by mail or otherwise, let the votes be duly canvassed, and the result ascertained and declared, and certificates of election issued accordingly.
"But would you have women hold elections like ours?" No! We wouldn't! We would have them show us how to gather the opinions of voters much more quietly and affordably. When a legislative department is assigned to women, we would have them collect through school districts or similar organizations the names of all female citizens who meet the qualifications, other than gender, required from male voters at our elections. Once these names are properly and clearly registered, let's designate women in each Assembly district to gather the votes from their women. They should simply advertise the address to which votes should be sent and set a week to collect them. Now, let every female citizen fill out her ballot and send it, signing her name to the indicated address; and after allowing sufficient time for votes to arrive by mail or otherwise, let the votes be counted, the results determined and announced, and certificates of election issued as appropriate.
Under this plan, the invalid, the bed-ridden, the bereaved, and even the absent, could vote as well as others, and the cost of holding an election throughout the State need not reach $10,000. Such are the outlines of our views regarding woman in politics. They are doubtless susceptible of improvement; but we think not by effacing in politics the natural and time-honored distinctions between women and men. A female legislature, a jury of women, we could abide; a legislature of men and women, a jury promiscuously drawn from the sexes we do not believe in.
Under this plan, the disabled, the bed-ridden, the grieving, and even those who are absent could vote just like everyone else, and the cost of holding an election across the State wouldn’t have to exceed $10,000. These are the basics of our views on women in politics. They can definitely be improved, but we don’t think that comes from eliminating the natural and traditional differences between women and men in politics. We could support a female legislature or a jury made up of women, but we don’t believe in a mixed legislature or a jury randomly selected from both genders.
The New York Independent published the following criticism on Mr. Greeley's report a few days after its publication:
The New York Independent shared the following critique of Mr. Greeley's report a few days after it was published:
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
BY ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.
Your committee does not recommend an extension of the elective franchise to woman. However defensible in theory, we are satisfied that public sentiment does not demand, and would not sustain, an innovation so revolutionary and sweeping; so openly at war with a distribution of duties and functions between the sexes as venerable as the Government itself, and involving transformations so radical in social and domestic life. Should we prove to be in error on this head, the Convention may overrule us by changing a few words in the first section of our proposed article.
Your committee does not support extending the right to vote to women. While it may seem reasonable in theory, we believe that public opinion does not require, nor would it support, such a significant and drastic change; one that directly conflicts with the traditional roles and responsibilities assigned to men and women, which have existed as long as the Government itself, and would lead to major shifts in both social and family life. If we're wrong about this, the Convention can correct us by altering a few words in the first section of our proposed article.
In the above extract from the majority report of the Committee on Suffrage we have substantially four reasons why the committee did not recommend an extension of the elective franchise to women.
In the above extract from the majority report of the Committee on Suffrage, we have basically four reasons why the committee didn't recommend extending the right to vote to women.
1st. Public sentiment does not demand it.
1st. Public opinion doesn't require it.
2d. It would be an innovation revolutionary and sweeping.
2d. It would be a groundbreaking and transformative innovation.
3d. It is at war with a distribution of duties and functions between the sexes.
3d. It conflicts with how duties and roles are divided between men and women.
4th. The enfranchisement of women would disturb relations as venerable as government itself, and radically change our domestic life.
4th. Granting women the right to vote would disrupt relationships that are as old as government itself and significantly alter our home life.
Shades of Jeremy Bentham and Sidney Smith forgive! After publishing to the world that immortal oration of Noodledom, and refuting for all time such fallacies as the above, how amazing that Radical Republicans in the capital of the Empire State should repeat in the ears of the nineteenth century stale platitudes from the effete civilizations of the Old World—that to[Pg 306] their starving wives and mothers, knocking at the door of the political citadel, instead of bread and the ballot, they should give stones and twenty years more of degradation in disfranchisement. But if it be true that public sentiment is not prepared for this just and beneficent measure, then it is the duty of our leaders, instead of stereotyping the ignorant prejudices of the people into statutes and constitutions, to educate this public sentiment, by the utterance of sound ideas, by the example of honest action. When God gives new truths to the few, it is that they may win the response of the many. There is no blunder more constantly made by politicians than the assumption that the people are never ready for an onward step.
Shades of Jeremy Bentham and Sidney Smith, forgive us! After sharing that timeless speech of Noodledom with the world and putting to rest such outdated ideas forever, it's shocking that Radical Republicans in the capital of the Empire State are echoing worn-out clichés from the declining civilizations of the Old World in the nineteenth century—that instead of providing bread and the ballot to their starving wives and mothers knocking at the door of the political fortress, they should offer stones and another twenty years of humiliation through disenfranchisement. But if it's true that public opinion isn't ready for this fair and beneficial change, then it's our leaders' responsibility, instead of solidifying the ignorant biases of the people into laws and constitutions, to educate public sentiment with sound ideas and examples of honest action. When God reveals new truths to a few, it's so they can inspire the many. There’s no mistake politicians make more often than thinking the people are never ready for progress.
The people were ready for emancipation so long before the Government declared it that, when it did come, the measure called forth but little enthusiasm. It is not so much the will of the people that troubles the politician as the safety of the party in power. This committee denies the ballot to woman, and gives it to the black man, for the same reason—party success; not because they think public sentiment is ready for either, for in their uncertainty they dare not submit the question of the black man separately to a vote of the people. "But the measure is so revolutionary and sweeping." When we abjured King George, and declared all men equal, we inaugurated a very revolutionary measure, undermined kingdoms and empires, deranged the political, commercial, and social interests of two continents, and upset innumerable family relations, by crowding husbands and fathers into untimely graves. Had the Honorable Suffrage Committee been in Boston Harbor, they would have objected to throwing the tea overboard as too revolutionary a measure; they would have scouted Jefferson's radical declaration as absurd, in view of the royal facts on every throne in Europe, and the divine command, "Honor the king." After revolutionizing, as we have just done, the entire system of labor at the South, the social and political status of a race, and in pressing a measure for which public sentiment seemed unprepared, deluging the land in blood, how futile is such reasoning as the above in the mouths of those who inaugurated this second revolution.
The people had been ready for emancipation well before the Government actually declared it, so when it finally happened, the response was barely enthusiastic. What really concerns politicians isn't the desire of the people but the stability of the ruling party. This committee denies women the right to vote while granting it to Black men for the same reason—party success; not because they believe public opinion supports either, but because they’re afraid to put the question of Black men's voting rights to a vote on its own. "But this is such a revolutionary and sweeping measure." When we rejected King George and declared that all men are created equal, we set in motion a revolutionary measure that shook kingdoms and empires, disrupted the political, commercial, and social interests of two continents, and tore apart countless families by sending husbands and fathers to untimely deaths. If the Honorable Suffrage Committee had been at Boston Harbor, they would have opposed throwing the tea overboard for being too radical; they would have dismissed Jefferson's bold declaration as ridiculous given the royal realities on every European throne and the divine command to "Honor the king." After having completely transformed the labor system in the South, altered the social and political standing of a race, and pushed for a change that public sentiment seemed unready for, leading to a bloody conflict, how pointless is such reasoning from those who triggered this second revolution?
Again, "The enfranchisement of woman is at war with the distribution of duties and functions between the sexes." The plea of tyrants in all ages. Says the English peer, "I'll make laws and govern; let the peasant till the earth and provide the sinews of war." Says the proud slaveholder, "I'll read and write and think; let the negro hoe the sugar, rice, and corn." Says the New York Suffrage Committee, "We will do the voting; let women pay the taxes. We will be judges, jurors, sheriffs; and give woman the right to be hung on the gallows." Napoleon once said to Madame de Stael, "Why will you women meddle with politics?" "Sire," she replied, "if you will hang us, we must ask the reason why."
Again, "The empowerment of women goes against the division of responsibilities and roles between the sexes." This is the argument of oppressors throughout history. An English lord says, "I'll make the laws and lead; let the common people farm the land and provide the resources for war." A proud slave owner states, "I'll read, write, and think; let the Black man toil in the fields for sugar, rice, and corn." The New York Suffrage Committee claims, "We will handle the voting; let women pay the taxes. We will be judges, jurors, and sheriffs; and let women face the hangman's noose." Napoleon once asked Madame de Stael, "Why do you women get involved in politics?" She replied, "Your Majesty, if you're going to execute us, we have to know the reason why."
The functions of the sexes! What particular function does it require to vote? In the discussion on this point, we hear of property, education, morality, sanity; yet "white males" vote without these, and women possessing all are denied the right. While different men have different duties, different functions, different spheres, ranging from the heights of Parnassus to the bowels of the earth, why legislate all women into a nutshell? Because a man is a father, must he needs be nothing else? Are lawyers, merchants, tailors, cobblers, bootblacks less skilled in their specialties because they vote? Because[Pg 307] some women are mothers, shall all women concentrate every thought in that direction? and can those who are mothers be nothing else? Have not those who are training up sons and daughters an interest beyond the home, in the great outer world, where they are soon to act their part? If women should vote one day in the year, must every duty and function of their being be subordinated to that one act during the whole 365?
The roles of men and women! What specific qualification is needed to vote? In this debate, we talk about property, education, morality, and sanity; yet "white males" can vote without any of these, while women who have all of them are denied that right. While different men have different responsibilities, roles, and areas of expertise, ranging from the highest peaks to the deepest parts of the earth, why should we confine all women to such a narrow existence? Just because a man is a father, does that mean he can’t be anything else? Are lawyers, merchants, tailors, cobblers, and shoe shiners any less skilled in what they do because they vote? Just because some women are mothers, does that mean all women must focus solely on that role? Can mothers be nothing else? Don’t those who are raising sons and daughters care about the world beyond their homes, where their children will soon take part? If women were allowed to vote just one day a year, does that mean every other duty and aspect of their lives should be disregarded for that one act throughout the entire 365 days?
Many men, possessing the right of suffrage, never exercise it: many more use it indifferently once a year, or sell it to the highest bidder; and on what principle does the theory rest, that if woman had this right, she would desert husband, child, and home, and reserve all her love and care, her smiles and enthusiasm, for the ballot-box? No; woman's love for man is not based on the statutes of the State, nor the maternal instinct on the second article of the Constitution. Whatever distribution of duties and functions are fixed by nature we need no legislation to enforce. So long as the fact of motherhood does not release woman from taxation, and the necessity of earning her own bread, it should not deprive her of that right most needed for her protection. If the 40,000 drunkards' wives in this State have the necessary functions to provide food, clothes, and shelter for worthless husbands and helpless children, they have the necessary functions to go to the polls and vote for such social and sanitary laws as shall end the vice of intemperance.
Many men who have the right to vote never use it. Many more vote without much thought once a year or sell their vote to the highest bidder. So, on what basis does the theory claim that if women had this right, they would abandon their husbands, children, and homes, saving all their love, care, smiles, and enthusiasm for the ballot box? No; a woman’s love for a man isn't determined by state laws, nor is a mother's instinct dictated by the Constitution. We don’t need laws to enforce the natural distribution of duties and roles. As long as being a mother doesn’t exempt a woman from paying taxes or the need to earn a living, it shouldn't take away her right to the protection she needs the most. If the 40,000 wives of alcoholics in this state are managing to provide food, clothes, and shelter for their worthless husbands and helpless children, they have every right to go to the polls and vote for the social and health laws that will help eliminate the problem of alcoholism.
"But," says the Committee, "this measure would disturb relations as venerable as government itself."
"But," says the Committee, "this measure would disrupt relationships as old as the government itself."
So said objectors twenty years ago in this State when woman was first secured in her rights of property. Some of our must distinguished lawyers prophesied a social convulsion on the adoption of that measure. But it came without earthquake or tornado. In a single hour, by a stroke of the pen, the women of the Empire State were crowned property-holders. But only those who had felt the iron teeth of the law took note of the onward legislation. It was a mighty wave on the shores of progress, that made scarce a ripple on the surface, washing the feet of the lonely traveler on the sand, though unheeded by the multitude on the bosom of its waters.
So said objectors twenty years ago in this State when women first gained their property rights. Some of our most prominent lawyers predicted a social upheaval with the passage of that law. But it came without any major disruption. In just one hour, with a single signature, the women of the Empire State became property owners. But only those who had experienced the harsh consequences of the law noticed the progressive changes. It was a powerful wave on the shores of progress, barely causing a ripple on the surface, washing over the feet of a solitary traveler on the beach, while going unnoticed by the crowd on its waters.
The ballot in the hand of woman will bring neither the millennium nor pandemonium the next day; but it will surely right many wrongs. It will open to her the colleges, the professions, the profitable and honorable walks of life, and give her better wages for her work. In securing to woman self-respect, independence and power, we shall purify and exalt our social relations. Helpless and dependent, woman must ever be the victim of society. "Give a man a right over my subsistence," says Alexander Hamilton, "and he has a right over my whole moral being."
The ballot in a woman's hand won't bring about a perfect world or chaos the very next day; however, it will definitely correct many injustices. It will grant her access to colleges, professions, and well-paying, respected careers, leading to better pay for her work. By ensuring women have self-respect, independence, and power, we will elevate and improve our social interactions. When women are powerless and dependent, they will always be victims of society. "Give a man control over my livelihood," says Alexander Hamilton, "and he has control over my entire moral existence."
February 13, 1868, Mr. Graves offered a resolution: "That the article on suffrage be recommitted to be revised, by striking out the word 'male' after the word 'every' in the first line of Section 1, Article II."
February 13, 1868, Mr. Graves proposed a resolution: "That the article on voting rights be sent back for revision, by removing the word 'male' after the word 'every' in the first line of Section 1, Article II."
Mr. Graves said: In offering this resolution I am not unmindful of the opinion that has been expressed in this Convention on the question. Yet, sir, I see a willingness expressed on all sides, to extend the suffrage to the black man at the South and the equally ignorant foreigner, alike without[Pg 308] education, without knowledge of our laws and Constitution, incapable of appreciating the genius of republican institutions, and who, neither by manner, by effort, by example, by influence, can do aught to promote the best interests of this Government.
Mr. Graves said: In bringing up this resolution, I'm aware of the opinions expressed in this Convention on the issue. However, I see a willingness from all sides to extend voting rights to black men in the South and equally uninformed foreigners, both lacking[Pg 308] education, knowledge of our laws and Constitution, and the ability to understand the principles of republican institutions. Neither by their behavior, efforts, examples, or influence can they contribute positively to the best interests of this Government.
If this constitution as it now is shall be approved by the people, you allow the black men of the South, fresh from the chains of slavery, to go to the ballot-box and vote on all the great questions involving the interests of this nation, while you deny the same right to educated, patriotic women—our own wives and mothers, who are educating our children, who give tone and character to society, and who are first and foremost in all moral movements.
If this constitution, as it currently stands, is approved by the people, you will allow Black men in the South, recently freed from slavery, to go to the ballot box and vote on all the major issues affecting the interests of this nation, while denying the same right to educated, patriotic women—our own wives and mothers, who are raising our children, shaping society, and leading the way in all moral movements.
You deny them the right to select officers who are to discharge the duties of government, and, worse still, a voice in the laws they are compelled to obey. Yes, sir, you say to the drunken husband who spends his time in whisky saloons, who goes reeling home at night to abuse his wife and children, that he is fit to vote on the interests of the family and the town, while you deny that right to the clear-headed, industrious wife, who feeds, clothes and shelters the worthless husband and educates the half-orphaned children.
You deny them the ability to choose the leaders who will handle government responsibilities, and even worse, a say in the laws they have to follow. Yes, you tell the drunken husband who spends his time in bars, who stumbles home at night to mistreat his wife and kids, that he's qualified to vote on what matters for the family and the community, while you refuse that right to the clear-minded, hardworking wife who supports the useless husband and raises their mostly orphaned children.
What a travesty on common sense and justice is such legislation! I know there are men in this Convention shaking in their boots for fear their mothers, wives, and daughters shall have equal power with themselves; cowardly men without gallantry, who fear that woman's voice in legislation might end some of the pet vices of society—might be more potent than their own.
What a disgrace to common sense and justice this legislation is! I know there are men in this Convention who are trembling because they’re scared that their mothers, wives, and daughters will have equal power; cowardly men without any bravery, who worry that a woman's voice in legislation might put an end to some of society's favored vices—might be more effective than their own.
Mr. Seaver rose to a point of order, and asked, "Who are the men shaking in their boots?"
Mr. Seaver stood up and asked, "Who are the guys shaking in their boots?"
Mr. Graves retorted, "Wounded birds will flutter."
Mr. Graves retorted, "Wounded birds will flutter."
Mr. Vedder wanted the gentleman's words recorded.
Mr. Vedder wanted the gentleman's words recorded.
Mr. Graves: I was about to say that educated women should be permitted to go to the ballot-box, and by their votes help to maintain our form of government. Why is it that every father in this country is educating his daughter as well as his son in all branches of science? Why does he expend his money in preparing his daughter for the most responsible positions, and then deny her the right to exercise her powers in the most intricate and exalted of sciences—that of government? I know it is said that the right of suffrage conferred on woman would destroy all domestic peace; which is to say a man can not tolerate an equal at his fireside. Does domestic peace exist in the exact ratio of a woman's inferiority to the man she calls her husband? The intelligent, educated wife must exert an influence for good over the husband. The wise, far-seeing, self-disciplined mother must exert an influence for good over her children; why, then, may not this influence be equally potent in the State?
Mr. Graves: I was about to say that educated women should be allowed to vote and use their votes to help maintain our form of government. Why is every father in this country educating his daughter just like his son in all areas of science? Why does he spend his money preparing his daughter for the most responsible roles, only to deny her the right to exercise her abilities in the most complex and important field—government? I know it’s claimed that giving women the right to vote would disrupt domestic harmony; which implies that a man can't handle being equal at home. Does domestic peace really depend on a woman being inferior to her husband? An intelligent, educated wife should have a positive influence on her husband. A wise, forward-thinking, disciplined mother should have a positive influence on her children; so why can't this influence be just as effective in the government?
The resolution was lost.
The resolution was lost.
The struggle in New York ended, all thoughts were turned towards Kansas, where, as already shown, the friends of woman suffrage were doomed to another disappointment. However, the year was one of active effort; tracts and petitions were diligently[Pg 309] circulated; a thorough campaign made in Kansas; a series of meetings held in all the chief cities from Leavenworth to New York, and a newspaper established, demanding far more time and money than its founders anticipated. Thus the intervening months were fully occupied until the May Anniversaries, when all religious and reformatory associations were accustomed to hold their annual meetings in New York city.
The struggle in New York wrapped up, and everyone's focus shifted to Kansas, where, as previously mentioned, the supporters of women's suffrage faced yet another setback. Still, it was a year of active efforts; pamphlets and petitions were actively[Pg 309] distributed; a comprehensive campaign was conducted in Kansas; a series of meetings took place in all the major cities from Leavenworth to New York, and a newspaper was launched, requiring much more time and money than its founders had expected. Consequently, the months leading up to the May Anniversaries were fully occupied, a time when all religious and reform organizations typically held their annual meetings in New York City.
EQUAL RIGHTS ANNIVERSARY.
The American Equal Rights Association held its annual meeting in Cooper Institute, New York, May 14, 1868. Its officers[106], with but few changes, were the same as before.
The American Equal Rights Association held its annual meeting at Cooper Institute, New York, on May 14, 1868. Its officers[106], with just a few changes, were the same as before.
The Hutchinson Family, the branch of John, was present, and with their sister, Abby Hutchinson Patten, opened the meeting with their song, "We Come to Greet You." Lucy Stone read a letter from John Stuart Mill, expressing sympathy with the movement. Letters were also read from Rev. Robert Collyer of Chicago, Maria Giddings, the daughter of Hon. Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio, Frances Dana Gage, and several others. Miss Anthony invited all delegates of Equal Rights Societies to seats on the platform; she also moved that Mrs. Rose, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Burleigh and Mr. Foster be a committee to prepare resolutions.
The Hutchinson Family, representing John, was there, and along with their sister, Abby Hutchinson Patten, they started the meeting with their song, "We Come to Greet You." Lucy Stone read a letter from John Stuart Mill, showing his support for the movement. Letters were also read from Rev. Robert Collyer of Chicago, Maria Giddings, the daughter of Hon. Joshua R. Giddings from Ohio, Frances Dana Gage, and several others. Miss Anthony invited all delegates of Equal Rights Societies to take seats on the platform; she also proposed that Mrs. Rose, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Burleigh, and Mr. Foster form a committee to prepare resolutions.
Henry B. Blackwell reported the success of the campaign of the women of this Society in Kansas, where Rev. Olympia Brown, Lucy Stone, Mrs. Stanton and Susan B. Anthony had canvassed. Their eloquence and determination gave great promise of success; but in an inopportune moment, Horace Greeley and others saw fit in the Constitutional Convention to report unfavorably on the proposition to extend suffrage to the women of the Empire State, and that influenced the sentiment of the younger Western States, and their enterprise was crushed. Even the Republicans in Kansas, after witnessing this example, set their faces against the extension of suffrage to women. The negroes got but a few more votes than did the women.
Henry B. Blackwell reported on the success of the campaign by the women of this Society in Kansas, where Rev. Olympia Brown, Lucy Stone, Mrs. Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony had engaged in canvassing. Their passion and determination suggested strong potential for success; however, at an unfortunate moment, Horace Greeley and others chose to report negatively on the proposal to extend voting rights to women in the Constitutional Convention, which swayed the opinions in the younger Western States, ultimately leading to the failure of their efforts. Even the Republicans in Kansas, after seeing this example, turned against giving women the right to vote. The African American population received only slightly more votes than the women.
Lucy Stone gave a resume of the progress of the cause in this country and in England. Col. Higginson and Mrs. Rose made excellent remarks. "Keep the ball rolling" was gracefully rendered by Mrs. Abby Hutchinson Patton,[Pg 310] the whole audience joining in the chorus. Mrs. Stone presented two forms of petition to Congress; one to extend suffrage to women in the District of Columbia and the Territories, the other for the submission of a proposition for a 16th Amendment to prohibit the States from disfranchising citizens on account of sex. Frederick Douglass made an acceptable speech in favor of the petitions. The President announced that Mrs. Patten headed the subscription list to aid the association in its work for the coming year with $50. Miss Anthony presented the various tracts published by the Society, and The Revolution, urging the friends of the cause to aid in the circulation of the paper, as it was the only one owned and edited by women, wholly devoted to the cause of Equal Rights. Rev. Dr. Blanchard, of Brooklyn, opened the evening session with prayer; a resolution was proposed and adopted, on the death of James Mott, husband of Lucretia Mott, President of the first Woman's Rights Convention at Seneca Falls.
Lucy Stone provided an update on the progress of the movement in both the United States and England. Col. Higginson and Mrs. Rose shared insightful comments. "Keep the ball rolling" was beautifully sung by Mrs. Abby Hutchinson Patton,[Pg 310] with the entire audience joining in the chorus. Mrs. Stone presented two types of petitions to Congress; one aimed at granting women the right to vote in the District of Columbia and the Territories, and the other requesting the introduction of a 16th Amendment to prevent states from disenfranchising citizens based on gender. Frederick Douglass delivered a supportive speech in favor of the petitions. The President announced that Mrs. Patten topped the subscription list to support the association's work for the upcoming year with a contribution of $50. Miss Anthony showcased the various pamphlets published by the Society and The Revolution, encouraging supporters to help circulate the paper since it was the only publication owned and edited by women, entirely dedicated to the cause of Equal Rights. Rev. Dr. Blanchard from Brooklyn opened the evening session with a prayer; a resolution was proposed and passed in memory of James Mott, the husband of Lucretia Mott, President of the first Woman's Rights Convention at Seneca Falls.
Rev. Olympia Brown: It is said that Nature is against us. In the Massachusetts Legislature, Mr. Dana, Chairman of the Committee before whom we had a hearing, said: "Nature is against it. It will take the romance out of life to grant what you desire"! If the romance of life is a falsehood and a fiction, we want to get back to truth, nature and God. We all love liberty and desire to possess it. No one worthy the name of man or woman is willing to surrender liberty and become subservient to another. Woman may be shut out of politics by law, but her influence will be felt there. Some of our leading reformers work for other objects first; the enfranchisement of the negro, the eight hour law, the temperance cause; and leave the woman suffrage question in the background; but woman will be enfranchised in spite of them. It is no use to tell us to wait until something else is done. Now is the accepted time for the enfranchisement of woman. The abolition of slavery was thought to be premature, but that mistake is now clearly seen. Now is the time for every disfranchised class to make known its wants. The Republican party is no better than the Democratic. It sacrificed principle and nominated a man for President to save the party, whom they were afraid the Democrats would nominate if they did not! The Republican party controlled Kansas, and yet repudiated woman's rights in the canvass of last year. We want a party (and would like the Republican party) who will adopt a platform of Universal Suffrage for every color and every sex. "The Republican party must be saved," is the cry; but its great danger is in not being true to principle. We will push on, keeping in view the rights of our common nature until woman is the peer of man in every sphere of life.
Rev. Olympia Brown: They say that Nature is against us. In the Massachusetts Legislature, Mr. Dana, the Chairman of the Committee where we had a hearing, stated, "Nature is against it. It will take the romance out of life to grant what you want!" If the romance of life is a lie and a fantasy, we want to return to truth, nature, and God. We all love freedom and want to have it. No one who deserves the title of man or woman is willing to give up their freedom and be subservient to another. Women might be legally shut out of politics, but their influence will still be felt there. Some of our leading reformers focus on other issues first, like the rights of African Americans, the eight-hour workday, the temperance movement, and leave the issue of women's suffrage in the background; but women will gain their right to vote regardless of them. It's pointless to say we should wait until something else is accomplished. Now is the right time for women to gain the right to vote. The abolition of slavery was seen as premature, but that mistake is now evident. Now is the time for every disenfranchised group to express its needs. The Republican party is no better than the Democratic party. It gave up its principles and nominated a candidate for President to save the party, fearing the Democrats would choose him if they didn't! The Republican party controlled Kansas yet denied women's rights in last year's campaign. We want a party (and we'd prefer the Republican party) that will adopt a platform of Universal Suffrage for everyone, regardless of color or gender. "The Republican party must be saved," is the rallying cry; but its greatest risk is not being true to its principles. We will continue to push forward, keeping in mind the rights of our shared humanity until women are equal to men in every area of life.
Elizabeth A. Kingsley, of Philadelphia, Charles Burleigh, Rev. Henry Blanchard and Mrs. Rose made brief addresses.
Elizabeth A. Kingsley from Philadelphia, Charles Burleigh, Rev. Henry Blanchard, and Mrs. Rose gave short speeches.
Frederick Douglass deprecated the seeming assertion of Rev. O. B. Frothingham, that one good cause was in opposition to another. I champion the right of the negro to vote. It is with us a matter of life and death, and therefore can not be postponed. I have always championed woman's right to vote; but it will be seen that the present claim for the negro is one of the most urgent necessity. The assertion of the right of women to vote meets nothing but ridicule; there is no deep seated malignity in the hearts of the people against her; but name the right of the negro to[Pg 311] vote, all hell is turned loose and the Ku-klux and Regulators hunt and slay the unoffending black man. The government of this country loves women. They are the sisters, mothers, wives and daughters of our rulers; but the negro is loathed. Women should not censure Mr. Phillips, Mr. Greeley, or Mr. Tilton, all have spoken eloquently for woman's rights. We are all talking for woman's rights, and we should be just to all our friends and enemies. There is a difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.
Frederick Douglass criticized the apparent claim of Rev. O. B. Frothingham that one good cause opposes another. I support the right of black people to vote. For us, it's a matter of life and death, and it can't wait. I've always supported women's right to vote; however, it's clear that the current demand for black voting rights is one of the most urgent necessities. The assertion of women's voting rights only brings ridicule; there isn't deep-seated malice in people's hearts against them; but when it comes to the right of black people to [Pg 311] vote, chaos erupts and the Ku Klux Klan and Regulators hunt down and kill innocent black men. The government of this country loves women. They are the sisters, mothers, wives, and daughters of our leaders, but black people are hated. Women should not criticize Mr. Phillips, Mr. Greeley, or Mr. Tilton; all have spoken passionately for women's rights. We are all advocating for women's rights, and we should be fair to all our supporters and opponents. There is a difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.
Olympia Brown: What is it?
Olympia Brown: What is it?
Frederick Douglass: The Democratic party has, during the whole war, been in sympathy with the rebellion, while the Republican party has supported the Government.
Frederick Douglass: Throughout the entire war, the Democratic party has been aligned with the rebellion, while the Republican party has backed the Government.
Olympia Brown: How is it now?
Olympia Brown: How is it going now?
Frederick Douglass: The Democratic party opposes impeachment, and desires a white man's government.
Frederick Douglass: The Democratic Party is against impeachment and wants a government run by white men.
Olympia Brown: What is the difference in principle between the position of the Democratic party opposing the enfranchisement of 2,000,000 negro men, and the Republican party opposing the emancipation of 17,000,000 white women?
Olympia Brown: What is the difference in principle between the position of the Democratic party opposing the enfranchisement of 2,000,000 Black men, and the Republican party opposing the emancipation of 17,000,000 white women?
Frederick Douglass: The Democratic party opposes suffrage to both: but the Republican party is in favor of enfranchising the negro, and is largely in favor of enfranchising woman. Where is the Democrat who favors woman suffrage? (A voice in the audience, "Train!") Yes, he hates the negro, and that is what stimulates him to substitute the cry of emancipation for women. The negro needs suffrage to protect his life and property, and to ensure him respect and education. He needs it for the safety of reconstruction and the salvation of the Union; for his own elevation from the position of a drudge to that of an influential member of society. If you want women to forget and forsake frivolity, and the negro to take pride in becoming a useful and respectable member of society, give them both the ballot.
Frederick Douglass: The Democratic Party is against voting rights for both, but the Republican Party supports granting voting rights to Black people and is mostly in favor of women’s voting rights. Where is the Democrat who supports women’s suffrage? (A voice in the audience, "Train!") Yes, he despises Black people, and that motivates him to replace the call for women’s emancipation. Black people need the right to vote to protect their lives and property, and to gain respect and education. They need it for the safety of rebuilding the country and saving the Union; to elevate themselves from being laborers to becoming influential members of society. If you want women to move beyond trivial concerns and for Black people to take pride in being contributing and respected members of society, give them both the right to vote.
Olympia Brown: Why did Republican Kansas vote down negro suffrage?
Olympia Brown: Why did Kansas, a Republican state, reject Black suffrage?
Frederick Douglass: Because of your ally, George Francis Train!
Frederick Douglass: Thanks to your supporter, George Francis Train!
Olympia Brown: How about Minnesota without Train? The Republican party is a party and cares for nothing but party! It has repudiated both negro suffrage and woman suffrage.
Olympia Brown: What about Minnesota without the Train? The Republican party is just a party and only cares about itself! It has rejected both Black suffrage and women's suffrage.
Frederick Douglass: Minnesota lacked only 1,200 votes of carrying negro suffrage. All the Democrats voted against it, while only a small portion of the Republicans did so. And this was substantially the same in Ohio and Connecticut. The Republican party is about to bring ten States into the Union; and Thaddeus Stevens has reported a bill to admit seven, all on the fundamental basis of constitutions guaranteeing negro suffrage forever.
Frederick Douglass: Minnesota was just 1,200 votes short of approving black suffrage. All the Democrats opposed it, while only a small number of Republicans did as well. This was pretty much the same situation in Ohio and Connecticut. The Republican party is about to bring ten states into the Union, and Thaddeus Stevens has introduced a bill to admit seven of them, all based on constitutions that will guarantee black suffrage forever.
Olympia Brown again insisted that the party was false, and that now was the time for every true patriot to demand that no new State should be admitted except on the basis of suffrage to women as well as negroes.
Olympia Brown again insisted that the party was wrong, and that now was the time for every true patriot to call for no new State to be admitted unless it granted voting rights to both women and Black people.
Lucy Stone controverted Mr. Douglass' statement that women were not persecuted for endeavoring to obtain their rights, and depicted in glowing colors the wrongs of women and the inadequacy of the laws to redress[Pg 312] them. Mrs. Stone also charged the Republican party as false to principle unless it protected women as well as colored men in the exercise of their right to vote.
Lucy Stone challenged Mr. Douglass' claim that women weren't oppressed for trying to secure their rights, and vividly described the injustices faced by women and how inadequate the laws were to address[Pg 312] them. Mrs. Stone also accused the Republican Party of being unprincipled unless it ensured that women, as well as Black men, were protected in their right to vote.
The Tribune said the resolutions adopted declare that suffrage is an inalienable right without qualification of sex or race; that our State and National Governments are anti-Republican in form, and anti-Democratic in fact; that the only way to decide whether women want to vote is to give them an opportunity of doing so; that the Republicans are bound to extend the application of manhood suffrage to women; that Reconstruction will fail to secure peace, unless it gives women the right to vote; they invite the National Conventions of both parties to put a woman suffrage plank in their platforms; petition[107] Congress to extend suffrage to the women of the District of Columbia, and to propose a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting political distinctions on account of sex; assert that the laws depriving married women of the equal custody of their children and of the control of their property, are a disgrace to civilization; and thank the men of Kansas who voted for Woman Suffrage.
The Tribune stated that the resolutions passed declare that the right to vote is fundamental and cannot be restricted based on gender or race; that our State and National Governments are against the principles of a Republic and essentially undemocratic; that the only way to find out if women want to vote is to give them the chance to do so; that Republicans are obligated to extend the principle of manhood suffrage to women; that Reconstruction will not achieve peace unless it grants women the right to vote; they urge the National Conventions of both parties to include a woman suffrage plank in their platforms; petition[107] Congress to extend voting rights to the women of the District of Columbia and to propose a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits political discrimination based on gender; they assert that laws preventing married women from having equal custody of their children and control over their property are a shame to civilization; and they express gratitude to the men of Kansas who supported Woman Suffrage.
FOOTNOTES:
[92] Following this hearing, Mr. Folger presented a resolution in the Senate for the women of the State to vote for delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and nine members voted in its favor.
[92] After this hearing, Mr. Folger introduced a resolution in the Senate allowing the women of the State to vote for delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and nine members supported it.
[93] The Albany Evening Journal of January 24th, says: "Mrs. Stanton had a large audience to hear her argument in favor of so amending the Constitution as to permit women and colored men to vote and hold office. She said all that could be said and said it well in support of her position, but it is still a problem whether the Judiciary Committee were convinced. Like most men of old-fashioned notions, they are slow to believe that women would be elevated, either in usefulness, or dignity, by being transferred from the drawing room and the nursery to the ballot-box and the forum!!
[93] The Albany Evening Journal from January 24th states: "Mrs. Stanton had a large crowd listening to her argument advocating for amendments to the Constitution that would allow women and people of color to vote and hold office. She presented all the points in support of her position effectively, but it remains uncertain if the Judiciary Committee was convinced. Like many men with outdated views, they are slow to accept that women could gain both usefulness and dignity by moving from the drawing room and nursery to the ballot box and public debate!"
[94] Horace Greeley, Westchester Co., Leslie W. Russel, Lawrence Co., William Cassidy, Albany Co., William H. Merrill, Wyoming Co., George Williams, Oneida Co., John G. Schumaker, Kings Co., Isaac L. Eudress, Livingston Co.
[94] Horace Greeley, Westchester County, Leslie W. Russel, Lawrence County, William Cassidy, Albany County, William H. Merrill, Wyoming County, George Williams, Oneida County, John G. Schumaker, Kings County, Isaac L. Eudress, Livingston County.
[95] June 20, 1867.—Mr. Corbett presented a memorial from citizens of Syracuse for securing the right of suffrage for women on equal terms with men.
[95] June 20, 1867.—Mr. Corbett submitted a petition from residents of Syracuse aiming to secure the right to vote for women on equal footing with men.
Mr. Graves—Petition of Mrs. F. D. Fish and 180 other citizens—worthy and intelligent men and women—of the city of Utica, asking equal suffrage for men and women.
Mr. Graves—Petition from Mrs. F. D. Fish and 180 other citizens—respected and educated individuals—of the city of Utica, requesting equal voting rights for men and women.
Referred to the Committee on Suffrage.
Referred to the Committee on Voting Rights.
June 26, 1867.—Mr. Rathbun—Petition for universal suffrage for women as well as men.
June 26, 1867.—Mr. Rathbun—Petition for equal voting rights for women and men.
C. E. Parker—Petition for citizens of Tioga County.
C. E. Parker—Request from the residents of Tioga County.
Mr. Curtis—A petition from Mrs. Daniel Cady, of Johnstown, and 200 others, asking to have "male" stricken from the State Constitution.
Mr. Curtis—A petition from Mrs. Daniel Cady, of Johnstown, and 200 others, requesting that "male" be removed from the State Constitution.
E. G. Lapham presented a petition.
E. G. Lapham presented a petition.
Mr. Ezra Graves presented thirty-seven petitions—Brooklyn, 1; Mt. Morris, 4; Troy, 1; Lima, 1; New York City, 8; Buffalo, 3; Skaneateles, 2; Lockport, 1; Poughkeepsie, 1; Dutchess County, 1; Utica, 1; Fairfield, Herkimer Co., 1. In all, 2,040 persons asking for equal suffrage.
Mr. Ezra Graves submitted thirty-seven petitions—Brooklyn, 1; Mt. Morris, 4; Troy, 1; Lima, 1; New York City, 8; Buffalo, 3; Skaneateles, 2; Lockport, 1; Poughkeepsie, 1; Dutchess County, 1; Utica, 1; Fairfield, Herkimer Co., 1. In total, 2,040 people requesting equal suffrage.
Friday, June 28th.—C. C. Dwight—Mrs. Eliza Wright Osborn and 22 others, of Auburn, asking suffrage for women. Mr. Cooke—Mrs. Lina Vandenburg and 350 others. Mr. Archer—Sundry citizens. Mr. Mead—Mrs. E. A. Kingsbury and 20 others. Mr. Schoonmaker—M. I. Ingraham and others. Mr. Houston—Lucia Sutton. Mr. Rathbun—Mrs. A. H. Sabin and 20 others. J. Brooks—Emma Suydam and 15 others.
Friday, June 28th.—C. C. Dwight—Mrs. Eliza Wright Osborn and 22 others from Auburn are requesting voting rights for women. Mr. Cooke—Mrs. Lina Vandenburg and 350 others. Mr. Archer—Various citizens. Mr. Mead—Mrs. E. A. Kingsbury and 20 others. Mr. Schoonmaker—M. I. Ingraham and others. Mr. Houston—Lucia Sutton. Mr. Rathbun—Mrs. A. H. Sabin and 20 others. J. Brooks—Emma Suydam and 15 others.
Mr. Graves—Two memorials. 1st. Schoharie County, 204 men and women for constitutional amendment prohibiting sale of intoxicating liquors. 2d. Lucia Humphrey and 30 others for equal suffrage. All went to Committee on Suffrage, except Mr. Graves' first, which went to Committee on Adulterated Liquors.
Mr. Graves—Two memorials. 1st. Schoharie County, 204 men and women for a constitutional amendment to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. 2nd. Lucia Humphrey and 30 others for equal voting rights. All were sent to the Committee on Suffrage, except for Mr. Graves' first, which was sent to the Committee on Adulterated Liquors.
[96] Mr. Greeley, June 26th, from the Committee on Suffrage, offered a resolution that "The use of this hall on the 27th, Thursday evening of this week, be granted to the Standing Committee on the Right of Suffrage, that they may accord a public hearing to the advocates of female suffrage," which was adopted.
[96] Mr. Greeley, June 26th, from the Committee on Suffrage, proposed a resolution that "The use of this hall on the 27th, Thursday evening of this week, be given to the Standing Committee on the Right of Suffrage, so they can hold a public hearing for those supporting women's suffrage," which was approved.
[97] The Albany Evening Journal of June 28, 1867, says, editorially:
[97] The Albany Evening Journal from June 28, 1867, says in an editorial:
Womanhood Suffrage.—The Assembly Chamber was well filled last evening to listen to Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony. Mrs. Stanton made a stirring appeal, and Miss Anthony followed. In response to queries, she said she expected that women would yet serve as jurors and be drafted. Several hundred had fought in the late war, but when their sex was discovered they were dismissed in disgrace; and to the shame of the Government be it said, they were never paid for their services.
Womanhood Suffrage.—The Assembly Chamber was packed last night to hear from Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony. Mrs. Stanton delivered a powerful speech, followed by Miss Anthony. When asked questions, she mentioned that she believed women would eventually serve as jurors and be conscripted. Several hundred women had fought in the recent war, but once their gender was revealed, they were dishonorably dismissed; and sadly, they were never compensated for their contributions.
[98] Mr. Folger offered a resolution—That the use of this Chamber be granted to the American Equal Rights Association for a meeting on the evening of Wednesday, the 10th inst.
[98] Mr. Folger proposed a resolution—that the use of this Chamber be allowed for the American Equal Rights Association to hold a meeting on the evening of Wednesday, the 10th of this month.
[99] Geo. Francis Train before the Constitutional Convention at Albany.—The Constitutional Convention at Albany has not had many variations from its customary slate of topics, but it is a noteworthy fact that no New York paper mentioned that Geo. Francis Train addressed the Convention for two hours on the subject of woman voting and the financial policy of the nation. Mr. Train having been the only man to volunteer his services in Kansas and before the Convention, it is worthy of note, when the argument advanced by our chivalrous press is a sneer, a sarcasm, or an insult, that Mr. Train's defense of women voting was received by the Convention by loud and repeated applause. The following was the resolution, passed unanimously, offering the hall:
[99] Geo. Francis Train before the Constitutional Convention at Albany.—The Constitutional Convention at Albany hasn’t really strayed from its usual topics, but it’s interesting to note that no New York newspaper reported that Geo. Francis Train spoke to the Convention for two hours about women’s voting and the country’s financial policy. Mr. Train, being the only person to volunteer his services in Kansas and before the Convention, stands out, especially when the arguments from our brave press tend to be sneers, sarcasm, or insults; Mr. Train’s defense of women’s voting was met with loud and repeated applause from the Convention. The following resolution was passed unanimously, offering the hall:
State of New York, in Constitutional Convention, }
Albany, December 4, 1867. }State of New York, in Constitutional Convention, }
Albany, December 4, 1867. }On motion of Mr. Ballard:
On motion of Mr. Ballard:
Resolved, That the use of the Assembly Chamber be granted to Geo. Francis Train, Esq., at 4 p.m. this day.
Resolved, That the Assembly Chamber be made available to Geo. Francis Train, Esq., at 4 p.m. today.
Luther Caldwell, Secretary.
Luther Caldwell, Secretary.
By order.
By order.
[100] In 1846 the question of negro suffrage was submitted to a popular vote, and negatived by 223,884 to 85,306; in 1850 it was again defeated by a vote of 337,984 to 197,503; a similar submission was provided for by a concurrent resolution of the Legislature of 1859, which by neglect of the State officer to provide for its publication, was defeated; but its fate may fairly be regarded as further evidence of the indifference of the public toward a change.
[100] In 1846, the issue of Black voting rights was put to a public vote and rejected by 223,884 to 85,306. In 1850, it faced another defeat with a tally of 337,984 to 197,503. A similar proposal was set for consideration by a resolution from the Legislature in 1859, but due to the State officer's failure to publish it, it was ultimately defeated. However, this outcome can be seen as further proof of the public's lack of interest in making a change.
[101] July 1st.—Mr. Fowler presented a petition from Miss Laura Bosworth and others for woman suffrage.
[101] July 1st.—Mr. Fowler submitted a petition from Miss Laura Bosworth and others advocating for women's right to vote.
July 9th.—From Gerrit Smith and 180 others of Madison County, for female suffrage.
July 9th.—From Gerrit Smith and 180 others from Madison County, supporting women's right to vote.
Mr. Endress—Emma C. Lawrence and 50 others of Westchester, for female suffrage.
Mr. Endress—Emma C. Lawrence and 50 others from Westchester, for women's voting rights.
Mr. Murphy—Thomas N. Cashow and 20 others, of Kings County, for woman suffrage.
Mr. Murphy—Thomas N. Cashow and 20 others from Kings County, advocating for women's suffrage.
Mr. Fullerton—Mary J. Quackenbosh and many others, from Newburgh.
Mr. Fullerton—Mary J. Quackenbosh and several others from Newburgh.
Mr. Van Campen—Mary E. Mead and many others, of Westchester County.
Mr. Van Campen—Mary E. Mead and many others from Westchester County.
Mr. Beadle—Mrs. W. S. Shute, Mary C. Bristol, and 120 others from Horse Heads.
Mr. Beadle—Mrs. W. S. Shute, Mary C. Bristol, and 120 others from Horse Heads.
Mr. Hammond—Mrs. J. C. Holmes and many others from Westchester County.
Mr. Hammond—Mrs. J. C. Holmes and several others from Westchester County.
July 10th.—Mr. Tucker—A petition from a large number of men and women for extending the right of suffrage to woman.
July 10th.—Mr. Tucker—A petition from many men and women to expand voting rights to women.
Mr. Graves—Fifty-four ladies of New York City, asking suffrage for women.
Mr. Graves—Fifty-four women from New York City, advocating for women's voting rights.
July 11th.—Mr. Curtis—From Charles J. Seymour, Mrs. Mary Newman and 500 others from Broome County, for equal suffrage.
July 11th.—Mr. Curtis—From Charles J. Seymour, Mrs. Mary Newman, and 500 others from Broome County, advocating for equal voting rights.
July 12th.—Mr. Corbett—Henry Ward Beecher, Edwin A. Studwell, and many others, of Kings County, for woman suffrage.
July 12th.—Mr. Corbett—Henry Ward Beecher, Edwin A. Studwell, and many others from Kings County support women's suffrage.
July 16th.—Mr. Folger presented a petition from Emily P. Collins, of Rochester, and others, asking that women be granted the privilege of voting, that in 1869 the proposition be submitted for all who can read and write.
July 16th.—Mr. Folger presented a petition from Emily P. Collins, of Rochester, and others, requesting that women be allowed to vote, and that in 1869 the proposal be put forward for everyone who can read and write.
July 18th.—Mr. Greeley—From Mrs. Louisa Howland and many others, of Mt. Vernon, Westchester County, for woman suffrage.
July 18th.—Mr. Greeley—From Mrs. Louisa Howland and many others in Mt. Vernon, Westchester County, supporting women's right to vote.
Mr. Curtis—From Mrs. Eliza Benton and others of New York City, asking for equal suffrage. Another from Caroline E. Hubbard and 20 others, of Westchester County.
Mr. Curtis—From Mrs. Eliza Benton and others from New York City, requesting equal voting rights. Another from Caroline E. Hubbard and 20 others from Westchester County.
July 31st.—Mr. Potter—Lydia Baldwin, F. Brucklin, and others, of Erie County, asking for the extension of the suffrage to women.
July 31st.—Mr. Potter—Lydia Baldwin, F. Brucklin, and others from Erie County are requesting that women be granted the right to vote.
Mr. Graves—Jane E. Turner, Rev. C. H. Bebee, and 56 others, Bridgewater, Oneida County. Another from Julia M. Sherwood and 22 others, Westchester County, asking for woman suffrage.
Mr. Graves—Jane E. Turner, Rev. C. H. Bebee, and 56 others, Bridgewater, Oneida County. Another from Julia M. Sherwood and 22 others, Westchester County, requesting women's voting rights.
[102] The ladies suggested to Mr. Curtis to present Mrs. Greeley's petition last, and with emphasis, that it might attract the attention of the reporters, and thus have Mrs. Greeley's petition and Mr. Greeley's report to antidote each other, and appear side by side in the Metropolitan journals. After the Convention adjourned that day, some of the ladies lingered in the vestibule to congratulate Mr. Greeley on his conservative report; but he had disappeared through some side door, and could not be found. A few weeks after he met Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony at one of Alice Cary's Sunday evening receptions. They noticed him slowly making his way toward them, and prepared for the coming storm. As he approached, both arose, and with extended hands, exclaimed most cordially, "Good evening, Mr. Greeley." But his hands hung limp and undemonstrative by his side, as he said in low and measured words, "You two ladies are the most maneuvering politicians in the State of New York. You set out to annoy me in the Constitutional Convention, and you did it effectually. I saw in the manner my wife's petition was presented, that Mr. Curtis was acting under instructions. I saw the reporters prick up their ears and knew that my report and Mrs. Greeley's petition would come out together, with large headings in the city papers, and probably be called out by the newsboys in the street."
[102] The women suggested to Mr. Curtis that he should present Mrs. Greeley's petition last, and with emphasis, so it would catch the reporters' attention, allowing Mrs. Greeley's petition and Mr. Greeley's report to counterbalance each other and appear side by side in the city newspapers. After the Convention ended that day, some of the women lingered in the hallway to congratulate Mr. Greeley on his conservative report, but he had slipped out through a side door and was nowhere to be found. A few weeks later, he ran into Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony at one of Alice Cary's Sunday evening gatherings. They noticed him making his way toward them slowly and braced themselves for a confrontation. As he got closer, both stood up and, with outstretched hands, warmly exclaimed, "Good evening, Mr. Greeley." However, his hands hung limply by his side as he replied in a low and measured tone, "You two ladies are the most calculating politicians in New York State. You set out to annoy me at the Constitutional Convention, and you succeeded. I could tell by the way my wife's petition was presented that Mr. Curtis was following orders. I saw the reporters perk up and realized that my report and Mrs. Greeley's petition would be featured together, with prominent headlines in the city papers, and likely called out by newsboys on the street."
Turning to Mrs. Stanton, he said, "You are so tenacious about your own name, why did you not inscribe my wife's maiden name, Mary Cheney Greeley on her petition?" "Because," I replied, "I wanted all the world to know that it was the wife of Horace Greeley who protested against her husband's report." "Well," said he, "I understand the animus of that whole proceeding, and now let me tell you what I intend to do. I have given positive instructions that no word of praise shall ever again be awarded you in the Tribune, and that if your name is ever necessarily mentioned, it shall be as Mrs. Henry B. Stanton!" And so it has been ever since.
Turning to Mrs. Stanton, he said, "You're so set on your name, why didn't you include my wife's maiden name, Mary Cheney Greeley, on her petition?" "Because," I replied, "I wanted everyone to know that it was the wife of Horace Greeley who protested against her husband's report." "Well," he said, "I understand the motivation behind that whole situation, and now let me tell you what I plan to do. I've made it clear that no praise will ever be given to you again in the Tribune, and if your name is ever mentioned, it will have to be as Mrs. Henry B. Stanton!" And that’s how it's been ever since.
From that time Mr. Greeley was seemingly hostile to the woman suffrage movement, just as he was toward the anti-slavery cause, after the Abolitionists in rolling up 60,000 votes for James G. Birney, defeated Henry Clay, and gave the ascendency to the Democrats by electing Polk. Clay being a strong Protectionist was a great favorite with Mr. Greeley, and his defeat was a sore disappointment, and for years he denounced Abolitionists individually and collectively in his scathing editorials. Still in his happier moods he firmly believed in the civil and political equality of both women and negroes.
From that time on, Mr. Greeley was apparently against the women's suffrage movement, just as he was against the anti-slavery cause after the Abolitionists pooled 60,000 votes for James G. Birney, which resulted in defeating Henry Clay and allowing the Democrats to take the lead by electing Polk. Clay, being a strong Protectionist, was a favorite of Mr. Greeley, and his defeat was a significant disappointment. For years, he criticized Abolitionists, both individually and as a group, in his harsh editorials. However, during his more positive moments, he firmly believed in the civil and political equality of both women and Black people.
[103] This amendment was on the following section of Mr. Greeley's Report:
[103] This amendment was regarding the following part of Mr. Greeley's Report:
Section I. Every man of the age of twenty-one years who shall have been an inhabitant of this State for one year next preceding an election, and for the last thirty days a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the election district where he may offer his vote, shall be entitled to vote at such election, in said district and not elsewhere, for all officers elected by the people.
Section I. Every person who is at least twenty-one years old, has lived in this State for the year before an election, has been a citizen of the United States for the last thirty days, and resides in the election district where they want to vote, is eligible to vote in that election, in that district only, for all officers elected by the people.
Provided, That idiots, lunatics, persons under guardianship, felons, and persons convicted of bribery, unless pardoned or otherwise restored to civil rights, shall not be entitled to vote....
Provided, that idiots, mentally ill individuals, people under guardianship, felons, and those convicted of bribery, unless pardoned or otherwise restored to their civil rights, shall not be allowed to vote....
[104] The Albany Evening Journal of July 25, 1867, in speaking of the "Suffrage Discussion," said: "All men and women have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If when deprived of the ballot the consequence is that this inalienable right is abridged, then society owes it to the class thus practically enslaved to bestow suffrage upon them. At the South there is no safety for the negro from oppressive laws but in the ballot. It is idle to argue ignorance. Political enfranchisement is the best educator."
[104] The Albany Evening Journal on July 25, 1867, discussing the "Suffrage Discussion," stated: "Everyone has the right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. If losing the right to vote means that this fundamental right is restricted, then society has a responsibility to grant voting rights to those who are effectively enslaved. In the South, there is no protection for Black individuals from unjust laws except through voting. It's pointless to claim ignorance. Political enfranchisement is the best form of education."
[105] Beals, Bell, Corning, Curtis, Duganne, Farnum, Field, Folger, Fowler, Graves, Hadley, Hammond, Kinney, Lapham, M. H. Lawrence, Pond, Tucker, Vedder, Wales.
[105] Beals, Bell, Corning, Curtis, Duganne, Farnum, Field, Folger, Fowler, Graves, Hadley, Hammond, Kinney, Lapham, M. H. Lawrence, Pond, Tucker, Vedder, Wales.
Vice-Presidents—Elizabeth Cady Stanton, N.Y.; Frederick Douglass, N.Y.; Henry Ward Beecher, N.Y.; Martha C. Wright N.Y.; Elizabeth B. Chace. R.I.; C. Prince, Ct; Frances D. Gage, N.Y.; Robert Purvis, Penn.; Parker Pillsbury, N.H.; Antoinette Brown Blackwell, N.J.; Josephine S. Griffing, D.C.; Thomas Garrett, Del.; Stephen H. Camp, Ohio; Euphemia Cochrane, Mich.; Mary A. Livermore, Ill.; Mrs. Isaac H. Sturgeon, Mo.; Amelia Bloomer, Iowa; Helen Ekin Starrett, Kansas; Virginia Penny, Kentucky; Olympia Brown, Mass.
Vice-Presidents—Elizabeth Cady Stanton, NY; Frederick Douglass, NY; Henry Ward Beecher, NY; Martha C. Wright, NY; Elizabeth B. Chace, RI; C. Prince, CT; Frances D. Gage, NY; Robert Purvis, PA; Parker Pillsbury, NH; Antoinette Brown Blackwell, NJ; Josephine S. Griffing, DC; Thomas Garrett, DE; Stephen H. Camp, OH; Euphemia Cochrane, MI; Mary A. Livermore, IL; Mrs. Isaac H. Sturgeon, MO; Amelia Bloomer, IA; Helen Ekin Starrett, KS; Virginia Penny, KY; Olympia Brown, MA.
Corresponding Secretary—Mary E. Gage.
Corresponding Secretary—Mary E. Gage.
Recording Secretaries—Henry B. Blackwell, Hattie Purvis.
Recording Secretaries—Henry B. Blackwell, Hattie Purvis.
Treasurer—John J. Merritt.
Treasurer—John J. Merritt.
Executive Committee—Lucy Stone, Edward S. Bunker, Elizabeth R. Tilton, Ernestine L. Rose, Robert J. Johnston, Edwin A. Studwell, Anna Cromwell Field, Susan B. Anthony, Theodore Tilton, Margaret E. Winchester, Abby Hutchinson Patton.
Executive Committee—Lucy Stone, Edward S. Bunker, Elizabeth R. Tilton, Ernestine L. Rose, Robert J. Johnston, Edwin A. Studwell, Anna Cromwell Field, Susan B. Anthony, Theodore Tilton, Margaret E. Winchester, Abby Hutchinson Patton.
St. Louis, May 4, 1868.
St. Louis, May 4, 1868.
Mrs. E. C. Stanton—Dear Friend: Our gentlemen friends urge us to memorialize Congress on the question of Suffrage in the District. Well knowing how a single petition is suffocated, would it not be well for all the States to unite, and be presented at the same time? New York, being the banner State, must head the move and be spokesman. Out list of names is waiting the interminable Impeachment to be handed in (oh, for old Ben. Wade in the White House), but it seems to me one State should not go alone; if all the State organizations were notified to send in their lists immediately to whoever you think will be most likely to do justice to the cause, we could make quite a formidable display combined.
Mrs. E. C. Stanton—Dear Friend: Our male peers are pushing us to urge Congress regarding Suffrage in the District. Knowing how a single petition can be ignored, wouldn’t it be better for all the States to come together and present their requests at the same time? New York, being the leading State, should take the initiative and speak on behalf of the others. Our list of names is waiting, caught up in the endless Impeachment process (oh, for old Ben. Wade in the White House), but I believe one State shouldn’t go alone; if all the State organizations were informed to send in their lists right away to whoever you think will best advocate for the cause, we could create a powerful united front.
Mrs. Francis Minor,
Mrs. Francis Minor,
Your sincere friend,
Your sincere friend,
President of the St. Louis Woman's Suffrage Association.
President of the St. Louis Women's Suffrage Association.
Enfranchisement in the District.—May 21, 1868.—To the Friends of Equal Rights: The whole government of the District of Columbia is to be revised by Congress, in consequence of the expiration of local charters, within the next nine months. A rare opportunity is thus afforded to bring the enfranchisement of woman to the attention of Congress and the country. We urge you to send in petitions as fast as possible, with as many signatures as you can obtain. They should be sent to Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing, 213 North Capitol street, Washington, D. C., who will acknowledge their receipt and attend to their presentation.
Enfranchisement in the District.—May 21, 1868.—To the Friends of Equal Rights: Congress is going to overhaul the entire government of the District of Columbia because local charters are set to expire in the next nine months. This is a unique chance to highlight the enfranchisement of women to Congress and the nation. We urge you to submit petitions as quickly as you can, gathering as many signatures as possible. Please send them to Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing, 213 North Capitol street, Washington, D.C., who will confirm their receipt and manage their submission.
FORM OF PETITION.
FORM OF PETITION.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress Assembled:
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress Assembled:
The undersigned ——, of the —— of ——, in the State of ——, respectfully petition, that in your revision of the government of the District of Columbia, you will protect the women of the District from being debarred the exercise of their right of suffrage.
The undersigned ——, of the —— of ——, in the State of ——, respectfully request that when you revise the government of the District of Columbia, you will ensure that the women of the District are not denied their right to vote.
CHAPTER XXI.
RECONSTRUCTION.
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments—Universal Suffrage and Universal Amnesty the Key-note of Reconstruction—Gerrit Smith and Wendell Phillips Hesitate—A Trying Period in the Woman Suffrage Movement—Those Opposed to the word "Male" in the Fourteenth Amendment Voted Down in Conventions—The Negro's Hour—Virginia L. Minor on Suffrage in the District of Columbia—Women Advised to be Silent—The Hypocrisy of the Democrats preferable to that of the Republicans—Senator Pomeroy's Amendment—Protests against a Man's Government—Negro Suffrage a Political Necessity—Charles Sumner Opposed to the Fourteenth Amendment, but Voted for it as a Party Measure—Woman Suffrage for Utah—Discussion in the House as to who Constitute Electors—Bills for Woman Suffrage presented by the Hon. George W. Julian and Senators Wilson and Pomeroy—The Fifteenth Amendment—Anna E. Dickinson's Suggestion—Opinions of Women on the Fifteenth Amendment—The Sixteenth Amendment—Miss Anthony chosen a Delegate to the Democratic National Convention July 4, 1868—Her Address Read by a Unanimous Vote—Horatio Seymour in the Chair—Comments of the Press—The Revolution.
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments—Universal Suffrage and Universal Amnesty the Main Themes of Reconstruction—Gerrit Smith and Wendell Phillips Hesitate—A Difficult Time for the Women's Suffrage Movement—Those Who Opposed the word "Male" in the Fourteenth Amendment Were Voted Down in Conventions—The Negro's Moment—Virginia L. Minor on Suffrage in the District of Columbia—Women Were Advised to Remain Silent—The Hypocrisy of the Democrats Is Preferable to That of the Republicans—Senator Pomeroy's Amendment—Protests Against a Male-Led Government—Negro Suffrage Being a Political Necessity—Charles Sumner Opposed the Fourteenth Amendment, But Voted for It as a Party Measure—Women’s Suffrage for Utah—Debate in the House about Who Counts as Electors—Bills for Women’s Suffrage Presented by Hon. George W. Julian and Senators Wilson and Pomeroy—The Fifteenth Amendment—Anna E. Dickinson’s Suggestion—Women’s Opinions on the Fifteenth Amendment—The Sixteenth Amendment—Miss Anthony Chosen as a Delegate to the Democratic National Convention on July 4, 1868—Her Address Was Read by Unanimous Vote—Horatio Seymour in Charge—Media Reactions—The Revolution.
The war settled two questions: 1st. That we are a Nation, and not a mere confederacy of States. 2d. That all "persons" born or naturalized in the United States are "citizens," and stand equal before the law. Freedom, United States citizenship, the limit of State authority, and national protection of the fundamental rights of citizens in the several States, are clearly set forth in the following amendments:
The war resolved two key issues: 1st. That we are a Nation, not just a collection of States. 2nd. That everyone born or naturalized in the United States is a "citizen" and is equal under the law. Freedom, U.S. citizenship, the boundaries of State authority, and national protection of citizens' fundamental rights across the States are clearly outlined in the following amendments:
Thirteenth Amendment, December 18, 1865.
Thirteenth Amendment, December 18, 1865.
"1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
"1. Neither slavery nor forced labor, except as a punishment for a crime for which the person has been properly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place under their jurisdiction."
"2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
"2. Congress has the power to enforce this article through appropriate legislation."
Fourteenth Amendment, July 28, 1868.
Fourteenth Amendment, July 28, 1868.
Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[Pg 314]
Section 1. "Everyone born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its rules is a citizen of the United States and the state where they live. No state can make or enforce any law that limits the rights or protections of U.S. citizens; nor can any state take away a person's life, freedom, or property without fair legal procedures, nor deny anyone within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law."[Pg 314]
Section 2. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
Section 2. "Representatives will be distributed among the various States based on their respective populations, counting the total number of people in each State, excluding non-taxed Native Americans. However, if the right to vote in any election for choosing electors for the President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, State Executive and Judicial officers, or members of the State Legislature is denied to any male residents of that State who are at least twenty-one years old and U.S. citizens, or if it is restricted in any way, except for involvement in rebellion or other crimes, the basis of representation will be reduced in proportion to the number of those male citizens compared to the total number of male citizens aged twenty-one and older in that State."
Section 3. "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an Executive or Judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Section 3. "No one should be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or an elector for President and Vice-President, or hold any position, civil or military, under the United States or any State, if they have previously sworn an oath as a member of Congress, an officer of the United States, a member of any State Legislature, or an Executive or Judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and have participated in insurrection or rebellion against it, or provided aid or comfort to its enemies. However, Congress can, with a two-thirds vote in each House, lift such a disqualification."
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 5. "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Section 5. "Congress has the authority to enforce the provisions of this article through appropriate legislation."
Fifteenth Amendment, March 30, 1870.
Fifteenth Amendment, March 30, 1870.
Section 1. "The right of citizens of the United to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Section 1. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or limited by the United States or by any State because of race, color, or past condition of servitude."
Section 2. "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Section 2. "Congress has the authority to enforce this article through appropriate laws."
The women understood the principles involved in these amendments, and accepted the logical conclusions. Under the first they applied to Congress for protection against the tyranny of the States in depriving them of the right of suffrage, but they were remanded to the States, and were told that Congress had no jurisdiction in the matter. Under the second, when women claimed the rights of citizens as tax-payers who helped to support the Government, they were told that neither the fathers nor their sons ever thought of women in framing their Constitutions, and that some special legislation was needed before their rights of citizenship could be recognized or accorded.
The women understood the principles behind these amendments and accepted the logical outcomes. With the first, they appealed to Congress for protection against the states' tyranny in taking away their right to vote, but they were sent back to the states and told that Congress had no authority in the matter. With the second, when women asserted their rights as taxpayers who contributed to the government, they were informed that neither the Founding Fathers nor their descendants ever considered women while drafting the constitutions, and that some special legislation was necessary before their citizenship rights could be acknowledged or granted.
During the prolonged debates on these amendments, those who watched the progress of political sentiment and understood the drift of events, struck the key-note of reconstruction in "universal suffrage and universal amnesty," but they were speedily silenced or condemned. Abraham Lincoln saw that this was the true policy,[Pg 315] and counseled it in private. But he was influenced by those who misjudged the signs of the times, and for the success of his party and his own re-election, he yielded to weak counselors. Horace Greeley, with the suffering and humiliation of the South, as well as the guilt and selfishness of the North before him, declared "universal suffrage and universal amnesty" to be the true basis of reconstruction, but a few cracks of the party whip brought him into line. Henry Ward Beecher foreshadowed the same policy in an able letter, which called down upon him the nation's scorn and denunciation, for which he was stabbed by the friends of his own household. He was the one leading man in the nation who, in all his public speeches, demanded universal suffrage in the reconstruction. And by universal suffrage Mr. Beecher meant political equality for all, without distinction of race, color, or sex. Women would have been dull scholars indeed had they not readily seen that the watchword "universal suffrage" stripped of the limitations that lay in the minds of party politicians, included women also.
During the lengthy debates on these amendments, those who observed the shift in political feelings and understood the direction of events highlighted "universal suffrage and universal amnesty" as the core of reconstruction, but they were quickly silenced or criticized. Abraham Lincoln recognized this as the right approach,[Pg 315] and advised it in private. However, he was swayed by people who misinterpreted the climate of the times, and for the sake of his party's success and his re-election, he gave in to less decisive advisors. Horace Greeley, reacting to the pain and degradation of the South as well as the wrongdoing and self-interest of the North, asserted that "universal suffrage and universal amnesty" formed the true foundation for reconstruction, but a few threats from party leaders brought him back into compliance. Henry Ward Beecher hinted at the same approach in a compelling letter, which drew widespread contempt and criticism from the nation, and earned him backlash from his own supporters. He was the leading figure in the country who, through all his public speeches, insisted on universal suffrage during reconstruction. By universal suffrage, Mr. Beecher meant political equality for everyone, regardless of race, color, or gender. Women would have been quite oblivious if they didn't realize that the slogan "universal suffrage," stripped of the constraints imposed by political leaders, encompassed them as well.
Under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment they saw that being "persons" and born in the United States, they were "citizens," whom the National Government was bound to protect against the tyranny of the State.
Under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, they recognized that as "persons" born in the United States, they were "citizens," and the National Government was obligated to protect them from state tyranny.
Section 2 called their attention to another principle of justice, that those who were counted in the basis of representation should have a voice in the rulers whose election their numbers helped to secure. To be sure, the word "male" thrown in seemed to nullify all applications of the several amendments to one sex, nevertheless the women understood the breadth of the principle, and made their demands for an equal recognition on the ground that they too were counted in the basis of representation.
Section 2 pointed out another principle of justice, which is that those counted in the basis of representation should have a say in the leaders elected with their numbers. Although the inclusion of the word "male" seemed to undermine the application of various amendments to just one sex, the women recognized the larger scope of the principle and asserted their demands for equal recognition, arguing that they too were counted in the basis of representation.
Again, in the discussion on removing the "political disabilities" of those who had made war on the Government, when the injustice of taxing that large class denied the suffrage was pointed out and the exercise of that right demanded for thousands of rebels, the women saw the application of that principle to themselves, and echoed the old war-cry in our first Revolution, "taxation without representation is tyranny." In the exhaustive discussions on the emancipation and enfranchisement of the black man and the restoration of the rebels to political equality, the fundamental principles of republican government were more clearly comprehended by the American people than ever before. Hence, it was in harmony with the order of events that educated women, appreciating the genius of our institutions, with their interest in politics intensified by all the[Pg 316] complications of the war, should think and reason and express their opinions on all these great questions of popular thought. They saw that "universal suffrage and universal amnesty" was the broad, safe foundation for the new republic. They saw that the enfranchisement of the women of the South would not only double the vote, but give a new impulse to thought and education throughout the Southern States, and mitigate the hostility they would naturally feel in seeing their slaves suddenly made their political superiors, their rulers, law-makers, judges, and jurors! They saw that with the incoming tide of ignorant voters from Southern plantations and from the nations of the Old World, that the Government needed the intelligent votes and moral influence of woman to outweigh the ignorance and vice fast crowding round our polling booths.
Once again, during the discussion about removing the "political disabilities" of those who had fought against the Government, when people pointed out the unfairness of taxing a large group who were denied the right to vote and expressed the need for thousands of rebels to have that right, women recognized how this principle applied to their situation. They echoed the old war cry from our first Revolution, "taxation without representation is tyranny." In the in-depth discussions regarding the freedom and voting rights of black men, as well as the restoration of rebels to political equality, fundamental principles of republican government were better understood by the American people than ever before. So, it made sense that educated women, who valued the essence of our institutions and whose interest in politics was heightened by the complexities of the war, would think critically, reason, and share their views on these significant issues. They recognized that "universal suffrage and universal amnesty" formed a broad and stable foundation for the new republic. They understood that granting voting rights to Southern women would not only double the electorate but also invigorate thought and education across the Southern states, and ease the resentment they might feel about seeing their former slaves suddenly elevated to positions of political superiority as their rulers, lawmakers, judges, and jurors. They realized that with the influx of uneducated voters from Southern plantations and from countries in the Old World, the Government needed the educated votes and moral influence of women to counterbalance the ignorance and corruption rapidly surrounding our polling places.
Seeing all this, they pressed with earnestness the well-considered demand for woman's enfranchisement, not from any selfish or personal considerations, but for the elevation of all womankind, and to vindicate the principles that underlie republican government. They who have the responsibility of action are usually more timid in counsel than those who can exert only an indirect influence. Hence the statesmen of that period did not dare to trust their own principles to their logical results, and instead of the broad demand of equal rights for all, they proposed reconstruction on the basis of "manhood suffrage"; a half-way measure that satisfied nobody, glossed over by the party in power as "universal suffrage," "equal suffrage," "impartial suffrage," until compelled to call the proposition by its true name, "manhood suffrage."
Seeing all this, they strongly pushed for the well-thought-out demand for women's voting rights, not for selfish reasons, but for the betterment of all women and to uphold the principles of republican government. Those responsible for taking action are often more cautious in their advice than those who can only influence indirectly. So, the politicians of that time were hesitant to trust their principles to their logical conclusions. Instead of a broad call for equal rights for everyone, they suggested a reconstruction based on "manhood suffrage"; a compromise that didn’t please anyone, dressed up by the ruling party as "universal suffrage," "equal suffrage," "impartial suffrage," until they were forced to acknowledge it by its true name, "manhood suffrage."
Having served the Government during the war in such varied capacities, and taken an active part in the discussion of its vital principles on so many reform platforms, women naturally felt that in reconstruction their rights as citizens should be protected and secured. They who had so diligently rolled up petitions for the emancipation and enfranchisement of the slaves now demanded the same liberties, not only for the white women of the nation, but for the newly made freed-women from Southern plantations, who had borne more grievous burdens and endured keener sufferings in the flesh and far more aggravating humiliations in spirit, than the man slave could ever know. And yet Abolitionists who had drawn their most eloquent appeals for emancipation from the hopeless degradation of woman in slavery, ignored alike the African and the Saxon in reconstruction, and refused to sign the petition for "woman suffrage." Even such just and liberal men as Gerrit Smith and Wendell[Pg 317] Phillips, in their haste to see the consummation of the black man's freedom, to which they had devoted their life-long efforts, lost sight of the ever-binding principles of justice, and accepted an amendment to the National Constitution that made all men rulers, all women subjects. Gerrit Smith, who had often said, "It is always safe to do right"; "now is the time for action, you can not be sure of to-morrow"; "speak the truth though the heavens fall," acted from policy rather than principle in refusing to sign the following petition:
Having served the government during the war in various roles and actively participated in discussions about its key principles on many reform platforms, women naturally felt that their rights as citizens should be protected and secured during the reconstruction period. They, who had tirelessly gathered petitions for the emancipation and enfranchisement of slaves, now demanded the same freedoms, not only for the white women of the nation but also for the newly freed women from Southern plantations, who had carried heavier burdens and endured greater suffering in both body and spirit than male slaves could ever experience. And yet, abolitionists who had crafted their most compelling arguments for freedom by highlighting the deep degradation of women in slavery ignored both African and Saxon women in reconstruction and refused to support the petition for "woman suffrage." Even just and open-minded men like Gerrit Smith and Wendell[Pg 317] Phillips, in their eagerness to achieve the freedom of Black men to which they had devoted their lives, overlooked the fundamental principles of justice and accepted an amendment to the National Constitution that made all men rulers and all women subjects. Gerrit Smith, who often said, "It is always safe to do right," "now is the time for action; you cannot be sure of tomorrow," and "speak the truth though the heavens fall," acted out of policy rather than principle when he refused to sign the following petition:
To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled:
To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress gathered:
The undersigned, citizens of the State of New York, earnestly but respectfully request, that in any change or amendment of the Constitution you may propose to extend or regulate suffrage, there shall be no distinctions made between men and women.
The undersigned, citizens of the State of New York, sincerely but respectfully request that in any changes or amendments to the Constitution you propose to expand or regulate voting rights, there should be no distinctions made between men and women.
Peterboro, Dec. 30, 1868.
Peterboro, Dec. 30, 1868.
My Dear Susan B. Anthony:—I this evening received your earnest letter. It pains me to be obliged to disappoint you. But I can not sign the petition you send me. Cheerfully, gladly can I sign a petition for the enfranchisement of women. But I can not sign a paper against the enfranchisement of the negro man, unless at the same time woman shall be enfranchised. The removal of the political disabilities of race is my first desire—of sex, my second. If put on the same level and urged in the same connection neither will be soon accomplished. The former will very soon be, if untrammeled by the other, and its success will prepare the way for the accomplishment of the other.
My Dear Susan B. Anthony:—I received your heartfelt letter this evening. It’s hard for me to let you down. However, I cannot sign the petition you sent me. I gladly and wholeheartedly support a petition for women's voting rights. But I can’t agree to a petition against the voting rights of Black men unless women are also granted the right to vote at the same time. Removing political obstacles based on race is my top priority—addressing those based on gender is my second. If both issues are treated equally and pushed together, neither will be resolved quickly. The first issue can be addressed soon if it’s not hindered by the second, and its success will pave the way for the latter to be achieved.
Gerrit Smith.
Gerrit Smith.
With great regard, your friend,
With great regard, your friend,
To which letter Mrs. Stanton replied in The Revolution Jan. 14, 1869:
To which letter Mrs. Stanton responded in The Revolution on January 14, 1869:
The above is the petition to which our friend Gerrit Smith, as an abolitionist, can not conscientiously put his name, while Republicans and Democrats are signing it all over the country. He does not clearly read the signs of the times, or he would see that there is to be no reconstruction of this nation, except on the basis of universal suffrage, as the natural, inalienable right of every citizen. The uprising of the women on both continents, in France, England, Russia, Switzerland, and the United States, all show that advancing civilization demands a new element in the government of nations. As the aristocracy in this country is the "male sex," and as Mr. Smith belongs to the privileged order, he naturally considers it important for the best interests of the nation, that every type and shade of degraded, ignorant manhood should be enfranchised, before even the higher classes of womanhood should be admitted to the polls. This does not surprise us. Men always judge more wisely of objective wrongs and oppressions, than of those in which they are themselves involved. Tyranny on a Southern plantation is far more easily seen by white men at the North than the wrongs of the women of their own households.[Pg 318]
The above is the petition that our friend Gerrit Smith, as an abolitionist, cannot morally endorse, even as Republicans and Democrats are signing it nationwide. He doesn’t fully grasp the current situation, or he would recognize that there can be no rebuilding of this nation without universal suffrage, which is the natural, inalienable right of every citizen. The rise of women across both continents—in France, England, Russia, Switzerland, and the United States—demonstrates that advancing civilization requires a new element in the governance of nations. Since the ruling class in this country is the "male sex," and Mr. Smith is part of this privileged group, he naturally believes it’s crucial for the nation's best interests that every kind of degraded, uneducated man should be given the right to vote before even the higher classes of women are allowed to participate in elections. This doesn't surprise us. Men often perceive objective injustices and oppressions more clearly than those that affect them directly. Tyranny on a Southern plantation is much more obvious to white men in the North than the injustices faced by women in their own homes.[Pg 318]
Then, again, when men have devoted their lives to one reform, there is a natural feeling of pride, as well as an earnest principle, in seeing that one thing accomplished. Hence, in criticising such good and noble men as Gerrit Smith and Wendell Phillips for their apathy on woman's enfranchisement at this hour, it is not because we think their course at all remarkable, nor that we have the least hope of influencing them, but simply to rouse the women of the country to the fact that they must not look to these men as their champions at this hour. While philosophy and science alike point to woman as the new power destined to redeem the world, how can Mr. Smith fail to see that it is just this we need to restore honor and virtue in the Government? There is sex in the spiritual as well as the physical, and what we need to-day in government, in the world of morals and thought, is the recognition of the feminine element, as it is this alone that can hold the masculine in check.
Then again, when people dedicate their lives to a particular reform, there’s a natural sense of pride, as well as a strong commitment, in seeing that goal achieved. So, when we criticize admirable individuals like Gerrit Smith and Wendell Phillips for their indifference towards women’s voting rights right now, it's not because we find their actions surprising or that we hope to sway them, but simply to wake up the women of this country to the reality that they shouldn’t rely on these men as their advocates at this moment. While both philosophy and science highlight women as the new force meant to transform the world, how can Mr. Smith not realize that this is exactly what we need to restore integrity and virtue in our Government? There’s a gender aspect in the spiritual realm as well as in the physical, and what we need today in governance and in the realms of morality and thought is the acknowledgment of the feminine perspective, as it's this alone that can keep the masculine in check.
Again; Mr. Smith refuses to sign the petition because he thinks to press the broader question of "universal suffrage" would defeat the partial one of "manhood suffrage"; in other words, to demand protection for woman against her oppressors, would jeopardize the black man's chance of securing protection against his oppressors. If it is a question of precedence merely, on what principle of justice or courtesy should woman yield her right of enfranchisement to the negro? If men can not be trusted to legislate for their own sex, how can they legislate for the opposite sex, of whose wants and needs they know nothing? It has always been considered good philosophy in pressing any measure to claim the uttermost in order to get something. Being in Ireland at the time of the Repeal excitement, we asked Daniel O'Connell one day if he expected to secure a repeal of the Union. "Oh, no!" said he, "but I claim everything that I may be sure of getting something." But their intense interest in the negro blinded our former champions so that they forsook principle for policy, and in giving woman the cold shoulder raised a more deadly opposition to the negro than any we had yet encountered, creating an antagonism between him and the very element most needed to be propitiated in his behalf. It was this feeling that defeated "negro suffrage" in Kansas.
Again, Mr. Smith refuses to sign the petition because he believes that pushing for the broader issue of "universal suffrage" would undermine the narrower goal of "manhood suffrage." In other words, advocating for protections for women against their oppressors could put at risk the chances of black men gaining protection against their own oppressors. If it’s just a matter of priority, what principle of justice or courtesy should require women to give up their right to vote for black men? If men can’t be trusted to make laws for their own gender, how can they be expected to legislate for women, about whose needs and desires they know very little? It has always been seen as smart strategy to claim the most in order to gain something. When we were in Ireland during the Repeal movement, we asked Daniel O'Connell if he thought he could achieve a repeal of the Union. "Oh, no!" he replied, "but I claim everything so that I can be sure of getting something." However, their strong focus on the needs of the black community caused our previous supporters to abandon principle for strategy, and in turning their backs on women, they created a stronger opposition to the black community than we had ever faced, generating conflict between them and the very group that needed to be won over for their support. This sentiment ultimately led to the defeat of "negro suffrage" in Kansas.
But Mr. Smith abandons the principle clearly involved, and intrenches himself on policy. He would undoubtedly plead the necessity of the ballot for the negro at the south for his protection, and point us to innumerable acts of cruelty he suffers to-day. But all these things fall as heavily on the women of the black race, yea far more so, for no man can ever know the deep, the damning degradation to which woman is subject in her youth, in helplessness and poverty. The enfranchisement of the men of her race, Mr. Smith would say, is her protection. Our Saxon men have held the ballot in this country for a century, and what honest man can claim that it has been used for woman's protection? Alas! we have given the very hey day of our life to undoing the cruel and unjust laws that the men of New York had made for their own mothers, wives, and daughters.
But Mr. Smith ignores the principle at stake and focuses on policy instead. He would likely argue that the right to vote is essential for the protection of Black men in the South and point to countless acts of cruelty they endure today. But all of this weighs even more heavily on Black women, as no man can truly understand the deep, shameful degradation that women face in their youth and in poverty. Mr. Smith might claim that the voting rights of Black men serve as protection for their women. Our white men have held the vote in this country for a hundred years, and what honest man can say it has been used to protect women? Unfortunately, we have spent the prime of our lives trying to overturn the cruel and unjust laws that the men of New York imposed on their own mothers, wives, and daughters.
As to the "rights of races," on which so much stress is laid just now, we have listened to debates in anti-slavery conventions, for twenty years or more, and we never heard Gerrit Smith plead the negro cause on any lower ground than his manhood; his individual, inalienable right to freedom and equality,[Pg 319] and thus, we conjure every thoughtful man to plead woman's cause to-day. Politicians will find, when they come to test this question of "negro supremacy" in the several States, that there is a far stronger feeling among the women of the nation than they supposed. We doubt whether a constitutional amendment securing "manhood suffrage" alone could be fairly passed in a single State in this Union. Women everywhere are waking up to their own God-given rights, to their true dignity as citizens of a republic, as mothers of the race.
Regarding the "rights of races," which is a hot topic right now, we have listened to discussions in anti-slavery conventions for over twenty years, and we've never heard Gerrit Smith advocate for the rights of Black people on any lower ground than that of their humanity; their individual, inalienable right to freedom and equality,[Pg 319] and so we urge every thoughtful person to advocate for women's rights today. Politicians will discover, when they examine the issue of "Black supremacy" in the various States, that there is a much stronger sentiment among the women of the nation than they anticipated. We question whether a constitutional amendment assuring "manhood suffrage" alone could be fairly passed in any State in this Union. Women everywhere are becoming aware of their God-given rights, recognizing their true dignity as citizens of a republic and as the mothers of the race.
Although those who demand "woman's suffrage" on principle are few, those who would oppose "negro suffrage" from prejudice are many, hence the only way to secure the latter, is to end all this talk of class legislation, bury the negro in the citizen, and claim the suffrage for all men and women, as a natural, inalienable right. The friends of the negro never made a greater blunder than when, at the close of the war, they timidly refused to lead the nation in demanding suffrage for all. If even Wendell Phillips and Gerrit Smith, the very apostles of liberty on this continent, failed at that point, how can we wonder at the vacillation and confusion of politicians at this hour. We had hoped that the elections of '67, with their overwhelming majorities in every State against negro suffrage, would have proved to all alike, how futile is compromise, how short-sighted is policy. We have pressed these considerations so often on Mr. Phillips and Mr. Smith during the last four years, that we fear we have entirely forfeited the friendship of the one, and diminished the confidence of the other in our good judgment; but time, that rights all wrongs, will surely bring them back to the standpoint of principle.
Although there are few who demand "women's suffrage" on principle, there are many who oppose "black suffrage" out of prejudice. Therefore, the only way to secure the latter is to stop all this talk about class legislation, blend the black citizen into the broader citizenry, and claim suffrage for all men and women as a natural, unalienable right. The supporters of black rights made a huge mistake when, at the end of the war, they hesitantly refused to lead the nation in demanding suffrage for everyone. If even Wendell Phillips and Gerrit Smith, the true champions of liberty on this continent, stumbled at that point, how can we be surprised by the hesitation and confusion of politicians today? We had hoped that the elections of '67, with their overwhelming majorities against black suffrage in every State, would show everyone how pointless compromise is and how short-sighted policy can be. We have pressed these points so often on Mr. Phillips and Mr. Smith over the last four years that we fear we have completely lost one friend's support and weakened the other's confidence in our judgment. But time, which corrects all wrongs, will surely bring them back to a principled standpoint.
As soon as we had a mouthpiece in The Revolution we found that many noble women in every State understood the situation, and saw that while the question of reconstruction was under debate, woman was false to herself not to put in her claims. In face of all opposition, those who did see the policy and justice of claiming this time as the woman's hour also, made the most persistent, brave fight possible. Again were appeals and petitions sent to Congress and the people, but now for woman's enfranchisement. When the whole nation was as it were resolved into its original elements, and the fundamental rights of citizens the topic for discussion in the halls of legislation and at every fireside, the time seemed so opportune for the settlement of the broad question of representation, that the persistency and determination of a few women to secure their rights was neither surprising nor unreasonable.
As soon as we had a voice in The Revolution, we discovered that many noble women in every state understood the situation and realized that while the issue of reconstruction was being discussed, it was wrong for women not to assert their claims. Despite all the opposition, those who recognized the policy and justice of this being the women’s moment made a consistent and courageous fight. Appeals and petitions were once again sent to Congress and the people, but now for women's rights to vote. When the whole nation seemed to be going back to its roots, and the fundamental rights of citizens became the focus of discussion in legislative halls and at every home, it felt like the perfect time to settle the broader question of representation. Thus, the persistence and determination of a few women to secure their rights were neither surprising nor unreasonable.
This was one of the most trying periods in the woman suffrage movement. Negro suffrage being a party measure, a political necessity and the culmination of the anti-slavery conflict, Republicans and Abolitionists could bid each other a most sincere and heartfelt Godspeed. And with them, too, stood the majority of the woman suffrage associations. Wives and daughters of Republicans and Abolitionists, imbued with the ideas of politicians, "one measure at a[Pg 320] time," "one reform for a generation," lost sight of the true philosophy, that justice is always in order, and the fact that "universal suffrage" was the one reform that belonged specifically to the period of reconstruction. But women educated to self-sacrifice and self-abnegation readily accepted the idea that it was divine and beautiful to hold their claims for rights and privileges in abeyance to all orders and classes of men. They forgot that the highest patriotism, and the best interests of man himself demanded the enfranchisement of woman.
This was one of the most challenging times in the women's suffrage movement. Black suffrage was a political strategy, a necessity, and the result of the anti-slavery fight, so Republicans and Abolitionists could sincerely wish each other well. Alongside them stood most of the women’s suffrage organizations. The wives and daughters of Republicans and Abolitionists, influenced by political ideas, believed in "one measure at a time," "one reform for a generation," and lost sight of the true principle that justice is always timely. They overlooked the fact that "universal suffrage" was the one reform that truly belonged to the Reconstruction era. But women, raised to prioritize self-sacrifice and self-denial, easily accepted the notion that it was noble and admirable to set aside their claims for rights and privileges for all men. They forgot that the highest patriotism and the best interest of humanity itself required the enfranchisement of women.
The few who insisted on absolute right stood firmly together under a steady fire of ridicule and reproach even from their life-long friends most loved and honored. They knew their position was unassailable, for they had well learned the lesson taught in the early days of anti-slavery and the Republican party, that all compromises with principle are dangerous. Statesmen and reformers alike admitted that the demands of the women were just and proper, though not opportune. But when the whole question of suffrage was up for discussion, there could not be a better time to get all the agitation possible in regard to woman's claims. The subject once settled on the narrow ground of class, it would not be renewed for a generation. Time has proved their fears well grounded. Nearly twenty years have passed, and there has been no such agitation and excitement as then on the question. If all the women, to say nothing of the Republicans and Abolitionists who claimed to believe in the truth of the idea, had stood firm, woman would have been enfranchised with the negro. But few could withstand the persecution, the ridicule, the pathetic appeals to keep silent, and in a large measure when the Anti-Slavery Society disbanded the woman suffrage movement became the toy of the Republican party, and has been trifled with ever since, like the cat with the mouse in the fable.
The few who insisted on absolute right stood united under a constant barrage of ridicule and criticism, even from their lifelong friends whom they cherished and respected. They knew their stance was unshakeable because they had learned from the early days of the anti-slavery movement and the Republican party that any compromises with principles are risky. Both politicians and reformers acknowledged that women’s demands were fair and reasonable, although not timely. However, when the whole issue of voting rights was up for discussion, it was the perfect opportunity to push for all the attention possible regarding women’s rights. If the discussion was settled based on class, it wouldn't come up again for a generation. Time has shown their concerns were justified. Nearly twenty years have gone by, and there hasn’t been as much agitation and excitement about the issue as back then. If all women, not to mention the Republicans and Abolitionists who claimed to support the idea, had remained steadfast, women would have gained the right to vote alongside Black people. But very few could endure the harassment, the mockery, and the emotional pleas to stay quiet, and largely when the Anti-Slavery Society disbanded, the women’s suffrage movement became a plaything of the Republican party, which has treated it lightly ever since, like the cat playing with the mouse in the fable.
But Democrats seeing the inconsistency of Republicans, did advocate our cause, present our petitions in Congress, and frank our documents to all parts of the country. And because these women, denied help and encouragement from other sources, accepted aid from the Democrats, they were called "Copperheads";[108][Pg 321] disloyal to the Government. Women who had been complimented by the Republican press as "wise," "prudent," "noble," while rolling up 300,000 petitions for emancipation, were now said to be "selfish," "impracticable," "unreasonable," because forsooth they demanded some new liberties for themselves. More over said the Republicans, "these Democrats are hypocritical, they do not believe in the extension of suffrage to any class." To this[Pg 322] the women replied, "If the Democrats advocate a grand measure of public policy which they do not believe, they occupy much higher ground than Republicans who refuse to press the same measure which they claim to believe. At all events the hypocrisy of Democrats serves us a better purpose in the present emergency than does the treachery of Republicans."
But Democrats, noting the inconsistency of Republicans, supported our cause, presented our petitions in Congress, and sent our documents across the country. Because these women, lacking support and encouragement from other sources, accepted help from the Democrats, they were labeled "Copperheads";[108][Pg 321] disloyal to the Government. Women who had been praised by the Republican press as "wise," "prudent," and "noble," while gathering 300,000 petitions for emancipation, were now called "selfish," "impractical," and "unreasonable," simply because they were asking for some new freedoms for themselves. Moreover, the Republicans claimed, "these Democrats are hypocritical; they don’t support extending suffrage to anyone." To this,[Pg 322] the women responded, "If the Democrats advocate a major public policy they don’t believe in, they stand on much higher ground than Republicans who refuse to push the same measure they claim to support. In any case, the hypocrisy of Democrats serves our purpose better in this current situation than the betrayal by Republicans."
But with all their long-time friends against them; such as Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson in the Senate, William Lloyd Garrison and Gerrit Smith in reform, Horace Greeley and most of the Liberals in the press, the position of the women seemed so untenable to the majority that at times a sense of utter loneliness and desertion made the bravest of them doubt the possibility of maintaining the struggle or making themselves fairly understood. And yet, what was done was sound in principle and wise in policy. Every argument made by Republicans and Abolitionists for the enfranchisement of the negro was pertinent for woman. As Mr. Sumner said to us years after he made that great speech on "Equal rights to all," "substitute sex for color, and you have the best speech I could make on your platform." Our cause was wise too in policy, for never before had we such an opportunity to compel intelligent opposition in the halls of legislation and in conventions of the people. Black men were at the white heat of anxiety and expectation; Abolitionists, with bated breath, watched every move and vote in Congress; Republicans felt that on the success or defeat of "negro suffrage" hung the life or death of their party; and all alike feared the slightest influence that might turn the scale, and deplored the seeming coalition of the women and the Democrats. Hence what an hour to proclaim our principles of government upon their broadest basis, and to keep up the discussion of woman suffrage at every point with so formidable an opposition!
But with all their longtime friends against them—like Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson in the Senate, William Lloyd Garrison and Gerrit Smith in reform, Horace Greeley, and most of the Liberals in the press—the position of the women seemed so impossible to the majority that at times a feeling of complete loneliness and abandonment made even the bravest among them doubt their ability to maintain the struggle or make themselves understood. And yet, what was done was sound in principle and wise in policy. Every argument made by Republicans and Abolitionists for the enfranchisement of Black people was relevant to women. As Mr. Sumner told us years after his famous speech on "Equal rights to all," “substitute sex for color, and you have the best speech I could make on your platform.” Our cause was also wise in policy, for never before had we such an opportunity to force a thoughtful opposition in legislative halls and at public conventions. Black men were at a peak of anxiety and expectation; Abolitionists held their breath as they watched every move and vote in Congress; and Republicans felt that the fate of their party depended on the success or failure of "negro suffrage." They all feared the slightest influence that might tip the balance and lamented the apparent alliance of women and Democrats. Therefore, what a moment it was to declare our principles of government on their broadest basis and to keep discussing woman suffrage at every turn, facing such formidable opposition!
Few[109] only were equal to the emergency. Even in the Equal Rights Conventions the slightest opposition to the XIV Amendment called out hisses and denunciation, and all resolutions on that point were promptly voted down. Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony were waylaid again and again in the ante-rooms, and implored to avoid all discussions on the pending amendments, and were persistently opposed by black men, Abolitionists, Republicans and women who did not understand either the principle or policy involved in the discussion. This opposition of the few did not grow out of any hostility[Pg 323] to "negro suffrage," for they were all Abolitionists, and had labored untiringly for the emancipation of the slaves; but they were opposed to the enfranchisement of another class of ignorant men to be lifted above their heads, to be their law-makers and Governors; to prescribe the moral code and political status of their daughters. The hue and cry against those who claimed that "that was the woman's hour," for accepting the aid of Democrats in the establishment of a paper through which they could plead their own case, were so many plausible pretexts in the mouths of those who could not consistently attack their principles of action. But from this opposition on all sides true woman suffragists learned their power to stand alone, and to maintain the right against large and honorable majorities.
Few[109] were equal to the emergency. Even at the Equal Rights Conventions, the slightest opposition to the XIV Amendment sparked hisses and denunciations, and all related resolutions were quickly voted down. Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony were repeatedly intercepted in the waiting rooms and urged to steer clear of discussions regarding the pending amendments, facing persistent opposition from Black men, abolitionists, Republicans, and women who didn’t grasp the principles or policies at stake in the discussion. This opposition didn’t stem from any hostility towards "negro suffrage," as they were all abolitionists who had tirelessly fought for the emancipation of slaves; rather, they opposed the enfranchisement of another group of uninformed men being placed above them, who would become their lawmakers and governors and decide the moral code and political status of their daughters. The outcry against those who claimed "that was the woman's hour" for accepting the help of Democrats to create a platform where they could advocate for themselves served as convenient excuses for those who could not consistently challenge their principles. However, from this opposition on all fronts, true women suffragists discovered their strength to stand independently and uphold their rights against large and respected majorities.
Again said our professed friends we can carry "negro suffrage" now; it is a political necessity; do not trammel us with another issue—this done, depend upon it, men have too much chivalry to forget the services of the loyal women all through the war, and through the long political struggle in Congress. Women in our conventions echoed the same assuring sentiments, and voted down resolutions of protest and rebuke. They were deceived with the plausible promises made by Republicans and Abolitionists—promises still unredeemed, for Republicans have been busy ever since trying to save the life of their party; and Abolitionists, with few exceptions, have thrown their influence into Labor Reform, Temperance, Finance, and Literature. But of what do you complain, asked our statesmen. Of many things, we replied:
Once again, our so-called friends said we can now support "black suffrage"; it’s a political necessity. Don’t burden us with another issue—once this is done, trust me, people have too much nobility to forget the contributions of the loyal women throughout the war and the long political battle in Congress. Women in our gatherings echoed those same reassuring sentiments and voted down resolutions of protest and condemnation. They were misled by the appealing promises made by Republicans and Abolitionists—promises that remain unfulfilled, as Republicans have been busy trying to keep their party alive; and Abolitionists, with few exceptions, have redirected their focus to Labor Reform, Temperance, Finance, and Literature. But what are you complaining about, our politicians asked. About many things, we replied:
1st. Our National Constitution was broad and liberal in letter and spirit, put no limits on suffrage, made no distinctions in sex, until the Republicans, by their amendments, introduced the word "male," and thus blocked woman's path to equality.
1st. Our National Constitution was inclusive and open in both its wording and intention, placed no restrictions on voting rights, and made no distinctions based on gender, until the Republicans, with their amendments, added the word "male," thereby hindering women's path to equality.
2d. Republicans in Congress either suppressed our petitions for suffrage, or presented them under protest, after holding them for weeks in their possession.
2d. Republicans in Congress either ignored our petitions for suffrage or presented them reluctantly after keeping them for weeks.
3d. By their speeches and votes in Congress, and their decisions in the courts on questions involving our civil and political rights, they have stultified their own grand declarations of the equal rights of citizens in a republic.
3d. Through their speeches and votes in Congress, as well as their rulings in court regarding our civil and political rights, they have undermined their own bold statements about the equal rights of citizens in a republic.
When the XIV Amendment was first proposed, the Hon. Charles Sumner opposed it, because, he said, there was already enough of Justice, Liberty, and Equality in the Constitution to protect the humblest citizen under our flag. He had always taken the ground that the Constitution was an Anti-Slavery document, hence to vote for an amendment was to contradict his former position. We opposed[Pg 324] the amendments because, in the Constitution as it was there were no distinctions of sex recognized, while the amendments declaring "manhood suffrage," established an aristocracy of sex. However, in due season, Mr. Sumner withdrew his opposition; and without changing his opinion, voted for the amendments because negro suffrage was a party measure, and the political necessity of the hour. We, having no party, no votes, no political right but to petition and discuss the measures up for consideration, saw no reason for changing our opinions, hence we used the best possible means to keep up the agitation until the amendments were passed, and beyond reconsideration. Nevertheless, in the midst of this general hostility, the sound policy of the agitation carried on against the Republican party and its measures was evident in the numerous bills some of its liberal members soon after presented in Congress. In The Revolution, December 10, 1868, we find the following:
When the XIV Amendment was first proposed, the Hon. Charles Sumner opposed it, arguing that there was already enough Justice, Liberty, and Equality in the Constitution to protect the simplest citizen under our flag. He believed that the Constitution was an Anti-Slavery document, so voting for an amendment would contradict his previous stance. We opposed[Pg 324] the amendments because, as the Constitution stood, there were no distinctions of sex recognized, while the amendments proclaiming "manhood suffrage" established a gender hierarchy. However, eventually, Mr. Sumner withdrew his opposition; and without changing his opinion, he voted for the amendments because African American suffrage was a party measure and a political necessity at that time. We, having no party, no votes, and no political rights aside from petitioning and discussing the measures at hand, saw no reason to change our views. Thus, we did our best to maintain the agitation until the amendments were passed and beyond reconsideration. Nevertheless, amidst this general resistance, the effective policy of the agitation against the Republican party and its measures was clear in the many bills that some of its progressive members soon introduced in Congress. In The Revolution, December 10, 1868, we find the following:
Now's the Hour.—Not the "negro's hour" alone, but everybody's hour. All honor to Senator Pomeroy! He has taken the first step to redeem the Constitution from all odious distinctions on account of race or sex. He lost no time in presenting, at the opening of Congressional proceedings, the following as an amendment to the Federal Constitution to regulate suffrage throughout the country:
Now's the Hour.—Not just the "negro's hour," but everyone's hour. All respect to Senator Pomeroy! He has made the first move to free the Constitution from all hateful distinctions based on race or gender. He wasted no time in introducing, at the start of Congressional sessions, the following as an amendment to the Federal Constitution to govern voting rights across the nation:
Article 15. The basis of suffrage in the United States shall be that of citizenship; and all native or naturalized citizens shall enjoy the same rights and privileges of the elective franchise; but each State shall determine by law the age of a citizen and the time of residence required for the exercise of the right of suffrage which shall apply equally to all citizens; and also shall make all laws concerning the times, places, and manner of holding elections.
Article 15. The foundation of voting in the United States shall be citizenship; and all native-born or naturalized citizens shall have the same rights and privileges to vote; however, each State shall establish by law the age of a citizen and the duration of residence required to exercise the right to vote, which shall apply equally to all citizens; and shall also make all laws regarding the times, places, and procedures for holding elections.
Laid on the table and ordered to be printed.
Laid on the table and ordered to be printed.
Now let the work of petitioning and agitating for this amendment be prosecuted with a vigor and energy unknown before. And let Senator Pomeroy be honored with receiving and presenting to the Senate such a deluge of names as shall convince him that his noble step in the direction of a true democracy, is appreciated; and such too as shall be a rebuke to all half-way measures that would leave woman (white and colored) behind the colored male; and moreover, that shall convince Congress and the whole government that we can be trifled with no longer on a subject so vital to the peace, prosperity, and perpetuity of our own people, and the establishment of free institutions among the nations of the earth.
Now let’s push forward with the work of petitioning and campaigning for this amendment with a level of enthusiasm and determination we’ve never seen before. And let Senator Pomeroy be recognized for receiving and presenting to the Senate such an overwhelming number of signatures that it shows him his courageous step toward true democracy is valued; and let it also serve as a rebuke to all half-hearted efforts that would leave women (both white and colored) behind the colored men; and furthermore, let it demonstrate to Congress and the entire government that we can no longer be taken lightly on an issue so crucial to the peace, prosperity, and future of our people, and to the establishment of free institutions across the globe.
Congress Wide Awake.—Last week we gave good account of Mr. Julian, of Indiana, on behalf of suffrage for woman. This week we can report similar progress in the Senate also. The following is Senator Wilson's bill to amend an act entitled an act to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia:
Congress Wide Awake.—Last week we provided a positive update on Mr. Julian from Indiana regarding women's suffrage. This week, we can share similar advancements in the Senate as well. Below is Senator Wilson's bill to amend the act titled "An Act to Regulate the Elective Franchise in the District of Columbia":
Be it enacted, etc., That the word "male" in the first section of the act entitled "An act to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia, passed on the 8th day of January, 1867," be struck out, and that every word in said act applicable to persons of the male sex shall apply equally to persons of the female sex, so that hereafter women,[Pg 325] who are inhabitants of the said District of Columbia and citizens of the United States, may vote at all elections and be eligible to civil offices in said District on the same terms and conditions in all respects as men.
Be it enacted, etc., That the word "male" in the first section of the act titled "An act to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia, passed on January 8, 1867," be removed, and that every word in said act that applies to males also applies to females, so that from now on, women,[Pg 325] who live in the District of Columbia and are citizens of the United States, can vote in all elections and be eligible for civil offices in the District under the same terms and conditions as men.
Mr. Julian, in the House, on leave, introduced the following bill further to extend the right of suffrage in the District of Columbia:
Mr. Julian, in the House, on leave, introduced the following bill to further extend the right to vote in the District of Columbia:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That from and after the passage of this act the right of suffrage in the District of Columbia shall be based upon citizenship; and all citizens of the United States, native and naturalized, resident in said District, who are twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and who have not forfeited this right by crime, shall enjoy the same equally, irrespective of sex.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that from the passage of this act onward, the right to vote in the District of Columbia will be based on citizenship; and all citizens of the United States, both native and naturalized, who live in that District, are at least twenty-one years old, of sound mind, and have not lost this right due to a crime, will have the same voting rights equally, regardless of gender.
Sec. 2, And be it further enacted, That all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed.
Sec. 2, And it is further enacted that all actions or parts of actions that conflict with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed.
Mr. Julian, on leave, introduced the following bill further to extend the right of suffrage in the Territories of the United States:
Mr. Julian, on leave, introduced the following bill to further extend the right to vote in the Territories of the United States:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That from and after the passage of this act the right of suffrage in all the Territories of the United States, now or hereafter to be organized, shall be based upon citizenship; and all citizens of the United States, native or naturalized, resident in said Territories, who are twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and who have not forfeited their right by crime, shall enjoy the same equally, irrespective of sex.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That from now on, the right to vote in all the Territories of the United States, now or in the future, will be based on citizenship; and all citizens of the United States, whether born here or naturalized, who live in those Territories, are at least twenty-one years old, mentally competent, and have not lost their voting rights due to a crime, shall have the same rights equally, regardless of gender.
Sec. 2, And be it further enacted, That all acts or parts of acts, either by Congress or the legislative assemblies of said Territories, inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby declared null and void.
Sec. 2, And it is further enacted that all acts or parts of acts, whether by Congress or the legislative assemblies of the specified Territories, that conflict with the provisions of this act are declared null and void.
Woman Suffrage in Utah.—March 25, 1869.—Mr. Julian introduced the following bill into Congress to discourage polygamy in Utah by granting the right of suffrage to the women of that Territory:
Woman Suffrage in Utah.—March 25, 1869.—Mr. Julian introduced the following bill into Congress to discourage polygamy in Utah by granting voting rights to the women of that Territory:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That from and after the passage of this act the right of Suffrage in the Territory of Utah shall belong to, and may be exercised by, the people thereof, without any distinction or discrimination whatever founded on sex.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That from and after the passage of this act, the right to vote in the Territory of Utah shall belong to, and may be exercised by, the people there, without any distinction or discrimination based on sex.
The bill was read twice, referred to the Committee on Territories, and ordered to be printed.
The bill was read two times, sent to the Committee on Territories, and scheduled for printing.
The New York Herald is no more than an average of the voice of the intelligent portion of the press in the following excerpts from its columns: Senator Wilson has introduced a bill so to amend the suffrage laws of the District of Columbia as to give to women of all colors and races, as well as men, the right of suffrage. As Congress has exclusive powers of legislation over the District of Columbia in all cases whatsoever, here is a fair chance to try the two houses upon this very interesting question. There are a few out-spoken members of the Senate in favor of Woman Suffrage, and first and foremost among them is "Old Ben Wade," who goes for the whole programme of negroes' rights and women's rights. Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, has so far advanced in the cause of Woman Suffrage that he has proposed to make it a part of the supreme law of the land. But we like the idea of Mr. Wilson of first trying the experiment in the District of Columbia.
The New York Herald reflects an average perspective of the informed section of the press in the following excerpts from its columns: Senator Wilson has introduced a bill to amend the suffrage laws of the District of Columbia, granting women of all colors and races, as well as men, the right to vote. Since Congress has total legislative authority over the District of Columbia in all matters, this presents a good opportunity to test the waters with both houses on this intriguing issue. There are a few outspoken senators who support Woman Suffrage, with "Old Ben Wade" leading the charge for the complete rights of both Black people and women. Senator Pomeroy from Kansas has made significant strides in the Woman Suffrage movement, even suggesting that it should become part of the supreme law of the land. However, we favor Mr. Wilson's idea of first trying this out in the District of Columbia.
We remember the time when, in full view from the west front of the Capitol, there was a regular slave pen which was also a market where negroes[Pg 326] were bought and sold. The abolitionists first raised a hue and cry against that pen, and they kept it up to 1850, when among the compromise measures of Henry Clay passed that year was a provision abolishing the slave trade in the District. Some twelve years later, during the rebellion, the bolder and broader experiment was tried of abolishing slavery in toto in said District. These measures over a reserved bit of territory over which Congress possesses absolute authority were deemed judicious experiments and were demanded for the sake of consistency, in view of the legislation resolved upon in Southern reconstruction. So now, in view of a constitutional amendment establishing not only manhood suffrage, but womanhood suffrage throughout the United States, Mr. Wilson doubtless thinks it wise first to try the experiment of Woman Suffrage in the aforesaid District, to see how it will work. As the District of Columbia has not only survived but has flourished and continues to flourish under emancipation and negro suffrage, we can not imagine why there should be any hesitation in trying therein the experiment of Woman Suffrage. At all events let Senator Wilson push forward his bill, so that the country may know, so that General Grant may know, and so that the women may know who in the Senate in favor of negroes' rights will dare to oppose woman's rights.
We remember the time when, right in front of the west side of the Capitol, there was a regular slave pen that functioned as a market where Black people[Pg 326] were bought and sold. The abolitionists first raised a big outcry against that pen and kept it up until 1850, when one of the compromise measures proposed by Henry Clay that year included a provision to end the slave trade in the District. About twelve years later, during the rebellion, a bolder and broader move was made to completely abolish slavery in that District. These actions, taken over a small area where Congress has complete authority, were seen as smart experiments and were called for to ensure consistency with the legislation planned for Southern reconstruction. Now, with a constitutional amendment establishing not just male suffrage but also female suffrage across the United States, Mr. Wilson likely believes it's wise to first test the idea of Woman Suffrage in that District to see how it will play out. Since the District of Columbia has not only survived but has thrived and continues to thrive under emancipation and Black suffrage, we can't understand why there should be any reluctance to try the experiment of Woman Suffrage there. In any case, let Senator Wilson move forward with his bill, so that the country may know, so that General Grant may know, and so that the women may know who in the Senate supporting Black rights will dare to oppose women's rights.
Congress.—December 16, 1869.—In the House, some discussion arose on a question involving the equality of woman to hold appointments in the government. It was on a bill providing for the taking of the census. A motion was made to amend an amendment by changing the word elector (voter) to resident.
Congress.—December 16, 1869.—In the House, there was some discussion about whether women should have equal rights to hold government positions. This was during a debate on a bill related to the census. A motion was proposed to change the word elector (voter) to resident in an amendment.
Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio, said: I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from New York. The effect will be to exclude every female from any appointment, and although I suppose there will not be many female applicants for office under this bill, I see no reason why we should exclude them. (Laughter.) I know no reason why a soldier's widow or any other female properly qualified might not receive an appointment to any office the duties of which she may be as capable of performing as those of our own sex. If reasons exist let them be given. I will inquire of the gallant gentleman from New York whether he wishes to exclude this portion of his constituents and mine from the privilege of holding office under this bill? (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Lawrence, from Ohio, said: I oppose the amendment from the gentleman in New York. Its effect will be to exclude every woman from any appointment, and while I doubt there will be many female applicants for positions under this bill, I see no reason to keep them out. (Laughter.) I don't see why a soldier's widow or any other qualified woman shouldn't be able to receive an appointment for any role she can perform as well as our male counterparts. If there are reasons for this, let's hear them. I will ask the brave gentleman from New York if he really wants to exclude this part of his constituents and mine from the right to hold office under this bill? (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Wood: My amendment says elector, not electress, and until the ladies have the privilege of electors of the United States I propose to exclude them.
Mr. Wood: My amendment states elector, not electress, and until women have the right to vote as electors of the United States, I propose to exclude them.
Mr. Lawrence: I am opposed to that. Merit and capacity to serve the people to the best advantage, after a proper consideration of claims, should be the test for office.
Mr. Lawrence: I disagree with that. The ability to serve the people effectively, after carefully considering everyone's qualifications, should be the criteria for holding office.
Mr. Garfield, of Ohio: The word "elector" in the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Wood) would exclude Alaska altogether. There are no electors in Alaska. I would suggest that he substitute the word "resident," which would avoid the difficulty to which I have referred.
Mr. Garfield, of Ohio: The term "elector" in the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Wood) would completely leave out Alaska. There are no electors in Alaska. I would recommend that he replace the word "elector" with "resident," which would eliminate the issue I've mentioned.
The question being put on Mr. Wood's amendment,
The question being raised about Mr. Wood's amendment,
Mr. Garfield, of Ohio, moved to amend the proposed amendment by inserting the word "resident" instead of "elector."
Mr. Garfield, from Ohio, proposed to change the suggested amendment by replacing the word "elector" with "resident."
The question being put on Mr. Garfield's amendment to Mr. Wood's[Pg 327] amendment, it was agreed to. The question being put on Mr. Wood's amendment, as amended, it was agreed to. So far, then, woman is not to be proscribed.
The question regarding Mr. Garfield's amendment to Mr. Wood's[Pg 327] amendment was approved. The question on Mr. Wood's amendment, as modified, was also approved. Therefore, for now, women will not be excluded.
As in the war women bravely assumed duties in many departments of labor unknown to them before, so in the reconstruction they gave more earnest thought to questions of public policy, and made many valuable suggestions. A well written speech on "Reconstruction and Universal Suffrage," was delivered by Mrs. M. C. Walling, of Texas, in the Senate chamber of the Capitol at Washington, May 10th, 1866; The first and last time that a woman was ever granted the privilege of speaking there.
As during the war, women bravely took on roles in various fields they had never experienced before; in the reconstruction, they also put more serious thought into public policy issues and made many valuable suggestions. Mrs. M. C. Walling from Texas delivered a well-crafted speech on "Reconstruction and Universal Suffrage" in the Senate chamber of the Capitol in Washington on May 10, 1866; it was the first and only time a woman was ever allowed to speak there.
To Anna Dickinson belongs the honor of suggesting a XV amendment. Although the XIV amendment to the National Constitution gave to that document for the first time a concise definition of a "citizen," and forbade any State to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, yet this amendment was found inadequate to protect the political rights of the colored men; and the Republican party was anxiously casting about for a method of perfecting their work, when the puzzle was solved by a proposition for a XV amendment, which should prohibit disfranchisement on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The suggestion for this amendment originated at the National Loyalists' Convention held at Philadelphia, September, 1866, in a consultation between Anna Dickinson, Frederick Douglass, and Theodore Tilton, and was in time accepted by the Republican party. It was reported in Congress Feb. 26, 1869, and received the necessary ratification March 30, 1870. Thus a woman and a colored man were two important factors in perfecting the work of reconstruction through a constitutional provision prohibiting disfranchisement on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
To Anna Dickinson goes the credit for proposing the 15th amendment. While the 14th amendment to the National Constitution officially defined a "citizen" for the first time and prevented any state from limiting the privileges or rights of U.S. citizens, it was still inadequate in protecting the political rights of Black men. The Republican Party was actively seeking a way to strengthen their efforts when the need for a 15th amendment came up, which would ban disfranchisement based on race, color, or past condition of servitude. This idea was born at the National Loyalists' Convention in Philadelphia in September 1866, during discussions among Anna Dickinson, Frederick Douglass, and Theodore Tilton, and was eventually adopted by the Republican Party. It was introduced in Congress on February 26, 1869, and ratified on March 30, 1870. Thus, a woman and a Black man played crucial roles in enhancing the reconstruction process by establishing a constitutional ban on disfranchisement due to race, color, or prior status of servitude.
As when the XIV amendment was pending, the efforts of women were directed toward securing the omission of the invidious word "male," so on the submission of the XV amendment their efforts were again directed toward securing the enfranchisement of woman by the introduction of the word "sex" in the last line of Section 1. But Congress with the usual short-sightedness of injustice, refused to secure the political freedom of one half the entire people, even forgetting to enfranchise a portion of the colored race from their "previous condition of servitude" because of sex.
As when the 14th Amendment was being discussed, women worked to remove the biased term "male," so when the 15th Amendment was submitted, their efforts again focused on securing the right to vote for women by adding the word "sex" in the last line of Section 1. However, Congress, exhibiting its typical shortsightedness toward injustice, refused to grant political freedom to half the population, even neglecting to enfranchise some individuals from the colored race from their "previous condition of servitude" due to their gender.
The sound position taken by Anna Dickinson at this period is substantiated by Frederick Douglass, not only in his "Life and Times," but in the following letters:[Pg 328]
The stance Anna Dickinson took during this time is supported by Frederick Douglass, both in his "Life and Times" and in the following letters:[Pg 328]
Washington, D. C., Jan. 31, 1882.
Washington, D. C., Jan. 31, 1882.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:— ... Mrs. Gage's version of the origin of the 15th Amendment is in substance true. To dear Anna E. Dickinson and brave Theodore Tilton belongs the credit of forcing that amendment upon the attention of the Nation at the right moment and in the right way to make it successful. I have given Miss Dickinson the credit you award her in my "Life and Times," and have made myself one of your earliest converts in the same.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:— ... Mrs. Gage's account of how the 15th Amendment came to be is mostly accurate. The credit for pushing that amendment into the national spotlight at the right time and in the right way goes to dear Anna E. Dickinson and brave Theodore Tilton, which made its success possible. I acknowledged Miss Dickinson’s contributions in my "Life and Times," and I consider myself one of your earliest supporters on this matter.
Fred'k. Douglass.
Fred'k. Douglass.
Very truly yours,
Very truly yours,
Washington, D. C., Feb. 6, 1882.
Washington, D. C., Feb. 6, 1882.
My Dear Mrs. Stanton:—Referring, since reading your note, to what I have said of the National Loyalist Convention, held in Philadelphia in 1866, I find that I have done but very scant justice to Anna E. Dickinson and Theodore Tilton. Their courage, skill and sagacity, were never displayed to greater advantage than on that occasion. I have, as you will see, mentioned the main facts, but I have given but a meagre view of the moral conditions surrounding it. Bold and prompt action was needed, and the man and the woman were equal to the occasion. From the first Miss Dickinson, Mr. Tilton and myself felt that any reconstruction at the South leaving the freedmen without the ballot, would leave them in the absolute power of the old master-class. Hence from the first we conferred together as to the manner of bringing the subject to the attention of the Convention. We looked to the Committee on Resolutions to bring up the subject, but waited in vain. They had nothing for us but well rounded platitudes and glittering generalities about the Union and the relation of the States to the National Government all well enough in ordinary times, but totally inappropriate in respect of the real situation of the country at the moment. When it became known that Mr. Tilton and myself meant to bring forward the subject, we were besought not to do a thing so impolitic. We were implored not to load the Republican party with this new burden. We were told of the advantage it would give the Democratic party against us; how it would intensify and concentrate the prejudice already felt for the negro. It was evident that negro suffrage was the one great dread of the Convention. The proposal to discuss it was deplored as a blunder which would cost us dearly. This apprehension was mainly confined to the delegates from the border States, and as they had the control of the Convention, they managed to keep out the disturbing question of negro suffrage till the last day.
My Dear Mrs. Stanton:—After reading your note and reflecting on what I said about the National Loyalist Convention held in Philadelphia in 1866, I realize that I didn't give enough credit to Anna E. Dickinson and Theodore Tilton. Their courage, skill, and insight were never more evident than at that event. As you'll see, I mentioned the key facts, but I only provided a limited view of the moral context around it. Bold and decisive action was necessary, and both the man and the woman rose to the occasion. From the start, Miss Dickinson, Mr. Tilton, and I understood that any effort to rebuild the South while denying the freedmen the right to vote would leave them completely at the mercy of the old master class. So, we initially discussed how to bring this issue to the Convention's attention. We were hoping the Committee on Resolutions would address it, but we waited in vain. They offered nothing but well-structured platitudes and shiny generalities about the Union and the relationship between the states and the national government—acceptable in normal times, but completely irrelevant to the country's real situation at that moment. When it became known that Mr. Tilton and I planned to raise the topic, we were urged not to take such a politically unwise step. We were implored not to burden the Republican party with this new issue. They warned us about the advantage it would give to the Democratic party against us and how it would heighten and focus the existing prejudice against Black people. It was clear that Black suffrage was the Convention's biggest fear. The suggestion to discuss it was viewed as a mistake that would cost us heavily. This concern mainly came from the delegates of the border states, and since they held control of the Convention, they managed to keep the contentious issue of Black suffrage off the agenda until the final day.
Seeing the evident purpose to this end, Mr. Tilton, after consulting with Miss Dickinson and myself, introduced the suffrage question. His action was received as a very large fire-brand, and caused a storm of tumult and confusion, in the midst of which the President, Mr. Speed, and other officers left their places on the platform, declaring the Convention adjourned. At this critical juncture, with the tact and skill of a veteran, Mr. Tilton seized the helm, declared the Convention not adjourned, and moved that Honorable John Minor Botts take the Chair. The Border States delegates took their hats and heels out of the Convention without standing upon the order of their going, while the men from the Gulf States nobly stood their ground. The Convention was still large. The going out of the Border States unfettered the platform. Anna E. Dickinson came on the stand with all her wonted ability, and[Pg 329] thrilled the audience by her eloquent plea for negro suffrage. Hers was the speech, not of a brilliant declaimer, but the solid logic of a statesman. When she sat down I felt that the battle was more than half won. Next after Miss Dickinson came Theodore Tilton. It was plain from the moment he took the stand that the situation suited him, and that we were to hear from him that day such words of wisdom, truth and soberness as only genius could supply. We were not disappointed. He was the full master of the subject and the occasion, I followed Mr. Tilton, and resolutions favoring what has since become the 15th Amendment were passed with very little opposition.
Seeing the clear intention behind it all, Mr. Tilton, after discussing it with Miss Dickinson and me, brought up the suffrage issue. His move landed like a hot topic and sparked a wave of chaos and confusion, during which the President, Mr. Speed, and other officials left their spots on the platform, declaring the Convention adjourned. At this pivotal moment, with the finesse of an expert, Mr. Tilton took charge, stated that the Convention was not adjourned, and proposed that Honorable John Minor Botts take the Chair. The delegates from the Border States grabbed their hats and left without any formalities, while the men from the Gulf States bravely stood their ground. The Convention was still well-attended. The departure of the Border States cleared the way for the platform. Anna E. Dickinson took the stage with her usual skill and[Pg 329] captivated the audience with her powerful argument for Black suffrage. Her speech was not just a brilliant display of rhetoric, but the solid reasoning of a statesman. When she finished, I felt that we were more than halfway to victory. Following Miss Dickinson was Theodore Tilton. It was clear from the moment he stepped up that he was in his element, and we were about to hear from him words of wisdom, truth, and seriousness that only a genius could deliver. We were not let down. He fully understood the topic and the moment, and I followed Mr. Tilton, with resolutions supporting what would later become the 15th Amendment passing with very little opposition.
You will notice on page 480 of my book, that I don't forget my walk with you from the house of Mr. Joseph Southwick, where you quietly brought to my notice your arguments for womanhood suffrage. That is forty years ago. You had just returned from your European tour. From that conversation with you I have been convinced of the wisdom of woman suffrage, and have never denied the faith....
You will notice on page 480 of my book that I haven't forgotten our walk from Mr. Joseph Southwick's house, where you calmly shared your arguments for women's suffrage. That was forty years ago. You had just come back from your trip to Europe. Since that conversation with you, I have been convinced of the importance of women's suffrage and have never wavered in my belief....
Fred'k. Douglass.
Fred'k. Douglass.
Very truly yours,
Very truly yours,
When Anna Dickinson, Frederick Douglass, and Theodore Tilton pressed the question of negro suffrage on the Loyalists' convention, they were met by the same arguments and appeals against it, that were urged upon those who pressed woman suffrage when the Fourteenth Amendment was pending. Douglass knew that any reconstruction without political equality for the black man was a delusion; the women saw as clearly that any reconstruction without political equality for them was a delusion also, and their determination to have some recognition under government sprung from the same love of freedom and self-respect that moved Douglass when, with equal determination, he walked in the procession, and took his seat as a delegate, as he had a right to do, though warned that he would stir up a mob, and be a firebrand in the convention. The description of this scene by Mr. Douglass himself is a suggestive study for all oppressed classes:
When Anna Dickinson, Frederick Douglass, and Theodore Tilton challenged the issue of black voting rights at the Loyalists' convention, they faced the same arguments and appeals against it that were presented to those who advocated for women's suffrage when the Fourteenth Amendment was being debated. Douglass understood that any reconstruction effort without political equality for Black men was an illusion; women recognized just as clearly that any reconstruction without political equality for them was likewise an illusion, and their determination to gain some acknowledgment from the government arose from the same desire for freedom and self-respect that motivated Douglass when, with equal determination, he participated in the parade and took his seat as a delegate, which he had every right to do, despite warnings that he would incite a mob and be a troublemaker in the convention. Douglass's own account of this moment serves as an insightful lesson for all oppressed groups:
I was residing in Rochester at the time, and was duly elected as a delegate from that city to attend this convention. The honor was a surprise and a gratification to me. It was unprecedented for a city of over 60,000 white citizens, and only about 200 colored residents, to elect a colored man to represent them in a national political convention, and the announcement of it gave a shock to the country of no inconsiderable violence. Many Republicans, with every feeling of respect for me personally, were unable to see the wisdom of such a course. They dreaded the clamor of social equality and amalgamation which would be raised against the party, in consequence of this startling innovation. They, dear fellows, found it much more agreeable to talk of the principles of liberty as glittering generalities, than to reduce those principles to practice.
I was living in Rochester at the time and was elected as a delegate from that city to attend this convention. The honor surprised and delighted me. It was unprecedented for a city with over 60,000 white residents and only about 200 Black residents to elect a Black man to represent them in a national political convention, and the announcement shocked the country quite a bit. Many Republicans, who respected me personally, couldn't understand the wisdom of this decision. They feared the outcry about social equality and integration that would be raised against the party because of this bold change. They, dear friends, found it much more comfortable to discuss the principles of liberty as impressive ideals rather than put those principles into practice.
When the train on which I was going to the convention reached Harrisburgh, it met and was attached to another from the West crowded with Western[Pg 330] and Southern delegates on the way to the convention, and among them were several loyal Governors, chief among whom was the Governor of Indiana, Oliver P. Morton, a man of Websterian mould in all that appertained to mental power. When my presence became known to these gentlemen, a consultation was immediately held among them, upon the question as to what was best to do with me. It seems strange now, in view of all the progress which has been made, that such a question could arise. But the circumstances of the times made me the Jonah of the Republican ship, and responsible for the contrary winds and misbehaving weather. Before we reached Lancaster, on our eastward bound trip, I was duly waited upon by a committee of my brother delegates, which had been appointed by other honorable delegates, to represent to me the undesirableness of my attendance upon the National Loyalists' Convention. The spokesman of these sub-delegates was a gentleman from New Orleans with a very French name, which has now escaped me, but which I wish I could recall, that I might credit him with a high degree of politeness and the gift of eloquence. He began by telling me that he knew my history and my works, and that he entertained a very high respect for me, that both himself and the gentlemen who sent him, as well as those who accompanied him, regarded me with admiration; that there was not among them the remotest objection to sitting in the convention with me, but their personal wishes in the matter they felt should be set aside for the sake of our common cause; that whether I should or should not go into the convention was purely a matter of expediency; that I must know that there was a very strong and bitter prejudice against my race in the North as well as at the South; and that the cry of social and political equality would not fail to be raised against the Republican party if I should attend this loyal national convention. He insisted that it was a time for the sacrifice of my own personal feeling, for the good of the Republican cause; that there were several districts in the State of Indiana so evenly balanced that a very slight circumstance would be likely to turn the scale against us, and defeat our Congressional candidates and thus leave Congress without a two-thirds vote to control the headstrong and treacherous man then in the presidential chair. It was urged that this was a terrible responsibility for me or any other man to take.
When the train I was taking to the convention arrived in Harrisburg, it connected with another train from the West that was packed with Western and Southern delegates heading to the convention. Among them were several dedicated Governors, especially the Governor of Indiana, Oliver P. Morton, a man of great intellect. Once the other delegates learned I was on board, they quickly held a meeting to discuss what to do with me. It seems odd now, considering how much progress has been made, that such a question would even come up. But given the circumstances back then, I was seen as the Jonah of the Republican ship, blamed for the unfavorable winds and bad weather. Before we got to Lancaster on our eastward journey, I was approached by a committee of fellow delegates, selected by other respected delegates, to express their concerns about my attending the National Loyalists' Convention. The spokesperson for these delegates was a gentleman from New Orleans with a very French name, which I've now forgotten, but I wish I could remember it so I could credit him for his politeness and eloquence. He started by saying that he was familiar with my history and work, and that he held me in high regard, that both he and the gentlemen who sent him, as well as those who accompanied him, admired me. There was no objection among them to sitting in the convention with me, but they felt that their personal opinions had to be set aside for the sake of our shared cause. They believed my attendance at the convention was a matter of practicality; that I needed to understand there was a strong and bitter prejudice against my race in both the North and the South, and that if I attended this loyal national convention, the cry for social and political equality would certainly be raised against the Republican party. He argued that this was a time for me to put aside my personal feelings for the good of the Republican cause; that there were several districts in Indiana where the balance was so delicate that even a small factor could tip the scales against us, jeopardizing our Congressional candidates and leaving Congress without the two-thirds vote needed to control the reckless and treacherous man then in the presidential office. The urgency of this was stressed, highlighting the heavy responsibility for me or anyone else to bear.
I listened very attentively to this address, uttering, no word during its delivery; but when it was finished, I said to the speaker and the committee, with all the emphasis I could throw into my voice and manner: "Gentlemen, with all respect, you might as well ask me to put a loaded pistol to my head and blow my brains out, as to ask me to keep out of this convention, to which I have been duly elected. Then, gentlemen, what would you gain by this exclusion? Would not the charge of cowardice, certain to be brought against you, prove more damaging than that of amalgamation? Would you not be branded all over the land as dastardly hypocrites, professing principles which you have no wish or intention of carrying out? As a mere matter of policy or expediency, you will be wise to let me in. Everybody knows that I have been duly elected as a delegate by the city of Rochester. The fact has been broadly announced and commented upon all over the country. If I am not admitted, the public will ask, 'Where is Douglass? Why is he not seen in the convention?' and you would find that inquiry more difficult to answer[Pg 331] than any charge brought against you for favoring political or social equality; but, ignoring the question of policy altogether, and looking at it as one of right and wrong, I am bound to go into that convention; not to do so, would contradict the principle and practice of my life." With this answer, the committee retired from the car in which I was seated, and did not again approach me on the subject; but I saw plainly enough then, as well as on the morning when the Loyalist procession was to march through the streets of Philadelphia, that while I was not to be formally excluded, I was to be ignored by the Convention.
I listened very closely to this speech, not saying a word while it was being delivered; but when it was over, I said to the speaker and the committee, with all the emphasis I could muster: "Gentlemen, with all due respect, asking me to stay out of this convention, to which I've been duly elected, is like asking me to put a loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger. What would you gain by excluding me? Wouldn’t being accused of cowardice, which would surely happen, hurt you more than being called hypocrites? Wouldn't you be labeled across the country as cowardly phonies who preach principles you don’t actually intend to uphold? As a matter of strategy, it would be smart to let me in. Everyone knows I was elected as a delegate by the city of Rochester. This fact has been widely announced and discussed nationwide. If I’m not allowed in, the public will wonder, 'Where is Douglass? Why isn't he at the convention?' and that question will be harder for you to answer than any accusation against you for supporting political or social equality. But beyond the question of strategy, looking at it in terms of right and wrong, I have to attend that convention; not doing so would contradict the principles and practices of my life." With this reply, the committee left the train car where I was seated and didn't approach me again on the topic; but it was clear to me, as well as on the morning the Loyalist parade was set to go through the streets of Philadelphia, that while I wasn't going to be formally excluded, I was going to be ignored by the Convention.
I was the ugly and deformed child of the family, and to be kept out of sight as much as possible while there was company in the house. Especially was it the purpose to offer me no inducement to be present in the ranks of the procession of its members and friends, which was to start from Independence Hall on the first morning of its meeting. In good season, however, I was present at this grand starting point. My reception there confirmed my impression as to the policy intended to be pursued toward me. Few of the many I knew were prepared to give me a cordial recognition, and among these few I may mention Gen. Benj. F. Butler, who, whatever others may say of him, has always shown a courage equal to his convictions. Almost everybody else whom I met seemed to be ashamed or afraid of me. On the previous night I had been warned that I should not be allowed to walk through the city in the procession; fears had been expressed that my presence in it would so shock the prejudices of the people of Philadelphia, as to cause the procession to be mobbed.
I was the ugly and deformed child of the family, kept out of sight as much as possible when there were visitors in the house. The goal was to make sure I had no incentive to join the procession of family members and friends that was set to start from Independence Hall on the first morning of its meeting. However, I did show up at this grand starting point. My reception there confirmed my impression of the approach that was being taken toward me. Few of the many people I knew were willing to give me a warm welcome, and among those few was Gen. Benj. F. Butler, who, no matter what others say about him, has always shown courage equal to his beliefs. Almost everyone else I met seemed to be embarrassed or afraid of me. The night before, I had been warned that I wouldn't be allowed to walk through the city in the procession; there were concerns that my presence would shock the prejudices of the people of Philadelphia, potentially leading to the procession being mobbed.
The members of the convention were to walk two abreast, and as I was the only colored member of the convention, the question was, as to who of my brother members would consent to walk with me? The answer was not long in coming. There was one man present who was broad enough to take in the whole situation, and brave enough to meet the duty of the hour; one who was neither afraid nor ashamed to own me as a man and a brother; one man of the purest Caucasian type, a poet and a scholar, brilliant as a writer, eloquent as a speaker, and holding a high and influential position—the editor of a weekly journal having the largest circulation of any weekly paper in the city or State of New York—and that man was Mr. Theodore Tilton. He came to me in my isolation, seized me by the hand in a most brotherly way, and proposed to walk with me in the procession. I have been in many awkward and disagreeable positions in my life, when the presence of a friend would have been highly valued, but I think I never appreciated an act of courage and generous sentiment more highly than I did that of this brave young man, when we marched through the streets of Philadelphia on this memorable day.
The members of the convention were supposed to walk two by two, and since I was the only Black member, the question was which of my fellow members would agree to walk with me. The answer came quickly. There was one man who understood the whole situation and was brave enough to take on the responsibility of the moment; someone who wasn’t afraid or ashamed to acknowledge me as a man and a brother; one man of the purest Caucasian type, a poet and scholar, brilliant as a writer, eloquent as a speaker, and holding a high and influential position—the editor of the weekly journal with the largest circulation of any weekly newspaper in the city or State of New York—and that man was Mr. Theodore Tilton. He approached me in my isolation, took my hand in a very brotherly manner, and offered to walk with me in the procession. I've been in many awkward and uncomfortable situations in my life, where having a friend would have meant a lot, but I think I’ve never appreciated an act of courage and generous spirit more than I did from this brave young man, when we marched through the streets of Philadelphia on that memorable day.
Well! what came of all these dark forebodings of timid men? How was my presence regarded by the populace? and what effect did it produce? I will tell you. The fears of the loyal Governors who wished me excluded to propitiate the favor of the crowd, met with a signal reproof, their apprehensions were shown to be groundless, and they were compelled, as many of them confessed to me afterwards, to own themselves entirely mistaken. The people were more enlightened and had made more progress than their leaders had supposed. An act for which those leaders expected to be pelted[Pg 332] with stones, only brought to them unmeasured applause. Along the whole line of march my presence was cheered repeatedly and enthusiastically. I was myself utterly surprised by the heartiness and unanimity of the popular approval. We were marching through a city remarkable for the depth and bitterness of its hatred of the abolition movement; a city whose populace had mobbed anti-slavery meetings, burned temperance halls and churches owned by colored people, and burned down Pennsylvania Hall because it had opened its doors to people of different colors upon terms of equality. But now the children of those who had committed these outrages and follies, were applauding the very principles which their fathers had condemned. After the demonstrations of this first day, I found myself a welcome member of the convention, and cordial greeting took the place of cold aversion. The victory was short, signal, and complete.
Well! What came of all these dark worries of timid people? How did the public see me, and what impact did it have? I’ll tell you. The fears of the loyal Governors, who wanted me excluded to win the crowd’s favor, faced a strong rebuke; their concerns were proven unfounded, and they had to admit, as many of them told me later, that they were completely wrong. The people were more informed and had made more progress than their leaders thought. An action that those leaders feared would lead to being bombarded[Pg 332] with stones instead earned them overwhelming applause. Throughout the entire march, my presence received cheers repeatedly and enthusiastically. I was genuinely surprised by the warmth and unity of the public support. We were marching through a city known for its deep and intense hatred of the abolition movement; a city whose residents had attacked anti-slavery meetings, burned down temperance halls and churches owned by Black people, and set fire to Pennsylvania Hall for opening its doors to people of different colors equally. But now, the children of those who had committed these acts of violence and foolishness were praising the very principles their fathers had condemned. After the demonstrations of this first day, I found myself a welcomed member of the convention, and friendly greetings replaced cold hostility. The victory was brief, notable, and total.
This experience shows how little knowledge politicians have of what lies in the hearts of the people; that even statesmen seldom appreciate the many steps in progressive thought already achieved, before there is any popular demonstration. It shows, too, the commanding influence of personal dignity and lofty self-respect, incapable of being either flattered or coerced to take any position among men but one of absolute equality. And this was exactly the position taken by those women who opposed the Fourteenth Amendment. The Loyalists' Convention was held at a most critical period in the Nation's life; the policy and action of all the Southern States centered in its deliberations. Though Mr. Douglass would not hold the rightful representation of his race in abeyance to the success of the Convention, the pacification of the South, the policy of the border States, nor the life of the Nation, yet he too criticised the women who took precisely the same position in maintaining the dignity of sex against the action of the Republican party and the whole Northern policy of reconstruction. What to either class was the nation's life, so long as the flag gave them no protection against the humiliating distinctions of caste? What to them were boasted republican institutions, so long as their rights, privileges, and immunities as citizens were denied? White men could only be taught the lesson of a common humanity by just such resistance as these oppressed classes made. Protests and petitions, falling like seeds here and there on good ground, at last moved some liberal Republicans to action, and several bills recognizing the political existence of women were duly presented. The best results of the war have been the struggle and determination of black men and women for recognition in the reconstruction, for they have compelled the nation's consideration of the vital principles of republican government, and secured for both classes many rights and privileges heretofore unknown.[Pg 333]
This experience highlights how little understanding politicians have of what people truly feel; even leaders often overlook the many advancements in progressive thought that have already been made before there is any public outcry. It also illustrates the powerful influence of personal dignity and high self-respect, which cannot be swayed by flattery or coercion to take any position other than one of complete equality. This was exactly the stance taken by the women who opposed the Fourteenth Amendment. The Loyalists' Convention was held at a critical time in the nation's history; the policies and actions of all the Southern States were focused on its discussions. Although Mr. Douglass wouldn’t sacrifice the rightful representation of his race for the success of the Convention, the pacification of the South, the policies of the border States, or the nation's survival, he also criticized the women who took the same stance in defending the dignity of their gender against the actions of the Republican Party and the entire Northern reconstruction policy. What did either group care about the nation's survival, as long as the flag offered them no protection against the degrading distinctions of caste? What value did republican institutions hold for them, as long as their rights, privileges, and protections as citizens were denied? White men could only learn the lesson of shared humanity through the very resistance that these oppressed groups demonstrated. Protests and petitions, scattered like seeds on fertile ground, eventually inspired some liberal Republicans to take action, leading to the introduction of several bills recognizing the political existence of women. The greatest outcomes of the war have been the efforts and determination of Black men and women for recognition during reconstruction, as they compelled the nation to consider the essential principles of republican government and secured both groups many rights and privileges that had previously been unknown.[Pg 333]
The congressional action throughout this session proves that if all the friends of woman suffrage had been steadfast to their principles, and made a simultaneous effort against any further extension of "manhood suffrage" until woman too was recognized, the measure might have been carried; at least the agitation could have been prolonged and intensified in the halls of legislation fourfold. But in the general confusion as to what might or might not be sound policy, the most liberal took each onward step with doubt and hesitation. However, the persistent hostility to the amendments kept up the agitation in Congress, which at last culminated in a proposition for a Sixteenth Amendment, for which the National Woman Suffrage Association has, with one short interval, ever since petitioned.
The congressional actions during this session show that if all the supporters of women's suffrage had stayed true to their beliefs and worked together to oppose any more expansion of "manhood suffrage" until women were recognized too, the measure might have passed; at least the push for it could have been amplified and carried on in the legislative chambers. However, amidst the confusion about what might be the best approach, even the most progressive members moved forward with uncertainty and hesitation. Still, the ongoing opposition to the amendments kept the fight alive in Congress, which eventually led to a proposal for a Sixteenth Amendment, for which the National Woman Suffrage Association has continuously petitioned, with just one brief interruption.
The Sixteenth Amendment.—March 15, 1869, will be held memorable in all coming time as the day when the Hon. George W. Julian submitted a "Joint Resolution" to Congress to enfranchise the women of the Republic by proposing a Sixteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which reads as follows:
The Sixteenth Amendment.—March 15, 1869, will be remembered in the future as the day when the Hon. George W. Julian presented a "Joint Resolution" to Congress to give women in the Republic the right to vote by proposing a Sixteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which states:
Art. 16. The Right of Suffrage in the United States shall be based on citizenship, and shall be regulated by Congress; and all citizens of the United States, whether native or naturalized, shall enjoy this right equally without any distinction or discrimination whatever founded on sex.
Art. 16. The right to vote in the United States will be based on citizenship and will be governed by Congress; all citizens of the United States, whether born here or naturalized, will have this right equally without any distinction or discrimination based on gender.
Since our famous Bill of Rights was given to the world declaring all men equal, there has been no other proposition, in its magnitude, beneficence, and far-reaching consequences, so momentous as this. The specific work now before us, is to press the importance of this Amendment on the consideration of the people, and to urge Congress to its speedy adoption. Suffrage associations should be formed at once and newspapers established in every State to press Woman's Enfranchisement, and petitions should be circulated in every school district from Maine to California, praying the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, that when the Forty-second Congress assembles it may understand the work before it.—The Revolution, April 29, 1869.
Since our well-known Bill of Rights was introduced to the world proclaiming that all individuals are equal, there's been no other idea, in its significance, kindness, and wide-reaching impact, as monumental as this. Our current task is to emphasize the importance of this Amendment to the public and to encourage Congress to adopt it quickly. Suffrage groups should be formed immediately, and newspapers should be launched in every state to advocate for Women's Suffrage. Petitions should be distributed in every school district from Maine to California, urging the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, so that when the Forty-second Congress meets, it will understand the work ahead of it.—The Revolution, April 29, 1869.
Petitions for a Sixteenth Amendment were immediately printed and sent throughout the nation, and have been steadily rolling into Congress for the last thirteen years from all the State and National Woman Suffrage Associations. The Fortieth Congress was the first in which an amendment to the National Constitution in the interests of woman was ever proposed. In a series of editorials in The Revolution there was a decided expression of hostility towards the Fifteenth Amendment during all the time it was pending in Congress. In the issue of October 21, 1869, Mrs. Stanton said:
Petitions for a Sixteenth Amendment were quickly printed and sent out across the country, and they have been steadily coming into Congress for the past thirteen years from all the State and National Woman Suffrage Associations. The Fortieth Congress was the first to propose an amendment to the National Constitution in favor of women. In a series of editorials in The Revolution, there was a clear expression of opposition to the Fifteenth Amendment during the entire time it was being discussed in Congress. In the issue from October 21, 1869, Mrs. Stanton said:
All wise women should oppose the Fifteenth Amendment for two reasons. 1st. Because it is invidious to their sex. Look at it from what point you will,[Pg 334] and in every aspect, it reflects the old idea of woman's inferiority, her subject condition. And yet the one need to secure an onward step in civilization is a new dignity and self-respect in women themselves. No one can think that the pending proposition of "manhood suffrage" exalts woman, either in her own eyes or those of the man by her side, but it does degrade her practically and theoretically, just as black men were more degraded when all other men were enfranchised.
All wise women should oppose the Fifteenth Amendment for two reasons. First, because it is harmful to their gender. No matter how you look at it,[Pg 334], it reflects the old notion of women being inferior and subordinate. What’s truly needed for progress in society is a renewed sense of dignity and self-respect among women themselves. No one can believe that the proposed "manhood suffrage" enhances a woman's status, either in her own eyes or in the eyes of the man beside her; instead, it actually devalues her, both in practice and theory, just as black men were further degraded when all other men gained the right to vote.
2d. We should oppose the measure, because men have no right to pass it without our consent. When it is proposed to change the constitution or fundamental law of the State or Nation, all the people have a right to say what that change shall be.
2d. We should stand against the measure because men have no right to pass it without our agreement. When there's a proposal to change the constitution or fundamental law of the State or Nation, everyone has the right to decide what that change should be.
If women understood this pending proposition in all its bearings, theoretically and practically, there would be an overwhelming vote against the admission of another man to the ruling power of this nation, until they themselves were first enfranchised. There is no true patriotism, no true nobility in tamely and silently submitting to this insult. It is mere sycophancy to man; it is licking the hand that forges a new chain for our degradation; it is indorsing the old idea that woman's divinely ordained position is at man's feet, and not on an even platform by his side.
If women fully understood this upcoming issue in every way, both theoretically and practically, there would be a massive vote against allowing another man into the ruling power of this nation until they themselves were granted the right to vote. There is no real patriotism or true nobility in quietly accepting this insult. It’s just sycophancy toward men; it’s like kissing the hand that creates a new chain for our oppression; it’s supporting the outdated belief that a woman's rightful place is at a man's feet, rather than on an equal footing beside him.
By this edict of the liberal party, the women of this Republic are now to touch the lowest depths of their political degradation.
By this order from the liberal party, the women of this Republic are now set to experience the deepest levels of their political oppression.
June 3, 1869.
June 3, 1869.
The Fifteenth Amendment.—It is not to be believed that the nation which is now engaged in admitting the newly liberated negro to the plenitude of all political franchise, will much longer retain woman in a state of helotage, which is more degrading than ever, because being no longer shared by any of the male sex, it constitutes every woman the inferior of every man.—John Stuart Mill.
The Fifteenth Amendment.—It’s hard to believe that a nation currently allowing newly freed Black individuals all political rights will keep women in a condition of helotage for much longer, which is even more degrading now, since it’s no longer shared by any men, making every woman subordinate to every man.—John Stuart Mill.
It is this thought, so clearly seen and concisely stated by this distinguished English philosopher and statesman, that I have endeavored to press on the hearts of American reformers for the last four years. I have seen and felt, with a vividness and intensity that no words could express, the far-reaching consequences of this degradation of one-half the citizens of the republic, on the government, the Saxon race, and woman herself, in all her political, religious, and social relations. It is sufficiently humiliating to a proud woman to be reminded ever and anon in the polite world that she's a political nonentity; to have the fact gracefully mourned over, or wittily laughed at, in classic words and cultured voice by one's superiors in knowledge, wisdom and power; but to hear the rights of woman scorned in foreign tongue and native gibberish by everything in manhood's form, is enough to fire the souls of those who think and feel, and rouse the most lethargic into action.
It is this idea, so clearly articulated by this notable English philosopher and statesman, that I have tried to impress upon the hearts of American reformers for the last four years. I have seen and felt, with a clarity and intensity that no words can capture, the far-reaching consequences of this degradation of half the citizens of the republic, on the government, the Anglo-Saxon race, and women herself, in all her political, religious, and social connections. It is already humiliating enough for a proud woman to be reminded repeatedly in polite society that she is a political nonentity; to have this fact elegantly lamented or wittily mocked in refined language and cultured tones by those who are superior in knowledge, wisdom, and power; but to hear the rights of women belittled in foreign languages and native nonsense by anyone who presents as manly, is enough to ignite the souls of those who think and feel, and stimulate the most apathetic into action.
If, with weak and vacillating words and stammering tongue, our bravest men to-day say freedom to woman, what can we hope when the millions educated in despotism, ignorant of the philosophy of true government, religion and social life, shall be our judges and rulers? As you go down in the scale of manhood, the idea strengthens at every step, that woman was created for no higher purpose than to gratify the lust of man. Every daily paper heralds some rape on flying, hunted girls; and the[Pg 335] pitying eyes of angels see the holocaust of womanhood no journal ever notes. In thought I trace the slender threads that link these hideous, overt acts to creeds and codes that make an aristocracy of sex. When a mighty nation, with a scratch of the pen, frames the base ideas of the lower orders into constitutions and statute laws, and declares every serf, peasant and slave the rightful sovereigns of all womankind, they not only degrade every woman in her own eyes, but in that of every man on the footstool. A cultivated lady in Baltimore writes us a description of a colored republican reunion, held in that city a few evenings since, in which a colored gentleman offered the following toast: "Our wives and daughters—May the women of our race never unsex themselves by becoming strong-minded."
If our bravest men today express the idea of freedom for women with weak, hesitant words and a stammering voice, what can we expect when the millions raised under oppression, unaware of the principles of true governance, religion, and social interactions, become our judges and leaders? As we move further away from true manhood, the belief grows at every level that women were created solely to satisfy men’s desires. Every daily newspaper reports on some attack on vulnerable girls, while the[Pg 335] sympathetic gaze of angels witnesses the suffering of women that no publication has ever documented. In my mind, I trace the thin connections between these horrifying, overt actions and the beliefs and laws that create a male-dominated society. When a powerful nation, with a mere signature, transforms the basic ideas of lower classes into constitutions and laws, declaring every serf, peasant, and slave as the rightful rulers over all women, they not only diminish each woman's self-worth but also degrade her perception in the eyes of every man. A well-educated woman in Baltimore shared with us her account of a gathering of colored Republicans that took place in the city recently, where a colored man raised a toast: "Our wives and daughters—May the women of our race never lose their femininity by becoming strong-minded."
E. C. S.
E. C. S.
March 11, 1869.
March 11, 1869.
Drawing the Lines.—If the fifteenth article of Constitutional Amendments ever gets ratified and becomes the rule of suffrage, it will have at least one good effect. Woman will then know with what power she has to contend. It will be male versus female, the land over. All manhood will vote not because of intelligence, patriotism, property, or white skin, but because it is male, not female. All womanhood will be newly outraged and debased, not for ignorance, disloyalty, poverty, or a black skin, but because it is female, not male. Julia Ward Howe, of Boston, has some good thoughts in the Galaxy for March on this subject, in part as below:
Drawing the Lines.—If the fifteenth article of Constitutional Amendments ever gets ratified and becomes the rule of voting, it will at least have one positive outcome. Women will then understand the power they are up against. It will be men versus women throughout the country. All men will vote not based on intelligence, patriotism, property, or white skin, but simply because they are male, not female. All women will feel a renewed sense of outrage and degradation, not due to ignorance, disloyalty, poverty, or a black skin, but because they are female, not male. Julia Ward Howe, from Boston, has some insightful thoughts on this topic in the Galaxy for March, part of which is below:
"The Irish or German savage, after three years' cleansing, is admitted to the general enrollment of the community. The colored man, cleaner at the start than these, the natural ally of republican principles, trained to an understanding of freedom by a long experience of its opposite, stands next upon the record. Voting to him is a military necessity. It is the only weapon with which he can meet those whom law, custom, and prejudice have hitherto trebly armed against him. This admitted right of elective franchise to all men, brings one scarcely anticipated condition. It arrays now the whole male and female sexes in a new and unforeseen condition. The right of the elective franchise is now the recognition of the inalienable right of all men to the proper administration of their interests, and in America this right is founded upon the right of human intelligence to its own exercise, the right of human labor to its own recompense. The generous culture which allows woman in this country so large an extension of thought, and the social necessities which place in her hands so many of the nicer tasks hitherto kept for those of the other sex, alike commission her to claim and make good her right to the most simple, general and explicit method of expressing her will in the arena where wills are counted and respected."
"The Irish or German person, after three years of cleansing, is accepted into the general enrollment of the community. The person of color, starting off cleaner than these, a natural ally of republican principles, trained to understand freedom through a long experience of its opposite, stands next on the record. For him, voting is a military necessity. It’s the only weapon he has to confront those whom law, custom, and prejudice have historically triple-armed against him. This acknowledged right to vote for all men introduces a condition that was hardly anticipated. It now involves both men and women in a new and unexpected situation. The right to vote is now the recognition of every person's inalienable right to effectively manage their interests, and in America, this right is based on the human intellect's right to its own exercise, and the right of human labor to its fair reward. The generous culture in this country that allows women such a broad scope of thought, along with the social needs that place many of the finer tasks in her hands, which were previously reserved for the other sex, compels her to assert and establish her right to the simplest, most general, and clear method of expressing her will in the arena where wishes are counted and respected."
End of the Suffrage Agitation.—"The adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment will put an end to further agitation of the subject, for a long time at least, and thus leave the government of the country free to deal with its material interests, and with the more pressing questions of public policy and administration which will arise from time to time. We do not concur with those who predict that the question of suffrage for women will speedily demand public action or engross public attention, or that the right of men to hold office without distinction of color or race, will absorb any great degree of public time or public thought for a long while to come. Until some decided practical advantage is to be gained by a dominant political party,[Pg 336] neither of these questions will be pressed to a decision; and both of them have, in our judgment, commanded more attention already than they will soon command again. With the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment, we may fairly look upon the suffrage agitation as at an end, for the present political generation at all events; and that consideration, of itself, affords a very powerful argument in favor of its adoption."
End of the Suffrage Agitation.—"The passage of the Fifteenth Amendment will put a stop to further discussion on this topic, at least for a while, allowing the government to focus on the country’s material interests and the more immediate issues of public policy and administration that will come up over time. We don’t agree with those who think that the issue of women’s suffrage will quickly demand public action or draw significant public attention, or that the right of men to hold office without regard to color or race will take up much public time or thought anytime soon. Until there’s a clear practical benefit for a leading political party,[Pg 336] neither of these issues will be pushed to a decision; and both have, in our view, received more attention than they will again for a long time. With the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, we can reasonably consider the suffrage agitation to be over, at least for this current political generation; and that fact alone provides a strong argument in favor of its adoption."
Such is the conclusion of the New York Times. It is, too, the belief, hope, and intention of a large number of party leaders, both Republican and Democrat. But such reckon without their host. They seem to have no idea with whom they have to deal. Woman may not achieve her rights next year; may not vote for President in 1872. But if President Grant means by "let us have peace," an end to the struggle for Woman Suffrage, he must pray to some other than the God of Heaven, or the politicians of his party and country; for the latter can't stop the agitation, and the former won't. So President Pierce actually proclaimed peace with slavery at his inauguration; but John Brown was already whetting his sword, and the Almighty was forging his thunderbolts for that vessel of wrath, long fitted for destruction, and the day of peace is not even yet.
Such is the conclusion of the New York Times. It is also the belief, hope, and intention of many party leaders from both the Republican and Democratic sides. But they forget who they are really dealing with. They seem to have no idea about the forces at play. Women might not gain their rights next year; they might not vote for President in 1872. But if President Grant thinks that "let us have peace" means ending the fight for Woman Suffrage, he should pray to someone other than the God of Heaven, or to the politicians of his party and country; because they won’t stop the movement, and divine intervention won’t either. Just as President Pierce declared peace with slavery at his inauguration, John Brown was already sharpening his sword, and the Almighty was preparing His judgment for that vessel of wrath that was long destined for destruction. The day of peace is still not here.
P. P.
P. P.
Providence, June 7, 1869.
Providence, June 7, 1869.
Paulina Wright Davis on the Fifteenth Amendment.—My Dear Mrs. Stanton: Nothing but the great crisis pending in our movement would have drawn me from my retirement again into public strife and turmoil, but I feel it a duty to enter my protest with yours against the Fifteenth Amendment. Last winter, in Boston, I could only give my vote against it, for no Sixteenth had been proposed. It seemed almost a childish, selfish thing to do, when all the eloquence of a Boston platform was arrayed on the other side, and other women rose and said they were ready to step aside and let the colored man have his rights first. Not one said we will step aside and let the negro woman (whom I affirm, as I ever have, is better fitted for self-government than the negro man) have her rights before we press our claim, I could not but think it an easy thing for them to do, never having had the right they demanded. But if they truly believe that it will do for humanity what is claimed for it, I do not see why it should be called magnanimous for a woman to say, I yield to man just what he has always asserted as his, the right to rule. You have taken a bold stand, and I thank God for it. Though still in the minority, there is hope; for with a radical truth one shall chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight; and ere very long, before another convention, I trust many more will see with us that the Fifteenth Amendment, without the Sixteenth, is a compromise worse by far for the nation than any other ever passed. They could be repealed, this can not. Once settled, the waves of corruption will swamp our little bark freighted with all humanity, the women of all shades of color, and subject to every variety of tyranny and oppression, from the cramped feet of the Chinese to the cramped brains and waists of our own higher order of civilization.
Paulina Wright Davis on the Fifteenth Amendment.—My Dear Mrs. Stanton: Only the major crisis facing our movement would have pulled me out of my quiet life and back into public conflict, but I feel it's my duty to join you in protesting the Fifteenth Amendment. Last winter in Boston, I could only vote against it since there was no Sixteenth proposed. It felt almost childish and selfish to do so while all the powerful rhetoric from a Boston platform was on the other side, and other women said they were willing to step aside and let the Black man have his rights first. Not one of them said they would step aside to let the Black woman—who I believe, as I always have, is better suited for self-governance than the Black man—have her rights before we demand our own. I couldn't help but think it was easy for them to say this, having never possessed the rights they were demanding. But if they genuinely believe that this will benefit humanity as claimed, I don't see why it's considered generous for a woman to say, "I yield to man what he has always claimed as his right to rule." You've taken a courageous stand, and I thank God for that. Even though we are still in the minority, there's hope; with a radical truth, one can chase away a thousand, and two can put ten thousand to flight. Soon, before another convention, I trust many more will come to understand that the Fifteenth Amendment, without the Sixteenth, is a far worse compromise for the nation than any other ever passed. Those could be repealed, but this cannot. Once it's settled, the waves of corruption will overwhelm our small vessel carrying all of humanity—the women of all colors and subjected to every kind of tyranny and oppression, from the bound feet of the Chinese to the constrained thoughts and lives of our own so-called advanced civilization.
It seems specially strange to those of us who so well remember the motto of the old Abolitionists, "Immediate and unconditional emancipation," now to hear a half measure advocated. It was that stern principle of justice which attracted and held me in the old organization when those dearest to me went into the Liberty party. I had been trained in that school which[Pg 337] taught children that they must do right for right's sake, without hope of reward or fear of punishment, leaving the consequences with the All wise Ruler of events. Among the early Abolitionists this uncompromising spirit was manifest, and to me it was the real gospel.
It feels especially strange to those of us who remember the old Abolitionists' motto, "Immediate and unconditional emancipation," to now hear someone recommend a compromise. It was that strong principle of justice that drew me to the old organization when those closest to me joined the Liberty party. I had been raised in a school that taught children to do the right thing for the sake of doing right, without expecting a reward or fearing punishment, leaving the outcomes to the All-Wise Ruler of events. Among the early Abolitionists, this uncompromising spirit was clear, and to me, it was the true gospel.
I remember well the strong opposition to some who advocated the election of John C. Fremont, in 1856, among whom was Frederick Douglass. He was then denounced as a compromiser asking for a half loaf. He still asks for the half loaf; but others who stood firmly then for the whole have now come down to his plane, and desire above all things to finish up the anti-slavery work and have the negro man out of the way, and so give the Sixteenth Amendment the go-by, claiming manhood suffrage because it is the order of nature that man, however ignorant, debased and brutal he may be, shall always be first, because he always has been, yielding the whole argument to physical force, leaving the negro woman wholly out of the question, giving her over to the tyranny of the husband, which is nearly, if not quite, equal to that of the master. The anti-slavery platform still carefully guards itself against the woman question, while on the Suffrage platform the Fifteenth Amendment is considered essential. Miss Couzins was the only one who put the two amendments fairly before the Convention in Boston. After presenting the issues of the two amendments she trenched lightly on another topic still more offensive. She plead for the outcast woman in a most womanly way, but it did not prove to be a popular theme; but I think she is too true, pure, and noble not to do the same again and again.
I remember the strong opposition some people had to those who supported the election of John C. Fremont in 1856, including Frederick Douglass. He was criticized as a compromiser who was only asking for a half measure. He still requests that half measure; however, others who once stood firmly for complete freedom have now lowered their standards and just want to finish the anti-slavery work, wanting to push the Black man aside and ignore the Sixteenth Amendment. They argue for manhood suffrage on the grounds that it's natural for men, no matter how ignorant or brutal, to come first because they always have, using physical force to back their claim and completely disregarding the Black woman, who is left to endure her husband's oppression, which is almost as bad as that of a master. The anti-slavery movement still carefully avoids addressing women's issues, while the Suffrage movement considers the Fifteenth Amendment crucial. Miss Couzins was the only one who presented both amendments to the Convention in Boston. After discussing the issues of both amendments, she briefly touched on an even more controversial topic. She advocated for the marginalized woman in a very heartfelt manner, but it didn’t resonate well with the crowd. Still, I believe she is too genuine, pure, and noble not to continue speaking out again and again.
Last evening Miss Peckham, Mrs. Churchill, and Miss Couzins presented the suffrage question to a select audience in Providence. Each in her own way and from her own stand-point spoke well. I have not time to give you as elaborate a notice as I should like to of each, but will do so after the convention which the State Association propose holding next week, on Monday, the 14th, in Westerly, R. I. If you have helps to send us we shall welcome them cordially.
Last night, Miss Peckham, Mrs. Churchill, and Miss Couzins presented the suffrage issue to a select audience in Providence. Each of them spoke well in their own way and from their unique perspective. I don’t have time to provide a detailed account of each speaker right now, but I'll do so after the convention that the State Association plans to hold next week, on Monday, the 14th, in Westerly, R. I. If you have any resources to send us, we would greatly appreciate them.
P. W. Davis.
P. W. Davis.
Yours ever truly,
Yours ever truly,
July 22, 1869.
July 22, 1869.
Fifteenth Amendment—Its Ludicrous Side.—Almost every question has its ludicrous side. The champions of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution present an illustration. Conceding woman's equal right to the ballot with man, they still resist her claims on the ground that this is not her hour, but man's hour. "The black man's hour." As though justice and right were determined by clocks and almanacs. And as though some sort of terrible crisis could not be urged always. Admitting even that in fitness for the franchise, the white women, especially of the North, are eminently superior to the average of Southern men, of any color, they still demand that woman's claim be postponed to their favorite Fifteenth Amendment, which presumes every man in the nation of whatever color, grade, or race, the superior of woman, however exalted by culture, by wealth, by refinement, by patriotism, or whatever virtues, gifts, or graces. An Amendment, it is called, while preparing the way to lift into lordship absolute, every man, however mean and vile, over every woman, however divine her character!
Fifteenth Amendment—Its Ridiculous Side.—Almost every issue has its ridiculous side. The supporters of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution provide an example. While they acknowledge that women should have the same right to vote as men, they still push back against women's claims, arguing that this isn't her time, but rather man's time. "The black man's time." As if justice and fairness were determined by clocks and calendars. And as if there couldn't always be some sort of urgent crisis. Even if we agree that white women, particularly from the North, are far more qualified to vote than the average Southern man, regardless of color, they still insist that women's rights be delayed in favor of their cherished Fifteenth Amendment, which assumes that every man in the country, no matter his color, status, or race, is superior to women, regardless of their culture, wealth, refinement, patriotism, or any other virtues, talents, or qualities. They call it an Amendment while paving the way for every man, no matter how lowly and despicable, to hold authority over every woman, no matter how noble her character!
And then these "Amenders" presume to charge with "selfishness," "ignorance," "conservatism," and nobody knows what else, those who are[Pg 338] laboring night and day, in season, out of season, and at all seasons, under a banner on which was inscribed at the formation of their Association, "Equal Rights to all citizens; especially the Right of Suffrage, irrespective of Race, Color or Sex." Without pretending that the Association, or any of its members, has violated, in letter or in spirit, a word of this constitutional pledge, leading Abolitionists are charging "injustice," "insincerity," and "treachery to the cause of liberty," on actors in the Equal Rights Association, besides ignorance, selfishness, and conservatism, because they will not turn aside from their holy purpose to promote a measure that basely, grossly insults one-half, and that the best half of the human race. Were the subject not too serious for mirth, such accusations, coming from such a source, would be simply ludicrous. As it is, many will laugh at such absurdity. The Fifteenth Amendment, at best, is but a trick, a device (as was the Fourteenth with its word male three times burned into a single period), of as corrupt and unprincipled a school of politicians as ever disgraced the name of legislation, to save themselves and their party in place and power. It is told us in all seriousness, that the word male is not in the Fifteenth Amendment, as though that atoned for its infamy, and rendered it worthy of woman's support. Why should the word male be in it? Three times solemnly muttered in the Fourteenth, it needed no repetition in the Fifteenth.
And then these "Amenders" think they can accuse those who are[Pg 338] working tirelessly, day in and day out, under a banner that declared at the start of their Association, "Equal Rights to all citizens; especially the Right of Suffrage, regardless of Race, Color or Sex," of "selfishness," "ignorance," "conservatism," and a bunch of other things. Without claiming that the Association or any of its members has broken, in letter or spirit, a single word of this constitutional promise, leading Abolitionists are accusing the members of the Equal Rights Association of "injustice," "insincerity," and "betrayal of the cause of liberty," along with ignorance, selfishness, and conservatism, because they won’t abandon their righteous goal to support a measure that grossly insults one-half, and indeed the better half, of humanity. If the matter weren't so serious, such accusations from such a source would be laughable. As it stands, many will find this absurd. The Fifteenth Amendment is, at best, just a trick, a ploy (just like the Fourteenth with its word male mentioned three times in a single clause), created by some of the most corrupt and unprincipled politicians to ever disgrace the name of legislation, aimed at preserving their position and power. We're told quite seriously that the word male isn't in the Fifteenth Amendment, as if that somehow makes it acceptable and worthy of women's support. Why should the word male even be included? It was stated three times in the Fourteenth, and it didn’t need repeating in the Fifteenth.
Another ludicrous view of this subject, is the zeal with which so many women are laboring to hoist all mandom into power over them. Power as omnipotent as ignorance, prejudice, and love of domination can possibly create. A little reflection, one would think, might show and satisfy the blindest that the opposition they encounter already is quite sufficient, without augmenting it a thousand fold, and anchoring it fast in the constitution of the country. True, they are assured by radical Republicans that as soon as the negro man is secured, the colored woman and the white woman also shall be equally distinguished. Had this age an Æsop, he would tell again his story of the goat and the fox at the bottom of the well. How to get out, of course, was the question. After long and anxious thought, a happy expedient struck the fox. "Do you, friend goat, rear yourself up against the wall, as near the top as possible, and from the tip of your horns I can spring out, and then it will be quite easy to pull you up by the horns also." No quicker spoken than done. Out leaped the fox, and was safe. Then the goat demanded his release, as promised. "You old fool!" answered Reynard! "Had you half as much brain as beard, you would know that I would never risk my life to save yours," and away he ran. The whole history of American politics is assurance, but pre-eminently so is the history of present parties, that a party victory would scarcely be risked to save all womankind from consuming fire. A very few such elections as the late one in Virginia, would subdue immensely the present Republican ardor on the colored man's rights.
Another ridiculous perspective on this topic is the enthusiasm with which so many women are trying to elevate all men into power over them. Power that is as overwhelming as ignorance, prejudice, and a desire for domination can create. One would think that a little reflection might reveal to even the most blind that the opposition they face is already quite enough, without increasing it a thousandfold and embedding it firmly in the country’s constitution. True, they are assured by radical Republicans that once the rights of Black men are secured, both Black and white women will also be equally recognized. If this age had an Aesop, he would tell again the story of the goat and the fox at the bottom of the well. The question, of course, was how to get out. After much thought, the fox came up with a clever plan. “You, friend goat, lean against the wall, as close to the top as you can, and from the tips of your horns, I can leap out, and then it will be easy to pull you up by your horns too.” No sooner said than done. The fox jumped out and was safe. Then the goat asked for his promised release. “You old fool!” answered Reynard! “If you had half as much sense as you have beard, you’d know I would never risk my life to save yours,” and off he ran. The entire history of American politics is filled with empty promises, but especially in the case of current parties, a party victory would hardly be risked to save all women from burning. Just a few elections like the recent one in Virginia would greatly diminish the current Republican enthusiasm for the rights of Black men.
But most ludicrous of all is it to hear old anti-slavery leaders and teachers referring to the past for defense of their present hostility, and challenging us to re-read that history and be ashamed of our present course. But when in the past did Wendell Phillips ever teach that a half loaf is better than no bread, if poisoned, or if it were snatched or stolen from a family of starving orphans? It was not in 1839, nor '49, nor '59, that he held or inculcated such[Pg 339] a philosophy. The motto of the Anti-Slavery Standard was and is "Without Concealment—Without Compromise." Now under that sublime evangel women are instructed to bridge over the gulf to colored male enfranchisement with their own imperiled, nay, sacrificed equal rights. Better now the "half loaf," festering, putrid with the poison of compromise, than no bread! Better that the black man have his half loaf, though he steal it from his mother and sisters, more hungry, starving, and dying, than himself!
But the most ridiculous thing is to hear old anti-slavery leaders and educators talking about the past to justify their current opposition, urging us to look back at history and be ashamed of how we’re acting now. When in the past did Wendell Phillips ever teach that a half loaf is better than no bread, especially if it’s poisoned or taken from a family of starving orphans? It wasn’t in 1839, or ’49, or ’59 that he promoted such a philosophy. The motto of the Anti-Slavery Standard was and still is "Without Concealment—Without Compromise." Now, under that noble ideal, women are told to compromise their own threatened, even sacrificed, equal rights in order to support the fight for colored men’s voting rights. It’s better to accept the “half loaf,” rotten and tainted with the poison of compromise, than to have no bread at all! It’s better for the black man to have his half loaf, even if he takes it from his mother and sisters, who are hungrier, suffering, and dying.
Oh, no! it was never so in the past. Terrible to conservatism as to slavery itself, was the mighty war-cry of the Abolitionists for twenty years. "No union with slaveholders!" No compromise with injustice for an election, or for an hour, not even for a good ultimate purpose! Colonization proposed a double purpose, the final extinction of slavery, and a meanwhile redemption of Africa from the midnight gloom and horror of heathenism. "Get thee behind me, Satan," was the thundering response and just rebuke of it by the Abolitionists! "Let us compromise with the South, and buy up their slaves," said Elihu Burritt and his overgrown mushroom convention, at Cleveland. "Our curse on your slave trade, foreign and domestic," was the answering response of the Garrisonian Invincibles. Many of the oldest leaders and officers of the society refused even to help an escaped slave-mother buy her children of her old master. "Let us form a Republican party," said foxy politicians, and fight the extension of slavery into Kansas, or any other new territory with ballot, bullet, and battle-axe, if need be, but leaving the damnable system in the States with its 4,000,000 of victims and their posterity still chained under constitutional guarantee and the army and navy of the nation. "No union with slaveholders," rung out the lips and lungs of the Abolitionists, in tones that shook the land from Maine to Mexico! "Fremont and Jessie" harnessed by constitutional compromise to the Juggernaut car of slavery, were not to be preferred by them to Beelzebub Buchanan himself. "No union with slave-holders," though Gabriel were candidate and chief captain of their hosts!
Oh no! It was never like this in the past. Terrible to conservatism as to slavery itself was the powerful battle cry of the Abolitionists for twenty years. "No union with slaveholders!" No compromise with injustice for an election, or even for a moment, not even for a good ultimate purpose! Colonization suggested a dual purpose: the eventual end of slavery and, in the meantime, the redemption of Africa from the dark horror of heathenism. "Get behind me, Satan," was the resounding response and rightful rebuke from the Abolitionists! "Let’s compromise with the South and buy their slaves," said Elihu Burritt and his inflated mushroom convention in Cleveland. "A curse on your slave trade, foreign and domestic," was the answering reply of the Garrisonian Invincibles. Many of the oldest leaders and officers of the society wouldn’t even help an escaped slave mother buy her children from her old master. "Let’s form a Republican party," said crafty politicians, and fight the expansion of slavery into Kansas or any other new territory with votes, weapons, and whatever else it takes, but allowing the damnable system to stay in the States with its 4 million victims and their descendants still chained under constitutional protection and the army and navy of the nation. "No union with slaveholders!" the Abolitionists shouted, their voices echoing from Maine to Mexico! "Fremont and Jessie" tied by constitutional compromise to the Juggernaut of slavery were not preferred over Beelzebub Buchanan himself. "No union with slaveholders," even if Gabriel himself were the candidate and chief captain of their hosts!
Now what do we behold? Wendell Phillips has shivered the English language all to pieces in attempts to describe the baseness and utter worthlessness of the Republican party. The president has sold "the poisonous porridge called his soul," to Virginia rebels and New York and Pennsylvania aristocrats and bondholders, and yet Mr. Phillips persists in demanding that woman lay her own right of suffrage at the presidential and Republican party feet, while they so mould and manipulate the black male element, as by it, if possible, to save themselves from utter rout and destruction. Thanks be to God, some of us learned the old anti-slavery lesson from Wendell Phillips better. And we dare take our appeal from the Wendell Phillips of to-day, to him of twenty years ago. And we do "dare to look our past history in the face." And moreover, we look with triumph, and with hearts swelling with fervent gratitude that our anti-slavery teachers schooled us so well. What is it but ludicrous (if mirth be possible on such a question) for those who are thus seeking the enfranchisement of but half of even the fragmentary colored race, to charge with selfishness, compromise, and treachery, the association, or any of its members, that are earnestly laboring to extend the ballot to every American citizen, irrespective of all distinctions of race, complexion or sex? Can such accusers look each other in the face and not laugh? Cato wondered[Pg 340] that two augurs could meet with gravity. What would he do here? And still more preposterous, if not ludicrous, is it, when woman voluntarily stops and becomes the agent of her own degradation, and with her own hands builds barriers against her own advancement; piling up opposition, Pelion upon Ossa, when the majority against her, even in New York and New England, is already appalling? And then for us to be referred to the teachings and experiences of the past for lessons in compromise, cold, calculating compromise, such as Abolitionists ever blasted with the breath of their nostrils, and scourged from their presence with fiery indignation! The Equal Rights Association is not to be turned aside by any seductive devices from its high and holy purpose of enfranchisement for all American citizens, knowing no race, no color, no sex.
Now what do we see? Wendell Phillips has shattered the English language in attempts to describe the lowliness and complete worthlessness of the Republican party. The president has sold "the poisonous porridge called his soul" to Virginia rebels and aristocrats and bondholders from New York and Pennsylvania, yet Mr. Phillips continues to insist that women should lay down their own right to vote at the feet of the president and the Republican party, while they manipulate and shape the Black male vote just to save themselves from total defeat and destruction. Thank God, some of us learned the old anti-slavery lessons from Wendell Phillips better. We dare to appeal to the Wendell Phillips of today, not just the one from twenty years ago. We do "dare to look our past history in the face." Moreover, we look back triumphantly, with hearts full of gratitude that our anti-slavery teachers educated us so well. How ridiculous is it for those seeking the voting rights of only half of the already fragmented colored population to accuse those working hard to extend the vote to every American citizen—regardless of race, skin color, or gender—of selfishness, compromise, and betrayal? Can such accusers look each other in the eye without laughing? Cato questioned how two augurs could meet with seriousness. What would he think in this situation? Even more absurd, if not laughable, is it when women voluntarily stop and become agents of their own degradation, building barriers to their own progress; stacking up opposition, one upon another, when the majority against them, even in New York and New England, is already shocking? And then for us to be referred to the teachings and experiences of the past for lessons in compromise—cold, calculated compromise that the Abolitionists always rejected with disdain and outrage! The Equal Rights Association will not be swayed from its noble and righteous goal of enfranchisement for all American citizens, knowing no race, no color, no sex.
P. P.
P. P.
Oct. 7, 1869.
Oct. 7, 1869.
Dear Revolution:—Pardon a few plain words from an earnest friend of human suffrage.
Dear Revolution:—Please forgive some straightforward words from a sincere supporter of human rights.
Your course opposing the Fifteenth Amendment and Political (combined with moral) Temperance action, seems to me absolutely suicidal, and must and will logically leave you to the tender mercies of negro-drivers or haters and rumsellers and their sympathizers. How much human suffrage can hope for at their hands, judge ye!
Your stance against the Fifteenth Amendment and the combined moral and political Temperance efforts seems completely self-destructive to me, and will inevitably lead you to the mercy of those who exploit and hate Black individuals, as well as liquor sellers and their supporters. How much human rights can we expect from them, you tell me!
J. K. Phœnix.
J. K. Phœnix.
P. S.—To say I am utterly astonished and grieved at The Revolution therein but feebly expresses my feelings. But we shall see what you will effect by it.
P.S.—To say I am completely shocked and saddened by The Revolution there barely captures my emotions. But we will see what you accomplish with it.
The Revolution criticises, "opposes," the fifteenth amendment, not for what it is, but for what it is not. Not because it enfranchises black men, but because it does not enfranchise all women, black and white. It is not the little good it proposes, but the greater evil it perpetuates that we deprecate. It is not that in the abstract we do not rejoice that black men are to become the equals of white men, but that we deplore the fact that two millions black women, hitherto the political and social equals of the men by their side, are to become subjects, slaves of these men. Our protest is not that all men are lifted out of the degradation of disfranchisement, but that all women are left in. The Revolution and the National Woman's Suffrage Association make woman's suffrage their test of loyalty, not negro suffrage, not Maine law or prohibition. Do you believe women should vote? is the one and only question in our catechism.
The Revolution criticizes, "opposes," the fifteenth amendment, not for what it is, but for what it isn’t. Not because it gives voting rights to black men, but because it doesn’t give voting rights to all women, both black and white. It’s not the small benefit it offers, but the bigger harm it continues that we condemn. It's not that we don’t celebrate the equality of black men and white men in theory, but that we regret the reality that two million black women, who have been political and social equals to the men beside them, will be made subjects, slaves to these men. Our objection is not that all men are raised out of the shame of being disenfranchised, but that all women remain stuck in that situation. The Revolution and the National Woman's Suffrage Association consider women's suffrage the true test of loyalty, not black suffrage, not Maine law, or prohibition. Do you believe women should vote? is the one and only question in our catechism.
In this period of reconstruction the Woman Suffrage Associations sent their first delegates to National political conventions. The appointment of Susan B. Anthony to the Democratic Presidential Convention was a new and unlooked-for sensation.
In this time of rebuilding, the Woman Suffrage Associations sent their first delegates to national political conventions. Susan B. Anthony's appointment to the Democratic Presidential Convention was a surprising and unexpected development.
The Revolution, New York, July 9, 1868.
The Revolution, New York, July 9, 1868.
Susan B. Anthony in Tammany Hall.—Our readers will remember, some time ago, it was announced in all the daily journals that Susan B. Anthony was appointed a delegate to the Democratic Convention, to represent the woman's suffrage movement in this country. She accordingly applied by letter for a hearing in the Convention. Her letter was presented[Pg 341] to the Convention by the President, ex-Governor Horatio Seymour, read by the clerk in a loud, clear voice, received a most respectful and enthusiastic hearing, and was referred to the Committee on Resolutions.
Susan B. Anthony in Tammany Hall.—Our readers may recall that some time ago, it was reported in all the daily newspapers that Susan B. Anthony was chosen as a delegate to the Democratic Convention to represent the women's suffrage movement in the country. She then wrote a letter requesting to speak at the Convention. Her letter was presented[Pg 341] to the Convention by the President, former Governor Horatio Seymour, read aloud by the clerk in a clear and strong voice, received a very respectful and enthusiastic response, and was referred to the Committee on Resolutions.
As our readers would, no doubt, like to know what radical doctrines the Democratic party are now sufficiently developed to applaud, we give the letter below. Let no one say that our devotion to the education of this party for the last four years has been in vain:
As our readers probably want to know what radical ideas the Democratic Party is now ready to support, we provide the letter below. Let no one claim that our commitment to educating this party over the past four years has been for nothing:
Woman's Suffrage Association, 37 Park Row, }
Room 20, New York, July 4, 1868. }Woman's Suffrage Association, 37 Park Row, }
Room 20, New York, July 4, 1868. }Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mrs. Horace Greeley, } Central Com.
Susan B. Anthony, Abby Hopper Gibbons, }
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mrs. Horace Greeley, } Central Com.
Susan B. Anthony, Abby Hopper Gibbons, }To the President and Members of the National Democratic Convention:
To the President and Members of the National Democratic Convention:
Gentlemen:—I address you by letter to ask the privilege of appearing before you during the sittings of this Convention, to demand the enfranchisement of the women of America, the only class of citizens wholly unrepresented in the Government, the only class (not guilty of crime) taxed without representation, tried without a jury of their peers, governed without their consent. And yet in this class are found many of your most noble, virtuous, law-abiding citizens, who possess all the requisite qualifications of voters. Women have property and education. We are not "idiots, lunatics, paupers, criminals, rebels," nor do we "bet on elections." We lack, according to your constitutions, but one qualification—that of sex—which is insurmountable, and, therefore, equivalent to a deprivation of the suffrage; in other words, the "tyranny of taxation without representation."
Gentlemen:—I’m reaching out to request the opportunity to speak with you during the sessions of this Convention to advocate for the voting rights of women in America, the only group of citizens completely unrepresented in Government, the only group (not guilty of any crime) that is taxed without representation, tried without a jury of their peers, and governed without their consent. Yet, within this group are many of your most esteemed, virtuous, law-abiding citizens who meet all the qualifications to vote. Women have property and education. We are not "idiots, lunatics, needy individuals, criminals, rebels," nor do we "gamble on elections." According to your constitutions, we lack only one qualification—that of being female—which is an impossible barrier, and thus amounts to a denial of the right to vote; in other words, the "tyranny of taxation without representation."
We desire to lay before you this violation of the great fundamental principle of our Government for your serious consideration, knowing that minorities can be moved by principles as majorities are only by votes. Hence we look to you for the initiative step in the redress of our grievances.
We want to bring to your attention this violation of the essential principle of our Government for your serious consideration, understanding that minorities can be influenced by principles just as majorities are only by votes. Therefore, we look to you to take the first step in addressing our grievances.
The party in power have not only failed to heed our innumerable petitions, asking the right of suffrage, poured into Congress and State Legislatures, but they have submitted a proposition to the several States to insert the word "male" in the Federal Constitution, where it has never been, and thereby put up a new barrier against the enfranchisement of woman. This fresh insult to the women of the Republic, who so bravely shared the dangers and sacrifices of the late war, has roused us to more earnest and persistent efforts to secure those rights, privileges, and immunities that belong to every citizen under Government. As you hold the Constitution of the fathers to be a sacred legacy to us and our children forever, we ask you to save it from this desecration, which deprives one-half our citizens of the right of representation in the Government. Over this base proposition the nation has stood silent and indifferent. While the dominant party has with one hand lifted up two million black men and crowned them with the honor and dignity of citizenship, with the other it has dethroned fifteen million white women—their own mothers and sisters, their own wives and daughters—and cast them under the heel of the lowest orders of manhood.
The ruling party has not only ignored our countless petitions for the right to vote that we've sent to Congress and State Legislatures, but they've also put forward a proposal to the states to add the word "male" to the Federal Constitution, where it has never been before, creating a new barrier against women's voting rights. This latest insult to the women of our nation, who bravely shared the risks and sacrifices of the recent war, has motivated us to push harder and more persistently to secure the rights, privileges, and freedoms that every citizen deserves under our Government. Since you consider the Constitution crafted by our founders to be a sacred inheritance for us and future generations, we urge you to protect it from this desecration, which denies half of our citizens their right to representation in our Government. The nation has remained silent and indifferent to this disgraceful proposal. While the ruling party has, with one hand, uplifted two million Black men and granted them the honor and dignity of citizenship, with the other hand, it has stripped fifteen million white women—their own mothers and sisters, their own wives and daughters—of their rights and subjected them to the lowest forms of male dominance.
We appeal to you, not only because you, being in a minority, are in a position to consider principles, but because you have been the party heretofore to extend the suffrage. It was the Democratic party that fought[Pg 342] most valiantly for the removal of the "property qualification" from all white men, and thereby placed the poorest ditch-digger on a political level with the proudest millionaire. This one act of justice to workingmen has perpetuated your power, with but few interruptions, from that time until the war. And now you have an opportunity to confer a similar boon on the women of the country, and thus possess yourselves of a new talisman that will insure and perpetuate your political power for decades to come.
We reach out to you, not just because you, being a minority, have the perspective to consider principles, but also because you've been the group that has previously expanded voting rights. It was the Democratic Party that fought[Pg 342] the hardest to eliminate the "property qualification" for all white men, allowing even the poorest laborer to stand on the same political ground as the wealthiest millionaire. This one act of fairness towards working people has helped maintain your influence, with only a few interruptions, from then until the war. Now, you have the chance to grant a similar benefit to the women of the nation, giving you a new tool that will secure and extend your political power for many years to come.
While the first and highest motive we would urge on you, is the recognition in all your action of the great principles of justice and equality that are the foundation of a republican government, it is not unworthy to remind you that the party that takes this onward step will reap its just reward. It needs but little observation to see that the tide of progress in all countries is setting toward the enfranchisement of woman, and that this advance step in civilization is destined to be taken in our day.
While the main reason we want to stress is the importance of recognizing justice and equality in everything you do, which are essential for a democratic government, it's also worth noting that the group that embraces this progressive path will earn its fair reward. It doesn’t take much observation to notice that the movement for women's rights is gaining momentum in all countries, and that this significant advancement in civilization is set to happen in our time.
We conjure you, then, to turn from the dead questions of the past to the vital issues of the hour. The brute form of slavery ended with the war. The black man is a soldier and a citizen. He holds the bullet and the ballot in his own right hand. Consider his case settled. Those weapons of defense and self-protection can never be wrenched from him. Yours the responsibility now to see that no new chains be forged by bondholders and monopolists for enslaving the labor of the country.
We urge you to move away from the outdated questions of the past and focus on the important issues of today. The harsh reality of slavery ended with the war. The Black man is now both a soldier and a citizen. He possesses both the bullet and the ballot in his own hands. Consider his status resolved. Those tools of defense and self-protection can never be taken from him. It’s your responsibility now to ensure that no new chains are created by bondholders and monopolists to enslave the labor of the nation.
The late war, seemingly in the interest of slavery, was fought by unseen hands for the larger liberties of the whole people. It was not a war between North and South, for the principle of class and caste knows neither latitude or longitude. It was a war of ideas—of Aristocracy and Democracy—of Capital and Labor—the same that has convulsed the race through the ages, and will continue to convulse future generations, until Justice and Equality shall reign upon the earth.
The recent war, apparently waged for the sake of slavery, was actually fought by unseen forces for the greater freedoms of everyone. It wasn't just a conflict between North and South, because the issues of class and caste aren't limited by geography. It was a battle of ideas—between Aristocracy and Democracy—between Capital and Labor—the same struggle that's shaken humanity throughout history and will keep affecting future generations until Justice and Equality prevail on Earth.
I desire, therefore, an opportunity to urge on this Convention the wisdom of basing its platform on universal suffrage as well as universal amnesty, from Maine to California, and thus take the first step toward a peaceful and permanent reconstruction.
I therefore want to take this opportunity to encourage this Convention to base its platform on universal voting rights as well as universal forgiveness, from Maine to California, and start the journey towards a peaceful and lasting reconstruction.
In behalf of the Woman's Suffrage Association,
In support of the Woman's Suffrage Association,
Susan B. Anthony.
Susan B. Anthony.
Respectfully yours,
Respectfully yours,
The comments of the daily city press[110] on this "innovation" were[Pg 343] as varied as amusing. During the reading of this document, several members of the Equal Rights Association occupied conspicuous seats in the Convention. This was the first time in the history of that party that any effort had been made to secure the attendance of their mothers, wives, and daughters. But observing that women had been an element of enthusiasm in Republican meetings all through the war and the period of reconstruction, and seeing the improved tone and manner their presence had given to the speeches, and the general conduct of the proceedings, it was thought best to secure the same influence henceforth in Democratic conventions. The attempt at this time was quite satisfactory and successful. A large number of handsomely-dressed ladies helped to swell the immense audience that assembled in Tammany Hall, one of the most spacious and elegant[Pg 344] auditoriums in the city, to be dedicated on that day, July 4th, 1868, to Democratic principles.
The comments from the daily city press[110] about this "innovation" were[Pg 343] as varied as they were entertaining. During the reading of this document, several members of the Equal Rights Association took prominent seats in the Convention. This was the first time in the history of that party that there had been any effort to ensure the attendance of their mothers, wives, and daughters. Recognizing that women had been a source of energy at Republican meetings throughout the war and the reconstruction period, and noticing the positive impact their presence had on the speeches and the overall proceedings, it was deemed best to bring that same influence into Democratic conventions moving forward. The attempt at this time was quite satisfactory and successful. A large number of well-dressed ladies helped to fill the huge audience that gathered in Tammany Hall, one of the most spacious and elegant[Pg 344] auditoriums in the city, which was being dedicated that day, July 4th, 1868, to Democratic principles.
As there were strong hopes that that party was about to take some new departure; some onward step; even to nominate for their leader so radical a man as Salmon P. Chase, a large number of Radicals and Liberals were present. Had the Democrats made that nomination, and put a woman suffrage plank in their platform, they would probably have carried the election. But they timidly clung to their old moorings, nominated a man who had an unpopular war record, and submitted a platform without one vital principle with which to rouse the enthusiasm of the people.
As there were strong hopes that the party was about to take some new direction; some positive step; even to nominate a leader as progressive as Salmon P. Chase, many Radicals and Liberals showed up. If the Democrats had made that nomination and included a women’s suffrage plank in their platform, they probably would have won the election. But they hesitated and stuck to their old ways, nominated a man with an unpopular war record, and presented a platform lacking any important principles to inspire the people's enthusiasm.
Thus was the movement inaugurated of sending women as delegates to both Republican and Democratic Presidential conventions, giving rise to the agitation of the suffrage question on new platforms. With what success the example has been followed, the records from time to time fully show.
Thus began the movement of sending women as delegates to both Republican and Democratic Presidential conventions, leading to the discussion of the suffrage issue on new platforms. The records clearly show how successful this example has been followed over time.
FOOTNOTES:
[108] Going over to the Copperheads.—As we have received several letters from radical friends, warning us that we are going over to the copperheads, for their comfort and instruction we will state some part of our political creed.
[108] Joining the Copperheads.—Since we've gotten several letters from our more extreme supporters, cautioning us that we are aligning with the Copperheads, for their reassurance and clarity, we will share some aspects of our political beliefs.
1. We believe that suffrage is a natural right that belongs to every man and woman of sound mind, without any qualification of property, education, or sex, and moreover, that no reconstruction is worthy the name that does not secure this right to the humblest citizen under government.
1. We believe that the right to vote is a natural right that belongs to every man and woman of sound mind, without any requirements related to property, education, or gender. Furthermore, we think that no reconstruction can truly be called such unless it guarantees this right to the most ordinary citizen under government.
2. We believe that both the spirit and the letter of the Federal Constitution and the Declaration of Independence give Congress the right to secure a republican form of government in every State in the Union, and if they had done their duty at the end of the war and proclaimed universal suffrage and universal amnesty, North and South, the Republican party would not have been floundering about in the fogs and mists of statesmanship to-day, without one inspiring party cry, or one grand motto inscribed upon their banners, to carry them through the coming Presidential campaign.
2. We believe that both the intent and the text of the Federal Constitution and the Declaration of Independence give Congress the authority to ensure a republican form of government in every State in the Union. If Congress had fulfilled their responsibilities at the end of the war by announcing universal voting rights and general forgiveness for everyone, North and South, the Republican Party wouldn't be struggling today without a clear party message or a strong slogan on their banners to guide them through the upcoming Presidential campaign.
3. We believe that behind the rights of the Federal Government and the rights of the several States are fundamental rights more sacred than either, namely the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and happiness; that out of these rights all just governments flow, and whatever hinders the growth of the individual, restricts his liberty, and destroys his happiness, is tyranny, and it is his sacred duty to resist it to the death, as it is that of the State to resist the Federal Government, in order to secure larger liberty for its whole people. Rebellion in defense of justice, mercy, and the higher law is always in order. Inasmuch as the rights of the individual are above all constitutions, customs, creeds, and codes, it is the duty of the general government to protect these rights against all intermediate authorities.
3. We believe that above the rights of the Federal Government and the rights of the individual States are fundamental rights that are more sacred than either, specifically the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all just governments arise from these rights, and anything that hampers the growth of the individual, limits their liberty, and undermines their happiness is tyranny. It is their sacred duty to resist it to the death, just as it is the responsibility of the State to oppose the Federal Government, to ensure greater liberty for all its people. Rebellion in defense of justice, mercy, and a higher moral law is always justified. Since the rights of the individual take precedence over all constitutions, customs, beliefs, and codes, it is the duty of the general government to safeguard these rights against all other authorities.
4. While we have always demanded emancipation and enfranchisement for the African race, we have no great enthusiasm for "negro suffrage" as a party cry, because it is too narrow and partial for the hour. In '56, Republicans asked aid and comfort of Abolitionists, because they were opposed to the extension of slavery, but the Abolitionists, who demanded "immediate emancipation," scouted the proposition; non-extension, said they, is by no means grappling with the principle; shutting up slavery where it is, is a step in the right direction, and will eventually strangle the whole system, but to educate the people into an idea we need the enthusiasm of a principle. When we say "slavery is a sin," and therefore demand "immediate emancipation," we end the evil and its extension in the same breath. So we say, to-day, to the Abolitionists and Republicans, we can not accept your platform, because it is not based on the idea that suffrage is a natural right, we admit that "negro suffrage" is a step in the right direction, but to educate the people to this partial demand even, we need the enthusiasm of a principle, which you do not proclaim, so long as you ask simply the extension of suffrage to two million men, instead of its universal application to every citizen of the republic. As the greater includes the less, when we say universal enfranchisement, we claim all that the most radical Abolitionists and Republicans claim and much more. Now, if the copperheads are educated up to this point, we are happy to give them the right hand of fellowship, and shall hope to be one of the delegates to the Tammany Hall Convention. We have read their platform, as set forth in four mortal columns of the World, and really do not see much to choose between it and the Chicago platform. In fact, with the two Democratic candidates, Gen. Grant and Chief-Justice Chase, and their twin platforms, stump orators will have a hard task to prove why the people should prefer one candidate or party to the other. The aristocratic principle—the government of the many by the few—has been tried six thousand years in every latitude and longitude, and under every imaginable form, and the nations based on this principle have all alike perished. We have proclaimed the true democratic idea on this continent, but never lived it. Now the work of this generation is to realize what the fathers declared a government of equality. The ballot is the symbol of this idea, and it is not too much to demand to-day that it be placed in the hand of every citizen. It is not too much to ask that this idea, baptized in the blood of two revolutions, be now made the corner-stone of the republic, the test of loyalty to the Union, to justice, to humanity.—E. C. S. The Revolution, June 11, 1868.
4. While we've always pushed for freedom and the right to vote for Black people, we're not very excited about "Black suffrage" as a rallying cry, because it's too limited for the times. In '56, Republicans sought support from Abolitionists because they were against expanding slavery, but the Abolitionists, who demanded "immediate emancipation," rejected that idea; they argued that merely trying to stop the spread of slavery doesn’t really address the core issue. They believed that confining slavery to where it already exists is a positive step and will eventually eliminate the whole system, but to truly change people's minds, we need the passion that comes from a strong principle. When we say "slavery is a sin," and therefore demand "immediate emancipation," we tackle both the wrongdoing and its expansion at the same time. So today, we tell the Abolitionists and Republicans that we can’t support your platform because it doesn’t stand on the belief that voting is a natural right. We acknowledge that "Black suffrage" is a positive step, but to educate people on even that limited demand, we need the passion for a principle that isn't proclaimed as long as you merely ask for voting rights for two million men instead of for all citizens of the republic. Since the greater encompasses the lesser, when we talk about universal enfranchisement, we encompass everything the most radical Abolitionists and Republicans advocate and even more. If the "copperheads" are brought to this understanding, we’re happy to extend our hand in friendship and hope to be a delegate at the Tammany Hall Convention. We’ve read their platform, as detailed in four lengthy columns of the World, and honestly don’t see much difference between it and the Chicago platform. In fact, with the two Democratic candidates, Gen. Grant and Chief-Justice Chase, and their similar platforms, speakers will have a tough time convincing the public why they should choose one candidate or party over the other. The aristocratic principle—the governance of the many by the few—has been tested for six thousand years in every place imaginable, and every nation built on this idea has ultimately failed. We have declared the true democratic vision for this continent but have never fully lived it. Now, the task of this generation is to bring to life what the founders envisioned as a government of equality. The ballot represents this idea, and it’s not too much to demand today that it be placed in the hands of every citizen. It is not excessive to ask that this concept, forged in the struggles of two revolutions, be established as the cornerstone of the republic, the measure of loyalty to the Union, to justice, and to humanity.—E. C. S. The Revolution, June 11, 1868.
[109] Lucretia Mott, Martha C. Wright, Robert Purvis, Olympia Brown, Josephine Griffing, Parker Pillsbury, Paulina Wright Davis, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ernestine L. Rose, Clarina Howard Nichols.
[109] Lucretia Mott, Martha C. Wright, Robert Purvis, Olympia Brown, Josephine Griffing, Parker Pillsbury, Paulina Wright Davis, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ernestine L. Rose, Clarina Howard Nichols.
[110] (New York Herald, July 1, 1868): The Women's Rights Women and the Democratic Convention.—The Central Committee of the Woman's Suffrage Association has prepared a woman's rights platform for the coming National Democratic Convention. This association was given the cold shoulder and completely ignored by the radicals at Chicago, and the Democrats have therefore a splendid opportunity to take wind out of the Republican sails on "womanhood suffrage" against "manhood suffrage," and for white women especially, as better qualified for an intelligent exercise of the suffrage than the thousands of black men just rescued from the ignorance of negro slavery. The Democratic Convention can turn the radical party out of doors upon this issue alone if only bold enough to take strong ground upon it in favor of at least the same political rights to white women that Congress has given to Southern niggers.
[110] (New York Herald, July 1, 1868): The Women's Rights Women and the Democratic Convention.—The Central Committee of the Woman's Suffrage Association has created a women's rights platform for the upcoming National Democratic Convention. This association was overlooked and totally ignored by the radicals in Chicago, so the Democrats now have a great chance to undermine the Republicans' stance on "womanhood suffrage" versus "manhood suffrage," particularly for white women, who are considered more qualified to vote intelligently than the thousands of Black men who have just been freed from the ignorance of slavery. The Democratic Convention could effectively push the radical party aside on this issue alone if they are bold enough to firmly support at least the same political rights for white women that Congress has granted to Southern Black people.
(World, July 1, 1868): The Woman's Suffrage Central Committee have spoken with a kindness which will be appreciated at its proper value; they propose to anticipate and obviate the labors of the National Democratic Convention by preparing a platform for the party in advance. To this platform we elsewhere give the benefit of our circulation. The document will not be amenable to censure for any lack of explicitness or novelty, and will doubtless receive all the attention to which its intrinsic merits entitle it, and which its exceptional comprehensiveness will challenge. Place aux dames!
(World, July 1, 1868): The Woman's Suffrage Central Committee has spoken with a consideration that will be valued appropriately; they plan to get ahead of the National Democratic Convention by creating a platform for the party in advance. We will showcase this platform to our audience. The document will not face criticism for any lack of clarity or originality, and it will certainly attract the attention that its inherent quality deserves, as well as the broad scope it presents. Place aux dames!
(Evening Telegram, July 2, 1868): The Woman's Platform.—The Woman's Suffrage Association present to the Tammany Hall Fourth of July Democratic National Convention a platform of principles which contains some good sound planks and proves at all events that an educated white woman is more fit to be intrusted with the ballot than is the brutalized and ignorant negro who has been invested with political power by the radicals of Congress. The platform is the work of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, and the red men of the wigwam and their associates might do worse than indorse and adopt it entire. Besides, this declaration of principles on the part of the strong-minded females opens up a new feature in the campaign and may get rid of a serious difficulty. Why should not the Democratic Convention take the cow by the horns, nominate Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony as their candidate for the Vice-Presidency, and thus strike out at once in a bold revolutionary policy that would entirely overshadow the radicals and their niggers' rights and sweep the country from Maine to California? We invite the attention of Belmont and the National Committee to the suggestion. Chase and Stanton would be a wonderfully strong ticket and a remarkable association of names, and so, for that matter, would be Chase and Anthony. Besides, it might really bring about a great reform in the character of the Senate to be presided over by a female. There would be fewer disgraceful scenes in that body, and even Chandler, Nye, and poor maudlin Yates would feel the influence of woman's presence, and learn to behave themselves decently.
(Evening Telegram, July 2, 1868): The Woman's Platform.—The Woman's Suffrage Association presents to the Tammany Hall Fourth of July Democratic National Convention a platform of principles that has some solid ideas and shows that an educated white woman is more deserving of the vote than an uneducated and brutalized Black man who has been given political power by the radicals in Congress. This platform is the work of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, and the leaders of the wigwam and their associates would do well to support and adopt it fully. Moreover, this declaration of principles from these strong-minded women introduces a new aspect to the campaign and could help resolve a significant challenge. Why shouldn't the Democratic Convention take bold action, nominate Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony as their candidate for Vice President, and thus implement a daring, revolutionary strategy that would completely overshadow the radicals and their focus on Black rights, capturing the nation from Maine to California? We call on Belmont and the National Committee to consider this suggestion. A ticket of Chase and Stanton would be an incredibly strong pairing and a remarkable combination of names, and so would a pairing of Chase and Anthony. Additionally, it could genuinely lead to significant reform in the character of the Senate if a woman were in charge. There would likely be fewer disgraceful incidents in that body, and even Chandler, Nye, and the overly sentimental Yates would feel the impact of a woman's presence and learn to conduct themselves appropriately.
(Sun, July 2, 1868): The Revolution for this week is full of suggestive and entertaining, if not instructive, reading matter. Whether or not women ought to vote, it is very clear that those of the sex who are associated under the leadership of Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony can write in the most saucy and piquant fashion, and, moreover, know how to disarm by their wit and good humor the most ill-natured of their adversaries.
(Sun, July 2, 1868): The Revolution this week features a lot of interesting and entertaining, if not educational, content. Regardless of whether women should have the right to vote, it's evident that those women led by Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony can write in a bold and captivating style, and they also know how to charm even the most bitter opponents with their wit and good humor.
(Tribune, July 2, 1868): Woman Suffrage.—It is said that strong ground will be taken against the admission of Miss Susan B. Anthony as a delegate at large to represent the interests of American women in the Convention; but as that lady's ticket is already "impeticosed," and as she has a will of her own, and a number of brawny friends who will not see her deprived of her rights as a publisher, a woman, and an American citizen, it may be inferred that Miss Anthony will take a seat in due form, and will make herself heard when her turn comes.
(Tribune, July 2, 1868): Women’s Suffrage.—It is said that there will be strong opposition to allowing Miss Susan B. Anthony to attend as a delegate to represent the interests of American women at the Convention; however, since her ticket is already "impeticosed," and she has her own strong will along with a group of loyal supporters who won't let her be denied her rights as a publisher, a woman, and an American citizen, it's reasonable to assume that Miss Anthony will formally take her seat and will make her voice heard when the time comes.
(World, July 2, 1868): The ladies of the spirited woman's rights weekly, called The Revolution, with Miss Susan B. Anthony at their head, are setting their caps for the Democratic party. Availing themselves of the privilege conferred on their charming sex by leap-year, they are making the first advances if not a downright "proposal." Miss Anthony greets the National Convention by hanging out a fresh new sign in flaming red, brighter than the blushes of Aurora, and all the way up three flights of stairs to her office, visitors will encounter red signs to the right of them, red signs to the left of them, like the cannon at Balaklava. A conservative stranger needs all the courage of the immortal Light Brigade to run the gauntlet of the blazing word "Revolution" staring at him on so many sides. Miss Anthony has taken uncommon pains to make her paper this week captivating and irresistible, as will be seen by the advertisement she has inserted in this morning's World for the benefit of members of the Convention. But if she were a confiding miss of "sweet sixteen," instead of the "strong-minded woman" that she is, and the blushes of all those brilliant signs were transfused into her own lovely cheeks, we suspect (such is the infirmity or the perversity of "those odious men") that she would make more conquests than she can reasonably expect to do with the intellectual blaze and brilliancy of this week's Revolution—splendid new signs and all. We fear the time is rather distant when gallant young democrats will not surrender to soft eyes and modest feminine ways sooner than to a good piece of argumentation in a female mouth. Miss Anthony will be the author of a "Revolution" indeed, if she succeeds in persuading the well-dressed beaux to prefer wives to whom they would go to school. The members of the Convention are more mature, though we doubt if they are much more sensible. But Miss Anthony is not of a temper to be discouraged by small obstacles, and we applaud the spirit with which she attempts to "make hay while the sun shines."
(World, July 2, 1868): The ladies of the energetic women's rights weekly, called The Revolution, led by Miss Susan B. Anthony, are setting their sights on the Democratic Party. Taking advantage of the privilege granted to their charming gender by leap-year, they are making the first moves if not a direct "proposal." Miss Anthony greets the National Convention by displaying a fresh new sign in bright red, more vibrant than the blushes of dawn, and all the way up three flights of stairs to her office, visitors will see red signs on their right, red signs on their left, just like the cannons at Balaklava. A conservative stranger would need all the courage of the legendary Light Brigade to navigate the overwhelming presence of the word "Revolution" glaring at him from so many sides. Miss Anthony has gone to great lengths to make her paper this week captivating and irresistible, as seen by the advertisement she has included in this morning's World for the benefit of Convention members. But if she were a trusting young lady of "sweet sixteen," instead of the "strong-minded woman" she is, and the color from all those vibrant signs were reflected in her own lovely cheeks, we suspect (such is the weakness or the stubbornness of "those odious men") that she would achieve more victories than she can realistically expect with the intellectual fire and brilliance of this week's Revolution—glorious new signs and all. We fear the time is still far off when gallant young democrats will choose soft eyes and modest feminine ways over a solid argument presented by a woman. Miss Anthony will truly lead a "Revolution" if she manages to persuade the well-dressed suitors to prefer wives who would be their equals. The Convention members are older, though we doubt they are much wiser. But Miss Anthony is not someone who gets discouraged by small hurdles, and we commend her spirit as she tries to "make hay while the sun shines."
(Evening Express, July 2, 1868): "The Revolution" and "the Woman."—The women—naturally enough malcontent when the inferior race of negroes is given the ballot; when Coolies are promised the ballot, and even Indians can not be refused equal and universal suffrage as "men and brethren"—insist now, more and more, upon women being taken into the Radical party. The Democracy acknowledge their right to equality with negroes and Coolies and Comanches—not much of an acknowledgment, by the way, but something in the way of progress, and far ahead of the Radicals. The last number of The Revolution is irresistible in argument against the Negro Suffrage Radicals, who will not give women equal rights with negroes.
(Evening Express, July 2, 1868): "The Revolution" and "the Woman."—Women are understandably upset when the marginalized black community is granted the right to vote; when Coolies are promised the right to vote, and even Indians are not denied equal suffrage as "men and brothers." They are increasingly demanding that women be included in the Radical party. The Democratic party acknowledges their right to equality with black people, Coolies, and Comanches—not exactly a strong acknowledgment, but a step toward progress, and much further along than the Radicals. The latest issue of The Revolution presents compelling arguments against the Negro Suffrage Radicals, who refuse to grant women equal rights alongside black men.
CHAPTER XXII.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS—1869.
First Convention in Washington—First hearing before Congress—Delegates Invited from Every State—Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas—Debate between Colored Men and Women—Grace Greenwood's Graphic Description—What the Members of the Convention Saw and Heard in Washington—Robert Purvis—A Western Trip—Conventions in Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Springfield and Madison—Editorial Correspondence in The Revolution—Anniversaries in New York and Brooklyn—Conventions in Newport and Saratoga.
First Convention in Washington—First hearing before Congress—Delegates invited from every state—Senator Pomeroy from Kansas—Debate between Black men and women—Grace Greenwood's vivid description—What the members of the convention saw and heard in Washington—Robert Purvis—A trip out west—Conventions in Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Springfield, and Madison—Editorial correspondence in The Revolution—Anniversaries in New York and Brooklyn—Conventions in Newport and Saratoga.
In the Autumn of 1868 a call[111] was issued for the first Woman Suffrage Convention ever held in Washington. It was a period of intense excitement, as many important measures of reconstruction were under consideration. The XIV Amendment was ratified, the XV was still pending, and several bills were before Congress on the suffrage question. Petitions and protests against all amendments to the Constitution regulating suffrage on the basis of sex were being sent in by thousands in charge of the Washington Association, of which Josephine S. Griffing was President. A large number of persons from every part of the Union were crowding into the Capital. Many Southerners being present to whom the demand for woman suffrage was new, the arguments were listened to with interest, while the tracts and documents were eagerly purchased and distributed among their friends at home. All these things combined to make this Convention most enthusiastic and influential, not only in its immediate effect on those present, but from the highly complimentary reports of the press scattered over the nation. We find a brief summing up of the Convention in letters to The Revolution.
In the fall of 1868, a call[111] was made for the first Women’s Suffrage Convention ever held in Washington. It was a time of great excitement, as many important reconstruction measures were being considered. The XIV Amendment was ratified, the XV was still pending, and several bills were before Congress regarding suffrage. Thousands were sending petitions and protests against any amendments to the Constitution that regulated suffrage based on gender, organized by the Washington Association, led by President Josephine S. Griffing. A large number of people from all over the country gathered in the Capital. Many Southerners, for whom the demand for woman suffrage was new, listened to the arguments with interest, while pamphlets and documents were eagerly bought and shared with their friends back home. All these factors combined to make this Convention incredibly enthusiastic and influential, not only in its immediate impact on those who attended but also through the highly complimentary press coverage that spread across the nation. We have a brief summary of the Convention in letters to The Revolution.
EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE.
Washington, January 22, 1869.
Washington, January 22, 1869.
Dear Revolution:—The first National Woman's Suffrage Convention ever held in Washington, closed on Wednesday night. There were representatives[Pg 346] from about twenty States, and the deepest interest was manifested through all the sessions, increasing to the end[112]. On the morning of the Convention the business committee assembled in the ante-room of Carroll Hall, to discuss resolutions, officers, etc. As Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, was present, it was decided that he should open the meeting and preside as long as his public duties would permit. This gave us assurance of a healthy repose in the chair, which greatly helps to take off the chill in opening a convention. After a grave discussion of resolutions, permanent officers, etc., Mr. Pomeroy led the way to the platform, called the meeting to order, and made an able speech, taking the broad ground that as suffrage is a natural, inalienable right, it must, of necessity, belong to every citizen of the republic, black and white, male and female. Mrs. Mott was chosen President, resolutions were reported, and when everything was in fine working order (except the furnace) Mr. Pomeroy slipped off to his senatorial duties, to watch the grand Kansas swindle now on the tapis, and to protect, if possible, the interests of the people.
Dear Revolution:—The first National Woman's Suffrage Convention held in Washington wrapped up on Wednesday night. Representatives[Pg 346] from about twenty states showed great interest throughout all the sessions, which grew stronger as the event progressed[112]. On the morning of the Convention, the business committee gathered in the ante-room of Carroll Hall to discuss resolutions, officers, and more. Since Senator Pomeroy from Kansas was present, it was decided that he would open the meeting and preside for as long as his public duties allowed. This gave us reassurance that the meeting would start smoothly, easing the pressure of opening a convention. After a serious discussion about resolutions and permanent officers, Mr. Pomeroy led the way to the platform, called the meeting to order, and delivered a compelling speech, arguing that since suffrage is a natural, inalienable right, it should belong to every citizen of the republic, regardless of race or gender. Mrs. Mott was elected President, resolutions were reported, and once everything was running smoothly (except for the furnace), Mr. Pomeroy slipped away to attend to his senatorial responsibilities, keeping an eye on the significant Kansas issue currently in progress, and to advocate for the people's interests whenever possible.
Whatever elements or qualities combine to render any popular convention every way successful, were most felicitously blended in this gathering in Washington. In numbers, interest, earnestness, variety and especially ability, there was surely little left to be desired. As to numbers in attendance, from Maine, California, and all the way between, it is sufficient to say that although the first session was most encouragingly large, there was a constant increase till the last evening, when the spacious hall was crowded in every part, until entrance was absolutely impossible, long before people ceased coming. Of the interest in the proceedings, it may be said that it was proposed to hold three sessions each day, with a brief recess at noon. But twelve o'clock and all o'clock were forgotten, and the day session continued until after four; the only regret seeming then to be that there were not more hours, and that human nature had not greater power of endurance.
Whatever elements or qualities come together to make any popular event a success were perfectly blended in this gathering in Washington. In terms of attendance, enthusiasm, seriousness, diversity, and especially talent, there was definitely little to be desired. Regarding the number of people there, attendees came from Maine, California, and everywhere in between. It’s worth noting that while the first session had a very encouraging turnout, the crowd kept growing until the last night, when the spacious hall was completely packed, making it impossible to get in long before people stopped arriving. As for the interest in the sessions, it was planned to hold three each day with a short break at noon. But noon and all other times were forgotten, and the daytime session stretched on until after four o'clock; the only regret seemed to be that there weren’t more hours and that people didn't have more stamina.
The harmony that prevailed was all that could reasonably have been expected (if not even desired), considering the nature of the questions in hand, and the large number and variety of opinions entertained and expressed in the different sessions. On the one vital point, that suffrage is the inalienable right of every intelligent citizen who is held amenable to law, and is taxed to support the government, there was no difference expressed. The issue that roused the most heated debate was whether the colored man should be kept out of the right of suffrage until woman could also be enfranchised. One young, but not ineffectual speaker, declared he considered the women the bitterest enemies of the negro; and asked, with intense emotion, shall they be permitted to prevent the colored man from obtaining his rights? But it was not shown that women, anywhere, were making any effort toward that result. One or two women present declared they were[Pg 347] unwilling that any more men should possess the right of suffrage until women had it also. But these are well known as most earnest advocates of universal suffrage, as well as the long-tried and approved friends of the colored race.
The harmony that existed was pretty much what could have been expected (if not even hoped for), given the nature of the issues at hand and the wide range of opinions shared during the different sessions. On the one crucial point—that voting is an unarguable right for every informed citizen who is accountable to the law and pays taxes to support the government—there was no disagreement. The topic that sparked the most intense debate was whether the colored man should be denied the right to vote until women could also gain that right. One young, but impactful speaker, expressed that he saw women as the worst enemies of the African American community and asked, with great emotion, should we let them block the colored man from getting his rights? However, it wasn't shown that women were actively trying to achieve this outcome anywhere. A few women in attendance stated they were[Pg 347] against allowing any more men to have the right to vote until women also had that right. But these women are well-known as strong supporters of universal suffrage and have a long history of being staunch allies of the colored race.
The discussion between colored men on the one side and women on the other, as to whether it was the duty of the women of the nation to hold their claims in abeyance, until all colored men are enfranchised, was spicy, able and affecting. When that noble man, Robert Purvis of Philadelphia, rose, and, with the loftiest sense of justice, with a true Roman grandeur, ignored his race and sex, rebuked his own son for his narrow position, and demanded for his daughter all he asked for his son or himself, he thrilled the noblest feelings in his audience. Is has been a great grief to the leading women in our cause that there should be antagonism with men whom we respect, whose wrongs we pity, and whose hopes we would fain help them to realize. When we contrast the condition of the most fortunate women at the North, with the living death colored men endure everywhere, there seems to be a selfishness in our present position. But remember we speak not for ourselves alone, but for all womankind, in poverty, ignorance and hopeless dependence, for the women of that oppressed race too, who, in slavery, have known a depth of misery and degradation that no man can ever appreciate.
The conversation between Black men on one side and women on the other about whether it was the duty of women in the nation to hold back their claims until all Black men were granted voting rights was intense, insightful, and emotional. When that remarkable man, Robert Purvis from Philadelphia, stood up and, with a profound sense of justice and a true sense of dignity, set aside his race and gender, chastised his own son for his narrow views, and demanded for his daughter everything he requested for his son or himself, he stirred the deepest emotions in his audience. It has been a significant disappointment for the prominent women in our movement that there should be conflict with men we respect, whose injustices we sympathize with, and whose dreams we wish to help them achieve. When we compare the situation of the most fortunate women in the North with the continuous struggles Black men face everywhere, it appears selfish for us to maintain our current stance. But remember, we are not speaking for ourselves alone; we are speaking for all women, those in poverty, ignorance, and hopeless dependence, including the women of that oppressed race who have, in slavery, experienced a level of suffering and humiliation that no man can ever fully grasp.
That there were representatives of both political parties present, was very apparent, and sometimes forms of expression betrayed a little unnecessary partisan preference; but there was not one who bore any part in the long and intensely exciting discussions, who could be justly charged with any wish, however remote, to hold personal prejudice or party preference above principle and religious regard to justice and right. There was one feature in the convention that we greatly deplore, and that was an impatience, not only with the audience, but with some on the platform whenever any man arose to speak. We must not forget that men have sensibilities as well as women, and that our strongest hold to-day on the public mind is the fact that men of eloquence and power on both continents are pleading for our rights. While we ask justice for ourselves, let us at least be just to the noble men who advocate our cause. It is certainly generous in them to come to our platforms, to help us maintain our rights, and share the ridicule that attends every step of progress, and it is clearly our duty to defend their rights, at least when speaking in our behalf.
It was clear that representatives from both political parties were present, and at times their expressions showed a bit of unnecessary bias. However, no one involved in the lengthy and intensely engaging discussions could fairly be accused of prioritizing personal or party preferences over principles and a commitment to justice and what is right. One aspect of the convention that we truly regretted was the impatience shown, not just towards the audience, but also towards some on the stage whenever someone rose to speak. We must remember that men have feelings just like women, and that our strongest connection to the public today is the fact that eloquent and powerful men on both continents are advocating for our rights. While we seek justice for ourselves, let’s also be fair to the noble men who support our cause. It is indeed generous of them to come to our events, help us assert our rights, and endure the ridicule that comes with every step of progress. It is clearly our responsibility to support their rights, especially when they are speaking up for us.
We had a brief interview with Senator Roscoe Conkling. We gave him a petition signed by 400 ladies of Onondaga County, and urged him to make some wise remarks on the subject of woman's suffrage when he presented it. We find all the New York women are sending their petitions to Senator Pomeroy. He seems to be immensely popular just now. We think our own Senators need some education in this direction. It would be well for the petitions of the several States to be placed in the hands of their respective Senators, that thus the attention of all of them might be called to the important subject. It is plain to see that Mr. Conkling is revolving this whole question in his mind. His greatest fear is that coarse and ignorant women would crowd the polls and keep the better class away.
We had a brief interview with Senator Roscoe Conkling. We presented him with a petition signed by 400 women from Onondaga County and encouraged him to share some thoughtful comments on the topic of women's suffrage when he presented it. It seems that all the women in New York are sending their petitions to Senator Pomeroy, who appears to be really popular right now. We believe our own Senators could use some education on this issue. It would be beneficial for the petitions from the various states to be handed to their respective Senators, so that all of them could pay attention to this important matter. It's clear that Mr. Conkling is considering this entire issue. His biggest concern is that unrefined and uneducated women would overrun the polls and deter the more respectable voters.
Parker Pillsbury's speech on "The Mortality of Nations," was one of the best efforts of his life, and as grand an argument on the whole question of[Pg 348] Republican government as was ever made on the woman suffrage platform. Although he had been one of the earliest and most enthusiastic Abolitionists, yet the enfranchisement of woman had always in his mind seemed of equal importance to that of the black man. In Mr. Pillsbury's philosophy on both questions, the present was ever the time for immediate and absolute justice.
Parker Pillsbury's speech on "The Mortality of Nations" was one of the greatest achievements of his life and offered a powerful argument about the overall issue of[Pg 348] Republican government, especially within the context of women's suffrage. Even though he was among the earliest and most passionate supporters of Abolition, he always viewed the enfranchisement of women as equally important as that of Black men. In Mr. Pillsbury's philosophy regarding both matters, the present was always the right time for immediate and complete justice.
One great charm in the convention was the presence of Lucretia Mott, calm, dignified, clear and forcible as ever. Though she is now seventy-six years old, she sat through all the sessions, and noted everything that was said and done. It was a satisfaction to us all that she was able to preside over the first National Woman's Suffrage Convention ever held at the Capitol. Her voice is stronger and her step lighter than many who are her juniors by twenty years. She preached last Sunday in the Unitarian Church to the profit and pleasure of a highly cultivated and large audience. We were most pleased to meet ex-Governor Robinson, the first Governor of Kansas, in the convention. He says there is a fair prospect that an amendment to strike out the word "male" from the Constitution will be submitted again in that State, when, he thinks, it will pass without doubt. Mrs. Minor, President of the Woman's Suffrage Association of Missouri, and Mrs. Starrett of Lawrence, Kansas, gave us a pleasant surprise by their appearance at the convention. They took an active part in the deliberations, and spoke with great effect. Senator Wilson was present, though he did not favor us with a speech. We urged him to do so, but he laughingly said he had no idea of making himself a target for our wit and sarcasm. We asked him, as he would not speak, to tell us the "wise, systematic, and efficient way" of pressing woman's suffrage. He replied, "You are on the right track, go ahead." So we have decided to move "on this line" until the inauguration of the new administration, when, under the dynasty of the chivalrous soldier, "our ways will, no doubt, be those of pleasantness, and all our paths be peace." New Jersey was represented by Deborah Butler of Vineland, the only live spot in that benighted State, and we thought her speech quite equal to what we heard from Mr. Cattell in the Senate. During the evening sessions, large numbers of women from the several departments were attentive listeners. Lieutenant-Governor Root of Kansas read the bill now before Congress demanding equal pay for women in the several departments where they perform equal work with the men by their side. He offered a resolution urging Congress to pass the bill at once, that justice might be done the hundreds of women in the District, for their faithful work under government.
One of the highlights of the convention was the presence of Lucretia Mott, as calm, dignified, and articulate as ever. Even at seventy-six years old, she attended all the sessions and took note of everything said and done. We were all pleased that she could preside over the first National Woman's Suffrage Convention ever held at the Capitol. Her voice is stronger and her step lighter than that of many who are twenty years younger. Last Sunday, she preached at the Unitarian Church, to the benefit and enjoyment of a large and cultured audience. We were also delighted to meet ex-Governor Robinson, the first Governor of Kansas, at the convention. He mentioned that there's a good chance an amendment to remove the word "male" from the Constitution will be proposed again in that state, which he believes will pass without a doubt. Mrs. Minor, President of the Woman's Suffrage Association of Missouri, and Mrs. Starrett from Lawrence, Kansas, pleasantly surprised us with their attendance at the convention. They actively participated in the discussions and spoke powerfully. Senator Wilson was there, but he didn't grace us with a speech. We encouraged him to speak, but he jokingly said he didn't want to be a target for our jokes and sarcasm. Since he wouldn’t speak, we asked him how to approach the "wise, systematic, and efficient way" of advocating for women's suffrage. He replied, "You're on the right track, keep going." So, we've decided to continue "on this path" until the new administration is inaugurated, when, under the leadership of the honorable soldier, "our ways will surely be pleasant, and all our paths will be peaceful." New Jersey was represented by Deborah Butler from Vineland, the only lively part of that unfortunate State, and we found her speech to be as impressive as what we heard from Mr. Cattell in the Senate. During the evening sessions, many women from various departments listened attentively. Lieutenant-Governor Root of Kansas read the bill currently before Congress that calls for equal pay for women in the different departments where they perform the same work alongside men. He proposed a resolution urging Congress to pass the bill immediately, so that justice might be served for the hundreds of women in the District, recognizing their diligent work under the government.
Mrs. Stanton's speech the first evening of the convention gave a fair statement of the hostile feelings of women toward the amendments; we give the main part of it. Of all the other speeches, which were extemporaneous, only meagre and unsatisfactory reports can be found.
Mrs. Stanton's speech on the first evening of the convention provided a clear expression of women's negative feelings toward the amendments; we present the main part of it. For all the other speeches, which were improvised, only brief and unsatisfactory summaries can be found.
Mrs. Stanton said:—A great idea of progress is near its consummation, when statesmen in the councils of the nation propose to frame it into statutes and constitutions; when Reverend Fathers recognize it by a new interpretation of their creeds and canons; when the Bar and Bench at its command[Pg 349] set aside the legislation of centuries, and girls of twenty put their heels on the Cokes and Blackstones of the past.
Mrs. Stanton said:—A significant idea of progress is close to being realized when politicians in the nation’s leadership suggest turning it into laws and constitutions; when religious leaders acknowledge it through a fresh interpretation of their beliefs and principles; when the legal system, at its direction[Pg 349], dismisses centuries of legislation, and young women in their twenties disregard the legal precedents set by Cokes and Blackstones.
Those who represent what is called "the Woman's Rights Movement," have argued their right to political equality from every standpoint of justice, religion, and logic, for the last twenty years. They have quoted the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bible, the opinions of great men and women in all ages; they have plead the theory of our government; suffrage a natural, inalienable right; shown from the lessons of history, that one class can not legislate for another; that disfranchised classes must ever be neglected and degraded; and that all privileges are but mockery to the citizen, until he has a voice in the making and administering of law. Such arguments have been made over and over in conventions and before the legislatures of the several States. Judges, lawyers, priests, and politicians have said again and again, that our logic was unanswerable, and although much nonsense has emanated from the male tongue and pen on this subject, no man has yet made a fair, argument on the other side. Knowing that we hold the Gibraltar rock of reason on this question, they resort to ridicule and petty objections. Compelled to follow our assailants, wherever they go, and fight them with their own weapons; when cornered with wit and sarcasm, some cry out, you have no logic on your platform, forgetting that we have no use for logic until they give us logicians at whom to hurl it, and if, for the pure love of it, we now and then rehearse the logic that is like a, b, c, to all of us, others cry out—the same old speeches we have heard these twenty years. It would be safe to say a hundred years, for they are the same our fathers used when battling old King George and the British Parliament for their right to representation, and a voice in the laws by which they were governed. There are no new arguments to be made on human rights, our work to-day is to apply to ourselves those so familiar to all; to teach man that woman is not an anomalous being, outside all laws and constitutions, but one whose rights are to be established by the same process of reason as that by which he demands his own.
Those who represent what’s known as "the Women's Rights Movement" have been arguing for their right to political equality from every perspective of justice, religion, and logic for the past twenty years. They have cited the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bible, and the opinions of influential figures throughout history; they have advocated for the idea that suffrage is a natural, inalienable right; shown through historical lessons that one group cannot legislate for another; that marginalized groups will always face neglect and degradation; and that all privileges are meaningless to a citizen until they have a say in the creation and enforcement of laws. Such arguments have been presented repeatedly in conventions and before state legislatures. Judges, lawyers, religious leaders, and politicians have repeatedly stated that our logic is unassailable, and even though a lot of nonsense has come from men regarding this issue, no one has yet provided a fair argument on the opposing side. Recognizing that we hold the strong ground of reason on this matter, they resort to ridicule and trivial objections. When forced to follow our challengers and fight back with their own tactics; when faced with wit and sarcasm, some shout that we have no logic in our arguments, forgetting that we don't need logic until we have logicians to debate with, and if, for the sake of it, we occasionally revisit the logic that is as basic as a, b, c to all of us, others complain that it’s the same old speeches we’ve been hearing for twenty years. It would actually be safe to say a hundred years, because they echo what our ancestors said when they fought against King George and the British Parliament for their right to representation and a voice in the laws that governed them. There are no new arguments to be made regarding human rights; our task today is to apply to ourselves those ideas that are so well-known; to educate men that women are not strange beings outside all laws and constitutions, but individuals whose rights should be established through the same reasoning that he uses to demand his own.
When our Fathers made out their famous bill of impeachment against England, they specified eighteen grievances. When the women of this country surveyed the situation in their first convention, they found they had precisely that number, and quite similar in character; and reading over the old revolutionary arguments of Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Otis, and Adams, they found they applied remarkably well to their case. The same arguments made in this country for extending suffrage from time to time, to white men, native born citizens, without property and education, and to foreigners; the same used by John Bright in England, to extend it to a million new voters, and the same used by the great Republican party to enfranchise a million black men in the South, all these arguments we have to-day to offer for woman, and one, in addition, stronger than all besides, the difference in man and woman. Because man and woman are the complement of one another, we need woman's thought in national affairs to make a safe and stable government.
When our founding fathers drafted their well-known bill of impeachment against England, they listed eighteen grievances. When the women of this country assessed their situation in their first convention, they identified that same number of grievances, which were quite similar in nature. Reviewing the revolutionary arguments of Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Otis, and Adams, they found that those arguments applied remarkably well to their own situation. The same reasons that were put forth in this country to expand voting rights over time to white men, native-born citizens without property and education, and to immigrants; the same arguments used by John Bright in England to extend suffrage to a million new voters; and the same reasons employed by the great Republican party to grant voting rights to a million black men in the South—these are the arguments we present today for women, plus one stronger than all the others: the fundamental differences between men and women. Because men and women complement each other, we need women's perspectives in national matters to create a safe and stable government.
The Republican party to-day congratulates itself on having carried the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution, thus securing "manhood suffrage" and establishing an aristocracy of sex on this continent. As several[Pg 350] bills to secure Woman's Suffrage in the District and the Territories have been already presented in both houses of Congress, and as by Mr. Julian's bill, the question of so amending the Constitution as to extend suffrage to all the women of the country has been presented to the nation for consideration, it is not only the right but the duty of every thoughtful woman to express her opinion on a Sixteenth Amendment. While I hail the late discussions in Congress and the various bills presented as so many signs of progress, I am especially gratified with those of Messrs. Julian and Pomeroy, which forbid any State to deny the right of suffrage to any of its citizens on account of sex or color.
The Republican Party today pats itself on the back for passing the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which secured "manhood suffrage" and created a gender-based elite in this country. Several[Pg 350] bills aimed at securing Woman's Suffrage in the District and the Territories have already been introduced in both houses of Congress. Additionally, Mr. Julian's bill has brought forth the question of amending the Constitution to extend voting rights to all women in the country for national consideration. Therefore, it is not only the right but the duty of every thoughtful woman to share her views on a Sixteenth Amendment. While I welcome the recent debates in Congress and the various bills put forward as signs of progress, I am particularly pleased with those from Messrs. Julian and Pomeroy, which would prevent any State from denying the right to vote to any of its citizens based on sex or color.
This fundamental principle of our government—the equality of all the citizens of the republic—should be incorporated in the Federal Constitution, there to remain forever. To leave this question to the States and partial acts of Congress, is to defer indefinitely its settlement, for what is done by this Congress may be repealed by the next; and politics in the several States differ so widely, that no harmonious action on any question can ever be secured, except as a strict party measure. Hence, we appeal to the party now in power, everywhere, to end this protracted debate on suffrage, and declare it the inalienable right of every citizen who is amenable to the laws of the land, who pays taxes and the penalty of crime. We have a splendid theory of a genuine republic, why not realize it and make our government homogeneous, from Maine to California. The Republican party has the power to do this, and now is its only opportunity. Woman's Suffrage, in 1872, may be as good a card for the Republicans as Gen. Grant was in the last election. It is said that the Republican party made him President, not because they thought him the most desirable man in the nation for that office, but they were afraid the Democrats would take him if they did not. We would suggest, there may be the same danger of Democrats taking up Woman Suffrage if they do not. God, in his providence, may have purified that party in the furnace of affliction. They have had the opportunity, safe from the turmoil of political life and the temptations of office, to study and apply the divine principles of justice and equality to life; for minorities are always in a position to carry principles to their logical results, while majorities are governed only by votes. You see my faith in Democrats is based on sound philosophy. In the next Congress, the Democratic party will gain thirty-four new members, hence the Republicans have had their last chance to do justice to woman. It will be no enviable record for the Fortieth Congress that in the darkest days of the republic it placed our free institutions in the care and keeping of every type of manhood, ignoring womanhood, all the elevating and purifying influences of the most virtuous and humane half of the American people....
This basic principle of our government—the equality of all citizens in the republic—should be included in the Federal Constitution, where it will remain forever. Leaving this issue to the States and partial acts of Congress means putting off its resolution indefinitely, because what this Congress does can be undone by the next, and the political climates in different States vary so much that no consistent action can be achieved on any issue, except as a strict party measure. Therefore, we appeal to the party currently in power, everywhere, to end this lengthy debate on voting rights and declare it as the inalienable right of every citizen who is subject to the laws of the land, who pays taxes, and who faces the consequences of crime. We have a fantastic vision of a true republic; why not realize it and create a unified government from Maine to California? The Republican party has the ability to do this, and now is their only chance. Women’s Suffrage, in 1872, could be as beneficial for the Republicans as Gen. Grant was in the last election. It’s said that the Republican party made him President, not because they thought he was the best person for the job, but because they feared the Democrats would claim him if they didn’t. We suggest there may be a similar risk that the Democrats will take up Women’s Suffrage if they don’t. God, in his wisdom, may have strengthened that party through hardship. They have had the chance, away from the chaos of political life and the temptations of office, to study and apply the divine principles of justice and equality; for minorities can always push principles to their logical outcomes, while majorities are only swayed by votes. My faith in Democrats is rooted in solid reasoning. In the next Congress, the Democratic party will gain thirty-four new members, so the Republicans have had their last opportunity to do justice to women. It won’t be a proud record for the Fortieth Congress that in the darkest days of the republic, it entrusted our free institutions to every type of man, ignoring women and all the uplifting and purifying contributions of the most virtuous and compassionate half of the American populace.
I urge a speedy adoption of a Sixteenth Amendment for the following reasons:
I strongly encourage the quick approval of a Sixteenth Amendment for these reasons:
1. A government, based on the principle of caste and class, can not stand. The aristocratic idea, in any form, is opposed to the genius of our free institutions, to our own declaration of rights, and to the civilization of the age. All artificial distinctions, whether of family, blood, wealth, color, or sex, are equally oppressive to the subject classes, and equally destructive to national life and prosperity. Governments based on every form of aristocracy,[Pg 351] on every degree and variety of inequality, have been tried in despotisms, monarchies, and republics, and all alike have perished. In the panorama of the past behold the mighty nations that have risen, one by one, but to fall. Behold their temples, thrones, and pyramids, their gorgeous palaces and stately monuments now crumbled all to dust. Behold every monarch in Europe at this very hour trembling on his throne. Behold the republics on this Western continent convulsed, distracted, divided, the hosts scattered, the leaders fallen, the scouts lost in the wilderness, the once inspired prophets blind and dumb, while on all sides the cry is echoed, "Republicanism is a failure," though that great principle of a government "by the people, of the people, for the people," has never been tried. Thus far, all nations have been built on caste and failed. Why, in this hour of reconstruction, with the experience of generations before us, make another experiment in the same direction? If serfdom, peasantry, and slavery have shattered kingdoms, deluged continents with blood, scattered republics like dust before the wind, and rent our own Union asunder, what kind of a government, think you, American statesmen, you can build, with the mothers of the race crouching at your feet, while iron-heeled peasants, serfs, and slaves, exalted by your hands, tread our inalienable rights into the dust? While all men, everywhere, are rejoicing in new-found liberties, shall woman alone be denied the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizenship? While in England men are coming up from the coal mines of Cornwall, from the factories of Birmingham and Manchester, demanding the suffrage; while in frigid Russia the 22,000,000 newly-emancipated serfs are already claiming a voice in the government; while here, in our own land, slaves, but just rejoicing in the proclamation of emancipation, ignorant alike of its power and significance, have the ballot unasked, unsought, already laid at their feet—think you the daughters of Adams, Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, in whose veins flows the blood of two Revolutions, will forever linger round the campfires of an old barbarism, with no longings to join this grand army of freedom in its onward march to roll back the golden gates of a higher and better civilization? Of all kinds of aristocracy, that of sex is the most odious and unnatural; invading, as it does, our homes, desecrating our family altars, dividing those whom God has joined together, exalting the son above the mother who bore him, and subjugating, everywhere, moral power to brute force. Such a government would not be worth the blood and treasure so freely poured out in its long struggles for freedom....
1. A government built on caste and class cannot survive. The idea of aristocracy, in any form, goes against the spirit of our free institutions, our declaration of rights, and the civilized world we live in today. All artificial differences—whether based on family, heritage, wealth, skin color, or gender—are equally oppressive to those in lower classes and equally detrimental to national life and prosperity. Governments founded on any type of aristocracy, on any level of inequality, have been tested in dictatorships, monarchies, and republics, and they have all failed. Look back at the great nations that have risen and then fallen, their temples, thrones, and pyramids, their magnificent palaces and impressive monuments now reduced to dust. Look at every monarch in Europe today, trembling on their thrones. See the republics on this continent in turmoil, confused, divided, with their armies scattered, leaders fallen, scouts lost in the wilderness, and once-inspiring prophets now silent and blind, while all around, the message resounds, "Republicanism is a failure," even though that core principle of government "by the people, of the people, for the people," has never truly been tested. So far, all nations have been built on caste and have failed. Why, at this moment of rebuilding, with the lessons of generations behind us, should we try another experiment in the same direction? If serfdom, peasantry, and slavery have destroyed kingdoms, soaked continents in blood, scattered republics like dust in the wind, and ripped our own Union apart, what kind of government do you think, American leaders, you can create, while the mothers of society crouch at your feet, as oppressed farmers, peasants, and slaves, empowered by your hands, trample our unalienable rights into the dirt? While men everywhere are celebrating newfound freedoms, should women be the only ones denied the rights, privileges, and protections of citizenship? While men in England rise from the coal mines of Cornwall, from the factories of Birmingham and Manchester, demanding the right to vote; while in cold Russia the 22 million newly-freed serfs are already claiming a say in government; while here, in our own country, former slaves rejoice in their emancipation proclamation, clueless about its power and meaning, and are handed the right to vote without asking for it—do you think the daughters of Adams, Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, with the blood of two revolutions flowing in their veins, will forever linger around the campfires of an old barbarism, with no desire to join this grand army of freedom in its march toward a better and more advanced civilization? Of all types of aristocracy, the one based on gender is the most detestable and unnatural; invading our homes, desecrating our family values, separating those whom God has united, elevating the son above the mother who gave him life, and subjugating moral strength to brute force everywhere. Such a government would not be worth the blood and treasure freely sacrificed in the long fight for freedom....
2. I urge a Sixteenth Amendment, because "manhood suffrage" or a man's government, is civil, religious, and social disorganization. The male element is a destructive force, stern, selfish, aggrandizing, loving war, violence, conquest, acquisition, breeding in the material and moral world alike discord, disorder, disease, and death. See what a record of blood and cruelty the pages of history reveal! Through what slavery, slaughter, and sacrifice, through what inquisitions and imprisonments, pains and persecutions, black codes and gloomy creeds, the soul of humanity has struggled for the centuries, while mercy has veiled her face and all hearts have been dead alike to love and hope! The male element has held high carnival thus far, it has fairly run riot from the beginning, overpowering the feminine element everywhere, crushing out all the diviner qualities in human nature,[Pg 352] until we know but little of true manhood and womanhood, of the latter comparatively nothing, for it has scarce been recognized as a power until within the last century. Society is but the reflection of man himself, untempered by woman's thought, the hard iron rule we feel alike in the church, the state, and the home. No one need wonder at the disorganization, at the fragmentary condition of everything, when we remember that man, who represents but half a complete being, with but half an idea on every subject, has undertaken the absolute control of all sublunary matters.
2. I advocate for a Sixteenth Amendment because "manhood suffrage" or a government run by men leads to civil, religious, and social disarray. The male perspective is often destructive, harsh, selfish, and focused on war, violence, conquest, and acquisition, generating discord, disorder, disease, and death in both the material and moral realms. Look at the record of bloodshed and cruelty throughout history! Humanity has suffered through slavery, slaughter, sacrifice, inquisitions, imprisonments, pain, and persecution, alongside oppressive laws and bleak ideologies, all while mercy has turned away and hearts have been numb to love and hope! The male element has dominated until now, running rampant since the beginning, overpowering the feminine element everywhere, stifling all the nobler qualities in human nature, [Pg 352] until we understand very little about true manhood and womanhood, and know next to nothing about the latter, which has hardly been acknowledged as a force until the last century. Society is merely a reflection of man himself, unbalanced by women's perspectives, and we feel the rigid iron rule in the church, the state, and the home. It's no surprise to see disarray and fragmentation everywhere when we consider that man, representing only half of a complete being, with only half an understanding on every subject, has taken on absolute control of all worldly matters.
People object to the demands of those whom they choose to call the strong-minded, because they say, "the right of suffrage will make the women masculine." That is just the difficulty in which we are involved to-day. Though disfranchised we have few women in the best sense, we have simply so many reflections, varieties, and dilutions of the masculine gender. The strong, natural characteristics of womanhood are repressed and ignored in dependence, for so long as man feeds woman she will try to please the giver and adapt herself to his condition. To keep a foothold in society woman must be as near like man as possible, reflect his ideas, opinions, virtues, motives, prejudices, and vices. She must respect his statutes, though they strip her of every inalienable right, and conflict with that higher law written by the finger of God on her own soul. She must believe his theology, though it pave the highways of hell with the skulls of new-born infants, and make God a monster of vengeance and hypocrisy. She must look at everything from its dollar and cent point of view, or she is a mere romancer. She must accept things as they are and make the best of them. To mourn over the miseries of others, the poverty of the poor, their hardships in jails, prisons, asylums, the horrors of war, cruelty, and brutality in every form, all this would be mere sentimentalizing. To protest against the intrigue, bribery, and corruption of public life, to desire that her sons might follow some business that did not involve lying, cheating, and a hard, grinding selfishness, would be arrant nonsense. In this way man has been moulding woman to his ideas by direct and positive influences, while she, if not a negation, has used indirect means to control him, and in most cases developed the very characteristics both in him and herself that needed repression. And now man himself stands appalled at the results of his own excesses, and mourns in bitterness that falsehood, selfishness and violence are the law of life. The need of this hour is not territory, gold mines, railroads, or specie payments, but a new evangel of womanhood, to exalt purity, virtue, morality, true religion, to lift man up into the higher realms of thought and action.
People complain about the demands of those they label as strong-minded, arguing that "the right to vote will make women masculine." That’s the dilemma we face today. Although we lack true representation, we have simply a multitude of reflections, variations, and diluted forms of masculinity. The strong, natural qualities of womanhood are suppressed and overlooked due to dependence; as long as men provide for women, they will try to please their benefactor and adjust to his circumstances. To maintain a place in society, women must mirror men as closely as possible, reflecting their ideas, opinions, virtues, motives, biases, and flaws. They must adhere to his laws, even if those laws strip them of their inalienable rights and clash with the higher moral law inscribed by God on their souls. They must accept his beliefs, even if they lead to horrific outcomes and depict God as a figure of vengeance and hypocrisy. They need to view everything through a monetary lens, or they are labeled as dreamers. They must accept the status quo and make the best of it. Mourning the suffering of others, the poverty of the needy, their struggles in jails, prisons, and asylums, the horrors of war, and all forms of cruelty would simply be seen as sentimental nonsense. To speak out against the manipulation, bribery, and corruption in public life, or to wish for their sons to pursue careers free of deceit and ruthless selfishness, would be considered utterly foolish. In this way, men have shaped women according to their ideals through direct and blatant influences, while women, if not entirely passive, have employed indirect methods to influence men and often developed characteristics in both him and herself that required restraint. Now, men are left shocked by the consequences of their own actions, lamenting that dishonesty, selfishness, and violence define life. What we need right now isn’t land, gold mines, railroads, or monetary stability, but a renewed emphasis on womanhood to elevate purity, virtue, morality, and true spirituality, raising humanity to higher levels of thought and action.
We ask woman's enfranchisement, as the first step toward the recognition of that essential element in government that can only secure the health, strength, and prosperity of the nation. Whatever is done to lift woman to her true position will help to usher in a new day of peace and perfection for the race. In speaking of the masculine element, I do not wish to be understood to say that all men are hard, selfish, and brutal, for many of the most beautiful spirits the world has known have been clothed with manhood; but I refer to those characteristics, though often marked in woman, that distinguish what is called the stronger sex. For example, the love of acquisition and conquest, the very pioneers of civilization,[Pg 353] when expended on the earth, the sea, the elements, the riches and forces of Nature, are powers of destruction when used to subjugate one man to another or to sacrifice nations to ambition. Here that great conservator of woman's love, if permitted to assert itself, as it naturally would in freedom against oppression, violence, and war, would hold all these destructive forces in check, for woman knows the cost of life better than man does, and not with her consent would one drop of blood ever be shed, one life sacrificed in vain. With violence and disturbance in the natural world, we see a constant effort to maintain an equilibrium of forces. Nature, like a loving mother, is ever trying to keep land and sea, mountain and valley, each in its place, to hush the angry winds and waves, balance the extremes of heat and cold, of rain and drought, that peace, harmony, and beauty may reign supreme. There is a striking analogy between matter and mind, and the present disorganization of society warns us, that in the dethronement of woman we have let loose the elements of violence and ruin that she only has the power to curb. If the civilization of the age calls for an extension of the suffrage, surely a government of the most virtuous, educated men and women would better represent the whole, and protect the interests of all than could the representation of either sex alone. But government gains no new element of strength in admitting all men to the ballot-box, for we have too much of the man-power there already. We see this in every department of legislation, and it is a common remark, that unless some new virtue is infused into our public life the nation is doomed to destruction. Will the foreign element, the dregs of China, Germany, England, Ireland, and Africa supply this needed force, or the nobler types of American womanhood who have taught our presidents, senators, and congressmen the rudiments of all they know?
We advocate for women's right to vote as the first step toward recognizing a crucial element in government that can truly ensure the health, strength, and prosperity of the nation. Anything done to elevate women to their rightful place will help usher in a new era of peace and perfection for humanity. When discussing men, I don’t mean to suggest that all men are harsh, selfish, or brutal; many of the most beautiful souls the world has known have been men. However, I'm referring to the traits, often seen in women but typically associated with what’s called the stronger sex. For instance, the desire for acquisition and conquest, vital to the advancement of civilization, when directed at the earth, sea, and natural resources, can lead to destruction when used to dominate or sacrifice individuals or nations for ambition. Here, if allowed to express itself, a woman's inherent love could counteract oppression, violence, and war, keeping these destructive forces in check, because women understand the value of life better than men do. With her consent, no blood would ever be shed, no life would be lost without purpose. In nature, we always see an effort to maintain balance among forces. Nature, like a caring mother, works to keep land and sea, mountains and valleys in harmony, calming the angry winds and waves, balancing extreme heat and cold, rain and drought, so that peace, harmony, and beauty can prevail. There is a strong parallel between matter and mind, and the current chaos in society serves as a warning; in sidelining women, we have unleashed elements of violence and destruction that only they can restrain. If today's civilization demands an expansion of voting rights, a government composed of the most virtuous and educated men and women would undoubtedly better represent everyone and protect the interests of all, compared to the representation of only one sex. However, admitting all men to the ballot box doesn’t strengthen the government, as we already have an excess of male influence in politics. This is evident in every legislative area, and it’s commonly noted that without infusing new virtues into our public life, the nation is headed for ruin. Will the influx of people from China, Germany, England, Ireland, and Africa provide this essential strength, or will it come from the nobler types of American women who have educated our presidents, senators, and congressmen in all that they know?
3. I urge a Sixteenth Amendment because, when "manhood suffrage" is established from Maine to California, woman has reached the lowest depths of political degradation. So long as there is a disfranchised class in this country, and that class its women, a man's government is worse than a white man's government with suffrage limited by property and educational qualifications, because in proportion as you multiply the rulers, the condition of the politically ostracised is more hopeless and degraded. John Stuart Mill, in his work on "Liberty," shows that the condition of one disfranchised man in a nation is worse than when the whole nation is under one man, because in the latter case, if the one man is despotic, the nation can easily throw him off, but what can one man do with a nation of tyrants over him? If American women find it hard to bear the oppressions of their own Saxon fathers, the best orders of manhood, what may they not be called to endure when all the lower orders of foreigners now crowding our shores legislate for them and their daughters. Think of Patrick and Sambo and Hans and Yung Tung, who do not know the difference between a monarchy and a republic, who can not read the Declaration of Independence or Webster's spelling-book, making laws for Lucretia Mott, Ernestine L. Rose, and Anna E. Dickinson. Think of jurors and jailors drawn from these ranks to watch and try young girls for the crime of infanticide, to decide the moral code by which the mothers of this Republic shall be governed? This manhood suffrage is an appalling question, and it would be well for thinking women, who seem to[Pg 354] consider it so magnanimous to hold their own claims in abeyance until all men are crowned with citizenship, to remember that the most ignorant men are ever the most hostile to the equality of women, as they have known them only in slavery and degradation.
3. I push for a Sixteenth Amendment because when "manhood suffrage" is in place from Maine to California, women have hit rock bottom in terms of political power. As long as there is a group of people in this country who can’t vote, and that group is women, a government run by men is worse than a white man’s government that restricts voting based on property and education, because the more rulers you have, the more hopeless and degraded the politically excluded become. John Stuart Mill, in his work on "Liberty," argues that the plight of one man without a vote in a nation is actually worse than when the entire nation is ruled by one man, because in the latter scenario, if that one man is a tyrant, the nation can easily get rid of him, but what can one man do against a nation of oppressors? If American women struggle to handle the oppression from their own Saxon fathers, what will they endure when all the lower classes of foreigners now flocking to our shores start making laws for them and their daughters? Imagine Patrick, Sambo, Hans, and Yung Tung, who don't understand the difference between a monarchy and a republic, who can’t read the Declaration of Independence or Webster's spelling book, creating laws for Lucretia Mott, Ernestine L. Rose, and Anna E. Dickinson. Consider jurors and jailors chosen from these groups who will watch and judge young girls for the crime of infanticide, determining the moral code by which the mothers of this Republic will be governed. This manhood suffrage issue is terrifying, and it would be wise for thoughtful women, who seem to think it’s noble to delay their own claims until all men are granted citizenship, to remember that the most ignorant men are also the most hostile to women's equality, as they have only known them in a state of slavery and degradation.
Go to our courts of justice, our jails and prisons; go into the world of work; into the trades and professions; into the temples of science and learning, and see what is meted out everywhere to women—to those who have no advocates in our courts, no representatives in the councils of the nation. Shall we prolong and perpetuate such injustice, and by increasing this power risk worse oppressions for ourselves and daughters? It is an open, deliberate insult to American womanhood to be cast down under the iron-heeled peasantry of the Old World and the slaves of the New, as we shall be in the practical working of the Fifteenth Amendment, and the only atonement the Republican party can make is now to complete its work, by enfranchising the women of the nation. I have not forgotten their action four years ago, when Article XIV., Sec. 2, was amended[113] by invidiously introducing the word "male" into the Federal Constitution, where it had never been before, thus counting out of the basis of representation all men not permitted to vote, thereby making it the interest of every State to enfranchise its male citizens, and virtually declaring it no crime to disfranchise its women. As political sagacity moved our rulers thus to guard the interests of the negro for party purposes, common justice might have compelled them to show like respect for their own mothers, by counting woman too out of the basis of representation, that she might no longer swell the numbers to legislate adversely to her interests. And this desecration of the last will and testament of the fathers, this retrogressive legislation for woman, was in the face of the earnest protests of thousands of the best educated, most refined and cultivated women of the North.
Go to our courts of justice, our jails and prisons; go into the world of work; into the trades and professions; into the temples of science and learning, and see what is served up everywhere to women—those who have no advocates in our courts, no representatives in the councils of the nation. Should we continue to allow such injustice, and by increasing this power risk worse oppressions for ourselves and our daughters? It is a blatant, deliberate insult to American womanhood to be brought down under the iron-fisted peasantry of the Old World and the slaves of the New, as we will be in the practical application of the Fifteenth Amendment, and the only atonement the Republican Party can make is to complete its work by giving the women of the nation the right to vote. I have not forgotten their actions four years ago when Article XIV, Sec. 2 was amended by sneakily introducing the word "male" into the Federal Constitution, where it had never been before, thus excluding all men who were not allowed to vote from the basis of representation, making it in every state's interest to enfranchise its male citizens, and effectively declaring it no crime to deny women the right to vote. As political strategy moved our leaders to protect the interests of Black citizens for party gain, common justice should have compelled them to show similar respect for their own mothers by also removing women from the basis of representation, so she would no longer add to the numbers that might legislate against her interests. And this violation of the last will and testament of the founders, this backward legislation affecting women, came despite the strong protests of thousands of the most educated, refined, and cultured women in the North.
Now, when the attention of the whole world is turned to this question of suffrage, and women themselves are throwing off the lethargy of ages, and in England, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Russia are holding their conventions, and their rulers are everywhere giving them a respectful hearing, shall American statesmen, claiming to be liberal, so amend their constitutions as to make their wives and mothers the political inferiors of unlettered and unwashed ditch-diggers, boot-blacks, butchers, and barbers, fresh from the slave plantations of the South, and the effete civilizations of the Old World? While poets and philosophers, statesmen and men of science are all alike pointing to woman as the new hope for the redemption of the race, shall the freest Government on the earth be the first to establish an aristocracy based on sex alone? to exalt ignorance above education, vice above virtue, brutality and barbarism above refinement and religion? Not since God first called light out of darkness and order out of chaos, was there ever made so base a proposition as "manhood suffrage" in this American Republic, after all the discussions we have had on human[Pg 355] rights in the last century. On all the blackest pages of history there is no record of an act like this, in any nation, where native born citizens, having the same religion, speaking the same language, equal to their rulers in wealth, family, and education, have been politically ostracised by their own countrymen, outlawed with savages, and subjected to the government of outside barbarians. Remember the Fifteenth Amendment takes in a larger population than the 2,000,000 black men on the Southern plantation. It takes in all the foreigners daily landing in our eastern cities, the Chinese crowding our western shores, the inhabitants of Alaska, and all those western isles that will soon be ours. American statesmen may flatter themselves that by superior intelligence and political sagacity the higher orders of men will always govern, but when the ignorant foreign vote already holds the balance of power in all the large cities by sheer force of numbers, it is simply a question of impulse or passion, bribery or fraud, how our elections will be carried. When the highest offices in the gift of the people are bought and sold in Wall Street, it is a mere chance who will be our rulers. Whither is a nation tending when brains count for less than bullion, and clowns make laws for queens? It is a startling assertion, but nevertheless true, that in none of the nations of modern Europe are the higher classes of women politically so degraded as are the women of this Republic to-day. In the Old World, where the government is the aristocracy, where it is considered a mark of nobility to share its offices and powers, women of rank have certain hereditary lights which raise them above a majority of the men, certain honors and privileges not granted to serfs and peasants. There women are queens, hold subordinate offices, and vote on many questions. In our Southern States even, before the war, women were not degraded below the working population. They were not humiliated in seeing their coachmen, gardeners, and waiters go to the polls to legislate for them; but here, in this boasted Northern civilization, women of wealth and education, who pay taxes and obey the laws, who in morals and intellect are the peers of their proudest rulers, are thrust outside the pale of political consideration with minors, paupers, lunatics, traitors, idiots, with those guilty of bribery, larceny, and infamous crimes.
Now, as the whole world focuses on the issue of voting rights, and women are awakening from a long slumber, holding conventions in England, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Russia, with their leaders listening respectfully, should American politicians, claiming to be progressive, change their constitutions to make their wives and mothers politically inferior to uneducated and unclean laborers, boot-blacks, butchers, and barbers, recently arrived from the slave plantations of the South and the decaying civilizations of the Old World? While poets, philosophers, politicians, and scientists all point to women as the new hope for humanity's future, will the freest government on Earth be the first to create an aristocracy based solely on gender? Will it elevate ignorance over education, vice over virtue, and brutality over refinement and faith? Since the dawn of creation, there has never been a more disgraceful concept than “manhood suffrage” in this American Republic, especially after all the discussions we've had on human rights in the last century. There is no record in history, on its darkest pages, of an act like this in any nation, where native-born citizens who share the same religion and language, and are equal in wealth, family, and education to their leaders, have been politically ostracized by their fellow countrymen, treated like savages, and subjected to the rule of outsiders. Keep in mind that the Fifteenth Amendment applies to more people than just the 2,000,000 black men on Southern plantations. It encompasses all the immigrants arriving in our eastern cities daily, the Chinese settling our western shores, the people of Alaska, and all the western islands that will soon be ours. American politicians may believe that due to superior intelligence and political wisdom, the higher classes will always govern, but when the votes of uneducated foreigners already tip the balance of power in major cities simply by sheer numbers, it’s merely a matter of impulse or passion, bribery or fraud, determining how our elections will be decided. When the highest offices available to the people are traded in Wall Street transactions, it’s just a roll of the dice who will lead us. What direction is a nation heading when brains are worth less than money, and clowns create laws for queens? It might be shocking to say, but it’s true that in none of the modern European nations are women of the upper classes as politically degraded as women in this Republic today. In the Old World, where the government is an aristocracy and sharing its power is a mark of nobility, women of rank have certain hereditary rights that elevate them above many men, with honors and privileges not available to serfs and peasants. There, women are queens, hold lesser offices, and vote on various issues. Even in our Southern States, before the Civil War, women were not looked down upon compared to the working class. They were not humiliated seeing their drivers, gardeners, and waiters go to the polls to legislate for them; yet here, in this supposedly advanced Northern society, educated and wealthy women who pay taxes and follow the laws, and who are equal in morals and intellect to their proudest rulers, are pushed out of political consideration, relegated alongside minors, the poor, the insane, traitors, and those guilty of bribery, theft, and other serious crimes.
Would those gentlemen who are on all sides telling the women of the nation not to press their claims until the negro is safe beyond peradventure, be willing themselves to stand aside and trust all their interests to hands like these? The educated women of this nation feel as much interest in republican institutions, the preservation of the country, the good of the race, their own elevation and success, as any man possibly can, and we have the same distrust in man's power to legislate for us, that he has in woman's power to legislate wisely for herself.
Would those gentlemen who keep telling the women of the nation not to push their claims until the safety of Black people is guaranteed, be willing to step back and trust all their interests to people like these? The educated women of this nation care just as much about democratic institutions, the well-being of the country, the advancement of their race, and their own success as any man does. We share the same skepticism about a man's ability to legislate for us as he has about a woman's ability to legislate wisely for herself.
4. I would press a Sixteenth Amendment, because the history of American statesmanship does not inspire me with confidence in man's capacity to govern the nation alone, with justice and mercy. I have come to this conclusion, not only from my own observation, but from what our rulers say of themselves. Honorable Senators have risen in their places again and again, and told the people of the wastefulness and corruption of the present administration. Others have set forth, with equal clearness, the ignorance of our rulers on the question of finance....
4. I would advocate for a Sixteenth Amendment because the history of American leadership doesn't give me confidence in people’s ability to govern the nation alone with fairness and compassion. I've reached this conclusion not just from my own observations, but also from what our leaders say about themselves. Respected Senators have stood up repeatedly and informed the public about the waste and corruption in the current administration. Others have clearly pointed out the lack of knowledge our leaders have regarding financial matters.
The following letters were received and read in the Convention:
The following letters were received and read at the Convention:
New York, Jan. 14, 1869.
New York, Jan. 14, 1869.
Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing,—Dear Madam:—Your favor of the 6th inst. is received. Permit me to assure you it would give me great pleasure to be present at your important convention of the 19th, but indisposition will not allow me that gratification.
Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing,—Hello:—I received your letter from the 6th. I want to let you know that I would love to attend your important convention on the 19th, but unfortunately, I'm not feeling well and can't make it.
Looking at all the circumstances; the position, the epoch, and the efforts now being made to extend the right to the ballot, your Convention is perhaps the most important that was ever held. It is a true maxim, that it is easier to do justice than injustice; to do right than wrong; and to do it at once, than by small degrees. How much better and easier it would have been for Congress, when they enfranchised all the men of the District of Columbia, had they included the women also; but better late than never. Let the National government, to which the States have a right to look for good example, do justice to woman now, and all the States will follow....
Considering all the factors—the situation, the time period, and the efforts currently being made to expand voting rights—your Convention might be the most significant one ever held. It’s a well-known fact that it’s easier to do what’s right than wrong, to act justly rather than unjustly, and to take immediate action instead of making gradual changes. How much better and simpler it would have been for Congress, when they granted voting rights to all the men in the District of Columbia, to have included women as well; but better late than never. Let the national government, which the states can look to for a good example, do what’s right for women now, and all the states will follow...
It was a terrible mistake and a fundamental error, based upon ignorance and injustice, ever to have introduced the word "male" into the Federal Constitution. The terms "male" and "female" simply designate the physical or animal distinction between the sexes, and ought be used only in speaking of the lower animals. Human beings are men and women, possessed of human faculties and understanding, which we call mind; and mind recognizes no sex, therefore the term "male," as applied to human beings—to citizens—ought to be expunged from the constitution and laws as a last remnant of barbarism—when the animal, not mind, when might, not right, governed the world. Let your Convention, then, urge Congress to wipe out that purely animal distinction from the national constitution. That noble instrument was destined to govern intelligent, responsible human beings—men and women—not sex. The childish argument that all women don't ask for the franchise would hardly deserve notice were it not sometimes used by men of sense. To all such I would say, examine ancient and modern history, yes, even of your own times, and you will find there never has been a time when all men of any country—white or black—have ever asked for a reform. Reforms have to be claimed and obtained by the few, who are in advance, for the benefit of the many who lag behind. And when once obtained and almost forced upon them, the mass of the people accept and enjoy their benefits as a matter of course. Look at the petitions now pouring into Congress for the franchise for women, and compare their thousands of signatures with the few isolated names that graced our first petitions to the Legislature of New York to secure to the married woman the right to hold in her own name the property that belonged to her, to secure to the poor, forsaken wife the right to her earnings, and to the mother the right to her children. "All" the women did not ask for those rights, but all accepted them with joy and gladness when they were obtained; and so it will be with the franchise. But woman's claim for the ballot does not depend upon the numbers that demand it, or would exercise the right; but upon precisely the same principles that man claims it for himself. Chase, Sumner, Stevens, and many of both Houses of Congress have, time after time, declared that the franchise means "Security, Education, Responsibility, Self-respect, Prosperity, and Independence." Taking all these assertions for granted[Pg 357] and fully appreciating all their benefits, in the name of security, of education, of responsibility, of self-respect, of liberty, of prosperity and independence we demand the franchise for woman.
It was a huge mistake and a basic error, rooted in ignorance and injustice, to have included the word "male" in the Federal Constitution. The words "male" and "female" only refer to the physical or biological differences between the sexes and should be used only when talking about lower animals. Human beings are men and women, endowed with human abilities and understanding, which we refer to as the mind; and the mind recognizes no gender. Therefore, the term "male," when referring to human beings—citizens—should be removed from the Constitution and laws as a final remnant of barbarism—when animal instincts, not the mind, and brute strength, not justice, ruled the world. So let your Convention encourage Congress to eliminate that purely animal distinction from the national Constitution. That great document was meant to govern intelligent, responsible humans—men and women—not gender. The childish argument that not all women ask for the vote is hardly worth discussing, except that it sometimes comes from sensible men. To them, I say, look at ancient and modern history, even in your own time, and you’ll see that there’s never been a moment when all men in any country—white or black—have asked for reform. Reforms are demanded and achieved by the few who are ahead, for the benefit of the many who are behind. And once those reforms are achieved and practically forced on them, the majority of people accept and enjoy the benefits as if it’s a given. Look at the petitions now flooding Congress for women’s voting rights, and compare the thousands of signatures with the few isolated names on our early petitions to the New York Legislature to guarantee married women the right to own property in their own names, to give poor, abandoned wives the right to their earnings, and to secure to mothers their children. Not all women asked for those rights, but all gladly accepted them once they were granted; and the same will happen with voting rights. However, women’s claim to the ballot is not based on how many demand it or would use it, but on the same principles that men claim for themselves. Chase, Sumner, Stevens, and many from both Houses of Congress have repeatedly stated that the franchise means "Security, Education, Responsibility, Self-respect, Prosperity, and Independence." Taking all these assertions at face value[Pg 357] and fully understanding all their benefits, in the name of security, education, responsibility, self-respect, liberty, prosperity, and independence, we demand voting rights for women.
Please present this hastily-written contribution to your Convention with best wishes.
Please submit this quickly written contribution to your convention with best wishes.
Ernestine L. Rose.
Ernestine L. Rose.
Yours, dear madam, very truly,
Yours, dear madam, very truly,
William Lloyd Garrison writes: Unable to attend the Convention, I can only send you my warm approval of it, and the object it is designed to promote. It is boastingly claimed in behalf of the Government of the United States that it is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Yet reckoning the whole number at thirty-eight millions, no less than one-half—that is, nineteen millions—are political ciphers. A single male voter, on election day, outweighs them all!
William Lloyd Garrison writes: I can’t attend the Convention, but I want to express my strong support for it and the purpose it aims to achieve. The Government of the United States proudly claims it is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." However, considering the total population of thirty-eight million, about half—nineteen million—are political nonentities. One male voter on election day holds more influence than all of them combined!
Aaron M. Powell writes: I have no doubt that if a fair and honest vote can be had upon the question, submitted upon its own merits, in the Senate and House of Representatives, both the friends and opponents of the measure here, as in Great Britain when John Stuart Mill's proposition was first voted upon in Parliament, will be surprised at the revelation of its real strength.
Aaron M. Powell writes: I’m sure that if we can have a fair and honest vote on the issue, judged on its own merits, in the Senate and House of Representatives, both supporters and opponents of the measure, just like in Great Britain when John Stuart Mill's proposal was first voted on in Parliament, will be surprised by how strong it actually is.
Mrs. Caroline H. Dall writes: It mitigates my regret in declining your invitation to remember that these are not the dark days of the cause.
Mrs. Caroline H. Dall writes: It eases my regret in turning down your invitation to remember that these are not the dark days for the cause.
Senator Fowler, of Tenn., writes: It is not possible that the people who have so enlarged the boundaries of the political rights of another race just emerged from slavery, will fail to recognize the claims of the women of the United States to equal rights in all the relations of life.
Senator Fowler, of Tenn., writes: It’s hard to believe that the people who have expanded the political rights of another race just freed from slavery would not acknowledge the demands of American women for equal rights in all aspects of life.
Wm. H. Sylvis says: I am in favor of universal suffrage, universal amnesty, and universal liberty.
Wm. H. Sylvis says: I support universal voting rights, universal forgiveness, and universal freedom.
Abby Hopper Gibbons says: My father, Isaac T. Hopper, was an advocate for woman and her work, he believed in her thoroughly. His life long he was associated with many of the best women of his day. With the help of good men, we shall ere long stand side by side with ballot in hand.
Abby Hopper Gibbons says: My father, Isaac T. Hopper, was a strong supporter of women and their work; he believed in them completely. Throughout his life, he was connected with many of the best women of his time. With the support of good men, we will soon stand side by side with a ballot in hand.
Paulina Wright Davis: If women are the only unrecognized class as a part of the people, then woe to the nation! for there will be no noble mothers; frivolity, folly, and madness will seize them, for all inverted action of the faculties becomes intense in just the ratio of its earnestness.
Paulina Wright Davis: If women are the only unrecognized group in society, then it's a disaster for the nation! Without noble mothers, frivolity, foolishness, and madness will take over, because every distorted use of our abilities grows stronger in direct relation to its seriousness.
Harriet Beecher Stowe writes: I am deeply interested in the work, and hopeful that a broader sphere is opening for woman, that as a class they may be trained in early life more as men are in education and business.
Harriet Beecher Stowe writes: I am really interested in this work, and I hope that more opportunities are opening up for women, so that, as a group, they can be educated and trained in business in the same way men are from an early age.
Gen. Oliver O. Howard answers: Please express to the Committee my thanks for the invitation. I should be pleased to accept, but a lecture engagement in the West will compel me to be absent from the city.
Gen. Oliver O. Howard answers: Please thank the Committee for the invitation. I would be happy to accept, but a lecture commitment in the West will keep me from being in the city.
James M. Scovill, of New Jersey, says: I deeply desire to come. Go on in your great work. The Convention tells on the public mind.
James M. Scovill, from New Jersey, expresses: I really want to come. Keep moving forward with your important work. The Convention is making an impact on public perception.
Gerrit Smith replies: I thank you for your invitation, though it is not in my power to attend the Convention. God hasten the day when the civil and political rights of woman shall be admitted to be equal to those of man.
Gerrit Smith replies: Thank you for inviting me, but I can't make it to the Convention. I pray for the day when women's civil and political rights are recognized as equal to men's.
Simeon Corley, M.C., of South Carolina, writes: Having been an advocate of woman suffrage for a quarter of a century, I had the pleasure yesterday of enrolling my name and that of my wife on your list of delegates. To-day[Pg 358] Hon. James H. Goss, M.C., of South Carolina, requested me to have you insert his name. I think you may safely count on the South Carolina delegation.
Simeon Corley, M.C., from South Carolina, writes: After supporting women’s right to vote for twenty-five years, I had the pleasure yesterday of adding my name and my wife’s to your list of delegates. Today[Pg 358], Hon. James H. Goss, M.C., from South Carolina, asked me to have you include his name as well. I believe you can confidently count on the South Carolina delegation.
This Convention was the first public occasion when the women opposed to the XIV Amendment, measuring their logic with Republicans, Abolitionists, and colored men, ably maintained their position. The division of opinion was marked and earnest, and the debate was warm between Messrs. Douglass, Downing, Hinton, Dr. Purvis, and Edward M. Davis on one side, and the ladies, with Robert Purvis[114] and Parker Pillsbury on the other. Edward M. Davis, the son-in-law of Lucretia Mott, was so hostile to the position of the women on the XIV Amendment that he refused to enroll his name as a member of the Convention. Nevertheless, Mrs. Mott in the chair, allowed him to criticise most severely the resolutions and the position of those with whom she stood. She answered his attacks with her usual gentleness, and advocated the resolutions.[115] Robert Purvis, differing with his own son and other colored men, denounced their position with severity. Yet good feeling prevailed throughout, and the Convention adjourned in order and harmony.[Pg 359]
This Convention was the first public event where women opposed to the XIV Amendment, aligning their reasoning with Republicans, Abolitionists, and African American men, effectively defended their stance. The difference in opinions was clear and intense, and the debate was heated between Messrs. Douglass, Downing, Hinton, Dr. Purvis, and Edward M. Davis on one side, and the women, along with Robert Purvis[114] and Parker Pillsbury on the other. Edward M. Davis, the son-in-law of Lucretia Mott, was so against the women's position on the XIV Amendment that he refused to sign up as a member of the Convention. Nevertheless, with Mrs. Mott in the chair, he was allowed to criticize the resolutions and the stance of those she supported. She responded to his criticisms with her usual kindness and advocated for the resolutions.[115] Robert Purvis, disagreeing with his own son and other African American men, strongly condemned their position. Still, a positive atmosphere remained throughout, and the Convention concluded in an orderly and harmonious manner.[Pg 359]
The following objective view of the Convention, of the tone of the addresses, and the personnel of the platform, from the pen of one of our distinguished literary women—Sarah Clarke Lippincott—will serve to show that the leaders in the suffrage movement were not the rude, uncultured women generally represented by the opposition, but in point of intelligence, refinement, appearance, and all the feminine virtues, far above the ordinary standard. For the honor of this grand reform, we record the compliments occasionally bestowed.
The following objective perspective on the Convention, including the tone of the speeches and the people on the platform, written by one of our notable literary figures—Sarah Clarke Lippincott—will demonstrate that the leaders of the suffrage movement were not the unrefined, uneducated women often portrayed by their opponents. Instead, they were, in terms of intelligence, grace, appearance, and all the qualities associated with femininity, well above the average standard. In celebration of this important reform, we acknowledge the compliments that were occasionally given.
[From the Philadelphia Press].
[From the Philadelphia Press].
Washington, Jan. 21, 1869.
Washington, Jan. 21, 1869.
The proceedings were opened with prayer by Dr. Gray, the Chaplain of the Senate, a man of remarkably liberal spirit. This prayer, however, did not give perfect satisfaction. Going back to the beginning of things, the doctor unfortunately chanced to take, of the two Mosaic accounts of the creation of man and woman, that one which is least exalting to woman, representing her as built on a "spare rib" of Adam. Let us hope the reverend gentleman will "overhaul" his Genesis and "take a note."
The meeting started with a prayer by Dr. Gray, the Senate Chaplain, a man with a notably open-minded attitude. However, this prayer didn’t completely please everyone. Reflecting on the origins of humanity, the doctor unfortunately chose the less flattering of the two Biblical accounts of the creation of man and woman, which describes woman as being made from a "spare rib" of Adam. Let's hope the reverend will revisit his Genesis and reconsider his choice.
On the platform was an imposing array of intellect, courage, and noble character. First there was dear, revered Lucretia Mott, her sweet, saintly[Pg 360] face cloistered in her Quaker bonnet, her serene and gracious presence, so dignified yet so utterly unpretending, so self-poised yet so gentle, so peaceful yet so powerful, sanctioning and sanctifying the meeting and the movement.
On the platform was an impressive mix of intelligence, bravery, and noble character. First there was dear, respected Lucretia Mott, her sweet, saintly[Pg 360] face hidden under her Quaker bonnet, her calm and gracious presence, so dignified yet completely unassuming, so self-assured yet gentle, so peaceful yet powerful, blessing and elevating the meeting and the movement.
Near her sat her sister, Mrs. Wright, of Auburn, a woman of strong, constant character and of rare intellectual culture; Mrs. Cady Stanton, a lady of impressive and beautiful appearance, in the rich prime of an active, generous, and healthful life; Miss Susan B. Anthony, looking all she is, a keen, energetic, uncompromising, unconquerable, passionately earnest woman; Clara Barton, whose name is dear to soldiers and blessed in thousands of homes to which the soldiers shall return no more—a brave, benignant looking woman. But I will not indulge in personal descriptions, though Dr. Mary Walker in her emancipated garments and Eve-like arrangement or disarrangement of hair, is somewhat tempting.
Near her sat her sister, Mrs. Wright from Auburn, a woman of strong, steady character and exceptional intelligence; Mrs. Cady Stanton, an impressive and graceful lady, in the vibrant prime of an active, kind, and healthy life; Miss Susan B. Anthony, embodying her strong traits as a sharp, energetic, uncompromising, unbeatable, and passionately dedicated woman; Clara Barton, whose name is cherished by soldiers and beloved in countless homes from which the soldiers will never return—a brave, kind-looking woman. But I won't go into personal descriptions, although Dr. Mary Walker, in her free-spirited attire and Eve-like style or disarray of hair, is quite tempting.
Senator Pomeroy, acting as temporary chairman, called the Convention to order. Certain committees were appointed, and the Senator spoke for some twenty or thirty minutes, very happily and effectively, on the question of Woman's Rights under the Constitution—both as originally written and as amended. He argued that all born or naturalized Americans are citizens—that neither sex nor color has anything to do with citizenship rightfully. His reasoning seemed to us, who are interested, cogent and logical, and his spirit fearless and broad. Mrs. Stanton spoke on the general question with great force and pithiness. Of all their speakers she seemed to me to have the most weight. Her speeches are models of composition, clear, compact, elegant, and logical. She makes her points with peculiar sharpness and certainty, and there is no denying or dodging her conclusions. Mrs. Mott followed Mrs. Stanton, and at a later hour spoke again. She can not speak too often for the good of this or any cause. Her arguments are always gently put forward, but there is great force behind them—the force of reason and justice and simple truth. Her wit, too, though it gleams out softly and playfully, illuminates her subject as the keener, sharper light of satire never could illuminate it. She is always reasonable, gracious, and judicious. She never strives for effect, and is too conscientious to be sensational, yet no speaker among the younger women of this movement makes more telling points—no one knows so well every foot of the broad field of argument. In her practiced hand every weapon is ready on the instant, whether drawn from the armories of Scripture, history, literature, or politics. She reviewed the history of this movement from the beginning, paying warm tribute to the memory of its early advocates. She proved that for centuries the discontented, the indignant protest in the souls of women, which has culminated in this movement, has formed an element which has been secretly surging and seething under the surface of society. These were no new wrongs or needs of ours, she said; the women of the past, of all ages, had felt them; we are only giving voice to them.
Senator Pomeroy, serving as the temporary chair, called the Convention to order. Various committees were appointed, and the Senator spoke for about twenty or thirty minutes, quite passionately and effectively, about Women's Rights under the Constitution—both in its original form and as amended. He argued that all born or naturalized Americans are citizens, and that neither gender nor race should affect citizenship rights. His arguments struck us, those who are invested in this issue, as compelling and logical, and his spirit was fearless and inclusive. Mrs. Stanton addressed the overall issue with great strength and conciseness. Among all the speakers, she appeared to be the most impactful. Her speeches are examples of effective communication—clear, concise, elegant, and logical. She presents her points with unique clarity and certainty, leaving no room to deny or evade her conclusions. Mrs. Mott followed Mrs. Stanton and spoke again later. She could speak repeatedly for the benefit of this or any cause. Her arguments are always presented gently, but they carry significant weight—the weight of reason, justice, and simple truth. Her humor, though presented softly and playfully, sheds light on her topic in a way that a sharper, satirical approach could not. She is always reasonable, gracious, and thoughtful. She does not aim for dramatic effect, and is too principled to be sensational, yet no speaker among the younger women in this movement makes more impactful points—no one is more familiar with every aspect of the broad argument. In her experienced hands, every tool is instantly available, whether drawn from the realms of Scripture, history, literature, or politics. She reviewed the history of this movement from the beginning, paying heartfelt tribute to the early advocates. She demonstrated that for centuries, the discontent and indignation in the hearts of women, which has led to this movement, has been an undercurrent secretly boiling beneath the surface of society. These were not new injustices or needs, she said; women throughout history have felt them; we are merely voicing them now.
A most eloquent letter from Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose was read, indorsing the Convention; also one from William Lloyd Garrison. Mrs. Griffing, of Washington, spoke with remarkable earnestness and fervor, and was followed by Mrs. Hathaway, of Boston. This lady said: "They say the majority[Pg 361] shall rule. Well, there are, east of the Alleghanies, 400,000 more women than men. So the minority rule us." Upon the whole, I was quite willing to have this body of women orators and debaters compared with either of the great legislative bodies who meet over in yonder great marble temple of wisdom, eloquence, logic, and law.
A very eloquent letter from Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose was read, supporting the Convention; there was also one from William Lloyd Garrison. Mrs. Griffing from Washington spoke with impressive seriousness and passion, followed by Mrs. Hathaway from Boston. This lady said: "They say the majority[Pg 361] should rule. Well, there are 400,000 more women than men east of the Alleghenies. So the minority rules us." Overall, I felt quite comfortable comparing this group of women orators and debaters to either of the major legislative bodies that meet in that grand marble temple of wisdom, eloquence, logic, and law.
Mrs. Starrett, of Kansas, a bright, ruddy, rosy woman, made a good, practical speech on the influence of the franchise upon the domestic life of women.
Mrs. Starrett, from Kansas, a lively, healthy woman, gave a good, practical speech about how voting affects women's home life.
Mrs. Butler, of Vineland, N. J., made one of the most charming and womanly speeches, or talks, of the Convention, recounting her experience as one of the gallant band of women who, at the late fall elections, made an imposing demonstration at the polls in her lively and progressive town. Fearful threats had reached them of insult and violence from rough boys and men; but they met with absolutely nothing of the kind, though they did not approach the polls like the Neapolitan heroine who votes for Victor Emanuel, with pistols and daggers in their belts and war medals on their breasts. They were made way for as respectfully as though they had been about to enter a church door. Of course, their votes were thrown out, but it would not always be so. They would hope on and vote on. Touching the reforms that women intend to bring about when they shall "come into the kingdom," she said, "we will rule liquor out of the country;" a declaration which at the present critical stage of affairs, and in Washington, struck me as rather impolitic. "As to the question of woman first or the black man first," she said, "I mean both together"; evidently looking for a constitutional amendment gateway wide enough for the two to dash in abreast, neck-and-neck. "Oh, woman, great is thy faith!" This speaker related some sad stories illustrative of woman's legal disabilities, and dwelt feelingly on the old, palpable, intolerable grievance of inequality of wages, and on the bars and restrictions which woman encounters at every turn, in her struggle for an honorable livelihood.
Mrs. Butler, from Vineland, N.J., delivered one of the most charming and heartfelt speeches at the Convention, sharing her experience as part of a brave group of women who, during the recent fall elections, made a significant showing at the polls in her vibrant and progressive town. They had received alarming threats of insult and violence from rowdy boys and men, but in reality, they faced none of that, even though they didn’t show up at the polls like the Neapolitan heroine who votes for Victor Emanuel, armed with pistols, daggers, and war medals. They were treated with as much respect as if they were entering a church. Naturally, their votes were discarded, but that wouldn’t always be the case. They would continue to hope and vote. Regarding the changes women aim to make when they "come into power," she stated, "we will eliminate alcohol from the country," a statement that seemed quite bold given the current situation in Washington. "As for the question of whether women come first or Black men do," she said, "I believe in both together"; clearly hoping for a constitutional amendment that would allow both groups to move forward side by side. "Oh, woman, great is your faith!" This speaker shared some poignant stories illustrating women's legal challenges and passionately addressed the long-standing, frustrating issue of wage inequality, along with the barriers and restrictions women face at every turn in their quest for a respectable living.
In reply, Mrs. Mott, in her bright, sweet, deprecating way, cast a flood of sunlight on the dark pictures, by referring to the remodeling of the laws respecting the relation of husband and wife, in regard to property, and the right of the mother to her child, by the Legislatures of the various States and especially by that of the State of New York.
In response, Mrs. Mott, in her cheerful, gentle manner, shed light on the bleak situations by mentioning the changes in laws about the relationship between husband and wife concerning property and a mother's rights to her child, made by the legislatures of different states, particularly by New York.
Miss Anthony followed in a strain not only cheerful, but exultant—reviewing the advance of the cause from its first despised beginning to its present position, where, she alleged, it commanded the attention of the world. She spoke in her usual pungent, vehement style, hitting the nail on the head every time, and driving it in up to the head. Indeed, it seems to me, that while Lucretia Mott may be said to be the soul of this movement, and Mrs. Stanton the mind, the "swift, keen intelligence," Miss Anthony, alert, aggressive, and indefatigable, is its nervous energy—its propulsive force.
Miss Anthony followed with a tone that was not just cheerful but also triumphant—reflecting on the progress of the movement from its early days of being looked down upon to its current status, which she claimed was attracting global attention. She spoke in her usual sharp and passionate way, making her points clearly and effectively. In fact, it seems to me that while Lucretia Mott could be seen as the heart of this movement and Mrs. Stanton the brain, with her "swift, keen intelligence," Miss Anthony—quick, assertive, and tireless—represents its driving energy and force.
Mrs. Stanton has the best arts of the politician and the training of the jurist, added to the fiery, unresting spirit of the reformer. She has a rare talent for affairs, management, and mastership. Yet she is in an eminent degree womanly, having an almost regal pride of sex. In France, in the time of the revolution or the first empire, she would have been a Roland or a De Stael. I will not attempt the slightest sketch of her closing speech, which[Pg 362] was not only a powerful plea for disfranchised womanhood, but for motherhood. It was now impassioned, now playful, now witty, now pathetic. It was surpassingly eloquent, and apparently convincing, for the boldest and most radical utterances, brought from the great audience the heartiest applause. For this, I love the people. No great, brave, true thought can be uttered before an American audience without bringing a cordial and generous response. All are not ready, of course, to carry into action, into life, legislation, and law the sentiments of liberty and justice they applaud; but they feel that somewhere, in some nameless Utopia far away, such things might be lived out. Thank heaven that Utopia is possible for humanity—a real, practical condition of our mortal life—only a little way before us, perhaps.
Mrs. Stanton has the best skills of a politician and the training of a jurist, combined with the passionate, tireless spirit of a reformer. She has a remarkable talent for handling affairs, management, and leadership. Yet, she remains extremely feminine, possessing an almost royal pride in her gender. In France, during the time of the revolution or the early empire, she would have been a Roland or a De Stael. I won’t even try to summarize her closing speech, which[Pg 362] was not only a powerful appeal for disenfranchised women but also for motherhood. It was at times passionate, playful, witty, and poignant. It was extraordinarily eloquent and seemed convincing, as the boldest and most radical statements received the loudest applause from the large audience. For this, I love the people. No great, brave, true idea can be expressed in front of an American audience without generating a warm and generous response. Of course, not everyone is ready to transform the sentiments of liberty and justice they cheer for into action, legislation, and law, but they believe that somewhere, in some unnamed Utopia far away, such ideals could be realized. Thank goodness that Utopia is possible for humanity—a real, practical state of our mortal life—perhaps just a little way ahead of us.
Many good, refined people turn a cold shoulder on this cause of woman's rights because their religious sentiment, or their taste, is shocked by the character or appearance of some of its public advocates. They say: "If we were only to see at their conventions that Quaker gentlewoman, Lucretia Mott, with her serene presence; Mrs. Stanton, with her patrician air; Miss Anthony, with her sharp, intellectual fencing; Lucy Stone, with her sweet, persuasive argument and lucid logic—it were very well; but to their free platform, bores, fanatics, and fools are admitted, to elbow them and disgust us." I suppose that such annoyances, to use a mild term, necessarily belong to a free platform, and that freedom of speech is one of the most sacred rights—especially to woman. Yet I think some authority there should be to exclude or silence persons unfit to appear before an intelligent and refined audience—some power to rule out utterly, and keep out, ignorant or insane men and women who realize some of the worst things falsely charged against the leaders of this movement. But to see the three chief figures of this great movement of Woman's Rights sitting upon a stage in joint council, like the three Parcæ or Fates of a new dispensation—dignity and the ever-acceptable grace of scholarly earnestness, intelligence, and beneficence making them prominent—is assurance that the women of our country, bereft of defenders, or injured by false ones, have advocates equal to the great demands of their cause.
Many decent, refined people turn a cold shoulder to the cause of women's rights because they are taken aback by the character or appearance of some of its public advocates. They say, "If we could just see at their conventions that Quaker gentlewoman, Lucretia Mott, with her calm presence; Mrs. Stanton, with her upper-class demeanor; Miss Anthony, with her sharp, intellectual debates; and Lucy Stone, with her sweet, persuasive arguments and clear logic—it would be great; but at their free platform, dullards, fanatics, and fools are allowed in, making us uncomfortable." I suppose that such annoyances, to put it mildly, are part of having a free platform, and that freedom of speech is one of the most sacred rights—especially for women. Still, I believe there should be some authority to exclude or silence those who are unfit to appear before an intelligent and cultured audience—some power to completely rule out and keep away ignorant or unstable individuals who reflect some of the worst things falsely attributed to the leaders of this movement. But seeing the three main figures of this significant movement for Women's Rights sharing the stage in joint discussion, like the three Fates of a new era—dignity and the always-appealing grace of scholarly seriousness, intelligence, and kindness making them stand out—assures us that the women of our country, without defenders, or harmed by false ones, have advocates who are up to the great challenges of their cause.
Grace Greenwood.
Grace Greenwood.
EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE.
Washington, Jan. 22, 1869.
Washington, Jan. 22, 1869.
Dear Revolution:—We hear good accounts from all quarters of the effect of the Woman's National Suffrage Convention. From the numbers who called upon us, the courtesy of our rulers, the marked attentions paid us in society, and the many enthusiastic letters we daily receive, we are led to believe that woman's suffrage is becoming very popular. As both the editor and proprietor of The Revolution are in the sere and yellow leaf, the many attentions and compliments showered upon us are of course from no personal considerations, but so many tributes of respect to the ideas we represent; as such we gratefully accept all that come to us, and thank our hosts of friends for the words of good cheer we received in Washington. As we have never been cast down with scorn and ridicule, we shall never be puffed up with praise and admiration. In the future, as the past, the motto of the good Abbe de Lamennais shall be ours, "Let the weal and the woe of humanity be everything to us, their praise and their blame of no effect." In[Pg 363] conversation with some of the members we found them quite jealous of the attentions Mr. Pomeroy was receiving from the women of the nation. This will never do, to be sowing seeds of discord where fraternal love should abound, and we hope the women of the several States will send their petitions to their own members. As Mr. Pomeroy has enough piled up in his committee room to keep him busy all winter, we advise him to distribute them among all the gallant gentlemen who would feel honored in presenting them. Then, too, there is much wisdom in the remarks made by the Hon. Roscoe Conkling, when he presented a woman's petition, on the danger of granting Mr. Pomeroy a monopoly of such privileges, lest he should grow lukewarm in the cause. True, we have looked in vain for any burst of eloquence from the Kansas gentleman, thus far, in the Senate, but it may be that he can not find words to express the depth of his sympathy for oppressed womanhood, hence the silent eloquence of action alone in behalf of the fair petitioners.
Dear Revolution:—We’re hearing great feedback from everywhere about the impact of the Woman's National Suffrage Convention. From the many people who visited us, the kindness shown by our leaders, the attention we received socially, and the enthusiastic letters we get every day, we believe that women's suffrage is becoming very popular. Since both the editor and the owner of The Revolution are in their later years, the compliments and attention we receive are clearly not personal but are tributes to the ideas we stand for; we gratefully accept all of them and thank our many friends for the kind words we received in Washington. We have never been brought down by scorn and ridicule, so we will not be carried away by praise and admiration. In the future, as in the past, we will adopt the motto of the good Abbe de Lamennais: "Let the well-being and suffering of humanity be everything to us; their praise and blame are of no consequence." In[Pg 363] conversations with some members, we found them quite envious of the attention Mr. Pomeroy was receiving from women across the country. This is unacceptable; we shouldn't sow discord where brotherly love should flourish, and we hope that women from the various states will send their petitions to their own representatives. Since Mr. Pomeroy has enough to keep him busy in his committee room all winter, we suggest he share them with all the honorable gentlemen who would feel privileged to present them. Also, there’s a lot of wisdom in what Hon. Roscoe Conkling said when he presented a woman’s petition about the risk of giving Mr. Pomeroy a monopoly on such privileges, as it might make him complacent in the cause. It’s true we’ve yet to hear any powerful speeches from the gentleman from Kansas in the Senate, but perhaps he just can't find the words to convey his deep sympathy for oppressed women; thus, his silent actions may speak louder on behalf of the deserving petitioners.
One gentleman remarked, "Why do you push Pomeroy forward in your movement? Julian is altogether the most reliable man." We replied, we always push those who come forward. We should have been very glad if Boutwell or Brooks, Wade or Wilson, Harlan or Henderson, Julian or Jenckes had had the courage to come to our platform, but as Mr. Pomeroy was the only member of Congress who did come, he stands before the public as our champion in Washington. These politicians are all alike. No doubt there are many men in both Houses as earnest on this question as Mr. Pomeroy, who are silent on personal considerations, while he is active for the same reason. In Kansas, woman suffrage is a popular question, hence it is safe for Senators from that State, looking to a re-election, to advocate it, and when the women of the several States are as wide awake as in Kansas, the members of Congress will vie with each other to do them honor. We chanced to lunch one day in Downing's saloon with the Hon. Sidney Clark, of Kansas, and Gen. McMillan, of Minnesota, both strongly opposed to the land swindle. The former has just made an able speech on that question. Mr. Clark is a tall, fine-looking man, and bears so striking a resemblance to the editor of the Independent that he is often accosted for him. The subject of discussion over Mr. Downing's fine oysters was woman suffrage. Although Mr. Clark rather gave us the cold shoulder in the Kansas campaign, he promises to atone for his error by renewed ardor when the proposition is again submitted.
One gentleman commented, "Why are you pushing Pomeroy ahead in your movement? Julian is definitely the most reliable guy." We answered that we always support those who step up. We would have been very pleased if Boutwell, Brooks, Wade, Wilson, Harlan, or Henderson, Julian, or Jenckes had the courage to join our platform, but since Mr. Pomeroy was the only member of Congress who did show up, he stands before the public as our representative in Washington. These politicians are all the same. No doubt there are many people in both Houses who are as committed to this issue as Mr. Pomeroy, but they stay quiet for personal reasons, while he is active because of the same reason. In Kansas, women's suffrage is a popular issue, so it’s safe for Senators from that State, looking to get re-elected, to support it. When women in other States are as engaged as they are in Kansas, members of Congress will compete to honor them. We happened to have lunch one day at Downing's saloon with the Hon. Sidney Clark from Kansas and Gen. McMillan from Minnesota, both of whom are strongly opposed to the land fraud. The former had just given an impressive speech on that topic. Mr. Clark is a tall, good-looking man and resembles the editor of the Independent so closely that he is often mistaken for him. The discussion over Mr. Downing's delicious oysters was about women's suffrage. Even though Mr. Clark somewhat ignored us during the Kansas campaign, he promises to make up for his mistake with renewed enthusiasm when the issue comes up again.
Miss Anthony called on Senator Harlan, Chairman of the District Committee, who readily granted us a hearing, which was had on Wednesday, the 26th. Mr. H. being friendly to the idea, we shall look to him to report a bill favorable to woman suffrage in the District. Mr. Harlan has one of the most refined, spiritual faces in the Senate. Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio, who was on the committee for investigating the election frauds in New York, said, when he returned, that the greatest fraud he found there was that one-half the people were not allowed to vote at all.
Miss Anthony met with Senator Harlan, the Chairman of the District Committee, who gladly granted us a hearing on Wednesday, the 26th. Since Mr. Harlan is supportive of the idea, we expect him to draft a bill that favors woman suffrage in the District. Mr. Harlan has one of the most refined, spiritual faces in the Senate. Mr. Lawrence from Ohio, who was on the committee investigating the election frauds in New York, said when he returned that the biggest fraud he found there was that half the people were not allowed to vote at all.
Messrs. Aiken and Florence, of the Sunday Gazette, were deeply interested listeners throughout our Convention. On being introduced to Mr. Florence, we expressed the hope that he would now sharpen his pen and do valiant service for woman and help to atone for all the injustice and ridicule of the press in the past. He promptly pledged himself to defend our ideas valiantly[Pg 364] in the future. And he has started well in writing a glowing editorial in his last paper, and giving two columns to our speech on "Manhood Suffrage." To Senator Trumbull, who is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, all our petitions, appeals, and addresses are referred. We hope he will not sink under such a weight of responsibility, but read everything we send him with a holy unction to the committee, and report favorably to the Senate.
Messrs. Aiken and Florence from the Sunday Gazette were very engaged listeners throughout our Convention. When we met Mr. Florence, we shared our hope that he would sharpen his pen and stand up for women's rights, helping to make up for all the unfairness and mockery the press has shown in the past. He quickly committed to defending our ideas vigorously[Pg 364] in the future. He has made a strong start by writing an enthusiastic editorial in his latest paper and dedicating two columns to our speech on "Manhood Suffrage." All our petitions, appeals, and addresses are directed to Senator Trumbull, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We hope he won't feel overwhelmed by such a heavy responsibility but instead read everything we send him with genuine care for the committee and report positively to the Senate.
We learned from the Southern members that the South Carolina delegation will go solid for woman suffrage. It has been a wonder to us that Southern white women did not see the necessity of their speedy enfranchisement, as a foreign race is, by the edicts of the Republican party, exalted above their heads—made their rulers, judges, jurors, and law-givers.
We heard from the Southern members that the South Carolina delegation will fully support women's suffrage. It's been surprising to us that Southern white women haven't recognized the urgent need for their own voting rights, especially since a different race is, through the decisions of the Republican party, elevated above them—becoming their rulers, judges, jurors, and lawmakers.
Friday evening, we went to Secretary McCulloch's and Mr. Colfax's receptions. There we saw Mrs. Colfax for the first time; tall, handsome, vigorous. We congratulated her on having won the most popular man in America, whereupon the Vice-President elect smiled and bowed profoundly, and we turned to greet glorious old Ben Wade and his noble wife. Finance seemed to be the theme on all sides, and we have our fears that the negroes, as well as the women, will be lost sight of, in these discussions about the currency. But this finance is a grave question, and the more we read and think on it, the more we are convinced that the need of money is the root of all evil. We were introduced to Professor Helyard and Gen. Eaton, members of a scientific society of gentlemen which meets once a week to discuss all that is in heaven above, on the earth beneath, and in the waters under the earth, without permitting a single one of Eve's daughters to listen to the wisdom. They have lately discussed the subject of earthquakes, and it was stated, we understand, that after the women began to hold conventions in this country, earthquakes became more frequent, occurring from 1850 in California, simultaneously with these conventions in several States, showing that old mother earth sympathizes with the sorrows of women. The fear of similar occurrences in the District fully accounts for the exclusiveness of these scientific gentlemen. Professor Helgard discoursed most eloquently on co-operative housekeeping. As we listened to the many good reasons he gave for cooking, washing, and ironing on a large scale, we felt the women of the nation might be benefited ultimately by these weekly cogitations, if not permitted to enjoy the society of the cogitators.
Friday evening, we attended the receptions hosted by Secretary McCulloch and Mr. Colfax. It was our first time meeting Mrs. Colfax; she was tall, attractive, and full of energy. We congratulated her on marrying the most popular man in America, and the Vice President-elect smiled and bowed deeply. We then turned to greet the wonderful old Ben Wade and his esteemed wife. Finance seemed to be the main topic of discussion everywhere, and we worry that both the Black community and women might get overlooked in these conversations about currency. However, finance is a serious issue, and the more we read and think about it, the more we believe that the need for money is the root of all evil. We were introduced to Professor Helyard and Gen. Eaton, who are part of a gentlemen's scientific society that meets weekly to discuss everything in the sky above, on the ground below, and in the waters beneath the earth, without allowing any of Eve's daughters to hear their insights. They've recently talked about earthquakes, and it's been reported that after women started holding conventions in this country, earthquakes became more common beginning in 1850 in California, coinciding with these conventions across several states, suggesting that Mother Earth sympathizes with women's struggles. The concern about similar events occurring in the District explains the exclusiveness of these scientific gentlemen. Professor Helgard spoke very eloquently about co-operative housekeeping. As we listened to the numerous good reasons he provided for large-scale cooking, washing, and ironing, we felt that the women of the nation might ultimately benefit from these weekly discussions, even if they weren't allowed to join in the conversations.
E. C. S.
E. C. S.
The National Woman's Suffrage Convention held in Washington, January 18th and 19th, presented the following appeal to the District Committee:
The National Woman's Suffrage Convention held in Washington on January 18th and 19th made the following appeal to the District Committee:
TO THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Honorable Gentlemen: As the Franchise bill is now under consideration, we would urge your committee to so amend it as to secure the right of suffrage to all the women of the District, and thus establish in the capital of the nation the first genuine republic the world has ever known. It would be a work of supererogation to warn you against the puerile proposition to disfranchise all the people of the District, by placing their municipal affairs under the direct control of Congress, for such retrogressive legislation is beneath the consideration of your honorable committee, and would never be[Pg 365] tolerated by the American people. The tide of public opinion is setting to-day in the opposite direction; in all governments we see a steadily increasing tendency toward individual responsibilities—to the election of rulers by a direct voice of the people. In this general awakening, woman too has been roused to a sense not only of her own rights as a human being, but to her duties as a citizen under government.
Honorable Gentlemen: As the Franchise bill is currently being discussed, we urge your committee to amend it to secure the right to vote for all the women in the District, establishing the first true republic the world has ever seen in the capital of the nation. It would be unnecessary to caution you against the naive idea of disenfranchising all the residents of the District by placing their local matters under the direct control of Congress, as such backward legislation is not worthy of your honorable committee's consideration and would not be[Pg 365] accepted by the American people. Public opinion is shifting in the opposite direction; across all governments, there is a growing trend toward individual responsibilities and the election of leaders by the direct voice of the people. In this awakening, women too have become aware not only of their rights as human beings but also of their responsibilities as citizens under government.
It is especially fitting that the grand experiment of equality should be first tried in the District of Columbia, where such able debates on freedom have been heard during the last century; where slavery was first abolished by an act of Congress; and where the black man was first recognized as a citizen of the United States. But in removing all political disabilities from the male citizens of the District, you have established, for the first time in the history of nations, a government based on the aristocracy of sex; an aristocracy of all kinds the most odious and unnatural. While every type and shade of manhood is rejoicing to-day in all the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens in the District, its noblest matrons are still living under the statute laws of a dark and barbarous age, running back to the old common law of England centuries ago, having no parallel in our day, but in the slave codes of the Southern States. Here a married woman has no right to the property she inherits, to the wages she earns, or to the children of her love, and from laws like these she has no appeal; no advocate in the courts of justice; no representative in the councils of the nation. Such is the result of class legislation, clearly proving that man has ever made laws for his own mother with as little justice and generosity as he has from time to time for different orders of his own sex. Suffering, as woman does, under the wrongs of Saxon men, you have added insult to injury by exalting another race above her head: slaves, ignorant, degraded, depraved, but yesterday crouching at your feet, outside the pale of political consideration, are to-day, by your edicts, made her lawgivers! Thus here in the District you have consummated this invidious policy of the nation, placing outside barbarians above your Pilgrim mothers, who have stood by your side from the beginning, sharing alike your dangers and triumphs in the great struggle on this continent for free institutions.
It is particularly appropriate that the major experiment in equality begin in the District of Columbia, where such insightful debates on freedom have taken place over the last century; where slavery was first ended by a congressional act; and where a black man was first acknowledged as a citizen of the United States. However, by removing all political restrictions from the male citizens of the District, you have, for the first time in history, created a government based on the hierarchy of gender; a hierarchy of all kinds that is the most offensive and unnatural. While every type and shade of manhood is celebrating today with all the rights, privileges, and protections of citizenship in the District, its finest women are still living under laws from a dark and barbaric era, dating back to the old common law of England centuries ago, resembling only the slave codes of the Southern States in our time. Here, a married woman has no claim to the property she inherits, to the wages she earns, or to her children, and she has no recourse from such laws; no advocate in the courts; no representative in the nation's councils. This is the outcome of class legislation, clearly demonstrating that men have always made laws for women with as little fairness and generosity as they have for different groups of men. Enduring, as women do, the wrongs inflicted by men of Saxon descent, you have only added insult to injury by elevating another race above her: slaves, ignorant, degraded, and recently submissive to you, who were previously excluded from political consideration, are now, by your decisions, made her lawmakers! Thus, here in the District, you have completed this objectionable policy of the nation, placing outside non-citizens above your Pilgrim mothers, who have stood with you from the beginning, sharing equally in your dangers and victories in the monumental struggle for free institutions on this continent.
We urge you, therefore, to report favorably on Senator Wilson's amendment, because woman not only needs the ballot for her protection, but the nation needs her voice in legislation for the safety and stability of our institutions. We simply ask you to apply your theory of government, your declaration of rights, the principles enunciated by the great Republican party, the far-seeing wisdom with which step by step you have secured all men in their inalienable rights, to our case, and you will see that logic, justice, common sense, and constitutional law are all alike on our side of the question. We need not detain you to rehearse the fundamental principles of our government, your own interpretation of the constitution, or the right of Congress to regulate suffrage in the District, for all this has been argued before the nation and sealed by your own acts. With the argument all on our side, the only question that remains is, does woman herself demand the right of suffrage at this hour? If, honorable gentlemen, you will look abroad, and note the general uprising of women everywhere, in foreign nations as well as our own, you will realize that our demand is the great onward step of the[Pg 366] century and not, as some claim, the idiosyncrasy of a few unbalanced minds. Man knows as little of the real feeling of the women of their household as did the proud Southerner of the slaves on his plantation. Woman fears man's ridicule more than the slave did the master's lash. Yes! woman waits to-day but for man's approval, to manifest the intense enthusiasm she feels in the no distant future, when she, too, shall be crowned sovereign of this great republic, where all are of the blood royal—all heirs apparent to the throne.
We urge you to support Senator Wilson's amendment because women not only need the right to vote for their protection, but the nation also needs their input in legislation to ensure the safety and stability of our institutions. We simply ask you to apply your understanding of government, your declaration of rights, and the principles set forth by the great Republican party. With the foresight you’ve used to secure all men’s inalienable rights, you’ll see that logic, justice, common sense, and constitutional law all back our case. There's no need to revisit the fundamental principles of our government, your interpretation of the constitution, or Congress's authority to regulate voting in the District, as all this has already been debated nationally and confirmed by your actions. With the arguments clearly in our favor, the only question left is, do women themselves demand the right to vote at this moment? If, honorable gentlemen, you look around and observe the global uprising of women, both in other countries and here at home, you'll understand that our demand represents a significant advancement of the[Pg 366] century and is not just the whim of a few unstable individuals. Men understand little about the true feelings of the women in their lives, just as the proud Southerner understood little about the slaves on his plantation. Women fear men’s mockery more than a slave feared the master’s whip. Yes! Women are waiting today only for men’s approval to express the deep passion they feel for the near future when they, too, will be recognized as equals in this great republic, where everyone is of royal blood—all heirs to the throne.
We are often asked the question, "On what do you base your assertion that the ballot can achieve so much for woman? It has not done much for man; in this country all white men vote, yet the masses are wretchedly fed, housed, clothed, and poorly paid for their labor. Ignorant alike of social and political economy, their voting is a mere form; practically they have no more to do with the government than the masses in the old world who have no representation whatever." These wholesale philosophers, and we meet them every day, are incapable of any patient process of analytical reasoning. If the moment a man is endowed with the suffrage he does not spring up into knowledge, virtue, wealth, and position, then the right amounts to nothing. If a generation of ignorant, degraded men, does not vote at once with the wisdom of statesmen, then Universal Suffrage is a failure, and the despot and the dagger the true government. The careful reader of history will see that with every new extension of rights a new step in civilization has been taken, and that uniformly those nations have been most prosperous where the greatest number of the people have been recognized in the government. Contrast China with Russia, England with the United States. Where the few govern, the legislation is for the advantage of the few. Where the many govern, the legislation will gradually become more and more for the advantage of the many, as fast as the many know enough to demand laws for their own benefit. This knowledge comes from an education in politics; and a ballot in a man's hand and the responsibility of using it, is the first step in this education. Even if a man sells his ballot, there is power in possessing something that a politician must have or perish. The Southern slaves must have acquired a new dignity in the scale of being when Judge Kelley and Senator Wilson traveled all through the South to preach to them on political questions.
We often get asked, "What do you base your claim on that the ballot can do so much for women? It hasn't done much for men; in this country, all white men can vote, yet the masses live in terrible conditions, poorly fed, housed, dressed, and underpaid for their work. Ignorant of social and political economy, their voting is just a formality; essentially, they have as little involvement in the government as the masses in the old world who have no representation at all." These broad-minded philosophers, who we meet every day, can't engage in any thoughtful analytical reasoning. If once a man is given the right to vote, he doesn't suddenly become knowledgeable, virtuous, wealthy, and positioned, then that right means nothing. If a generation of ignorant, degraded men doesn’t start voting with the wisdom of statesmen right away, then Universal Suffrage is a failure, and true government lies with despotism and violence. A careful look at history shows that every time rights are expanded, it marks a new step in civilization, and those nations tend to thrive where more people have a voice in the government. Compare China to Russia, or England to the United States. Where the few hold power, the laws benefit only those few. Where the many have power, the laws will gradually shift to benefit the many, as quickly as they learn to demand laws that serve their interests. That knowledge comes from political education; having a ballot in hand and the responsibility that comes with it is the first step in that education. Even if a person sells their vote, there's still power in owning something that a politician needs to survive. The Southern slaves must have gained a new sense of dignity when Judge Kelley and Senator Wilson traveled throughout the South to discuss political issues with them.
The thinking men of England, as they philosophize on the abuses of their government, see plainly that the only way to abolish an order of nobility, a law of primogeniture and an established church, is to give the masses a right by their votes to pitch this triple power into the channel; for all the bulwarks of aristocracy will, one by one, be swept away with the education and enfranchisement of the people. Gladstone, John Bright, and John Stuart Mill see clearly that the privileges of the few can be extended to the many only by the legislation of the many. All the beneficial results of the broad principles they are advocating to-day, may not be fully realized in a generation, but, to the philosophical mind, they are as true now as if already achieved. The greatest minds in this country, too, have made most exhaustive arguments to prove the power of the ballot, and recognized the equality of all citizens, in our Declaration of Rights, in extending suffrage to all white[Pg 367] men, and in the proposition to farther extend it to all black men. The great Republican party (in which are many of the ablest men of the nation) declare that emancipation to the black man is a mockery, without the suffrage. When the thinking minds on both continents are agreed as to the power of the ballot in the hand of every man, it is surprising to hear educated Americans ask, "What possible value would suffrage be to woman?" When, in the British Parliament, the suffrage was extended to a million new voters, even Lord Derby and Disraeli, who were opposed to the measure, said at once, now, if this class are to vote, we must establish schools for their education, showing the increased importance of every man who has a voice in the government, and the new interest of the rulers in his education. Where all vote all must be educated; our public school system is the result of this principle in our government. When women vote, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton will throw wide open their doors.
The thoughtful people of England, while reflecting on the shortcomings of their government, clearly see that the only way to eliminate the nobility, the law of inheritance, and a state church is to empower the masses with the right to vote to remove this triple power. As the education and enfranchisement of the people progress, all the defenses of aristocracy will gradually disappear. Gladstone, John Bright, and John Stuart Mill recognize that the privileges of a few can only be transformed into rights for many through the legislation of the majority. The positive impacts of the broad principles they are advocating today may not be fully seen in a single generation, but for the philosophical mind, they are as valid now as if they were already accomplished. The brightest minds in our country have also provided thorough arguments that affirm the power of the ballot and acknowledge the equality of all citizens in our Declaration of Rights, in extending voting rights to all white men, and in the proposal to broaden it to all Black men. The great Republican Party, which includes many of the nation's most capable leaders, states that emancipation for Black individuals is meaningless without the right to vote. It is surprising to hear educated Americans ask, "What possible value would voting have for women?" when thinking individuals on both continents agree on the importance of having every man hold the ballot. When the British Parliament extended the vote to a million new voters, even Lord Derby and Disraeli, who opposed the measure, immediately said that if this class is allowed to vote, we must establish schools for their education, highlighting the increased importance of every person who has a say in the government and the new interest of the leaders in their education. When everyone votes, everyone must be educated; our public school system is built on this principle in our government. When women gain the right to vote, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton will open their doors wide.
Woman is not an anomalous being outside all law, that one need make any special arguments to prove that what elevates and dignifies man will educate and dignify woman also. When she exercises her right of suffrage, she will study the science of government, gain new importance in the eyes of politicians, and have a free pass in the world of work. If the masses knew their power, they could turn the whole legislation of this country to their own advantage, and drive poverty, rags, and ignorance into the Pacific Ocean. If they would learn wisdom in the National Labor Conventions and not sell their votes to political tricksters, a system of Finance, Trade, and Commerce, and Co-operation could soon be established that would secure the rights of Labor and put an end to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. Labor holds the ballot now, let it learn how to use it. Educated women know how to use it now, let them have it.
Woman is not an unusual being outside the law, and there's no need to make special arguments to show that what uplifts and respects men will also educate and elevate women. When she votes, she will learn about government, gain more significance in the eyes of politicians, and have greater access to job opportunities. If the masses understood their power, they could reshape the entire legislation in this country to benefit themselves, eliminating poverty, deprivation, and ignorance. If they would gain knowledge from the National Labor Conventions and refuse to sell their votes to political manipulators, a system of Finance, Trade, Commerce, and Cooperation could soon be established that would protect workers' rights and end the concentration of wealth among a few. Labor has the vote now; it just needs to learn how to use it. Educated women know how to use it; let them have that power.
Immediately after the convention in Washington, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony made their first tour through the Western States, speaking at various points in Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio, having been invited to attend several State Conventions. The editorial correspondence in The Revolution, gives a brief summary of this Western trip, so valuable in its results, in the organization of many suffrage associations. These meetings aroused the women who had been absorbed by the war to new and higher duties, showing them that although the battles of freedom had been fought and settled by the sword, many questions growing out of the conflict were still to be adjusted by discussion and legislation, and that, all important as their work had been in helping to save the life of the nation, there were other duties to themselves as citizens on which the perpetuation of our free institutions as fully depended.
Immediately after the convention in Washington, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony took their first tour through the Western States, speaking at various locations in Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio, having been invited to several State Conventions. The editorial correspondence in The Revolution provides a brief summary of this Western trip, which was invaluable in organizing many suffrage associations. These meetings inspired the women who had been focused on the war to new and greater responsibilities, showing them that although the battles for freedom had been fought and resolved through conflict, many issues arising from that struggle still needed to be addressed through discussion and legislation. It was important for them to realize that while their efforts had been crucial in preserving the nation, they also had other responsibilities as citizens that were essential for the continuation of our democratic institutions.
To awaken women everywhere to a proper self-respect, was the special mission of the suffrage movement, and it was a labor, for the very elect were in favor of negro suffrage first, woman[Pg 368] suffrage afterwards, which meant the postponement of the latter question for another generation. The few who had the prescience to see the long years of apathy that always follow a great conflict, strained every nerve to settle the broad question of suffrage on its true basis while the people were awake to its importance, but the blindness of reformers themselves in playing into the hands of the opposition, made all efforts unavailing.
To help women everywhere recognize their worth was the main goal of the suffrage movement. It was a tough job because even the most prominent supporters backed Black suffrage first and women's suffrage later, which meant putting off the latter issue for another generation. The few who realized the long years of apathy that typically follow a major conflict worked hard to address the larger issue of suffrage on the right terms while people still cared about it. However, the failure of reformers to see how their actions played into the hands of their opponents rendered all their efforts useless.
Chicago, Feb. 12, 1869.
Chicago, Feb. 12, 1869.
Dear Revolution:—Sitting on the platform in the Chicago Convention, we remember that the mail to-night must take a word to you. After traveling forty hours on the railroad, sitting two days in convention and talking in all the leisure hours outside, our missives to you must be short, but not spicy, for we feel like a squeezed sponge at the present writing. Our journey hither, barring delays, was most charming. This was our first trip on the Erie Railroad, and although we had heard much of the majesty and beauty of the scenery through the valleys of the Delaware and Susquehanna, and the spacious, comfortable cars, the journey surpassed our expectations. The convention has been crowded and most enthusiastic throughout; judges, lawyers, clergymen, professors, all taking part in its deliberations. The women of this nation may congratulate themselves that their cause is near its triumph when such noble men as Edward Beecher, Rev. Mr. Goodspeed, Robert Collyer, Prof. Haven, Judge Waite, and Judge Bradwell come forward in public to advocate their cause. Mr. Beecher made an able speech yesterday, showing that "manhood suffrage" was not the demand of this hour, but suffrage for all the citizens of the republic. He pointed out the necessity of woman's voice in the legislation of the country, not only for her own safety, but for the preservation of our free institutions. The Secretary of the convention, Mrs. J. F. Willing of Rockford, is a most accomplished woman. She understands Greek, Latin, French, German, Italian, writes for several periodicals, and is the author of "Through the Dark to the Light," a new book, it is said, of much power and merit.
Dear Revolution:—Sitting on the stage at the Chicago Convention, we know we need to send you a quick update tonight. After spending forty hours on the train and two days in convention discussions, our messages must be brief, but not lacking in depth, as we're feeling pretty drained right now. Our trip here, aside from a few delays, was wonderful. This was our first time riding the Erie Railroad, and even though we've heard a lot about the stunning views through the Delaware and Susquehanna valleys and the roomy, comfortable cars, the experience exceeded our expectations. The convention has been packed and incredibly energetic; judges, lawyers, clergymen, and professors have all been actively involved in the discussions. The women of this nation can be proud that their cause is close to success when such admirable men as Edward Beecher, Rev. Mr. Goodspeed, Robert Collyer, Prof. Haven, Judge Waite, and Judge Bradwell publicly support their cause. Mr. Beecher delivered a powerful speech yesterday, emphasizing that "manhood suffrage" isn't the issue right now, but rather suffrage for all citizens of the republic. He highlighted the importance of having women's voices in the country's legislation, not just for their own protection, but for preserving our democratic institutions. The convention's Secretary, Mrs. J. F. Willing from Rockford, is a highly accomplished woman. She speaks Greek, Latin, French, German, and Italian, writes for several magazines, and is the author of "Through the Dark to the Light," a new book reportedly full of powerful insights and value.
Library Hall has been literally packed throughout the convention; and, from the letters we have already received urging us to go hither and thither throughout the West, "The prairies seem to be all on fire with woman's suffrage." While politicians are trying to patch up the Republican party, now near its last gasp, the people in the West are getting ready for the new national party, to combine the best elements of both the old ones, soon to be buried forever out of sight. Woman's suffrage, greenbacks, free trade, homesteads for all, eight hours labor, and three per cent the legal interest, will be some of the planks in the platforms of the political parties of the future. Mrs. Livermore, the President of the Convention, discharged the duties of her office with great executive ability, grace, and patience. The women of Chicago are fortunate in having in her so wise and judicious a manager of their cause. She is a tall, dignified-looking woman, has a fine voice and pleasant address. William Wells Brown and Anna Dickinson[Pg 369] enlivened the discussions of this afternoon. The former helped to annihilate "us" of The Revolution on the same resolutions we discussed at Washington, and Anna left Mr. Robert Laird Collyer, who had already had a passage at arms with Mrs. Livermore and Robert Collyer, without one logical weapon for his defense. This gentleman and Rev. Mr. Hammond, brother-in-law of Owen Lovejoy, not believing in woman's suffrage, were, unhappily for themselves, though to the great amusement of the audience, made the target for all the wit and satire of the platform. Mr. Hammond, in his death gasp, declared "he believed his Bible," which did not help his case, for everyone else on the platform affirmed the same faith, with only this difference, they did not believe Mr. Hammond's interpretation of the good book. Mrs. Myra Bradwell, editor of the Chicago Legal News, took a prominent part in the convention. She is a woman of great force and executive ability, and it is said her husband is indebted to her for his success in life.
Library Hall has been completely packed throughout the convention, and from the letters we’ve received urging us to travel all over the West, "The prairies seem to be on fire with women's suffrage." While politicians try to fix up the Republican party, which is pretty much at its last breath, people in the West are preparing for a new national party that will bring together the best parts of the old ones, which will soon be forgotten. Women's suffrage, greenbacks, free trade, homesteads for everyone, an eight-hour workday, and three percent legal interest will be some of the key points on the platforms of future political parties. Mrs. Livermore, the President of the Convention, handled her responsibilities with great skill, grace, and patience. The women of Chicago are lucky to have such a wise and careful leader for their cause. She is a tall, dignified woman with a strong voice and a pleasant manner. William Wells Brown and Anna Dickinson[Pg 369] enlivened the discussions this afternoon. The former helped to destroy the arguments of "us" from The Revolution on the same resolutions we discussed in Washington, and Anna left Mr. Robert Laird Collyer, who had already sparred with Mrs. Livermore and Robert Collyer, without a single logical argument to defend himself. This gentleman and Rev. Mr. Hammond, brother-in-law of Owen Lovejoy, who do not believe in women's suffrage, were, unfortunately for them but to the great amusement of the audience, the targets of all the wit and satire from the platform. Mr. Hammond, in his dying breath, declared "he believed his Bible," which didn’t help his case, as everyone else on the platform shared that faith, with the only difference being that they did not agree with Mr. Hammond's interpretation of the good book. Mrs. Myra Bradwell, editor of the Chicago Legal News, played a significant role in the convention. She is a strong and capable woman, and it's said that her husband owes his success in life to her.
A telegram from Mrs. Minor, President of the Woman's Suffrage Association in St. Louis, says that they have announced us to speak there on Monday evening. What will interest you more than all besides, is the unanimous passage of a resolution in the convention indorsing The Revolution as the national organ of the woman's suffrage movement. The Chicago press has graciously given many columns to reports of the convention.
A telegram from Mrs. Minor, President of the Woman's Suffrage Association in St. Louis, says they’ve announced us to speak there on Monday evening. What will interest you more than anything else is the unanimous approval of a resolution in the convention endorsing The Revolution as the national publication for the women's suffrage movement. The Chicago press has kindly given a lot of coverage to reports on the convention.
E. C. S.
E. C. S.
St. Louis, Feb. 18.
St. Louis, Feb. 18.
Dear Revolution:—While in Chicago we attended a reception at Mrs. William Doggett's, where we met Madame de Herricourt, a distinguished French lady, who published an able work on woman some years since, in which she severely criticised several French writers, Michelet among the rest, for their sentimental nonsense about the sex. She is a very brilliant woman, with a large head, a bright, expressive face, and a stout figure, rather below the medium height. We discussed several French writers, among others, Victor Hugo, and fully agreed as to his women—that they were all lamentable failures. It is strange that a writer who can paint such strong men should so utterly fade out whenever he attempts a woman, and, the strangest part of it is, that he does not see it himself, and get some gifted woman to draw his female characters. To make such grand men as Jean Valjean and Gilliette love such types of womanhood as Victor Hugo creates, always did seem to us a desecration of that sentiment. We called to see Sidney Howard Gay, one of the editors of the Chicago Tribune, and found him writing with his left hand, as, owing to a severe fall, his right hand had forgotten its cunning. If the grand position the Chicago Tribune takes on Woman Suffrage, is the result of this accident, we wish all our Republican editors in the East would take a left handed tilt at our question. Sunday night we left Chicago for St. Louis in the palace cars, where we slept as comfortably as in our own home and breakfasted on the train in the morning. The dining-room was exquisitely arranged and the cooking excellent. The kitchen was a gem, and the cook, in the neatness and order of his person and all his surroundings, was a pink of male perfection. It really did seem like magic, to eat, sleep, read the morning papers, and talk with one's friends in bed-room, dining-room and parlor, dashing over the prairies at the[Pg 370] rate of thirty miles an hour. While men can keep house in this charming manner, the world will not be utterly desolate when women do vote. As we consider the great versatility in the talents of our noble countrymen, we are lost in admiration. They seem as much at home in watching the gyrations of an egg or oyster in hot water as the revolutions of the heavenly bodies; in making pins and buttons to unite garments that time and haste may have put asunder as in spanning continents with railroads and telegraphs.
Dear Revolution:—While in Chicago, we attended a reception at Mrs. William Doggett's, where we met Madame de Herricourt, a notable French woman who published an insightful book on women a few years ago, in which she harshly criticized several French writers, including Michelet, for their sentimental nonsense about women. She is a brilliant woman with a large head, a bright, expressive face, and a sturdy figure, slightly below average height. We talked about various French writers, including Victor Hugo, and completely agreed that his portrayals of women are all disappointing. It's odd that a writer who can create such strong male characters can fail so completely with female ones, and even stranger that he doesn't realize it and enlist a talented woman to help him develop his female characters. For such grand men as Jean Valjean and Gilliette to fall in love with the kinds of women Victor Hugo creates always seemed to us a total misrepresentation of that sentiment. We visited Sidney Howard Gay, one of the editors of the Chicago Tribune, and found him writing with his left hand because, after a serious fall, his right hand had lost its skill. If the strong stance the Chicago Tribune takes on Woman Suffrage is the result of this accident, we hope all our Republican editors in the East would take a similar approach to our issue. Sunday night, we left Chicago for St. Louis in the palace cars, where we slept as comfortably as at home and had breakfast on the train in the morning. The dining room was beautifully arranged, and the food was excellent. The kitchen was immaculate, and the cook, with the neatness and order of his appearance and surroundings, was a model of male perfection. It really felt like magic to eat, sleep, read the morning papers, and chat with friends in the bedroom, dining room, and parlor while speeding across the prairies at the[Pg 370] speed of thirty miles an hour. As long as men can manage house duties this charmingly, the world won't be entirely desolate when women do vote. Considering the great versatility of our admirable countrymen's talents, we find ourselves in awe. They seem equally at ease observing the movements of an egg or oyster in hot water as they are with the movements of celestial bodies; in making pins and buttons to reattach garments that time and haste may have separated, as well as in spanning continents with railroads and telegraphs.
As we reached the eastern bank of the Mississippi, we were met by a delegation of ladies and gentlemen to escort us to St. Louis, where we found pleasant apartments in the Southern Hotel, which is extremely well kept, and where one is always sure of a "christian" cup of coffee. The tea and coffee in all the hotels on the route are the most miserable concoctions of hayseed and chiccory that were ever palmed off on a long-suffering, patient people. We had an enthusiastic meeting in St. Louis, and found great interest manifested in the question of woman suffrage among many of its leading citizens. The ladies were in high spirits, as they had just returned from Jefferson, where they had been most graciously received by their legislators. Miss Phoebe Couzins had made an address at the capitol which was well received. She is a young lady of great beauty and talent, both as a writer and speaker, and is called the Anna Dickinson of the West. She is studying law, and hopes to be admitted to the senior class in the law school next year. Her mother, a woman of rare capacity, is a candidate for the Post Office of St. Louis. We hope she will get it. Tuesday evening we had a reception in the parlors of the hotel. Among others, we were happy to meet Mrs. Tittman, a highly cultivated German lady, sister of Professor Helyard, whom we met in Washington. She announced that two of the German papers had come out in favor of woman suffrage that morning and confessed that they were converted the night before. We were surprised to hear that the paper controlled by Carl Schurz and Emile Pretorius had not taken that position long ago. But, from the character and influence of the German ladies there, it is evident that the German politicians must come to terms. Mrs. Minor, President of the Missouri Woman Suffrage Association, invited us to drive around and see the parks, gardens and new streets of the city.
As we arrived at the eastern bank of the Mississippi, a group of ladies and gentlemen welcomed us to escort us to St. Louis, where we settled into comfortable rooms at the Southern Hotel, which is very well maintained, and where you can always count on a decent cup of coffee. The tea and coffee at all the hotels along the way are terrible mixtures of hay and chicory that have been unfairly served to a patient, long-suffering public. We had an enthusiastic meeting in St. Louis, and many of the city's leading citizens showed great interest in the issue of women's suffrage. The ladies were in high spirits, having just returned from Jefferson, where they were warmly received by their lawmakers. Miss Phoebe Couzins had delivered a speech at the capitol that was well received. She is a beautiful and talented young woman, recognized as both a writer and speaker, and is known as the Anna Dickinson of the West. She is studying law and hopes to join the senior class in the law school next year. Her mother, a woman of exceptional ability, is running for the Post Office in St. Louis. We hope she gets it. On Tuesday evening, we had a reception in the hotel parlor. Among others, we were pleased to meet Mrs. Tittman, a well-educated German lady, sister of Professor Helyard, whom we met in Washington. She shared that two German newspapers had come out in favor of women's suffrage that morning and admitted they changed their position the night before. We were surprised to learn that the paper run by Carl Schurz and Emile Pretorius hadn't taken that stance sooner. However, given the character and influence of the German women there, it's clear that the German politicians must come to an agreement. Mrs. Minor, President of the Missouri Woman Suffrage Association, invited us to take a drive around to see the parks, gardens, and new streets of the city.
We drove to the Polytechnic, and were received by Mr. Baily (Librarian) and Mr. Devoll, ex-superintendent of schools. He said that he was ready to vote for educated suffrage, without distinction of sex.
We drove to the Polytechnic, where we were greeted by Mr. Baily (Librarian) and Mr. Devoll, former superintendent of schools. He mentioned that he was prepared to support educated suffrage, regardless of gender.
The ladies then proposed to go to the Merchants' Exchange and see the bulls and bears. Accordingly we drove there, ascended into the galleries, and looked down upon a great crowd of men standing round long lines of tables covered with tin pie-plates. At first we thought they were lunching, but we soon perceived that the tins contained different kinds of grains and flour, which wise ones were carefully examining. As we stood there, laughing at the idiosyncrasies of the sons of Adam, lo! two most polished gentlemen approached our charmed circle, and announced that they were a committee from the merchants on the floor to invite us to come down and address them. We descended with Mr. John J. Roe and Mr. Merritt[Pg 371] and were introduced to the President of the Board, George P. Plant, and Mr. Blow, who escorted us to a temporary platform, and called the house to order. We made a short speech, and then there were loud calls from all parts of the house for Miss Couzins. She stepped forward and made a few pleasant remarks, when we all bowed graciously to the gallant gentlemen who conferred this great honor upon us, and retired.
The ladies suggested we head to the Merchants' Exchange to check out the bulls and bears. So we drove there, went up to the galleries, and looked down at a huge crowd of men standing around long rows of tables covered with tin pie plates. At first, we thought they were having lunch, but we quickly realized the tins held various kinds of grains and flour that the knowledgeable ones were carefully inspecting. As we stood there, laughing at the quirks of humanity, two very polished gentlemen approached our group and said they were a committee from the merchants on the floor inviting us to come down and speak to them. We went down with Mr. John J. Roe and Mr. Merritt[Pg 371] and were introduced to the President of the Board, George P. Plant, and Mr. Blow, who took us to a temporary platform and called the meeting to order. We gave a brief speech, and then people all over the room began to loudly call for Miss Couzins. She stepped forward and said a few nice words, and then we all graciously bowed to the gentlemen who honored us with this great opportunity and left.
Springfield, Feb. 21.
Springfield, Feb. 21.
Dear Revolution:—We have been resting here at the capital of Illinois a few days. Of our meeting in the Opera House we will say nothing about it, except that we had the Governor and members of the Legislature as attentive listeners, and the Lieut.-Governor for presiding officer, who made an admirable speech indorsing woman's suffrage. Mrs. Livermore made an able argument, though Robert Laird Collyer says we never have any logic on our platform, as if we had not been so logical in all our positions for the last twenty years that the dear men had no answer to make. Poor fellows! as they saw their outposts, one after another taken, their fortresses riddled through and through, their own guns turned on their defenseless heads, and such fifty-pounders as "taxation without representation," "all men created equal," "no just government can be formed without the consent of the governed," hurled at them, no wonder they left logic and took up ridicule; and now, when we meet them with their own weapons, they say we can not reason. The drunken man always imagines the lamp-posts dancing. Poor R. L. C., in the Chicago Convention, really thought his platitudes logic, and our logic sentiment.
Dear Revolution:—We’ve been here at the capital of Illinois for a few days. We won’t go into details about our meeting in the Opera House, except to mention that the Governor and some members of the Legislature listened intently, and the Lieutenant Governor served as the presiding officer, giving an excellent speech supporting women's suffrage. Mrs. Livermore made a strong argument, even though Robert Laird Collyer claims that we never present any logic on our platform, as if we haven't been logical in all our positions for the last twenty years, leaving the poor men with no response. Those poor guys! As they saw their positions falling, their defenses breaking down, and their own arguments turned against them—like "taxation without representation," "all men are created equal," and "no just government can exist without the consent of the governed"—it's no surprise they abandoned logic for ridicule; and now, when we confront them with their own arguments, they say we can't reason. The drunken man always thinks the lamp-posts are dancing. Poor R. L. C. at the Chicago Convention really believed his clichés were logical, while our logic was just sentiment.
On arriving at Springfield, we found the Chicago delegation all ready to besiege the Legislature. Among them were Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, Mr. Bradwell and his pretty wife Myra, who edits the Chicago Legal News. We have met several members of the bar and judges of the Supreme Court, among others Judge Lawrence and Judge Breese. All these gentlemen of the bar are in favor of amending the laws and constitutions. One thing is certain, unless these Republicans wheel in and do their duty, the Democrats in the West will take up woman's suffrage. We would advise the Western men to come into the measure generously and gracefully, and not be so obstinate and mulish as our Eastern lords have been. There is no escape, and where is the use of courting disgrace and defeat?
Upon arriving in Springfield, we found the Chicago delegation fully prepared to approach the Legislature. Among them were Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, Mr. Bradwell, and his lovely wife Myra, who edits the Chicago Legal News. We met several members of the bar and Supreme Court judges, including Judge Lawrence and Judge Breese. All these legal professionals support changing the laws and constitutions. One thing is clear: if these Republicans do not step up and fulfill their responsibilities, the Democrats in the West will advocate for women's suffrage. We suggest that the Western men embrace this initiative openly and graciously, rather than being as stubborn as our Eastern leaders have been. There’s no way out, so why court disgrace and defeat?
Sharon Tyndale, Ex-Secretary of State, escorted us to the House and Senate, and introduced us to the heads of the departments. We had two pleasant interviews with Gov. Palmer. He talks very reasonably in regard to the enfranchisement of women, although he says he does not quite indorse it yet, but as he has a very clear, honest mind, he will soon convince himself that what the ballot has done towards elevating man it will do for woman also.
Sharon Tyndale, former Secretary of State, took us to the House and Senate and introduced us to the department heads. We had two nice meetings with Governor Palmer. He speaks very thoughtfully about women's right to vote, although he says he doesn't fully support it yet. However, since he has a clear and honest perspective, he will soon realize that what the ballot has done for men, it will also do for women.
The telegrams are flying in all directions for us to come here, there, everywhere. Western women are wide-awake to-day. The question of submitting an amendment to the Constitution to strike out the word "male," is under consideration. The poor "white male" is doomed.
The telegrams are coming in from all over for us to go here, there, everywhere. Western women are fully awake today. The idea of proposing an amendment to the Constitution to remove the word "male" is being discussed. The poor "white male" is finished.
E. C. S.
E. C. S.
Chicago, March 1.
Chicago, March 1.
Dear Revolution:—From Springfield, I went to Bloomington, lectured before the Young Men's Association to a large audience, and met there many liberal men and women. I found that the Rev. Mr. Harrison had just fired a gun in the town paper on the lack of logic in the Chicago Convention and women's intuitions in general. It amuses me to hear the nonsense these men talk. They say God never intended woman to reason, they shut their college doors against her so that she can not study that manly accomplishment, and then they blame her for taking a short cut to the same conclusion they reach in their roundabout, lumbering processes of ratiocination. Do these gentlemen wish us to set aside God's laws, pick up logic on the sidewalks, and go step by step to a point we can reach with one flash of intuition? As long as we have the gift of catching truth by the telegraph wires, neither the sage of Bloomington nor Robert Laird Collyer of Chicago need ask us to go jogging after it in a stage-coach, perchance to be stuck in the mud on the highways as they are. It is enough to make angels weep to see how the logicians, skilled in the schools, are left floundering on every field before the simple intuitions of American womanhood.
Dear Revolution:—From Springfield, I went to Bloomington, spoke to a large audience at the Young Men's Association, and met many open-minded men and women there. I heard that Rev. Mr. Harrison had just criticized the Chicago Convention and women’s intuition in a local paper. It makes me laugh to listen to the nonsense these men say. They claim God never intended women to think critically, keep their college doors closed to her so she can't learn that "manly" skill, and then blame her for taking a shortcut to the same conclusions they reach through their complex, clunky reasoning. Do these gentlemen want us to ignore God’s laws, pick up logic off the streets, and reach conclusions step by step when we can get there in an instant with our intuition? As long as we have the ability to grasp truth quickly, neither the intellectual from Bloomington nor Robert Laird Collyer from Chicago should ask us to struggle along in a slow coach, possibly getting stuck in the mud like they do. It’s enough to make angels cry to see how these educated logicians flounder while American women easily grasp truths.
Finding the ladies of Bloomington somewhat scarified and nervous under the Reverend's firing, like the good Samaritan, I tried to pour oil and wine on their wounded spirits, by exalting intuition, and with a pitiful and patronizing tone deploring the slowness, the obtuseness, the materialism of most of the sons of Adam. It had its effect. They soon dried their tears, and with returning self-respect, told me of all the wonderful things women were doing in that town. From the scintillations of wit, the fun and the laughter, an outsider would never have supposed that we were an oppressed class, and so hopelessly degraded in the statute laws and Constitution. After the meeting we had a long talk with the clerical assailant, and were happy to find that the good man's pen had done his heart great injustice. He is rather morbid on the question of logic; but the most melancholy symptom of his disease is his hatred of The Revolution. He says it is a very wicked paper, that he had felt it his duty to warn his congregation against taking it, thus depriving us of, at least, five hundred subscribers, though he read it himself (under protest) regularly every week. Strange what a fascination evil things have even for those who minister at the altar! He advised me to strangle Train, gibbet the financial editor, snub the proprietor, and to say no more in the paper on the questions of political economy, until we had one and all studied the subject. Dear Revolution, when I listened to those things, I had the same sinking of the heart that I used to feel when neighbors complained that my boys were running over their house-tops, dropping stones down their chimneys, ringing their bells then running away, throwing balls in their windows, and teazing the girls on the sidewalk. Now, I do hope, dear Revolution, you will not bring my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave, but turn over a new leaf and adopt some Christian means to get back these five hundred subscribers. The reverend gentleman said one thing that was like balm to my bruised spirit. He liked everything over the initials P. P. and E. C. S. Sub rosa, P. P., we must try and circumvent Train, and fill the paper ourselves.[Pg 373]
Finding the women of Bloomington a bit scared and anxious under the Reverend's criticism, like the good Samaritan, I tried to comfort their wounded spirits by praising intuition, and with a sympathetic and condescending tone, lamenting the slowness, ignorance, and materialism of most men. It worked. They soon stopped crying and, regaining their self-respect, shared with me all the amazing things women were doing in that town. With all the wit, fun, and laughter, an outsider would never have guessed that we were an oppressed group, so belittled by the laws and Constitution. After the meeting, we had a long conversation with the clerical attacker, and were pleased to discover that the well-intentioned man's writing had unfairly misrepresented his heart. He does have a somewhat gloomy view on logic; however, the saddest part of his condition is his dislike for The Revolution. He claims it is a very bad publication and felt it was his duty to advise his congregation against subscribing to it, which cost us at least five hundred subscribers, even though he read it himself (grudgingly) every week. It's strange how captivating bad things can be, even for those who serve at the altar! He suggested I "take out" Train, punish the financial editor, dismiss the owner, and stop discussing political economy in the paper until we all studied the subject. Dear Revolution, when I heard these things, I felt the same sinking feeling I used to get when neighbors complained that my boys were running across their rooftops, dropping stones down their chimneys, ringing their doorbells and then running away, throwing balls at their windows, and teasing the girls on the sidewalk. Now, I really hope, dear Revolution, that you won’t bring my gray hairs sorrow as I approach the grave, but turn over a new leaf and find some positive way to win back those five hundred subscribers. The reverend did say one thing that felt like relief to my troubled spirit. He liked everything signed with the initials P. P. and E. C. S. Sub rosa, P. P., we need to find a way to outsmart Train and take over the publication ourselves.[Pg 373]
I met some grand women at Bloomington, one who has been a successful merchant in the dry-goods business. She has not only supported her self and a family of children, but cleared $5,000 in five years. Another lady is a furniture dealer; when her husband died she went on with the business, and although he was so much embarrassed that every one advised her to close up and save what she could, she has paid all the debts, saved a handsome sum of money, and been every way more successful than her husband before her. A lady is the head of an establishment where music and pianos are sold. She carries on a large business, and has been very successful. All these women with their intuitions seem to be doing much better than many who can boast the gift of reason. I should not be surprised if, in the progress of events, men should come to think that woman's gift, after all, is the more desirable.
I met some amazing women in Bloomington, one who has been a successful businesswoman in the dry goods industry. Not only has she supported herself and her kids, but she's also made $5,000 in just five years. Another woman is a furniture dealer; after her husband passed away, she continued running the business. Even though he left it in a tough spot and everyone told her to shut it down and save what she could, she managed to pay off all the debts, saved a substantial amount of money, and has been even more successful than her husband was. One woman runs a shop where they sell music and pianos. She runs a large and very successful business. All these women seem to be doing much better with their instincts than many who pride themselves on their logic. I wouldn’t be surprised if, as time goes on, men start to believe that women’s intuition is, in fact, the more valuable asset.
E. C. S.
E. C. S.
Toledo, March 7.
Toledo, March 7.
Dear Revolution:—A bright, crisp morning I found myself seated beside Mrs. Livermore in the train for Milwaukee, whither we were going to attend a convention. In these eventful times of woman suffrage, having been separated a few days, on meeting, our hearts were overflowing with good news for one another. While I told Mrs. L. all I had seen and heard at Bloomington, and the various conversations I had had with dissenting "white males" on the trains, she told me her plans in regard to her new paper, the Agitator. Having decided to call such a journal into being, what its name should be was the question. Accordingly a council was held of the wise men and willful women of Chicago over the baptismal font of the new comer. The men, still clinging to the pleasant illusions that everything emanating from woman should be mild, gentle, serene, suggested "The Lily," "The Rose Bud," "The New Era," "The Dawn of Day;" but Mrs. Livermore, always heroic and brave, now defiant and determined, having fully awakened to the power and dignity of the ballot, and stung to the very soul with the proposed amendment for "manhood suffrage," declared that none of those names, however touching and beautiful, expressed what she intended the paper should be—nothing more or less than the twin sister of The Revolution, whose mission is to turn everything inside out, upside down, wrong side before. With such intentions, she felt the Agitator was the only name that fully matched The Revolution. All the women present echoed her sentiments, eschewing the "rose bud" dispensation and declaring that they would rather get the word "male" out of the constitution than to have a complete set of diamonds—rather have a right to property, wages, and children, than the best seats in the cars, and the tid-bits at the table. Thus, with one simultaneous shout, the women proclaimed the Agitator. The men calmly and sorrowfully resigned all hope of influence in the matter, and, as they dispersed, it was evident they looked mournfully into the future. Good Prof. Haven said that the mere name of the Agitator gave him an ague chill, and what life would be to most men after this twin sister to The Revolution was under full headway, no one could predict. Filled with profound pity for our beloved countrymen in this their hour of humiliation, we arrived in Milwaukee, where a delegation of ladies and gentlemen awaited us, among whom were a nephew and niece of Rufus Peckham, of New York,[Pg 374] young law students of great promise. We drove to the Plankington House, where a suite of beautifully furnished apartments, with a bright fire in the grate, was prepared for us.
Dear Revolution:—On a bright, crisp morning, I found myself sitting next to Mrs. Livermore on the train to Milwaukee, where we were headed for a convention. In these significant times of women's suffrage, after being apart for a few days, we were excited to share good news with each other. While I shared with Mrs. L. everything I had seen and heard in Bloomington, including various conversations with dissenting "white males" on the trains, she told me about her plans for her new paper, the Agitator. Having decided to start this journal, the question was what to call it. So, a council of the wise men and determined women of Chicago gathered to discuss the name for the newcomer. The men, still holding onto the nice idea that everything from women should be soft and gentle, suggested names like "The Lily," "The Rose Bud," "The New Era," and "The Dawn of Day." However, Mrs. Livermore, always courageous and now boldly defiant, fully awakened to the power and dignity of the ballot, and deeply offended by the proposed amendment for "manhood suffrage," declared that none of those names, no matter how lovely, conveyed what she wanted the paper to be—nothing more or less than the sister publication of The Revolution, whose mission is to turn everything upside down and inside out. She believed the Agitator was the only name that truly matched The Revolution. All the women present echoed her sentiments, rejecting the "rose bud" concept and declaring that they would prefer to remove the word "male" from the constitution than to have a collection of diamonds—rather have rights to property, wages, and children than the best seats on trains and the fancy food at the table. Thus, with one loud shout, the women declared the Agitator. The men calmly and sadly gave up any hope of having a say in the matter, and as they left, it was clear they looked mournfully into the future. Good Prof. Haven said that just hearing the name Agitator gave him a chill, and no one could predict what life would be like for most men once this sister publication of The Revolution was in full swing. Filled with deep sympathy for our fellow countrymen in their hour of humiliation, we arrived in Milwaukee, where a group of ladies and gentlemen awaited us, including a nephew and niece of Rufus Peckham from New York, who were young law students with great promise. We drove to the Plankington House, where a suite of beautifully furnished apartments, complete with a bright fire in the fireplace, was ready for us.
The Convention was held in the City Hall, and lasted two days, three sessions each, and was crowded throughout. Miss Chapin, the regularly ordained pastor of the Universalist church, was the President. Mr. and Miss Peckham, Dr. Laura J. Ross, and Madam Anneke were the ruling spirits of the Convention. Madam Anneke, a German lady of majestic presence and liberal culture, made an admirable speech in her own language. The platform, besides an array of large, well-developed women, was graced with several reverend gentlemen—Messrs. Dudley, Allison, Eddy, and Fellows—all of whom maintained woman's equality with eloquence and fervor. The Bible was discussed from Genesis to Revelation, in all its bearings on the question under consideration. By special request I gave my Bible argument, which was published in full in the daily papers. A Rev. Mr. Love, who took the opposite view, maintained that the Bible was opposed to woman's equality. He criticised some of my Hebrew translations, and scientific expositions, but as the rest of the learned D.D.s sustained my views, I shall rest in the belief that brother Love, with time and thought, will come to the same conclusions. A Rev. Mr. England also profanely claimed the Bible on the side of tyranny, and seemed to think that "Nature intended that the male should dominate over the female everywhere." As Mr. E. is a small, thin, shadowy man, without much blood, muscle, or a very remarkable cerebral development, we would advise him always to avoid the branch of the argument he stumbled upon in the Milwaukee Convention—"the physical superiority of man." Unfortunately for him, the platform illustrated the opposite, and the audience manifested, ever and anon, by suppressed laughter, that they saw the contrast between the large, well-developed brains and muscles of the women who sat there, and those of the speaker. Either Madam Anneke, Mrs. Livermore, or Dr. Ross, could have taken the reverend gentleman up in her arms and run off with him. Now, I mean nothing invidious toward small men, for some of the greatest men the world has known have been physically inferior, for example, Lord Nelson, Napoleon, our own Grant and Sheridan, and ex-Secretary Seward. All I mean to say is, that it is not politic or in good taste for a small man to come before an audience and claim physical superiority; that branch of the argument should be left for the great, burly fellows six feet high and well-proportioned, who illustrate the assertion by their overpowering presence.
The Convention took place at City Hall and lasted two days, with three sessions each day, and was packed throughout. Miss Chapin, the officially ordained pastor of the Universalist church, served as the President. Mr. and Miss Peckham, Dr. Laura J. Ross, and Madam Anneke were the key figures leading the Convention. Madam Anneke, a German woman with a commanding presence and a broad education, delivered an impressive speech in her native language. The platform, in addition to a group of strong, well-rounded women, featured several reverend gentlemen—Messrs. Dudley, Allison, Eddy, and Fellows—who all spoke passionately and eloquently in favor of women's equality. The Bible was discussed from Genesis to Revelation, covering all angles related to the topic at hand. At their request, I presented my Biblical argument, which was fully published in the daily papers. A Rev. Mr. Love, who held the opposing view, argued that the Bible was against women's equality. He challenged some of my Hebrew translations and scientific explanations, but since the other learned D.D.s supported my views, I believe that with time and reflection, Brother Love will come to see things differently. A Rev. Mr. England also audaciously claimed the Bible supported oppression and appeared to think that "Nature intended for men to dominate women everywhere." As Mr. England is a small, thin, pallid man, lacking much muscle or significant brain development, we suggest he steer clear of the argument he stumbled into at the Milwaukee Convention—the "physical superiority of man." Unfortunately for him, the platform showed the contrary, and the audience frequently expressed their amusement through suppressed laughter, recognizing the contrast between the strong, well-developed bodies and minds of the women on stage and those of the speaker. Either Madam Anneke, Mrs. Livermore, or Dr. Ross could have easily lifted the reverend gentleman and carried him away. I don’t mean to disparage short men, as some of history's greatest figures have been physically smaller, like Lord Nelson, Napoleon, our own Grant and Sheridan, and ex-Secretary Seward. What I’m saying is that it’s neither wise nor tasteful for a smaller man to come in front of an audience and claim physical superiority; that line of argument should be reserved for the big, sturdy men who stand six feet tall and are well-built, as they can illustrate the point with their dominating presence.
We were happy to meet Mr. Butler in Milwaukee, a good Democrat, and one of the most distinguished lawyers in Wisconsin, and to find in him an ardent supporter of our cause. I told him we were looking to the Democrats to open the constitutional doors to the women in the several States. He said he thought they were getting ready to do so in the West. In Milwaukee, my pet resolutions that had been voted down in Washington and Chicago passed without a dissenting voice.
We were glad to meet Mr. Butler in Milwaukee, a good Democrat and one of the most prominent lawyers in Wisconsin, and to discover that he was a strong supporter of our cause. I mentioned that we were counting on the Democrats to help women gain access to constitutional rights in the various States. He responded that he believed they were preparing to do that in the West. In Milwaukee, my favored resolutions that had been rejected in Washington and Chicago passed without any opposition.
Madison, Wisconsin.
Madison, Wisconsin.
Hearing of the great enthusiasm at Milwaukee, Madison telegraphed for the convention to adjourn to the capitol and address the Legislature. Accordingly,[Pg 375] on Friday a large delegation took the train to that city. On arriving, the first person who greeted us was Mr. Croffet, formerly of the New York Tribune. He went with us to the hotel where we were introduced to lawyers, judges, senators, generals, editors, Republicans and Democrats, who were alike ready to break a lance for woman. A splendid audience greeted us in the Hall of Representatives. Governor Fairchild presided. Mrs. Livermore, Miss Anthony and myself, all said the best things we could think of, and with as much vim as we could command after talking all day in the cars and every moment until we entered the capitol, without even the inspiration that comes from a good cup of tea or coffee. Blessed are they who draw their inspirations from the stars, the grand and beautiful in nature, and the glory of the human face divine, for such sources niggardly landlords and ignorant cooks can neither muddle nor exhaust. After the meeting we were invited into the Executive apartments and presented to Mrs. Fairchild, a woman of rare beauty, cultivation, and common sense. She, as well as the Governor, expressed great interest in the question of woman's suffrage. The Governor, with many others, subscribed for The Revolution.
Hearing about the excitement in Milwaukee, Madison sent a telegram asking the convention to move to the capitol and speak to the Legislature. So, [Pg 375] on Friday, a large group took the train to the city. When we arrived, the first person to greet us was Mr. Croffet, formerly of the New York Tribune. He accompanied us to the hotel, where we met lawyers, judges, senators, generals, editors, Republicans, and Democrats, all of whom were eager to support women's rights. A fantastic audience welcomed us in the Hall of Representatives. Governor Fairchild was in charge. Mrs. Livermore, Miss Anthony, and I all shared the best thoughts we could come up with, full of energy despite having talked all day on the train and right up until we entered the capitol, without even the boost of a good cup of tea or coffee. Blessed are those who find their inspiration in the stars, the beauty of nature, and the glory of the human face, for no stingy landlords or clueless cooks can dampen or drain such sources. After the meeting, we were invited into the Executive apartments and met Mrs. Fairchild, a woman of exceptional beauty, education, and common sense. Both she and the Governor expressed a strong interest in the issue of women's suffrage. The Governor, along with many others, subscribed to The Revolution.
From Madison we returned to Chicago. At Janesville, Wis., the Postmaster, Mr. Burgess, came on board on his way to Washington. In the course of conversation we learned that there had been some trouble in that town about the post office, and it was finally decided to submit the matter to a vote of the people. The result was that Miss Angeline King, Mr. Burgess's opponent, was chosen by fifty majority. This was a bomb shell in the male camp, and half a dozen men started for Washington, to show General Grant that they had, one and all, done braver deeds during the war than Angie possibly could have done, and that their loyalty should be rewarded. Angie, like a wise woman, stole the march on all of them, and reached Washington before they started. If the people of Janesville prefer Angie, as they have shown they do by their votes, we think it would be well for the powers that be to confirm the choice of the people.
From Madison, we headed back to Chicago. In Janesville, Wisconsin, the Postmaster, Mr. Burgess, boarded our train on his way to Washington. During our conversation, we found out there had been some issues in that town regarding the post office, and it was eventually decided to let the people vote on the matter. The outcome was that Miss Angeline King, Mr. Burgess's opponent, won by a fifty-vote majority. This was a shock to the men involved, and a handful of them rushed to Washington to tell General Grant that they had all accomplished braver things during the war than Angie ever could, arguing that their loyalty should be rewarded. Angie, being smart, got to Washington before they did. If the people of Janesville prefer Angie, as their votes clearly indicate, we believe it would be wise for those in power to respect the people’s choice.
In Chicago, we were glad to meet again our charming friend, Anna Dickinson. Miss Anthony spent the day with her at Mr. Doggett's one of the liberal merchant princes of that city. The result of that day's cogitation was one of the most cutting speeches that the "Gentle Anna," as the Tribune called her, ever made. It was a severe, but just criticism of all the twaddle of the Western press after the Chicago Woman's Suffrage Convention. Liberty Hall was crowded with a most enthusiastic audience, and although the press was not very complimentary the next day, the people who listened were delighted. She was advertised to give "Fair Play," but the West is tired of the negro question, and she was besieged on all sides to speak on woman, which she did with great effect.
In Chicago, we were happy to see our wonderful friend, Anna Dickinson, again. Miss Anthony spent the day with her at Mr. Doggett's, one of the city's generous merchant magnates. The outcome of that day's reflections was one of the most powerful speeches that "Gentle Anna," as the Tribune called her, ever delivered. It was a harsh yet fair critique of all the nonsense from the Western press after the Chicago Woman's Suffrage Convention. Liberty Hall was packed with a highly enthusiastic audience, and even though the press wasn't very complimentary the next day, the people who attended were thrilled. She was scheduled to give "Fair Play," but the West is tired of the Negro question, and she was approached from all directions to speak about women, which she did with great impact.
E. C. S.
E. C. S.
Galena, March 3.
Galena, March 3.
Dear Revolution:—As you look at the date, your patriotic heart will palpitate to think that the women of The Revolution have taken possession of the home of the President, and propose to hold a Woman Suffrage Convention right under the very shadow of his flagstaff, peering up beside one chimney of a large square brick house with a flat roof. Said house[Pg 376] is situated on a high hill with pleasant grounds about. At the present writing we are on the opposite hill under the hospitable roof of "Sarah Coates," whose name appears in the reports of all the early Ohio conventions. She is now Mrs. Harris. We arrived here this morning at six o'clock, and found good Mr. Harris waiting for us at the depot. He is one of the oldest and wealthiest inhabitants in the county. They have a beautiful home, surrounded with every comfort and luxury. Mrs. Harris is a noble woman, tall, fine-looking, and moves about among her household gods like a queen. Although she has a large family of black-eyed, rosy-cheeked children, pictures, statuary, a cabinet of rare minerals, a conservatory of beautiful plants, and a husband who thinks her but little lower than the angels, she still demands the right to vote, and occasionally indulges in the luxury of public speaking. She is the moving spirit in every step of progress in Galena, and was the President of the convention. We have had a most enthusiastic meeting, three sessions, and house crowded throughout on an admission fee of twenty-five cents. The women all over the West are wide-awake. Theodore Tilton had just preceded us, and some ladies laughingly told us that Theodore said they would certainly vote in twenty years!!
Dear Revolution:—As you check the date, your patriotic heart will race at the thought that the women of The Revolution have taken over the President's residence and are planning to hold a Woman Suffrage Convention right beneath the shadow of his flagpole, peeking up next to one chimney of a large square brick house with a flat roof. This house[Pg 376] is perched on a hill with lovely grounds surrounding it. At the moment, we are on the opposing hill under the welcoming roof of "Sarah Coates," a name recognized in the reports of all the early Ohio conventions. She is now Mrs. Harris. We arrived here this morning at six o'clock and found kind Mr. Harris waiting for us at the train station. He is one of the oldest and wealthiest residents in the county. They have a beautiful home, filled with every comfort and luxury. Mrs. Harris is an admirable woman, tall and attractive, and she moves among her family and possessions like a queen. Despite having a large family of black-eyed, rosy-cheeked children, pictures, statuary, a collection of rare minerals, a greenhouse of stunning plants, and a husband who thinks she is nearly an angel, she still insists on her right to vote and occasionally enjoys the privilege of public speaking. She is the driving force behind every progressive step in Galena and served as the President of the convention. We had an incredibly enthusiastic meeting, with three sessions and a packed house all the way through for an admission fee of twenty-five cents. Women all over the West are alert and active. Theodore Tilton had just been here before us, and some ladies jokingly told us that Theodore claimed they would certainly vote in twenty years!!
Let our cold-blooded Eastern reformers understand that ideas, like grains, grow fast in the West, and that women here intend to vote now, "right along," as the Hutchinsons sing. The editor of the Independent may talk of twenty years down on the Hudson among the Rip Van Winkles in Spookey Hollow, to H. G. in New York, or W. P. at the "Hub," but never to Western audiences, or to the women of The Revolution. Why, Mr. Tilton, when you go to the Senate some wise woman will sit on your right, and some black man on your left. You are to pay the penalty of your theorizing and be sandwiched between a woman and a black man in all the laws and constitutions before five years pass over your curly head. Twenty years! Why, Theodore, we expect to be walking the golden streets of the New Jerusalem by that time, talking with Noah, Moses, and Aaron, about the flood, the Pharaohs, the journey through the Red Sea and the wilderness. We shall be holding conventions by that time on the banks of the Jordan with Eve, Sarah, Rebecca, Huldah, Deborah, Miriam, Ruth, Naomi, Sheba, Esther, Vashti, Mary, Elizabeth, Priscilla and Phebe, Tryphena and Tryphosa, and all the strong-minded women honorably mentioned in sacred history. Do you not know, Theodore, that we have vowed never to go disfranchised into the Kingdom of Heaven? In the meantime, we propose to discuss sanitary and sumptuary laws, finance, and free trade, religion and railroads, education and elections with such worthies as yourself in the councils of the American republic. Twenty years! Why, every white male in the nation will be tied to an apron-string by that time, while all the poets and philosophers will be writing essays on "The Sphere of Man"!
Let our cold-blooded Eastern reformers realize that ideas, like crops, grow quickly in the West, and that women here are ready to vote now, "right along," as the Hutchinsons sing. The editor of the Independent might talk about two decades spent by the Hudson among the Rip Van Winkles in Spookey Hollow, or to H. G. in New York, or W. P. at the "Hub," but never to Western audiences, or to the women of The Revolution. Why, Mr. Tilton, when you go to the Senate, some wise woman will sit on your right, and some Black man on your left. You will face the reality of your theories and find yourself between a woman and a Black man in all the laws and constitutions before five years pass over your curly head. Twenty years! Why, Theodore, we expect to be walking the golden streets of the New Jerusalem by then, chatting with Noah, Moses, and Aaron about the flood, the Pharaohs, the journey through the Red Sea and the wilderness. We will be holding conventions by then on the banks of the Jordan with Eve, Sarah, Rebecca, Huldah, Deborah, Miriam, Ruth, Naomi, Sheba, Esther, Vashti, Mary, Elizabeth, Priscilla and Phebe, Tryphena and Tryphosa, and all the strong-minded women honored in sacred history. Don't you know, Theodore, that we have vowed never to enter the Kingdom of Heaven without our voting rights? In the meantime, we plan to discuss health laws and trade regulations, finance, and free trade, religion and railroads, education and elections with esteemed individuals like yourself in the councils of the American republic. Twenty years! By then, every white male in the nation will be tied to an apron-string, while all the poets and philosophers will be writing essays on "The Sphere of Man"!
We found the good men and women of Galena filled with faith in the new President. They say he is a sober, honest, true man; that he will entirely revolutionize affairs at Washington, send the old political hacks to their homes, drive bribery and corruption from high places, and draw a new order of statesmen about him. May the good angels guide and strengthen him, for unless something is soon done to rouse the slumbering virtue of the American people, our sun will set in darkness to rise no more. Feeling the[Pg 377] deepest interest in the past, the present, and the future of Ulysses, we asked a thousand questions concerning him. Among other things, we proposed to go to the tannery where he used to work, but found that was a myth. We peeped into some of the stores where, in his leisure hours, he used to smoke the pipe of peace, and fancied that in walking up and down the streets our feet might be treading in his footsteps. What a fascination there is in the material surroundings of great souls, and in contact with the people who have seen and loved them! But, alas, how little of the inner life, that is most interesting to hear about, mortals ever reveal to one another.
We found the good people of Galena filled with faith in the new President. They say he is a serious, honest, genuine man; that he will completely transform things in Washington, send the old political insiders back home, drive bribery and corruption out of high places, and surround himself with a new generation of statesmen. May good angels guide and strengthen him, because unless something is done soon to awaken the sleeping virtue of the American people, our sun will set in darkness and never rise again. Feeling the[Pg 377] deepest interest in the past, present, and future of Ulysses, we asked a thousand questions about him. Among other things, we considered visiting the tannery where he used to work, but found out that was just a myth. We peeked into some of the stores where, in his spare time, he used to smoke the peace pipe, and imagined that as we walked up and down the streets, our feet might be treading in his footsteps. There’s such a fascination in the physical surroundings of great people and in connecting with those who have seen and loved them! But, unfortunately, how little of the inner life, which is the most interesting to hear about, do people ever share with one another.
On the way from Galena to Toledo we met Frederick Douglass, dressed in a cap and a great circular cape of wolf-skins. He really presented a most formidable and ferocious aspect. I thought perhaps he intended to illustrate "William the Silent" in his northern dress, as well as to depict his character in his Lyceum lecture. As I had been talking against the pending amendment of "manhood suffrage," I trembled in my shoes and was almost as paralyzed as Red Riding Hood in a similar encounter. But unlike the little maiden, I had a friend at hand, and, as usual in the hour of danger, I fell back in the shadow of Miss Anthony, who stepped forward bravely and took the wolf by the hand. His hearty words of welcome and gracious smile reassured me, so that when my time came I was able to meet him with the usual suaviter in modo. Our joy in shaking hands here and there with Douglass, Tilton, and Anna Dickinson, through the West, was like meeting ships at sea; as pleasant and as fleeting. Douglass's hair is fast becoming as white as snow, which adds greatly to the dignity of his countenance. We hear his lecture on "William the Silent" much praised. Mr. Tilton's lecture too, on "Statesmanship," is said to be the best he has ever delivered. We had an earnest debate with Douglass as far as we journeyed together, and were glad to find that he was gradually working up to our ideas on the question of suffrage. He is at present hanging by the eyelids half-way between the lofty position of Robert Purvis, and the narrow one of George W. Downing. As he will attend the woman suffrage anniversary in New York in May, we shall have an opportunity for a full and free discussion of the whole question.
On the way from Galena to Toledo, we ran into Frederick Douglass, wearing a cap and a big circular cape made from wolf skins. He really looked quite intimidating and fierce. I thought he might be dressed that way to represent "William the Silent" for his northern-themed talk, as well as to convey that character in his Lyceum lecture. Since I had been speaking out against the upcoming "manhood suffrage" amendment, I was nervous and felt almost as paralyzed as Red Riding Hood in a similar situation. But unlike that little girl, I had a friend with me, and, as always when I was in danger, I found comfort in the presence of Miss Anthony, who bravely stepped forward and took Douglass's hand. His warm welcome and friendly smile put me at ease, so when my turn came, I was able to approach him with my usual charm. Our joy in shaking hands with Douglass, Tilton, and Anna Dickinson across the West was like encountering ships at sea—nice, but brief. Douglass's hair is turning as white as snow, which adds to the dignity of his appearance. We’ve heard a lot of praise for his lecture on "William the Silent." Mr. Tilton's lecture on "Statesmanship" is also said to be his best yet. We had a serious discussion with Douglass for as long as we traveled together and were pleased to see that he was progressively aligning with our views on suffrage. Right now, he’s torn between the elevated stance of Robert Purvis and the limited perspective of George W. Downing. Since he will be attending the woman suffrage anniversary in New York this May, we’ll have the chance for a thorough and open discussion about the entire issue.
Toledo, Ohio.
Toledo, Ohio.
At two o'clock in the morning we reached Toledo, drove to the Oliver House, registered our names, left some notes for friends, who would be looking for us next day, and then retired, giving orders not to be called till noon, even for the King of France. At the appointed hour our friend, Mr. Israel Hall, formerly of Syracuse, was announced. He invited us to his hospitable home, where we stayed during the convention, which was held in Hunker's Hall and pronounced a complete success. At the close of the meetings, a rising vote was called of all those in favor of woman's suffrage. The entire audience, men and women, rose as if one body. Two dissenting "white males" (small, men of course) came to the surface in opposition, to the great amusement of everybody. The platform throughout the meetings was occupied by some of the leading men and women of the city. Judge Jones called the convention to order and presided over its deliberations. There was no lack of questions in Toledo, but they were all cunningly propounded in writing. This was a new feature in our meetings and we were much[Pg 378] struck with its wisdom. The questioner in an audience, no matter how bland and benevolent, is always viewed with aversion, and, however well armed at all points, is sure to be unhorsed by a brilliant sally of wit and ridicule. But when a poser is put in black and white, nothing will do but downright logic and argument. To that unwomanly work we addressed ourselves in the Toledo convention, and all admitted that we gave most satisfactory answers. Mrs. Israel Hall is the one who heads the woman's rebellion here. To her let all those write and go who wish to work in that part of the Lord's vineyard. We are glad to see by the papers that while we have been so enthusiastically received in the West, Lucy Stone is drawing crowded houses in all the chief cities of New England.
At two o'clock in the morning, we arrived in Toledo, drove to the Oliver House, checked in, left some notes for friends who would be looking for us the next day, and then went to bed, instructing not to be disturbed until noon, even for the King of France. At the designated time, our friend Mr. Israel Hall, formerly from Syracuse, was announced. He invited us to his welcoming home, where we stayed during the convention, which took place in Hunker's Hall and was a complete success. At the end of the meetings, a vote was taken for all those in favor of women's suffrage. The entire audience, men and women, stood up as if they were one body. Only two dissenting "white males" (small men, of course) surfaced in opposition, which amused everyone. The platform throughout the meetings featured some of the leading men and women of the city. Judge Jones called the convention to order and oversaw its discussions. There were plenty of questions in Toledo, but they were all cleverly submitted in writing. This was a new aspect of our meetings, and we were quite impressed by its wisdom. A questioner in an audience, no matter how polite and friendly, is always viewed with suspicion and, no matter how well-prepared, can easily be taken down by a clever remark or joke. But when a question is presented in writing, it demands clear logic and argument. We focused on that unwomanly task at the Toledo convention, and everyone agreed we provided very satisfactory answers. Mrs. Israel Hall leads the women's movement here. Anyone wishing to contribute to that part of the Lord's vineyard should reach out to her. We're pleased to see in the news that while we have been so warmly welcomed in the West, Lucy Stone is attracting large crowds in all the major cities of New England.
E. C. S.
E. C. S.
THE MAY ANNIVERSARIES IN NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN.
The anniversary commenced on Wednesday morning at Steinway Hall, New York. The opening session was very largely attended, the spacious hall being nearly full, showing that the era of anniversaries of important and useful societies, had by no means passed away.[118] In the absence of the president, Mrs. Lucretia Mott, the chair was taken by Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, First Vice-President. Rev. Mrs. Hanaford, of Massachusetts, opened the meeting with prayer.
The anniversary started on Wednesday morning at Steinway Hall, New York. The opening session had a huge turnout, with the spacious hall nearly full, proving that the trend of celebrating important and impactful organizations is definitely not over.[118] Since the president, Mrs. Lucretia Mott, was absent, Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the First Vice-President, took over as chair. Rev. Mrs. Hanaford from Massachusetts began the meeting with a prayer.
Lucy Stone presented verbally the report of the Executive Committee for the past year, running over the petitions in favor of woman suffrage presented during the year to Congress and State Legislatures and the various conventions held in different parts of the country, and remarked upon the greater respect now shown to the petitions. Formerly, she said, they were laughed at, and frequently not at all considered. This last year they were referred to committees, and often debated at great length in the legislatures, and in some cases motions to submit to the people of the State an amendment to the State Constitution doing away with the distinction of sex in the[Pg 380] matter of suffrage was rejected by very small majorities. In one State, that of Nevada, such a motion was carried; and the question will shortly be submitted to the people of the State. A number of important and very successful conventions have been held in the Western States, and have made a decided impression. But what is most significant is, that newspapers of all shades of opinion are giving a great deal of space to this subject. It is recognized as among the great questions of the age, which can not be put down until it is settled upon the basis of immutable justice and right. The report was unanimously accepted and adopted.
Lucy Stone verbally presented the Executive Committee's report for the past year, reviewing the petitions for women's suffrage submitted to Congress and State Legislatures, as well as the various conventions held across the country. She noted the increased respect now shown toward these petitions. Previously, they were laughed at and often ignored. This past year, they were referred to committees and frequently debated extensively in the legislatures. In some cases, motions to submit an amendment to the State Constitution that would eliminate gender distinctions in voting were rejected by very narrow margins. In Nevada, such a motion passed, and the question will soon be presented to the voters. Several important and successful conventions took place in the Western States, leaving a significant impact. Most notably, newspapers with varying perspectives are dedicating considerable space to this issue. It's recognized as one of the significant questions of our time, which cannot be sidelined until it's resolved based on unchanging justice and right. The report was accepted and adopted unanimously.
Rev. O. B. Frothingham.—I am not here this morning thinking that I can add any thing to the strength of the cause, but thinking that perhaps I may gain something from the generous, sweet atmosphere that I am sure will prevail. This is a meeting, if I understand it, of the former Woman's Rights Association, and the subjects which come before us properly are the subjects which concern woman in all her social, civil, and domestic life. But the one question which is of vital moment and of sole prominence, is that of suffrage. All other questions have been virtually decided in favor of woman. She has the entrée to all the fields of labor. She is now the teacher, preacher, artist, she has a place in the scientific world—in the literary world. She is a journalist, a maker of books, a public reader; in fact, there is no position which woman, as woman, is not entitled to hold. But there is one position that woman, as woman, does not occupy, and that is the position of a voter. One field alone she does not possess, and that is the political field; one work she is not permitted, and that is the work of making laws. This question goes down to the bottom—it touches the vital matter of woman's relation to the State.... Is there anything in the constitution of the female mind, to disqualify her for the exercise of the franchise. As long as there are fifty, thirty, ten, or even one woman who is capable of exercising this trust or holding this responsibility it demonstrates that sex, as a sex, does not disfranchise, and the whole question is granted. (Applause.) Here our laws are made by irresponsible people—people who demoralize and debauch society; people who make their living in a large measure by upholding the institutions that are inherently, forever, and always corrupt. (Applause.) Laws that are made by the people who own dramshops, who keep gambling-saloons, who minister to the depraved passions and vices of either sex, laws made by the idler, the dissipated, by the demoralized—are they laws? It is true that this government is founded upon caste. Slavery is abolished, but the aristocracy of sex is not. One reason that the suffrage is not conceded to woman is that those who refuse to do so, do not appreciate it themselves. (Applause.) As long as the power of suffrage means the power to steal, to tread down the weak, and get the rich offices into their own hands, those who have the key of the coffers will wish to keep it in their own pockets. (Applause.)
Rev. O. B. Frothingham.—I'm here this morning not because I think I can strengthen the cause, but because I hope to gain something from the kind and uplifting atmosphere that I know will be present. This meeting, as I understand it, is of the former Woman's Rights Association, and the topics we discuss will focus on issues that affect women in all aspects of their social, civil, and domestic lives. However, the one critical issue that stands out above all else is the question of voting rights. All other issues have essentially been resolved in favor of women. They now have access to all professional fields. Women are teachers, preachers, artists, and occupy roles in the scientific and literary communities. They are journalists, authors, and public readers; in fact, there is no position that a woman is not entitled to hold. Yet, there is one role that women do not have, and that is the role of a voter. The political arena is the only space they don't occupy; they are excluded from the essential task of making laws. This issue goes to the core of women's relationship with the State... Is there something inherent in women that disqualifies them from voting? As long as there are fifty, thirty, ten, or even one woman who can fulfill this responsibility, it shows that gender does not exclude someone from participating, and the whole question is settled. (Applause.) Our laws are created by irresponsible individuals—people who corrupt and harm society; individuals who largely make their living by upholding institutions that are fundamentally, perpetually, and consistently corrupt. (Applause.) Laws crafted by those who own bars, run gambling establishments, and cater to the depraved desires and vices of either gender, laws made by the idle, the dissolute, the demoralized—are these really laws? It's evident that this government is based on a hierarchy. Slavery has been abolished, but the supremacy of gender persists. One reason women have not been granted the right to vote is that those who deny it don’t value it themselves. (Applause.) As long as voting power is seen as a means to exploit, oppress the vulnerable, and seize wealthy positions for themselves, those who hold the keys to the treasury will want to keep them locked away. (Applause.)
Stephen Foster laid down the principle that when any persons on account of strong objections against them in the minds of some, prevented harmony in a society and efficiency in its operations, those persons should retire from prominent positions in that society. He said he had taken that course when, as agent of the Anti-Slavery Society, he became obnoxious on account of his position on some questions. He objected, to certain nominations made by the committee for various reasons. The first was that the persons nominated had publicly repudiated the principles of the society. One of these was the presiding officer.
Stephen Foster established the idea that if certain individuals create strong objections among some members of a group, it disrupts harmony and efficiency within that society, and those individuals should step back from leadership roles. He mentioned that he followed this principle when he served as the agent of the Anti-Slavery Society and became controversial due to his views on certain issues. He opposed certain nominations made by the committee for various reasons. The main reason was that the nominated individuals had publicly rejected the society's principles. One of them was the person serving as the presiding officer.
Mrs. Stanton:—I would like you to say in what respect.
Mrs. Stanton:—Could you please explain in what way?
Mr. Foster:—I will with pleasure; for, ladies and gentlemen, I admire our talented President with all my heart, and love the woman. (Great laughter.) But I believe she has publicly repudiated the principles of the society.
Mr. Foster:—I’m happy to do so; because, ladies and gentlemen, I truly admire our talented President and have great affection for her. (Big laughter.) But I think she has publicly rejected the principles of the society.
Mrs. Stanton:—I would like Mr. Foster to state in what way.
Mrs. Stanton:—I want Mr. Foster to explain how.
Mr. Foster:—What are these principles? The equality of men—universal suffrage. These ladies stand at the head of a paper which has adopted as its motto Educated Suffrage. I put myself on this platform as an enemy of educated suffrage, as an enemy of white suffrage, as an enemy of man suffrage, as an enemy of every kind of suffrage except universal suffrage. The Revolution lately had an article headed "That Infamous Fifteenth Amendment." It is true it was not written by our President, yet it comes from a person whom she has over and over again publicly indorsed. I am not willing to take George Francis Train on this platform with his ridicule of the negro and opposition to his enfranchisement.
Mr. Foster:—What are these principles? The equality of people—universal voting rights. These women lead a publication that has chosen "Educated Suffrage" as its motto. I stand here as an opponent of educated suffrage, as an opponent of white suffrage, as an opponent of male suffrage, and of any type of suffrage except universal suffrage. The Revolution recently published an article titled "That Infamous Fifteenth Amendment." Although it wasn’t written by our President, it was penned by someone she has repeatedly endorsed publicly. I am not willing to share this platform with George Francis Train, given his mockery of Black people and his stance against their right to vote.
Mrs. Mary A. Livermore:—Is it quite generous to bring George Francis Train on this platform when he has retired from The Revolution entirely?
Mrs. Mary A. Livermore:—Is it really fair to bring George Francis Train onto this platform when he has completely stepped away from The Revolution?
Mr. Foster:—If The Revolution, which has so often indorsed George Francis Train, will repudiate him because of his course in respect to the negro's rights, I have nothing further to say. But it does not repudiate him. He goes out; it does not cast him out.[Pg 382]
Mr. Foster:—If The Revolution, which has frequently supported George Francis Train, decides to reject him because of his stance on the rights of Black people, I have nothing more to add. But it doesn't reject him. He leaves; it doesn't cast him out.[Pg 382]
Miss Anthony:—Of course it does not.
Miss Anthony:—Of course it does not.
Mr. Foster:—My friend says yes to what I have said. I thought it was so. I only wanted to tell you why the Massachusetts society can not coalesce with the party here, and why we want these women to retire and leave us to nominate officers who can receive the respect of both parties. The Massachusetts Abolitionists can not co-operate with this society as it is now organized. If you choose to put officers here that ridicule the negro, and pronounce the Amendment infamous, why I must retire; I can not work with you. You can not have my support, and you must not use my name. I can not shoulder the responsibility of electing officers who publicly repudiate the principles of the society.
Mr. Foster:—My friend agrees with what I've said. I thought that was the case. I just wanted to explain why the Massachusetts society can't merge with the party here, and why we need these women to step back and let us nominate leaders who can earn the respect of both parties. The Massachusetts Abolitionists can't work with this society in its current form. If you choose to put leaders in place who mock Black people and call the Amendment disgraceful, then I'm out; I can't work with you. You won't have my support, and you shouldn't use my name. I can't take on the responsibility of electing leaders who openly reject the society's principles.
Henry B. Blackwell said: In regard to the criticisms on our officers, I will agree that many unwise things have been written in The Revolution by a gentleman who furnished part of the means by which that paper has been carried on. But that gentleman has withdrawn, and you, who know the real opinions of Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton on the question of negro suffrage, do not believe that they mean to create antagonism between the negro and the woman question. If they did disbelieve in negro suffrage, it would be no reason for excluding them. We should no more exclude a person from our platform for disbelieving negro suffrage than a person should be excluded from the anti-slavery platform for disbelieving woman suffrage. But I know that Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton believe in the right of the negro to vote. We are united on that point. There is no question of principle between us.
Henry B. Blackwell said: Regarding the criticisms of our officers, I agree that many unwise things have been written in The Revolution by a gentleman who contributed part of the funding for that paper. However, that gentleman has stepped back, and you, who understand the true views of Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton on the issue of black suffrage, know that they do not intend to create conflict between the black rights movement and the women's rights movement. Even if they did oppose black suffrage, that would not justify excluding them. We shouldn’t exclude someone from our platform for opposing black suffrage any more than someone should be excluded from the anti-slavery platform for opposing women's suffrage. But I am confident that Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton support the right of black people to vote. We are united on that issue. There is no disagreement in principle between us.
The vote on the report of the Committee on Organization was now taken, and adopted by a large majority.
The vote on the Committee on Organization's report was taken and passed with a large majority.
Mr. Douglass:—I came here more as a listener than to speak, and I have listened with a great deal of pleasure to the eloquent address of the Rev. Mr. Frothingham and the splendid address of the President. There is no name greater than that of Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the matter of woman's rights and equal rights, but my sentiments are tinged a little against The Revolution. There was in the address to which I allude the employment of certain names, such as "Sambo," and the gardener, and the bootblack, and the daughters of Jefferson and Washington, and all the rest that I can not coincide with. I have asked what difference there is between the daughters of Jefferson and Washington and other daughters. (Laughter.) I must say that I do not see how any one can pretend that there is the same urgency in giving the ballot to woman as to the negro. With us, the matter is a question of life and death, at least, in fifteen States of the Union. When women, because they are women, are hunted down through the cities of New York and New Orleans; when they are dragged from their houses and hung upon lamp-posts; when their children are torn from their arms, and their brains dashed out upon the pavement; when they are objects of insult and outrage at every turn; when they are in danger of having their homes burnt down over their heads; when their children are not allowed to enter schools; then they will have an urgency to obtain the ballot equal to our own. (Great applause.)
Mr. Douglass:—I came here more to listen than to talk, and I’ve really enjoyed the powerful speeches from Rev. Mr. Frothingham and the President. No name stands taller than Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s when it comes to women's rights and equal rights, but I do have some reservations about The Revolution. In the address I’m referring to, there were certain names mentioned like "Sambo," the gardener, the bootblack, and the daughters of Jefferson and Washington, which I can't agree with. I’ve wondered what makes the daughters of Jefferson and Washington different from other daughters. (Laughter.) I really don’t see how anyone can argue that giving women the right to vote is just as urgent as it is for Black people. For us, it’s a matter of life and death, at least in fifteen states. When women, just because they are women, are hunted through the streets of New York and New Orleans; when they are dragged from their homes and hung on lamp-posts; when their children are taken from their arms and harmed; when they face insults and violence everywhere they turn; when they risk having their homes burned down; when their children can’t even go to school; then they will feel the same urgency for the vote as we do. (Great applause.)
A Voice:—Is that not all true about black women?
A Voice:—Isn't that all true about Black women?
Mr. Douglass:—Yes, yes, yes; it is true of the black woman, but not because she is a woman, but because she is black. (Applause.) Julia Ward[Pg 383] Howe at the conclusion of her great speech delivered at the convention in Boston last year, said: "I am willing that the negro shall get the ballot before me." (Applause.) Woman! why, she has 10,000 modes of grappling with her difficulties. I believe that all the virtue of the world can take care of all the evil. I believe that all the intelligence can take care of all the ignorance. (Applause.) I am in favor of woman's suffrage in order that we shall have all the virtue and vice confronted. Let me tell you that when there were few houses in which the black man could have put his head, this woolly head of mine found a refuge in the house of Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and if I had been blacker than sixteen midnights, without a single star, it would have been the same. (Applause.)
Mr. Douglass:—Yes, yes, yes; it’s true for black women, but not because they are women, but because they are black. (Applause.) Julia Ward[Pg 383] Howe, at the end of her powerful speech given at the convention in Boston last year, said: "I’m okay with the black man getting the vote before me." (Applause.) Women! They have countless ways to deal with their challenges. I believe that all the goodness in the world can handle all the bad. I believe that all the knowledge can take care of all the ignorance. (Applause.) I support women’s suffrage so we can confront both virtue and vice together. Let me tell you that when there were hardly any places where the black man could find shelter, this curly head of mine found refuge in the home of Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and even if I had been darker than sixteen midnights without a single star, it would have been the same. (Applause.)
Miss Anthony:—The old anti-slavery school say women must stand back and wait until the negroes shall be recognized. But we say, if you will not give the whole loaf of suffrage to the entire people, give it to the most intelligent first. (Applause.) If intelligence, justice, and morality are to have precedence in the Government, let the question of woman be brought up first and that of the negro last. (Applause.) While I was canvassing the State with petitions and had them filled with names for our cause to the Legislature, a man dared to say to me that the freedom of women was all a theory and not a practical thing. (Applause.) When Mr. Douglass mentioned the black man first and the woman last, if he had noticed he would have seen that it was the men that clapped and not the women. There is not the woman born who desires to eat the bread of dependence, no matter whether it be from the hand of father, husband, or brother; for any one who does so eat her bread places herself in the power of the person from whom she takes it. (Applause.) Mr. Douglass talks about the wrongs of the negro; but with all the outrages that he to-day suffers, he would not exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. (Laughter and applause.)
Miss Anthony:—The old anti-slavery group says women need to step aside and wait until the Black community is recognized. But we argue that if you’re not going to give full voting rights to everyone, then at least give them to the most educated first. (Applause.) If intelligence, justice, and morality are supposed to be prioritized in the government, then let’s discuss women’s rights first and the rights of Black people last. (Applause.) While I was traveling the State gathering signatures for our petitions to the Legislature, a man had the audacity to tell me that women's freedom is just a theory and not practical. (Applause.) When Mr. Douglass mentioned Black men first and women last, if he had looked around, he would have noticed that it was the men cheering and not the women. No woman wants to rely on others for her livelihood, whether it’s from her father, husband, or brother; anyone who does so puts herself in a position of dependence on whoever provides for her. (Applause.) Mr. Douglass speaks about the injustices faced by Black men; yet, with all the wrongs he experiences today, he wouldn’t trade his identity to become Elizabeth Cady Stanton. (Laughter and applause.)
Mr. Douglass:—I want to know if granting you the right of suffrage will change the nature of our sexes? (Great laughter.)
Mr. Douglass:—I want to know if giving you the right to vote will change what it means to be male or female? (Great laughter.)
Miss Anthony:—It will change the pecuniary position of woman; it will place her where she can earn her own bread. (Loud applause.) She will not then be driven to such employments only as man chooses for her.
Miss Anthony:—It will improve women's financial situations; it will enable them to earn their own living. (Loud applause.) They won't be forced into only the jobs that men decide for them.
Mrs. Norton said that Mr. Douglass's remarks left her to defend the Government from the inferred inability to grapple with the two questions at once. It legislates upon many questions at one and the same time, and it has the power to decide the woman question and the negro question at one and the same time. (Applause.)
Mrs. Norton said that Mr. Douglass's comments put her in a position to defend the Government from the implied inability to handle both issues simultaneously. It addresses multiple issues at the same time, and it has the authority to resolve the women's issue and the Black issue at the same time. (Applause.)
Mrs. Lucy Stone:—Mrs. Stanton will, of course, advocate the precedence for her sex, and Mr. Douglass will strive for the first position for his, and both are perhaps right. If it be true that the government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, we, are safe in trusting that principle to the uttermost. If one has a right to say that you can not read and therefore can not vote, then it may be said that you are a woman and therefore can not vote. We are lost if we turn away from the middle principle and argue for one class. I was once a teacher among fugitive slaves. There was one old man, and every tooth was gone, his hair was white, and his face was full of wrinkles, yet, day after day and hour after hour, he came up to the school-house and[Pg 384] tried with patience to learn to read, and by-and-by, when he had spelled out the first few verses of the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John, he said to me, "Now, I want to learn to write." I tried to make him satisfied with what he had acquired, but the old man said, "Mrs. Stone, somewhere in the wide world I have a son; I have not heard from him in twenty years; if I should hear from him, I want to write to him, so take hold of my hand and teach me." I did, but before he had proceeded in many lessons, the angels came and gathered him up and bore him to his Father. Let no man speak of an educated suffrage. The gentleman who addressed you claimed that the negroes had the first right to the suffrage, and drew a picture which only his great word-power can do. He again in Massachusetts, when it had cast a majority in favor of Grant and negro suffrage, stood upon the platform and said that woman had better wait for the negro; that is, that both could not be carried, and that the negro had better be the one. But I freely forgave him because he felt as he spoke. But woman suffrage is more imperative than his own; and I want to remind the audience that when he says what the Ku-Kluxes did all over the South, the Ku-Kluxes here in the North in the shape of men, take away the children from the mother, and separate them as completely as if done on the block of the auctioneer. Over in New Jersey they have a law which says that any father—he might be the most brutal man that ever existed—any father, it says, whether he be under age or not, may by his last will and testament dispose of the custody of his child, born or to be born, and that such disposition shall be good against all persons, and that the mother may not recover her child; and that law modified in form exists over every State in the Union except in Kansas. Woman has an ocean of wrongs too deep for any plummet, and the negro, too, has an ocean of wrongs that can not be fathomed. There are two great oceans; in the one is the black man, and in the other is the woman. But I thank God for that XV. Amendment, and hope that it will be adopted in every State. I will be thankful in my soul if any body can get out of the terrible pit. But I believe that the safety of the government would be more promoted by the admission of woman as an element of restoration and harmony than the negro. I believe that the influence of woman will save the country before every other power. (Applause.) I see the signs of the times pointing to this consummation, and I believe that in some parts of the country women will vote for the President of these United States in 1872. (Applause.)
Mrs. Lucy Stone:—Mrs. Stanton will obviously push for her gender to take precedence, and Mr. Douglass will fight for his group to be first, and both might have a point. If it's true that the government gets its power from the consent of the governed, we can trust that principle entirely. If someone can say you can't read and therefore can't vote, then it could be said that you're a woman and therefore can't vote. We would be lost if we ignore the central principle and argue for just one group. I once taught escaped slaves. There was one elderly man, completely toothless, with white hair and a face full of wrinkles; yet day after day, hour after hour, he came to the schoolhouse and[Pg 384] patiently tried to learn to read. Eventually, when he had spelled out the first few verses of the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John, he said to me, "Now, I want to learn to write." I tried to make him content with what he had learned, but the old man insisted, "Mrs. Stone, somewhere out there in the world I have a son; I haven't heard from him in twenty years. If I do hear from him, I want to write to him, so take my hand and teach me." I did, but before he could get through many lessons, the angels came and took him to be with his Father. No one should talk about educated suffrage. The gentleman who spoke to you claimed that Black people had the first right to vote and painted a picture that only his impressive language could convey. Again, in Massachusetts, after it had voted majority for Grant and Black suffrage, he stood on the platform and said that women should wait for Black people; that is, that both couldn't be advanced at the same time, and that it would be better for Black people to go first. But I forgave him because he was sincere. However, suffrage for women is even more urgent than his own cause; and I want to remind the audience that when he mentions what the KKK did all over the South, the KKK exists here in the North in the form of men who take children from their mothers and separate them completely, as if it's happening on an auction block. In New Jersey, there is a law that says any father—no matter how brutal he may be—any father can, by his last will and testament, decide who will have custody of his child, born or unborn, and that decision stands against all others, meaning the mother cannot get her child back; and that law, with slight variations, exists in every State in the Union except Kansas. Women face an ocean of injustices too vast to measure, and Black people also face an ocean of wrongs that cannot be quantified. There are two great oceans; one holds the Black man, and the other holds woman. But I thank God for the XV. Amendment and hope it will be adopted in every State. I will be truly grateful if any person can escape from that terrible pit. However, I believe that the safety of the government would be better served by including women as an element of restoration and harmony rather than just focusing on Black individuals. I believe that women's influence will save the country more than any other force. (Applause.) I see the signs of the times indicating this outcome, and I believe that in some parts of the country, women will be able to vote for the President of the United States in 1872. (Applause.)
Miss Logan said:—I stand here to-night full of faith, inborn faith, in the rights of woman to advance boldly in all ennobling paths.... In my former sphere of life, the equality of woman was fully recognized so far as the kind of labor and the amount of reward for her labor are concerned. As an actress, there was no position in which I was not fully welcomed if I possessed the ability and industry to reach it. If I could become a Ristori, my earnings would be as great as hers, and if I was a man and could become a Kean, a Macready, or a Booth, the same reward would be obtained. If I reach no higher rank than what is called a "walking lady," I am sure of the same pay as a man who occupies the position of a "walking gentleman." In that sphere of life, be it remembered, I was reared from childhood; to that place I was so accustomed that I had no idea it was a privilege denied my sex to enter into almost every other field of endeavor.
Miss Logan said:—I stand here tonight filled with faith, an innate faith, in women's right to boldly pursue every noble path… In my previous line of work, women's equality was fully acknowledged when it came to the type of labor and the compensation for that labor. As an actress, I was welcome in any role I was skilled enough and hard-working enough to obtain. If I could become a Ristori, my earnings would match hers, and if I were a man who could become a Kean, a Macready, or a Booth, I would receive the same reward. Even if I only reached the rank of a "walking lady," I would still earn the same pay as a man in the position of a "walking gentleman." It should be noted that I was raised in this environment from childhood; I was so accustomed to it that I had no idea it was a privilege denied to my gender in almost every other field of work.
In literature also I found myself on an equality with man. If I wrote a good article, I got as good pay; and heaven knows the pay to man or woman was small enough. (Applause). In that field, for a long time, I did not feel an interest in the subject of women's rights, and stood afar off, looking at the work of those revolutionary creatures, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony. The idea of identifying myself with them was as far removed from my thoughts as becoming a female gymnast and whirling upon a trapeze. But once I wrote a lecture, and one night I delivered it. Adhering to my practice of speaking about that which was most familiar, my lecture was about the stage. I lectured, simply because I thought the pay would be better in that department; the idea that I was running counter to anybody's prejudice, never entered my head. And I was so far removed that I never read a page of The Revolution in my life, and, what is more, I did not want to; and when Miss Anthony passed down Broadway and saw the bills announcing my lecture she knew nothing about me, and what is more, she did not want to. (Laughter). She made a confession to me afterwards. She said to herself, "Here is a lady going to lecture about the stage," looking[Pg 386] through her blessed spectacles, as I can see her (laughter)—and I can hear her muttering "a woman's rights woman." (Laughter). That is not so very long ago, a little over a year. Since this great question of woman's rights was thrust upon me, I am asked to define my position; wherever I have traveled in the fifteen months I have had to do so. A lady of society asked me, "Are you in favor of woman's rights?" I had either to answer yes or no, and "Yes," I said. (Applause)....
In literature, I found myself on equal footing with men. If I wrote a good article, I got paid just as well; and honestly, the pay for both men and women was low enough. (Applause). For a long time, I wasn't interested in women's rights and kept my distance, observing the work of those groundbreaking women, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony. I couldn't imagine aligning myself with them any more than I could see myself as a female gymnast swinging on a trapeze. But one time, I wrote a lecture, and I delivered it one night. Sticking to my habit of discussing what I knew best, my lecture was about the stage. I lectured simply because I thought I would make better money in that field; the idea that I might be contradicting anyone’s beliefs didn't even cross my mind. I was so out of touch that I had never read a single page of The Revolution, and what’s more, I had no desire to; when Miss Anthony walked down Broadway and saw the posters announcing my lecture, she knew nothing about me, and worse, she didn’t care to know. (Laughter). She later confided to me, thinking, "Here’s a lady going to lecture about the stage," looking[Pg 386] through her lovely glasses, as I can still picture her (laughter)—and I can hear her grumbling about "a women's rights woman." (Laughter). That wasn't too long ago, just a little over a year. Since this significant issue of women's rights got brought to my attention, I’ve been asked to define my stance; no matter where I've traveled in the past fifteen months, I've had to do so. A socialite asked me, "Are you in favor of women's rights?" I had to answer either yes or no, and I said, "Yes." (Applause)....
I met, in my travels, in a New England town, an educated woman, who found herself obliged to earn her livelihood, after living a life of luxury and ease. Her husband, who had provided her with every material comfort, had gone to the grave. All his property was taken to pay his debts, and she found herself penniless. What was that woman to do? She looks abroad among the usual employments of women, and her only resource seems to be that little bit of steel around which cluster so many associations—the needle—and by the needle, with the best work and the best wages, the most she can get is two dollars a day. With this, poor as it is, she will be content; but she finds an army of other women looking for the same, and most of them looking in vain. These things have opened my eyes to a vista such as I never saw before. They have touched my heart as it never before was touched. They have aroused my conscience to the fact that this woman question is the question of the hour, and that I must take part in it. I take my stand boldly, proudly, with such earnest, thoughtful women as Susan B. Anthony, Mrs. Stanton, and Anna Dickinson, to work together with them for the enfranchisement of woman, for her elevation personally and socially, and above all for her right and opportunity to work at such employments as she can follow, with the right to such pay as men get. (Applause). There are thousands of women who have no vital interest in this question. They are happy wives and daughters, and may they ever be so; but they can not tell how soon their husbands and brothers may be lost to them, and they will find themselves destitute and penniless with no resources in themselves against misfortune. Then it will be for such that we labor. Our purpose is to help those who need help, widows and orphan girls. There is no need to do battle in this matter. In all kindness and gentleness we urge our claims. There is no need to declare war upon man, for the best of men in this country are with us heart and soul. These are with us in greater numbers even than our own sex. (A Voice—"That is true." Great applause). Do not say that we seek to break up family peace and fireside joy; far from it. (Applause). We interfere not with the wife or daughter who is happy in the strong protection thrown around her by a father or husband, but it is cowardice for such to throw obstacles in the way of those who need help. More than this, for the sake of the helpless woman, to whose unhappiness in the loss of beloved ones is added the agony of hard and griping want. For the sake of the poor girl who has no power to cope with the hard actualities of a desolate life, while her trembling feet tread the crumbling edge of the dark abyss of infamy. For the sake of this we are pleading and entertaining this great question, withhold your answer till at least you have learned to say, "God speed."
I met an educated woman in a New England town during my travels who was forced to earn a living after enjoying a life of luxury and comfort. Her husband, who provided her with every material need, had passed away. All his property went to pay his debts, leaving her broke. What was she supposed to do? She looked around at the usual jobs for women, and her only option seemed to be that little piece of steel that comes with so many associations—the needle. By sewing, with her best work and highest pay, she could only earn about two dollars a day. She’s willing to accept this, but she discovers there are many other women competing for the same jobs, most of whom are unsuccessful. These experiences have opened my eyes to a perspective I had never seen before. They have moved my heart like never before. They have awakened my conscience to the reality that the issue of women’s rights is the most pressing issue of our time, and I need to get involved. I stand firm and proudly alongside dedicated women like Susan B. Anthony, Mrs. Stanton, and Anna Dickinson to work with them for the empowerment of women, for their personal and social upliftment, and especially for their right and opportunity to work in whatever jobs they can pursue, with pay equal to that of men. (Applause). Thousands of women have no direct interest in this question. They are content wives and daughters, and may they always be; but they cannot predict how soon their husbands or brothers might be lost to them, leaving them destitute and without support against hardship. This is for those we labor. Our goal is to assist those in need—widows and orphaned girls. There’s no need for conflict in this matter. We kindly and gently present our case. There’s no need to wage war against men, as the best men in this country are entirely on our side. There are even more of them supporting us than there are women. (A Voice—"That is true." Great applause). Let’s not say we aim to disrupt family harmony or the joy of home life; on the contrary. (Applause). We do not interfere with the lives of wives or daughters who are happy within the protective embrace of their fathers or husbands, but it is cowardly for such individuals to obstruct those who are in need. More than that, we advocate for the helpless woman, whose sorrow over losing loved ones is compounded by the pain of severe hardship. We stand for the poor girl who has no means to face the harsh realities of a lonely life, as she teeters on the brink of a dark and shameful existence. For these reasons, we are discussing and advocating for this significant issue; please hold your judgment until you can at least say, "God speed."
The next speaker was Miss Phoebe Couzins, a young law student from St. Louis, who spoke in a most agreeable and forcible manner.[Pg 387]
The next speaker was Miss Phoebe Couzins, a young law student from St. Louis, who spoke in a very pleasant and impactful way.[Pg 387]
Miss Couzins said:—Mrs. President and Ladies: I deem it the duty of every earnest woman to express herself in regard to the XVth Amendment to our Federal Constitution. I feel deeply the humiliation and insult that is offered to the women of the United States in this Amendment, and have always publicly protested against its passage. During a recent tour through the Eastern States I became still more (if that were possible) firmly fixed in my convictions. Its advocates are unwilling to have it publicly discussed, showing that they know there is an element of weakness in it which will not bear a thorough investigation.
Miss Couzins said:—Mrs. President and Ladies: I believe it’s the responsibility of every committed woman to share her thoughts about the 15th Amendment to our Federal Constitution. I am deeply offended by the humiliation and insult this Amendment brings to the women of the United States, and I have always openly opposed its passage. During a recent trip through the Eastern States, I became even more (if that's possible) convinced of my stance. Its supporters are reluctant to discuss it openly, which shows they know there’s a weakness in it that can’t stand up to thorough examination.
While feeling entirely willing that the black man shall have all the rights to which he is justly entitled, I consider the claims of the black woman of paramount importance. I have had opportunities of seeing and knowing the condition of both sexes, and will bear my testimony, that the black women are, and always have been, in a far worse condition than the men. As a class, they are better, and more intelligent than the men, yet they have been subjected to greater brutalities, while compelled to perform exactly the same labor as men toiling by their side in the fields, just as hard burdens imposed upon them, just as severe punishments decreed to them, with the added cares of maternity and household work, with their children taken from them and sold into bondage; suffering a thousandfold more than any man could suffer. Then, too, the laws for women in the Southern States, both married and single, degrade them still further. The black men, as a class, are very tyrannical in their families; they have learned the lesson of brute force but too well, and as the marriage law allows the husband entire control over his wife's earnings and her children, she is in worse bondage than before; because in many cases the task of providing for helpless children and an idle, lazy, husband, is imposed on the patient wife and mother; and, with this sudden elevation to citizenship, which the mass of stupid, ignorant negroes look upon as entitling them to great honor, I regard the future state of the negro woman, without the ballot in her hand, as deplorable. And what is said of the ignorant black man can as truthfully be said of the ignorant white man; they all regard woman as an inferior being. She is their helpless, household slave. He is her ruler, her law-giver, her conscience, her judge and jury, and the prisoner at the bar has no appeal. This XVth Amendment thrusts all women still further down in the scale of degradation, and I consider it neither praiseworthy nor magnanimous for women to assert that they are willing to hold their claims in abeyance, until all shades and types of men have the franchise. It is admitting a false principle, which all women, who are loyal to truth and justice, should immediately reject. For over twenty-five years, the advocates of woman suffrage have been trying to bring this vital question before the country. They have accomplished herculean tasks and still it is up-hill work. Shall they, after battling so long with ignorance, prejudice and unreasoning customs, stand quietly back and obsequiously say they are willing that the floodgates shall be opened and a still greater mass of ignorance, vice and degradation let in to overpower their little army, and set this question back for a century? Their solemn duty to future generations forbids such a compromise.
While I completely support that black men should have all the rights they deserve, I believe the rights of black women are even more urgent. I’ve seen and experienced the conditions faced by both genders, and I can testify that black women have always been in a much worse situation than men. As a group, they are better and more intelligent than the men, yet they endure greater brutality while doing the same hard work as men in the fields, carrying the same heavy burdens, facing the same harsh punishments, while also dealing with the responsibilities of motherhood and household tasks, with their children being taken away and sold into slavery; they suffer a thousand times more than any man could endure. Additionally, the laws for women in the Southern States, whether married or single, further degrade them. Black men, as a group, can be very oppressive within their families; they’ve learned to rely on brute force too well. Since marriage laws give husbands complete control over their wives' earnings and children, women find themselves in worse bondage than before; often, the burden of providing for helpless children and a lazy husband falls on the patient wife and mother. With this sudden elevation to citizenship, which many ignorant black men see as a great honor, I believe the future of black women, without the right to vote, is grim. What’s true for ignorant black men can also be said for ignorant white men; they view women as inferior. Women are their helpless household slaves. Men are their rulers, the ones who set the laws, their conscience, their judges and juries, and the accused has no recourse. This XVth Amendment drags all women even further down into degradation, and I don’t think it’s admirable or generous for women to claim they’re willing to set their rights aside until all men, of every type and background, have the right to vote. Accepting that is a false principle that every woman loyal to truth and justice should immediately reject. For over twenty-five years, advocates for women’s suffrage have been working to bring this crucial issue to the forefront. They’ve faced immense challenges and it’s still a tough battle. Should they, after struggling so long against ignorance, prejudice, and unreasoning traditions, now stand back quietly and submissively agree to let even more ignorance, vice, and degradation flood in and overwhelm their small movement, setting this issue back a century? Their serious responsibility to future generations prevents such a compromise.
The advocates of the XVth Amendment tell us we ought to accept the half loaf when we can not get the whole. I do not see that woman[Pg 388] gets any part of the loaf, not even a crumb that falls from the rich man's table. It may appear very magnanimous for men, who have never known the degradation of being thrust down in the scale of humanity by reason of their sex, to urge these yielding measures upon women, they can not and do not know our feelings on the subject, and I regard it as neither just nor generous to eternally compel women to yield on all questions (no matter how humiliating), simply because they are women.
The supporters of the 15th Amendment argue that we should accept a compromise when we can't have everything we want. However, I don't see that women[Pg 388] get any part of this compromise, not even a crumb that falls from the rich man's table. It may seem very generous for men, who have never experienced the shame of being pushed down in the hierarchy of humanity because of their gender, to suggest these compromising measures to women. They can't and don't understand our feelings on the matter, and I believe it's neither fair nor kind to constantly force women to give in on all issues (regardless of how demeaning), just because they are women.
The Anti-Slavery party declares that with the adoption of the XVth Amendment their work is done. Have they, then, been battling for over thirty years for a fraction of a principle? If so, then the XVth Amendment is a fitting capstone to their labors. Were the earnest women who fought and endured so heroically with them, but tools in the hands of the leaders, to place "manhood suffrage" on the highest pinnacle of the temple dedicated to Truth and Justice? And are they now to bow down, and worship in abject submission this fractional part of a principle, that has hitherto proclaimed itself, as knowing neither bond nor free, male nor female, but one perfect humanity?
The Anti-Slavery party claims that with the adoption of the 15th Amendment, their work is complete. Have they really been fighting for over thirty years for just a small piece of a principle? If that’s the case, then the 15th Amendment is a fitting conclusion to their efforts. Were the dedicated women who fought and suffered alongside them just tools for the leaders, meant to elevate "manhood suffrage" to the highest point of the temple dedicated to Truth and Justice? And are they now expected to bow down and worship in complete submission this small part of a principle, which has always proclaimed itself as knowing neither bonds nor freedom, male nor female, but one perfect humanity?
The XV. Amendment virtually says that every intelligent, virtuous woman is the inferior of every ignorant man, no matter how low he may be sunk in the scale of morality, and every instinct of my being rises to refute such doctrine, and God speaking within me says, No! eternally No!
The XV. Amendment basically states that every smart, decent woman is inferior to every ignorant man, regardless of how immoral he might be, and every part of my being rejects that idea, and God speaks to me within and says, No! eternally No!
Rev. Gilbert Haven, editor of Zion's Herald, was introduced, and said—Ladies and Gentlemen: As I believe that is the way to address you, or shall I merge you into one and call you fellow citizens—
Rev. Gilbert Haven, editor of Zion's Herald, was introduced, and said—Ladies and Gentlemen: I think that's the right way to address you, or should I just combine you all and call you fellow citizens—
Miss Anthony—Let me tell you how to say it. It is perfectly right for a gentleman to say "ladies and gentlemen," but a lady should say, "gentlemen and ladies." (Great applause.) You mention your friend's name before you do your own. (Applause.) I always feel like rebuking any woman who says, "ladies and gentlemen." It is a lack of good manners. (Laughter and great applause.)
Miss Anthony—Let me explain how it should be said. It's completely acceptable for a man to say "ladies and gentlemen," but a woman should say, "gentlemen and ladies." (Great applause.) You should mention your friend's name before your own. (Applause.) I always feel like correcting any woman who says, "ladies and gentlemen." It's just not polite. (Laughter and great applause.)
Mr. Haven—I thank the lady for the rule she has laid down. Now, Mr. Beecher has said that a minister is composed of the worst part of man and woman, and there are wealthy men who say that the pulpit should be closed against the introduction of politics, but I am glad this sentiment is not a rule; I rejoice that the country has emancipated the ministry so that a minister can speak on politics. I go further than saying that it is the mere right of the women to achieve suffrage. I say that it is an obligation imposed upon the American people to grant the demands of this large and influential class of the commonwealth. The legislation of the country concerns the woman as much as the man. Is not the wife as much interested in the preservation of property as her husband? Another reason is, that the purity of politics depends upon the admission of woman to the franchise, for without her influence morality in politics can not be secured. (Applause.)
Mr. Haven—I appreciate the woman for the rule she has established. Now, Mr. Beecher mentioned that a minister is made up of the worst aspects of both men and women, and there are wealthy individuals who argue that the pulpit should avoid political discussions, but I'm glad this belief isn't a standard rule; I celebrate that the country has freed the ministry so that a minister can engage in political topics. I take it a step further by saying that it's not just a right for women to gain the vote. It's a responsibility that the American people have to meet the demands of this significant and influential group in society. The laws of the country affect women just as much as they do men. Isn't the wife just as concerned with protecting their property as her husband? Additionally, the integrity of politics relies on granting women the right to vote, because without her influence, we can't ensure morality in politics. (Applause.)
Henry B. Blackwell presented the following resolution:
Henry B. Blackwell put forward the following resolution:
Resolved, That in seeking to remove the legal disabilities which now oppress woman as wife and mother, the friends of woman suffrage are not seeking to undermine or destroy the sanctity of the marriage relation, but to ennoble marriage, making the obligations and responsibilities of the contract mutual and equal for husband and wife.
Resolved, That in working to eliminate the legal limitations that currently disadvantage women as wives and mothers, advocates for women's suffrage are not trying to weaken or dismantle the sanctity of marriage, but to elevate it by ensuring that the duties and responsibilities of the contract are mutual and equal for both spouses.
Mary A. Livermore said that that was introduced by her permission, but the original resolution was stronger, and she having slept over it, thought that it should be introduced instead of that one, and offered the following:
Mary A. Livermore stated that it was introduced with her permission, but the original resolution was more powerful. After thinking it over, she believed it should be proposed instead of that one and presented the following:
Resolved, That while we recognize the disabilities which the legal marriage imposes upon woman as wife and mother, and while we pledge ourselves to seek their removal by putting her on equal terms with man, we abhorrently repudiate Free Loveism as horrible and mischievous to society, and disown any sympathy with it.
Resolved, That while we acknowledge the limitations that legal marriage places on women as wives and mothers, and while we commit ourselves to fighting for their removal by ensuring equality with men, we strongly reject Free Loveism as damaging and harmful to society, and we distance ourselves from any support for it.
Mrs. Livermore said that the West wanted some such resolution as that in consequence of the innuendoes that had come to their ears with regard to their striving after the ballot.
Mrs. Livermore said that the West wanted a resolution like that because of the rumors they had heard about their efforts to pursue the vote.
Mrs. Hanaford spoke against such inferences not only for the ministers of her own denomination, but the Christian men and women of New England everywhere. She had heard people say that when women indorsed woman suffrage they indorsed Free Loveism, and God knows they despise it. Let me carry back to my New England home the word that you as well as your honored President, whom we love, whose labor we appreciate, and whose name has also been dragged into this inference, scout all such suggestions as contrary to the law of God and humanity.
Mrs. Hanaford spoke out against such assumptions, not just for the ministers of her own denomination, but for Christian men and women across New England. She had heard people claim that when women supported women's suffrage, they were also endorsing Free Loveism, which, believe me, they detest. Let me take back to my New England home the message that you, along with your esteemed President—whom we love, whose efforts we value, and whose name has also been involved in this allegation—reject all such suggestions as against the law of God and humanity.
Lucy Stone: I feel it is a mortal shame to give any foundation for the implication that we favor Free Loveism. I am ashamed that the question should be asked here. There should be nothing said about it at all. Do not let us, for the sake of our own self-respect, allow it to be hinted that we helped forge a shadow of a chain which comes in the name of Free Love. I am unwilling that it should be suggested that this great, sacred cause of ours means anything but what we have said it does. If any one says to me, "Oh, I know what you mean, you mean Free Love by this agitation," let the lie stick in his throat. You may talk about Free Love, if you please, but we are to have the right to vote. To-day we are fined, imprisoned, and hanged, without a jury trial by our peers. You shall not cheat us by getting us off to talk about something else. When we get the suffrage, then you may taunt us with anything you please, and we will then talk about it as long as you please.
Lucy Stone: I think it's a total shame to imply that we support Free Loveism. I'm embarrassed that this question is even raised here. We shouldn't say anything about it at all. For the sake of our own dignity, we can't let it be suggested that we contributed to the idea of a chain that goes by the name of Free Love. I refuse to let anyone imply that our important, noble cause means anything other than what we've stated. If someone tells me, "Oh, I know what you mean, you mean Free Love by this movement," let that lie choke them. You can speak about Free Love if you want, but our focus is on securing the right to vote. Right now, we are fined, imprisoned, and even executed without a trial by our peers. Don't distract us by trying to shift the conversation to something else. Once we have the vote, you can bring up whatever you want, and we’ll discuss it for as long as you'd like.
Ernestine L. Rose: We are informed by the people from the West that they are wiser than we are, and that those in the East are also wiser than we are. If they are wiser than we, I think it strange that this question of Free Love should have been brought upon this platform at all. I object to Mrs. Livermore's resolution, not on account of its principles, but on account of its pleading guilty. When a man comes to me and tries to convince me that he is not a thief, then I take care of my coppers. If we pass this resolution that we are not Free Lovers, people will say it is true that you are, for you try to hide it. Lucretia Mott's name has been mentioned as a friend of Free Love, but I hurl back the lie into the faces of all the ministers in the East and into the faces of the newspapers of the West, and defy them to point to one shadow of a reason why they should connect her name with that vice. We have been thirty years in this city before the public, and it is an insult to all the women who have labored in this cause; it is an insult to the thousands and tens of thousands of men and women that have listened to us in our Conventions, to say at this late hour that we are not Free Lovers.
Ernestine L. Rose: We're being told by people from the West that they're smarter than us, and that those in the East are also smarter than us. If they really are wiser, I find it odd that the topic of Free Love would even be raised on this platform. I disagree with Mrs. Livermore's resolution, not because of its principles, but because it's an admission of guilt. When a man comes to me claiming he isn't a thief, I make sure to guard my change. If we approve this resolution stating that we aren't Free Lovers, people will say it's true that we are, simply because we're trying to hide it. Lucretia Mott's name has been brought up as a supporter of Free Love, but I reject that accusation and challenge all the ministers in the East and all the newspapers in the West to provide one shred of evidence linking her to that vice. We have spent thirty years in this city before the public, and it insults all the women who have worked for this cause; it insults the thousands and tens of thousands of men and women who have listened to us at our Conventions to suggest at this late stage that we are not Free Lovers.
Susan B. Anthony repudiated the resolution on the same ground as Mrs.[Pg 390] Rose, and said this howl came from those men who knew that when women got their rights they would be able to live honestly: no longer be compelled to sell themselves for bread, either in or out of marriage.
Susan B. Anthony rejected the resolution for the same reason as Mrs.[Pg 390] Rose, stating that this outcry came from men who understood that when women gained their rights, they would be able to live with integrity: no longer forced to sell themselves for survival, whether in or out of marriage.
Mrs. Dr. L. S. Batchelder, a delegate appointed by the Boston Working Women's Association, said that she represented ten thousand working women of New England, and they had instructed her as their representative to introduce a resolution looking to the amelioration of the condition of the working women.
Mrs. Dr. L. S. Batchelder, a delegate from the Boston Working Women's Association, stated that she represented ten thousand working women from New England, and they had tasked her with introducing a resolution aimed at improving the conditions for working women.
Senator Wilson spoke as follows: This is a rather new place for me to stand, and yet I am very glad to say that I have no new views in regard to this question. I learned fifteen or twenty years ago something about this reform in its earliest days, when the excellent people, who have labored so long with so much earnestness and fidelity, first launched it before the country. I never knew the time in the last fifteen or twenty years that I was not ready to give my wife the right to vote if she wanted it. I believe in the Declaration of Independence in its full scope and meaning; believing it was born of Christianity; that it came from the teachings of the New Testament; and I am willing to trust the New Testament and the Declaration of Independence anywhere on God's earth, and to adopt their doctrine in the fullest and broadest manner. I do not know that all the good in the world will be accomplished when the women of the United States have the right to vote. But it is sure to come. Truth is truth, and will stand.
Senator Wilson said: This is a new position for me, but I'm happy to say I still hold the same views on this matter. I learned about this reform in its early days fifteen or twenty years ago, when the dedicated people who worked hard for it first introduced it to the nation. I can’t recall a time in the last fifteen or twenty years when I wouldn’t have supported giving my wife the right to vote if she desired it. I believe in the Declaration of Independence in its fullest sense; I believe it was inspired by Christianity, emerging from the teachings of the New Testament. I’m willing to trust the New Testament and the Declaration of Independence anywhere on this planet and to embrace their principles wholeheartedly. I’m not sure that all the good in the world will be achieved when women in the United States gain the right to vote, but it’s definitely coming. Truth is truth, and it will endure.
Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose referred to the assertion of the Rev. Mr. Haven, that the seeds of the Woman's Rights reform were sown in Massachusetts, and proceeded to disprove it. Thirty-two years ago she went round in New York city with petitions to the Legislature to obtain for married women the right to hold property in their own names. She only got five names the first year, but she and others persevered for eleven years, and finally succeeded. Who, asked Mrs. Rose, was the first to call a National Convention of women—New York or Massachusetts? [Applause.] I like to have justice done and honor given where it is due.
Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose challenged the claim made by Rev. Mr. Haven that the origins of the Woman's Rights movement were in Massachusetts, and went on to refute it. Thirty-two years ago, she traveled around New York City with petitions for the Legislature to grant married women the right to own property in their own names. She only managed to gather five signatures in the first year, but she and others kept at it for eleven years and ultimately achieved their goal. Who, Mrs. Rose asked, was the first to call a National Convention of women—New York or Massachusetts? [Applause.] I believe in giving justice and recognition where it’s deserved.
Mrs. Sarah F. Norton, of the New York Working Woman's Association, referring to the former attempt to exclude the discussion of the relations of capital and labor, argued that the question was an appropriate one in any Woman's Rights Convention, and proposed that some member of the New York Working Women's Association be heard on that point.
Mrs. Sarah F. Norton, from the New York Working Woman's Association, pointed out that previous efforts to keep the conversation about the relationship between capital and labor out of discussions were misguided. She argued that this was an important topic for any Women’s Rights Convention and suggested that a representative from the New York Working Women's Association should be allowed to speak on the matter.
Mrs. Eleanor Kirk accordingly described the beginning, progress, and operations of the Association. She also replied to the recent criticism of the World upon the semi-literary, semi-Woman's Rights nature of the meetings of their associations, and contended that they had a perfect right to debate and read essays, and do anything else that other women might do.
Mrs. Eleanor Kirk described how the Association started, how it grew, and what they did. She also addressed the recent criticism from the World about the meetings being partly literary and partly about women's rights, arguing that they had every right to discuss, read essays, and do anything else that other women might do.
Mrs. Mary F. Davis spoke in behalf of the rights of her own sex, but expressed her willingness to see the negro guaranteed in his rights, and would wait if only one question could be disposed of. But she thought they would not have to wait long, for the Hon. Mr. Wilson had assured them that their side is to be strongly and successfully advocated. Every[Pg 391] step in the great cause of human rights helps the next one forward. In 1848 Mrs. Stanton called the first Convention at Seneca Falls.
Mrs. Mary F. Davis spoke up for the rights of women but also expressed her support for ensuring that Black people have their rights guaranteed. She was willing to wait as long as one issue could be resolved. However, she believed they wouldn’t have to wait long because the Hon. Mr. Wilson had assured them that their perspective would be strongly and effectively supported. Every[Pg 391] step in the important fight for human rights helps advance the next one. In 1848, Mrs. Stanton organized the first Convention at Seneca Falls.
Miss Anthony: And Lucretia Mott.
Miss Anthony: And Lucretia Mott.
Mrs. Davis: Yes, and Lucretia Mott; and I love to speak of them in association. Mrs. Rose has alluded to the primary steps she took, and there were Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, and Paulina Wright Davis, and a great galaxy who paved the way; and we stand here to proclaim the immortal principle of woman's freedom. [Great applause.] The lady then referred to the great work that lay before them in lifting out of misery and wretchedness the numbers of women in this city and elsewhere, who were experiencing all the fullness of human degradation. Even when they had finished their present work, a large field was still before them in the elevation of their sex. [Applause.]
Mrs. Davis: Yes, and Lucretia Mott; and I love to talk about them together. Mrs. Rose mentioned the initial steps she took, and there were Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, and Paulina Wright Davis, along with many others who paved the way; and we are here to declare the everlasting principle of women's freedom. [Great applause.] The speaker then highlighted the significant work ahead of them in lifting countless women in this city and beyond out of misery and suffering, who were facing the harsh realities of human degradation. Even after they completed their current work, there would still be a vast area ahead of them in uplifting their gender. [Applause.]
Mrs. Paulina W. Davis said she would not be altogether satisfied to have the XVth Amendment passed without the XVIth, for woman would have a race of tyrants raised above her in the South, and the black women of that country would also receive worse treatment than if the Amendment was not passed. Take any class that have been slaves, and you will find that they are the worst when free, and become the hardest masters. The colored women of the South say they do not want to get married to the negro, as their husbands can take their children away from them, and also appropriate their earnings. The black women are more intelligent than the men, because they have learned something from their mistresses. She then related incidents showing how black men whip and abuse their wives in the South. One of her sister's servants whipped his wife every Sunday regularly. [Laughter.] She thought that sort of men should not have the making of the laws for the government of the women throughout the land. [Applause.]
Mrs. Paulina W. Davis said she wouldn't be completely satisfied with the XVth Amendment being passed without the XVIth, because it would create a group of tyrants above women in the South, and black women in that region would face even worse treatment than if the Amendment was not passed. Take any group that has been enslaved, and you'll find that they are often the worst when they gain freedom and become the toughest masters. The colored women of the South say they don't want to marry black men, as their husbands can take their children away and claim their earnings. The black women are more educated than the men because they've learned something from their mistresses. She then recounted incidents showing how black men beat and mistreat their wives in the South. One of her sister's servants regularly whipped his wife every Sunday. [Laughter.] She believed that kind of man should not be responsible for making laws that govern women across the country. [Applause.]
Mr. Douglass said that all disinterested spectators would concede that this Equal Rights meeting had been pre-eminently a Woman's Rights meeting. [Applause.] They had just heard an argument with which he could not agree—that the suffrage to the black men should be postponed to that of the women. I do not believe the story that the slaves who are enfranchised become the worst of tyrants. [A voice, "Neither do I." Applause.] I know how this theory came about. When a slave was made a driver, he made himself more officious than the white driver, so that his master might not suspect that he was favoring those under him. But we do not intend to have any master over us. [Applause.]
Mr. Douglass said that all unbiased observers would agree that this Equal Rights meeting was primarily a Women's Rights meeting. [Applause.] They had just heard an argument he disagreed with—that the voting rights for Black men should be delayed until women could vote. He does not buy into the idea that freed slaves become the worst oppressors. [A voice, "Neither do I." Applause.] He understands how this theory originated. When a slave was made a driver, he often acted more self-important than the white driver to avoid raising his master’s suspicions of favoritism towards those he oversaw. But we don’t plan to have any master over us. [Applause.]
The President, Mrs. Stanton, argued that not another man should be enfranchised until enough women are admitted to the polls to outweigh those already there. [Applause.] She did not believe in allowing ignorant negroes and foreigners to make laws for her to obey. [Applause.]
The President, Mrs. Stanton, argued that no more men should be given the right to vote until enough women are allowed at the polls to outnumber those already voting. [Applause.] She did not believe in letting uninformed Black people and immigrants make laws for her to follow. [Applause.]
Mrs. Harper (colored) asked Mr. Blackwell to read the fifth resolution of the series he submitted, and contended that that covered the whole ground of the resolutions of Mr. Douglass. When it was a question of race, she let the lesser question of sex go. But the white women all go for sex, letting race occupy a minor position. She liked the idea of working[Pg 392] women, but she would like to know if it was broad enough to take colored women?
Mrs. Harper (Black) asked Mr. Blackwell to read the fifth resolution from the series he submitted, arguing that it addressed all aspects of Mr. Douglass’s resolutions. When it came to race, she set aside the lesser issue of gender. However, the white women focused on gender while treating race as a secondary concern. She appreciated the idea of supporting working[Pg 392] women, but she wanted to know if it was inclusive enough to support women of color.
Miss Anthony and several others: Yes, yes.
Miss Anthony and several others: Yes, yes.
Mrs. Harper said that when she was at Boston there were sixty women who left work because one colored woman went to gain a livelihood in their midst. [Applause] If the nation could only handle one question, she would not have the black women put a single straw in the way, if only the men of the race could obtain what they wanted. [Great applause.]
Mrs. Harper said that when she was in Boston, sixty women left their jobs because one Black woman came to find work among them. [Applause] If the nation could only focus on one issue, she wouldn't want the Black women to hinder anything, as long as the men of the race could get what they wanted. [Great applause.]
Mr. C. C. Burleigh attempted to speak, but was received with some disapprobation by the audience, and confusion ensued.
Mr. C. C. Burleigh tried to speak, but the audience responded with disapproval, leading to some confusion.
Miss Anthony protested against the XVth Amendment because it wasn't Equal Rights. It put two million more men in position of tyrants over two million women who had until now been the equals of the men at their side.
Miss Anthony protested against the 15th Amendment because it didn't guarantee Equal Rights. It put two million more men in roles of power over two million women who had until then been equals to the men beside them.
Mr. Burleigh again essayed to speak. The confusion was so great that he could not be heard.
Mr. Burleigh tried to speak again. The noise was so loud that no one could hear him.
Mrs. Stone appealed for order, and her first appearance caused the most respectful silence, as did the words of every one of the ladies who addressed the audience. Mr. Burleigh again ventured, but with no better result, and Miss Anthony made another appeal to the audience to hear him. He tried again to get a word in, but was once more unsuccessful.
Mrs. Stone called for order, and her first presence brought about a respectful silence, just like the words of each lady who spoke to the audience. Mr. Burleigh tried once more, but with no better outcome, and Miss Anthony made another request to the audience to listen to him. He attempted again to speak, but was unsuccessful yet again.
Mrs. Livermore, after protesting against the disorderly behavior of the audience, said a few words in advocacy of the resolutions of Mr. Douglass, when a motion was made to lay them upon the table, and Mr. Blackwell moved the "previous question."
Mrs. Livermore, after criticizing the disruptive behavior of the crowd, spoke briefly in support of Mr. Douglass's resolutions, when someone suggested setting them aside, and Mr. Blackwell called for the "previous question."
Miss Anthony hoped that this, the first attempt at gagging discussion, would not be countenanced. (Applause.) She made a strong protest against this treatment of Mr. Burleigh. Sufficient silence was obtained for that gentleman to say that he had finished; but he was determined that they should hear the last word. (Hisses and laughter.) He now took his seat. The motion to lay the resolutions upon the table for discussion in the evening was then carried, and the Association adjourned till the evening, to meet in the large hall of the Cooper Institute. A letter from Jules Favre, the celebrated French advocate and litterateur, was read, after which addresses were delivered by Madam Anneke, of Milwaukee (in German), and by Madame de Hericourt, of Chicago (in French). Both of these ladies are of revolutionary tendencies, and left their native countries because they had rendered themselves obnoxious by a too free expression of their political opinions.
Miss Anthony was hopeful that this, the first attempt to silence discussion, would not be allowed. (Applause.) She strongly protested against the treatment of Mr. Burleigh. There was enough silence for him to say he was finished; however, he was determined they would hear the final word. (Hisses and laughter.) He then took his seat. The motion to set aside the resolutions for discussion later was approved, and the Association adjourned until the evening to meet in the large hall of the Cooper Institute. A letter from Jules Favre, the well-known French lawyer and writer, was read, after which Madam Anneke from Milwaukee (speaking in German) and Madame de Hericourt from Chicago (speaking in French) gave addresses. Both of these women had revolutionary views and left their home countries because their outspoken political opinions had made them unwelcome.
Madam Anneke said—Mrs. President: Nearly two decades have passed since, in answer to a call from our co-workers, I stood before a large assembly, over which Mrs. Mott presided, to utter, in the name of suffering and struggling womanhood, the cry of my old Fatherland for freedom and justice. At that time my voice was overwhelmed by the sound of sneers, scoffs, and hisses—the eloquence of tyranny, by which every outcry of the human heart is stifled. Then, through the support of our friends Mrs. Rose and Wendell Phillips, who are ever ready in the cause of human rights, I was allowed, in my native tongue, to echo[Pg 393] faintly the cry for justice and freedom. What a change has been wrought since then! To-day they greet us with deferential respect. Such giant steps are made by public opinion! What they then derided, and sought, through physical power and rough ignorance, to render wholly impossible, to day they greet with the voice of welcome and jubilee. Such an expression of sentiment is to us the most certain and joyful token of a gigantic revolution in public opinion—still more gratifying is it, that the history of the last few years proves that under the force of an universal necessity, reason and freedom are being consistently developed. Such is the iron step of time, that it brings forward every event to meet its rare fulfillment. Under your protection I am once more permitted, in this dawning of a new epoch which is visible to all eyes that will see, and audible to all ears that will hear, to express my hopes, my longing, my striving, and my confidence. And now, permit me to do so in the language of my childhood's play, as well as that of the earnest and free philosophy of German thinkers and workers. Not that I believe it is left to me to interest the children of my old Fatherland, here present, in the new era of truth and freedom, as if these glorious principles were not of yore implanted in their hearts—as if they could not take them up in a strange idiom—but because I am urged from my deepest soul to speak out loud and free, as I have ever felt myself constrained to do, and as I can not do in the language of my beloved adopted land. The consciousness and the holy conviction of our inalienable human rights, which I have won in the struggle of my own strangely varied life, and in the wrestling for independence which has carried me through the terrors of bloody revolution, and brought me to this effulgent shore where Sanita Libertas is free to all who seek it—this sacred strand, of which our German poet says: Dich halte ich! (I have gained thee and will not leave thee.) So I turn to you, my dear compatriots, in the language of our Fatherland—to you who are accustomed to German ways of thinking—to you who have grown up in the light which flows from thinking brains—to you whose hearts warmly cherish human rights and human worth—who are not afraid of truth when it speaks of such deep, clear, and universally important subjects as human rights and human duties. He who fears truth will find hiding places, but he who combats for it is worthy of it. The method of its adversaries is to address themselves to thoughtless passion, and thus arouse mockery and abuse against those who search for scientific knowledge to appeal to easily moved feelings and kindle sentiments of hatred and contempt. They can do this only while truth is in the minority—only until right shall become might.
Madam Anneke said—Mrs. President: Almost twenty years have gone by since, in response to a call from our colleagues, I stood before a large gathering, led by Mrs. Mott, to voice, on behalf of suffering and struggling women, the plea of my old homeland for freedom and justice. Back then, my voice was drowned out by sneers, jeers, and hisses—the rhetoric of oppression that silences every cry of the human heart. Then, with the help of our supporters Mrs. Rose and Wendell Phillips, who are always ready to fight for human rights, I was allowed, in my native language, to faintly echo[Pg 393] the call for justice and freedom. How much has changed since that time! Today, they welcome us with respect. Such huge strides have been made by public opinion! What was once mocked and attempted to be suppressed through brute force and ignorance is now celebrated with cheers and joy. This change in sentiment is for us the clearest and most uplifting sign of a massive shift in public opinion—it's even more encouraging that the last few years show that, driven by a universal need, reason and freedom are slowly but surely advancing. Time, with its relentless march, brings every event forward to achieve its true purpose. Under your protection, I am once again allowed, in this new era that is visible to anyone who cares to see and hear, to share my hopes, aspirations, and confidence. And now, I’d like to express this in the language of my childhood, as well as in the sincere and free thinking of German philosophers and activists. Not that I think it’s my job to engage the children of my homeland, who are here today, in this new age of truth and freedom, as if these wonderful principles weren’t already instilled in their hearts—as if they couldn’t embrace them in a foreign language—but because I feel deeply compelled to speak openly and freely, as I've always wanted to do, and as I cannot do in the language of my beloved adopted country. The awareness and strong conviction of our inalienable human rights, which I’ve gained from my diverse life experiences and my fight for independence that took me through the horrors of violent revolution, have brought me to this brilliant shore where Sanita Libertas is available to all who seek it—this sacred thread, which our German poet expresses: Dich halte ich! (I have gained you and will not leave you.) So I turn to you, my dear compatriots, in the language of our homeland—to you who are familiar with German ways of thinking—to you who have been raised in the light that shines from thoughtful minds—to you whose hearts warmly embrace human rights and human dignity—who aren’t afraid of the truth when it addresses crucial and universally significant topics like human rights and duties. Those who shy away from the truth will find places to hide, but those who fight for it are worthy of it. The tactics of its opponents are to appeal to thoughtless passion, stirring up mockery and abuse against those who seek scientific knowledge, trying to provoke easily influenced feelings and ignite sentiments of hatred and disdain. They can only do this while the truth is in the minority—only until right becomes might.
You will learn to judge of woman's strength when you see that she persists strenuously in this purpose, and secures, by her energy, the rights which shall invest her with power. That which you can no longer suppress in woman—that which is free above all things—that which is pre-eminently important to mankind, and must have free play in every mind, is the natural thirst for scientific knowledge—that fountain of all peacefully progressing amelioration in human history. This longing, this effort of reason seeking knowledge of itself, of ideas, conclusions, and all higher things, has, as far as historical remembrance goes back,[Pg 394] never been so violently suppressed in any human being as in woman. But, so far from its having been extinguished in her, it has, under the influence of this enlightened century, become a gigantic flame which shines most brightly under the protection of the star-spangled banner. There does not exist a man-made doctrine, fabricated expressly for us, and which we must learn by heart, that shall henceforth be our law. Nor shall the authority of old traditions be a standard for us—be this authority called Veda, Talmud, Koran, or Bible. No. Reason, which we recognize as our highest and only law-giver, commands us to be free. We have recognized our duty—we have heard the rustling of the golden wings of our guardian angel—we are inspired for the work!
You'll see a woman's strength when you notice how fiercely she pursues this goal and secures her rights through her determination, giving her power. What can no longer be stifled in women—that which is the essence of freedom—that which holds tremendous significance for humanity and needs to flourish in every mind—is the inherent desire for scientific knowledge, the source of all peaceful progress in human history. This yearning, this intellectual pursuit seeking to understand itself, ideas, conclusions, and all greater truths, has never faced such brutal suppression in anyone as it has in women. Yet, far from being extinguished, this desire has, influenced by this enlightened era, become a blazing force that shines even brighter under the protection of our nation's flag. There is no man-made doctrine created specifically for us, which we must memorize and follow as our law. Nor should the authority of old traditions—whether called Veda, Talmud, Koran, or Bible—serve as our standard. No. Reason, which we acknowledge as our ultimate and only law-giver, commands that we be free. We have recognized our duty—we have heard the rustling of our guardian angel’s golden wings—we are inspired for the task ahead!
We are no longer in the beginning of history—that age which was a constant struggle with nature, misery, ignorance, helplessness, and every kind of bondage. The moral idea of the State struggles for that fulfillment in which all individuals shall be brought into a union which shall augment a million-fold both its individual and collective force. Therefore, don't exclude us—don't exclude woman—don't exclude the whole half of the human family. Receive us—begin the work in which a new era shall dawn. In all great events we find that woman has a guiding hand—let us stay near you now, when humanity is concerned. Man has the spirit of truth, but woman alone has passion for it. All creations need love—let us, therefore, celebrate a union from which shall spring the morning of freedom for humanity. Give us our rights in the State. Honor us as your equals, and allow us to use the rights which belong to us, and which reason commands us to use. Whether it be prudent to enfranchise woman, is not the question—only whether it be right. What is positively right, must be prudent, must be wise, and must, finally, be useful. Give the lie to the monarchically disposed statesman, who says the republic of the United States is only an experiment, which earlier or later will prove a failure. Give the lie to such hopes, I say, by carrying out the whole elevated idea of the republic—by calling the entire, excluded half of mankind and every being endowed with reason, to the ballot-box, which is the people's holy palladium.
We are no longer at the start of history—a time defined by constant struggle against nature, suffering, ignorance, helplessness, and various forms of oppression. The ethical vision of the State strives for the fulfillment that brings all individuals together in a way that magnifies both their individual and collective strength a million times over. So, don’t leave us out—don’t leave out women—don’t disregard half of humanity. Embrace us—begin the work that will usher in a new era. Throughout major events, we've seen that women have played a crucial role—let us stand by your side now, when the well-being of humanity is at stake. Men embody the spirit of truth, but women alone possess the passion for it. All creations require love—let’s celebrate a union that will give rise to a new dawn of freedom for humanity. Grant us our rights within the State. Respect us as your equals, and let us exercise the rights that rightfully belong to us, and that reason compels us to utilize. The question isn't whether it’s wise to enfranchise women—it’s whether it’s right. What is undeniably right must be wise, prudent, and ultimately beneficial. Challenge the pessimistic statesman who claims that the republic of the United States is merely an experiment bound to fail eventually. Disprove such expectations by realizing the full, noble vision of the republic—by inviting all the excluded half of humanity and everyone capable of reason to the ballot box, which is the sacred protector of the people.
Madame de Hericourt said: I wish to ask if rights have their source in ability, in functions, in qualities? No, certainly; for we see that all men, however they may differ in endowments, have equal rights. What, then, is the basis of rights? Humanity. Consequently, even if it be true that woman is inferior to man in intelligence and social ability, it is not desirable that she shut herself within what is called woman's sphere. In a philosophical light, the objections brought against her have no bearing on this question. Woman must have equal rights with man, because she is, like him, a human being; and only in establishing, through anatomical or biological proof, that she does not belong to the human race, can her rights be withheld. When such demonstration is made, my claims shall cease. In the meantime, let me say that woman—whether useful or useless—belonging to humanity, must have the rights of humanity.
Madame de Hericourt said: I want to ask if rights come from ability, function, or qualities? No, definitely not; because we see that all people, no matter how different their talents might be, have equal rights. So, what is the foundation of rights? Humanity. Therefore, even if it’s true that women are less intelligent or socially capable than men, it’s not acceptable for them to confine themselves to what’s called a woman's sphere. From a philosophical perspective, the arguments against her don't relate to this issue. Women must have equal rights with men because they are, like men, human beings; and only if it’s proven, through anatomical or biological evidence, that they don’t belong to the human race can their rights be denied. Once such proof is provided, I will accept that. For now, let me say that women—whether they contribute or not—are part of humanity and must have the rights that come with being human.
But is it true that the equality of man and woman would not be useful to society? We might answer this question in the affirmative were the sexes alike, but for the very reason that they differ in many respects,[Pg 395] is the presence of woman by the side of man, if we desire order and justice, everywhere necessary. Is it graceful, I ask, to walk on one leg? Men, since the beginning of history, have had the bad taste to prefer a lame society to one that is healthy and beautiful. We women have really too much taste to yield longer to such deformity. In law, in institutions, in every social and political matter, there are two sides. Up to the present day, man has usurped what belongs to woman. That is the reason why we have injustice, corruption, international hatred, cruelty, war, shameful laws—man assuming, in regard to woman, the sinful relation of slaveholder. Such relation must and will change, because we women have decided that it shall not exist. With you, gentlemen, we will vote, legislate, govern—not only because it is our right, but because it is time to substitute order, peace, equity, and virtue, for the disorder, war, cruelty, injustice, and corruption which you, acting alone, have established. You doubt our fitness to take part in government because we are fickle, extravagant, etc., etc., as you say. I answer, there is an inconsiderable minority which deserve such epithets; but even if all women deserved them, who is in fault? You not only prefer the weak-minded, extravagant women to the strong-minded and reasonable ones, but as soon as a woman attempts to leave her sphere, you, coward-like, throw yourselves before her, and secure to your own profit all remunerative occupations. I could, perhaps, forgive your selfishness and injustice, but I can not forgive your want of logic nor your hypocrisy. You condemn woman to starvation, to ignorance, to extravagance, in order to please yourselves, and then reproach her for this ignorance and extravagance, while you heap blame and ridicule on those who are educated, wise, and frugal. You are, indeed, very absurd or very silly. Your judgment is so weak that you reproach woman with the faults of a slave, when it is you who have made and who keep her a slave, and who know, moreover, that no true and virtuous soul can accept slavery. You reproach woman with being an active agent in corruption and ruin, without perceiving that it is you who have condemned her to this awful work, in which only your bad passions sustain her. Whatever you may do, you can not escape her influence. If she is free, virtuous, and worthy, she will give you free, virtuous, and worthy sons, and maintain in you republican virtues. If she remain a slave, she will debase you and your sons; and your country will come under the rule of tyranny. Insane men can not understand that where there is one slave there are always two—he who wears the chain and he who rivets it. Unreasonable, short-sighted men can not understand that to enfranchise woman is to elevate man; to give him a companion who shall encourage his good and noble aspirations, instead of one who would debase and draw him down into an abyss of selfishness and dishonesty. Gentlemen, will you be just, will you preserve the republic, will you stop the moral ruin of your country; will you be worthy, virtuous, and courageous for the welfare of your nation, and, in spite of all obstacles, enfranchise your mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters? Take care that you be not too late! Such injustice and folly would be at the cost of your liberty, in which event you could claim no mercy, for tyrants deserve to be the victims of tyrants.[Pg 396]
But is it really true that equality between men and women wouldn't benefit society? We could say yes to that if both sexes were the same, but because they differ in so many ways, [Pg 395] having women alongside men is essential if we want order and justice. Is it graceful, I ask, to walk on one leg? Since the beginning of history, men have had the poor taste to prefer a flawed society over one that is healthy and beautiful. We women have far too much taste to keep putting up with such deformity. In law, institutions, and every social and political issue, there are two sides. So far, men have taken what belongs to women. That’s why we face injustice, corruption, international hatred, cruelty, war, and outdated laws—man taking on the shameful role of a slaveholder toward women. This relationship must and will change, because we women have decided that it should not exist. Together with you, gentlemen, we will vote, create laws, and govern—not just because it’s our right, but because it’s time to replace disorder, war, cruelty, injustice, and corruption, which you have brought about on your own, with order, peace, fairness, and virtue. You question our ability to participate in government because you label us as unpredictable, extravagant, etc., as you say. I respond that there’s a small minority that deserves those labels; but even if all women did, who is to blame? You choose the weak-minded, extravagant women over those who are strong-minded and rational, and as soon as a woman tries to step out of her role, you cowardly stand in her way, grabbing all the lucrative positions for yourselves. I might forgive your selfishness and injustice, but I can't overlook your lack of logic and your hypocrisy. You condemn women to poverty, ignorance, and extravagance to make your lives easier, and then criticize her for those same failings, while you heap blame and mockery on those who are educated, wise, and sensible. You are, indeed, being very absurd or very foolish. Your judgment is so poor that you blame women for the flaws of a slave when it’s you who have created and maintain her as a slave, and you know that no true and virtuous soul can accept slavery. You accuse women of being an active part of corruption and ruin without realizing that it’s you who have forced her into this terrible role, sustained only by your bad passions. No matter what you do, you can't escape her influence. If she is free, virtuous, and worthy, she will raise free, virtuous, and worthy sons and help instill republican values in you. If she remains a slave, she will degrade you and your sons; and your country will fall into tyranny. Deluded men fail to see that where there is one slave, there are always two—the one who wears the chains and the one who fastens them. Shortsighted men can’t grasp that freeing women is about uplifting men too; about giving them a partner who inspires their good and noble ambitions, rather than one who pulls them down into selfishness and dishonesty. Gentlemen, will you be just? Will you protect the republic? Will you halt the moral decline of your nation? Will you be worthy, virtuous, and brave for the well-being of your country, and despite all barriers, grant freedom to your mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters? Make sure you don’t wait too long! Such injustice and foolishness will cost you your freedom, at which point you could expect no mercy, for tyrants deserve to be victims of tyrants. [Pg 396]
After her brief address, Madame de Hericourt submitted to the Convention a series of resolutions for the organization of Women's Leagues.[121]
After her short speech, Madame de Hericourt presented several resolutions to the Convention for the organization of Women's Leagues.[121]
Ernestine L. Rose said—Mrs. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: What we need is to arouse both men and women to the great necessity of justice and of right. The world moves. We need not seek further than this Convention assembled here to-night to show that it moves. We have assembled here delegates from the East and the West, from the North and the South, from all over the United States, from England, from France, and from Germany—all have come to give us greeting and well-wishes, both in writing and in speech. I only wish that this whole audience might have been able to understand and appreciate the eloquent speeches which have been delivered here to-night. They have been uttered in support of the claim—the just demand—of woman for the right to vote. Why is it, my friends, that Congress has enacted laws to give the negro of the South the right to vote? Why do they not at the same time protect the negro woman? If Congress really means to protect the negro race, they should have acknowledged woman just as much as man; not only in the South, but here in the North, the only way to protect her is by the ballot. We have often heard from this platform, and I myself have often said, that with individual man we do not find fault. We do not war with man; we war with bad principles. And let me ask whether we have not the right to war with these principles which stamp the degradation of inferiority upon women.
Ernestine L. Rose said—Mrs. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: What we need to do is inspire both men and women about the urgent need for justice and equality. The world is changing. We don’t have to look any further than this Convention gathered here tonight to see that change. We have delegates from the East and the West, from the North and the South, from all across the United States, and from England, France, and Germany—all here to offer their greetings and best wishes, both in writing and in speech. I only wish that the entire audience could have understood and appreciated the powerful speeches delivered here tonight. They have been presented in support of the claim—the fair demand—of women for the right to vote. Why is it, my friends, that Congress has passed laws granting black men in the South the right to vote? Why don’t they also protect black women? If Congress truly intends to safeguard the black community, they should recognize women just as they do men; not only in the South, but here in the North, the only way to protect her is through the ballot. We have often heard from this platform, and I have said many times, that we do not blame individual men. Our fight is not against men; our fight is against harmful principles. And let me ask whether we don’t have the right to oppose these principles that impose a sense of inferiority on women.
This Society calls itself the Equal Rights Association. That I understand to be an association which has no distinction of sex, class, or color. Congress does not seem to understand the meaning of the term universal. I understand the word universal to include All. Congress understood that Universal Suffrage meant the white man only. Since the war we have changed the name for Impartial Suffrage. When some of our editors, such as Mr. Greeley and others, were asked what they meant by impartial suffrage, they said, "Why, man, of course; the man and the brother." Congress has enacted[Pg 397] resolutions for the suffrage of men and brothers. They don't speak of the women and sisters. [Applause.] They have begun to change their tactics, and call it manhood suffrage. I propose to call it Woman Suffrage; then we shall know what we mean. We might commence by calling the Chinaman a man and a brother, or the Hottentot, or the Calmuck, or the Indian, the idiot or the criminal, but where shall we stop? They will bring all these in before us, and then they will bring in the babies—the male babies. [Laughter.] I am a foreigner. I had great difficulty in acquiring the English language, and I never shall acquire it. But I am afraid that in the meaning of language Congress is a great deal worse off than I have ever been. I go for the change of name; I will not be construed into a man and a brother. I ask the same rights for women that are extended to men—the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and every pursuit in life must be as free and open to me as any man in the land. [Applause.] But they will never be thrown open to me or to any of you, until we have the power of the ballot in our own hands. That little paper is a great talisman. We have often been told that the golden key can unlock all the doors. That little piece of paper can unlock doors where golden keys fail. Wherever men are—whether in the workshop, in the store, in the laboratory, or in the legislative halls—I want to see women. Wherever man is, there she is needed; wherever man has work to do—work for the benefit of humanity—there should men and women unite and co-operate together. It is not well for man to be alone or work alone; and he can not work for woman as well as woman can work for herself. I suggest that the name of this society be changed from Equal Rights Association to Woman's Suffrage Association.
This Society calls itself the Equal Rights Association. I understand that to be an association that makes no distinction based on sex, class, or color. Congress doesn’t seem to grasp the meaning of the term universal. I believe the word universal includes All. Congress interpreted Universal Suffrage to mean just the white man. Since the war, we’ve changed the name to Impartial Suffrage. When some of our editors, like Mr. Greeley and others, were asked what they meant by impartial suffrage, they replied, "Well, of course; the man and the brother." Congress has passed[Pg 397] resolutions for the suffrage of men and their brothers. They don’t mention women and sisters. [Applause.] They’ve started changing their approach and now call it manhood suffrage. I propose we call it Woman Suffrage; that way, we’ll know exactly what we mean. We might as well start referring to the Chinaman as a man and a brother, or the Hottentot, or the Calmuck, or the Indian, the idiot, or the criminal, but where do we draw the line? They might bring all these in front of us, and then they’ll include babies—the male babies. [Laughter.] I’m a foreigner. I had a tough time learning English, and I’ll never fully master it. But I fear that in terms of understanding language, Congress is much worse off than I ever have been. I support the name change; I refuse to be defined as a man and a brother. I ask for the same rights for women that men have—the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and every pursuit in life must be as free and open to me as to any man in this country. [Applause.] But these opportunities will never be available to me or any of you until we have the power of the ballot in our hands. That little piece of paper is a powerful tool. We’ve often been told that the golden key can unlock all doors. That small piece of paper can open doors where golden keys fail. Wherever men are—whether in the workshop, in the store, in the lab, or in legislative halls—I want to see women. Wherever a man is, that’s where she’s needed; wherever a man has work to do—work for the benefit of humanity—men and women should join forces and collaborate. It’s not good for a man to be alone or work alone, and he can’t work for women as well as women can work for themselves. I suggest we change the name of this society from the Equal Rights Association to the Woman's Suffrage Association.
Lucy Stone said she must oppose this till the colored man gained the right to vote. If they changed the name of the association for such a reason as it was evident it was proposed, they would lose the confidence of the public. I hope you will not do it.
Lucy Stone stated that she must oppose this until the Black man gained the right to vote. If they changed the name of the association for the reason that was clearly suggested, they would lose the public's trust. I hope you will not go through with it.
A Gentleman: Mrs. President, I hope you will do it. I move that the name of the association be changed to the "Universal Franchise Association."
A Gentleman: Mrs. President, I hope you will consider this. I propose that we change the name of the association to the "Universal Franchise Association."
Mrs. Stanton: The question is already settled by our constitution, which requires a month's notice previous to the annual meeting before any change of name can be made. We will now have a song. [Laughter.]
Mrs. Stanton: The question is already settled by our constitution, which requires a month's notice before any name change can happen at the annual meeting. Now, let’s have a song. [Laughter.]
Mr. Blackwell said that he had just returned from the South, and that he had learned to think that the test oath required of white men who had been rebels must be abolished before the vote be given to the negro. He was willing that the negro should have the suffrage, but not under such conditions that he should rule the South. [At the allusion of Mr. Blackwell to abolishing the test oath, the audience hissed loudly.]
Mr. Blackwell said he had just come back from the South and that he believed the test oath required from white men who were rebels should be eliminated before giving the vote to Black people. He was okay with Black people having the right to vote, but not under terms that would allow them to dominate the South. [When Mr. Blackwell mentioned getting rid of the test oath, the audience hissed loudly.]
Mrs. Stanton said—Gentlemen and Ladies: I take this as quite an insult to me. It is as if you were invited to dine with me and you turned up your nose at everything that was set on the table.
Mrs. Stanton said—Gentlemen and Ladies: I find this very insulting. It's like being invited to dinner at my place, and then you act like you're too good for everything I put on the table.
Mrs. Livermore said: It certainly requires a great amount of nerve to talk before you, for you have such a frankness in expressing yourselves[Pg 398] that I am afraid of you. [Laughter and applause.] If you do not like the dish, you turn up your nose at it and say, "Take it away, take it away." [Laughter.] I was brought up in the West, and it is a good place to get rid of any superfluous modesty, but I am afraid of you. [Applause.] It seems that you are more willing to be pleased than to hear what we have to say. [Applause.] Throughout the day the men who have attended our Convention have been turbulent. [Applause.] I say it frankly, that the behavior of the majority of men has not been respectful. [Applause.] She then gave a pathetic narration of the sorrow she had seen among the depraved and destitute of our great cities, and said the work of the coming year would be to get up a monster petition of a million of names asking the Legislature for suffrage. [Applause.]
Mrs. Livermore said: It definitely takes a lot of courage to speak in front of you, because you are so direct in expressing your opinions[Pg 398] that I'm a bit intimidated. [Laughter and applause.] If you don't like something, you scrunch up your face and say, "Get this away from me." [Laughter.] I grew up in the West, which is a great place to shed any extra shyness, but I'm still nervous around you. [Applause.] It seems like you're more eager to be entertained than to listen to what we have to say. [Applause.] Throughout the day, the men attending our Convention have been disruptive. [Applause.] I’ll be honest: the behavior of most men hasn’t been respectful. [Applause.] She then shared a moving account of the suffering she witnessed among the broken and impoverished in our big cities, and said that the work for the coming year would be to gather a huge petition with a million signatures asking the Legislature for voting rights. [Applause.]
After a song from the Hutchinson Family, who had come from Chicago to entertain the audiences of the Association, the meeting adjourned.
After a song from the Hutchinson Family, who had traveled from Chicago to entertain the Association's audience, the meeting ended.
The friends of woman's suffrage, including most of the delegates to the Equal Rights Convention in New York, met in mass meeting in the Academy of Music, Brooklyn, Friday morning, May 14th, at 10 o'clock. Mr. Edwin A. Studwell called the meeting to order and nominated Mrs. Anna C. Field for President. This lady was unanimously elected, and took the chair. Mrs. Celia Burleigh was elected Secretary. On motion of Mr. Studwell, a committee[122] was appointed to draft resolutions. Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was then introduced, and made the opening speech.
The supporters of women's suffrage, which included most of the delegates at the Equal Rights Convention in New York, gathered for a mass meeting at the Academy of Music in Brooklyn on Friday morning, May 14th, at 10 AM. Mr. Edwin A. Studwell called the meeting to order and nominated Mrs. Anna C. Field as President. She was elected unanimously and took her seat. Mrs. Celia Burleigh was chosen as Secretary. Following a motion from Mr. Studwell, a committee[122] was formed to draft resolutions. Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was then introduced and delivered the opening speech.
Mrs. Lucy Stone congratulated the ladies upon the large number of men who had become converted to their cause.
Mrs. Lucy Stone congratulated the women on the many men who had joined their cause.
Mr. Langdon, of Vermont, followed with a brief speech.
Mr. Langdon from Vermont gave a short speech next.
Mrs. Burleigh read a letter from the Hon. Geo. Wm. Curtis, indorsing very decidedly the doctrine of woman suffrage.
Mrs. Burleigh read a letter from the Hon. Geo. Wm. Curtis, strongly supporting the idea of women's right to vote.
Rev. Phebe Hanaford then delivered a most eloquent and touching address on the moral influence that the participation of women in government would have upon the world. Every true mother was with this movement. The golden rule given by Jesus, if carried out, would give equal rights to all, and there would be no distinction between color, race, or sex.
Rev. Phebe Hanaford then gave a very powerful and heartfelt speech about how women participating in government would positively impact the world. Every genuine mother supported this movement. The golden rule taught by Jesus, if applied, would ensure equal rights for everyone, without any distinctions based on color, race, or gender.
The Rev. Gilbert Haven, of Massachusetts, said there were three reforms needed—one was the abolition of social distinctions, another was the abolition of the rum-shop, and the third was giving the ballot to women. Of the three, which should take the precedence? It was hard to say that woman did not lead them all. He had claimed yesterday that the Woman's Rights movement originated in Massachusetts. He was mistaken. The great idea of woman's equality was taught by Christ; and still further back, when man and woman were created and placed in Paradise, they were placed there on an equality. God gave man no supremacy over woman there. Not until sin had[Pg 399] entered the world, not until after the fall was it said, "He shall rule over her." If we were to be controlled by this curse of sin, we should still adhere to the old law giving the supremacy to the first-born son, for that was declared at the same time between Cain and Abel. Sin degraded, but grace emancipated. On the day of Pentecost, the Spirit fell upon the man and woman alike. St. Paul declared this great doctrine of Woman's Rights when he said, "There is neither Greek nor Jew, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ. If a woman prophesy, let her prophesy with the head covered," but he did not say women shall not prophesy. The doctrine of Woman's Rights originated with God Himself. There were many reasons why we should give the ballot to women. It would elevate woman herself, as well as confer incalculable benefits on man.
The Rev. Gilbert Haven from Massachusetts stated that there are three reforms that are needed—one is to end social distinctions, another is to abolish the rum shop, and the third is to grant women the right to vote. Which of these should come first? It’s hard to argue that women shouldn’t be at the forefront of them all. He claimed yesterday that the Woman's Rights movement started in Massachusetts. He was wrong. The important idea of women's equality was taught by Christ; and even earlier, when man and woman were created and placed in Paradise, they were put there as equals. God did not give man authority over woman at that point. Only after sin entered the world, after the fall, was it said, "He shall rule over her." If we are to be governed by this curse of sin, we might as well stick to the old law that grants supremacy to the first-born son, as was declared between Cain and Abel at that time. Sin degrades, but grace liberates. On the day of Pentecost, the Spirit came upon both men and women equally. St. Paul proclaimed this essential principle of Women's Rights when he said, "There is neither Greek nor Jew, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ." He mentioned that if a woman prophesies, she should do so with her head covered, but he did not say that women should not prophesy. The principle of Women's Rights originated with God Himself. There are many reasons to give women the right to vote. It would elevate women, as well as bring countless benefits to men.
At the afternoon session addresses were made by Mrs. Livermore, Lucy Stone, Lilie Peckham, Rev. J. W. Chadwick, and Lucretia Mott. In the evening the building was crowded throughout, including stage and both galleries, with the very best of people. The Committee on organization reported for President, Mrs. Celia Burleigh, and for Vice-Presidents about twenty names. Mrs. Norton read an extract from a letter of Wm. Lloyd Garrison. Miss Olive Logan spoke in her own dramatic style. She dealt numerous severe blows at the other sex. Her many sarcastic and humorous hits elicited great applause. A resolution declaring woman entitled to vote and hold office under all conditions which it is proper to impose on man, was read and adopted, after which Lucretia Mott addressed the convention in her usual happy manner.
At the afternoon session, speeches were delivered by Mrs. Livermore, Lucy Stone, Lilie Peckham, Rev. J. W. Chadwick, and Lucretia Mott. The evening event was packed, with an audience including the stage and both galleries, filled with the finest people. The Committee on organization proposed Mrs. Celia Burleigh for President and about twenty names for Vice-Presidents. Mrs. Norton read a passage from a letter by Wm. Lloyd Garrison. Miss Olive Logan spoke in her characteristic dramatic style. She delivered several sharp critiques of the opposite sex. Her many sarcastic and humorous remarks received loud applause. A resolution stating that women should have the right to vote and hold office under the same conditions applicable to men was read and passed, after which Lucretia Mott addressed the convention in her usual cheerful manner.
Mrs. Harper spoke on matters concerning her own race.
Mrs. Harper discussed issues related to her own race.
The Rev. Henry Ward Beecher said: In relation to this Woman's Rights movement, I am opposed to coercion. If a woman says, "I have all the rights I want," I say, very well. We do not preach the doctrine of coercive rights. You shall have perfect liberty to stay at home. All we ask is, that women shall follow their natures. Of all heresies it seems to me there never was one so absurd as that which supposes that woman is not fit for the peculiar duties of government. She was fit to whip you and me; to teach us the best things we know; fit to take care of home; and let me tell you that the woman who is fit to take care of home is fit to stand in the gateway of heaven itself. Nothing is more sacred between this and the heavenly rest than the Christian household. It is said that woman is not fit to hold office. Take the Presidents of the United States, as they run for the last eight or ten years, and I would rather take my chances among the average of women. A President of these United States requires merely common sense and honesty. Men are not more honest than women, not more sincere nor more capable.
The Rev. Henry Ward Beecher said: Regarding this Woman's Rights movement, I’m against coercion. If a woman says, "I have all the rights I want," I say, that's fine. We don't promote the idea of enforced rights. You have complete freedom to stay at home. All we ask is that women follow their instincts. Of all the misunderstandings, it seems to me there’s nothing as ridiculous as believing that women aren’t suited for the specific responsibilities of government. She was capable of teaching you and me the most valuable lessons we know; she can take care of the home; and let me tell you, a woman who can take care of a home is capable of standing at the gates of heaven itself. Nothing is more sacred between this life and eternal rest than the Christian household. It’s claimed that women aren’t fit to hold office. Consider the Presidents of the United States over the past eight to ten years, and I’d prefer my chances with the average woman. A President of these United States only needs common sense and integrity. Men are not more honest than women, nor more sincere or capable.
Miss Phoebe Couzins and Mr. Douglass made brief addresses. The Hutchinsons sang one of their soul-stirring songs. Lucy Stone closed the exercises with a most effective appeal.[Pg 400]
Miss Phoebe Couzins and Mr. Douglass gave short speeches. The Hutchinsons performed one of their inspiring songs. Lucy Stone wrapped up the event with a powerful appeal.[Pg 400]
Out of these broad differences of opinion on the amendments, as shown in the debates, divisions grew up between Republicans and Abolitionists on the one side, and the leaders of the Woman Suffrage movement on the other. The constant conflict on the Equal Rights platform proved the futility of any attempt to discuss the wrongs of different classes in one association. A general dissatisfaction had been expressed by the delegates from the West at the latitude of debate involved in an Equal Rights Association. Hence, a change of name and more restricted discussions were strenuously urged by them. Accordingly, at the close of Anniversary week, a meeting was called at the Woman's Bureau,[123] which resulted in reorganization under the name of "The National Woman Suffrage Association."[124]
Out of these significant differences of opinion on the amendments, as shown in the debates, divisions formed between Republicans and Abolitionists on one side, and the leaders of the Woman Suffrage movement on the other. The ongoing conflict over equal rights highlighted the challenge of discussing the issues faced by different groups within a single organization. Delegates from the West expressed general dissatisfaction with the broad scope of debate allowed in an Equal Rights Association. As a result, they strongly advocated for a name change and more focused discussions. Therefore, at the end of Anniversary week, a meeting was held at the Woman's Bureau,[123] which led to a reorganization under the name "The National Woman Suffrage Association."[124]
There had been so much trouble with men in the Equal Rights Society, that it was thought best to keep the absolute control henceforth in the hands of women. Sad experience had taught them that in trying emergencies they would be left to fight their own battles, and therefore it was best to fit themselves for their responsibilities by filling the positions of trust exclusively with women. This was not accomplished without a pretty sharp struggle. As it was, they had to concede the right of membership to men, in order to carry the main point, as several ladies would not join unless men also could be admitted. All preliminaries discussed and amicably adjusted, a list of officers was chosen and an organization completed, making a XVIth Amendment the special object of its[Pg 401] work and consideration. The regular weekly meetings of this Association were reported by the metropolitan press with many spicy[Pg 402] and critical comments, which did a great educational work and roused much thought on the whole question.
There had been so many issues with men in the Equal Rights Society that it was decided it would be best to keep absolute control in the hands of women from then on. Harsh experiences had shown them that in urgent situations, they would be left to handle their own battles, so it made sense to prepare for their responsibilities by filling positions of trust exclusively with women. This wasn't achieved without a significant struggle. As it turned out, they had to allow men to become members in order to secure the main goal, since several women wouldn't join unless men could also be included. After all preliminary discussions were amicably settled, a list of officers was selected, and the organization was finalized, making the XVIth Amendment the primary focus of its[Pg 401] work and attention. The regular weekly meetings of this Association were reported by the metropolitan press with many spicy[Pg 402] and critical comments, which did a significant educational job and sparked much thought on the overall issue.
Conventions were held during the summer at Saratoga and Newport. The following letter from Celia Burleigh gives a bird's-eye view of that at Saratoga:
Conventions took place over the summer in Saratoga and Newport. The following letter from Celia Burleigh provides a brief overview of the event in Saratoga:
Saratoga, July 16th, 1869.
Saratoga, July 16th, 1869.
The advocates of Woman Suffrage have fairly earned the title of Revolutionists by their recent bold move on the enemy's stronghold. The great foe to progress is want of thought, and the devotees of fashion are about the last to come into line and work for any great reform. Not a little surprise, and some indignation, were expressed by the representatives of upper tendom sojourning here, that strong-minded women were not only coming to Saratoga, but actually intending to hold a convention. What next? What place would henceforth be safe from the assaults of these irrepressible amazons of reform? Saratoga has survived the shock, however; Flora McFlimsey has looked in the face of Miss Anthony, and has not been turned to stone. More than that, finding the convention pouring into the parlors of Congress Hall, and escape actually cut off, Flora, after deliberating whether to faint and be carried out, or gratify her curiosity by looking on, finally submitted gracefully to the inevitable and did the latter. From her crimson cushioned arm chair by the window, she saw the meeting called to order, saw one after another of "those horrid women, whose names are in the newspapers," quietly taking their places, doing the thing proper to be done, and carrying forward the business of the meeting. Really, they were not so dreadful after all. They neither wore beards nor pantaloons. There was not even a woman with short hair among them. On the contrary, they seemed to be decidedly appreciative of "good clothes" and if less familiar with the goddess of fashion than Miss Flora they did not walk arm in arm with her, they at least followed at no great distance and were, to a woman, finished off with the regulation back-bow of loops and ends. Spite of herself, Miss McFlimsey became interested, and when Miss Anthony mentioned the fact that the majority of men felt it necessary to talk down to women, instead of sharing with them their best thoughts and most vital interests, Flora looked reflective, as if in that direction might lie the clew to the insufferable stupidity which she often found in the young gentlemen of her acquaintance.
The advocates for women's suffrage have definitely earned the title of revolutionaries with their recent bold move against the enemy's stronghold. The biggest obstacle to progress is a lack of thought, and those devoted to fashion are usually the last to step up and support major reforms. Representatives of high society staying here expressed a mix of surprise and indignation that strong-minded women not only came to Saratoga but were also planning to hold a convention. What’s next? What place would be safe from the attacks of these unstoppable reform-minded women? However, Saratoga has survived the shock; Flora McFlimsey faced Miss Anthony and wasn't turned to stone. More than that, when she found the convention spilling into the parlors of Congress Hall and realized she couldn't escape, Flora debated whether to faint and be carried out or satisfy her curiosity by watching. In the end, she gracefully accepted the situation and chose to observe. From her crimson-cushioned armchair by the window, she watched as the meeting was called to order and saw one after another of “those horrid women, whose names are in the newspapers,” quietly take their places, doing what needed to be done and moving the meeting forward. Honestly, they weren’t so terrible after all. They didn't have beards or wear pants. There wasn’t even a woman with short hair among them. In fact, they seemed to really appreciate “good clothes,” and while they might not have been as familiar with fashion as Miss Flora, they at least kept a respectful distance behind her and were, every one, stylishly finished off with the standard back-bow of loops and ends. Against her will, Miss McFlimsey found herself intrigued, and when Miss Anthony pointed out that most men felt it necessary to talk down to women instead of sharing their best ideas and most important interests, Flora became reflective, as if she had found a clue to the frustrating ignorance she often encountered in the young gentlemen she knew.
That a Woman Suffrage Convention should have been allowed to organize in the parlors of Congress Hall, that those parlors should have been filled to their utmost capacity by the habitual guests of the place, that such men as Millard Fillmore, Thurlow Weed, George Opdyke, and any number of clergymen from different parts of the country, should have been interested lookers-on, are significant facts that may well carry dismay to the enemies of the cause. That the whole business of the Convention was transacted by women in a dignified, orderly, and business-like manner, is a strong intimation that in spite of all that has been said to the contrary, women are capable of learning how to conduct meetings and manage affairs. Even the least friendly spectator was compelled to[Pg 403] admit it, that the delegates to the Convention were as free from eccentricity in dress and manner as the most fastidious taste could demand; that they were remarkable only for the comprehensive range of thought, indicated in their utterances, and the earnestness with which they advocate principles which they evidently believe to be right. Another fact worth noticing is the character of the reports of the Convention furnished to the daily papers. They were, for the most part, full, impartial, and respectful in tone; especially was this the case with the local papers. Altogether, the Woman Suffrage Conventions in the State of New York must be regarded as a decided success. The interest manifested shows that thought on the subject is no longer confined to the few, but that it is gradually permeating the whole public mind.
That a Woman Suffrage Convention was allowed to organize in the meeting rooms of Congress Hall, that those rooms were filled to their maximum capacity by regular attendees, and that notable figures like Millard Fillmore, Thurlow Weed, George Opdyke, and various clergymen from across the country were interested onlookers, are significant facts that may understandably alarm the opponents of the movement. The fact that the entire business of the Convention was conducted by women in a dignified, orderly, and professional manner strongly suggests that, despite what has been claimed otherwise, women are capable of learning how to run meetings and manage affairs. Even the least sympathetic observer had to admit that the delegates at the Convention were as free from eccentricity in dress and behavior as the most discerning taste could hope for; they were notable only for the broad range of ideas expressed in their speeches and the passion with which they advocated principles that they genuinely believed to be right. Another noteworthy fact is the nature of the reports from the Convention provided to the daily newspapers. They were mostly thorough, unbiased, and respectful in tone; this was especially true of the local papers. Overall, the Woman Suffrage Conventions in the State of New York should be seen as a clear success. The interest shown indicates that discussions about the topic are no longer limited to a few people, but are gradually reaching the broader public consciousness.
In its present condition, Saratoga realizes one's ideal of a summer resort, and yet in the good time coming, we can imagine an improvement—that even Congress Hall, with its gentlemanly and courteous proprietor, its sumptuous appointments and army of waiters, may yet have an added excellence; when, by the possession of the ballot, woman becomes a possible proprietor and actual worker; when to earn money is as honorable for a woman as it now is for a man, we may hope to find in every hotel not only a host, but a hostess; and whatever may be said of the excellence of men as housekeepers, I confidently predict that even Congress Hall will be vastly improved by the addition.
In its current state, Saratoga embodies the perfect summer getaway, and yet we can envision an even better future. Congress Hall, with its polite and accommodating owner, luxurious amenities, and attentive staff, could see further enhancements. When women gain the right to vote and become business owners and active participants in society, and when making money is regarded as just as respectable for women as it is for men, we can expect to find not just a host in every hotel, but a hostess as well. And no matter what is said about men's housekeeping skills, I firmly believe that even Congress Hall would be greatly improved with this addition.
The chief speakers at this Convention were Charlotte Wilbour, Celia Burleigh, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Rev. Mr. Angier, J. N. Holmes, Esq., Judge McKean, and Mrs. Dr. Strowbridge.
The main speakers at this Convention were Charlotte Wilbour, Celia Burleigh, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Rev. Mr. Angier, J. N. Holmes, Esq., Judge McKean, and Mrs. Dr. Strowbridge.
C. B.
C. B.
The Newport Convention.—Dear Revolution: Susan B. Anthony having decided that neither age, color, sex, or previous condition could shield any one from this agitation—that neither the frosts of winter nor the heats of summer could afford its champions any excuse for halting on the way, our forces were commanded to be in marching order on the 25th of August, to besiege the "butterflies of fashion" in Newport.[125] Having gleefully chased butterflies in our young days on our way to school, we thought it might be as well to chase them in our old age on the way to heaven. So, obeying orders, we sailed across the Sound one bright moonlight night with a gay party of the "disfranchised," and found ourselves quartered on the enemy the next morning as the sun rose in all its resplendent glory. Although trunk after trunk—not of gossamers, laces,[Pg 404] and flowers, but of Suffrage ammunition, speeches, resolutions, petitions, tracts, John Stuart Mill's last work, and folios of The Revolution had been slowly carried up the winding stairs of the Atlantic—the brave men and fair women, who had tripped the light fantastic toe until the midnight hours, slept heedlessly on, wholly unaware that twelve apartments were already filled with invaders of the strong-minded editors, reporters, and the Hutchinson family to the third and fourth generation.
The Newport Convention.—Dear Revolution: Susan B. Anthony decided that no one should be exempt from this movement because of age, race, gender, or previous status—that the harsh winters and hot summers should not prevent its supporters from pushing forward. So, our forces were instructed to be ready to march on August 25th, to confront the "butterflies of fashion" in Newport.[125] Having joyfully chased butterflies in our youth on the way to school, we thought it might be just as fun to chase them in our older age on the way to a better place. So, following orders, we sailed across the Sound one beautiful moonlit night with a lively group of the "disfranchised," and found ourselves up against the enemy the next morning as the sun rose in all its brilliant glory. Although trunk after trunk—not filled with delicate fabrics, laces, and flowers, but with Suffrage materials, speeches, resolutions, petitions, tracts, John Stuart Mill’s latest work, and volumes of The Revolution—had been slowly carried up the winding stairs of the Atlantic, the brave men and women, who had danced joyfully until midnight, slept soundly, completely unaware that twelve rooms were already occupied by determined editors, reporters, and the Hutchinson family spanning three or four generations.
Suffice it to say the Convention continued through two days with the usual amount of good and bad speaking and debating, strong and feeble resolutions, fair and unfair reporting—but, with all its faults, an improvement on the general run of conventions called by the stronger sex. We say this not in a spirit of boasting, but with a heart overflowing with pity for the "men of the period." The chief speakers were Paulina Wright Davis, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Theodore Tilton, Francis D. Moulton, Rev. Phebe Hanaford, Lillie Devereux Blake, Elizabeth R. Churchill, the Hon. Mr. Stillman, of Rhode Island; and the editor and proprietor of The Revolution. The occasion was enlivened with the stirring songs of the Hutchinsons, and a reading by Mrs. Sarah Fisher Ames, the distinguished artist who moulded the bust of Abraham Lincoln which now adorns the rooms of the Union League.
The Convention lasted for two days, featuring the usual mix of good and bad speeches and debates, strong and weak resolutions, and both fair and unfair reporting. But despite its flaws, it was an improvement over most conventions hosted by men. We say this not out of pride, but out of genuine pity for the "men of the period." The main speakers included Paulina Wright Davis, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Theodore Tilton, Francis D. Moulton, Rev. Phebe Hanaford, Lillie Devereux Blake, Elizabeth R. Churchill, the Hon. Mr. Stillman from Rhode Island, and the editor and owner of The Revolution. The event was energized by the inspiring songs of the Hutchinsons and a reading by Mrs. Sarah Fisher Ames, the talented artist who created the bust of Abraham Lincoln that now decorates the Union League rooms.
The audience throughout the sittings of the Convention was large, fashionable, and as enthusiastic as the state of the weather would permit. From the numbers of The Revolution and John Stuart Mill's new work sold at the door, it is evident that much interest was roused on the question. We can say truly that we never received a more quiet and respectful hearing; and, from many private conversations with ladies and gentlemen of influence, we feel assured that we have done much by our gatherings in Saratoga and Newport to awaken thought among a new class of people. The ennui and utter vacuity of a life of mere pleasure is fast urging fashionable women to something better, and, when they do awake to the magnitude and far-reaching consequences of woman's enfranchisement, they will be the most enthusiastic workers for its accomplishment.
The audience during the sessions of the Convention was large, stylish, and as enthusiastic as the weather allowed. The high sales of The Revolution and John Stuart Mill's new book at the entrance show that there was a lot of interest in the topic. We can honestly say that we've never had a more polite and respectful audience; and through many private conversations with influential ladies and gentlemen, we are confident that our gatherings in Saratoga and Newport have stirred up thoughts among a new group of people. The boredom and complete emptiness of a life solely focused on pleasure is quickly driving fashionable women to seek something better, and once they recognize the scale and significant impact of women's enfranchisement, they will become some of the most passionate advocates for its achievement.
E. C. S.
E. C. S.
The Fourth of July this year was celebrated for the first time by members of the Woman Suffrage Association, in a beautiful grove in Westchester County. Edwin A. Studwell of Brooklyn made all the necessary arrangements. Speeches were made by Judge E. D. Culver, Mrs. Stanton, and Miss Anthony. The Woman Suffrage meetings at the Bureau were crowded every week. October 7th there was an unusually large attendance, to discuss the coming Industrial Congress at Berlin. The following letter to the Berlin Congress was read and adopted:
The Fourth of July this year was celebrated for the first time by members of the Woman Suffrage Association in a lovely grove in Westchester County. Edwin A. Studwell from Brooklyn took care of all the arrangements. Speeches were delivered by Judge E. D. Culver, Mrs. Stanton, and Miss Anthony. The Woman Suffrage meetings at the Bureau were packed every week. On October 7th, there was an unusually large turnout to discuss the upcoming Industrial Congress in Berlin. The following letter to the Berlin Congress was read and approved:
National Woman Suffrage Association, }
New York, September 28, 1869. }National Woman Suffrage Association, }
New York, September 28, 1869. }To the Woman's Industrial Congress at Berlin:
To the Woman's Industrial Congress at Berlin:
At a meeting of our Executive Committee the call for your Convention was duly considered, and a committee appointed to address you a[Pg 405] letter. In behalf of the progressive women of this country we would express to you the deep interest we feel in the present movement among the women of Europe, everywhere throwing off the lethargy of ages and asserting their individual dignity and power, showing that the emancipation of woman is one of those great ideas that mark the centuries. While in your circular you specify various subjects for consideration, you make no mention of the right of suffrage.
At a meeting of our Executive Committee, we discussed your Convention and appointed a committee to write you a[Pg 405] letter. On behalf of the progressive women of this country, we want to express our deep interest in the current movement among women in Europe, who are shedding the inertia of the past and claiming their individual dignity and power, illustrating that the emancipation of women is one of those significant ideas that shape the centuries. While your circular mentions various topics for discussion, it does not include the right to vote.
As yours is an Industrial Congress in which women occupied in every branch of labor are to be represented, you may think this question could not legitimately come before you. And even if it could, you may not think best to startle the timid or provoke the powerful by the assertion that a fair day's wages for a fair day's work and the dignity of labor, alike depend on the political status of the laborer. Perhaps in your country, where the right of representation is so limited even among men, women do not feel the degradation of disfranchisement as we do under this Government, where it is now proposed to make sex the only disqualification for citizenship.
As this is an Industrial Congress where women involved in every field of work are to be represented, you might think this issue shouldn't be raised here. Even if it could be, you might not want to unsettle the timid or irritate the influential by stating that fair pay for fair work and the respect for labor both hinge on the political status of the worker. Perhaps in your country, where the right to vote is so restricted even among men, women might not experience the shame of being disenfranchised as we do in this government, where there’s now a proposal to make gender the only reason to deny citizenship.
The ultimate object of all these labor movements on both continents, is the emancipation of the masses from the slavery of poverty and ignorance, and the shorter way to this end is to give all the people a voice in the laws that govern them, for the ballot is bread, land, education, dignity, and power. The extending of new privileges and abating of old grievances may afford some temporary relief; but the kernel of the whole question of the people's wrongs can never be touched until the essential equality of all citizens under the government is fully recognized. In America we have the true theory of government, and step by step we are coming to its practical realization.
The main goal of all these labor movements on both continents is to free the masses from the chains of poverty and ignorance. The quickest way to achieve this is by giving everyone a say in the laws that govern them, because the ballot represents food, land, education, dignity, and power. Granting new privileges and addressing old grievances might provide some short-term relief, but we can't truly tackle the core issues of the people's injustices until we fully acknowledge the essential equality of all citizens under the government. In America, we have the right idea about government, and we are gradually making it a reality.
Seeing that no class ever did or ever can legislate wisely for another, the women, even in this country, have done complaining of specific wrongs, and are demanding the right to legislate for themselves. We are now holding conventions in the chief cities of the several States, and petitioning Congress for a sixteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution that shall forbid the disfranchisement of any citizen on account of sex. In January, soon after the convening of Congress, we shall hold a National Convention in Washington to press our arguments on the representatives of the people. Sooner or later you will be driven to make the same demand; for, from whatever point you start in tracing the wrongs of citizens, you will be logically brought step by step to see that the real difficulty in all cases is the need of representation in the government. However various our plans and objects, we are all working to a common centre. And in this general awakening among women we are taking the grandest step in civilization that the world has yet seen. When men and women are reunited as equals in the great work of life, then, and not till then, will harmony and happiness reign supreme on earth. Tendering you our best wishes for the success of your convention and the triumph of our cause in Europe, we are yours, with much esteem,
Seeing that no group has ever been able to make wise laws for another, women, even in this country, have stopped complaining about specific injustices and are now demanding the right to make laws for themselves. We are currently holding conventions in the major cities of various states and petitioning Congress for a sixteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution that will prohibit the disenfranchisement of any citizen based on sex. In January, shortly after Congress reconvenes, we will hold a National Convention in Washington to present our case to the people's representatives. Sooner or later, you will be compelled to make the same demand; because, no matter where you begin in identifying the injustices faced by citizens, you will ultimately realize that the core issue in all cases is the need for representation in government. Despite the different plans and goals we have, we are all working towards a common purpose. In this collective awakening among women, we are taking the most significant step in civilization that the world has ever witnessed. When men and women come together as equals in the vital work of life, then, and only then, will harmony and happiness prevail on earth. We extend our best wishes for the success of your convention and the victory of our cause in Europe, and we remain yours with great respect,
Elizabeth B. Phelps,
Susan B. Anthony.Elizabeth B. Phelps,
Susan B. Anthony.Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
Charlotte B. Wilbour,
Paulina Wright Davis.Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
Charlotte B. Wilbour,
Paulina Wright Davis.
The following ladies were appointed delegates to the Woman's Industrial Congress called to meet at Berlin: Ernestine L. Rose, Laura C. Bullard, New York; Kate N. Doggett, Mary J. Safford, Illinois; Mary Peckenpaugh, Missouri. A letter from Mrs. Bullard[126] was listened to with interest.
The following women were named delegates to the Women's Industrial Congress set to meet in Berlin: Ernestine L. Rose, Laura C. Bullard, New York; Kate N. Doggett, Mary J. Safford, Illinois; Mary Peckenpaugh, Missouri. A letter from Mrs. Bullard[126] was listened to with interest.
During the Autumn of this year there was a secession from our ranks, and the preliminary steps were taken for another organization. Aside from the divisions growing out of a difference of opinion on the amendments, there were some personal hostilities among the leaders of the movement that culminated in two Societies, which were generally spoken of as the New York and Boston wings of the Woman Suffrage reform. The former, as already stated, called the "National Woman Suffrage Association," with Elizabeth Cady Stanton for President, organized in May; the latter called "The American Woman Suffrage Association," with Henry Ward Beecher for President, organized the following November. Most of those who inaugurated the reform remained in the National Association—Lucretia Mott, Martha C. Wright, Ernestine Rose, Clarina Howard Nichols, Paulina Wright Davis, Sarah Pugh, Amy Post, Mary H. Hallowell, Lydia Mott, Catharine A. F. Stebbins, Adeline Thomson, Josephine S. Griffing, Clemence S. Lozier, Rev. Olympia Brown, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony—and continued to work harmoniously together.
During the fall of this year, there was a split in our group, and the initial steps were taken to form another organization. Besides the divisions arising from disagreements over the amendments, there were some personal conflicts among the leaders of the movement that led to the creation of two groups, commonly referred to as the New York and Boston branches of the Woman Suffrage reform. The former, as mentioned earlier, was called the "National Woman Suffrage Association," with Elizabeth Cady Stanton as President, and was established in May; the latter was called "The American Woman Suffrage Association," with Henry Ward Beecher as President, and was formed the following November. Most of those who started the reform stayed with the National Association—Lucretia Mott, Martha C. Wright, Ernestine Rose, Clarina Howard Nichols, Paulina Wright Davis, Sarah Pugh, Amy Post, Mary H. Hallowell, Lydia Mott, Catharine A. F. Stebbins, Adeline Thomson, Josephine S. Griffing, Clemence S. Lozier, Rev. Olympia Brown, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony—and continued to work well together.
FOOTNOTES:
[111] A National Woman's Suffrage Convention will be held in Carroll Hall, Washington, D. C., on the 19th and 20th of January, 1869. All associations friendly to Woman's Rights are invited to send delegates from every State. Friends of the cause are invited to attend and take part in the discussions.
[111] A National Woman's Suffrage Convention will be held in Carroll Hall, Washington, D.C., on January 19th and 20th, 1869. All organizations that support women's rights are encouraged to send delegates from every state. Supporters of the cause are also invited to attend and participate in the discussions.
Committee of Arrangements.—Josephine S. Griffing, William Hutchinson, Lydia S. Hall, John H. Crane, Mary T. Corner, George F. Needham, James K. Wilcox.
Committee of Arrangements.—Josephine S. Griffing, William Hutchinson, Lydia S. Hall, John H. Crane, Mary T. Corner, George F. Needham, James K. Wilcox.
[112] Speeches were made by Mrs. Griffing and Miss Clara Barton of Washington, Mrs. Wright and Susan B. Anthony of New York, Mr. Edward M. Davis and Mr. Robert Purvis of Pennsylvania, Dr. Charles Purvis, Mr. and Mrs. Stebbins, Mr. Wilcox, Mrs. Julia Archibald, Col. Hinton and Mr. George T. Downing of Washington, Mrs. Starrett, Dr. Root and Mrs. Archibald of Kansas, Mr. Wolff of Colorado, Mrs. Kingsbury of Vineland, New Jersey, Mrs. Dr. Hathaway of Massachusetts, Mrs. Minor of Missouri, and others.
[112] Speeches were given by Mrs. Griffing and Miss Clara Barton from Washington, Mrs. Wright and Susan B. Anthony from New York, Mr. Edward M. Davis and Mr. Robert Purvis from Pennsylvania, Dr. Charles Purvis, Mr. and Mrs. Stebbins, Mr. Wilcox, Mrs. Julia Archibald, Col. Hinton, and Mr. George T. Downing from Washington, Mrs. Starrett, Dr. Root, and Mrs. Archibald from Kansas, Mr. Wolff from Colorado, Mrs. Kingsbury from Vineland, New Jersey, Mrs. Dr. Hathaway from Massachusetts, Mrs. Minor from Missouri, and others.
[113] The amendment as proposed by the Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, extended the right of suffrage to "all citizens," which included both white and black women. At the bare thought of such an impending calamity, the more timid Republicans were filled with alarm, and the word "male" promptly inserted.
[113] The amendment proposed by the Hon. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania expanded the right to vote to "all citizens," covering both white and black women. Just the thought of such a potential disaster caused the more apprehensive Republicans to panic, and the word "male" was quickly added.
[114] A circumstance at the Woman's National Convention served to impress me profoundly with the monstrousness of slavery, and of the prejudice it created and has left behind it, which I have been waiting a convenient opportunity to tell you about. Far into the first evening of the Convention, when the debate had waxed warm between Mrs. Stanton—who opposed the admission of any more men (referring to the negroes) to the political franchise, until the present arbiters of the question were disposed to admit women also—and Mr. Downing and Dr. Purvis, of Washington, an elegant looking gentleman arose upon impulse and began to talk in his seat, but, after a little hesitancy, accepted the invitation of Mrs. Mott and Miss Anthony to take the platform. As he stood up before the audience, he appeared a tall, slender, elderly gentleman, with the white hair and other marks of years, at least not less than sixty, graced with a handsome face of the highest type, strikingly fine in character. I have seen many nations and conditions of people, and I do not fear to say with some regard for my reputation as an observer—that I believe it one of the most benevolent and exalted faces—one of the most elevated and least mixed with the animal and earthly alloys of our humanity, that adorn the whole globe. He spoke but a few words. They were all of the character of the generous impulse upon which he rose. In his gratitude for what those noble women had done for the colored race, with which he was identified, he was willing to wait for the ballot for himself, his sons, and his race, until women were permitted to enjoy it. The speaker was Robert Purvis, of Philadelphia, Dr. Purvis's father. By the gas light of the hall, he not only appeared to be a white man, but a light complexioned white man. It may be that he has one thirty-second—possibly one-sixteenth—negro blood in his veins. There is so little in effect, that the whole make-up of the man is after the highest pattern of white men. Besides—to descend a little—Mr. Purvis is a gentleman of wealth and culture, and surrounds his family with all the gratifications of the intellectual, esthetic and moral desires, and carefully developed his children at home and at the best schools into which they could gain admission.—Correspondence of the Denver News.
[114] A moment at the Woman's National Convention deeply impacted me, highlighting the horrors of slavery and the prejudice it created and continues to perpetuate, which I have been eager to share with you. Late into the first evening of the Convention, as the debate heated up between Mrs. Stanton—who opposed allowing any more men (referring to the Black community) to participate in voting until women were also granted that right—and Mr. Downing and Dr. Purvis from Washington, a distinguished-looking gentleman stood up impulsively and started speaking from his seat. After a brief hesitation, he accepted the invitation from Mrs. Mott and Miss Anthony to join them on the platform. As he stood before the audience, he appeared to be a tall, slender elderly man with white hair and the signs of age, at least sixty years old, distinguished by a strikingly noble face with an impressive character. Having seen many nations and peoples, I’m confident in saying that he had one of the most benevolent and dignified faces—a truly elevated one, unmarred by the baser aspects of humanity, found anywhere on earth. He spoke only a few words, all reflecting the generous spirit that motivated him to rise. Grateful for what those remarkable women had done for the Black community, with which he was connected, he expressed his willingness to wait for the right to vote for himself, his sons, and his community until women were also allowed to vote. The speaker was Robert Purvis from Philadelphia, the father of Dr. Purvis. Under the gaslight in the hall, he not only seemed like a white man but a light-skinned white man. He might have one thirty-second—possibly one-sixteenth—Black ancestry. It is so minimal that his entire demeanor aligns with that of the finest white men. Additionally, Mr. Purvis is a gentleman of wealth and education, providing his family with all the pleasures of intellectual, aesthetic, and moral pursuits, and has carefully educated his children at home and in the best schools they could attend.—Correspondence of the Denver News.
[115] Resolved, That governments among men have hitherto signally failed, their history being but a series of revolutions, bloodshed, and desolation.
[115] Resolved, That governments among people have so far failed dramatically, their history being just a series of revolutions, violence, and devastation.
Resolved, That a democracy based on a republicanism which proscribes and disfranchises one part of the citizens for their sex, and another for their color, is a contradiction in terms more offensive and harder to be borne than despotism itself, under its true name, and vastly more dangerous by its seductive influence to human well-being.
Resolved, That a democracy built on a republicanism that excludes and disenfranchises one group of citizens because of their sex, and another due to their race, is a contradiction that is more offensive and harder to tolerate than outright despotism, and is far more dangerous because of its misleading impact on human well-being.
Resolved, That we demand, as the only assurance of national perpetuity and peace, as well as a measure of Justice and right, that in the reconstruction of the Government suffrage shall be based on loyalty and intelligence, and nowhere be limited by odious distinctions on account of color, or sex.
Resolved, That we insist, as the only guarantee of lasting peace and stability in the nation, as well as a matter of justice and fairness, that in rebuilding the Government, voting rights should be based on loyalty and intelligence, and not restricted by hateful distinctions based on race or gender.
Resolved, That we earnestly recommend to the friends of equal suffrage in all the States to call a convention at their respective capitals during the sessions of their Legislatures, and that committees be appointed to memorialize those bodies on the subject of suffrage alike impartial for men and women, and that as far as possible able and earnest women obtain a hearing before them, to urge the necessity and justice of their claim.
Resolved, That we strongly encourage supporters of equal voting rights in all states to organize a convention at their state capitals during the legislative sessions, and that committees should be formed to petition those legislative bodies regarding equal voting rights for both men and women. Furthermore, we should ensure that capable and passionate women have the opportunity to present their case to these bodies, highlighting the importance and fairness of their demands.
Resolved, That we denounce the proposition now pending in Congress to abolish the elective franchise in the District of Columbia, as it tends to make the disfranchisement of the 25,000 women of the District, and the lately enfranchised colored men perpetual.
Resolved, That we condemn the proposal currently in Congress to eliminate the right to vote in the District of Columbia, as it aims to permanently disenfranchise the 25,000 women in the District and the recently enfranchised men of color.
Resolved, That in demanding the ballot for the disfranchised classes, we do not overlook the logical fact of the right to be voted for; and we know no reason why a colored man should be excluded from a seat in Congress, or any woman either, who possesses the suitable capabilities, and has been duly elected.
Resolved, That in advocating for voting rights for disenfranchised groups, we do not ignore the fundamental fact that they also have the right to be elected; and we see no reason why a Black man or any qualified woman should be barred from serving in Congress, provided they have been properly elected.
Resolved, That we demand of the Government, and of the public also, that women and colored people shall choose their own occupations, and be paid always equally with men for equal work.
Resolved, That we demand the Government, as well as the public, to allow women and people of color to choose their own jobs and to be paid equally with men for equal work.
Resolved, That a man's government is worse than a white man's government, because, in proportion as you increase the tyrants, you make the condition of the disfranchised class more hopeless and degraded.
Resolved, That a man’s government is worse than a white man’s government, because, as you increase the number of tyrants, you make the situation of the disenfranchised class more hopeless and degraded.
Resolved, That as the partisan cry of a white man's government created the antagonism between the Irishman and the negro, culminating in those fearful riots in 1863, so the Republican cry of manhood suffrage creates the same antagonism between the negro and the woman, and must result, especially in the Southern States, in greater injustice toward woman.
Resolved, That just as the appeal for a white man's government created conflict between the Irish and the Black community, leading to those terrible riots in 1863, the Republican call for male voting rights fosters the same conflict between Black individuals and women, and will likely lead, particularly in the Southern States, to even more injustice against women.
[116] ANNIVERSARY OF THE AMERICAN EQUAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
[116] ANNIVERSARY OF THE AMERICAN EQUAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
The American Equal Rights Association will hold its Anniversary in New York, at Steinway Hall, Wednesday and Thursday, May 12th and 13th, and in Brooklyn, Academy of Music, on Friday, the 14th.
The American Equal Rights Association will celebrate its Anniversary in New York, at Steinway Hall, on Wednesday and Thursday, May 12th and 13th, and in Brooklyn, at the Academy of Music, on Friday, the 14th.
After a century of discussion on the rights of citizens in a republic, and the gradual extension of suffrage, without property or educational qualifications, to all white men, the thought of the nation has turned for the last thirty years to negroes and women.
After a hundred years of debate about the rights of citizens in a republic, and the slow expansion of voting rights, without property or educational requirements, to all white men, the focus of the nation has shifted for the past thirty years to Black people and women.
And in the enfranchisement of black men by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, the Congress of the United States has now virtually established on this continent an aristocracy of sex; an aristocracy hitherto unknown in the history of nations.
And with the empowerment of black men through the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, the Congress of the United States has now essentially created an aristocracy of gender on this continent; a type of aristocracy that has never been seen in the history of nations.
With every type and shade of manhood thus exalted above their heads, there never was a time when all women, rich and poor, white and black, native and foreign, should be so wide awake to the degradation of their position, and so persistent in their demands to be recognized in the government.
With every type and shade of manhood elevated above them, there has never been a time when all women, whether rich or poor, white or black, native or foreign, should be so aware of the degradation of their position and so determined in their demands to be acknowledged in the government.
Woman's enfranchisement is now a practical question in England and the United States. With bills before Parliament, Congress, and all our State Legislatures—with such able champions as John Stuart Mill and George William Curtis, woman need but speak the word to secure her political freedom to-day.
Woman's right to vote is now a real issue in England and the United States. With bills currently in Parliament, Congress, and all our State Legislatures—and with strong advocates like John Stuart Mill and George William Curtis, women only need to voice their demand to gain their political freedom today.
We sincerely hope that in the coming National Anniversary every State and Territory, East and West, North and South, will be represented. We invite delegates, too, from all those countries in the Old World where women are demanding their political rights.
We genuinely hope that in the upcoming National Anniversary, every State and Territory, East and West, North and South, will be represented. We also invite delegates from all those countries in the Old World where women are fighting for their political rights.
Let there be a grand gathering in the metropolis of the nation, that Republicans and Democrats may alike understand, that with the women of this country lies a political power in the future, that both parties would do well to respect.
Let there be a big gathering in the nation's capital so that both Republicans and Democrats can see that the women of this country hold political power for the future, and that both parties should take this seriously.
The following speakers from the several States are pledged: Anna E. Dickinson, Frederick Douglass, Mary A. Livermore, Madam Anneke, Lillie Peckham, Phoebe Couzins, M. H. Brinkerhoff, Mrs. Frances McKinley, Amelia Bloomer, Olive Logan, Mrs. E. Oakes Smith, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Henry Ward Beecher, Olympia Brown, Robert Purvis, Josephine S. Griffing, Lucy Stone, Ernestine L. Rose, Susan B. Anthony, Theodore Tilton, Rev. O. B. Frothingham.
The following speakers from various States are confirmed: Anna E. Dickinson, Frederick Douglass, Mary A. Livermore, Madam Anneke, Lillie Peckham, Phoebe Couzins, M. H. Brinkerhoff, Mrs. Frances McKinley, Amelia Bloomer, Olive Logan, Mrs. E. Oakes Smith, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Henry Ward Beecher, Olympia Brown, Robert Purvis, Josephine S. Griffing, Lucy Stone, Ernestine L. Rose, Susan B. Anthony, Theodore Tilton, Rev. O. B. Frothingham.
Lucretia Mott, President.
Lucretia Mott, President.
Vice-Presidents, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frederick Douglass, Henry Ward Beecher, Martha C. Wright, Frances D. Gage, New York; Olympia Brown, Massachusetts; Elizabeth B. Chase, Rhode Island; Charles Prince, Connecticut; Robert Purvis, Pennsylvania; Antoinette B. Blackwell, New Jersey; Josephine S. Griffing, Washington, D. C.; Thomas Garrett, Delaware; Stephen H. Camp, Ohio; Euphemia Cochrane, Michigan; Mary A. Livermore, Illinois; Mrs. I. H. Sturgeon, Missouri; Amelia Bloomer, Iowa; Mary A. Starrett, Kansas; Virginia Penny, Kentucky.
Vice-Presidents, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frederick Douglass, Henry Ward Beecher, Martha C. Wright, Frances D. Gage, New York; Olympia Brown, Massachusetts; Elizabeth B. Chase, Rhode Island; Charles Prince, Connecticut; Robert Purvis, Pennsylvania; Antoinette B. Blackwell, New Jersey; Josephine S. Griffing, Washington, D. C.; Thomas Garrett, Delaware; Stephen H. Camp, Ohio; Euphemia Cochrane, Michigan; Mary A. Livermore, Illinois; Mrs. I. H. Sturgeon, Missouri; Amelia Bloomer, Iowa; Mary A. Starrett, Kansas; Virginia Penny, Kentucky.
Corresponding Secretary, Mary E. Gage.
Corresponding Secretary, Mary E. Gage.
Recording Secretaries, Henry B. Blackwell, Harriet Purvis.
Recording Secretaries, Henry B. Blackwell, Harriet Purvis.
Treasurer, John J. Merritt.
Treasurer, John J. Merritt.
Executive Committee, Lucy Stone, Edward S. Bunker, Elizabeth R. Tilton, Ernestine L. Rose, Robert J. Johnston, Edwin A. Studwell, Anna Cromwell Field, Susan B. Anthony, Theodore Tilton, Margaret E. Winchester, Abby Hutchinson Patton, Oliver Johnson, Mrs. Horace Greeley, Abby Hopper Gibbons, Elizabeth Smith Miller.
Executive Committee, Lucy Stone, Edward S. Bunker, Elizabeth R. Tilton, Ernestine L. Rose, Robert J. Johnston, Edwin A. Studwell, Anna Cromwell Field, Susan B. Anthony, Theodore Tilton, Margaret E. Winchester, Abby Hutchinson Patton, Oliver Johnson, Mrs. Horace Greeley, Abby Hopper Gibbons, Elizabeth Smith Miller.
[118] On the platform were seated Ernestine L. Rose, of New York; Mary A. Livermore, of Chicago; Phoebe Couzins, of St. Louis; Lillie Peckham, of Milwaukee; Madam Anneke, of Milwaukee; Madam de Hericourt, of Chicago; Mrs. M. Joslyn Gage, of Syracuse; Frederick Douglass; Lucy Stone, of New Jersey; Olive Logan, of New York; Josephine Griffing, of Washington; Mrs. Paulina W. Davis; Mrs. Abby H. Patton; Mrs. Kate N. Doggett; Eleanor Kirk; Mrs. Bachelder, of Boston; Mrs. Mary Macdonald, of Mount Vernon; Rev. Mrs. Hanaford; Rev. Antoinette L. Brown Blackwell, of New Jersey; Mrs. Jennette Brown Heath, of Kansas; Mrs. Mary Newman, of Binghamton, N.Y.; Mrs. Mathilde Wendt, of New York; Andrew Jackson Davis; Mary F. Davis; Mrs. Caroline Morey Holmes, of Union Village, New York; Mrs. Phelps, of the Woman's Bureau, New York; Senator Pomeroy; Mrs. Longley, of Cincinnati; Mrs. Amelia Bloomer, of Council Bluffs, Iowa; Lizzie Boynton, of Ohio; Mary A. Gage, of Brooklyn; Mrs. Sarah Norton, of the New York Working-Women's Association, and others.
[118] On the platform were seated Ernestine L. Rose from New York; Mary A. Livermore from Chicago; Phoebe Couzins from St. Louis; Lillie Peckham from Milwaukee; Madam Anneke from Milwaukee; Madam de Hericourt from Chicago; Mrs. M. Joslyn Gage from Syracuse; Frederick Douglass; Lucy Stone from New Jersey; Olive Logan from New York; Josephine Griffing from Washington; Mrs. Paulina W. Davis; Mrs. Abby H. Patton; Mrs. Kate N. Doggett; Eleanor Kirk; Mrs. Bachelder from Boston; Mrs. Mary Macdonald from Mount Vernon; Rev. Mrs. Hanaford; Rev. Antoinette L. Brown Blackwell from New Jersey; Mrs. Jennette Brown Heath from Kansas; Mrs. Mary Newman from Binghamton, NY; Mrs. Mathilde Wendt from New York; Andrew Jackson Davis; Mary F. Davis; Mrs. Caroline Morey Holmes from Union Village, New York; Mrs. Phelps from the Woman's Bureau in New York; Senator Pomeroy; Mrs. Longley from Cincinnati; Mrs. Amelia Bloomer from Council Bluffs, Iowa; Lizzie Boynton from Ohio; Mary A. Gage from Brooklyn; Mrs. Sarah Norton from the New York Working-Women's Association, and others.
The following committees, on motion of Miss Susan B. Anthony, were appointed by the Chair: Committee on Nominations—Edwin S. Bunker, Lydia Mott, Edwin A. Studwell, Abby H. Gibbons, Lucy Stone, Charles C. Burleigh, and Lillie Peckham. Committee on Resolutions—Ernestine L. Rose, Henry B. Blackwell, Anna C. Field, Mary A. Livermore, S. S. Foster, Josephine S. Griffing, Madam Anneke, Madam Hericourt, and Phebe A. Hanaford. Committee on Finance—Susan B. Anthony, Anna C. Field, Mary A. Gage, and R. J. Johnston.
The following committees were appointed by the Chair at the motion of Miss Susan B. Anthony: Committee on Nominations—Edwin S. Bunker, Lydia Mott, Edwin A. Studwell, Abby H. Gibbons, Lucy Stone, Charles C. Burleigh, and Lillie Peckham. Committee on Resolutions—Ernestine L. Rose, Henry B. Blackwell, Anna C. Field, Mary A. Livermore, S. S. Foster, Josephine S. Griffing, Madam Anneke, Madam Hericourt, and Phebe A. Hanaford. Committee on Finance—Susan B. Anthony, Anna C. Field, Mary A. Gage, and R. J. Johnston.
Vice-Presidents at Large:—Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Ernestine L. Rose.
Vice-Presidents at Large:—Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Ernestine L. Rose.
Vice-Presidents for the States:—John Neal, Maine; Armenia S. White, New Hampshire; James Hutchinson, Jr., Vermont; William Lloyd Garrison, Julia Ward Howe, Massachusetts; Elizabeth B. Chase, Rhode Island; Isabella B. Hooker, Connecticut; Henry Ward Beecher, Frederick Douglass, Martha C. Wright, New York; Portia Gage, New Jersey; Robert Purvis, Pennsylvania; Mary A. Livermore, Illinois; George W. Julian, Indiana; Benjamin F. Wade, Ohio; Gilbert Haven, Michigan; Rev. A. L. Lindsley, Oregon; Joseph H. Moore, California; Hon. J. Nye, Nevada; Hon. A. P. K. Safford, Arizona; Hon. James H. Ashley, Montana; Josephine S. Griffing, District of Columbia; Thomas Garrett, Delaware; Ellen M. Harris, Maryland; John C. Underwood, Virginia; Mrs. J. K. Miller, North Carolina; Mrs. Pillsbury, South Carolina; Elizabeth Wright, Texas; Mrs. Dr. Hawkes, Florida; Hon. Guy Wines, Tennessee; Mrs. Francis Minor, Missouri; Hon. Charles Robinson, Kansas; Governor Fairchild and Madam Anneke, Wisconsin; Mrs. Harriet Bishop, Minnesota; Hon. Mr. Loughridge, Iowa.
Vice Presidents for the States:—John Neal, Maine; Armenia S. White, New Hampshire; James Hutchinson, Jr., Vermont; William Lloyd Garrison, Julia Ward Howe, Massachusetts; Elizabeth B. Chase, Rhode Island; Isabella B. Hooker, Connecticut; Henry Ward Beecher, Frederick Douglass, Martha C. Wright, New York; Portia Gage, New Jersey; Robert Purvis, Pennsylvania; Mary A. Livermore, Illinois; George W. Julian, Indiana; Benjamin F. Wade, Ohio; Gilbert Haven, Michigan; Rev. A. L. Lindsley, Oregon; Joseph H. Moore, California; Hon. J. Nye, Nevada; Hon. A. P. K. Safford, Arizona; Hon. James H. Ashley, Montana; Josephine S. Griffing, District of Columbia; Thomas Garrett, Delaware; Ellen M. Harris, Maryland; John C. Underwood, Virginia; Mrs. J. K. Miller, North Carolina; Mrs. Pillsbury, South Carolina; Elizabeth Wright, Texas; Mrs. Dr. Hawkes, Florida; Hon. Guy Wines, Tennessee; Mrs. Francis Minor, Missouri; Hon. Charles Robinson, Kansas; Governor Fairchild and Madam Anneke, Wisconsin; Mrs. Harriet Bishop, Minnesota; Hon. Mr. Loughridge, Iowa.
Executive Committee:—-Elizabeth R. Tilton, Lucy Stone, Edwin Studwell, Susan B. Anthony, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Thomas W. Higginson, Anna C. Field, Edward S. Bunker, Abby Hutchinson Patton, Oliver Johnson, Elizabeth Smith Miller, Margaret E. Winchester, Edward Cromwell, Robert J. Johnston, Mary A. Davis.
Executive Committee:—-Elizabeth R. Tilton, Lucy Stone, Edwin Studwell, Susan B. Anthony, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Thomas W. Higginson, Anna C. Field, Edward S. Bunker, Abby Hutchinson Patton, Oliver Johnson, Elizabeth Smith Miller, Margaret E. Winchester, Edward Cromwell, Robert J. Johnston, Mary A. Davis.
Corresponding Secretaries:—Mary A. Gage, Harriet Purvis, Henry B. Blackwell.
Corresponding Secretaries:—Mary A. Gage, Harriet Purvis, Henry B. Blackwell.
Treasurer:—John J. Merritt.
Treasurer:—John J. Merritt.
[120] Resolved, That the extension of suffrage to woman is essential to the public safety and to the establishment and permanence of free institutions; that the admission of woman to political recognition in our national reconstruction is as imperative as the admission of any particular class of men.
[120] Resolved, That extending the right to vote to women is crucial for public safety and for creating and maintaining free institutions; that allowing women political recognition in our national rebuilding is just as necessary as allowing any specific group of men.
Resolved, That as woman, in private life, in the partnership of marriage, is now the conservator of private morals, so woman in public life, in the partnership of a republican State, based upon Universal suffrage, will become the conservator of public morals.
Resolved, That just as women, in their personal lives and in marriage, are the guardians of private morals, women in public life, in a democratic state built on universal voting rights, will also become the guardians of public morals.
Resolved, That the petitions of more than 200,000 women to Congress and to their State Legislature during the past winter, are expressions of popular sympathy and approval, everywhere throughout the land, and ought to silence the cavil of our opponents that "women do not want to vote."
Resolved, That the petitions of over 200,000 women to Congress and their State Legislature last winter are clear signs of widespread support and approval across the country, and should put an end to the argument from our opponents that "women do not want to vote."
Resolved, That while we heartily approve of the Fifteenth Amendment, extending suffrage to men, without distinction of race, we nevertheless feel profound regret that Congress has not submitted a parallel amendment for the enfranchisement of women.
Resolved, That while we fully support the Fifteenth Amendment, which grants voting rights to men regardless of race, we still feel deep regret that Congress has not proposed a similar amendment to grant voting rights to women.
Resolved, That any party professing to be democratic in spirit or republican in principle, which opposes or ignores the political rights of woman, is false to its professions, short-sighted in its policy, and unworthy of the confidence of the friends of impartial liberty.
Resolved, That any group claiming to be democratic in spirit or republican in principle, which opposes or overlooks the political rights of women, is disingenuous in its beliefs, shortsighted in its approach, and unworthy of the trust of those who support equal liberty.
Resolved, That we hail the report of the Joint Special Committee, just rendered to the Massachusetts Legislature, in favor of woman suffrage, as a fresh evidence of the growth of public sentiment and we earnestly hope that Massachusetts, by promptly submitting the question to a vote of her people, will maintain her historic pre-eminence in the cause of human liberty.
Resolved, That we celebrate the report from the Joint Special Committee, recently presented to the Massachusetts Legislature, supporting women's suffrage as a new indication of changing public opinion and we sincerely hope that Massachusetts, by quickly putting this issue to a vote among its people, will uphold its historic leadership in the fight for human freedom.
Resolved, That the thanks of the Convention are due to the Hon. George W. Julian in the House of Representatives, and to the Hon. Henry Wilson and the Hon. S. C. Pomeroy In the Senate of the United States, for their recent active efforts to secure suffrage for woman.
Resolved, That the Convention extends its gratitude to Hon. George W. Julian in the House of Representatives, and to Hon. Henry Wilson and Hon. S. C. Pomeroy in the Senate of the United States, for their recent active efforts to secure voting rights for women.
Resolved, That we recommend the men and women of every Ward, Town, County, and State, to form local Associations for creating and organizing public sentiment in favor of Suffrage for Woman, and to take every possible practical means to effect her enfranchisement.
Resolved, That we encourage the men and women of every Ward, Town, County, and State to form local Associations to build and organize public support for Women's Suffrage and to take every possible practical step to achieve her enfranchisement.
[121] 1st. That we form a League of all women claiming their rights, both in America and Europe.
[121] 1st. That we create a League of all women asserting their rights, both in America and Europe.
2d. The aim of this League, which shall be called the "Universal League for Woman's Rights and Universal Peace," is to extinguish prejudice between nations, to create a common interest through the influence of woman, in order to substitute the reign of humanity for the divisions and hatred and causes of war, and to give aid to the women of all nations in securing their rights.
2d. The goal of this League, called the "Universal League for Women's Rights and Universal Peace," is to eliminate prejudice between nations, to foster a shared interest through the influence of women, in order to replace divisions, hatred, and the causes of war with a focus on humanity, and to support women around the world in obtaining their rights.
3d. That in every country Emancipation Societies shall be organized, that a National Union may be formed which shall be in constant communication with other countries by means of journals, pamphlets, and books.
3d. That in every country Emancipation Societies will be established, so that a National Union can be created that will stay in constant touch with other countries through journals, pamphlets, and books.
4th. That every year a General Assembly of delegates from every country shall meet in one of the capitals by turn. These capitals might for the present be Washington, Paris, London, Florence, and one of the central cities of Germany.
4th. That each year, a General Assembly of delegates from every country will gather in one of the capitals on a rotating basis. These capitals could currently be Washington, Paris, London, Florence, and a central city in Germany.
5th. That at the stated meetings of the League there shall be an exhibition of works of art by women.
5th. That at the scheduled meetings of the League, there will be an exhibition of artworks created by women.
6th. That, in traveling, women should everywhere find friendship and aid in pursuing the end which they propose. Women, being sisters and daughters in the ranks of humanity, must feel themselves at home with their sisters of all nations. Among us there can be no foreigners, since we are not citizens.
6th. That, in traveling, women should find friendship and support everywhere as they pursue their goals. Women, being sisters and daughters in the human family, should feel at home with their sisters from all nations. Among us, there can be no strangers since we are not citizens.
[123] The Woman's Bureau was located at No. 49 East Twenty-third Street, owned by Mrs. Elizabeth B. Phelps. Handsomely furnished apartments were rented to the proprietor of The Revolution, where much of the editorial work of that paper was done. Meetings were held in the spacious parlors every week, where Mrs. Phelps also gave many pleasant receptions, breakfasts, luncheons, and dinners. It was a kind of ladies' exchange, where reformers were sure to meet each other. These pleasant rooms in a fashionable part of the city gave a fresh impetus to our cause, and the regular meetings, seemingly so novel and recherché, called out several new speakers. This was the school where Lilie Devereux Blake, Dr. Clemence Lozier, Isabella Beecher Hooker, and others made their first attempts at oratory.
[123] The Woman's Bureau was located at 49 East Twenty-third Street, owned by Mrs. Elizabeth B. Phelps. Beautifully furnished apartments were rented to the publisher of The Revolution, where a lot of the editorial work for that paper took place. Meetings were held in the spacious parlors every week, where Mrs. Phelps also hosted many enjoyable receptions, breakfasts, luncheons, and dinners. It was a kind of women's hub, where activists were sure to connect with each other. These inviting rooms in a trendy part of the city breathed new life into our cause, and the regular meetings, which felt so fresh and recherché, brought forth several new speakers. This was the place where Lilie Devereux Blake, Dr. Clemence Lozier, Isabella Beecher Hooker, and others made their first attempts at public speaking.
[124] In The Revolution of May 20th we find the following:
[124] In The Revolution of May 20th, we find the following:
National Woman's Suffrage Association.—This organization was formed at the reunion held at the Woman's Bureau at the close of the Convention in New York. Delegates from nineteen States, including California and Washington Territory, were present on the occasion, and all felt the importance of an organization distinctively for Woman's Suffrage, in view of the fact that a Sixteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution to secure this is now before the people. The Association has held several meetings to plan the work for the coming year. Committees are in correspondence with friends in the several States to complete the list of officers.
National Woman's Suffrage Association.—This group was created during the reunion at the Woman's Bureau at the end of the Convention in New York. Delegates from nineteen states, including California and Washington Territory, attended, and everyone recognized the need for an organization specifically focused on Women's Suffrage, especially since a Sixteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution aimed at securing this is currently under consideration. The Association has held multiple meetings to organize plans for the upcoming year. Committees are in touch with supporters in various states to finalize the list of officers.
President.—Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Vice-Presidents.—Elizabeth B. Phelps, New York; Anna E. Dickinson, Pennsylvania; Mrs. Kate N. Doggett, Illinois; Madam Anneke, Wisconsin; Mrs. Lucy Elmes, Connecticut; Mrs. Senator Henderson, Missouri; Mattie Griffith Brown, Massachusetts; Mrs. Nicholas Smith, Kansas; Lucy A. Snow, Maine; Elizabeth B. Schenck, California; Josephine S. Griffing, D.C.; Paulina W. Davis, Rhode Island; Miss Phoebe W. Couzins, Missouri. Corresponding Secretaries.—Mrs. Laura Curtis Bullard, Ida Greeley, Adelaide Hallock. Recording Secretaries.—Abby Burton Crosby, Sarah E. Fuller. Treasurer.—Elizabeth Smith Miller. Executive Committee.—Ernestine L. Rose, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Mathilde F. Wendt, Mary F. Gilbert, Susan B. Anthony. Advisory Counsel.—Matilda Joslyn Gage, New York; Mrs. Francis Minor, Missouri; Adeline Thompson, Pennsylvania; Mrs. M. B. Longley, Ohio; Mrs. Dr. J. P. Root, Kansas; Lilie Peckham, Wisconsin.
President.—Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Vice-Presidents.—Elizabeth B. Phelps, New York; Anna E. Dickinson, Pennsylvania; Mrs. Kate N. Doggett, Illinois; Madam Anneke, Wisconsin; Mrs. Lucy Elmes, Connecticut; Mrs. Senator Henderson, Missouri; Mattie Griffith Brown, Massachusetts; Mrs. Nicholas Smith, Kansas; Lucy A. Snow, Maine; Elizabeth B. Schenck, California; Josephine S. Griffing, D.C.; Paulina W. Davis, Rhode Island; Miss Phoebe W. Couzins, Missouri. Corresponding Secretaries.—Mrs. Laura Curtis Bullard, Ida Greeley, Adelaide Hallock. Recording Secretaries.—Abby Burton Crosby, Sarah E. Fuller. Treasurer.—Elizabeth Smith Miller. Executive Committee.—Ernestine L. Rose, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Mathilde F. Wendt, Mary F. Gilbert, Susan B. Anthony. Advisory Counsel.—Matilda Joslyn Gage, New York; Mrs. Francis Minor, Missouri; Adeline Thompson, Pennsylvania; Mrs. M. B. Longley, Ohio; Mrs. Dr. J. P. Root, Kansas; Lilie Peckham, Wisconsin.
Constitution—Article 1. This organization shall be called the National Woman Suffrage Association.
Constitution—Article 1. This organization will be known as the National Woman Suffrage Association.
Article 2. Its object shall be to secure the Ballot to the women of the nation on equal terms with men.
Article 2. Its purpose is to ensure that women in the nation have the right to vote on the same terms as men.
Article 3. Any citizen of the United States favoring this object, shall, by the payment of the sum of one dollar annually into the treasury, be considered a member of the Association, and no other shall be entitled to vote in its deliberations.
Article 3. Any citizen of the United States who supports this cause shall be regarded as a member of the Association by paying one dollar annually into the treasury, and no one else will have the right to vote in its discussions.
Article 4. The officers of the Association shall be a President, a Vice-President from each of the States and Territories, Corresponding and Recording Secretaries, Treasurer, an Executive Committee of not less than five nor more than nine members, located in New York City, and an Advisory Counsel of one person from each State and Territory, who shall be members of the National Executive Committee. The officers shall be chosen at each annual meeting of the Association.
Article 4. The officers of the Association will include a President, a Vice-President from each State and Territory, Corresponding and Recording Secretaries, a Treasurer, an Executive Committee consisting of at least five and no more than nine members based in New York City, and an Advisory Counsel made up of one person from each State and Territory, who will also be members of the National Executive Committee. The officers will be elected at each annual meeting of the Association.
Article 5. Any Woman's Suffrage Association may become auxiliary to the National Association by its officers becoming members of the Parent Association and sending an annual contribution of not less than twenty-five dollars.
Article 5. Any Woman's Suffrage Association can become affiliated with the National Association by having its officers join the Parent Association and submitting an annual contribution of at least twenty-five dollars.
Petition for Women Suffrage.—The following Petition was adopted by the National Woman Suffrage Association at their meeting held at the Woman's Bureau, June 1, 1869:
Petition for Women Suffrage.—The following Petition was adopted by the National Woman Suffrage Association at their meeting held at the Woman's Bureau, June 1, 1869:
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
The undersigned men and women of the United States ask for the prompt passage by your Honorable Bodies of a Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, to be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States for ratification, which shall secure to all citizens the right of suffrage without distinction of sex.
The undersigned men and women of the United States request the swift passage by your Honorable Bodies of a Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, to be sent to the Legislatures of the various States for ratification, which will guarantee all citizens the right to vote without any distinction based on sex.
The Revolution of May 27, 1869, said: "National Woman Suffrage Association.—It is with great pleasure that we announce that Anna E. Dickinson will deliver the inaugural address of the new National Woman Suffrage movement at the Cooper Institute to-morrow (Friday) evening at eight o'clock, also that Miss Dickinson consents to represent Pennsylvania in that Association as its Vice-President. The title of Anna Dickinson's lecture is "Nothing Unreasonable."
The Revolution of May 27, 1869, said: "National Woman Suffrage Association.—We are excited to announce that Anna E. Dickinson will be giving the inaugural address for the new National Woman Suffrage movement at the Cooper Institute tomorrow (Friday) evening at 8 PM. Additionally, Miss Dickinson has agreed to represent Pennsylvania as the Vice-President of the Association. The title of Anna Dickinson's lecture is 'Nothing Unreasonable.'"
Chicago, Illinois.
Chicago, Illinois.
Dear Miss Anthony: As to the new Society, God bless and speed it. Write me down for anything in which I can serve it. I feel like "a new hand," but I am not so dull but I can learn. Please put my name on your list of members, and also on your list of subscribers.
Dear Miss Anthony: Regarding the new Society, I wish it all the best. Count me in for anything I can help with. I feel like a "newbie," but I'm willing to learn. Please add my name to your member list and also to your subscriber list.
Kate N. Doggett.
Kate N. Doggett.
With entire sympathy,
With entire sympathy,
Manhattan, Kansas, June 3, 1869.
Manhattan, Kansas, June 3, 1869.
I shall be indeed proud to represent Kansas in the new National Woman Suffrage Association, whose formation meets my hearty approval. Definiteness of purpose is always conducive to success, and I think it would be well now to concentrate all our efforts upon the one idea of "Suffrage for Women." You may rely upon me to do whatever lies within my power and ability to further the cause.
I will be truly proud to represent Kansas in the new National Woman Suffrage Association, whose creation I fully support. Having a clear goal is always key to success, and I believe it's important for us to focus all our efforts on the single idea of "Suffrage for Women." You can count on me to do everything I can to promote the cause.
Mary A. Humphrey.
Mary A. Humphrey.
Yours truly,
Yours truly,
[125] National Woman Suffrage Convention at Newport, R.I.—A Woman Suffrage Convention will be held in the Academy of Music at Newport, R.I., on Wednesday and Thursday the 25th and 26th days of August next. The success attending the recent gathering at Saratoga warrants the most sanguine hopes and expectations from this also. The intense interest now everywhere felt on the great question renders all appeal for a full attendance unnecessary. Among the speakers will be Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis, Mrs. Celia Burleigh, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Mrs. Wilbour, and Miss Susan B. Anthony. The Misses Alice and Phoebe Cary, Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker, Mrs. E. H. Bullard, and many other of the most eminent women of the country will be in attendance. Names of other speakers will be announced hereafter.
[125] National Woman Suffrage Convention at Newport, R.I.—A Woman Suffrage Convention will take place at the Academy of Music in Newport, R.I., on Wednesday and Thursday, August 25th and 26th. The success of the recent gathering in Saratoga gives us strong reasons to feel hopeful about this event too. The widespread interest in this important issue makes any call for a large turnout unnecessary. Among the speakers will be Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis, Mrs. Celia Burleigh, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Mrs. Wilbour, and Miss Susan B. Anthony. The Misses Alice and Phoebe Cary, Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker, Mrs. E. H. Bullard, and many other prominent women from across the country will also be attending. The names of additional speakers will be announced later.
In behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.
On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, President.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, President.
A. L. Norton, Paulina W. Davis, Advisory Counsel for the State of Rhode Island.
A. L. Norton, Paulina W. Davis, Advisory Counsel for the State of Rhode Island.
London, July 18, 1869.
London, July 18, 1869.
Mrs. President and Members of the Woman's National Suffrage Association:
Mrs. President and Members of the Woman's National Suffrage Association:
I send an account of the first woman suffrage meeting ever held in London. But if we may judge anything of the prospects of the movement from the list of men and women who have interested themselves in the cause, it will not be the last. When such men as John Stuart Mill, Charles Kingsley, Prof. Newman, and their peers, put the shoulder to the wheel, a cause is bound to move on and crush all obstacles in the way of its progress. No old stumbling blocks of prejudice, or deep ruts of conventionality can impede the onward movement. As in America, I find that intellect, genius, wealth, and fashion even, are beginning in England to fall into the ranks and push on the woman suffrage question. Miss Frances Power Cobbe writes me: "The uprising of a sex throughout the civilized world, is certainly an unique fact in history, and can hardly fail of some important results."
I'm providing a report on the first women's suffrage meeting ever held in London. If we can gauge the movement's prospects from the list of men and women who have taken an interest in this cause, it certainly won't be the last. When influential figures like John Stuart Mill, Charles Kingsley, Professor Newman, and others are committed, a cause will undoubtedly gain momentum and overcome all obstacles in its path. Just like in America, I see that intellect, talent, wealth, and even social status are starting to rally in England to support the women’s suffrage issue. Miss Frances Power Cobbe writes to me: "The uprising of a sex throughout the civilized world is certainly a unique fact in history and is bound to lead to significant results."
With the confident expectation that her prophecy will find a speedy and perhaps grander fulfillment than she or any of us dream of now, I remain yours, respectfully,
With the strong belief that her prophecy will be fulfilled quickly and maybe even in a bigger way than she or any of us can imagine right now, I remain yours, respectfully,
Laura C. Bullard, Cor. Sec'y N. W. S. Association.
Laura C. Bullard, Corresponding Secretary, Northwest Society Association.
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE NEW DEPARTURE.
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
Francis Minor's Resolutions—Hearing before Congressional Committee—Descriptions by Mrs. Fannie Howland and Grace Greenwood—Washington Convention, 1870—Rev. Samuel J. May—Senator Carpenter—Professor Sprague, of Cornell University—Notes of Mrs. Hooker—May Anniversary in New York—The Fifth Avenue Conference—Second Decade Celebration—Washington, 1871—Victoria Woodhull's Memorial—Judiciary Committee—Majority and Minority Reports—George W. Julian and A. A. Sargent in the House—May Anniversary, 1871—Washington in 1872—Senate Judiciary Committee—Benjamin F. Butler—The Sherman-Dahlgren Protest—Women in Grant and Wilson Campaign.
Francis Minor's Resolutions—Hearing before Congressional Committee—Descriptions by Mrs. Fannie Howland and Grace Greenwood—Washington Convention, 1870—Rev. Samuel J. May—Senator Carpenter—Professor Sprague, of Cornell University—Notes of Mrs. Hooker—May Anniversary in New York—The Fifth Avenue Conference—Second Decade Celebration—Washington, 1871—Victoria Woodhull's Memorial—Judiciary Committee—Majority and Minority Reports—George W. Julian and A. A. Sargent in the House—May Anniversary, 1871—Washington in 1872—Senate Judiciary Committee—Benjamin F. Butler—The Sherman-Dahlgren Protest—Women in Grant and Wilson Campaign.
Although with Charles Sumner many believed that under the original Constitution women were citizens and therefore voters in our Republic, much more bold and invincible were their claims when the XIV. Amendment added new barriers to the already strong bulwarks of the Supreme Law of the land.
Although Charles Sumner and many others believed that under the original Constitution, women were citizens and therefore voters in our Republic, their claims became even bolder and more unstoppable when the XIV. Amendment introduced new obstacles to the already powerful foundations of the Supreme Law of the land.
The significance of these amendments in reference to women was first seen by Francis Minor, of Missouri, a member of the legal profession in St. Louis. He called attention to the view of the question, afterward adopted by many leading lawyers of the American bar, that women were enfranchised by the letter and spirit of the XIV. Amendment. On this interpretation the officers of the National Association began soon after to base their speeches, resolutions, and hearings before Congress, and to make divers attempts to vote in different parts of the country.
The importance of these amendments for women was first recognized by Francis Minor from Missouri, who was a lawyer in St. Louis. He pointed out a perspective on the issue that was later embraced by many prominent lawyers across the United States, suggesting that women were granted the right to vote through the letter and spirit of the XIV Amendment. Based on this interpretation, the leaders of the National Association soon began to use it in their speeches, resolutions, and testimonies before Congress, as well as making various efforts to vote in different regions of the country.
At a woman suffrage convention in St. Louis, October, 1869, the following suggestive resolutions were presented by Francis Minor, Esq., enclosed in the accompanying letter to The Revolution:
At a women's suffrage convention in St. Louis, October 1869, Francis Minor, Esq., presented the following important resolutions, included in the attached letter to The Revolution:
St. Louis, Oct. 14, 1869.
St. Louis, Oct. 14, 1869.
Dear Revolution:—I wish to say a few words about the action of the Woman's Suffrage Convention just held here. It is everywhere spoken of as a complete success, both in point of numbers and the orderly decorum with which its proceedings were conducted. But I desire to call special attention to the resolutions adopted. When I framed them, I looked beyond the action of this Convention. These resolutions place the cause of equal rights[Pg 408] far in advance of any position heretofore taken. Now, for the first time, the views and purposes of our organization assume a fixed purpose and definite end. We no longer beat the air—no longer assume merely the attitude of petitioners. We claim a right, based upon citizenship. These resolutions will stand the test of legal criticism—and I write now to ask, if a case can not be made at your coming election. If this were done, in no other way could our cause be more widely, and at the same time definitely brought before the public. Every newspaper in the land would tell the story, every fireside would hear the news. The question would be thoroughly discussed by thousands, who now give it no thought—and by the time it reached the court of final resort, the popular verdict would be in accord with the judgment that is sure to be rendered. If these resolutions are right, let the question be settled by individual determination. A case could not be made here for a year to come, but you could make one in New York at the coming election.
Dear Revolution:—I want to share a few thoughts about the recent Woman's Suffrage Convention that just took place here. It’s being widely regarded as a huge success, both in terms of attendance and the respectful way the proceedings were handled. However, I want to highlight the resolutions that were passed. When I drafted them, I was thinking beyond just this Convention. These resolutions elevate the cause of equal rights[Pg 408] far beyond any previous stance we’ve taken. For the first time, the goals and intentions of our organization have a clear purpose and defined objective. We are no longer just making noise or positioning ourselves as mere petitioners. We assert our right, grounded in citizenship. These resolutions will withstand legal scrutiny—and I am writing now to suggest that a case could be made at your upcoming election. This would be the most effective way to present our cause to the public in a broad and definitive way. Every newspaper in the country would cover it, and every household would hear about it. The issue would be discussed in depth by thousands who currently pay it no mind—and by the time it reaches the highest court, public opinion would likely align with the judgment that is bound to be delivered. If these resolutions are justified, let individuals make the decision. A case might not be possible here for a year, but you could definitely create one in New York at the upcoming election.
Francis Minor.
Francis Minor.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
THE ST. LOUIS RESOLUTIONS.
Whereas, In the adjustment of the question of suffrage now before the people of this country for settlement, it is of the highest importance that the organic law of the land should be so framed and construed as to work injustice to none, but secure as far as possible perfect political equality among all classes of citizens; and,
Whereas, in resolving the issue of suffrage currently facing the people of this country, it is extremely important that the foundational laws are designed and interpreted in a way that ensures fairness for everyone, while striving for complete political equality among all groups of citizens; and,
Whereas, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside; be it
Whereas, All individuals born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States, and of the State in which they live; be it
Resolved, 1. That the immunities and privileges of American citizenship, however defined, are National in character and paramount to all State authority.
Resolved, 1. That the rights and privileges of American citizenship, no matter how defined, are national in nature and take precedence over all state authority.
2. That while the Constitution of the United States leaves the qualification of electors to the several States, it nowhere gives them the right to deprive any citizen of the elective franchise which is possessed by any other citizen—to regulate, not including the right to prohibit the franchise.
2. While the Constitution of the United States allows each State to decide who can vote, it does not give them the authority to take away the voting rights of any citizen that another citizen enjoys—it's about regulation, not the power to deny the right to vote.
3. That, as the Constitution of the United States expressly declares that no State shall make or enforce any laws that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, those provisions of the several State Constitutions that exclude women from the franchise on account of sex, are violative alike of the spirit and letter of the Federal Constitution.
3. The Constitution of the United States clearly states that no State can create or enforce laws that limit the rights or privileges of U.S. citizens. Therefore, the parts of various State Constitutions that prevent women from voting because of their sex go against both the spirit and the letter of the Federal Constitution.
4. That, as the subject of naturalization is expressly withheld from the States, and as the States clearly would have no right to deprive of the franchise naturalized citizens, among whom women are expressly included, still more clearly have they no right to deprive native-born women citizens of this right.
4. Since naturalization is specifically reserved for the federal government and the states obviously can't take away the rights of naturalized citizens, which includes women, it's even clearer that they have no right to deny native-born women citizens this right.
5. That justice and equity can only be attained by having the same laws for men and women alike.
5. Justice and fairness can only be achieved by having the same laws for both men and women.
6. That having full faith and confidence in the truth and justice of these principles, we will never cease to urge the claims of women to a participation in the affairs of government equal with men.
6. Having full faith and confidence in the truth and justice of these principles, we will always advocate for women's equal participation in government alongside men.
Extracts from the Constitution of the United States, upon which the resolutions are based:
Extracts from the Constitution of the United States, which the resolutions are based on:
Preamble, We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Preamble, We, the people of the United States, in order to create a better Union, establish justice, ensure peace at home, provide for our common defense, promote the general well-being, and secure the blessings of freedom for ourselves and future generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I. Sec. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.[Pg 409]
Article I. Sec. 2. The House of Representatives will be made up of members elected every two years by the people of the various States, and the voters in each State must meet the qualifications needed to vote for the largest branch of the State Legislature.[Pg 409]
Sec. 4. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.—[See Elliot's Debates, vol. 3, p. 366—remarks of Mr. Madison—Story's Commentaries, Secs. 623, 626, 578].
Sec. 4. Each State's Legislature will determine the timing, locations, and procedures for holding elections for Senators and Representatives; however, Congress can change these regulations by law at any time, except for where Senators are elected.—[See Elliot's Debates, vol. 3, p. 366—remarks of Mr. Madison—Story's Commentaries, Secs. 623, 626, 578].
Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform mode of naturalization—to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Sec. 8. Congress has the authority to create a consistent process for naturalization—to make all laws that are necessary and appropriate for implementing the powers granted by this Constitution to the Government of the United States, or to any department or official within it.
Sec. 9. No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law shall be passed.
Sec. 9. No bill of attainder or retroactive law shall be passed.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.
No titles of nobility will be given by the United States.
No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law—or law impairing the obligations of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.—(See Cummings vs. the State of Missouri. Wallace Rep. 278, and Exparte Garland, same volume).
No state can pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law—or any law that interferes with the obligations of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.—(See Cummings vs. the State of Missouri. Wallace Rep. 278, and Exparte Garland, same volume).
Article IV. Sec. 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. (The elective franchise is one of the privileges secured by this section—See Corfield vs. Coryell, 4 Washington Circuit Court Reps. 380—cited and approved in Dunham vs. Lamphere, 3 Gray—Mass. Rep. 276—and Bennett vs. Boggs, Baldwin Rep., p. 72, Circuit Court U. S.)
Article IV. Sec. 2. Citizens of each State have the right to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the other States. (The right to vote is one of the privileges guaranteed by this section—See Corfield vs. Coryell, 4 Washington Circuit Court Reps. 380—cited and approved in Dunham vs. Lamphere, 3 Gray—Mass. Rep. 276—and Bennett vs. Boggs, Baldwin Rep., p. 72, Circuit Court U. S.)
Sec. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government. (How can that form of government be republican, when one-half the people are forever deprived of all participation in its affairs).
Sec. 4. The United States will ensure that every State in this Union has a republican form of government. (How can that form of government be republican when half the people are permanently excluded from participating in its affairs?)
Article VI. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any States to the contrary notwithstanding.
Article VI. This Constitution, along with the laws of the United States that are created in accordance with it, will be the highest law of the land; and judges in every state must follow it, regardless of anything in the Constitution or laws of any state that conflicts with it.
XIV. Amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
XIV. Amendment. All people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its laws, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they live.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
No state can create or enforce any law that limits the rights or privileges of U.S. citizens.
At this same convention Mrs. Virginia L. Minor, President of the Missouri State Association, in her opening address said:
At this same convention, Mrs. Virginia L. Minor, President of the Missouri State Association, mentioned in her opening address:
I believe that the Constitution of the United States gives me every right and privilege to which every other citizen is entitled; for while the Constitution gives the States the right to regulate suffrage, it nowhere gives them power to prevent it. The power to regulate is one thing, the power to prevent is an entirely different thing. Thus the State can say where, when, and what citizens may exercise the right of suffrage. If she can say that a woman, who is a citizen of the United States, shall not vote, then she can equally say that a Chinaman, who is not a citizen, shall vote and represent her in Congress. The foreign naturalized citizen claims his right to vote from and under the paramount authority of the Federal Government, and the State has no right to prevent him from voting, and thus place him in a lower degree or grade of citizenship than that of free citizens. This being the case, is it presumable that a foreign citizen is intended to be placed higher than one born on our soil? Under our Constitution and laws, woman is a naturalized citizen with her husband. There are men in this town to-day, to my certain knowledge, who have had this boon of citizenship thrust upon them, who scorned the name, and who freely claimed allegiance to a foreign power. Our Government has existed for eighty years, yet this question of citizenship has never been settled. In 1856 the question came before the then Attorney-General,[Pg 410] Mr. Cushing, as to whether Indians were citizens of the United States, and as such, were entitled to the privilege of preempting our public lands. He gave it as his opinion that they were not citizens, but domestic subjects, and therefore not entitled to the benefits of the act.
I believe that the Constitution of the United States grants me every right and privilege that every other citizen has; while the Constitution allows states to regulate voting, it doesn’t give them the authority to deny it. The ability to regulate is one thing, but the ability to prevent is something entirely different. So, the state can determine where, when, and how citizens can exercise their right to vote. If it can say that a woman, who is a citizen of the United States, can’t vote, then it can also say that a non-citizen, such as a Chinese person, can vote and represent her in Congress. A naturalized foreign citizen derives their right to vote from the ultimate authority of the Federal Government, and the state has no right to stop them from voting, thereby putting them at a lower status than that of free citizens. If this is the case, is it reasonable to assume that a foreign citizen is meant to have a higher status than someone born on our soil? Under our Constitution and laws, a woman is a naturalized citizen along with her husband. There are men in this town today, to my knowledge, who have had this privilege of citizenship forced upon them, who rejected the title, and who openly pledged allegiance to a foreign power. Our government has been around for eighty years, yet this issue of citizenship has never been resolved. In 1856, the question was raised before the then Attorney General,[Pg 410] Mr. Cushing, about whether Native Americans were citizens of the United States, and whether they were entitled to the privilege of claiming our public lands. He opined that they were not citizens, but domestic subjects, and therefore not entitled to the benefits of the act.
In 1821 the question came before Attorney-General William Wirt, as to whether free persons of color in the State of Virginia were citizens of the United States, and as such, entitled to command vessels engaged in foreign trade. He gave it as his opinion that they were not, that the Constitution by the term citizen, and by its description of citizen, meant only those who were entitled to all the privileges of free white persons, and negroes were not citizens. In 1843 the question came before Attorney-General Legree, of South Carolina, as to whether free negroes of that State were citizens, and he gave it as his opinion that as the law of Congress intended only to exclude aliens, therefore that they as denizens could take advantage of the act. Mr. Marcy, in 1856, decided that negroes were not citizens, but entitled to the protection of the Government.
In 1821, the question was raised before Attorney-General William Wirt about whether free people of color in Virginia could be considered citizens of the United States and, therefore, allowed to captain vessels involved in foreign trade. He concluded that they were not citizens, stating that the Constitution’s definition of a citizen referred only to those who had all the rights of free white individuals, and that Black people were not included as citizens. In 1843, Attorney-General Legree of South Carolina faced a similar question regarding whether free Black people in that state were citizens. He opined that since the law Congress passed was meant only to exclude non-citizens, those individuals as denizens could take advantage of that law. In 1856, Mr. Marcy determined that Black people were not citizens but should still receive the protection of the Government.
In justice to our sex, I must ask you to bear in mind the fact that all these wise Secretaries of State and Attorney-Generals, were men that made these singular decisions, not illogical, unreasoning women, totally incapable of understanding politics. And lastly, in 1862, our late honored and lamented fellow-citizen, Attorney-General Bates, decided that free negroes were citizens. Thus, you see, it took forty-one years to make this simple discovery. I have cited all these examples to show you that all rights and privileges depend merely on the acknowledgment of our right as citizens, and wherever this question has arisen the Government has universally conceded that we are citizens; and as such, I claim that if we are entitled to two or three privileges, we are entitled to all. This question of woman's right to the ballot has never yet been raised in any quarter. It has yet to be tested whether a free, moral, intelligent woman, highly cultivated, every dollar of whose income and property are taxed equally with that of all men, shall be placed by our laws on a level with the savage. I am often jeeringly asked, "If the Constitution gives you this right, why don't you take it?" My reply is both a statement and a question. The State of Massachusetts allows negroes to vote. The Constitution of the United States says the citizens of each State shall be allowed all the privileges of the citizens in the several States. Now, I ask you, can a woman or negro vote in Missouri? You have placed us on the same level. Yet, by such question you hold us responsible for the unstatesmanlike piece of patchwork which you call the Constitution of Missouri! Women of the State, let us no longer submit to occupy so degraded a position! Disguise it as you may, the disfranchised class is ever a degraded class. Let us lend all our energies to have the stigma removed from us. Failing before the Legislatures, we must then turn to the Supreme Court of our land and ask it to decide what are our rights as citizens, or, at least, not doing that, give us the privilege of the Indian, and exempt us from the burden of taxation to support so unjust a Government. [Applause].
In fairness to our gender, I need to remind you that all these knowledgeable Secretaries of State and Attorneys General were men who made these remarkable decisions, not illogical, unthinking women who are completely unable to grasp politics. And finally, in 1862, our recently honored and missed fellow citizen, Attorney General Bates, determined that free Black people were citizens. So you see, it took forty-one years to arrive at this straightforward conclusion. I’ve shared these examples to illustrate that all rights and privileges depend solely on the recognition of our status as citizens, and wherever this issue has come up, the Government has consistently acknowledged that we are citizens; and therefore, I assert that if we are entitled to a couple of privileges, we should be entitled to all of them. The question of a woman’s right to vote has yet to be raised in any forum. It remains to be seen whether a free, moral, educated woman, who is equally taxed on her income and property as all men are, should be treated by our laws on par with someone uncivilized. I am frequently mockingly asked, "If the Constitution grants you this right, why don’t you just take it?" My answer is both a statement and a question. The state of Massachusetts allows Black people to vote. The Constitution of the United States states that citizens of each state must be granted all the rights of citizens in the other states. Now, I ask you, can a woman or Black person vote in Missouri? You have put us on the same level. Yet, with such a question, you hold us accountable for the poorly constructed Constitution of Missouri! Women of this state, let us no longer accept such a degrading position! No matter how you disguise it, the disenfranchised are always a marginalized group. Let us put all our efforts into removing this stigma from us. If we fail with the legislatures, we must then appeal to the Supreme Court of our land and ask them to clarify what our rights as citizens are, or at least, if that doesn’t happen, grant us the same privileges as Native Americans and relieve us from the burden of taxes to support such an unjust Government. [Applause].
Ten thousand extra copies of The Revolution containing these resolutions and this speech were published and sent to friends throughout the country, laid on every member's desk in Congress, and circulated at the Washington Convention of 1870. From this hour up to the time of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Virginia L. Minor in 1875, the National Woman Suffrage Association took this view in regard to the XIV. Amendment. Mrs. Stanton, fully accepting the new position, made her speech on that basis before the Congressional Committee[127] on the District of Columbia. In calling this Committee to order Senator Hamlin said:
Ten thousand extra copies of The Revolution, which included these resolutions and this speech, were published and sent to friends across the country, placed on every member's desk in Congress, and distributed at the Washington Convention of 1870. From that moment until the Supreme Court's decision in the Virginia L. Minor case in 1875, the National Woman Suffrage Association held this view regarding the XIV Amendment. Mrs. Stanton, fully embracing this new position, delivered her speech based on that before the Congressional Committee[127] on the District of Columbia. When the Committee was called to order, Senator Hamlin remarked:
We have met this morning for the purpose of considering two petitions which have been presented, I believe, only to the Senate Committee of the District of Columbia. The first one is a petition, very numerously signed, I think, by both ladies and gentlemen of this city, and in a few brief words it says that: "The undersigned, residents of the District of Columbia, earnestly but respectfully request that you extend the right of suffrage to the women of the District." The other memorial, very nearly as brief, is in these words: "The undersigned citizens of the United States pray your honorable body that in the proposed amendments to the Constitution which may come before you in regard to suffrage, and in any law affecting suffrage, in the District of Columbia or in any Territory, the right of voting may be given to the women on the same terms as to the men." Upon this subject we have some lady friends who desire to address us, and I have the pleasure of introducing to you Mrs. Stanton.
We gathered this morning to discuss two petitions that, I believe, have only been submitted to the Senate Committee of the District of Columbia. The first petition, which has a significant number of signatures from both women and men in this city, states: "We, the undersigned residents of the District of Columbia, respectfully and earnestly ask that you extend the right to vote to the women of the District." The second memorial, almost as brief, reads: "We, the undersigned citizens of the United States, request that your honorable body ensures that in any proposed amendments to the Constitution regarding voting rights, and in any laws affecting voting in the District of Columbia or any Territory, women are granted the right to vote on the same terms as men." We have some female friends who wish to speak on this topic, and I am pleased to introduce Mrs. Stanton.
Mrs. Stanton said: Accustomed to appeal to the sentiments and combat the prejudices of popular assemblies, it is a comparatively easy task to plead the cause of woman before clear, logical, dispassionate minds—committees of statesmen—trained to view all subjects in the light of pure reason; for unprejudiced minds admit to-day that if the democratic theory of government is true, the argument lies wholly on our side of this question. As history shows that each step in civilization has been a steady approximation to our democratic theory, securing larger liberties to the people, it is fair to infer that its full realization—the equal rights of all—will be the best possible government. Whatever is true in theory is safe in practice, and those holding the destinies of nations in their hands should legislate with a sublime faith in eternal principles. As bills are soon to be introduced in both the Senate and the House, asking further special legislation, we appear before you at this time to urge that the women of the District shall share equally in all the rights, privileges, and immunities you propose to confer on male citizens.
Mrs. Stanton said: Being used to appealing to emotions and challenging the biases of public gatherings, it’s relatively straightforward to advocate for women in front of clear, logical, and dispassionate minds—committees of lawmakers—trained to examine all issues based on pure reason; for unbiased minds acknowledge today that if the democratic theory of government is valid, the argument is entirely on our side. As history demonstrates that each advancement in civilization has been a steady movement toward our democratic ideals, granting greater freedoms to the people, it’s reasonable to conclude that achieving its full realization—the equal rights of everyone—will lead to the best possible government. What is true in theory is reliable in practice, and those who control the fate of nations should legislate with a deep faith in enduring principles. As proposals are soon to be introduced in both the Senate and the House, requesting additional special legislation, we come before you now to urge that the women of the District be granted equal participation in all the rights, privileges, and immunities that you plan to extend to male citizens.
In the adjustment of the question of suffrage, now before the people of this country for settlement, it is of the highest importance that the organic law of the land should be so framed and construed as to secure political equality to all citizens.
In addressing the issue of voting rights that is currently up for discussion in this country, it is crucial that the foundational laws be designed and interpreted to ensure political equality for all citizens.
While the Constitution of the United States leaves the qualifications[Pg 412] of electors to the several States, it nowhere gives them the right to deprive any citizen of the elective franchise; they may regulate, but not prohibit the franchise. The Constitution of the United States expressly declares that no State shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; hence those provisions of the several State constitutions that exclude women from the franchise are in direct violation of the Federal Constitution. Even the preamble recognizes, in the phrase "We, the people," the true origin of all just government.
While the Constitution of the United States allows each state to set qualifications[Pg 412] for voters, it does not give them the authority to take away any citizen's right to vote; they can regulate, but not deny the right to vote. The Constitution clearly states that no state can create or enforce any law that would limit the privileges or rights of U.S. citizens; therefore, any provisions in state constitutions that exclude women from voting directly violate the Federal Constitution. Even the preamble acknowledges, with the phrase "We, the people," the true source of legitimate government.
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We, the people of the United States, in order to create a better Union, establish justice, ensure peace at home, provide for our defense, promote the general well-being, and secure the blessings of freedom for ourselves and our future generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Are not women people?
Are not women people?
Sec. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.
Sec. 4. The United States will guarantee each State in this Union a representative form of government.
How can that form of government be republican, when one-half the people are forever deprived of all participation in its affairs?
How can that form of government be considered republican when half the people are constantly denied any involvement in its matters?
Article VI. The Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Article VI. The Constitution and the laws of the United States made under it will be the highest law of the land; and judges in every State must follow them, regardless of anything in the constitution or laws of any State that says otherwise.
The Constitution tells us, too, who are citizens. The XIV. Amendment says:
The Constitution also defines who citizens are. The XIV Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
All individuals born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its laws, are citizens of the United States and the state where they live.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
No state can make or enforce any law that limits the rights or benefits of U.S. citizens.
It has just been decided by the Supreme Court that a foreign born woman is naturalized by marriage to a native. Therefore, as birth and marriage secure the right of citizenship to large numbers, the remaining classes of foreign unmarried women should secure naturalization papers, that we may all test our right to vote in the courts. As the subject of naturalization is expressly withheld from the States, and as the States would clearly have no right to deprive of the franchise naturalized citizens, among whom women are expressly included, still more clearly have they no right to deprive native born women citizens of this right.
The Supreme Court has just ruled that a foreign-born woman becomes a citizen by marrying a native. So, since birth and marriage grant citizenship rights to many, the other groups of foreign unmarried women should obtain naturalization papers so we can all assert our right to vote in court. The issue of naturalization is specifically reserved for the federal government, and the states clearly have no authority to deny voting rights to naturalized citizens, which includes women, and even more so, they cannot deny this right to native-born women citizens.
The States have the right to regulate but not to prohibit the elective franchise to citizens of the United States. Thus the States may determine the qualifications of electors. They may require the elector to be of a certain age, to have had a fixed residence, to be of a sane mind, and unconvicted of crime, etc.; but to go beyond this, and say to one-half the citizens of the State, notwithstanding you possess all these qualifications, you shall never vote, is of the very essence of despotism. It is a bill of attainder of the most odious character.
The states have the authority to regulate, but not to completely ban, voting rights for citizens of the United States. This means states can set the requirements for voters. They can require voters to meet certain age criteria, have a permanent address, be mentally competent, and not have a criminal record, among other things. However, if they go further and tell half the citizens of the state that, even though they meet all these qualifications, they will never be allowed to vote, that is the very definition of tyranny. It is an extremely unfair law against those individuals.
On this point the Constitution says:
On this point, the Constitution states:
Art. I., Sec. 9. No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law shall be passed.
Art. I., Sec. 9. No law targeting a specific person or an ex post facto law shall be enacted.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.
No titles of nobility will be granted by the United States.
No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, impairing the obligations of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. (See Cummings vs. the State of Mo., 4th Wallace Rep 278, and Exparte Garland, same volume.)
No state can pass any law that punishes someone without a trial, a law that makes something illegal retroactively, weaken the obligations of contracts, or grant any noble titles. (See Cummings v. the State of Mo., 4th Wallace Rep 278, and Exparte Garland, same volume.)
Opposed to this provision of the Constitution, by the XV. Amendment you have established an aristocracy of sex, sanctioning the unjust legislation of the several States, which make all men nobles, all women serfs. Justice and equity can only be attained by having the same laws for men and women in the District as well as the State.
Opposed to this provision of the Constitution, by the XV. Amendment you have established a hierarchy based on gender, allowing unfair laws from various States that make all men nobles and all women serfs. Justice and fairness can only be achieved by having the same laws for both men and women in the District as well as the State.
A further investigation of the subject will show that the language of the constitutions of all the States, with the exception of those of Massachusetts and Virginia, on the subject of suffrage is peculiar. They almost all read substantially alike. "White male citizens, etc., shall be entitled to vote," and this is supposed to exclude all other citizens. There is no direct exclusion, except in the two States above named. Now the error lies in supposing that an enabling clause is necessary at all. The right of the people of a State to participate in a government of their own creation requires no enabling clause; neither can it be taken from them by implication. To hold otherwise, would be to interpolate in the constitution a prohibition that does not exist. In framing a constitution the people are assembled in their sovereign capacity; and being possessed of all rights and all powers, what is not surrendered is retained. Nothing short of a direct prohibition can work a deprivation of rights that are fundamental.
A closer look at the topic reveals that the language of the constitutions in almost all states, except for Massachusetts and Virginia, has a unique take on voting rights. Most of them say something like, "White male citizens, etc., shall be entitled to vote," which implies that all other citizens are excluded. There’s no explicit exclusion in the other states, aside from those two. The mistake is in thinking that an enabling clause is even necessary. The people of a state have the right to participate in a government they create, and this right doesn't need any enabling clause; it can't be taken away from them by implication either. To believe otherwise would mean adding a prohibition to the constitution that isn’t there. When creating a constitution, the people come together in their ultimate authority; since they hold all rights and powers, whatever isn’t given up is retained. Only a clear prohibition can take away fundamental rights.
In the language of John Jay to the people of New York, urging the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, "silence and blank paper neither give nor take away anything," and Alexander Hamilton says (Federalist, No. 83), "Every man of discernment must at once perceive the wide difference between silence and abolition." The mode and manner in which the people shall take part in the government of their creation may be prescribed by the constitution, but the right itself is antecedent to all constitutions. It is inalienable, and can neither be bought, nor sold, nor given away. But even if it should be held that this view is untenable, and that women are disfranchised by the several State Constitutions directly, or by implication, then I say that such prohibitions are clearly in conflict with the Constitution of the United States and yield thereto.
In the words of John Jay to the people of New York, encouraging the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, "silence and blank paper don’t add or take away anything," and Alexander Hamilton states (Federalist, No. 83), "Any discerning person can see the significant difference between silence and abolition." The way in which the people will participate in the government they created may be defined by the constitution, but the right itself exists before any constitution. It is inalienable and cannot be bought, sold, or given away. However, even if one were to argue that this perspective is invalid, and that women are disenfranchised by the various State Constitutions directly or indirectly, I assert that such restrictions clearly conflict with the Constitution of the United States and must yield to it.
The proposition is now before the people of the District to abolish the municipal government and reduce this to a mere territory, which is clearly retrogressive legislation; as in the former, the chief magistrate is elected by the people and in the latter appointed by the President. In your civil rights bill, compelling black and white to vote together, to go to school together, to ride in the cars together, you have taken a grand step in progress. If in the proposed bills soon to come before you for the establishment of a medical college in the District, and an improved school system, you shall as carefully guard the rights of women to equal place and salary, you will take another onward step. In making the changes you propose, it is evident you are doing to-day an elementary work in which all the people should have a voice; hence, your primal duty is to extend to the women of the District the right of suffrage, that they may vote on the schools, colleges, hospitals, prisons, and whether their government shall be republican with a Representative in Congress, municipal officers, or territorial with a Governor appointed by the President. In doing such fundamental work, many distinguished[Pg 414] publicists have expressed the opinion that all the people should have a voice. In the debates in the Illinois Convention, now in session, members refused to swear to support the State Constitution, because, said they, "it is absurd to swear to support what we are now tearing to pieces. We are doing an elementary work, and are amenable to the Federal Constitution alone."
The proposal is currently on the table for the people of the District to eliminate the municipal government and reduce it to just a territory, which is clearly a step backward in legislation; in the former system, the chief leader is chosen by the people, whereas in the latter, they are appointed by the President. In your civil rights bill, requiring black and white people to vote together, attend school together, and ride on public transportation together, you have made a significant advancement. If in the upcoming bills regarding the formation of a medical college in the District and an improved education system, you also protect women's rights to equal positions and pay, you will make another important step forward. By making the proposed changes, it's clear you are addressing fundamental issues that should involve all citizens; therefore, your primary responsibility is to grant the women of the District the right to vote, so they can have a say in matters like schools, colleges, hospitals, prisons, and whether their government will be a republican system with a Representative in Congress, municipal leaders, or a territorial system with a Governor appointed by the President. In undertaking this essential work, many respected public figures have voiced that everyone should have a say. During the debates at the Illinois Convention, currently taking place, members declined to pledge to support the State Constitution, stating, "it is ridiculous to promise to uphold what we are actively dismantling. We are addressing fundamental issues and are only accountable to the Federal Constitution."
Ever since the abolition of slavery, the District has been resolved into its original elements. In fact by the war, and the revision of the Federal Constitution, the nation, too, has been resolved into its original elements, and the women have to-day, the right to say on what basis the District, their several States, and the nation shall be reconstructed. We think, honorable gentlemen, you must all see the broad application of this principle. And if all the people should have a voice in the revision of a State or national constitution, women must be included. The Constitution confers, by express grant upon Congress, "exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever," for the purposes of government. Under this grant Congress, by the first section of the act of January 8, 1867, enacted that each and every male person of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been born or naturalized in the United States, who shall have resided in the said District for the period of one year, and three months in the ward or election precinct in which he shall offer to vote, shall be entitled to the elective franchise, and shall be deemed an elector, and entitled to vote. This act, you perceive, recognizes the pre-existing right of all persons, and excludes women only by the use of the word male, unless, as Hamilton says, "silence on that point is not abolition."
Ever since slavery was abolished, the District has returned to its original state. In fact, due to the war and the amendments to the Federal Constitution, the nation has also gone back to its fundamental elements, and today, women have the right to determine how the District, their individual States, and the nation should be rebuilt. We believe, honorable gentlemen, you must all understand the wide-reaching implications of this principle. If everyone should have a say in revising a State or national constitution, then women must be included. The Constitution gives Congress "exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever" for government purposes. Under this authority, Congress, through the first section of the act from January 8, 1867, declared that every male person aged twenty-one or older, who was born or naturalized in the United States and had lived in the District for one year and three months in the ward or election precinct where he intends to vote, has the right to vote and will be considered an elector. This act recognizes the existing rights of all individuals while excluding women by the term "male," unless, as Hamilton states, "silence on that point is not abolition."
It is fitting that here, under the shadow of the national capitol, under the control of the Federal Government, where the black man was first emancipated and enfranchised, that the experiment of a true republicanism should be tried, by securing to woman, too, the rights of an American citizen.
It makes sense that right here, beneath the shadow of the national capitol, under the authority of the Federal Government, where black men were first freed and given the right to vote, we should also test the experiment of true republicanism by granting women the rights of American citizens.
Susan B. Anthony addressed the Committee as follows: We are here for the express purpose of urging you to present in your respective bodies, a bill to strike the word "male" from the District of Columbia Suffrage Act, and thereby enfranchise the women of the District. We ask that the experiment of woman suffrage shall be tried here, under the eye of Congress, as was that of negro suffrage. Indeed, the District has ever been made the experimental ground of each step toward freedom. The auction-block was here first banished, slavery was here first abolished, the newly-made freemen were here first enfranchised; and we now ask that the women shall here be first admitted to the ballot. There was great fear and trepidation all over the country as to the results of negro suffrage, and you deemed it right and safe to inaugurate the experiment here; and you all remember that three days discussion in 1866 on Senator Cowan's proposition to amend the Senate bill by striking out the word "male;" the able speeches of Cowan, Anthony, Gratz Brown, Wade, and the Senate's nine votes for the amendment. Well do I remember with what anxious hope we watched the daily reports of that debate, and how we prayed that Congress might then declare for the establishment in this District of a real, practical republic. But conscience, or courage, or something was wanting, and women were bidden still to wait.
Susan B. Anthony addressed the Committee like this: We are here specifically to urge you to introduce a bill in your respective bodies to remove the word "male" from the District of Columbia Suffrage Act, thus granting the women of the District the right to vote. We request that the trial of woman suffrage be conducted here, under the watch of Congress, just like it was for Black suffrage. The District has always been a testing ground for each step toward freedom. The auction block was first abolished here, slavery was first ended here, and newly freed individuals were first given their rights here; now we ask that women be admitted to the ballot here first. There was significant fear and hesitation across the nation about the impact of Black suffrage, yet you believed it was correct and safe to try it out here; you all recall the three days of debate in 1866 about Senator Cowan's proposal to amend the Senate bill by removing the word "male;" the compelling speeches from Cowan, Anthony, Gratz Brown, Wade, and the Senate's nine votes for the amendment. I remember well the anxious hope with which we followed the daily reports of that debate, praying that Congress would then support the establishment of a true, practical republic in this District. But either conscience or courage, or something else, was missing, and women were told to wait.
When, on that March day of 1867, the negroes of the District first voted, with what anxiety did the people wait, and with what joy did they read the glad tidings, flashed over the wires the following morning![Pg 415] And the success of that first election in this District, inspired Congress with confidence to pass the proposition for the XV. Amendment, and the different States to ratify it until it has become a fixed fact that black men all over the nation may not only vote, but sit in legislative assemblies and constitutional conventions. We now ask Congress to do the same for women. We ask you to enfranchise the women of the District this very winter, so that next March they may go to the ballot-box, and all the people of this nation may see that it is possible for women to vote and the republic to stand. There is no reason, no argument, nothing but prejudice, against our demand; and there is no way to break down this prejudice but to try the experiment. Therefore we most earnestly urge it, in full faith that so soon as Congress and the people shall have witnessed its beneficial results, they will go forward with a XVI. Amendment that shall prohibit any State to disfranchise any of its citizens on account of sex.
When, on that March day in 1867, the Black citizens of the District voted for the first time, the anticipation from the people was palpable, and the joy they felt when they read the uplifting news that came through the wires the next morning was immense![Pg 415] The success of that first election in the District gave Congress the confidence to pass the proposal for the 15th Amendment, which different states ratified, making it a reality that Black men across the nation could not only vote but also serve in legislative assemblies and constitutional conventions. Now, we ask Congress to do the same for women. We urge you to grant the women of the District the right to vote this very winter so that next March they can head to the ballot box, showing the nation that it’s possible for women to vote and for the republic to thrive. There are no valid reasons, no arguments, only prejudice against our demand; and the only way to dismantle this prejudice is to give it a try. Therefore, we strongly advocate for this, fully believing that once Congress and the public see the positive outcomes, they will move forward with a 16th Amendment that prevents any state from disenfranchising its citizens based on their sex.
Mrs. Hooker said: The fifth commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother," can not be obeyed while boys are taught by our laws and constitutions to hold all women in contempt. I feel it is not only woman's right, but duty to assume responsibility in the government. I think the importance of the subject demands its hearing.
Mrs. Hooker said: The fifth commandment, "Honor your father and mother," cannot be followed while boys are raised by our laws and constitutions to look down on all women. I believe it is not only a woman's right but also her duty to take on responsibility in government. I think the importance of this issue deserves attention.
Madam Anneke: You have lifted up the slave on this continent; listen now to woman's cry for freedom.
Madam Anneke: You have raised the oppressed on this continent; now hear the call of women for freedom.
Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage: Liberty is an instinct of the human heart, and men desirous of creating change in governments or religion have led other men by promising them greater liberty and better laws. Nothing is too good, too great, too sacred for humanity—and, as part of humanity, woman as well as man demands the best that governments have to offer. Honorable gentlemen have spoken of petitions. For twenty years we have petitioned, and I now hold in my hand over three thousand names of citizens from but a small portion of the State of New York, asking that justice shall be done women by granting them suffrage. But people have become tired of begging for rights, and many persons favoring this cause will not again petition. We but ask justice, and we say to you that the stability of any government depends upon its doing justice to the most humble individual under it.
Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage: Liberty is a natural instinct of the human heart, and those wanting to change governments or religion have inspired others by promising them more freedom and better laws. Nothing is too good, too great, or too sacred for humanity—and since women are part of humanity, they, just like men, deserve the best that governments can provide. Respectable leaders have mentioned petitions. For twenty years, we've been petitioning, and I now hold over three thousand names from just a small part of New York, asking that justice be served to women by giving them the right to vote. But people have grown tired of begging for rights, and many supporters of this cause will not petition again. We only ask for justice, and we believe that the stability of any government relies on how well it serves its most humble citizens.
Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis: We are tired of petitioning. It is time our legislators knew what was right and gave us justice.
Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis: We’re done with asking. It’s time our lawmakers understood what’s right and delivered justice to us.
Mrs. Wilbour remarked that a lady of the district near her said she had obtained 1,500 signatures in one ward of the city to a petition.
Mrs. Wilbour noted that a woman from her area mentioned she had gathered 1,500 signatures in one neighborhood of the city for a petition.
Senator Patterson inquired what the effect would be in case women were allowed to vote, if there were a difference of opinion between the husband and wife on some political question—where the authority of the family would rest?
Senator Patterson asked what would happen if women were allowed to vote and there was a disagreement between husband and wife on a political issue—who would hold the authority in the family?
Mrs. Stanton replied that there was always a superior will and brain in every family. If it was the man, he would rule; if it was the woman, she would rule. Individuality would be preserved in the family as well as in society.
Mrs. Stanton replied that there was always a stronger will and mind in every family. If it was the man, he would be in charge; if it was the woman, she would take the lead. Individuality would be maintained within the family as well as in society.
Hon. Mr. Welker wanted to know if the women in the District had shown any interest in the movement yet.
Hon. Mr. Welker wanted to know if the women in the District had shown any interest in the movement yet.
Mrs. Stanton replied that they had; they had attended the sessions of the Convention held here, and all she had spoken to were in favor of it.[Pg 416]
Mrs. Stanton replied that they had; they had attended the sessions of the Convention held here, and everyone she spoke to was in favor of it.[Pg 416]
Mrs. Wilbour said the petition of 1,500 women of the District asking for suffrage had been presented to Congress this very winter.
Mrs. Wilbour said that the petition from 1,500 women in the District asking for the right to vote was presented to Congress this winter.
Hon. Mr. Cooke said that the Committee on the District of Columbia could not get enough time allowed them by the House to transact the necessary business of the District during the short morning hour to which they were limited by the rules, and he feared they would be unable to get the action of the House on the subject.
Hon. Mr. Cooke stated that the Committee on the District of Columbia couldn’t get enough time from the House to handle the necessary business of the District during the limited short morning hour set by the rules, and he worried they wouldn’t be able to get the House to act on the matter.
Miss Anthony said that they must make time enough to present the bill at least; and asked if women had the right to vote, and make and unmake members, if they could not then find time to plead woman's cause?
Miss Anthony said that they needed to take enough time to at least present the bill; and she asked if women had the right to vote and to elect and remove members, why couldn't they then find time to advocate for women's rights?
The honorable member was obliged to answer this pertinent question in the affirmative.
The honorable member had to answer this relevant question with a yes.
Senator Hamlin said the Committee would take the matter into consideration and discuss it; that in Scripture language he could say he "was almost, if not quite, persuaded."
Senator Hamlin said the Committee would look into the issue and discuss it; that in the words of the Scripture, he could say he "was almost, if not quite, persuaded."
Altogether the hearing was serious and impressive, and it was evident that the honorable gentlemen had already given the subject a thoughtful consideration. As each member of the Congressional Committee was presented by Senator Hamlin, the ladies had abundant opportunity for learning their individual opinions. Senator Sumner never appeared more genial, and said though he had been in Congress for twenty years, and through the exciting scenes of the Nebraska Act, Emancipation, District of Columbia Suffrage Act, and Reconstruction, he had never seen a committee in which were present so many Senators and Representatives, so many spectators, and so much interest manifested in the subject under discussion.
Overall, the hearing was serious and impressive, and it was clear that the esteemed members had already given the topic significant thought. As Senator Hamlin introduced each member of the Congressional Committee, the ladies had plenty of opportunities to learn about their individual views. Senator Sumner seemed friendlier than ever and mentioned that although he had been in Congress for twenty years and had witnessed the intense moments of the Nebraska Act, Emancipation, District of Columbia Suffrage Act, and Reconstruction, he had never seen a committee with so many Senators and Representatives present, so many spectators, and so much interest in the topic being discussed.
The following description (in the Hartford Courant) is from the pen of Mrs. Fannie Howland.
The following description (in the Hartford Courant) is by Mrs. Fannie Howland.
Washington, Jan. 22, 1870.
Washington, Jan. 22, 1870.
The close of the Woman's Suffrage Convention in this city was marked by an event which, no matter how slowly its logical sequence is developed, must be regarded as initiative.
The end of the Woman’s Suffrage Convention in this city was marked by an event that, no matter how slowly its logical progression unfolds, must be seen as the start of something significant.
A committee of ladies appointed by the convention and composed in great part of those well known as leaders in the movement, was received at the Capitol by the committee of the Senate and House (on the District of Columbia) for a formal hearing. The object of that hearing was to request the honorable gentlemen to present a bill to Congress for enfranchising the women of the District, as an experiment preparatory to ultimate acknowledgment of equal rights for all the women of the United States. The ladies were received in one of the larger committee rooms, in order to accommodate a number who wished to be present at this novel interview. After taking their seats, the Hon. Hannibal Hamlin, chairman, presented to them successively the gentlemen of the committee, who certainly greeted their fair appellants with the deferential courtesy due to fellow-sovereigns, albeit unacknowledged and disguised, for the present, under the odium of disfranchisement.
A committee of women appointed by the convention, mostly made up of well-known leaders in the movement, was welcomed at the Capitol by the committee of the Senate and House (on the District of Columbia) for a formal hearing. The purpose of that hearing was to ask the honorable gentlemen to introduce a bill to Congress for granting the women of the District the right to vote, as a trial run leading to the eventual recognition of equal rights for all women in the United States. The women were welcomed in one of the larger committee rooms to accommodate the number of people who wanted to attend this unusual meeting. After taking their seats, the Hon. Hannibal Hamlin, the chairman, introduced the committee members to the ladies, who were met with the respectful courtesy owed to fellow-sovereigns, even if it was currently unrecognized and obscured by the stigma of disenfranchisement.
The gentlemen took their seats around a long table in the middle of the[Pg 417] room. Mrs. Stanton stood at one end, serene and dignified. Behind her sat a large semi-circle of ladies, and close about her a group of her companions, who would have been remarkable anywhere for the intellectual refinement and elevated expression of their earnest faces. Opposite, at the other end of the table, sat Charles Sumner, looking fatigued and worn, but listening with alert attention. So these two veterans in the cause of freedom were fitly and suggestively brought face to face.
The men took their seats around a long table in the middle of the[Pg 417] room. Mrs. Stanton stood at one end, calm and composed. Behind her was a large semi-circle of women, and close by her was a group of her friends, who would stand out anywhere for their intellectual sophistication and the serious expression on their faces. Opposite, at the other end of the table, sat Charles Sumner, looking tired and worn, but listening intently. So, these two veterans in the fight for freedom were appropriately and meaningfully brought together.
The scene was impressive. It was simple, grand, historic. Women have often appeared in history—noble, brilliant, heroic women; but woman collectively, impersonally, never until now. To-day, for the first time, she asks recognition in the commonwealth—not in virtue of hereditary noblesse—not for any excellence or achievement of individuals, but on the simple ground of her presence in the race, with the same rights, interests, responsibilities as man. There was nothing in this gathering at the Capitol to touch the imagination with illusion, no ball-room splendor of light and fragrance and jewels, none of those graceful enchantments by which women have been content to reign through brief dynasties of beauty over briefer fealties of homage. The cool light of a winter morning, the bare walls of a committee room, the plain costumes of every day use, held the mind strictly to the simple facts which gave that group of representative men and women its moral significance, its severe but picturesque unity. Some future artist, looking back for a memorable illustration of this period, will put this new "Declaration of Independence" upon canvas, and will ransack the land for portraits of those ladies who first spoke for their countrywomen at the Capitol, and of those Senators and Representatives who first gave them audience.
The scene was striking. It was simple, grand, historic. Women have often made their mark in history—noble, brilliant, heroic women; but woman as a whole, without individuality, has never asked for recognition until now. Today, for the first time, she demands acknowledgment in society—not because of noble birth—not for any outstanding achievement by individuals, but simply because she exists as part of humanity, sharing the same rights, interests, and responsibilities as men. There was nothing at this gathering in the Capitol to evoke illusions—no ballroom dazzling with light, fragrance, and jewels, none of those charming enchantments that have allowed women to briefly reign over fleeting displays of admiration. The cool light of a winter morning, the bare walls of a committee room, and the plain outfits of everyday life focused attention on the simple facts that gave that group of representative men and women its moral significance and its striking yet serious unity. Some future artist, reflecting on this period, will paint this new "Declaration of Independence," searching the country for portraits of the women who first spoke for their fellow citizens at the Capitol, and of the Senators and Representatives who first listened to them.
Mrs. Stanton's speech was brief and able, eloquent from the simplicity and earnestness of her heart, logical from the well disciplined vigor of her mind. She was followed by Miss Anthony, morally as inevitable and impersonal as a Greek chorus, but physically and intellectually individual, intense, original, full of humor and good nature—anything but the roaring lioness of newspaper reports some years ago. Mrs. Davis, of Rhode Island, spoke briefly in support of the demand for franchise. Mrs. I. B. Hooker presented the Scriptural argument for the equality of woman in all moral responsibility and duty under the divine law. She spoke very feelingly, and was heard with marked attention. A German lady from Wisconsin who, weighed in any balance, would not be found wanting, struggled to express, in broken English, the ideas for which she came forward as representing many of her countrywomen in the West. Madam Anneke fought by her husband's side in the revolution of 1848; but such an example adds no force to the argument for woman's suffrage, the plea being made, not for distinguished exceptional women, but for the average women of the community.
Mrs. Stanton's speech was short and impactful, heartfelt in its simplicity and sincerity, and logical due to the well-trained strength of her mind. She was followed by Miss Anthony, who was as inevitable and impersonal as a Greek chorus, yet physically and intellectually distinct, intense, original, full of humor and kindness—anything but the fierce lioness portrayed in newspaper reports years ago. Mrs. Davis from Rhode Island spoke briefly in favor of the demand for the right to vote. Mrs. I. B. Hooker presented the biblical argument for the equality of women in all moral responsibilities and duties under divine law. She spoke very passionately and was listened to attentively. A German woman from Wisconsin, who would stand up in any comparison, struggled to express, in broken English, the ideas she brought on behalf of many of her fellow countrywomen in the West. Madam Anneke stood by her husband during the revolution of 1848; however, this example does not strengthen the argument for women's suffrage, as the plea is not for distinguished exceptional women, but for the average women of the community.
When the ladies had finished their remarks, the gentlemen were invited to ask any questions which were suggested by the subject discussed. Either from indifference or chivalrous sentiment, no very grave questions were proposed, nothing which required effort or argument to answer. Probably when the matter comes, as sooner or later it must come, before Congress, we shall hear some well-considered defense of the Salic law, which in this democratic republic, excludes all women from the citizen's prerogative. One of[Pg 418] the honorable gentlemen asked how they could be certain that any number of women in the United States desired the ballot. Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony recounted their experience at conventions, the numerous signatures to petitions, the many demonstrations here and in England in favor of woman suffrage, but reminded the gentleman that no such separate expression is required from the unwashed, unkempt immigrants upon whom the government makes haste to confer unqualified suffrage, nor from the southern negroes, who are provided for by the XV. Amendment.
When the women finished speaking, the men were invited to ask any questions related to the topic discussed. Due to either indifference or a sense of gallantry, no serious questions were raised—nothing that would require much effort or debate to answer. When the issue eventually comes before Congress, as it inevitably will, we might see a well-thought-out defense of the Salic law, which, in this democratic republic, keeps all women from having the rights of citizens. One of the esteemed gentlemen asked how they could be sure that any number of women in the United States wanted the right to vote. Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony shared their experiences at conventions, the numerous signatures on petitions, and the many demonstrations both here and in England in support of women's suffrage. They pointed out to the gentleman that no such separate expression is required from the unrefined, scruffy immigrants to whom the government is quick to grant unrestricted voting rights, nor from the southern African Americans, who are accounted for by the XV Amendment.
The hearing ended about noon, followed by very cordial shaking hands and pleasant chat. I do not know if the ladies were invited to "call again," but am quite sure that Miss Anthony's parting salutation was an "au revoir." There was some quiet by-play as the audience dispersed, a little interchange of knowing nods and condescending smiles, as if to say, "we can keep these absurd pretensions at bay while we live, and after us the deluge." I have no doubt that to some persons it appears an extravagant joke for women to aspire to political equality with the negro. King George thought it a very good joke when his upstart colonists steeped their tea in the salt water of Boston harbor, but the laugh was on their side in the long run. History has no precedents for the elevation of woman to a civic status, but we are making precedents every day in our conduct of popular government. In Athens—where woman was both worshiped and degraded—the protectress of the city was a feminine ideal whose glorious image crowned the Parthenon with consummate beauty. In America, where woman is beloved and respected as nowhere else in the world—if she is only true to the ideals of private and public virtue—if she seeks power only as a means for the highest good of the race, the old fable of the Pellas Athenæ may become real, and the nation acknowledge with grateful joy, that the fathers "builded better than they knew," when they placed the figure of a woman on the dome of their Capitol at Washington.
The hearing wrapped up around noon, followed by friendly handshakes and nice conversation. I'm not sure if the ladies were told to "stop by again," but I'm pretty confident that Miss Anthony's farewell was an "au revoir." There were some quiet exchanges as the audience dispersed, a few knowing nods and patronizing smiles, as if to say, "we can keep these ridiculous pretensions at bay while we live, and after us, who cares." I have no doubt that for some people it seems ridiculous for women to aim for political equality with black individuals. King George thought it was a hilarious joke when his rebellious colonists dumped their tea in Boston Harbor, but in the end, the joke was on him. History doesn’t have examples of women being granted civic status, but we are creating new examples every day through our practice of democracy. In Athens—where women were both honored and oppressed—the protector of the city was a feminine ideal whose beautiful image adorned the Parthenon. In America, where women are cherished and respected like nowhere else in the world—if they remain true to the ideals of personal and public virtue—if they seek power solely as a means for the greater good of humanity, the old story of the Pallas Athena could become reality, and the nation could joyfully recognize that the founders "built better than they knew" when they placed a woman’s figure on the dome of the Capitol in Washington.
The second Washington Convention assembled at 10 o'clock, January 19th, 1870, in Lincoln Hall. Mrs. Stanton called the assemblage to order and invited the Rev. Samuel J. May to open the convention with prayer. Letters were read from John Stuart Mill, Robert Purvis, Clara Barton, and others. Miss Barton appealed to her soldier friends in behalf of woman's right of suffrage thus:
The second Washington Convention started at 10 a.m. on January 19, 1870, in Lincoln Hall. Mrs. Stanton called the meeting to order and invited Rev. Samuel J. May to open the convention with a prayer. Letters were read from John Stuart Mill, Robert Purvis, Clara Barton, and others. Miss Barton appealed to her soldier friends for support of women's right to vote like this:
Brothers, when you were weak, and I was strong, I toiled for you. Now you are strong, and I am weak because of my work for you, I ask your aid. I ask the ballot for myself and my sex, and as I stood by you, I pray you stand by me and mine.
Brothers, when you were weak, and I was strong, I worked hard for you. Now you are strong, and I am weak because of my efforts for you. I ask for your support. I ask for the vote for myself and my gender, and just as I stood by you, I pray you stand by me and mine.
Mr. Purvis closed his eloquent letter with these sentiments:
Mr. Purvis ended his eloquent letter with these thoughts:
Censured as I may be for apparent inconsistency, as a member and an officer of the American Anti-Slavery Society, in approving a movement whose leaders are opposed to the passage of the XV. Amendment, I must be true to my own soul, to my sense of the absolute demands of justice, and hence, I say that, much as I desire (and Heaven knows how deeply through life I have antagonized therefor) the possession of all my rights as an American citizen, were I a woman, black or white, I would resist, by every feeling of self-respect and personal dignity, any and every encroachment of power, every act of tyranny (for such they will be), based upon the impious, false, and infamous assumption of superiority of sex.
I might be criticized for seeming inconsistent as a member and officer of the American Anti-Slavery Society for supporting a movement led by people who oppose the passage of the XV Amendment, but I have to stay true to myself and my understanding of justice. So, I say this: no matter how much I want (and believe me, I have fought hard for) all my rights as an American citizen, if I were a woman, whether Black or white, I would stand against any violation of my self-respect and dignity. I would resist every abuse of power and any act of tyranny (because that’s what they are) that comes from the outrageous, false, and shameful belief in the superiority of one gender over another.
Mr. Sinclair Toucey, of New York, wrote a letter in which he said:
Mr. Sinclair Toucey from New York wrote a letter in which he said:
The argument of to-day against the legal and political equality of the sexes carries one back to the days of pro-slavery ascendency, and brings vividly to mind the old wail of the non-humanity of the negro, and his lack of capacity for civilizing improvements: and though the opponents of equal rights for both sexes do not go quite so far as to deny the humanity of women, yet one might believe they would, did not such a denial involve their own status.... In a feeble manner I fought the old pro-slavery dogma, and in a feeble manner I am trying to fight its twin—the non-equality of the sexes.... I believe in the brotherhood of man, regardless of sex, color, or birth-place, and that every member of the great family is entitled to equal rights in life's ceaseless struggles.
The argument today against the legal and political equality of the sexes takes us back to the times when pro-slavery views dominated, reminding us of the old claims about the non-humanity of Black people and their supposed inability to progress. While those against equal rights for both genders might not go so far as to deny women's humanity, one might think they would if it didn't threaten their own standing. I weakly fought against the old pro-slavery beliefs, and I’m now weakly battling its counterpart—the inequality of the sexes. I believe in the brotherhood of all people, regardless of gender, color, or where they were born, and that everyone in this vast family deserves equal rights in life’s ongoing struggles.
Mr. Mill's letter was as follows:
Mr. Mill's letter was as follows:
Avignon, France, Dec. 11, 1869.
Avignon, France, Dec. 11, 1869.
Dear Madam: I should have reason to be ashamed of myself if your name were unknown to me. I am not likely to forget one who stood in the front rank of the woman's rights movement in its small beginnings, and helped it forward so vigorously in its early and most difficult stages. You and Mrs. Mott have well deserved to live to see the cause in its present prosperity, and may now fairly hope to see a commencement of victory in some of the States at least. I have received many kind and cordial invitations to visit the United States, and were I able, the great convention to which you invite me would certainly be a strong inducement to do so. My dislike to a sea voyage would not of itself prevent me, if there were not a greater obstacle—want of time. I have many things to do yet, before I die, and some months (it is not worth while going to America for less) is a great deal to give at my time of life, especially as it would not, like ordinary traveling, be a time of mental rest, but something very different. I regret my inability the less, as the friends of the cause in America are quite able to dispense with direct personal co-operation from England. The really important co-operation is the encouragement we give one another by the success of each in our own country. For Great Britain this success is much greater than appears on the surface, for our people, as you know, shrink much more timidly than Americans from attracting public notice to themselves; and the era of great public meetings on this subject has not arrived in our country, though it may be near at hand. I need hardly say how much I am gratified at the mode in which my name was mentioned in the National Convention at Newport, and still more at the tribute to the memory of my dear wife, who from early youth was devoted to this cause, and had done invaluable service to it as the inspirer and instructor of others, even before writing the essay so deservedly eulogized in your resolutions. To her I owe the far greater part of whatever I have myself been able to do for the cause, for though from my boyhood I was a convinced adherent of it, on the ground of justice, it was she who taught me to understand the less obvious bearings of the subject, and its close connection with all the great moral and social interests of the cause. I am, dear madam, very sincerely yours,
Dear Madam: I would feel embarrassed if I didn’t know your name. I’m not likely to forget someone who was at the forefront of the women’s rights movement in its early days and worked hard to push it forward during its toughest times. You and Mrs. Mott truly deserve to see the progress the cause has made now, and you can reasonably hope to witness some victories in various states at least. I’ve received many warm and friendly invitations to visit the United States, and if I could, the big convention you’re inviting me to would definitely motivate me to come. My dislike for sea travel wouldn’t by itself stop me, if not for a bigger issue—lack of time. I still have many things to accomplish before I pass away, and spending several months (it’s not worth going to America for any less) is a lot to give at my age, especially since it wouldn’t be a normal time of relaxation, but rather something quite the opposite. I regret my inability less, as the friends of the cause in America can manage without direct personal support from England. The real important support comes from the encouragement we offer each other through our successes in our respective countries. For Great Britain, this success is much greater than it seems on the surface, as our people, as you know, tend to shy away from drawing public attention to themselves more than Americans do; and the time for large public meetings on this topic hasn’t yet come in our country, although it may be on the horizon. I hardly need to say how pleased I was by the way my name was mentioned at the National Convention in Newport, and even more so by the tribute to my dear wife, who dedicated her life to this cause from a young age and provided invaluable service by inspiring and educating others, even before she wrote the essay that was so rightly praised in your resolutions. To her, I owe most of what I have been able to do for the cause, because even though I was a passionate supporter from my childhood on the basis of justice, she was the one who helped me understand the less obvious aspects of the issue and its close connection to all major moral and social interests. I am, dear madam, very sincerely yours,
J. S. Mill.
J. S. Mill.
To Mrs. Paulina W. Davis.
To Mrs. Paulina W. Davis.
Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, was introduced and made some very appropriate remarks:
Senator Pomeroy from Kansas was introduced and gave some very fitting remarks:
He said he was no new convert to this idea of woman's right to suffrage. Woman claims the right to vote, not because she is a woman, and stronger or weaker than man, but because she is a citizen, amenable to the laws and under the control of the government. He did not propose to vote to simply give woman the franchise, but to remove the obstacles that now forbid the exercise of that right. He welcomed to this organization every earnest worker, and he was glad to hear that they were stirring up the elements. He had been waiting for the last two months for petitions, but he thought the franchise would never be secured to any class until it was imbedded in the constitution, and put beyond the freaks of politicians and majorities[Pg 420] in State Legislatures. He was in favor of carrying the movement into the fundamental law of the land. The negro's hour is passed, and it is woman's hour now. The negro has had his day, his cause has triumphed, and as woman is a citizen, and we need her ballot in the government, I hope that this movement may have a triumphant success.
He said he wasn’t a newcomer to the idea of women’s right to vote. Women claim the right to vote not because they are women, nor because they are stronger or weaker than men, but because they are citizens who must follow the laws and are under the authority of the government. He didn’t plan to vote just to give women the right to vote, but to remove the barriers that currently prevent them from exercising that right. He welcomed every dedicated worker to this organization and was pleased to see them rallying support. He had been waiting for petitions for the past two months, but he believed that voting rights would never be guaranteed to any group until it was embedded in the constitution, making it immune to the whims of politicians and majorities in state legislatures. He supported taking the movement to the fundamental laws of the country. The time for the negro has passed; now it’s the time for women. The negro has had his moment, and his cause has succeeded. Since women are citizens and we need their votes in government, he hoped this movement would achieve resounding success.
Committees[128] were appointed. Mrs. Wright of Auburn, N. Y., stated that her sister, Lucretia Mott, had charged her with a message to the Convention, she sent her "God speed" to the movement, and regretted that she could not be present.
Committees[128] were formed. Mrs. Wright from Auburn, N.Y., said that her sister, Lucretia Mott, had asked her to convey a message to the Convention. She sent her "best wishes" for the movement and expressed her regret for not being able to attend.
Paulina W. Davis read an interesting history of the woman's rights movement, giving a brief sketch of its leaders. Miss Anthony introduced a series of resolutions,[129] which were laid on the table for debate.
Paulina W. Davis read an engaging history of the women's rights movement, providing a quick overview of its leaders. Miss Anthony introduced a set of resolutions,[129] which were set aside for discussion.
Mrs. M. Gage, Secretary of the Suffrage Association of New York, addressed the Convention. She thought the world had never yet seen what woman could do, because she had never been given the opportunity. The ballot is the symbol of a higher power than a king's crown; it is the promise of justice to him who holds it. John Bright said no oppression, however hoary headed, could stand the voice of the people.
Mrs. M. Gage, Secretary of the Suffrage Association of New York, spoke at the Convention. She believed the world has never truly seen what women can achieve because they haven’t been given the chance. The ballot represents a greater power than a king's crown; it's a promise of justice to whoever possesses it. John Bright stated that no oppression, no matter how old, could withstand the people's voice.
Mrs. Susan Edson, of Washington, desired to have the Committee on Resolutions urge upon Congress the passage of the bill now before it, providing for the reorganization of the Treasury Department, but opposing that section of the bill which fixes the salary of the female employees lower than that of the men. She thought this was a proper subject for the convention to discuss.
Mrs. Susan Edson, from Washington, wanted the Committee on Resolutions to encourage Congress to pass the bill currently under consideration that aims to reorganize the Treasury Department, but she opposed the part of the bill that sets the salaries of female employees lower than those of male employees. She believed this was an important issue for the convention to discuss.
At the evening session Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing occupied the chair.
At the evening session, Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing was in charge.
Hon. James M. Scovill, of New Jersey, said:—I believe in heroism. Grant won with the sword at Appomattox what Charles Sumner contended for half a century—an idea. That idea is the liberty of all, limited by the like liberty of each. To-night we are here to bow to conscience, not to caste. Susan B. Anthony, the heroine of the hour, sustained by such brave souls as crowd this platform, who for the last twenty years have worked without fear and[Pg 421] without reproach, deserves the thanks of millions yet to be, for she is the hero, the champion of the same idea for which Abraham Lincoln and half a million soldiers died. The emancipation of man was the proposition. The enfranchisement of woman was not the corollary to that proposition, but the major premise.
Hon. James M. Scovill, from New Jersey, said:—I believe in heroism. Grant achieved at Appomattox what Charles Sumner fought for over fifty years—an idea. That idea is the freedom of everyone, balanced by the equal freedom of each individual. Tonight, we are here to honor conscience, not social status. Susan B. Anthony, the hero of the moment, supported by brave individuals gathered on this platform, who have worked fearlessly and[Pg 421] with integrity for the past twenty years, deserves the gratitude of millions yet to come, for she is the hero, the champion of the same idea for which Abraham Lincoln and half a million soldiers sacrificed their lives. The liberation of humanity was the proposal. The empowerment of women was not just a result of that proposal, but the fundamental premise.
John Stuart Mill, in his great book, "The Subjection of Women," denies the superior mental capacity of man when compared with woman. The nineteenth century don't yield a blind assent to such bosh as Tennyson's, "Woman is the lesser man." It would not do for Madame de Stael to assert (for alas! it was too true then—for the first Napoleon never read Rochefort's "Marseillaise") that man could conquer, but woman must submit to public opinion. To-day Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Anna E. Dickinson take public opinion by storm, because they use the everlasting logic of human rights. Woman has power enough whenever fidelity, or truth, or genius are worshiped. She wants authority. The will of the nation says, "She shall have it and that speedily." We want and demand that Congress shall make a loud "amen" to this clearly expressed will of the nation. The civil rights bill did little good until you armed the African with the ballot. Then the old master touched his hat to the new citizen—his old slave. And why? Because he was a power in the land. It is only Godlike to use power for humanity; and that is the way we propose to use it. Congress must hear us—shall hear us—because we speak in the voice of the people. And I speak to you as a man, yes, and as a lawyer, when I tell you your boasted amendments are the small dust of the balance till the XVI. is written. Then we will have a country, never again clasping the Bible with the handcuffs of slavery, but a land where we, men and women alike, can worship a common God, before whom there is neither Jew nor Greek, "white male" nor female, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free.
John Stuart Mill, in his important book, "The Subjection of Women," challenges the idea that men are mentally superior to women. The nineteenth century doesn't accept blindly the ridiculous notion expressed by Tennyson that "Woman is the lesser man." It wouldn't have been right for Madame de Stael to claim (and sadly, it was true at that time, since the first Napoleon never read Rochefort's "Marseillaise") that men could conquer while women had to conform to public opinion. Today, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Anna E. Dickinson are changing public opinion because they use the timeless principles of human rights. Women have enough power whenever loyalty, truth, or talent are celebrated. They want authority. The will of the nation says, "They shall have it, and quickly." We want and demand that Congress loudly affirm this clear expression of the nation’s will. The civil rights bill did little good until African Americans were given the vote. Then the old master tipped his hat to the new citizen—his former slave. And why? Because he became a force to be reckoned with. It is only noble to use power for the benefit of humanity; and that is how we plan to wield it. Congress must listen to us—will listen to us—because we speak with the voice of the people. And I speak to you as a man, yes, and as a lawyer, when I say that your proud amendments mean nothing until the XVI is enacted. Then we will have a country that no longer clutches the Bible with the handcuffs of slavery, but a land where we, both men and women, can worship a common God, before whom there is neither Jew nor Greek, "white male" nor female, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free.
Mrs. Wilbour remarked that she was fully aware of the truth that humanity was a unit. She knew the day was coming when a woman would be considered the equal of man. No disabilities to vote or hold office should exist in a free country on account of sex or color. She was anxious to know by what authority the word "male" had been placed in the constitution, which governed woman as well as man. Woman's rights were natural rights—nothing more or less. She claimed the right of self-rule or self-government as a natural right. Men were united in saying, "We have the right to vote." She was not present to be an advocate of woman's rights, whatever they may be, but of human rights. The largest giant had no more rights than Tom Thumb. It was brain, not force, that governed the world. A small hand was able to discharge a musket, guide an engine, or edit a paper as well as a large one. The womanly in nature should be expressed by woman, the manly by man; the two were distinct, and could not be blended together without spoiling the harmony of the whole. Society had to be governed by the sacred right of self-government. How could a woman be responsible for her deeds to God if somebody had control over her conscience?
Mrs. Wilbour noted that she fully understood the truth that humanity is one. She recognized that the day would come when a woman would be seen as equal to a man. No barriers to voting or holding office should exist in a free country due to sex or race. She was keen to understand by what authority the word "male" was included in the constitution, which governed both women and men. Women's rights were natural rights—nothing more, nothing less. She asserted the right to self-rule or self-government as a natural right. Men consistently declared, "We have the right to vote." She was not there to advocate for women's rights, however they might be defined, but for human rights. The largest giant had no more rights than Tom Thumb. It was intellect, not force, that governed the world. A small hand could fire a musket, operate a machine, or edit a newspaper just as effectively as a larger one. The feminine aspect of nature should be expressed by women, the masculine by men; the two were distinct and could not be mixed without disrupting the harmony of the whole. Society needed to be governed by the sacred right of self-government. How could a woman be accountable for her actions to God if someone else controlled her conscience?
Mr. Albert G. Riddle believed that the question of universal franchise would be tried before the grand tribunal of the world, and, if not victorious, it would appeal and appeal again. The question ought to be met squarely by the "masculines" as well as by the women. He was an earnest advocate[Pg 422] of woman's rights, because he claimed the same rights for his daughters as for his sons; he wanted for them the same atmosphere, the same public opinion, the same prestige. Women were often heard to exclaim, "I wish I were a man." This elucidates how keenly they feel their position. Mr. Riddle spoke at length in favor of universal rights, and his logical arguments attracted the admiration of all who heard him.
Mr. Albert G. Riddle believed that the issue of universal suffrage would be addressed on a global scale, and if it didn’t succeed at first, it would keep coming back for more attention. This issue needed to be faced directly by men as well as women. He was a passionate supporter[Pg 422] of women's rights because he wanted the same opportunities for his daughters as for his sons; he wanted them to enjoy the same environment, the same public perception, and the same respect. Women often expressed, "I wish I were a man," highlighting how deeply they feel about their situation. Mr. Riddle spoke extensively in favor of universal rights, and his logical arguments garnered the admiration of everyone who listened.
Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing stated that the city clergy had evinced a disinclination to attend the convention, as they could not see any justification for the same in Divine revelation. She read a letter from Bishop Simpson, in which he wished the convention God-speed.
Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing said that the city clergy seemed uninterested in attending the convention because they couldn’t find any justification for it in Divine revelation. She read a letter from Bishop Simpson, in which he wished the convention good luck.
Senator Pomeroy said he was in favor of the XVI. Amendment, and he thought the best place in the world to try the experiment was in the District of Columbia. They had tried negro suffrage in the District, and it had proved a success and a benefit. There were plenty of offices in the city that could be filled by capable and now idle young ladies, which were at present filled by men weighing two hundred pounds, who were able to do a day's work but now received large salaries for little labor.
Senator Pomeroy stated that he supported the XVI Amendment, believing that the best place to test it out was in the District of Columbia. They had already experienced black suffrage in the District, and it had been successful and beneficial. There were many positions in the city that capable, currently unemployed young women could fill, which were currently occupied by men weighing two hundred pounds who could do a full day's work but were receiving high salaries for minimal effort.
Rev. Samuel J. May proposed to test the ladies present as to their ideas of suffrage. He asked that every lady in the house who desired the ballot should hold up her hand. A few ladies responded.
Rev. Samuel J. May wanted to gauge the opinions of the women present about suffrage. He asked all the women in the room who wanted the right to vote to raise their hands. A few women responded.
Mrs. Stanton stated that Mr. May had adopted a very bad manner of submitting the question. She would, therefore, reconsider the vote, and ask all ladies who opposed the XVI. Amendment to rise from their seats, and those in favor to retain them. About sixteen ladies arose, amidst great mirth and laughter.
Mrs. Stanton said that Mr. May had a really inappropriate way of bringing up the question. She would, therefore, think again about the vote and ask all the women who were against the XVI. Amendment to stand up, while those in support should stay seated. About sixteen women stood up, accompanied by a lot of laughter and amusement.
The Chair then announced that the meeting had expressed itself largely in favor of female suffrage.
The Chair then announced that the meeting had largely expressed support for women's voting rights.
Madam Anneke, a German lady, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, stated that, being a foreigner, allowance should be made for her defective pronunciation. If she could not speak the English language, she could speak the language of the heart. She came from the West, burdened heavily with petitions, signed by one thousand residents of the State of Wisconsin. She would appeal to her countrymen, Carl Schurz and Finkelnburg, to assist in this last struggle for universal liberty.
Madam Anneke, a German woman from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, mentioned that, as a foreigner, her imperfect pronunciation should be taken into account. Even if she couldn't speak English perfectly, she could communicate the language of the heart. She came from the West, carrying many petitions signed by one thousand residents of Wisconsin. She aimed to ask her fellow countrymen, Carl Schurz and Finkelnburg, for help in this final fight for universal freedom.
The Rev. Olympia Brown addressed herself particularly to that small minority of ladies who had expressed themselves opposed to the XVI. Amendment. She admired their independence of character, for it showed they were the kind of women that the friends of woman suffrage wished to win over to their cause. She thought them honest in their opinions, but prejudiced. It required strong minds to combat against the common enemy—prejudice. They may think they do not require this right, as they might be blessed with comfortable homes, and be satisfied with the condition they were in. A change might come—even to them, but if it did not, ought they not to pity other women whose situation was less comfortable than their own? She alluded to the idle lives of young women, to which they were condemned by the customs of society, and said Christianity demanded a useful life from every woman as well as every man. This cause is the cause of the civilized world, and will go on till the ballot is in the hands of every American woman.[Pg 423]
The Rev. Olympia Brown specifically addressed that small group of women who were against the XVI. Amendment. She admired their strong character because it showed they were the type of women that supporters of women’s suffrage wanted to win over. She believed they were sincere in their views, but biased. It takes strong minds to fight against the real enemy—prejudice. They might believe they don’t need this right, as they might have comfortable homes and be content with their current situation. Change could come—even to them—but if it doesn’t, shouldn’t they feel for other women whose lives are less comfortable? She mentioned the idle lives of young women, which society’s norms imposed on them, and stated that Christianity expects every woman, just like every man, to lead a meaningful life. This cause is a global issue and will continue until every American woman has the right to vote.[Pg 423]
Mr. Stillman, of R. I., had no doubt that the result of this agitation would be to secure the universal franchise of all women. Women would be admitted to all colleges of the land, and to the study of the arts and sciences.
Mr. Stillman, of R. I., was confident that the outcome of this movement would be to guarantee the right to vote for all women. Women would be allowed to attend all colleges across the country and pursue studies in the arts and sciences.
Miss Anthony said that Senator Pomeroy's being here to advocate woman suffrage, might be attributed to the fact that he had a constituency to sustain him. Let the people of other States make as strong an expression as Kansas, and their representatives would quickly find their places here too. She wanted women to emigrate to Wyoming and make a model State of it by sending a woman Senator to the National capitol. She would go there, if she had time, but her mission was in the States until this great reform was accomplished. She desired women to become members of the National organization, and to pay their dollar, or twenty-five, or twenty-five hundred dollars. She requested the Finance Committee to take their pencils and paper, and canvass the hall for membership and money, commencing at the door, so as to catch every fugitive. She invited all ladies who visit New York to call at the Woman's Bureau, and her own sanctum, the editorial rooms of The Revolution.
Miss Anthony mentioned that Senator Pomeroy's presence here to support women's suffrage might be because he had a constituency backing him. If people in other states expressed their support as strongly as Kansas did, their representatives would soon find their way here as well. She urged women to move to Wyoming and turn it into a model state by sending a woman senator to the national capital. She would go there if she had the time, but her focus was on the states until this significant reform was achieved. She wanted women to join the national organization and contribute their dollar, or twenty-five, or even twenty-five hundred dollars. She asked the Finance Committee to grab their pens and paper and survey the hall for membership and donations, starting at the entrance to catch everyone. She encouraged all women visiting New York to stop by the Woman's Bureau and her own room, the editorial offices of The Revolution.
At the second evening session, letters[130] were read from Senators Ross, of Kansas, and Carpenter, of Wisconsin.
At the second evening session, letters[130] were read from Senators Ross of Kansas and Carpenter of Wisconsin.
Miss Jennie Collins, of Lowell, Mass., addressed the meeting in a speech of some length, which was broken by frequent applause. She came to plead the cause of the working women, her associates. She knew the dignity of the kitchen, many of whose occupants were the daughters of refined and wealthy parents. If these girls could tell their story to the ladies of Washington, they would not rest till Congress had conceded to them their rights. The sufferings of the factory girls could hardly be described; poor wages for hard labor, in dirty rooms, shut out from bright sunshine, with dreary homes, were but part of their misery. With a love of the ennobling and beautiful, a natural taste for reading and study, many of them were led astray from the path of virtue by the artifices of men, often the sons of their own employers, and nothing was done to prevent their fall.
Miss Jennie Collins, from Lowell, Mass., spoke at the meeting for an extended time, frequently interrupted by applause. She was there to advocate for the rights of working women, her peers. She understood the dignity of kitchen work, many of whose workers were daughters of well-to-do and cultured families. If these girls could share their stories with the women of Washington, they wouldn't stop until Congress granted them their rights. The struggles of the factory girls were almost indescribable; they faced low pay for tough work in grimy rooms, deprived of sunlight, with bleak home lives contributing to their suffering. With a love for the uplifting and beautiful, and a natural desire for reading and learning, many of them were led astray from virtue through the schemes of men, often the sons of their own employers, and nothing was done to stop their downfall.
The President announced that so great was the interest evinced, that a third day's session had been arranged.
The President announced that the interest shown was so great that a third day of sessions had been scheduled.
Third Day—Morning.—Among the large and fashionable audience present were the Governor of Wyoming Territory, many Senators and Members of Congress, as well as other distinguished persons. Mrs. Griffing read an interesting letter from Mrs. Frances D. Gage:
Third Day—Morning.—Among the large and stylish crowd present were the Governor of Wyoming Territory, several Senators and Members of Congress, along with other notable individuals. Mrs. Griffing read an intriguing letter from Mrs. Frances D. Gage:
More than one-half of the "people," are to-day without the right of franchise, and can exert no power in the government, and have no voice in electing its representatives. They have no voice in making the laws under which they live. If they commit offenses they are punished the same as voters. If they have property it is taxed precisely the same and for the same purposes as is the property of the voter. Government money and lands and revenues are appropriated for schools, colleges, and institutions of learning by the voters for their own use, while the non-voters are debarred all rights and privileges in the same. And it may be said that the disfranchised "have no rights that the enfranchised are bound to respect." ... A government that fails to execute its own laws and mocks at its own enactments, can not be respected by its people. We therefore demand that our representatives "shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government;" that the right of suffrage be guaranteed to all persons of sound mind and adult years, without regard to race, color, or sex.
More than half of the population today doesn't have the right to vote, which means they have no power in the government and no voice in choosing its representatives. They can't participate in making the laws that govern them. If they break the law, they're punished just like those who can vote. If they own property, it's taxed exactly the same way and for the same reasons as the property of voters. Government funds and resources for schools, colleges, and other educational institutions are allocated by voters for their own benefit, while non-voters are denied any rights or privileges in this process. It's often said that the disenfranchised "have no rights that the enfranchised are bound to respect." A government that doesn't enforce its own laws and disregards its own rules cannot earn the respect of its citizens. Therefore, we demand that our representatives "shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government" and that the right to vote be guaranteed to all individuals of sound mind and of legal age, regardless of race, color, or gender.
Frances D. Gage.
Frances D. Gage.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
Rev. Samuel J. May said this movement was the most radical one ever proposed to the civilized world. America had suffered severely because it had violated the rights of 4,000,000 people. If the rights of 15,000,000 were much longer violated, severer suffering still would be induced.
Rev. Samuel J. May stated that this movement was the most extreme one ever suggested to the civilized world. America had endured significant consequences for violating the rights of 4,000,000 people. If the rights of 15,000,000 continued to be violated for much longer, even greater suffering would result.
Charlotte B. Wilbour said: In demanding suffrage for women we are not making any innovation on political principles, but only attempting to restore the broken connection between practice and profession. A steady, constant, palpable ignoring of the application of great truths, like the claim of woman's rights, and the equality of all before the law, begets a reckless manner of assertion, an illogical application of premises, and thence a sort of organic dishonesty of mind which is carried into practice almost unconsciously. Every subject of a government who has not a voice in its conduct is openly degraded, and must be something more or less than human not to show it in the conduct of his life. We demand the ballot for women in the name of that very domesticity which is urged against it, of that home whose peace has always been more marred by passive servility and masculine authority than by any over-assertion of individuality, on the part of the so-called partner.
Charlotte B. Wilbour said: By demanding the right to vote for women, we aren’t introducing new political ideas but simply trying to reconnect practice with principle. A consistent, deliberate ignoring of significant truths, like women’s rights and equality before the law, leads to a careless attitude towards assertions, an illogical use of arguments, and ultimately a kind of mental dishonesty that people often carry into their actions without even realizing it. Anyone who is part of a government but lacks a voice in its decisions is openly degraded and must be somewhat less than human to not show this in their behavior. We demand the vote for women in the name of the very domesticity that is used against it, of that home whose peace has always been disrupted more by passive submission and male authority than by any excessive assertion of individuality from the so-called partner.
Speeches were also made by Mr. Hinton of Washington, and Miss Phoebe Couzins.
Speeches were also given by Mr. Hinton from Washington, and Miss Phoebe Couzins.
Miss Anthony called upon Senator Sherman, of Ohio, to address the meeting, who expressed himself highly pleased with the convention to which he only came as a listener. The following letters were then read:
Miss Anthony invited Senator Sherman from Ohio to speak at the meeting, and he shared that he was really impressed with the convention, which he attended just as an observer. The following letters were then read:
Syracuse, January 18, 1870.
Syracuse, January 18, 1870.
Mrs. M. J. Gage—Dear Friend: I doubt not this meeting will urge emphatically upon Congress the duty of striking the word "male" from the suffrage bill for the District of Columbia. It is a gross injustice, a shame that such a term should be in any legal paper defining citizenship in any civilized State, especially a shame that it should stand in a bill touching suffrage, in what ought to be the model District, the choice sample ground of wise and just government for the model republic. Let an indignant protest and admonition go up in regard to this matter from your convention, that Congress shall not dare to disregard.[Pg 425] I trust also that the convention will urge upon Congress the eminent fitness and duty of passing without delay the XVI. Amendment, and submitting the same to the Legislatures of the several States for ratification.
Mrs. M. J. Gage—Dear Friend: I’m sure this meeting will strongly encourage Congress to remove the word "male" from the voting rights bill for the District of Columbia. It's a serious injustice, a shame that such a term exists in any legal document defining citizenship in any civilized state, especially a disgrace that it appears in a bill regarding voting rights in what should be the model district, the prime example of fair and just governance for the model republic. Let there be an urgent protest and reminder from your convention that Congress cannot afford to ignore.[Pg 425] I also hope that the convention will press Congress to swiftly pass the XVI. Amendment and submit it to the state legislatures for ratification.
The world is moving to-day in the direction of the abolition of all monopolies of privilege and that of equal and exact justice and fair play to all classes. Woman now has the floor; the hour has struck for her. Wyoming and Colorado are already setting example for the older communities. Let the preaching of this faith in effective ways, its benign and thorough working, begin at Jerusalem, at the Capitol of the nation, and may your convention urge the work to immediate undertaking, aye, and completion then, at home.
The world is progressing today towards the elimination of all monopolies and the establishment of equal and fair justice for everyone. Women now have the spotlight; their time has come. Wyoming and Colorado are already leading the way for the older communities. Let the promotion of this belief in impactful ways, its positive and thorough implementation, begin in Jerusalem, at the Capitol of the nation, and may your convention encourage the work to start right away, and even see it through to completion at home.
Chas. D. B. Mills.
Chas. D. B. Mills.
Yours truly,
Yours truly,
Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., Jan. 17, 1870.
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Jan. 17, 1870.
Mrs. M. Joslyn Gage—Dear Madam: I beg you to be assured that I heartily sympathize with all well directed efforts to secure to woman equality before the law. Whatever can be done to give her a fair and equal chance with man, is due to her, and no effort of mine shall be wanting to secure so desirable a consummation.
Mrs. M. Joslyn Gage—Dear Madam: I want you to know that I genuinely support all effective efforts to achieve equality for women under the law. Everything that can be done to ensure she has the same fair opportunities as men is warranted, and I will do everything I can to help make this important goal a reality.
Homer B. Sprague.
Homer B. Sprague.
Very respectfully yours,
Very respectfully yours,
Mrs. Helen Taylor, of London, after expressing the wish that she might be with us, says:
Mrs. Helen Taylor from London, after expressing her desire to be with us, says:
It is a great delight to hear of the numerous societies, in various countries, working well and vigorously for that justice which for so long has been denied to women. The time can not be far distant now, when we shall attain the right of expressing our opinion by giving a vote.
It’s really exciting to hear about the many organizations in different countries actively working for the justice that women have been denied for so long. The time isn't far off now when we will have the right to express our opinions by voting.
Letters joining in the demand for a XVI. Amendment were received from E. H. G. Clarke, of Troy, N. Y.; S. D. Dillaye, of Syracuse; Martha B. Dickinson, Sarah Pugh, Mrs. E. K. Pugh, Abby Kimber, of Philadelphia; Mrs. Mary J. O'Donovan-Rossa, and Hon. Jacob H. Ela. The following extracts from private letters of Mrs. Hooker show somewhat the spirit of the occasion.
Letters advocating for a XVI Amendment were received from E. H. G. Clarke, of Troy, N.Y.; S.D. Dillaye, of Syracuse; Martha B. Dickinson, Sarah Pugh, Mrs. E. K. Pugh, and Abby Kimber, of Philadelphia; Mrs. Mary J. O'Donovan-Rossa, and Hon. Jacob H. Ela. The following excerpts from private letters of Mrs. Hooker reflect the spirit of the occasion.
Washington, January 19, 1870.
Washington, January 19, 1870.
I have just come from a good meeting; just such a house as we had at Hartford the mornings of our Convention. Senator Pomeroy spoke admirably, and carried every one with him. Then came Olympia Brown, and nothing could have been better than her speech and the effect of it on the audience, which, by the way, was earnest and intelligent. But Madam Anneke, the German patriot who fought with her husband and slept beside her horse in the field, carried the day over everyone else. It was fairly overwhelming to hear her English, so surcharged with feeling, yet so exact in the choice of words, and the burden of it all was that the trials of the battle-field were as naught compared to this inward struggle of her soul toward liberty for woman. Her presence, gestures, oratory, were simply magnificent.
I just came from a great meeting; it was just like the one we had in Hartford during our Convention mornings. Senator Pomeroy spoke wonderfully and won everyone over. Then Olympia Brown spoke, and her speech was fantastic, really resonating with the audience, which, by the way, was sincere and smart. But Madam Anneke, the German patriot who fought alongside her husband and slept by her horse in the field, stole the show. It was truly moving to hear her speak in English, so filled with emotion yet so precise in her word choice. The core of her message was that the hardships of the battlefield were nothing compared to the inner struggle she faced for women's freedom. Her presence, gestures, and speaking ability were simply stunning.
Mrs. F., of Cincinnati, who lives here now, came to me this morning with great warmth, saying she had brought two Senators' wives who were opposed, and they said a few more such women as Olympia Brown would convert them. She has promised to bring them to our reception at the Arlington this evening.
Mrs. F., from Cincinnati, who lives here now, came to me this morning with great enthusiasm, saying she had brought two Senators' wives who were against us, and they mentioned that a few more women like Olympia Brown would change their minds. She has promised to bring them to our reception at the Arlington this evening.
Jan. 20.—We have had to hold a three days' meeting, interest grew so fast. Yesterday morning Lincoln Hall jammed, even aisles full. I never heard better speaking in my life, not a disturbance in the audience, not a jar on the platform, all loving, tender, earnest. Olympia Brown is wonderful; she talked Christ and His Gospel just I should have done with her voice and practice; can't enlarge, but she surely is a remarkable woman. We are to have a hearing by a committee from both Houses on Saturday, and Senator Pomeroy will present a bill for suffrage in the District of Columbia next week, and would not be much surprised if it were carried at once—does not really expect that—but Senator Trumbull, Chairman of Judiciary, says he shall vote for it, and so do many others in both Houses. Mrs. Pomeroy received yesterday afternoon, and to my surprise, nearly all her callers had been at the Convention—at least three hundred young ladies were in the[Pg 426] hall, they said, and all spoke with perfect respect of the movement—many seemed in sympathy with it.
Jan. 20.—We had a three-day meeting because interest grew so quickly. Yesterday morning, Lincoln Hall was packed, even the aisles were full. I’ve never heard better speeches in my life—no disruptions in the audience, no issues on the platform, just love, warmth, and sincerity. Olympia Brown is amazing; she spoke about Christ and His Gospel as I would have, with her voice and skills. I can't go into detail, but she's definitely a remarkable woman. We’re scheduled for a hearing by a committee from both Houses on Saturday, and Senator Pomeroy will introduce a bill for suffrage in the District of Columbia next week. I wouldn't be surprised if it passed right away—he doesn’t really expect that—but Senator Trumbull, the Chairman of Judiciary, says he’ll vote for it, and many others in both Houses feel the same. Mrs. Pomeroy held a reception yesterday afternoon, and to my surprise, almost all her guests had been at the Convention—at least three hundred young ladies were in the [Pg 426] hall, they said, and all spoke with great respect for the movement—many seemed to support it.
Jan. 21, two o'clock.—Just from the Committee Room, and too full to write. Mrs. Stanton standing at the head of the long table (Committee all round the table, Sumner so attentive as to fix my eyes upon him with intense interest, watching changes of expression) read a magnificent argument. Mrs. Davis and Miss Anthony followed, and then sitting in my chair, I made a five minutes' talk on my favorite point—personal responsibility God's only method in human affairs. Then questions from various gentlemen and conversation all round the room for two hours. The large room was full of gentlemen and ladies, and there were congratulations without stint, but Sumner, grandest of all, approaching Mrs. Stanton and myself, said in a deep voice, really full of emotion, "I have been in this place, ladies, for twenty years; I have followed or led in every movement toward liberty and enfranchisement; but I have it to say to you now, that I never attended such a committee meeting as this in my life, it exceeds all that I have ever witnessed."
Jan. 21, two o'clock.—Just came from the Committee Room, and I'm too excited to write. Mrs. Stanton was at the head of the long table (the Committee around the table, with Sumner so focused that it caught my attention as I watched his expressions) delivered an amazing argument. Mrs. Davis and Miss Anthony spoke next, and then sitting in my chair, I gave a five-minute talk on my favorite topic—personal responsibility is God’s only way in human affairs. Then there were questions from various gentlemen and discussions all around the room for two hours. The large room was packed with both men and women, and there were endless congratulations, but Sumner, the most impressive of all, approached Mrs. Stanton and me and said in a deep voice, genuinely filled with emotion, "I have been in this place, ladies, for twenty years; I have either followed or led every movement for liberty and enfranchisement; but I must tell you now that I've never attended a committee meeting like this in my life, it surpasses everything I’ve ever witnessed."
Mrs. Howland was there, and excited to her highest eloquence in speech; with flushed cheeks she said to me, "If only that scene could have been photographed—it was the grandest one of history—the first time that woman has ever appeared in halls of legislation—women often, but woman never before." I have sent her home to write a letter for the Courant, and I hope she will make it out; she has promised to try. Senator Pomeroy counts thirteen Senators ready to vote for us now, but I can not attempt to do justice to the situation.
Mrs. Howland was there, expressing her excitement with great passion. With flushed cheeks, she said to me, "If only that scene could have been captured in a photograph—it was the most impressive moment in history—the first time that woman has ever appeared in legislative halls—women have often been present, but woman has never been before." I've sent her home to write a letter for the Courant, and I hope she manages to do it; she has promised to try. Senator Pomeroy counts thirteen Senators who are ready to vote for us now, but I can’t fully convey how significant the situation is.
The Revolution of March 24, 1870, gives the following call for the May Anniversary of the National Woman's Suffrage Association, which held its regular annual meeting in Irving Hall, New York, May 10th and 11th:
The Revolution of March 24, 1870, issues the following invitation for the May Anniversary of the National Woman's Suffrage Association, which held its annual meeting at Irving Hall, New York, on May 10th and 11th:
The various woman suffrage associations throughout this country and the Old World are invited to send delegates to the Convention, prepared to report the progress of our movement in their respective localities. And, in order that this annual meeting may be the expression of the whole people, we ask all friends of woman suffrage to consider themselves personally invited to attend and take part in its discussions. With the political rights of woman secured in the Territories of Utah and Wyoming—with the agitation of the question in the various State Legislatures, with the proposition to strike the word "male" from the State Constitution of Vermont—with New York, New England, and the great West well organized, we are confident that our leading political parties will soon see that their own interest and the highest interests of the country require them to recognize our claim.
The various women's suffrage organizations across the country and around the world are invited to send delegates to the Convention, ready to share updates on the progress of our movement in their areas. To ensure that this annual meeting represents the entire populace, we encourage all supporters of women's suffrage to feel personally invited to attend and participate in the discussions. With women's political rights established in the Territories of Utah and Wyoming, the ongoing conversations in various State Legislatures, the proposal to remove the word "male" from the Vermont State Constitution, and with New York, New England, and the great West well organized, we are confident that our leading political parties will soon realize that their own interests and the greater interests of the country require them to acknowledge our demands.
The Executive Committee recommend the friends of woman suffrage, everywhere, to concentrate their efforts upon the work of securing a XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution that shall prohibit the States from disfranchising any of their citizens on account of sex.
The Executive Committee advises supporters of women's suffrage everywhere to focus their efforts on getting a XVI Amendment to the Federal Constitution that will prevent States from disenfranchising any citizens based on their sex.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, President.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, President.
Ernestine L. Rose, Chairman Executive Committee.
Charlotte B. Wilbour, Corresponding Secretary,Ernestine L. Rose, Chair of the Executive Committee.
Charlotte B. Wilbour, Corresponding Secretary,151 East 51st Street, New York.
151 East 51st Street, New York.
The Convention was eventually held in Apollo Hall, the owners of Irving Hall annulling their contract when they learned that colored people were not only to be admitted to the audience, but welcomed to the platform as speakers. The Rev. Phebe Hanaford opened the meeting with prayer, Mrs. Charlotte Wilbour read the call, and announced the various committees, Miss Anthony reported the work done during the past year; excellent addresses were made by the many able speakers present, and strong resolutions were discussed and adopted.
The Convention eventually took place in Apollo Hall after the owners of Irving Hall canceled their contract upon discovering that people of color would not only be allowed in the audience but also welcomed as speakers. Rev. Phebe Hanaford opened the meeting with a prayer, Mrs. Charlotte Wilbour read the agenda and introduced the different committees, and Miss Anthony reported on the work accomplished in the past year. Many talented speakers gave excellent addresses, and powerful resolutions were discussed and adopted.
It was during this convention that a proposition was made, that as the American Association had chosen Henry Ward Beecher for President, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony should resign their offices for a season, and place some popular man at the head of the National Society. They readily assented, hoping thereby to heal the division so distracting to friends in every State, and unite all the forces in a grand Union Association. Theodore Tilton, editor of the Independent, was chosen for the position. He and Mr. Beecher exchanged amicable letters, and a meeting of pacification[132] was held at the Fifth Avenue hotel where both sides were fairly represented. Complimentary greetings were exchanged, but nothing was gained.
It was during this convention that a suggestion was made, proposing that since the American Association had chosen Henry Ward Beecher as President, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony should step down temporarily and place a well-liked man at the head of the National Society. They agreed, hoping this would mend the division that was causing turmoil for friends in every State and unite all the efforts into a grand Union Association. Theodore Tilton, editor of the Independent, was selected for the role. He and Mr. Beecher exchanged friendly letters, and a meeting for reconciliation[132] was held at the Fifth Avenue hotel where both sides were fairly represented. Friendly greetings were exchanged, but nothing was accomplished.
The one wise step in this episode was the meeting of the National Woman Suffrage Association: in Washington, January, 1871, as usual under its long-tried leaders, as if no mistaken policy had been suggested or considered. Emerson says the power of the human mind is shown in its ability to recover after a blunder. The Association showed its real strength in taking up again and carrying forward its grand National work.
The one smart move in this situation was the meeting of the National Woman Suffrage Association in Washington in January 1871, as always led by its experienced leaders, as if no wrong decisions had ever been made or thought about. Emerson says the strength of the human mind is demonstrated in its ability to bounce back after a mistake. The Association displayed its true strength by re-engaging and advancing its important national work.
THE SECOND DECADE CELEBRATION.
At half past ten o'clock Friday morning October 19, 1870, the twentieth anniversary convention assembled in Apollo Hall, New[Pg 428] York. A large number of the life-long friends were on the platform and a fine audience in attendance. Mrs. Stanton called the meeting to order and read the call.[133] She said, after due consultation the committee had decided that as Mrs. Davis had called the first National Convention twenty years ago, and presided over its deliberations, it was peculiarly fitting that she should preside over this also. A motion was made and seconded to that effect, and unanimously adopted. On taking the chair Mrs. Davis gave the following resumé of the Woman's Rights movement:
At 10:30 AM on Friday, October 19, 1870, the twentieth anniversary convention gathered in Apollo Hall, New[Pg 428] York. Many lifelong friends were on the platform and there was a great audience present. Mrs. Stanton called the meeting to order and read the agenda.[133] She mentioned that after consulting with the committee, they agreed it was especially fitting for Mrs. Davis, who had called the first National Convention twenty years ago and led its discussions, to preside over this one as well. A motion was made and seconded to this effect, and it was unanimously adopted. Upon taking the chair, Mrs. Davis provided the following overview of the Woman's Rights movement:
In assembling to review the past twenty years, it is a fitting question to ask if there has been progress; or has this universal radical reform, which was then declared, been like reformations in religion, but a substitution of a new error for an old one; or, like physical revolutions, but a rebellion? Has this work, intended from its inception to change the structure of the central organization of society, failed and become a monument of buried hopes? Have we come together after twenty years, bowed with a profound grief over the wreck and debris of the battle unwon, or to rejoice over what has been attained, and mark out work for the next decade?
As we come together to look back on the past twenty years, it's a relevant question to ask if we've made any real progress; or has this sweeping reform, which was declared back then, turned out to be like religious reformations, merely swapping one error for another? Or, like physical revolutions, is it just a form of rebellion? Has this effort, meant from the start to change the core structure of our society, ultimately failed and become a testament to lost hopes? Have we gathered after twenty years, weighed down by deep sorrow over the unachieved outcome, or to celebrate what we've accomplished and plan for the next decade?
We answer, in many things we have failed, for we believed and hoped beyond the possible; but reviewing the past we have only cause for rejoicing—for thanksgiving to God—and for courage in the future. We affirmed a principle, an adjustment of measures to the exigencies of the times, a profound expediency true to the highest principles of rights, and to-day we reiterate the axiom with which we started, that "They who would be free, themselves must strike the blow," believing it as imperative as when the[Pg 429] first woman took it up, and applied it to her needs; and it must be kept as steadily before the eye, for not yet can we rest on our privileges gained.
We acknowledge that we've fallen short in many ways because we believed and hoped beyond what's possible. However, looking back, we find only reasons to celebrate, to thank God, and to have courage for the future. We established a principle, adjusting our actions to the needs of the times, staying true to the highest rights. Today, we reaffirm the idea we started with: "Those who want to be free must take action themselves." We believe this is just as important now as it was when the[Pg 429] first woman took up the cause and made it relevant to her situation. We must keep this in mind because we still can't rest on the privileges we've gained.
Women are still frivolous; the slaves of prejudice, passion, folly, fashion, and petty ambitions, and so they will remain till the shackles, both social and political, are broken, and they are held responsible beings—accountable to God alone. Not till then can it be known what untold wealth lies buried in womanhood—"how many mute, inglorious Miltons." Men are still conceited, arrogant, and usurping, dwarfing their own manhood by a false position toward one half the human race.
Women are still seen as frivolous; they are slaves to prejudice, emotions, foolishness, trends, and small ambitions, and this will continue until both social and political constraints are lifted, allowing them to be recognized as responsible individuals—answerable only to God. Only then will we discover the incredible potential hidden within womanhood—"how many silent, unrecognized Miltons." Men are still conceited, arrogant, and dominating, diminishing their own masculinity by adopting a false stance towards half of humanity.
In commencing this work we knew that we were attacking the strongholds of prejudice, but truth could no longer be suppressed, nor principles hidden. It must be ours to strike the bottom line. We believed it would take a generation to clear away the rubbish, to uproot the theories of ages, to overthrow customs, which at some period of the world's history had their significance.
In starting this work, we knew we were challenging deep-seated prejudices, but the truth could no longer be ignored, nor could important principles remain concealed. It was our duty to get to the heart of the matter. We believed it would take a generation to clear away the nonsense, to dismantle outdated theories, and to overturn customs that had once held significance in history.
We proclaimed that our work was to reform, reconstruct, and harmonize society; not to lay waste her homes and her sanctuaries. A few only have been found brave enough to do more than touch the fringe work that circles round the vortex which is heaving and surging with social pollutions, which might well make angels stand appalled; but should the occasion come in this country, the pure women of our nation will rise, as the women of England are now doing, resisting a legislation which degrades womanhood to the lowest depths. We proclaimed a peaceful revolution; for we abhorred then as now the atrocities of war, hence our demand for a participation in government, that we might bring a new element into it to restrain and purify it. Says a French lady in a private letter received a few days since, "Oh, is it not time that women come? Is it not because we have no voice in public affairs that Europe is on fire now? Men are true brutes. Pride, injustice, and cruelty are their most remarkable qualities. What can free us from their laws so unjust?" This is the sad, passionate utterance of a French woman now in the hour of her country's peril. What better proof that women love peace more than glory, than in the Empress Eugenie's course,—She would have no force used to uphold her power. "She would rather be pitied than hated."
We declared that our mission was to reform, rebuild, and harmonize society, not to destroy its homes and sanctuaries. Only a few have been brave enough to do more than just touch the surface of the deep issues swirling with social problems that could leave even angels shocked. But if the moment arises in this country, the honorable women of our nation will rise up, just like the women of England are doing now, resisting laws that degrade womanhood to its lowest point. We called for a peaceful revolution, as we detest the horrors of war, hence our demand for a role in government so we could introduce a new element to restrain and purify it. A French woman wrote in a private letter I received a few days ago, "Oh, isn’t it time for women to step up? Isn’t it because we lack a voice in public matters that Europe is burning now? Men are truly brutish. Pride, injustice, and cruelty are their most notable traits. What can free us from their unjust laws?" This is the sorrowful, passionate expression of a French woman during her country's crisis. What better evidence is there that women cherish peace over glory than the path chosen by Empress Eugenie—she would rather be pitied than hated.
Frances Wright, a noble Scotchwoman, early sought to make herself thoroughly acquainted with the nature of our institutions, and the genius of our government. She determined to try the experiment of organized labor with negroes. Purchasing two thousand acres of land on the Bluffs, now known as Memphis, Tenn., she took a number of families, with fifteen able-bodied men, and, giving them their freedom, organized her work. Prostrated by illness, she was compelled to yield her personal supervision, and thus her attempt to civilize those people failed, and they were finally sent to Hayti.
Frances Wright, a noble Scottish woman, sought to understand our institutions and the nature of our government. She decided to try organized labor with Black people. Purchasing two thousand acres of land on the Bluffs, now known as Memphis, Tennessee, she brought in several families, along with fifteen able-bodied men, and, after giving them their freedom, organized their work. Unfortunately, due to illness, she had to give up her personal supervision, and her effort to help these individuals ultimately failed, leading to them being sent to Haiti.
She then commenced lecturing on the nature and object of the "American Political Institutions." She gave also a course of Historical and Political Lectures; and another course on the Nature of Knowledge, Free Inquiry, Divisions of Knowledge, Religion, Morals, Opinions, Existing Evils and a Reply to the Traducers of the French Reformers. No other person was at that time prepared so well to defend them as she was, from her having been[Pg 430] in part educated in General Lafayette's family. In all those lectures she showed the low estimate of woman, and her inferior education.
She then started giving a lecture series on the nature and purpose of "American Political Institutions." She also taught a course on Historical and Political Lectures, and another one about the Nature of Knowledge, Free Inquiry, Divisions of Knowledge, Religion, Morals, Opinions, Existing Evils, and a Reply to the Critics of the French Reformers. At that time, no one was better prepared to defend them than she was, having been[Pg 430] partly educated in General Lafayette's family. Throughout those lectures, she highlighted the low regard for women and their inferior education.
To this heroic woman, who left ease, elegance, a high social circle of rich culture, and with true self-abnegation gave her life, in the country of her adoption, to the teaching of her highest idea of truth, it is fitting that we pay a tribute of just, though late, respect. Her writings are of the purest and noblest character, and whatever there is of error in them is easily thrown aside. The spider sucks poison from the same flower from which the bee gathers honey; let us therefore ask if the evil be not in ourselves before we condemn others. Pharisaism, then as now, was ready to stone the prophet of freedom. She bore the calumny, reproach and persecution to which she was subjected for the truth, as calmly as Socrates. Looking down from the serene heights of her philosophy she pitied and endured the scoffs and jeers of the multitude, and fearlessly continued to utter her rebukes against oppression, ignorance and bigotry. Women joined in the hue and cry against her, little thinking that men were building the gallows and making them the executioners. Women have crucified in all ages the redeemers of their own sex, and men mock them with the fact. It is time now that we trample beneath our feet this ignoble public sentiment which men have made for us; and if others are to be crucified before we can be redeemed, let men do the cruel, cowardly work; but let us learn to hedge womanhood round with generous, protecting love and care. Then men will learn, as they should, that this system of traducing women is no longer to be used as a means for their subjugation. Let us learn to demand that all men who come into our presence be as pure as they claim that woman should be. Let the test be applied which Christ gave, that if any is without sin in word, or deed, or thought, he shall "cast the first stone." ...
To this brave woman, who left behind comfort, grace, a high society filled with rich culture, and selflessly dedicated her life, in the country that embraced her, to teaching her highest ideals of truth, it's appropriate that we pay a tribute of just, though overdue, respect. Her writings are of the purest and most noble quality, and any mistakes in them can easily be dismissed. The spider siphons poison from the same flower that the bee gathers honey from; let's therefore examine whether the fault lies within us before we judge others. Pharisee-like behavior, then as now, was ready to condemn the prophet of freedom. She faced the slander, criticism, and persecution for her truth with the same calmness as Socrates. From the lofty heights of her philosophy, she empathized with and endured the mockery and scorn of the masses, and boldly continued to call out oppression, ignorance, and bigotry. Women joined in the outcry against her, not realizing that men were building the gallows and making them the executioners. Throughout history, women have condemned the redeemers of their own gender, while men scoff at this fact. It is time we stomp out this shameful public sentiment that men have crafted for us; and if others must suffer before we can be saved, let men do the cruel, cowardly work; but let us learn to surround womanhood with generous, protective love and care. Then men will understand, as they should, that this system of vilifying women will no longer be tolerated as a means of their control. Let's learn to insist that all men who come before us be as pure as they claim women should be. Let us apply the test given by Christ, that if anyone is without sin in word, deed, or thought, they should "cast the first stone."
When the war ended and National reconstruction commenced, women, feeling an equal interest in having the work rightly done, presented their petitions for the right of suffrage, but were coolly told by those who were most eager to enfranchise the negro, "stand aside and wait, it is the black man's hour." The sacrifice of their sons on the altar of freedom was not counted to them as anything. Their years of toil and weary watching in camp and hospital were not to be put in the scale with the black man's, who fought for his own freedom. Such wrong and injustice is bearing its fruits, in the confusion of the councils of the Republican party. Like the French of 1848, they refused to deal justly with the mothers of the nation, and are now reaping a bitter reward. They dared to suppress the petitions of thousands of women, and now disintegration has begun; the handwriting is seen on the wall. Thus injustice has done its work, and thousands of women have been roused by it to protest who had never before given any thought to public affairs.
When the war ended and national reconstruction began, women, feeling equally invested in getting things right, submitted their petitions for the right to vote, but were told coolly by those most eager to give rights to Black people, "stand aside and wait, it’s the Black man's time." The sacrifice of their sons for freedom didn’t count to them at all. Their years of hard work and long hours spent in camps and hospitals didn’t compare to the efforts of the Black man who was fighting for his own freedom. This wrong and injustice is showing its consequences in the confusion within the Republican party. Like the French in 1848, they failed to treat the mothers of the nation fairly and are now facing a bitter outcome. They dared to ignore the petitions of thousands of women, and now disintegration has started; the signs are clear. Thus, injustice has done its part, and thousands of women who never paid attention to public matters are now protesting.
The National Convention, held in the Church of the Puritans, after the war, was one of intense interest, and marked an era in this movement. The demand for suffrage became paramount—the only one with many. Mrs. Stanton, in 1867, went before the Judiciary Committee of the New York Legislature, asking universal suffrage to be recognized by the Constitutional Convention which was to be held. About this time a bill was before a Committee of the Legislature, the purport of which was to legalize prostitution[Pg 431] Reading this bill in the presence of the Committee, her quick mind comprehended all its horrors at a glance, and she tried the test of asking each man if he would be willing that that law should be applied to his daughter, his sister, or any one dear to him. Self-ism answered "No." "Then, gentlemen," said she, "legislate for the poorer daughters of the State as you would for your own." All that winter she battled against that hideous system, which would legalize the foulest of sins, and to her efforts, mainly, the delay of passing that law is due. She made a clear exposition of that cruel, corrupt, one-sided legislation, which subjects woman to the grossest indignities, while men are benefited and allowed safe and unlimited license. To her lectures, also, is due a healthier tone of public sentiment on the marriage question. It is slowly beginning to be felt that in that relation there is a vast amount of legalized prostitution.
The National Convention, held in the Church of the Puritans after the war, was highly significant and marked an important period in this movement. The push for suffrage became the top priority for many. In 1867, Mrs. Stanton addressed the Judiciary Committee of the New York Legislature, asking for universal suffrage to be recognized by the upcoming Constitutional Convention. Around the same time, there was a bill being considered by a Committee of the Legislature that aimed to legalize prostitution[Pg 431]. After reading this bill in front of the Committee, she quickly grasped all its horrors and asked each man if he would support that law being applied to his daughter, sister, or anyone he cared about. The answer was a clear "No." "Then, gentlemen," she said, "legislate for the poorer daughters of the State as you would for your own." Throughout that winter, she fought against that awful system that sought to legalize the worst sins, and her efforts were primarily responsible for delaying the passage of that law. She clearly explained the cruel, corrupt, and biased legislation that subjected women to the worst indignities, while men benefited and were given safe and unlimited freedom. Her lectures also contributed to a healthier public sentiment regarding marriage. It is slowly starting to become recognized that there is a significant amount of legalized prostitution within that relationship.
In 1867 an extensive lecturing tour through Kansas was made by Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony, Rev. Olympia Brown, Henry Blackwell, and Lucy Stone. The proposition of striking the words "white male" from the Constitution had been submitted to the people, and the result of the campaign was one third the vote of the State in favor of both propositions. Of Miss Brown, now preaching in New England, we can not forbear saying we have few in our ranks more earnest, honest, or devoted. A clear, incisive intellect, a true heart and firm purpose mark her every day life. She is unobtrusive and gentle, but always ready at the call of duty. On this campaign they were joined by a new worker, George Francis Train, whether for good or ill it will be for history to decide. Certain it is, that a new impulse was given to the cause, and The Revolution established, with Susan B. Anthony as proprietor, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Parker Pillsbury as editors, has done a great work. It has been hated, abused, slandered, misquoted, and garbled; nevertheless, it has been a terror to evil doers, and a help to those who would do well. Others, thinking to do better, have started monthly and weekly papers....
In 1867, Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony, Rev. Olympia Brown, Henry Blackwell, and Lucy Stone did a large speaking tour across Kansas. The idea of removing the words "white male" from the Constitution had been presented to the public, and the outcome of the campaign showed one-third of the state's votes supported both ideas. About Miss Brown, who is now preaching in New England, we must say there are few in our group who are more passionate, honest, or dedicated. She has a clear, sharp mind, a genuine heart, and a strong sense of purpose in her daily life. She's humble and kind, but always ready to respond when called to action. During this campaign, they were joined by a new supporter, George Francis Train—whether his contribution was beneficial or harmful will be determined by history. What is certain is that a fresh drive was injected into the cause, and The Revolution, with Susan B. Anthony as the owner and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Parker Pillsbury as editors, has accomplished a significant amount of work. It has been disliked, attacked, misrepresented, quoted out of context, and distorted; yet, it has been a nightmare for wrongdoers and a support for those striving to do the right thing. Others, believing they could improve things, have launched their own monthly and weekly publications....
In May, 1869, at the annual meeting of the Equal Rights Society, which had been three years in existence, a change of name was proposed. Notice was given to that effect, and at a large meeting, in which nineteen States were represented, the National Woman Suffrage Society was formed, which has done most efficient service, holding conventions in many of our large cities, and awakening thought and action. In Saratoga and Newport a new class was reached. Wearied with the monotony of fashionable dissipation and the driveling idiocy of flirtations, women were glad to hear a few sensible, wholesome truths.
In May 1869, during the annual meeting of the Equal Rights Society, which had been around for three years, a name change was suggested. A notice was given about this, and at a large meeting with representatives from nineteen states, the National Woman Suffrage Society was formed. This organization has been incredibly effective, holding conventions in many major cities and inspiring thought and action. In Saratoga and Newport, a new audience was reached. Tired of the repetitive cycle of trendy socializing and pointless flirtations, women were eager to hear some sensible, refreshing truths.
In December, 1869, an able report was received from Mrs. Kate N. Doggett, one of the six delegates to the Labor Convention, in Berlin. In the spring of 1869 a fresh impulse was given to the work in the establishment of the Woman's Bureau, by Mrs. Elizabeth B. Phelps. Its discontinuance was due to the same cause which has thwarted so many plans of women. There were not a sufficient number possessed of wealth who had the will to render this a permanent institution. Mrs. Phelps possesses in an eminent degree all the requisites for such a post—a queenly hospitality, elegant manners, fine conversational ability, with a generous catholic spirit. Delicacy forbids saying all that the heart prompts of friends.... In November, 1869, a delegate[Pg 432] convention was held in Cleveland, Ohio, and a society organized, called the American Woman's Suffrage Society. Its work is yet to be done. The crowning act of 1869, and the one which gave an omen for the year that was approaching, was the enfranchising of the women of Wyoming and Utah. For these acts of justice we are most grateful. A correspondent says:
In December 1869, an excellent report was received from Mrs. Kate N. Doggett, one of the six delegates to the Labor Convention in Berlin. In the spring of 1869, a new push was made toward creating the Woman's Bureau, led by Mrs. Elizabeth B. Phelps. Its closure was due to the same issue that has hindered many initiatives led by women: not enough wealthy individuals were willing to support it as a permanent institution. Mrs. Phelps has all the necessary qualities for such a role—regal hospitality, graceful manners, great conversational skills, and a broad-minded spirit. It’s delicate to mention everything the heart wants to say about friends... In November 1869, a delegate[Pg 432] convention was held in Cleveland, Ohio, and a society called the American Woman's Suffrage Society was formed. Its work is still ahead of us. The highlight of 1869, which foreshadowed the coming year, was the granting of voting rights to the women of Wyoming and Utah. We are very grateful for these acts of justice. A correspondent says:
The cause of woman in Wyoming goes bravely on. At the last sitting of the District Court in Albany County, both the Grand and Petit Juries were equally composed of either sex; and Chief-Justice Howe, presiding, took advantage of this occasion to compliment, in the highest terms, the intelligence, discrimination, honesty, and propriety of the conduct with which the women acquitted themselves last session, saying they had gone far to vindicate the policy, justify the experiment, and realize the expectations of those who had clothed themselves with the right. The bar, the bench, and the intelligent men of the country had long felt that something was needed to improve and justify our jury system; something to lift it above prejudice and passion, and imbue it with a higher regard for law, justice, oath, and conscience. His Honor then expressed the opinion that the introduction of the new element furnished good reason to expect that to women we should ultimately be indebted for those reforms which the unaided exertions of men had been incompetent to effect.
The cause of women in Wyoming continues to move forward. At the last session of the District Court in Albany County, both the Grand and Petit Juries were made up of members of both sexes; and Chief Justice Howe, who was presiding, took this opportunity to praise, in the highest terms, the intelligence, discernment, honesty, and conduct of the women during the last session, stating that they had done much to validate the policy, justify the experiment, and meet the expectations of those who had been given the right. The legal community, including judges and knowledgeable men across the country, had long recognized that there was a need to improve and legitimize our jury system; something to elevate it beyond bias and emotion, and instill a greater respect for law, justice, oaths, and conscience. His Honor then expressed the belief that the inclusion of this new element provided good reason to expect that we would ultimately owe those reforms to women, which men's efforts alone had been unable to achieve.
This is certainly a most flattering presentment of the results of enfranchising the sex in Wyoming, and what is better, it seems substantially a just one. The question will therefore naturally suggest itself, if women, in their new political capacity, are thus able to "tone" the rude elements of Western civilization, what inconsistency is there in granting them like privileges in communities whose superior refinement is so much less likely to expose them to insult or mortification? In Utah it is of less account, because the women there are under a hierarchy, and as yet vote only as directed.
This is definitely a very flattering representation of the results of giving women the vote in Wyoming, and what's even better, it seems fairly accurate. The question naturally arises: if women, in their new political role, can help improve the rough aspects of Western society, what’s the reasoning behind denying them the same rights in communities where the culture is much less likely to subject them to disrespect or humiliation? In Utah, it matters less because the women there are under a hierarchy and currently only vote as instructed.
In January, 1870, a convention was called in Washington by the officers of the National Society. This meeting, large in attendance and deeply earnest, marked an historical era, the influence of which can not be estimated. A hearing before the joint committee of the House and Senate of the District was asked, in order to present the question of woman suffrage, and granted. Elizabeth Cady Stanton made the argument in favor of enfranchising women of the District of Columbia. It was clear, incisive, and cogent; divested of all sentiment, and condensed into a twenty-minutes' speech. It was very impressive. Susan B. Anthony, Madam Anneke, and others made a few pertinent remarks. At the close of the hearing, Hon. Charles Sumner said: "In my twenty years' experience in the Senate of the United States, I have never witnessed so fine a hearing as this one, so large an attendance, and such respectful attention." Thus begins the national history of this great reform—a fitting opening for 1870.
In January 1870, a convention was held in Washington by the officers of the National Society. This meeting, with a large turnout and a serious tone, marked a significant historical moment whose impact is immeasurable. A hearing before the joint committee of the House and Senate of the District was requested to discuss the issue of women's suffrage, and it was granted. Elizabeth Cady Stanton made a compelling argument for granting voting rights to women in the District of Columbia. It was clear, direct, and persuasive; stripped of emotion, it was condensed into a twenty-minute speech. It was very powerful. Susan B. Anthony, Madam Anneke, and others contributed a few relevant comments. At the end of the hearing, Hon. Charles Sumner remarked, "In my twenty years' experience in the Senate of the United States, I have never witnessed such a fine hearing as this one, so large an attendance, and such respectful attention." Thus begins the national history of this significant reform—a fitting start for 1870.
The work, not only in this country, but in Europe, was greatly accelerated by the publication of John Stuart Mill's inestimable book, "The Subjection of Woman," which has been extensively circulated in a cheap form in this country, and has been translated and reprinted in France, Prussia, and Russia. The first National Woman Suffrage Convention was held in London, July, 1869, at which Members of Parliament, professors of science—noble men and noble women, still more ennobled by this great work—took active part, and now women have the right of suffrage there in the municipal elections. The bill was introduced by Mr. Jacob Bright, and, says Prof. Fawcett: "In one night it passed beyond ridicule, so ably and calmly was it presented,[Pg 433] and in less than one year it is a fixed fact." How stands the comparison, Aristocratic England and Democratic America? The Crown Princesses of Prussia and Italy are strong advocates of this movement, while women, who pay taxes in Austria and Russia, vote and have a voice in making laws. Will America hold on to her barbarism in this, as she did to chattel slavery, till all the nations of the earth cry out against her wrong to womanhood?...
The work, not only in this country but also in Europe, was greatly sped up by the release of John Stuart Mill's invaluable book, "The Subjection of Woman," which has been widely distributed in an affordable version here and has been translated and reprinted in France, Prussia, and Russia. The first National Woman Suffrage Convention took place in London in July 1869, where Members of Parliament, science professors—noble men and women, even more dignified by this significant work—actively participated, and now women have the right to vote in municipal elections there. The bill was introduced by Mr. Jacob Bright, and, according to Prof. Fawcett: "In one night it moved beyond ridicule, so skillfully and calmly was it presented,[Pg 433] and in less than a year it became a reality." How does the comparison stand, Aristocratic England and Democratic America? The Crown Princesses of Prussia and Italy are strong supporters of this movement, while women in Austria and Russia, who pay taxes, vote and have a say in making laws. Will America cling to its backwardness in this area, just as it did with chattel slavery, until all the nations of the world cry out against its injustice to women?...
A few of the earlier women who came to this work should be named here. Martha C. Wright, sister of Lucretia Mott, of Auburn, has presided in most of the New York State Conventions, and in some of the National, and her pen has always been sharpened in ready defense of the cause and its leaders. A woman of rare good sense and large sympathies, she is always to be trusted in emergencies. Sarah Helen Whitman was the first literary woman of reputation who gave her name to the cause, and her interest has never lessened, though ill health has prevented any work. Alice Cary for years gave her heartiest sympathy to the movement, and socially she and her sister Phoebe have awakened an interest in a large circle not easily penetrated by outside influences. Her story, never completed, the "Born Thrall," published in The Revolution, gave evidence of thought, experience, and deep feeling. The songs of the sisters have a new sweet sadness, now that Alice is singing hers on the other side of the river of life. Grace Greenwood has done good service with her fluent pen and voice through the press and on the platform. Mary L. Booth, with her rich culture and her unsurpassed practical ability, her skill as a translator of Martin's great History of France, and numberless other works, has given aid to the cause with her pen, one of the best in the country. As an editor she has done great service by showing that a woman can work as earnestly and persistently at a closely confining business as a man, and can hold for years a place at the head of a profession so difficult and so arduous.
A few of the early women who contributed to this cause should be mentioned here. Martha C. Wright, sister of Lucretia Mott from Auburn, has chaired most of the New York State Conventions and some National ones, and she has always been quick to defend the cause and its leaders. A woman of remarkable common sense and deep compassion, she can always be relied on in emergencies. Sarah Helen Whitman was the first well-known literary woman to support the cause, and her interest has never waned, although her ill health has kept her from doing any active work. For years, Alice Cary provided her wholehearted support to the movement, and socially, she and her sister Phoebe sparked interest in a broad circle that’s usually hard to reach from outside. Her unfinished story, "Born Thrall," published in The Revolution, showed her thoughtfulness, experience, and deep emotions. The songs of the sisters now carry a new, bittersweet resonance since Alice is singing hers on the other side of life's river. Grace Greenwood has made valuable contributions with her eloquent writing and speaking through the media and on stage. Mary L. Booth, with her extensive education and unmatched practical skills, her talent as a translator of Martin's great History of France, and countless other works, has supported the cause with her writing, one of the best in the country. As an editor, she has proven that a woman can work just as diligently and persistently in a demanding field as a man, and can maintain a top position in such a challenging and tough profession for years.
As physicians, many women have won not only fame, but wealth. The names are too many for our limits. A few only who have taken an active interest in the principles which we have been urging can be given. Dr. Mercy B. Jackson, Dr. Ann Preston, and Dr. Clemence Lozier are some of the names which stand out conspicuously.
As doctors, many women have gained not just recognition, but also financial success. There are too many names to list here. We can mention just a few who have actively engaged with the principles we've been advocating. Dr. Mercy B. Jackson, Dr. Ann Preston, and Dr. Clemence Lozier are some prominent examples.
The government appointments within the last two years have been a matter of great rejoicing. Many responsible offices are held by women in different localities. There are 1,400 postmistresses, some of them of first-class offices. The one in Richmond, Va., is considered a model office, held by Miss Rachel Van Lew.
The government appointments over the past two years have been a cause for celebration. Many important positions are held by women across various areas. There are 1,400 postmistresses, some in first-class offices. The one in Richmond, VA, is seen as a model office, managed by Miss Rachel Van Lew.
Ten years ago a young girl sprang, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter, fully armed, into the moral and political arena, and has stirred the heart of the Nation as no other speaker ever did. Anna E. Dickinson has never feared to utter the boldest truths, has never shrunk from, or withheld the most scathing rebukes of sin in high places, has never faltered or failed in principle, and yet is to-day a far more popular lecturer than those who have pandered to a corrupt, vitiated public taste. Does this not prove that the deep heart of the people is better than it has the credit of being.
Ten years ago, a young girl emerged, like Minerva from Jupiter's head, fully prepared, into the moral and political landscape, and has inspired the Nation like no other speaker has. Anna E. Dickinson has never been afraid to speak the boldest truths, has never shied away from, or held back the most biting criticisms of wrongdoing among the powerful, has never wavered or compromised her principles, and yet today she is a far more popular speaker than those who have catered to a corrupt and degraded public taste. Doesn't this show that the true heart of the people is better than it's given credit for?
About the same time Theodore Tilton threw into the scale his brilliant and varied talents, and the Independent, of which he was editor, was found on the side of freedom for all. Judge Samuel E. Sewall, always on the right side[Pg 434] in every good work, published, in 1868, a digest of the laws of Massachusetts in relation to woman's disabilities, which has done good work. Later, Prof. Hickox prepared one of like character for Connecticut, which is enough to rouse the women of that State to white heat.
Around the same time, Theodore Tilton brought his impressive and diverse talents to the table, and the Independent, where he served as editor, supported freedom for everyone. Judge Samuel E. Sewall, always on the right side[Pg 434] of every good cause, published a summary of Massachusetts laws regarding women's disabilities in 1868, which has been quite effective. Later, Prof. Hickox created a similar document for Connecticut, which is enough to ignite the passion of the women in that state.
Within the last two years of the second decade many new speakers have appeared on our platform. Standing first is Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, a woman of rare powers of oratory. Possessing a magnetism which grasps and holds her audience whether they will or no, she is a special pleader, and if her logic is not always perfect it is most effective, for she has the power of unlocking the hearts of her hearers. She has made within the last two years extensive lecturing tours in the North and West, and verging toward the South. Mrs. Julia Ward Howe came in November, 1868, and laid her rich gifts on the altar of freedom, and has often been heard in conventions, and twice or thrice before the Legislature of Massachusetts. Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker, from the family of ministers, also came about this time with her ready available talents. Phoebe Couzins and Lilie Peckham, alike generous, enthusiastic, cultured, and above all of high-toned principles, lead a strong band of young workers. Charlotte B. Wilbour, gifted in a high degree, calm in judgment and steady in purpose, is always a tower of strength. Celia Burleigh, graceful, poetic and earnest, is equally at home on the platform or in the drawing-room, and Lillie Devereux Blake is always ready with pen or voice. Myra Bradwell, with her legal knowledge, is another to be grateful for; and with pride the names of Elizabeth O. Willard, Catherine B. Waite, and Elizabeth Boynton are recorded as having given their rare gifts to this work. We gladly pay tribute to James W. Stillman, of Rhode Island, who has given most generously of time, money, and, above all, talents, to this cause, and that, at a time when ridicule and even the sacrifice of position followed. His logical argument on the inherent right of self-government has done great service.
Within the last two years of the second decade, many new speakers have joined our platform. First up is Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, a woman with outstanding oratory skills. She has a magnetism that captures her audience, whether they want to be captivated or not. She is an impassioned advocate, and while her logic might not always be flawless, it is incredibly effective because she has a knack for connecting with her listeners emotionally. Over the past two years, she has conducted extensive speaking tours in the North and West, and is now heading toward the South. Mrs. Julia Ward Howe visited in November 1868 and offered her remarkable talents to the cause of freedom; she has frequently spoken at conventions and has addressed the Massachusetts Legislature two or three times. Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker, hailing from a family of ministers, also joined around this time with her readily available talents. Phoebe Couzins and Lilie Peckham, both generous, enthusiastic, cultured, and, above all, principled, lead a strong group of young activists. Charlotte B. Wilbour, who is highly gifted, wise in judgment, and steadfast in purpose, is always a source of strength. Celia Burleigh, graceful, poetic, and sincere, is equally comfortable on stage or in social settings, and Lillie Devereux Blake is always prepared to contribute, whether with her writing or her voice. Myra Bradwell, with her legal expertise, is another person to be thankful for, and with pride, we acknowledge the contributions of Elizabeth O. Willard, Catherine B. Waite, and Elizabeth Boynton, who have all shared their exceptional talents with this work. We happily acknowledge James W. Stillman from Rhode Island, who has generously given his time, money, and, most importantly, his talents to this cause, even when facing ridicule and potential loss of status. His logical arguments on the fundamental right to self-government have been incredibly valuable.
Looking back over the names of our co-workers, those of Hannah Tracy Cutler, and Frances D. Gage, and Jane Elizabeth M. Jones are widely honored. Another of this class is Josephine S. Griffing, a woman of rare endowments intellectually, with a heart as true and gentle as God ever gave to woman. Modest, almost to a fault, she is the unseen power that moves the machinery in the very heart of the nation; asking no recognition, no applause, she works on with a steady, systematic, careful earnestness which commands the respect of the best and wisest.
Looking back at the names of our colleagues, Hannah Tracy Cutler, Frances D. Gage, and Jane Elizabeth M. Jones are highly respected. Another person in this group is Josephine S. Griffing, a woman of exceptional intellect, with a heart as genuine and kind as any woman could possess. Modest almost to a fault, she is the unseen force that drives the core of the nation; seeking no recognition or applause, she continues to work with a steady, organized, and earnest dedication that earns the respect of the best and the wisest.
Early among women journalists Mrs. Jane G. Swisshelm stands out conspicuously. The Pittsburg Saturday Visitor, which she edited for several years with marked ability, was the paper most often quoted, and made war upon by all opposers of progress. Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols also edited the Windham Co. Democrat, in Brattleboro, Vt., with much ability, and though less radical and aggressive than Mrs. Swisshelm's paper, it is to the seed sown by her head and hands that all the spirit of progress there is in that county is due.
Early in the history of women journalists, Mrs. Jane G. Swisshelm stands out prominently. The Pittsburg Saturday Visitor, which she skillfully edited for several years, was the most frequently quoted paper and faced opposition from all who resisted progress. Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols also edited the Windham Co. Democrat in Brattleboro, Vt., with notable skill. Although her approach was less radical and aggressive than Mrs. Swisshelm's paper, it is to the ideas and efforts she contributed that the spirit of progress in that county is attributed.
There is yet one other name that well deserves not one page but many, for his good deeds and unselfish work. A man with a strong, vigorous mind, a quick conception of principles and perfectly fearless in his advocacy of them, holding always his personality so in reserve as sometimes to be overlooked[Pg 435] among the many more assuming. Parker Pillsbury was for some time editor of the National Anti-Slavery Standard, and co-editor of the Revolution. His editorials have been marked by an almost prophetic spirit; and the profoundness of their thought will be more justly appreciated as there is a larger development and a higher demand for unqualified justice. The Hutchinson family were among our earliest workers, giving of time and money liberally without regard to party or sectionalism. Mr. John Hutchinson and family went through Kansas with the lecturing tourists, in 1867, and with their inspiring songs for freedom did much toward increasing the vote for woman suffrage. They still continue their work, penetrating into the most benighted regions, for freedom, temperance, peace, and the reign of righteousness; they are doing their quota in the world's great work.
There’s another name that truly deserves more than just one page, but many, for his good deeds and selfless efforts. He is a man with a strong, vibrant mind, quick to grasp principles and completely fearless in advocating for them, always keeping his own personality in the background so much that it can sometimes be overlooked[Pg 435] among those who are more prominent. Parker Pillsbury was for a time the editor of the National Anti-Slavery Standard and co-editor of the Revolution. His editorials have been marked by an almost prophetic spirit; the depth of their thought will be better appreciated as there is more growth and a greater demand for unqualified justice. The Hutchinson family was among our earliest activists, generously giving time and money without regard to party or region. Mr. John Hutchinson and his family traveled through Kansas with the lecturing tourists in 1867, and their inspiring songs for freedom greatly contributed to increasing the vote for women's suffrage. They continue their efforts, reaching into the most neglected areas, advocating for freedom, temperance, peace, and righteousness; they are doing their part in the world’s grand mission.
Mrs. Mary F. Davis has been from the first a most able and efficient advocate; her winning, gentle manners, her courtesy and respect for the rights of others have been unvarying. If not herself aggressive, she has never faltered in her adherence to the fullest truth; in this she is always sustained by her husband, Andrew Jackson Davis, who has never hesitated or temporized on any great question. Among business women who have gone steadily on in the path of duty, the name of Charlotte Fowler Wells stands out conspicuously. For over thirty years she has been an equal in all business relations with her husband, conducting the extensive correspondence of the house, as well as being head book-keeper. Her serene face gives evidence of a life of quiet, self-respecting independence.
Mrs. Mary F. Davis has always been a highly capable and effective advocate; her charming, gentle demeanor and her respect for the rights of others have remained constant. Although she may not be aggressive herself, she has never wavered in her commitment to the absolute truth; in this, she is always supported by her husband, Andrew Jackson Davis, who has never hesitated or made compromises on any important issue. Among businesswomen who have steadfastly followed their responsibilities, the name Charlotte Fowler Wells stands out prominently. For over thirty years, she has been an equal partner in all business matters with her husband, managing the extensive correspondence of the business while also serving as the head bookkeeper. Her calm expression reflects a life of quiet, self-respecting independence.
Mrs. Frances V. Hallock and sister, Mrs. Robert Dale Owen, hold a place worthy of honorable mention for their good works and steady adherence to truth, and their clear, quick comprehension of its far-reaching power. Rev. Phebe Hanaford, pastor of a church in New Haven, Conn., has done a great work for woman. She is the mother of a family, and finds time not only to conduct their education, but to preach regularly every Sabbath, to write books of merit, and to superintend her domestic affairs, which are managed with skill, economy and good taste. Always cheerful and kindly, she wins many friends, not only to herself but for the cause. There is another movement that began in this decade now closed upon us, which properly belongs to its history, viz: that of the Working Women. It has been represented from Boston by Miss Jennie Collins, a slight woman, all brain and soul. She tells her stories with such a tender, natural pathos that few eyes are dry during her speeches. She makes no pretense, but gives most unmistakable evidence of a rich nature that has been repressed and tortured. She is the type of a large class that will develop into beautiful, symmetrical characters when the shackles are broken and women are free.
Mrs. Frances V. Hallock and her sister, Mrs. Robert Dale Owen, deserve special recognition for their good deeds, unwavering commitment to truth, and their sharp understanding of its profound impact. Rev. Phebe Hanaford, the pastor of a church in New Haven, Conn., has made significant contributions for women. She is a mother who manages to not only educate her children but also preach every Sunday, write valuable books, and oversee her home with skill, efficiency, and style. Always cheerful and kind, she attracts many friends, both for herself and for the cause. There's another movement that emerged in this past decade and deserves mention: the Working Women’s movement, represented in Boston by Miss Jennie Collins, a slight woman full of intellect and passion. She shares her stories with such heartfelt and natural emotion that very few people remain dry-eyed during her speeches. She doesn’t put on any airs and provides clear evidence of a deeply sensitive nature that has faced repression and struggle. She exemplifies a larger group that is poised to become beautiful, well-rounded individuals once they break free from their constraints.
Conventions and organizations have so multiplied that it would require a volume to give their history. The chief of these are the great Northwestern and Pacific Slope Associations. Added to these are the State Societies in nearly all the Northern and Middle States. A State Society was organized in Richmond, Virginia, in April, 1870, by Matilda Joslyn Gage, a woman of wide historical information. Lectures have been given in several of the Southern States by individuals.
Conventions and organizations have grown so numerous that it would take a whole book to cover their history. The main ones are the major Northwestern and Pacific Slope Associations. On top of these, there are State Societies in almost all the Northern and Middle States. A State Society was established in Richmond, Virginia, in April 1870, by Matilda Joslyn Gage, a woman with extensive historical knowledge. Lectures have been delivered in several Southern States by various individuals.
If the notices of women are by far more numerous than those of men,[134] it[Pg 436] is not from forgetfulness of their services, for I credit them with all sincerity of motive, and nobleness in the wish for our enfranchisement. I have given, as briefly as possible, the two decades from 1850 to 1870. I have set down nothing in malice, and what is omitted must be charged to want of space and time. When the full history of this work is written, differences which have retarded its progress, and the wide range of action and reaction can be gone into if the historian so wills. I have endeavored to keep this report free from sectionalism and faction, believing that the finale would bring together all parties in one glad day of rejoicing. That there will be political parties in the future, with women, as with men, there can be no question; but that the sexes will have a purifying influence, each upon the other, is already conceded even by the opposers.
If the mentions of women are significantly more numerous than those of men,[134] it[Pg 436] isn’t because their contributions are forgotten, as I genuinely believe they have sincere motives and a noble desire for our freedom. I’ve provided a brief overview of the two decades from 1850 to 1870. I haven’t included anything out of bitterness, and what’s left out is just due to limitations of space and time. When the complete history of this work is written, any differences that have slowed its progress and the broad spectrum of actions and reactions can be explored if the historian chooses. I’ve tried to keep this report free from regional bias and factionalism, believing that the finale will unite all parties in a joyful celebration. It’s certain there will be political parties in the future, with women just like men, but it’s already accepted—even by critics—that the sexes will positively influence each other.
In closing this resume permit me to say that this meager outline, condensed from notes made from year to year, in no way satisfies the writer, but has been given by the earnest solicitations of friends, who wished that the steady progress of the cause might be marked in this retrospective hour. There is much that should have been embodied in this sketch of the past, especially the resolutions which have marked varying phases of the work, and which seemed like a divine inspiration in their comprehensive grasp and far-reaching thought, on this the last great question of reform.
In closing this resume, I want to say that this brief outline, taken from notes made over the years, doesn’t satisfy me at all. It’s been put together at the sincere request of friends who wanted to highlight the steady progress of the cause during this reflective time. There is so much more that should have been included in this summary of the past, especially the resolutions that have characterized different stages of the work. These resolutions felt like divine inspiration with their broad understanding and far-reaching ideas, particularly regarding this final major issue of reform.
Mrs. Mott rose at the conclusion of Mrs. Davis' history of the work for the past twenty years, and expressed herself as greatly pleased with its succinct and careful preparation. She felt that it was of great importance to the future work that this history be preserved, and hoped it would be published as part of the proceedings of this meeting. She felt that we had lost in not having kept more careful record of the progress of the work. She was sorry Mrs. Davis had not said more of herself, as she had done much toward opening the medical profession to women, and also in making lecturing a lucrative and respectable profession for them. She was, I believe, the first woman to claim the right to equal pay with men for her lectures. Mrs. Stanton expressed the same pleasure in listening to the report, and satisfaction in its historical accuracy. Resolutions[135] which had been prepared[Pg 437] by the Committee, were offered for discussion. Mrs. Gage spoke of the advance in the cause of education for women, and reviewed the progress in each particular branch of science. Letters from various parts of the world were read by Mrs. Griffing and Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake, the latter of whom demonstrated in an amusing and forcible manner that the women of our country did not form a part of the "people," according to the various banners and posters displayed about the streets in reference to the coming election. Woman did want to vote; she did love her country; but because she was not one of the "people," that privilege was denied her. Miss Anthony made several characteristic, short speeches at intervals, in a style which is peculiarly her own. Her force and humor were fully appreciated by the audience, who applauded her repeatedly. Her appeals for money met with great favor. The Rev. Olympia Brown made a stirring speech in reference to woman's work in the cause of the "social evil," speaking at some length upon the action of the women of England on the subject. Mr. Crozier, of Brooklyn, was the only gentleman who spoke, and he acquitted himself very creditably in his confession upon joining the cause of woman's rights.
Mrs. Mott stood up after Mrs. Davis finished her summary of the work over the past twenty years and expressed how pleased she was with its clear and thoughtful presentation. She believed it was crucial for future efforts that this history be preserved and hoped it would be published as part of the proceedings from this meeting. She felt we had missed out by not keeping a more accurate record of the progress made. She regretted that Mrs. Davis hadn't shared more about herself, as she had done a lot to open up the medical profession to women and to make lecturing a profitable and respectable field for them. I believe she was the first woman to demand equal pay with men for her lectures. Mrs. Stanton shared her enjoyment of the report and her satisfaction with its historical accuracy. Resolutions[135] prepared[Pg 437] by the Committee were presented for discussion. Mrs. Gage talked about the progress in education for women and reviewed advancements in each specific field of science. Letters from different parts of the world were read by Mrs. Griffing and Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake, the latter of whom humorously and forcefully pointed out that the women of our country were not considered part of the "people," according to the various banners and posters displayed around the streets regarding the upcoming election. Women did want to vote; they did love their country; but because they weren't counted among the "people," that right was denied to them. Miss Anthony made several characteristic, short speeches at various times, in her unique style. The audience fully appreciated her energy and humor, applauding her repeatedly. Her requests for donations were very well received. The Rev. Olympia Brown gave an inspiring speech about women's work concerning the "social evil," discussing at length the actions of women in England on the topic. Mr. Crozier from Brooklyn was the only man to speak, and he handled himself admirably in his confession of joining the cause for women's rights.
Several resolutions were offered in reference to the European war, and much sympathy was expressed with the present suffering originated by it. The improved condition of Italy was also referred to. The Convention was[Pg 438] a highly interesting one in many particulars, and the pioneers of the cause who engaged in active service twenty years ago proved themselves as ardent as in the early days.
Several resolutions were proposed regarding the European war, and a lot of sympathy was shown for those currently suffering because of it. The better situation in Italy was also mentioned. The Convention was[Pg 438] very interesting in many ways, and the pioneers of the cause who took part in active service twenty years ago demonstrated their passion just like they did in the beginning.
The following letters were read:
The following letters were read:
26 Hereford Square, London.
26 Hereford Square, London.
Dear Madam:—I received your kind letter some weeks ago, and beg to apologize for the delay of this reply. Pray accept my thanks for your kind expressions regarding my small efforts to keep alive the great cause we have all so near at heart. I regret to hear that one who, like yourself, has been a pioneer on the way when the path was the ruggedest, should for many years have been incapacitated from aiding its progress. May you now be restored fully to activity. We certainly want all true workers, albeit the progress of the cause surpasses our most sanguine expectations, on that as well as on this side of the Atlantic.
Dear Madam:—I received your thoughtful letter a few weeks ago and I apologize for taking so long to respond. Thank you for your kind words about my small efforts to support the important cause we all hold dear. I'm sorry to hear that someone like you, who has been a trailblazer when the path was toughest, has been unable to contribute to its advancement for many years. I hope you are now fully restored to active participation. We certainly need all dedicated workers, even though the progress of the cause has exceeded our highest hopes, both here and across the Atlantic.
Pray accept my thanks for your kind invitation to your Convention. It will not, I think, ever be likely that I shall visit America, but I shall always read with deep interest of all that goes forward there. Accept, dear madam, my thanks for your kindness and sincere regard.
Pray accept my thanks for your kind invitation to your convention. I don't think I'll ever have the chance to visit America, but I will always read with great interest about everything happening there. Thank you, dear madam, for your kindness and genuine thoughts.
Frances Power Cobbe.
Frances Power Cobbe.
Mrs. P. W. Davis.
Mrs. P. W. Davis.
Morningside, Edinburgh, Sept. 24, 1870.
Morningside, Edinburgh, Sept. 24, 1870.
Madam:—I regret that I am unable to accept the invitation with which you have honored me, for I have been an invalid for some months, and am not sufficiently well to undertake any journey. I can assure you that the cause of woman is gradually but firmly gaining ground in Scotland, and that each month we are gaining in the right direction. At present there are six female medical students studying in our university. The College of Surgeons has thrown its doors open, without any restriction, to the female student.
Madam:—I'm sorry, but I can’t accept your invitation, as I've been unwell for several months and am not fit to travel. I want to assure you that the women's cause is steadily making progress in Scotland, and we’re moving in the right direction every month. Right now, there are six female medical students studying at our university. The College of Surgeons has opened its doors completely to female students.
The Merchants' Maiden Company has, within the last few months, opened large schools in connection with its hospitals, offering as its prizes Bursaries in the university to girls as well as boys, which I think is one of the strongest moves which as yet has been made in behalf of women. The petition in favor of the medical education of women was largely signed in Scotland. The Society for the higher education of Women is progressing well and the professors spoke highly of the efficiency of their working pupils. In the university classes of botany and natural history all the female students were in the honor list, and Miss Edith Pechey was the first chemistry student for the year.
The Merchants' Maiden Company has recently opened large schools linked to its hospitals, offering scholarships to both girls and boys, which I believe is one of the strongest advances made for women's education so far. The petition supporting women's medical education received a lot of signatures in Scotland. The Society for the Higher Education of Women is making good progress, and the professors praised the effectiveness of their students. In the university classes for botany and natural history, all the female students made the honor list, and Miss Edith Pechey was the top chemistry student for the year.
With best wishes and thanks to you and your committee for your kind invitation, I am truly yours,
With my best wishes and thanks to you and your committee for your kind invitation, I am sincerely yours,
S. K. Kingsley, for Henry Kingsley.
S. K. Kingsley, for Henry Kingsley.
Alderley Edge, near Manchester, Sept. 26, 1870.
Alderley Edge, near Manchester, Sept. 26, 1870.
Madam:—I beg to thank you for the circular and your accompanying note, both inviting me to attend the Twentieth Anniversary of the inauguration of the Woman Suffrage Movement in the United States, to be held in New York on the 20th and 21st of October. I have once traveled through your country with very much pleasure, and, I hope, with some profit, and I have a strong desire to come again; but as it is impossible for me to do so now, I can not attend your meeting. I need not say that I sympathize with your object. It seems to me to be inconsistent with the principles of your Government, and of ours, to deny to women the power to control those who legislate for them. Until they obtain this control through the suffrage, they will suffer many disadvantages and be the victims of unequal laws. How soon they will obtain it must depend mainly upon their own efforts. In the meantime the present agitation will give them an interest in many public questions, will in itself be an education in preparation for political power, and will exercise an influence in favor of more equal legislation between men and women.
Madam:—Thank you for the circular and your accompanying note, which both invite me to attend the Twentieth Anniversary of the Woman Suffrage Movement in the United States, taking place in New York on October 20th and 21st. I have previously traveled through your country, which I enjoyed very much and found beneficial, and I truly hope to return. However, it is not possible for me to do so now, so I cannot attend your meeting. I shouldn’t have to say that I support your cause. It seems inconsistent with the principles of both your government and ours to deny women the right to have a say in who makes laws for them. Until they gain this right through suffrage, they will face many disadvantages and be subjected to unfair laws. How soon they will achieve this largely depends on their own efforts. In the meantime, the current movement will engage them in various public issues, serve as education in preparation for political power, and promote fairer legislation for both men and women.
Jacob Bright.
Jacob Bright.
Very truly yours,
Very truly yours,
Mrs. P. W. Davis.
Mrs. P. W. Davis.
FROM MRS. DR. TAYLOR.
Notting Hill, August 10, 1870.
Notting Hill, August 10, 1870.
Dear Madam:—I cordially thank you for your kind request that I should attend your Convention in October. It is quite impossible for me to leave England now, but I am deputed by our London Committee for Woman's Suffrage to express their sympathy with your movement, and the hope that the efforts you are making will be crowned with success,[Pg 439] and that Mrs. Lucretia Mott will live to see the fruit of some of her good and noble work.
Dear Madam:—Thank you so much for inviting me to your Convention in October. Unfortunately, I can’t leave England at this time, but I’ve been asked by our London Committee for Woman's Suffrage to share their support for your movement and to express the hope that your efforts will be successful,[Pg 439] and that Mrs. Lucretia Mott will see the positive outcomes of her hard and inspiring work.
M. Taylor.
M. Taylor.
Believe me yours truly,
Believe me yours truly,
FROM LADY AMBERLY.
Rodborough Manor, Stroud, July 14, 1870.
Rodborough Manor, Stroud, July 14, 1870.
Dear Madam:—I thank you much for your invitation to attend your second decade meeting of the Woman's Suffrage Association. I regret that it will not be in my power to accept it. Much as I enjoyed my visit to America, it is rather too far to undertake a second journey there. You must, indeed be glad, after twenty years of work, to see the great advance in public opinion on this question. It seems now to be progressing very fast. I have just aided in establishing a committee at Stroud, and we hope soon to have one in every borough in England for female suffrage.
Dear Madam:—Thank you very much for your invitation to your second decade meeting of the Woman's Suffrage Association. I'm sorry that I won't be able to accept it. As much as I enjoyed my visit to America, it's quite far to make a second trip there. You must be really pleased, after twenty years of effort, to see the significant progress in public opinion on this issue. It seems to be moving quickly now. I have just helped establish a committee in Stroud, and we hope to have one in every borough in England for women's suffrage soon.
Kate Amberly.
Kate Amberly.
Yours truly,
Yours truly,
Mrs. P. W. Davis.
Mrs. P. W. Davis.
280 Park Road, South Hill, Liverpool.
280 Park Road, South Hill, Liverpool.
Dear Madam:—Mrs. Butler regrets very much not to have been able to write to you before, and begs you will kindly accept her apologies as well as her thanks for your invitation to your Decade Meeting. I have the honor and privilege to be at present Mrs. Butler's Secretary. She is overwhelmed with work, and would be thankful for your sympathy in it. I wish I could give you a clear idea of the battle she has to fight, but it is very difficult for me, as a German, to put it in adequate words.
Dear Madam:—Mrs. Butler is very sorry that she hasn't been able to write to you earlier and asks you to kindly accept her apologies along with her thanks for your invitation to your Decade Meeting. I have the honor and privilege of being Mrs. Butler's Secretary at this time. She is swamped with work and would appreciate your understanding. I wish I could clearly convey the struggle she faces, but as a German, I find it quite challenging to express it in the right words.
Mrs. Butler's introductory essay to "Woman's Work and Woman's Culture" only gives a faint idea of her character and strivings, compared to the grand reality of her life. She has devoted more than fifteen years to the rescue of "fallen women"—a work that requires more active charity and self-denial than any other. The English Parliament passed, some time ago, certain acts called the Contagious Disease Acts, as a sanitary measure, on the model of Continental legislation. To earnest, religious minds, like Mrs. Butler's, the acts appear immoral in principle, as declaring vice a necessity; unjust, as inflicting penalties on women and letting men go free; and cruel in their application, enrolling women in a degraded class, making their return to virtue almost impossible. I think if I tell you that by these acts a woman can be arrested by a policeman on suspicion of being a prostitute, and subjected to an examination which amounts to a surgical operation, always disgraceful, sometimes injurious, even dangerous, I have made quite clear to an American lady that such a state of things can not be endured.
Mrs. Butler's introductory essay to "Woman's Work and Woman's Culture" only hints at her character and efforts, compared to the reality of her life. For more than fifteen years, she has dedicated herself to rescuing "fallen women," a task that requires more active charity and self-sacrifice than any other. Some time ago, the English Parliament passed certain laws known as the Contagious Disease Acts, meant to be a health measure, modeled after European legislation. To sincere, religious individuals like Mrs. Butler, these laws seem immoral in principle, as they imply that vice is a necessity; unjust, as they penalize women while allowing men to escape punishment; and cruel in their execution, placing women in a degraded category that makes it nearly impossible for them to return to a virtuous life. If I mention that under these laws, a woman can be arrested by a police officer on suspicion of being a prostitute and subjected to an examination that amounts to a surgical procedure, which is always humiliating and can sometimes be harmful or even dangerous, I think I've made it quite clear to an American woman that such a situation cannot be tolerated.
The best English women, with Mrs. Butler and Miss Nightingale as leaders, stand up nobly for the poor, degraded women whom, with their true Christian hearts, they still recognize as sisters. Mrs. Butler, who is rather delicate, devotes all her strength to this cause at present. She travels much, has been in the garrison towns, where, for the benefit of the soldiers, these atrocious acts are in force, and in large meetings denounces the cruelties to women. By her efforts more than sixty thousand signatures have been obtained for the repeal of the acts. Many good men, I am thankful to say, are on our side, and it is a matter of congratulation that in this point many people join who widely differ in other respects. I firmly believe that this question, which can no longer be avoided, will produce a great social reform. Women who timidly keep aloof from all political movements, after this experience of male legislation, eagerly demand the suffrage.
The best English women, led by Mrs. Butler and Miss Nightingale, stand up proudly for the poor, degraded women whom they still see as sisters with their genuine Christian hearts. Mrs. Butler, who is quite delicate, is currently putting all her energy into this cause. She travels a lot, visiting garrison towns where these terrible acts are enforced for the soldiers' benefit, and she speaks out against the cruelty to women at large meetings. Thanks to her efforts, over sixty thousand signatures have been gathered for the repeal of these acts. Many good men, I’m grateful to say, are on our side, and it’s a reason to celebrate that people from diverse backgrounds are coming together on this issue. I truly believe that this unavoidable question will lead to significant social reform. Women who usually shy away from political movements, after seeing the effects of male legislation, are now eagerly demanding the right to vote.
I am sure you will forgive Mrs. Butler for not writing herself. As soon as she has a little more breathing time she is sure to write, but she fears she will never be able to cross the Atlantic.
I’m sure you’ll excuse Mrs. Butler for not writing herself. As soon as she has a bit more time, she will definitely write, but she’s afraid she’ll never be able to cross the Atlantic.
Rosa Bruhn.
Rosa Bruhn.
Yours sincerely,
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. P. W. Davis.
Mrs. P. W. Davis.
Paris, Rue Nollet 92, 7th September.
Paris, Rue Nollet 92, September 7th.
Dear Madame:—I burned the answer I had written to you under the shameful government now fallen, and whose crimes and treasons extorted from me cries of despair for the ruin they have brought on our country.
Dear Madame:—I burned the response I had written to you under the disgraceful government that has now fallen, and whose crimes and betrayals forced me to cry out in despair over the destruction they have caused to our country.
I thank you for the generous sympathy you express toward us in our great woe. Your honored names have been blessed for this by our French hearts. We are now relieved, and though our actual peril is none the less, we are in possession of our own force. We are rid of the despicable robbers of our honor, our fortune and our lives; and in the most terrible energy, is a consolation and support. Better is it to die with honor than[Pg 440] live dishonored. How happy you are to be born on a soil not infested by monarchical roots. They are like dog-grass, which springs up again and again, nurtured by the ignorance of our rural population. When the Prussians shall have been driven away, we may have civil struggles to fear from the emissaries of this detested monarchy. What avails experience to the blind.
I appreciate the kind sympathy you show us during our great sorrow. Your respected names have been praised for this by our French hearts. We are now relieved, and although our actual danger is still present, we have regained our strength. We are free from the despicable thieves of our honor, our fortune, and our lives; and in this extreme struggle, there is comfort and support. It is better to die with honor than[Pg 440] live in dishonor. How fortunate you are to be born on land free from monarchical roots. They are like weeds that keep reappearing, fed by the ignorance of our rural population. Once the Prussians are driven away, we may have to worry about civil conflicts instigated by the agents of this hated monarchy. What good is experience to the blind?
I forwarded immediately your letter to George Sand. Accept my heartfelt thanks for your fraternal invitation to me.
I immediately forwarded your letter to George Sand. Thank you so much for your friendly invitation.
Yes, you say right, our hearts are wholly absorbed, and no place is ours but Paris in this hour of supreme struggle and sacrifice. We shall be with you in thought only, dear sisters—you, the pioneers in woman's emancipation—your names are enshrined in our hearts; but this crisis here will not be useless for the cause. The women of Paris are noble and courageous; one may hear them in every group encouraging the men to desperate resistance. Everywhere they form societies for the relief of the distressed and the wounded. Many have petitioned for this revolution, and have instigated men to the accomplishment of it. Many will take arms in defense and fight; yea, fight with all the strength which desperation lends, should the struggle reach our streets.... They have already proved this sort of courage. Men feel now how very necessary their co-operation is, and after the crisis I hope they will not forget it. But it is better that woman herself should learn to have a will, an active opinion in public affairs, and this disposition will, doubtless, continue to increase, as it has done for the last two years.
Yes, you’re right; our hearts are completely invested, and there’s no place for us but Paris during this time of intense struggle and sacrifice. We'll be with you in spirit, dear sisters—you, the trailblazers in women's emancipation—your names are cherished in our hearts. But this crisis we face will not be in vain for the cause. The women of Paris are noble and brave; you can hear them in every group urging the men to resist fiercely. They are forming support groups everywhere for the needy and the injured. Many have called for this revolution and have inspired men to bring it about. Many will take up arms in defense and fight; yes, they will fight with all the strength that desperation gives, if the struggle reaches our streets... They have already shown this kind of bravery. Men now realize how crucial their support is, and after this crisis, I hope they won’t forget it. However, it’s important for women to learn to have their own will and an active voice in public issues, and this attitude will, without a doubt, continue to grow, just as it has over the past two years.
Hail, dear and valiant sisters; blessed be your work in which my heart, and many of those around me unite.
Hail, dear and brave sisters; may your work be blessed, as my heart and many around me come together in it.
Andre Leo.
Andre Leo.
Mesdames Paulina W. Davis, Lucretia Mott, Martha Wright, Elizabeth C. Stanton, Isabella B. Hooker.
Mesdames Paulina W. Davis, Lucretia Mott, Martha Wright, Elizabeth C. Stanton, Isabella B. Hooker.
Naples, October 10, 1870.
Naples, October 10, 1870.
Dear Mrs. Davis:—I have only now received your letter, or I should sooner have expressed how highly I am gratified by the honor you do me in asking my opinions with regard to woman suffrage. I can not more strongly show my sympathy with my accomplished sisters in the United States, than by saying that I signed a petition to the British Parliament, requesting permission for women to vote at the elections. It was rejected, for the opposition and prejudices in the men of Great Britain are still very strong against any change in our condition. We have, however, gained a most important privilege lately, chiefly through the liberality of the University of Cambridge, in having the opportunity of acquiring every branch of knowledge, literary and scientific.
Dear Mrs. Davis:—I just received your letter, or I would have expressed sooner how much I appreciate the honor of you asking for my thoughts on woman suffrage. I can’t emphasize enough my support for my accomplished sisters in the United States, as I signed a petition to the British Parliament asking for women to have the right to vote in elections. It was rejected because the opposition and prejudices among the men in Great Britain are still very strong against any change to our situation. However, we recently gained a significant privilege, mainly thanks to the generosity of the University of Cambridge, which allows us the opportunity to pursue all areas of knowledge, both literary and scientific.
We owe much to the society of which you are the secretary, for persevering in our behalf for twenty years under strong opposition. The progress of civilization will ultimately emancipate half the human race from the low position in which we have hitherto been kept. Accept, dear Mrs. Davis, my thanks for your letter, and believe me,
We owe a lot to the society that you’re the secretary of, for sticking with us for twenty years despite strong opposition. The progress of civilization will eventually free half of humanity from the low status we've been stuck in until now. Thank you for your letter, dear Mrs. Davis, and believe me,
Mary Somerville.
Mary Somerville.
Very sincerely yours,
Very sincerely yours,
Victoria Press, London, Oct. 3, 1870.
Victoria Press, London, Oct. 3, 1870.
My Dear Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Stanton:—Will you kindly let me answer both your notes together, and assure you how much I value the feeling which prompted you to write them. I shall not easily part with either of those letters, although pressure of work drives me to answer them in one, and say that I am utterly unable to respond to your wish that I should attend your Decade Meeting. Few things would give me such satisfaction as to find myself in America, especially after your noble invitations and promises of a cordial reception everywhere. But—and how many buts there are in life—I dare not leave my work at present in England. There are several very important movements just now resting almost entirely upon me, and having put my hand to the plow, I dare not look back. I am at present the only regular lecturer here on this subject, and I am full of engagements up to April next—north, south, east, and west—and the discussion society I have started in London is still too young to run alone, and yet promises such good things for the future, that I feel it ought to be carefully tended.
My Dear Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Stanton:—Could I please respond to both your notes at once and let you know how much I appreciate the feelings that inspired you to write them? I won’t easily let go of either letter, even though I have to combine my responses because of work. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to fulfill your wish for me to attend your Decade Meeting. Very few things would make me happier than visiting America, especially after your generous invitations and promises of a warm welcome. But—and there are so many “buts” in life—I can’t leave my work in England right now. There are several important initiatives relying almost entirely on me at the moment, and having committed to them, I can’t turn back. Currently, I’m the only regular lecturer here on this topic, and my schedule is packed with engagements until next April—north, south, east, and west—and the discussion group I started in London is still too new to manage on its own, yet it holds such promise for the future that I feel it needs careful attention.
I can only add that I shall watch with great interest for the accounts of your meeting on the 19th. I long for the day when I can see you in the flesh—those with whose spirits I now ever hold communion. Excuse haste. I have just returned from the North, and find my table overwhelmed with invitations to lecture and appeals for help. The learned[Pg 441] meetings and social discussions of the British Associations at Liverpool, and the Social Science Congress at Newcastle, have all been crowded into the last fortnight. Wishing you and your noble workers God-speed, believe me,
I can only say that I’m really looking forward to the reports about your meeting on the 19th. I can’t wait for the day when I can see you in person—those whose spirits I always connect with. Sorry for the rush. I just got back from the North and my desk is buried under invitations to speak and requests for assistance. The scholarly meetings and social discussions of the British Associations in Liverpool, along with the Social Science Congress in Newcastle, have all been packed into the last two weeks. Wishing you and your incredible team the best, sincerely,
Emily Faithful.
Emily Faithful.
Yours, most truly,
Yours, most truly,
Dear Ladies:—It would give me great pleasure to accept your kind invitation to be present at your meeting to-day, if it were possible, but it is not.
Dear Ladies:—I would be very happy to accept your kind invitation to attend your meeting today, but unfortunately, I can't.
Go on with your great work; it is arduous, but it is sublime! You are doing good that you know not of in old Europe. You have taken the initiative, and she is following hard after. I wish to recommend to you the appeal of Mme. Gasparin to the American women to join in her heart-cry for peace. Coming so recently as I have, from the seat of war—from Paris and from Rome—I can testify to the earnest, the beseeching appeal of European women to their sisters in America to give them help in this their hour of calamity and need—the help of sympathy, the succor of love!
Keep up your amazing work; it’s tough, but it's remarkable! You're doing good that you might not even realize in old Europe. You’ve taken the lead, and they are closely following your example. I want to encourage you to check out Mme. Gasparin’s appeal to American women to join her heartfelt call for peace. Having just come from the heart of the conflict—from Paris and Rome—I can attest to the sincere, desperate appeal from European women to their American sisters for help during this time of crisis and need—the help of understanding, the support of love!
The day before I left France, one of the noblest of French women, Mademoiselle Daubie (the distinguished author of that remarkable work, "The Poor Women of the Nineteenth Century," which every woman and legislator ought to read,) said to me: "We are looking wistfully every whither for some hand stretched out through the darkness, but, alas! there is none. But you are going to America. Oh! tell the women there to help us in this struggle with ignorance, corruption, and war." Let us heed this cry.
The day before I left France, one of the most admirable French women, Mademoiselle Daubie (the well-known author of that impactful book, "The Poor Women of the Nineteenth Century," which every woman and lawmaker should read), said to me: "We're searching everywhere for a helping hand through the darkness, but sadly, there isn't one. But you’re going to America. Oh! Please tell the women there to assist us in this fight against ignorance, corruption, and war." Let's respond to this plea.
France lies prostrate in the dust! But Rome is free! So in all human sorrow there is some hope. Let us, then, lift up the one by all possible help, remembering her greatness, and pity her misfortunes; having faith in her capabilities, and praying for her liberty—for that liberty that can only be practicable when built upon intelligence and virtue, and only real when woman is not the slave, but the helpmate of man; and let us rejoice with that other sister—Italia—who is now lifting up her face toward heaven, and after these long years of anguish and waiting the mother is restored to her children!
France is down and out! But Rome is free! So in all human suffering, there’s still some hope. Let’s help her up in every way we can, remembering her greatness and feeling for her misfortunes; believing in her strengths and praying for her freedom—for that freedom that can only exist when it's based on intelligence and virtue, and only becomes real when woman is not the servant but the partner of man; and let’s celebrate with our other sister—Italia—who is now looking up to the heavens, and after all these long years of pain and waiting, the mother is back with her children!
The rule of the Cæsars is gone, and the reign of absolutism is passing away! And while the science of men goes flashing round the earth—over sea and land—uniting the nations in treaties of commerce and compacts of liberty, the warm, generous heart of woman shall keep pace, uniting humanity in sympathy and love.
The rule of the Caesars is over, and the age of absolute power is fading! And while the knowledge of people spreads across the globe—over oceans and lands—bringing nations together through trade agreements and treaties of freedom, the warm, caring heart of women will keep up, uniting humanity in compassion and love.
I am, dear ladies, yours most respectfully,
I am, dear ladies, truly yours,
The speakers during the day gave many delightful reminiscences of the noble men and women who had given their earnest efforts to promote this great reform, and dwelt with hope on the many encouraging steps of progress that had marked the years since the initiative steps were taken. The day before the Convention an elegant reception was held at the St. James Hotel. Nearly two hundred persons called during the afternoon, and about forty sat down to a sumptuous dinner.[137]
The speakers throughout the day shared many enjoyable memories of the remarkable men and women who dedicated their hard work to support this important reform and expressed optimism about the encouraging progress made over the years since the initial efforts began. The day before the Convention, there was a lovely reception at the St. James Hotel. Almost two hundred people stopped by in the afternoon, and about forty sat down for a lavish dinner.[137]
The third Annual National Woman's Suffrage Convention, held at Lincoln Hall, was an unprecedented success. Its leading spirit was Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker, who, together with Josephine S. Griffing, Paulina Wright Davis, and Susan B. Anthony, made all the preliminary arrangements, and managed the meeting. Mrs. Hooker's zeal, activity, and amiability gave her the power to make an easy conquest wherever she carries the banner of the good cause. Her generalship in Washington marshalled hosts of new and ardent friends into the movement. Five sessions were held, during each of which the Convention was presided over by some member of the Senate or House of Representatives; and it was a novel feature to see such men as Senators Nye, Warren, and Wilson sitting successively in the president's chair, apparently half unconscious that it was one of greater honor than their familiar seats in the Senate. Speeches were made by Adelle Hazlett, Olympia Brown, Lilie Peckham, Isabella B. Hooker, Lillie Devereux Blake, Cora Hatch Tappan, Susan B. Anthony, Kate Stanton, Victoria C. Woodhull, Hon. A. G. Riddle (of the Washington bar), Frederick Douglass, Senators Nye and Wilson, and Mara E. Post, who made a journey all the way from Wyoming to attend the Convention. A good deal was said by the speakers concerning the proposed interpretation of the existing constitutional amendments. It was thus a convention with a new idea. The reporters could not say that only the old, stock arguments were used. There was an air of novelty about the proceedings, indicating healthy life in the movement. The consequence was that the cause of woman's enfranchisement made a new, sudden, and profound impression at Washington.
The third Annual National Woman's Suffrage Convention, held at Lincoln Hall, was an incredible success. The main driving force behind it was Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker, who, along with Josephine S. Griffing, Paulina Wright Davis, and Susan B. Anthony, handled all the initial arrangements and ran the meeting. Mrs. Hooker's enthusiasm, energy, and friendliness allowed her to win over supporters wherever she championed the cause. Her leadership in Washington brought in a wave of new and passionate supporters for the movement. Five sessions took place, each chaired by a member of the Senate or House of Representatives, which was a unique sight to see Senators Nye, Warren, and Wilson taking turns in the president's chair, seemingly unaware it was a more prestigious role than their usual positions in the Senate. Speeches were delivered by Adelle Hazlett, Olympia Brown, Lilie Peckham, Isabella B. Hooker, Lillie Devereux Blake, Cora Hatch Tappan, Susan B. Anthony, Kate Stanton, Victoria C. Woodhull, Hon. A. G. Riddle (from the Washington bar), Frederick Douglass, Senators Nye and Wilson, and Mara E. Post, who traveled all the way from Wyoming to be at the Convention. The speakers discussed the proposed interpretation of the current constitutional amendments. This was a convention with fresh ideas. Reporters noted that it wasn't just the same old arguments being used. The proceedings felt innovative, signaling a thriving movement. As a result, the cause of women’s rights made a significant, sudden, and deep impact in Washington.
This Convention was remarkable for the absence of the usual long series of resolutions covering every point of our demands.
This Convention was notable for not having the typical lengthy series of resolutions addressing every aspect of our demands.
Another peculiarity was the unusual amount of money that flowed into the treasury, as the following letter, among many others of the same character, shows:
Another oddity was the unusual amount of money that came into the treasury, as the following letter, along with many others like it, demonstrates:
Miss Anthony—I have this morning deposited $500 for the use of the N. W. S. A., and I will give a check for the amount as you desire it.
Miss Anthony—This morning, I deposited $500 for the N. W. S. A., and I will provide a check for that amount as you requested.
Mrs. M. M. Cartter.
Mrs. M. M. Cartter.
Washington, D. C.
Washington, D. C.
Letters were read from Mrs. Esther Morris,[139] Justice of the Peace in Wyoming Territory, and from Mrs. Jane Graham Jones, of Chicago. Senator Nye, who presided at the evening session,[Pg 443] said, "He had not given much thought to the question of Woman Suffrage, but it was his opinion that in proportion as we elevated the mothers of voters, so were the voters themselves elevated." The audiences during this convention were large, and the press not only respectful but highly complimentary.
Letters were read from Mrs. Esther Morris,[139] Justice of the Peace in Wyoming Territory, and from Mrs. Jane Graham Jones, from Chicago. Senator Nye, who led the evening session,[Pg 443] said, "He hadn't put much thought into the issue of Woman Suffrage, but he believed that as we uplifted the mothers of voters, the voters themselves would also be uplifted." The audiences during this convention were large, and the press was not only respectful but also very complimentary.
It was just before this enthusiastic convention that Victoria Woodhull presented her memorial to Congress and secured a hearing[140] before the Judiciary Committee of the House, which called out the able Minority Report, by William Loughridge, of Iowa, and Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts. The following is from the Congressional Globe of Dec. 21, 1870.
It was just before this enthusiastic convention that Victoria Woodhull presented her memorial to Congress and secured a hearing[140] before the Judiciary Committee of the House, which led to the impressive Minority Report, by William Loughridge of Iowa and Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts. The following is from the Congressional Globe of Dec. 21, 1870.
In the Senate: Mr. Harris presented the memorial of Victoria C. Woodhull, praying for the passage of such laws as may be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the right vested by the Constitution in the citizens of the United States to vote without regard to sex; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.
In the Senate: Mr. Harris presented the memorial from Victoria C. Woodhull, asking for the enactment of laws that are necessary and appropriate to ensure the right granted by the Constitution to U.S. citizens to vote regardless of gender; this was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.
In the House: Mr. Julian—I ask unanimous consent to present at this time and have printed in the Globe the memorial of Victoria C. Woodhull, claiming the right of suffrage under the XIV. and XV. Articles of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and asking for the enactment of the necessary and appropriate legislation to guarantee the exercise of that right to the women of the United States. I also ask that the petition be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
In the House: Mr. Julian—I request unanimous consent to present and have printed in the Globe the memorial from Victoria C. Woodhull, asserting the right to vote under the XIV and XV Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and seeking the passage of the necessary and appropriate legislation to ensure that this right is granted to women in the United States. I also request that the petition be sent to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No objection was made, and it was ordered accordingly.
No objections were raised, so it was approved as planned.
THE MEMORIAL OF VICTORIA C. WOODHULL.
To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, respectfully showeth:
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, respectfully states:
That she was born in the State of Ohio, and is above the age of twenty-one years; that she has resided in the State of New York during the past three years; that she is still a resident thereof, and that she is a citizen of the United States, as declared by the XIV. Article of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
That she was born in Ohio and is over twenty-one years old; that she has lived in New York for the past three years; that she is still a resident there, and that she is a citizen of the United States, as stated in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
That since the adoption of the XV. Article of the Amendments to the[Pg 444] Constitution, neither the State of New York nor any other State, nor any Territory, has passed any law to abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote, as established by said article, neither on account of sex or otherwise. That, nevertheless, the right to vote is denied to women citizens of the United States by the operation of Election Laws in the several States and Territories, which laws were enacted prior to the adoption of the said XV. Article, and which are inconsistent with the Constitution as amended, and, therefore, are void and of no effect; but which, being still enforced by the said States and Territories, render the Constitution inoperative as regards the right of women citizens to vote:
That since the adoption of the 15th Amendment to the[Pg 444] Constitution, neither the State of New York nor any other State or Territory has passed any law that restricts the right of any citizen of the United States to vote, as established by that amendment, regardless of sex or any other reason. However, the right to vote is still denied to women citizens of the United States due to Election Laws in various States and Territories, which were enacted before the adoption of the 15th Amendment and conflict with the amended Constitution, making them invalid and unenforceable. Yet, these laws continue to be enforced by those States and Territories, leaving the Constitution ineffective regarding the right of women citizens to vote.
And whereas, Article VI., Section 2, declares "That this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and all judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution and laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding."
And Article VI, Section 2 states, "That this Constitution and the laws of the United States which are made in accordance with it, along with all treaties made or that will be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the highest law of the land; and all judges in every State are bound by it, regardless of anything in the Constitution or laws of any State that contradicts it."
And whereas, no distinction between citizens is made in the Constitution of the United States on account of sex; but the XV. Article of Amendments to it provides that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
And since there is no distinction made between citizens in the Constitution of the United States based on gender; the 15th Amendment states that "No State shall make or enforce any law that infringes on the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the laws."
And whereas, Congress has power to make laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States; and to make or alter all regulations in relation to holding elections for senators or representatives, and especially to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the said XIV. Article:
And whereas, Congress has the power to create laws that are necessary and appropriate for executing all powers granted to the Government of the United States by the Constitution; and to make or change any rules regarding the holding of elections for senators or representatives, and specifically to enforce, through suitable legislation, the provisions of the mentioned XIV. Article:
And whereas, the continuance of the enforcement of said local election laws, denying and abridging the right of citizens to vote on account of sex, is a grievance to your memorialist and to various other persons, citizens of the United States,
And while the ongoing enforcement of these local election laws, which deny and limit the right of citizens to vote based on their sex, is a complaint for you and for many others who are citizens of the United States,
Therefore, your memorialist would most respectfully petition your honorable bodies to make such laws as in the wisdom of Congress shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the right vested by the Constitution in the citizens of the United States to vote, without regard to sex.
Therefore, your memorialist would respectfully ask your honorable bodies to create laws that, in the wisdom of Congress, are necessary and appropriate for implementing the right granted by the Constitution to the citizens of the United States to vote, regardless of gender.
Victoria C. Woodhull.
Victoria C. Woodhull.
And your memorialist will ever pray.
And your memorialist will always pray.
New York City, Dec. 19, 1870.
New York City, Dec. 19, 1870.
ADDRESS OF VICTORIA C. WOODHULL JANUARY 11, 1871.
To the Honorable the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States:
To the Honorable Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress:
Having most respectfully memorialized Congress for the passage of such laws as in its wisdom shall seem necessary and proper to carry into effect the rights vested by the Constitution of the United States in the citizens to vote, without regard to sex, I beg leave to submit to your honorable body the following in favor of my prayer in said memorial which has been referred to your Committee.
Having respectfully requested Congress to pass laws that it deems necessary and appropriate to enforce the voting rights granted by the U.S. Constitution to citizens, regardless of gender, I would like to submit the following in support of my request in the memorial that has been sent to your Committee.
The public law of the world is founded upon the conceded fact that sovereignty can not be forfeited or renounced. The sovereign power of this[Pg 445] country is perpetually in the politically organized people of the United States, and can neither be relinquished nor abandoned by any portion of them. The people in this republic who confer sovereignty are its citizens: in a monarchy the people are the subjects of sovereignty. All citizens of a republic by rightful act or implication confer sovereign power. All people of a monarchy are subjects who exist under its supreme shield and enjoy its immunities. The subject of a monarch takes municipal immunities from the sovereign as a gracious favor; but the woman citizen of this country has the inalienable "sovereign" right of self-government in her own proper person. Those who look upon woman's status by the dim light of the common law, which unfolded itself under the feudal and military institutions that establish right upon physical power, can not find any analogy in the status of the woman citizen of this country, where the broad sunshine of our Constitution has enfranchised all.
The public law of the world is based on the accepted fact that sovereignty cannot be given up or renounced. The sovereign power of this[Pg 445] country is always within the politically organized people of the United States and cannot be surrendered or abandoned by any part of them. The people in this republic who give sovereignty are its citizens; in a monarchy, the people are the subjects of sovereignty. All citizens of a republic grant sovereign power through their rightful actions or implications. Everyone in a monarchy is a subject who lives under its supreme protection and enjoys its privileges. The subject of a monarch receives local privileges from the sovereign as a generous favor; however, the female citizen of this country has the inalienable "sovereign" right to self-governance in her own right. Those who view women's status through the narrow lens of common law, which developed under feudal and military systems that define rights based on physical power, cannot find any comparison in the status of the woman citizen of this country, where the broad light of our Constitution has granted freedom to all.
As sovereignty can not be forfeited, relinquished, or abandoned, those from whom it flows—the citizens—are equal in conferring the power, and should be equal in the enjoyment of its benefits and in the exercise of its rights and privileges. One portion of citizens have no power to deprive another portion of rights and privileges such as are possessed and exercised by themselves. The male citizen has no more right to deprive the female citizen of the free, public, political, expression of opinion than the female citizen has to deprive the male citizen thereof.
As sovereignty cannot be given up, surrendered, or abandoned, the people it comes from—the citizens—are equal in granting power and should also be equal in enjoying its benefits and exercising their rights and privileges. One group of citizens has no right to take away from another group the rights and privileges that they themselves have and use. A male citizen has no more right to stop a female citizen from expressing her opinions publicly and politically than a female citizen has to stop a male citizen from doing the same.
The sovereign will of the people is expressed in our written Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution makes no distinction of sex. The Constitution defines a woman born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to be a citizen. It recognizes the right of citizens to vote. It declares that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
The will of the people is reflected in our written Constitution, which is the highest law of the land. The Constitution does not differentiate based on gender. It defines a woman born or naturalized in the United States, who is subject to its laws, as a citizen. It acknowledges the voting rights of citizens. It states that the right of citizens of the United States to vote cannot be denied or limited by the United States or any State based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Women, white and black, belong to races, although to different races. A race of people comprises all the people, male and female. The right to vote can not be denied on account of race. All people included in the term race have the right to vote, unless otherwise prohibited. Women of all races are white, black, or some intermediate color. Color comprises all people, of all races and both sexes. The right to vote can not be denied on account of color. All people included in the term color have the right to vote unless otherwise prohibited.
Women, regardless of being white or black, are part of different races. A race consists of all individuals, both male and female. The right to vote cannot be denied based on race. Everyone who falls under the definition of race has the right to vote, unless there are specific prohibitions against it. Women of all races are either white, black, or of mixed colors. Color represents all individuals from all races and both genders. The right to vote cannot be denied based on color. Everyone encompassed by the term color has the right to vote unless there are specific prohibitions against it.
With the right to vote sex has nothing to do. Race and color include all people of both sexes. All people of both sexes have the right to vote, unless prohibited by special limiting terms less comprehensive than race or color. No such limiting terms exist in the Constitution. Women, white and black, have from time immemorial groaned under what is properly termed in the Constitution "previous condition of servitude." Women are the equals of men before the law, and are equal in all their rights as citizens. Women are debarred from voting in some parts of the United States, although they are allowed to exercise that right elsewhere. Women were formerly permitted to vote in places where they are now debarred therefrom. The naturalization laws of the United States expressly provide for the naturalization of[Pg 446] women. But the right to vote has only lately been definitely declared by the Constitution to be inalienable, under three distinct conditions—in all of which woman is clearly embraced.
With the right to vote, gender doesn't matter. Race and color include everyone, regardless of gender. Everyone has the right to vote unless there are specific restrictions that are less thorough than race or color. No such restrictions exist in the Constitution. Women, both white and black, have historically suffered under what the Constitution calls "previous condition of servitude." Women are equal to men under the law and have the same rights as citizens. In some parts of the United States, women are not allowed to vote, even though they can in other places. Women used to be allowed to vote in areas where they are now banned from doing so. The naturalization laws of the United States specifically allow for the naturalization of[Pg 446] women. However, the right to vote has only recently been clearly declared by the Constitution to be inalienable, under three specific conditions—all of which definitely include women.
The citizen who is taxed should also have a voice in the subject matter of taxation. "No taxation without representation" is a right which was fundamentally established at the very birth of our country's independence; and by what ethics does any free government impose taxes on women without giving them a voice upon the subject or a participation in the public declaration as to how and by whom these taxes shall be applied for common public use? Women are free to own and to control property, separate and free from males, and they are held responsible in their own proper persons, in every particular, as well as men, in and out of court. Women have the same inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that men have. Why have they not this right politically, as well as men?
The citizen who pays taxes should also have a say in the matter of taxation. "No taxation without representation" is a right that was established at the very beginning of our country's independence; so by what ethics does any free government impose taxes on women without giving them a voice in the process or a role in determining how and by whom these taxes will be used for the common good? Women can own and control property independently from men, and they are held accountable in their own right, just like men, both in and out of court. Women have the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that men do. Why don't they have this political right as well?
Women constitute a majority of the people of this country—they hold vast portions of the nation's wealth and pay a proportionate share of the taxes. They are intrusted with the most vital responsibilities of society; they bear, rear, and educate men; they train and mould their characters; they inspire the noblest impulses in men; they often hold the accumulated fortunes of a man's life for the safety of the family and as guardians of the infants, and yet they are debarred from uttering any opinion by public vote, as to the management by public servants of these interests; they are the secret counselors, the best advisers, the most devoted aids in the most trying periods of men's lives, and yet men shrink from trusting them in the common questions of ordinary politics. Men trust women in the market, in the shop, on the highway and railroad, and in all other public places and assemblies, but when they propose to carry a slip of paper with a name upon it to the polls, they fear them. Nevertheless, as citizens, women have the right to vote; they are part and parcel of that great element in which the sovereign power of the land had birth; and it is by usurpation only that men debar them from this right. The American nation, in its march onward and upward, can not publicly choke the intellectual and political activity of half its citizens by narrow statutes. The will of the entire people is the true basis of republican government, and a free expression of that will by the public vote of all citizens, without distinctions of race, color, occupation, or sex, is the only means by which that will can be ascertained. As the world has advanced into civilization and culture; as mind has risen in its dominion over matter; as the principle of justice and moral right has gained sway, and merely physical organized power has yielded thereto; as the might of right has supplanted the right of might, so have the rights of women become more fully recognized, and that recognition is the result of the development of the minds of men, which through the ages she has polished, and thereby heightened the lustre of civilization.
Women make up the majority of the population in this country—they own significant portions of the nation's wealth and contribute their fair share of taxes. They are entrusted with the most important responsibilities in society; they give birth to, raise, and educate men; they shape and influence their character; they inspire the best qualities in men; they often manage the pooled wealth of a man's life to ensure the family's safety and act as caretakers for infants. Yet, they are excluded from expressing their opinions through public voting regarding how public servants handle these interests. Women serve as trusted advisors, the best support during difficult times in men's lives, and still, men hesitate to rely on them for common political issues. Men trust women in markets, shops, on highways, railroads, and in all other public spaces and gatherings, but when it comes to casting a ballot, they fear them. However, as citizens, women have the right to vote; they are an integral part of the foundational force of this nation's power; it is only through usurpation that men deny them this right. The American nation, as it moves forward and upward, cannot stifle the intellectual and political engagement of half its citizens with restrictive laws. The will of all people is the true foundation of a republican government, and a free expression of that will through the votes of all citizens, without regard to race, color, occupation, or gender, is the only way to know that will. As the world has evolved into a more civilized and cultured place; as intellect has asserted its dominance over physical strength; as justice and moral right have gained influence, and sheer physical power has yielded to them; as the strength of right has replaced the power of might, the rights of women have become more fully acknowledged, and this recognition stems from the development of men's minds, which women have refined over the ages, thereby enhancing the brilliance of civilization.
It was reserved for our great country to recognize by constitutional enactment that political equality of all citizens which religion, affection, and common sense should have long since accorded; it was reserved for America to sweep away the mist of prejudice and ignorance, and that chivalric condescension of a darker age, for in the language of Holy Writ, "The night is far spent, the day is at hand, let us therefore cast off the work of darkness and[Pg 447] let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk honestly as in the day." It may be argued against the proposition that there still remains upon the statute books of some States the word "male" to an exclusion; but as the Constitution, in its paramount character, can only be read by the light of the established principle, ita lex Scripta est, and as the subject of sex is not mentioned, and the Constitution is not limited either in terms or by necessary implication in the general rights of citizens to vote, this right can not be limited on account of anything in the spirit of inferior or previous enactments upon a subject which is not mentioned in the supreme law. A different construction would destroy a vested right in a portion of the citizens, and this no legislature has a right to do without compensation, and nothing can compensate a citizen for the loss of his or her suffrage—its value is equal to the value of life. Neither can it be presumed that women are to be kept from the polls as a mere police regulation: it is to be hoped, at least, that police regulations in their case need not be very active. The effect of the amendments to the Constitution must be to annul the power over this subject in the States, whether past, present, or future, which is contrary to the amendments. The amendments would even arrest the action of the Supreme Court in cases pending before it prior to their adoption, and operate as an absolute prohibition to the exercise of any other jurisdiction than merely to dismiss the suit. 3 Dall., 382; 6 Wheaton, 405; 9 ib., 868; 3d Circ. Pa., 1832.
It was up to our great country to officially recognize the political equality of all citizens that religion, love, and common sense should have long acknowledged. It was America’s responsibility to eliminate the fog of prejudice and ignorance, as well as the outdated condescension from a darker time. To quote the Bible, "The night is almost over; the day is coming. So let’s get rid of the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let’s live righteously, as in the daytime." Some might argue that the term "male" still appears in the laws of certain states, effectively excluding others; however, the Constitution, being the supreme law, should be interpreted according to the established principle, ita lex Scripta est. Since gender is not mentioned, and the Constitution does not limit the voting rights of citizens in any way, this right cannot be restricted due to outdated laws that are not referenced in the supreme law. A different interpretation would undermine a fundamental right for some citizens, and no legislature has the authority to do so without compensation; nothing can replace the loss of a citizen’s vote—the value of which is equal to life itself. It cannot also be assumed that women should be kept from voting as a mere regulatory measure; ideally, we hope that such regulations won’t need to be very strict in their case. The effect of the amendments to the Constitution must be to revoke state power over this matter, regardless of whether it’s from the past, present, or future that contradicts these amendments. The amendments would even halt the Supreme Court's actions in cases that were pending before it prior to their adoption and would serve as a complete ban on any jurisdiction beyond simply dismissing the case. 3 Dall., 382; 6 Wheaton, 405; 9 ib., 868; 3d Circ. Pa., 1832.
And if the restrictions contained in the Constitution as to color, race or servitude, were designed to limit the State governments in reference to their own citizens, and were intended to operate also as restrictions on the federal power, and to prevent interference with the rights of the State and its citizens, how, then, can the State restrict citizens of the United States in the exercise of rights not mentioned in any restrictive clause in reference to actions on the part of those citizens having reference solely to the necessary functions of the General Government, such as the election of representatives and senators to Congress, whose election the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to regulate? S. C., 1847; Fox vs. Ohio, 5 Howard, 410.
And if the restrictions in the Constitution regarding color, race, or servitude were meant to limit state governments in relation to their own citizens and also intended to act as limits on federal power, preventing interference with the rights of the state and its citizens, then how can the state restrict U.S. citizens in exercising rights that aren't mentioned in any restrictive clause regarding actions that solely pertain to the necessary functions of the federal government, like electing representatives and senators to Congress, which the Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to regulate? S. C., 1847; Fox vs. Ohio, 5 Howard, 410.
Your memorialist complains of the existence of State laws, and prays Congress, by appropriate legislation, to declare them, as they are, annulled, and to give vitality to the Constitution under its power to make and alter the regulations of the States contravening the same.
Your memorialist is upset about the current State laws and asks Congress, through the right legislation, to declare them null and void, and to enforce the Constitution using its authority to create and change the regulations of the States that go against it.
It may be urged in opposition that the courts have power, and should declare upon this subject. The Supreme Court has the power, and it would be its duty so to declare the law: but the court will not do so unless a determination of such point as shall arise make it necessary to the determination of a controversy, and hence a case must be presented in which there can be no rational doubt. All this would subject the aggrieved parties to much dilatory, expensive and needless litigation, which your memorialist prays your honorable body to dispense with by appropriate legislation, as there can be no purpose in special arguments "ad inconvenienti," enlarging or contracting the import of the language of the Constitution.
It can be argued against this that the courts have the authority and should make a ruling on this issue. The Supreme Court has the power, and it is its responsibility to state the law: however, the court will only do so if resolving this issue is necessary for settling a dispute, meaning a case must be brought forward where there is no reasonable doubt. This would put the affected parties through a lot of time-consuming, costly, and pointless litigation, which your petitioner respectfully asks your esteemed body to avoid by passing suitable legislation, as there is no benefit in special arguments "ad inconvenienti," that expand or limit the meaning of the language in the Constitution.
Therefore, Believing firmly in the right of citizens to freely approach those in whose hands their destiny is placed under the Providence of God, your memorialist has frankly, but humbly, appealed to you, and prays that the[Pg 448] wisdom of Congress may be moved to action in this matter for the benefit and the increased happiness of our beloved country.
So, believing strongly in the right of citizens to freely reach out to those who hold their fate in their hands under God's guidance, your memorialist has confidently, but respectfully, turned to you and hopes that the [Pg 448] wisdom of Congress will be inspired to act on this issue for the benefit and greater happiness of our beloved country.
SPEECH OF A. G. RIDDLE,
In Support of the Woodhull Memorial, before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, as Reproduced in the Convention on the Evening of the same Day.
In Support of the Woodhull Memorial, before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, as Reproduced in the Convention on the Evening of the same Day.
Mr. Riddle spoke as follows: Mr. Chairman—(Senator Nye)—I have always thought that the questions involved in this movement could be the more effectively presented by ladies; and I have never appeared in their public discussions unless by special request, and for some special purpose. I have been asked to bring to your notice as well as I may this evening the argument: That the women of these United States are full and complete citizens. Citizens as fully, broadly, and deeply as it is possible for men to be, though not permitted to exercise the elective franchise.
Mr. Riddle said the following: Mr. Chairman—(Senator Nye)—I’ve always believed that the issues related to this movement could be better presented by women. I’ve only taken part in their public discussions when specifically requested and for a particular purpose. This evening, I’ve been asked to highlight the argument that the women of the United States are full and complete citizens. Citizens just as fully, broadly, and deeply as men, even though they aren’t allowed to vote.
As I arise I find between myself and this proposition, two or three questions, about which I am disposed to tax your patience for a moment, though there is nothing new to be said. In the outset, let me say that it is conceded by all, that the right of self-government, in America at any rate, is a natural right. You may select with care or at random, any one of the forty or fifty American constitutions that have been prepared with more or less pains, and promulgated with solemnity, and you will find there is not one that has assumed to create and confer this right of self-government. But they all declare, expressly or impliedly, that the right to govern is inherent in the people. Now, if these ladies are a portion of the people, this right resides in them. There is no new right to be conferred upon them. They are simply to go into the new exercise of an old franchise; for if the right of self-government is a natural right, then does it pertain to every human being alike. Such is the recognized theory of every American constitution, and such is its practice.
As I get up, I notice that before me and this idea, there are two or three questions that I’d like to take a moment to discuss with you, even though there’s nothing new to add. First, let me point out that everyone agrees that the right to self-government, at least in America, is a natural right. You can carefully or randomly choose any one of the forty or fifty American constitutions that have been created with varying degrees of effort and officially announced, and you’ll see that none of them claim to create or grant this right of self-government. Instead, they all state, either directly or indirectly, that the right to govern is inherent in the people. Now, if these women are part of the people, then that right belongs to them. There is no new right to be granted to them. They are simply engaging in the renewed exercise of an old privilege; because if the right to self-government is a natural right, it belongs to every human being equally. That’s the acknowledged principle of every American constitution, and that’s how it’s practiced.
Take a step further and you find that starting with a recognition of this pre-existing right of government, Constitution makers have simply provided the means and machinery by which this right of government may work itself out. The only means placed in the hands of the individual citizen by which he may accomplish his portion of this great task is the ballot, or the viva voce vote. If this right of self-government is a natural right, and if it can be exercised alone by the ballot, then is the right to the ballot a natural right, and he who stands up against this everlasting right of nature, had better look to it, and take himself out of the way. As this is a political question I may venture a single word to politicians. We of the masculine gender, are all of us, more or less politicians; and of all the timid things in the world the professed politician (a member of Congress excepted) is the most timid. [Laughter.] He is afraid of his soul, as if he had one, or one large enough to occasion apprehension. [Laughter.] I have this thing to say to them, that when any great idea or great truth finds itself at large in this lower world, and is obliged to get itself incorporated into the working processes of a government, if it does not find a political party ready, willing, and worthy to receive it, it forthwith makes for itself a new party. [Applause.] And as it does not create new human beings to form a party of, it must necessarily gather them[Pg 449] from the old parties. Just as the distinguished Senator (Senator Nye) will recollect the present Republican party was formed, and against which the two old fossil parties united, as they always do. Now, this new great idea, if rejected, will disintegrate these old parties; take that which is fit, proper, and deserving for its own great mission, leaving the residuum to unite, and crumble and pulverize together under the feet of the new.
Take a step further and you'll see that by acknowledging this existing right of government, the framers of the Constitution have simply set up the ways and means for this right to function. The only tool given to individual citizens to do their part in this significant task is the ballot, or the viva voce vote. If this right to self-government is a natural right, and it can only be exercised through the ballot, then the right to vote is a natural right as well, and anyone who opposes this enduring right of nature better watch out and step aside. Since this is a political issue, I want to say a word to politicians. We men are all, to some extent, politicians, and among the most fearful things in the world is the self-proclaimed politician (except for members of Congress). [Laughter.] They are afraid for their soul, as if they have one, or at least one large enough to worry about. [Laughter.] I want to say this to them: when a significant idea or truth emerges in this world and needs to become part of government processes, if it doesn’t find a political party that is ready, willing, and capable to accept it, it will create a new party for itself. [Applause.] And since it doesn’t create new people to form a party from, it must gather them[Pg 449] from the existing parties. Just as the esteemed Senator (Senator Nye) will remember how the current Republican party was established, against which two old, stagnant parties joined forces, as they always do. Now, if this new significant idea is rejected, it will dismantle these old parties, taking what is suitable, proper, and deserving for its own important mission, leaving the leftovers to combine, crumble, and break down under the power of the new.
The right of self-government, as I have said, is a natural right pertaining to all alike, and is to be exercised by the ballot. And the right to that is therefore a natural right, as is the right to wear clothes. Decency and comfort require that clothes should be worn; but they are artificial wholly. Just so is the right to vote a natural right, though the vote, or the mode of voting at least, is an artificial means. This logic can not be caviled with or gainsaid. The young man and the young woman outside of political considerations, in every other point of view, stand before the law on an equality, and what one may do, so may the other, each may govern him or herself. But not so politically; when the youth reaches the age of twenty-one the ballot comes to his hands by due course of law, protecting his natural right, he having grown to it. Why do you give him the ballot, pray, or permit him to take it for himself? Simply because it is the means by which he governs and protects himself. Nobody would start I suppose the terribly heterodox idea that it is not necessary for the young man to govern himself with the ballot. It would be one of those unheard-of atrocities that nobody would have the hardihood to promulgate in the presence of masculine associates at all. He is entitled to the right for the purpose of governing himself. Nobody was born to govern anybody else—man or woman. It is only because in political associations people become so united, that a man in order to govern himself is obliged to govern others, that we get the right to govern others at all. It grows out of our effort to govern ourselves. As an essential necessity we are obliged to govern others and to be governed by them. This is our only warrant for the government of others.
The right to self-government, as I mentioned, is a natural right that applies to everyone equally and should be exercised through voting. Just like the right to wear clothes, which is natural but entirely artificial in practice, the right to vote is a natural right, even though the vote itself— or the method of voting—is an artificial process. This reasoning cannot be disputed. A young man and a young woman, outside of political issues, are treated equally by the law; what one can do, the other can do as well, each has the right to govern themselves. However, this equality does not extend to politics; when a person turns twenty-one, they receive the ballot as a legal right, acknowledging their maturity. Why is the ballot given to them or allowed for them to take? Simply because it is the way they govern and protect themselves. No one would dare suggest that it isn’t necessary for young men to vote for their own governance. That would be an outrageous idea that no one would be brave enough to put forward in front of male peers. They have the right to vote for the sake of self-governance. No one is born to rule over anyone else—whether man or woman. It is only when people unite in political societies that an individual, in seeking to govern themselves, ends up needing to govern others, which is how we come to have the right to govern at all. This arises from our effort to govern ourselves. As a fundamental necessity, we end up having to govern others and be governed by them. This is our only justification for governing others.
Now, I pray to know why a young maiden, when she approaches the same age, may not have accorded to her the same protection of her natural right that is accorded to the youth, and for the same purpose. In the name of all womanhood, and of all manhood, I beg to know why this may not be so? In the name of my own daughters whose whispered words haunt the chambers of my soul, asking to know why, if it is necessary for their brother to exercise this right, it is not necessary for them? Nobody need to argue to a father that his daughters are not the equals of his sons. I will never tolerate hearing it said, that my son is born to empire and sovereignty, while his sisters are born to be hidden away and yarded up in some solitary desert place, as their proper sphere. [Applause.] I do not propose to raise and educate my daughters to keep them cooped up with their feet tied until some masculine purveyor comes along with his market basket.
Now, I want to understand why a young woman, when she reaches a certain age, isn’t given the same protection of her natural rights as a young man, for the same reasons. On behalf of all women and men, I’m asking why this isn’t the case. For the sake of my own daughters, whose soft voices linger in my mind, questioning why it’s necessary for their brother to have this right, but not for them. No father should have to be convinced that his daughters are not equal to his sons. I will not stand by and hear it said that my son is destined for greatness while his sisters are meant to be hidden away and restricted to some isolated place as their rightful role. [Applause.] I refuse to raise and educate my daughters to keep them confined until some man comes along to claim them.
Oh! ye opponents of the rights of woman, why not be consistent. If, as you say, she has not the capacity to choose or exercise the elective franchise, why not choose for her in everything, and impose upon her the husband of your choice? Don't you represent her? You concede that the young woman has abundance of capacity to choose her lord and master to whom she shall be delivered, and yet she is not fit to vote for a constable. (Laughter.)[Pg 450]
Oh! you opponents of women's rights, why not be consistent? If, as you say, she isn't capable of choosing or exercising the right to vote, why not make every choice for her and impose the husband you prefer? Don’t you represent her? You admit that a young woman has plenty of ability to choose her lord and master to whom she will be given, and yet she isn’t fit to vote for a constable. (Laughter.)[Pg 450]
Be consistent, you who oppose us in this movement, and say she shall not have anything to do with the selection of her husband. If she is competent at an early age, in the vortex and whirlpool of life, to select him to whom first, last, and always she shall belong, may she not once in four years have the privilege of voting for President without any great hazard? Think of it. Oh! this terrible old question! We have been mining and drilling in the earth's crust, and we have got finally to the last question, or, rather, it has made its way to the surface. This question of woman's suffrage and woman's right at last comes up for final argument, and it will work its way along until it is definitely determined. Indeed, I believe it is already settled.
Be consistent, you who oppose us in this movement, and say she should have nothing to do with choosing her husband. If she's capable at a young age of selecting the one to whom she will belong now and forever, shouldn’t she be able to vote for President every four years without any major risk? Think about it. Oh! this age-old question! We've been digging deep into the earth, and we've finally reached the core issue, or rather, it's surfaced. The question of women's suffrage and women's rights is now up for final discussion, and it will continue to move forward until it's clearly resolved. In fact, I believe it’s already been decided.
To return to these constitutions, from which I mean not to wander again. I said to you that these constitutions of the various American States have recognized as older than themselves the right of government. They have furnished the means, which were also older than themselves, the exercise of the elective franchise. They have not attempted to create and confer any right to govern. They simply regulate it; and they are framed upon this idea, that all people are equally entitled to govern themselves, women and men, and would all govern themselves if some were not excluded by the terms and provisions of these, their constitutions. Take up the whole thirty-five that can be found in the edition of 1864, and every one of them says that the elective franchise shall be exercised by the male white citizens. We have got rid of the "white." We have finally given color to the Constitution. (Laughter.) And, in getting rid of that "white," we got rid of more than was probably intended at the time. Good does get itself done by accident sometimes. It has to when bad men do it. (Laughter and applause.) Why is this term "male" used in the constitutions, pray? It was not by accident. Forty or fifty of them would not use it, except by design. It was because every mortal man knew when tinkering up a constitution that if he did not put male in, females would vote. They had the right, and there had to be a constitutional barrier erected to prevent their exercise of it. Now, the thing which we have to do is either to strike out this term "male," which, I trust, ladies (turning to the ladies on the platform), is not particularly odious anywhere else, except in the constitution.
To revisit these constitutions, from which I don't plan to stray again. I mentioned that the constitutions of various American states acknowledge that the right to govern is older than they are. They have provided the means, which are also older than themselves, to exercise the right to vote. They haven't tried to create or grant any right to govern; they simply regulate it. They are based on the idea that everyone has the right to govern themselves, both women and men, and would all do so if some weren’t excluded by the terms and provisions of their own constitutions. If you look at all thirty-five constitutions found in the 1864 edition, you'll see that each one states that the right to vote shall be exercised by the male white citizens. We’ve gotten rid of the "white." We've finally added diversity to the Constitution. (Laughter.) And in removing that "white," we eliminated more than probably intended at the time. Sometimes good things happen accidentally. It has to when bad people are in charge. (Laughter and applause.) Why is the term "male" used in the constitutions, you ask? It wasn't by chance. Forty or fifty of them wouldn't include it unless it was intentional. It's because everyone knew that if they didn't specify "male," women would vote. They had that right, and a constitutional barrier needed to be put up to prevent them from exercising it. Now, what we need to do is either remove the term "male," which I hope, ladies (turning to the ladies on the platform), isn’t particularly offensive elsewhere, except in the constitution.
Mrs. Davis and others—Not at all.
Mrs. Davis and others—Not at all.
Mr. Riddle.—I repeat, that what we have to do is either to get rid of this word "male," or to convince Congress, the courts, and the rest of the world, that it is already gotten rid of, which, I think, is easier. If it remains it can be put out in a very summary way. It makes no difference in how many constitutions it is found, nor in how many carefully considered statutes it has been incorporated, for a single provision in the Constitution of the United States is of that potency that instantaneously all constitutions and all statutes are clarified of the exclusive "male" principle, and that without other change or repeal.
Mr. Riddle.—I reiterate that what we need to do is either eliminate the word "male," or convince Congress, the courts, and everyone else that it has already been eliminated, which I think is the simpler option. If it stays, it can be removed quite straightforwardly. It doesn’t matter how many constitutions it appears in or how many well-thought-out laws include it, because a single provision in the Constitution of the United States is so powerful that it can instantly clarify all constitutions and all laws of the exclusive "male" principle, and that can happen without any other amendments or repeals.
And this brings me to the immediate question to be discussed, the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution, which stands as the XIV. Article. And you will understand that when the people or the legislature speak by constitution or law, and use ordinary language, that they mean what they say, and nobody can get up and say they do not mean that, or[Pg 451] that they mean something else. There is nobody that can be heard for a moment to argue against the plain, obvious, declared, well-ascertained meaning of words. And when such words are used, it is the end of argument and of construction. The great object to be achieved, so far as women are concerned, is to bring them into the possession of the rights of citizenship. "A person" is one thing, and naturally, "a citizen" is something a little more. He or she is the creature of a political compact, having the rights, the privileges, the franchises of that particular political association, whatever they are. A very ingenious, and at the same time a very meritorious writer, recently, in overhauling these English words—and it is a pretty good thing my honorable friends from the two Houses of Congress are not to be referred to—but it is a good thing for the rest of us who use words sometimes carelessly, to see how Mr. Grant White says some of them should be used, and what they really do mean. On page 100 of his recent work on "Words and their Uses," which, so far as I know, has received the highest commendation of the critics—in speaking of this term "citizen," and how it is used, or rather how it is misused, says:
And this brings me to the immediate topic we need to discuss, the XIV Amendment of the Constitution, which is also known as the XIV Article. You should understand that when the people or the legislature express themselves through the constitution or law and use straightforward language, they mean exactly what they say, and no one can just come in and claim they don’t mean that, or that they mean something else. No one can reasonably argue against the clear, evident, stated, and well-established meaning of words. When such words are used, it ends the debate and interpretation. The main goal to achieve, especially for women, is to ensure they gain the rights of citizenship. "A person" is one thing, but "a citizen" is something a bit more significant. He or she is part of a political agreement, holding the rights, privileges, and franchises that come with that specific political affiliation, whatever they may be. A very clever and also quite commendable writer recently examined these English terms—and luckily, my esteemed colleagues from both Houses of Congress will not be mentioned here—but it’s beneficial for the rest of us who sometimes use words carelessly to see how Mr. Grant White suggests some of them should be used, and what they truly mean. On page 100 of his latest book on "Words and their Uses," which, as far as I know, has been highly praised by critics—in discussing the term "citizen," and how it is used, or rather misused, he states:
Citizen is used by some newspaper writers with what seems like an affectation of the French usage of citoyen in the First Republic. For instance, "Gen. A. is a well-known citizen." "Several citizens carried the sufferer," etc. The writer might as well have said that the sufferer was carried off by several church members or several "Freemasons." Now mark, he says, that "a citizen is a person who has certain political rights, and the word is properly used only to imply or suggest the possession of those rights."
Citizen is used by some newspaper writers in a way that feels like a nod to the French use of citoyen from the First Republic. For example, "Gen. A. is a well-known citizen." "Several citizens carried the sufferer," etc. The writer could just as easily have said that the sufferer was carried off by several church members or several "Freemasons." Now notice, he claims that "a citizen is a person who has certain political rights, and the term is correctly used only to imply or suggest the possession of those rights."
That is what we should use the term "citizen" for—apply it to a naturalized person in possession of certain political franchises, rights, and privileges. Thanking Mr. Grant White for that, let us, in its light, read the first clause of the XIV. Amendment, and see what it does say and mean. "Sec. 1st. All persons;" not all male persons, nor all white persons, but "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the States where they reside." That is what they are. They are citizens. That is, "persons," are "citizens," which means naturalized persons, clothed and permeated with, surrounded by, and put in possession of, citizenship. The term is used in the sense in which Mr. White uses it. It is no new meaning; no new use of the word.
That’s how we should define the term "citizen"—applying it to a naturalized person who has certain political rights, privileges, and franchises. Thanks to Mr. Grant White for that insight, let's consider the first clause of the XIV Amendment and understand what it says and means. "Sec. 1. All persons;" not just all male persons or all white persons, but "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the States where they reside." That’s their status. They are citizens. This means "persons" are "citizens," which refers to naturalized individuals who are fully integrated into and possess citizenship. The term is used in the same way Mr. White uses it. There’s no new meaning or usage of the word here.
Now turn to Webster's Unabridged, where citizen is defined: "Citizen—a person," [in the United States,]—for he inserts in brackets the expressive "U. S." to indicate what he means,—"native or naturalized, who has the privilege of voting for public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people."
Now turn to Webster's Unabridged, where citizen is defined: "Citizen—a person," [in the United States,]—for he adds in brackets the clear "U. S." to specify what he means,—"native or naturalized, who has the privilege of voting for public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices entrusted to the people."
Worcester says of "citizen":—"An inhabitant of a Republic who enjoys the rights of a citizen or freeman, and who has a right to vote for public officers, as a citizen of the United States."
Worcester defines "citizen" as:—"A resident of a Republic who has the rights of a citizen or free person, and who is entitled to vote for public officials, as a citizen of the United States."
Turn to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, in orthodox sheep skin, and see what he says a citizen is: "Citizen, one who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States has a right to vote for representatives in Congress and other public offices, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people."—4th ed., vol. 1, p. 221.
Turn to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, in traditional leather binding, and see what it says a citizen is: "Citizen, one who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, has the right to vote for representatives in Congress and other public offices, and who is qualified to hold offices elected by the people."—4th ed., vol. 1, p. 221.
All known authority concurs in establishing this as the sole, proper signification[Pg 452] of the word citizen; and in this sense, and in no other, is it used in the XIV. Amendment. I know that the term is sometimes used—is once used, perhaps, in the Constitution—to correspond somewhat with the term "inhabitant," as thus, "citizens of different States may sue each other in the courts of the United States," etc. But it was not necessary to shake the foundations of this great Republic, to formulate and get adopted this new amendment, for the purpose of stating that the people who were born and always had lived in the United States might be inhabitants of them. But it was necessary to say so, that cavaliers might be estopped from denying that they are citizens.
All recognized authority agrees that this is the only correct meaning[Pg 452] of the word citizen; and it is used in this way, and not any other, in the XIV Amendment. I know that the term is sometimes used—maybe even once in the Constitution—to align somewhat with the term "inhabitant," as in, "citizens of different States may sue each other in the courts of the United States," etc. But it wasn't necessary to undermine the foundations of this great Republic to create and pass this new amendment just to say that people who were born and had always lived in the United States could be considered inhabitants. However, it was necessary to clarify this so that critics could not deny that they are citizens.
But to recur to the further clause of this XIV. Amendment. Let us see, now, really what the makers and promulgators of it did mean. "No State shall make or enforce any law"—neither make any new law, nor enforce any that had already been made—"which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Is there any doubt now as to what "citizen" means? He, or she, or both, are persons in possession, and have by express declaration all the privileges and the immunities of citizens.
But let’s go back to the next part of this XIV Amendment. Let’s see what the creators and promoters of it really meant. "No State shall make or enforce any law"—neither create a new law nor enforce any that were already in place—"which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Is there any doubt about what "citizen" means now? He, she, or both are individuals who have, by clear declaration, all the privileges and immunities of citizens.
When I stated this before the Judiciary Committee this morning, a distinguished Representative from Illinois, and a very able lawyer, stopped me and said, "Mr. Riddle, babies would be citizens according to that, and would have the privilege of going straight to the ballot-box, the first thing." (Laughter.) Perhaps so; but I could not see it then, and can not see it now. All power is inherent in the people, and it is perfectly competent for this "all power" to declare at what age and under what circumstances the citizen shall vote; so that the rule applies uniformly, and excludes none. One-half of the people were excluded, and this article removes that exclusion—and that is all. Apply the gentleman's idea to other provisions of the Constitution; for instance, to this: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Would he contend that therefore every new-born baby might at once grasp a musket? This might be constitutional, but it would put the infantry on a war-footing before the commissariat could be mobilized, I fear. (Laughter and applause.)
When I mentioned this to the Judiciary Committee this morning, a well-respected Representative from Illinois, who is also a skilled lawyer, interrupted me and said, "Mr. Riddle, according to that, babies would be citizens and could go straight to the ballot box right away." (Laughter.) Maybe that’s true; but I didn't see it then, and I still don't see it now. All power resides with the people, and it's entirely within their rights to decide at what age and under what conditions a citizen can vote; so the rule should apply equally to everyone, excluding no one. Half of the population was left out, and this article corrects that exclusion—and that's all it does. Let's apply the gentleman's logic to other parts of the Constitution; for example, this one: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Would he argue that means every newborn baby could immediately wield a musket? This might be constitutional, but I worry it would put the infantry on a war footing before the supplies could be organized. (Laughter and applause.)
Women are not only citizens, but the amendment further says, that no State shall pass any law or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of this citizenship. The privileges—not a part of them. What do we mean when we say the privileges? For instance, when we say "the ladies," do we not mean them all? "The Senators," we mean them all. We do not merely mean the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Nye), however he may have the right to be spoken of first. (Laughter and applause.) These terms, "privileges and immunities," are not now used for the first time in the American Constitution. They are old acquaintances of ours. They have done service a great while. They occur in this same Constitution, as will be seen by referring to the second section of Article IV, on page 38 of Paschal's admirably annotated Constitution of the United States: "Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Precisely, as the XIV. Amendment has it, but, as Judge Bradley recently said, with a much more enlarged meaning in the latter. They were old before the Constitution,[Pg 453] and were incorporated into it from the fourth article of the Old Confederation, which provided, "that the free inhabitants of each of the States shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the free citizens of the several States."
Women are not just citizens, but the amendment also states that no State can pass or enforce any law that limits the privileges and immunities of this citizenship. The privileges—not just part of them. What do we mean when we refer to the privileges? For example, when we say "the ladies," don't we mean all of them? "The Senators," we mean all of them. We don't just mean the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Nye), even though he has the right to be mentioned first. (Laughter and applause.) These terms, "privileges and immunities," are not new in the American Constitution. They are familiar terms. They've been in use for quite some time. They appear in this same Constitution, as you'll see by looking at the second section of Article IV, on page 38 of Paschal's excellently annotated Constitution of the United States: "Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Exactly, as the XIV Amendment states, but, as Judge Bradley recently pointed out, with a much broader meaning in the latter. They were already established before the Constitution,[Pg 453] and were included in it from the fourth article of the Old Confederation, which stated that "the free inhabitants of each of the States shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the free citizens of the several States."
If you would see a comment upon these terms, read the forty-second number of the Federalist, or a tumefied and diluted edition of it, in Story on the Constitution, which, like some other of his books, contains some remarks of his own, and are not always the best things in them. For the benefit of the Judiciary Committee, made up, as you know, of some of the ablest lawyers and best men of the country, I procured a judicial definition of these terms, "privileges, and immunities," although Mr. Attorney Bates said none exists, and my friend Judge Paschal, a more learned man, repeated it. I referred them to the case of Corfield vs. Coryell, 4th vol. of the so-called "Washington Circuit Court Reports," p. 371, where these terms came up, away back in the old time. Bushrod Washington, the favorite nephew of our Washington, made the decision, ladies. He was the Washington who got all of the brains of the family outside of its great chief; and he put them to a most admirable use. He was one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, and he judicially defined the meaning of these "privileges and immunities," and said that they included such privileges as are fundamental in their nature. And among them he says, is the right to exercise the elective franchise, and to hold offices, as provided for by the laws of the various States. And the great Chancellor Kent, quoting this case, thus approvingly incorporates its very language into his text, where it stands unchallenged, unquestioned, and uncontradicted.
If you want to see a comment on these terms, check out the forty-second article of the Federalist, or a bloated and watered-down version of it in Story on the Constitution, which, like some of his other books, includes some of his own remarks that aren't always the best. For the benefit of the Judiciary Committee, which is made up of some of the smartest lawyers and finest individuals in the country, I obtained a legal definition of the terms "privileges and immunities," even though Mr. Attorney Bates claimed none exists, and my friend Judge Paschal, a more knowledgeable person, echoed that. I pointed them to the case of Corfield vs. Coryell, in the fourth volume of the so-called "Washington Circuit Court Reports," page 371, where these terms were discussed long ago. Bushrod Washington, the favorite nephew of our Washington, made the ruling, ladies. He was the Washington who inherited all the brains of the family, apart from its great leader, and put them to excellent use. He served as one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, and he judicially defined the meaning of these "privileges and immunities," stating that they include privileges that are fundamental in nature. Among them, he highlighted the right to exercise the elective franchise and to hold offices, as laid out by the laws of the various States. The great Chancellor Kent, quoting this case, approvingly incorporates its very language into his text, where it remains unchallenged, unquestioned, and uncontradicted.
"It was declared in Corfield vs. Coryell, that the privileges and immunities conceded by the Constitution of the United States to citizens in the several States, were to be confined to those which were in their nature fundamental, and belonged of right to the citizens of all free governments. Such are the rights of protection of life and liberty, and to acquire and enjoy property, and to pay no higher impositions than other citizens, and to pass through or reside in the State at pleasure, and to enjoy the elective franchise according to the regulations of the law of the State" (2 Kent Com., p. 71).
"It was stated in Corfield vs. Coryell that the privileges and immunities granted by the Constitution of the United States to citizens in the various States are limited to those that are fundamentally essential and rightfully belong to citizens of all free governments. These include the rights to protection of life and liberty, to acquire and enjoy property, to be subject to no higher taxes than other citizens, to travel through or live in the State at will, and to enjoy the right to vote according to the laws of the State" (2 Kent Com., p. 71).
Why, the gentlemen of the Upper and of the Lower House, who are familiar with that decision and with its canonization by Kent, are not obliged to resort to Webster (not Daniel) and Worcester, nor to Grant White, nor even to Bouvier's Law Dictionary. They may overrule them all if they will. But they must go back to these sometimes forgotten decisions, which rest in the leaves of these dusty volumes, to these witnesses of the law, who declare that these expressions, "privileges, and immunities" include the elective franchise. And the whole people of these United States have solemnly declared "that all persons are citizens, and no State shall make or enforce any law to abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens." If such authority and such reasoning were presented to a court on the trial of any other case in the wide world, save that of women and their rights, an advocate would be stopped by the court before he had gone half the length I have in this argument. The court would say that they would hear from the other side. (Laughter.) But this thing of opposition to woman's rights does not rest in intelligence so that it can be grasped in argument. It has no intellectual foundation anywhere. No logic supports it.[Pg 454] No reason or argument sustains it. It rests upon no foundation of the human understanding; hence, it can not be combated; for, as Mr. Mills says, the worse it is beaten in argument the stronger it is fortified in prejudice. Men seem to think that inasmuch as this thing has always been, somehow or other, in some way or other, there was somewhere, at some time some reason for it, which could be shown now if somebody could only think of it or find it; but, of course, nobody ever did and nobody ever will. There never was any. (Laughter.)
Why, the guys in both the House of Representatives and the Senate who know about that decision and its endorsement by Kent aren’t required to refer to Webster (not Daniel) and Worcester, nor to Grant White, or even to Bouvier's Law Dictionary. They can overrule them all if they want. But they need to revisit those sometimes overlooked decisions that rest in the pages of those dusty books, these testaments to the law that state the terms “privileges and immunities” include the right to vote. And the entire population of the United States has officially declared that “all persons are citizens, and no State shall make or enforce any law to limit the privileges and immunities of the citizens.” If such authority and reasoning were presented to a court in any other case in the world, except that of women and their rights, a lawyer would be interrupted by the court before getting halfway through this argument. The court would say they need to hear from the other side. (Laughter.) But the opposition to women’s rights isn’t based on intelligence that can be addressed through argument. It has no intellectual basis at all. No logic backs it up. It stands on no foundation of human understanding; therefore, it can’t be challenged, because, as Mr. Mills says, the worse it is defeated in argument, the more it is strengthened by prejudice. Men seem to think that since this has always been the case, there must have been, at some point, some reason for it, which could be revealed if someone could just remember or locate it; but, of course, no one ever has, and no one ever will. There never was any. (Laughter.)[Pg 454]
One consideration alone is absolutely conclusive of this argument, and from it escape is impossible. "Persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," were already in the full and complete enjoyment of every privilege and immunity known to our political system, except the elective franchise and its correlative, the right to hold office. The only difference between the naturalized and unnaturalized individual is this right of voting. I pray our opponents to tell us then what is conferred by this first section of this wonderful article, if it be not these rights? Nothing else remained that it could confer; and this view alone silences cavil, even. If this section does not confer or guarantee the exercise of the elective franchise, then at infinite pains have we mined among the foundations of our marvelous structure, and have deposited there as one of them an utter sham, full of the emptiness of nothing. Let him escape this who may.
One consideration alone is completely decisive in this argument, and there's no way to get around it. "People born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction," were already fully enjoying every privilege and immunity in our political system, except for the right to vote and the corresponding right to hold office. The only difference between a naturalized citizen and someone who isn’t is this voting right. I ask our opponents to explain what is granted by this first section of this remarkable article if it isn’t these rights. Nothing else could be granted; this perspective alone puts objections to rest. If this section doesn't confer or guarantee the right to vote, then after great effort, we have dug through the foundations of our incredible structure and found there as one of them a complete illusion, filled with the emptiness of nothing. Let anyone who can escape this do so.
If there can still remain a question of doubt about this, I beg the attention of the doubters to the further words of the Constitution, to be found in the XV. Amendment. And here I am met with the apt inquiry, "Why, Mr. Riddle, if women are a part of 'all persons,' colored men are also a part of the same 'all persons,' and if women are made citizens and clothed with the immunities and privileges of citizenship by the XIV. Amendment, so were colored men; why, then, was it necessary to enact the XV. Amendment? This fact is fatal to your argument." Well, there was no necessity for it. It was a stupid piece of business, very stupid, and when we recover the lost art of blushing, some faces will color when that XV. Amendment is recalled. But it does us this good service; it settles the construction of this XIV. Amendment, as we contend for it, beyond all cavil. The general impression is, that the XV. Amendment confers the elective franchise upon the colored man. If it does not, then our opposers must give it up, for colored men rightfully vote. What does this article say? That the elective franchise is conferred upon persons of African descent, or those who have suffered from a previous condition of servitude? Not a word of it. It does say: "The right of citizens"—not the right of persons of African descent—"the right of citizens of the United States to vote, shall not be denied." That is what it says—"Shall not be denied or abridged, by the United States or by the several States." That does not confer suffrage; it recognizes a right already conferred, and says that it shall not be denied or abridged. A gentleman of the committee this morning took the ground that this amendment granted the franchise because it declares that the right to it shall not be denied! This is in effect that when a thing can not be denied, the lack of power to deny it creates it. (Laughter.) I confess I could not see it. (Laughter.) I have thought of it since, and I do not see it now.[Pg 455] "Shall not be denied or abridged." How can you abridge a thing that does not exist? And would the gentleman also contend that a lack of power to cut off a thing not in existence also creates the thing? This XV. Article then treats the right of the citizen to vote as already existing, and it specifies classes, as persons of color, of certain race, and of previous servitude, as especially having the right to vote.
If there’s still any doubt about this, I ask those who question it to pay attention to more words from the Constitution, specifically in the XV. Amendment. I’m faced with the valid question, “Why, Mr. Riddle, if women are included in 'all persons,' then so are colored men. And if women are granted citizenship and the rights and privileges of citizenship by the XIV. Amendment, then colored men are too; so why was it necessary to create the XV. Amendment? This fact undermines your argument.” Well, there was no need for it. It was a foolish move, very foolish, and when we regain the lost ability to blush, some faces will turn red when that XV. Amendment comes to mind. But it does serve us well; it clarifies the interpretation of the XIV. Amendment, as we argue for it, without any doubt. The general assumption is that the XV. Amendment gives the right to vote to colored men. If it doesn’t, then our opponents must concede, because colored men have the right to vote. What does this article say? Does it say that the right to vote is granted to people of African descent, or to those who were previously enslaved? Not at all. It states: “The right of citizens”—not specifically the right of people of African descent—“the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied.” That’s what it says—“Shall not be denied or abridged, by the United States or by the various States.” That does not grant the right to vote; it recognizes a right that is already granted, and states that it cannot be denied or restricted. A member of the committee this morning argued that this amendment gives the right to vote because it says the right shall not be denied! This means that when something cannot be denied, the inability to deny it makes it real. (Laughter.) Honestly, I couldn’t understand that. (Laughter.) I’ve thought about it since, and I still don’t see it. [Pg 455] "Shall not be denied or abridged." How can you limit something that doesn’t exist? And would the gentleman also argue that the inability to remove something that doesn’t exist also creates it? This XV. Article treats the right of citizens to vote as something that already exists, and it lists specific groups, such as people of color, of certain races, and those who have previously been enslaved, as particularly having the right to vote.
Where, when, and how did they get it? Was it by virtue of the XIV. Amendment? If so, it was because they were a part of the "all persons" named in it, of whom women are also a much larger and much more important part. So, past cavil, if the African received this franchise by the XIV. Article, then did women also receive it, and more abundantly! If you go back to the starting point of American politics, and say that the right is inherent in the colored man, then by the law of nature it is inherent in woman. I do not care which of these formulas you adopt. Not at all. In either event it is recognized as existing in a citizen of the United States. But my learned and subtle friend from Illinois said to me to-day, "Why, don't you see, Mr. Riddle, that they have limited the franchise in this XV. Amendment, so that it shall not be denied in the case of persons of color, and of a certain race, and previous condition of servitude, and does that not permit the States to deny it in other cases?" Well, the XV. Amendment alone would, perhaps, under the artificial rules of law, but I referred the gentleman immediately, as I refer you now, back to the XIV. Amendment where the right is conferred, and where in its great, broad, sweeping language it is declared that no State shall either enact or enforce any law that abridges the privileges and immunities of any citizen.
Where, when, and how did they obtain it? Was it thanks to the XIV Amendment? If so, it was because they were among the "all persons" mentioned in it, which includes women, who are also a much larger and more significant part. So, with that cleared up, if African Americans got this right through the XIV Article, then women did too, and in even greater measure! If you go back to the roots of American politics and claim that this right is inherent for people of color, then by natural law, it is also inherent for women. I don't care which of these arguments you choose to support. Either way, it is recognized as being present in a citizen of the United States. But my knowledgeable and clever friend from Illinois told me today, "Don't you see, Mr. Riddle, that they have limited the franchise in the XV Amendment so that it cannot be denied based on color or a certain race or previous condition of servitude, and doesn't that allow the States to deny it in other situations?" Well, the XV Amendment alone might seem to suggest that under some legal interpretations, but I directed the gentleman immediately, as I direct you now, back to the XIV Amendment where the right is granted, and where it is clearly stated in its broad language that no State shall create or enforce any law that restricts the privileges and immunities of any citizen.
The XV. Amendment in no way changes the XIV., nor does it add an iota to the privileges and immunities of the citizen. It could not. It reiterates for the benefit of these classes the declaration of the XIV.; and as that declares that no State shall deny the rights of the citizen, this adds to the list the United States, and its real force is spent in conferring upon Congress power to legislate in favor of the classes named in it, a power not granted by the XIV. Well, really, this must be the end of the argument. And I repeat, you find the XIV. Amendment declares that all persons are citizens; that they have the privilege and immunities of citizens, and the XV. declares that among the privileges and immunities of citizens is the right to suffrage, because it says in words that that shall not be denied, though men do deny it. How is the XV. Amendment declaring that it shall not be denied on account of either race, color, or previous condition of servitude, to be regarded? It spends its force in these two things. The XIV. Amendment only denied the power to the several States to abridge the privileges of citizenship. The XV. Amendment goes further, and says that neither any State nor the United States shall do it, using the term "deny" with the term "abrogate" of the other. It goes further; for the purposes of these three conditions it confers express power upon Congress to legislate, while the XIV. Amendment does not. But there is just one little thing further that I drop for the henpecked to pick at. There are three classes whose right to vote shall not be denied according to the XV. Amendment—persons of color, persons on account of race, and persons who have suffered from previous condition of servitude. Now, ladies, what is[Pg 456] really the legal status of marriage, so far as the condition of the wife is concerned?
The XV Amendment doesn't change the XIV Amendment at all, nor does it add anything to the rights and protections of citizens. It can't. It emphasizes for these groups the declaration of the XIV Amendment; and since that declaration states that no State can deny citizens' rights, this one adds the United States to that list. Its main purpose is to give Congress the power to create laws supporting the groups mentioned, a power the XIV Amendment doesn’t provide. Well, this should wrap up the argument. I want to emphasize that the XIV Amendment states that all people are citizens and that they have the privileges and rights of citizens, while the XV Amendment states that among these privileges and rights is the right to vote, because it clearly says that it cannot be denied, even though it still is. How should we view the XV Amendment stating that the right to vote cannot be denied on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude? Its strength lies in these two points. The XIV Amendment only limited the states' ability to reduce citizens' privileges. The XV Amendment goes further, stating that neither the states nor the United States can deny this right, using the term "deny" alongside "abrogate" as mentioned in the other amendment. It goes even further; for the purposes of these three categories, it specifically empowers Congress to legislate, while the XIV Amendment does not. But there's just one more detail I'll mention for those who might want to argue. There are three groups whose right to vote cannot be denied under the XV Amendment—people of color, people based on race, and people who have experienced previous conditions of servitude. Now, ladies, what is[Pg 456] the actual legal status of marriage, particularly regarding the wife's status?
Susan B. Anthony.—One of servitude, and of the hardest kind, and just for board and clothes, at that, too. (Laughter and applause.)
Susan B. Anthony.—One of servitude, and of the toughest kind, just for food and clothes, at that. (Laughter and applause.)
Mr. Riddle.—And they frequently have to make and pay for their clothes, and board themselves—(renewed laughter)—and not only themselves, but board also the lord and master, who calls himself the head of the family. But that is not all of it. It is not cant; it is not popular phraseology, but it is the language of the law. The condition of the married woman is that of servitude. The law calls her husband "baron," and she is simply a woman—"feme." The law gives her to the man, not the man to her, nor the two mutually to each other. They become one, and that one is the husband—such as he is. Her name is blotted out from the living, or at best it is appended to that of the husband. She belongs to her master; all that she has belongs to him. All that she earns is his, because she is his. If she does anything that binds him, it is simply as his servant. If she makes a contract that is binding even upon herself, it is because he consents to it. She does not own anything; she does not own the children that are born of her. The husband exclusively controls them while living, and by his will he may, and often does, bequeath to somebody else the custody and care of them after his death. And the law which we men make enforces all this to-day. I trust that most of us are a great deal better than the law. If the wife of a man should suffer by an accident on a railroad, and suit should be brought to recover against the company for injury to her person, the suit brought by the husband would be upon the ground that his wife was his servant, and he had lost her service. If he did not, he could not recover.
Mr. Riddle.—They often have to make and pay for their own clothes, and take care of their own meals—(renewed laughter)—and not just for themselves, but also for the husband, who sees himself as the head of the family. But that’s not the whole story. It's not just talk; it’s the wording of the law. The status of a married woman is essentially one of servitude. The law refers to her husband as "baron," and she is just a woman—"feme." The law gives her to the man, not the other way around, nor do they equally belong to each other. They become one, and that one is the husband—whatever that may mean. Her name is erased from existence, or at best it is tacked onto her husband’s. She belongs to her master; everything she has belongs to him. Everything she earns is his because she is his. If she does anything that creates obligations for him, it’s merely as his servant. If she makes a contract that is binding even on herself, it’s only because he agrees to it. She doesn’t own anything; she doesn’t own the children born to her. The husband has full control over them while they’re alive, and by his choice, he may, and often does, pass their custody and care to someone else after he dies. And the law that we men create supports all this today. I hope that most of us are much better than the law. If a man's wife is injured in a railroad accident and a lawsuit is filed against the company for her injuries, the case brought by the husband would be based on the idea that his wife was his servant and he has lost her service. If he didn’t argue that, he couldn’t recover.
Mrs. Stanton.—Is such the law in case of a daughter?
Mrs. Stanton.—Is that how the law works for a daughter?
Mr. Riddle.—So far as that is concerned, where the daughter is a minor, it is the same as the case of a son a minor; but the wife is always the servant of the husband; she never graduates from him; she never becomes of age or arrives at the years of discretion. (Sotto voce.) If she had, she never would have entered into that condition. Miss Anthony would say the law pronounces the state of matrimony to be a condition of servitude for the wife in express terms. How does the XV. Amendment apply to her? Here is the previous condition of servitude provided for; and this XV. Amendment in its effect was but to enforce the XIV. in favor of persons held in a previous and, of course, a continuing condition of servitude. Does this really abrogate the servitude of the wife, and invoke in her favor the action of Congress? My distinguished brother, Butler, said this morning, that the clause relative to the previous condition of servitude applied only to widows. (Laughter.)
Mr. Riddle.—As far as that's concerned, when the daughter is a minor, it's the same as when the son is a minor; but the wife is always seen as the servant of the husband; she never graduates from him; she never reaches adulthood or gains full legal capacity. (Sotto voce.) If she had, she never would have agreed to that situation. Miss Anthony would argue that the law explicitly states that marriage puts the wife in a state of servitude. How does the XV Amendment apply to her? Here is the previously recognized state of servitude; and this XV Amendment effectively just reinforced the XIV in favor of people who were in a previous and, naturally, ongoing state of servitude. Does this actually end the servitude of the wife and grant her the right to seek action from Congress? My esteemed colleague, Butler, mentioned this morning that the clause about previous servitude only applies to widows. (Laughter.)
But, ladies and gentlemen, aside from badinage, for the subject is too grave and too solemn, it comes back to this thing. The Constitution of the United States solemnly declares that every person born and naturalized in the United States, and within its jurisdiction, are citizens; and that no State shall pass, or enforce a law to abrogate the privileges and immunities of citizenship. We do not need any XVI. Amendment. We need only intelligent, firm decisive, and deciding—reasonably brave courts, and to have a question made[Pg 457] and brought to their adjudication. I propose to offer Mrs. Griffing and two or three other ladies for registration, two or three months hence, when the time comes, here. (Applause.) If they are not registered, I propose to try the strength of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, composed of five intelligent gentlemen, and known not to be conservatives on some questions, whatever they will prove to be on this, and see whether they will issue a mandamus. If they won't, I will take the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, and one of the present judges of that Court, who is not pre-eminently in favor of what is called woman's rights, recently passed upon this XIV. Amendment. In the case of the "Live Stock Dealers" et al. vs. "The Crescent City Live Stock Company," in the circuit court of the United States, at New Orleans, Judge Bradley, of the Supreme Court of the United States, said of the XIV. Amendment:
But, ladies and gentlemen, aside from the joking, this topic is too serious and important to ignore. The Constitution of the United States clearly states that everyone born and naturalized in the United States, and under its jurisdiction, are citizens; and that no state can create or enforce a law that removes the rights and privileges of citizenship. We don’t need an XVI Amendment. What we really need are intelligent, firm, decisive, and reasonably brave courts, and to have a question raised[Pg 457] and brought to them for judgment. I plan to propose that Mrs. Griffing and a couple of other women register to vote in a couple of months when the time comes, right here. (Applause.) If they aren’t registered, I will test the strength of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which consists of five capable gentlemen who are known not to be conservatives on some issues, regardless of how they might lean on this one, to see if they will issue a mandamus. If they don’t, I will take the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, where one of the current judges, who isn’t particularly supportive of what’s called women’s rights, recently ruled on this XIV Amendment. In the case of the "Live Stock Dealers" et al. vs. "The Crescent City Live Stock Company," in the circuit court of the United States, in New Orleans, Judge Bradley, of the Supreme Court of the United States, spoke about the XIV Amendment:
"It is possible that those who framed the article were not themselves aware of the far-reaching character of its terms. They may have had in mind but one particular phase of social and political wrong, which they desired to redress. Yet, if the amendment, as framed and expressed, does, in fact, bear a broader meaning, and does extend its protecting shield over those who were never thought of when it was conceived and put in form, and does reach such social evils which were never before prohibited by Constitutional Amendment, it is to be presumed that the American people, in giving it their imprimatur, understood what they were doing, and meant to decree what has, in fact, been done.
"It’s possible that the people who wrote the article weren’t fully aware of how far-reaching its terms would be. They might have only focused on a specific social or political issue that they wanted to fix. However, if the amendment, as written, actually has a broader meaning and offers protection to those who weren’t even considered when it was created, and addresses social issues that were never before addressed by a Constitutional Amendment, we can assume that the American people, by approving it, understood what they were doing and intended to establish what has, in fact, been established."
"It embraces much more. The 'privileges and immunities' secured by the original Constitution were only such as each State gave to its own citizens. Each was prohibited from discriminating in favor of its own citizens, and against the citizens of other States.
"It includes much more. The 'privileges and immunities' guaranteed by the original Constitution were only those that each State granted to its own citizens. Each State was forbidden from favoring its own citizens over those from other States."
"But the XIV. Amendment prohibits any State from abridging the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, whether its own citizens or any others. It not merely requires equality of privileges, but it demands that the privileges and immunities of all citizens shall be absolutely unabridged, unimpaired."—Mrs. Bradwell's Legal News.
"But the 14th Amendment prohibits any state from limiting the rights or privileges of United States citizens, whether they are its own citizens or others. It not only requires equal rights, but it insists that the rights and privileges of all citizens must be completely unrestricted and intact."—Mrs. Bradwell's Legal News.
What "particular phase of social and political wrong" could have been in the mind of the clear-seeing judge when he gave forth these utterances?
What "specific phase of social and political injustice" could have been in the mind of the insightful judge when he made these statements?
Gentlemen and ladies, when I stand in the presence of and contemplate for a moment this great XIV. Article, the crown of the now perfected Constitution, I bow with amazed reverence to it. It shines upon me with the light of a new revelation. And this argument is great from no effort of mine, but great in its power of self-enunciation. This article is one of those great principles that come, Messiah like, to announce themselves. It needed no forerunner, and it works its own miracles in its own good time, and will convert all to its own sway, and to its own purposes. And, I trust that ere long we shall hear from the committee of the House upon this question, and that we shall get enlightened and intelligent discussion of it in the House of the American Representatives.
Ladies and gentlemen, when I stand before this great Article XIV, the pinnacle of our now established Constitution, I bow in awe before it. It illuminates my understanding with the light of a fresh revelation. This argument is powerful not because of my own efforts, but because it speaks for itself. This article is one of those significant principles that emerges, much like a savior, to declare its presence. It required no precursor, and it works its own wonders in its own time, drawing all towards its authority and goals. I hope that soon we will hear from the House committee on this matter and that we will have informed and meaningful discussions about it in the House of Representatives.
Here the argument closes, but suffer a word further. It is said that woman does not want the suffrage. Who says that she does not want it? Man says so and nobody else. Man asks the question, and answers it himself. I know it often comes from female lips, but it is man's answer.
Here the argument ends, but let me add one more thing. It's said that women don't want the right to vote. Who claims that she doesn't? It's men who say so, and no one else. Men ask the question and answer it themselves. I know it often comes from women, but it’s still a man's answer.
I deny that women have declared that they don't want the ballot. They have never been asked whether they want it. When we want a response from men how do we propound the question? We submit it formally to be voted upon by the ballot. That is the way we propound a political question to men. How do they answer it? They answer it by their solemn votes at[Pg 458] the ballot box. Propound this question, and in this solemn way to the women of the United States. Pass a law to that effect and take a vote, or else forever stop—close up all gabble on this subject, that women do not want it. Offer her the chance by which she can speak and see whether she wants it or not, and let her vote "yes" or "no." Then from that we will take another start. But don't refuse to let her answer, and assume to answer for her, and say you represent her. You barely succeed in misrepresenting men at your best, let alone this atrocious twaddle about representing women. Let her vote, and then we can tell whether you have a right to represent her or not.
I reject the idea that women have said they don't want the vote. They've never been asked if they want it. When we want a response from men, how do we ask? We formally submit it to be voted on by ballot. That's how we present a political question to men. How do they respond? They respond by casting their votes at[Pg 458] the ballot box. Ask this question in the same serious manner to the women of the United States. Pass a law to that effect and hold a vote, or else just stop talking about how women don’t want it. Give her the opportunity to express herself and see if she wants it or not, and let her vote "yes" or "no." Then we can move forward from there. But don’t deny her the chance to answer and pretend to speak for her. You barely manage to represent men correctly at your best, let alone this ridiculous claim about representing women. Let her vote, and then we can determine whether you have the right to represent her or not.
We men have made the institutions for men, and for men alone; never consulted woman. We have said she was nobody, and nowhere, or, if she was found anywhere she was out of her sphere, (laughter) and must go back to nowhere immediately, and to nobody. We have gravely assumed that we understood her nature and character better than she did herself. It is one of the wondrous elements of the sexes that they shall perpetually reveal themselves to each other, and neither shall ever fully comprehend the other. Let woman speak for herself. Give her a chance to speak as man speaks, by precisely the same language, and in the same manner, and then reverently incline your heads, and listen to what she says.
We men have created institutions just for ourselves, without ever asking women for their input. We’ve treated them like they don’t exist or, when they are present, like they don’t belong and need to go back to being invisible. We’ve foolishly assumed that we understand their nature and character better than they do. One of the amazing things about the sexes is that they continually reveal themselves to one another, yet neither will ever fully understand the other. Let women express themselves. Give them the same opportunity to speak as men do, using the same language and manner, and then respectfully listen to what they have to say.
I have said this great question is up for final argument. My mission was simply to present to you this dry, but very interesting question of woman's rights, under the XIV. Amendment. To my mind, the argument is perfectly invincible. It never can be met, and never will be, and it will, ultimately work out its own end.
I have stated that this important question is ready for a conclusive debate. My goal was just to bring to you this crucial, yet fascinating issue of women's rights under the XIV Amendment. In my opinion, the argument is completely solid. It can't be countered, and it will never be, and it will ultimately resolve itself.
Thanking you for the kindness with which you have listened to me, I leave this matter with you.
Thank you for your kindness in listening to me. I’ll leave this matter in your hands.
ADDRESS OF MRS. ISABELLA BEECHER HOOKER.
Mrs. Hooker said: We are told by men themselves that there are too many voters already; restriction is what we want, not enlargement of the suffrage. Let us see how this is, my friends—let us reason together on this point for a few moments. The one great propelling power of this Government that moves the great political engine, and that keeps us alive as a Nation on the face of the earth, is God's own doctrine of personal liberty and personal responsibility. That is all we have to go upon. It is, in fact, fuel and steam. Liberty is the steam, responsibility puts on the brakes, and then what is the safety-valve, I ask you? Is it not our election day? Look at it in this way. Every honest lawyer will tell you that the next best thing to settling a quarrel between two belligerents is to bring the parties into court. Because the court-room is a great cooling off place, a perfect refrigerator. A man who has quarreled with his neighbor comes into court, and, before the lawyers get through with him, he wishes he hadn't quarreled. How is it that our courts act in this way? What do we gain in this? Everything. In old times a dispute between man and man was settled by blows—fisticuffs—gradually superseded by the sword, at last by the pistol; and now we have thrown that out, and established a system of jurisprudence. Now all these petty grievances must be settled in court. Private violence must no longer be permitted, and that is a great march in civilization.
Mrs. Hooker said: We're told by men themselves that there are already too many voters; what we need is restrictions, not an expansion of suffrage. Let's examine this, friends—let's talk it over for a moment. The main driving force behind this Government that operates the massive political machine, and that keeps us functioning as a Nation on this planet, is God's own principle of personal liberty and personal responsibility. That's all we have to rely on. It's basically fuel and steam. Liberty is the steam, responsibility applies the brakes, and what, I ask you, is the safety valve? Isn’t it our election day? Think about it this way. Every honest lawyer will tell you that the next best thing to resolving a dispute between two fighting parties is to bring them to court. Because the courtroom is a great place for cooling down, a perfect refrigerator. A person who has argued with their neighbor steps into court, and by the time the lawyers are done with him, he wishes he hadn't fought. How do our courts work like this? What do we gain from it? Everything. In the past, disputes between individuals were settled through violence—fisticuffs—then gradually transitioned to swords, and finally to pistols; and now we’ve moved beyond that and established a system of law. Now all these minor grievances must be resolved in court. Private violence is no longer allowed, and that marks a significant advance in civilization.
The parallel case is this: We in this country—we men, I mean, for women[Pg 459] are nobodies and nowhere when you come to the discussion of great questions like these, but I use the conventional we—we in this country are attempting to carry our ideas of liberty and responsibility into legislation, and we don't agree—we quarrel bitterly and almost come to blows again—but election days cool us off, acting like a court-room itself. We accept their judgment, and go about our business quietly till next time. Now if we were all Americans, acting under an intelligent sense of responsibility, everything might be expected to run smoothly under this regime; but the trouble is when the foreigner comes in who does not understand our institutions, who is, perhaps, ignorant, debased, and superstitious. But the foreigner is, it seems to me, the very man who needs this safety-valve of the election day more than any other on the face of the globe. We ourselves could run our own nationality; but here comes this man from the principalities of the old world—from Europe we will say, to begin with—and he has an idea that he is going to be richer, smarter, happier, more on an equality with every other man than ever he was before. He comes here, and what does he find? He finds a ladder, reaching higher into the clouds, perhaps, but the lower rounds are just as near the earth as over there, and he is on the lowest round still. He sees his next-door neighbor has more money than he has, is better educated, and commands the respect of the community, as he does not, and he is filled with disappointment, and sometimes with rage. What would he naturally do, with his old world antecedents and training, when he is thus aggrieved as he conceives himself to be? Why, burn your barn, break into your house, steal all he could from you. But what does election day do for him? On that day he is as good as anybody. He goes to the polls side by side with the first man in the land, and he rides in a carriage there, if he is too drunk to walk, and he can vote the first man in the line, if he chooses. The richest man in the country must walk behind him and wait for his turn. He drops his ballot and he is cooled off. He soon begins to get hold a little of this idea of responsibility that I am speaking of, and after a while it will come into his head—very slowly, perhaps, for we are all slow to learn these things—that he has got to work himself up and get on a par with those intelligent and influential people who are so powerful in making laws and customs.
The situation is this: In this country—we men, I mean, because women[Pg 459] are often overlooked when discussing major issues like these, but I’ll use the conventional "we"—we in this country are trying to bring our ideas of freedom and responsibility into our laws, and we can’t agree—we argue fiercely and almost come to blows again—but election days calm us down, acting like a courtroom itself. We accept the outcome and go about our business quietly until the next time. Now, if we were all Americans acting with a clear sense of responsibility, everything might be expected to run smoothly under this system. The problem arises when a foreigner comes in who doesn’t understand our institutions, who might be ignorant, unrefined, or superstitious. But it seems to me that the foreigner is the very person who needs the safety-release of election day more than anyone else on the planet. We could manage our own nationality; but then comes this person from the principalities of the old world—from Europe, let's say, to start with—and he thinks he’s going to be richer, smarter, happier, and more equal to everyone than ever before. He arrives here, and what does he find? He discovers a ladder that reaches higher into the clouds, perhaps, but the lower rungs are just as close to the ground as they were back home, and he is still on the lowest rung. He sees his neighbor has more money, is better educated, and commands respect in the community, while he does not, and he feels disappointed, even angry. What would he naturally do, given his old-world background and training, when he believes he has been wronged? Well, he might want to burn your barn, break into your house, and steal what he can. But what does election day do for him? On that day, he is as good as anyone else. He goes to the polls alongside the most prominent person in the country, and he can ride in a carriage there, even if he’s too drunk to walk, and he can vote for the top candidate if he wants. The richest man in the country has to wait behind him for his turn. He drops his ballot and calms down. He gradually starts to grasp this idea of responsibility that I’m talking about, and after some time—very slowly, perhaps, because we all take time to learn these things—it will occur to him that he needs to work his way up and become equal to those intelligent and influential people who hold power in shaping laws and customs.
Now, gentlemen, it seems to me if you could disfranchise every foreigner to-day who was not intelligent, or if you could make intelligence the test of voting, you would have ten barns burned where you have one now. I believe it firmly. Being naturally conservative, as I think all women are, a few years ago I really thought that ten, even twenty years' residence might be required of foreigners before they should be allowed to vote. I said they did not know enough, and so ought to be kept out as long as that. To-day I am inclined not to limit the time a moment longer than it is necessary for men to get their naturalization papers out, and go through the required legal formalities. If disfranchisement meant annihilation, selfishly, I might be glad to get rid of this troublesome question in that way, the task of ruling this country would then be a far easier one than it is; but it does not mean annihilation. So when gentlemen talk with me, and say we have too many voters already, I reply, do not disfranchise these men, enlighten them, for God has sent them here for a purpose of His own. And I say to you gentlemen[Pg 460] the ballot in the hands of every man is the only thing that saves us from anarchy to-day, that keeps us alive as a republic—the ballot in the hands of these ignorant men, and the more ignorant they are the more they need it, and the more we need they should have it. And let me say, in passing, that reconstruction at the South is hindered to-day for the same reason, responsibility is taken away from a large class of citizens. A disfranchised class is always a restless class; a class that, if it be not as a whole given up to deeds of violence, will at least wink at them, when committed by men either in or out of its own ranks. What the South needs to-day is ballots, not bullets.
Now, gentlemen, it seems to me that if you could strip every foreigner of their voting rights today who's not intelligent, or if you made intelligence the requirement for voting, you'd end up with ten barns burned for every one that burns now. I believe that firmly. Being naturally conservative, as I think all women are, a few years ago I really thought that foreigners should be required to live here for ten or even twenty years before being allowed to vote. I believed they didn't know enough and should be kept out for that long. Today, I’m inclined not to set any time limit other than what's necessary for people to get their naturalization papers and complete the required legal steps. If disenfranchisement meant complete elimination, I might selfishly be relieved to resolve this troublesome issue that way; ruling this country would then be much easier than it is now. But it doesn’t mean annihilation. So when gentlemen talk to me and say we already have too many voters, I respond that we shouldn't disenfranchise these men; we should enlighten them, for God has brought them here for His own purpose. And I say to you gentlemen[Pg 460] that the ballot in the hands of every man is the only thing saving us from anarchy today; it keeps us alive as a republic—the ballot in the hands of these uninformed men, and the more ignorant they are, the more they need it, and the more we need them to have it. And let me point out, in passing, that reconstruction in the South is hindered today for the same reason: responsibility is taken away from a large group of citizens. A disenfranchised group is always a restless group; a group that, even if it's not entirely given to acts of violence, will at least overlook them when committed by men within or outside its own ranks. What the South needs today is ballots, not bullets.
I leave out of the question the ultimate educating power of the ballot, though I would like to make you an argument upon that alone. But I say give the poor men, ignorant men the ballot for purposes of self-defense, and because we could not live in safety in our homes otherwise. New York is poorly governed, we say, to-day, and getting to be a pretty dangerous place to live in. But what would it be if every foreigner and every ignorant man could not go out on election day, and prove that he was as good as anybody? That is human nature, and it is human nature, and plenty of it too, that we have to deal with. And now, let me ask you, what are these men sent here for and who sent them? We have got all Europe, and all Asia is coming, and who sends them? When God put into that good ship Mayflower those two great ribs of oak, personal liberty and personal responsibility, He knew the precious freight she was to bear, and all the hopes bound up in her, and He pledged Himself by both the great eternities, the past and the future, that that ship should weather all storms and come safe to port with all she had on board. And what God has promised He will perform. So I beg of you not to think for a moment of limiting manhood suffrage.
I won't question the ultimate power of the ballot, even though I could argue that point alone. But I advocate for giving the poor and uneducated the right to vote for their own self-defense, since we couldn't live safely in our homes otherwise. Today, we say New York is poorly governed and becoming a pretty dangerous place to live. But what would it be like if every foreigner and every uneducated person couldn’t go out on election day and demonstrate that they are just as good as anyone else? That’s human nature, and it’s a significant part of what we have to deal with. Now, let me ask you, what are these people sent here for, and who sent them? We have all of Europe, and all of Asia is on the way, and who’s sending them? When God placed those two great principles of oak—personal liberty and personal responsibility—into the good ship Mayflower, He knew the precious cargo she would carry and all the hopes tied up with her. He pledged, by both the great eternities of past and future, that that ship would weather all storms and arrive safely at port with everything on board. And what God has promised, He will fulfill. So I urge you not to even think about limiting man's right to vote.
And if men can not live in this country in safe homes, except their neighbor men are enfranchised, can they live without enfranchised women any more? If you can not live in safety with irresponsible men in your midst, how can you live with irresponsible women? Much more, how can you grow into the stature of perfect men in Christ Jesus our Lord; how can you become perfect legislators, except your mothers are instructed on these great subjects you are called to legislate upon, that they may instruct you in their turn? You do not know anything so well as what your mothers have taught you; but they have not taught you political economy. It is not their fault that they have not, nor yours, perhaps. No man nor woman studies a subject profoundly except he or she is called upon to act upon it. What business man studies a business foreign to his own? What woman studies a business foreign to her own? In past ages this woman, in the providence of God, we will say, has been shut out from political action, for, so long as the sword ruled and man had to get his liberty by the sword, so long woman had all she could do to guard the home, for that was her part of the work; and she did it bravely and well, you will say. But now men are not fighting for their liberty with the gun by the door and the Indians outside. You are fighting for it in halls of legislation, with the spirit of truth—with spiritual weapons—and woman would be disloyal to her womanhood if she did not ask to share these heavy responsibilities with you. And she has really been training herself all these years she has seemed so indifferent; she has neglected[Pg 461] her duty in part—I confess it freely—it is not your fault alone, gentlemen, that we are not with you to-day. If we had been as conscious of our duty and privilege years ago as we are to-day, if we had known our birthright, we should have stood by your side, welcome coadjutors, long since. So we will take the blame of the past alike—we have all been walking very slowly this path of Christian civilization. But in the greatest conflict of modern times, you announced great principles and fought for them on the field, and we stood by them in the home, and we stand by them still there. And when we come to deliberate with you in solemn council as to how these principles shall be carried into legislation, your task will be easier, our opportunities will be larger, and still our hearts will be where they have ever been—in our homes.
And if men can't live in this country in safe homes unless their neighbors are given the right to vote, can they really live without women having that right too? If you can't feel safe with irresponsible men around, how can you feel safe with irresponsible women? Even more, how can you develop into the kind of perfect men in Christ Jesus our Lord; how can you become effective lawmakers unless your mothers are educated on these important issues that you’re supposed to legislate on, so they can teach you in return? The things you know best are what your mothers have taught you; but they haven’t taught you about political economy. It’s not their fault for not doing so, and maybe it’s not yours either. No man or woman thoroughly studies a subject unless they have to engage with it. What businessperson studies a field that's unrelated to their own? What woman studies a field that's unrelated to hers? In the past, this woman, as part of God's plan, has been excluded from political involvement because, for as long as conflicts were fought with swords and men had to earn their freedom through violence, women focused on defending the home—that was their role, and they did it bravely and well, you would say. But now men aren’t fighting for their freedom with guns at the ready and enemies outside. You are fighting for it in legislative halls, with the spirit of truth—using spiritual tools—and it would be a betrayal to womanhood for her not to seek to share these heavy responsibilities with you. And she has actually been preparing herself all these years while seeming indifferent; she has neglected her duty in part—I admit it freely—it’s not just your fault, gentlemen, that we aren’t standing with you today. If we had recognized our duty and privilege years ago as we do now, if we had understood our rights, we would have stood by your side as eager supporters long ago. So we will accept the blame for the past equally—we have all been slowly making our way down this path of Christian civilization. But in the greatest struggle of modern times, you proclaimed important principles and fought for them in the field, and we supported those principles at home, and we still do. And when we come to meet with you in serious discussion about how to translate these principles into law, your work will be easier, our opportunities will be greater, and our hearts will still be where they have always been—in our homes.
Forty-first Congress, 3d Session, House of Representatives, Report, No. 22, Jan. 30, 1871, recommitted to the Committee on Judiciary and ordered to be printed. Mr. Bingham, from the Committee on the Judiciary, made the following report.
Forty-first Congress, 3rd Session, House of Representatives, Report, No. 22, Jan. 30, 1871, sent back to the Committee on Judiciary and ordered to be printed. Mr. Bingham, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following report.
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the Memorial of Victoria C. Woodhull, having considered the same, make the following report:
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom the Memorial of Victoria C. Woodhull was referred, has reviewed it and submits the following report:
The Memorialist asks the enactment of a law by Congress which shall secure to citizens of the United States in the several States the right to vote "without regard to sex." Since the adoption of the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution, there is no longer any reason to doubt that all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, for that is the express declaration of the amendment.
The Memorialist requests that Congress pass a law ensuring that all citizens of the United States in the various States have the right to vote "without regard to sex." Since the adoption of the XIV Amendment to the Constitution, there is no longer any reason to doubt that all individuals, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they live, as that is the clear statement of the amendment.
The clause of the XIV. Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," does not, in the opinion of the Committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article IV., section 2. The XIV. Amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for their enforcement, as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It has been judicially determined that the first eight articles of amendment of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of section 2, article iv.
The clause of the 14th Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," does not, in the Committee's opinion, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States beyond those included in the original text of the Constitution, article IV, section 2. The 14th Amendment is believed not to have added to the previously mentioned privileges or immunities but was considered necessary for their enforcement as a clear limitation on state powers. It has been legally established that the first eight amendments of the Constitution were not limitations on state power, and there were concerns that the same might be applied to the provision of section 2, article IV.
To remedy this defect of the Constitution, the express limitations upon the States contained in the first section of the XIV. Amendment, together with the grant of power in Congress to enforce them by legislation, were incorporated in the Constitution. The words "citizens of the United States," and "citizens of the States," as employed in the XIV. Amendment, did not change or modify the relations of citizens of the State and Nation as they existed under the original Constitution.
To fix this flaw in the Constitution, the clear restrictions on the States found in the first section of the XIV Amendment, along with the authority given to Congress to enforce them through legislation, were included in the Constitution. The terms "citizens of the United States" and "citizens of the States," as used in the XIV Amendment, did not alter or modify the relationship between State and National citizens as it was outlined in the original Constitution.
Attorney-General Bates gave the opinion that the Constitution uses the the word "citizen," only to express the political quality of the individual in his relation to the Nation; to declare that he is a member of the body politic, and bound to it by the reciprocal obligation of allegiance on the one side[Pg 462] and protection on the other. The phrase "a citizen of the United States," without addition or qualification, means neither more nor less than a member of the Nation. (Opinion of Attorney-General Bates on citizenship.)
Attorney-General Bates stated that the Constitution uses the word "citizen" solely to indicate the political status of an individual in relation to the Nation; it signifies that the person is a part of the political community, bound to it by a mutual obligation of loyalty on one side[Pg 462] and protection on the other. The term "a citizen of the United States," without any additional details or qualifications, simply means a member of the Nation. (Opinion of Attorney-General Bates on citizenship.)
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that, according to the express words and clear meaning of the section 2, article iv. of the Constitution, no privileges are secured by it except those which belong to citizenship. (Connor et al. vs. Elliott et al., 18 Howard, 593). In Corfield vs. Coryell, 4 Washington Circuit Court Reports, 380, the Court say:
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that, based on the exact wording and clear meaning of section 2, article iv of the Constitution, no privileges are guaranteed except those that come with citizenship. (Connor et al. vs. Elliott et al., 18 Howard, 593). In Corfield vs. Coryell, 4 Washington Circuit Court Reports, 380, the Court states:
The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental; which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments; and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are would, perhaps, be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole; the right of a citizen of one State to pass through or to reside in any other State, for the purpose of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State, may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental; to which may be added the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or Constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised.... But we can not accede to the proposition which was insisted on by the counsel, that under this provision of the Constitution, sec. 2, art. 4, the citizens of the several States are permitted to participate in all the rights which belong exclusively to the citizens of any other particular State.
The question is, what are the rights and protections of citizens in the various States? We have no doubt in limiting these terms to those rights and protections that are fundamentally essential; that rightfully belong to the citizens of all free governments; and that have consistently been enjoyed by the citizens of the various States that make up this Union, since they became free, independent, and sovereign. Identifying what these fundamental principles are might be more tedious than challenging to list. However, they can all be grouped under the following general categories: Protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, including the right to acquire and own property of all kinds, and to seek and achieve happiness and safety, while still subject to reasonable regulations established by the Government for the overall benefit of everyone; the right for a citizen of one State to travel through or live in any other State for purposes of trade, farming, professional activities, or other reasons; to access the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to file and pursue legal actions in the courts of the State; to own, manage, and sell property, whether real or personal; and to be exempt from higher taxes or charges than what other citizens of the State pay, are some of the specific rights and protections of citizens that fall clearly under the broad description of fundamental privileges. Additionally, the right to vote, as governed and established by the laws or Constitution of the State where it is to be exercised, may also be included... But we cannot agree with the argument put forth by the counsel, that under this provision of the Constitution, sec. 2, art. 4, the citizens of the different States are allowed to participate in all the rights that belong exclusively to the citizens of any other specific State.
The learned Justice Story declared that the intention of the clause—"the citizens of each State shall be entitled, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"—was to confer on the citizens of each State a general citizenship, and communicated all the privileges and immunities which a citizen of the same State would be entitled to under the circumstances. (Story on the Constitution, vol. 2, p. 605).
The knowledgeable Justice Story stated that the purpose of the clause—"the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"—was to grant citizens of each State a general citizenship, which included all the privileges and immunities that a citizen of the same State would have under the circumstances. (Story on the Constitution, vol. 2, p. 605).
In the case of the Bank of the United States vs. Primrose, in the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Webster said:
In the case of the Bank of the United States vs. Primrose, in the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Webster said:
That this article in the Constitution (art. 4, sec. 2) does not confer on the citizens of each State political rights in every other State, is admitted. A citizen of Pennsylvania can not go into Virginia and vote at any election in that State, though when he has acquired a residence in Virginia, and is otherwise qualified, is required by the Constitution (of Virginia), he becomes, without formal adoption as a citizen of Virginia, a citizen of that State politically. (Webster's Works, vol. 6, p. 112).
That this article in the Constitution (art. 4, sec. 2) does not grant citizens of one State political rights in another State is acknowledged. A citizen of Pennsylvania cannot enter Virginia and vote in any election there, but once he establishes residency in Virginia and meets the requirements set by the Constitution (of Virginia), he automatically becomes a citizen of that State politically, without needing any formal adoption as a citizen of Virginia. (Webster's Works, vol. 6, p. 112).
It must be obvious that Mr. Webster was of opinion that the privileges and immunities of citizens, guaranteed to them in the several States, did not include the privilege of the elective franchise otherwise than as secured by the State Constitution. For, after making the statement above quoted, that a citizen of Pennsylvania can not go into Virginia and vote, Mr. Webster adds, "but for the purposes of trade, commerce, buying and selling, it is evidently not in the power of any State to impose any hindrance or embarrassment, etc.[Pg 463] upon citizens of other States, or to place them, going there, upon a different footing from her own citizens." (Ib.) The proposition is clear that no citizen of the United States can rightfully vote in any State of this Union who has not the qualifications required by the Constitution of the State in which the right is claimed to be exercised, except as to such conditions in the constitutions of such States as deny the right to vote to citizens resident therein "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
It should be clear that Mr. Webster believed that the rights and protections of citizens guaranteed in the various States did not include the right to vote unless it was provided for by the State Constitution. After stating that a citizen of Pennsylvania cannot go to Virginia and vote, Mr. Webster adds, "but for the purposes of trade, commerce, buying and selling, it is obviously not within the authority of any State to impose any hindrance or embarrassment, etc.[Pg 463] on citizens of other States, or to treat them differently from its own citizens." (Ib.) The point is clear that no citizen of the United States can justly vote in any State of this Union unless they meet the qualifications set by the Constitution of that State where they seek to vote, except for any conditions in those State constitutions that deny the right to vote to citizens residing there "because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
The adoption of the XV. Amendment to the Constitution imposing these three limitations upon the power of the several States, was by necessary implication, a declaration that the States had the power to regulate by a uniform rule the conditions upon which the elective franchise should be exercised by citizens of the United States resident therein. The limitations specified in the XV. Amendment exclude the conclusion that a State of this Union, having a government republican in form, may not prescribe conditions upon which alone citizens may vote other than those prohibited. It can hardly be said that a State law which excludes from voting women citizens, minor citizens, and non-resident citizens of the United States, on account of sex, minority, or domicil, is a denial of the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The adoption of the XV. Amendment to the Constitution, which imposes these three limitations on the power of the states, was essentially a statement that the states have the authority to establish a uniform rule for the conditions under which U.S. citizens living there can exercise their right to vote. The limitations outlined in the XV. Amendment do not imply that a state in this Union, governed in a republican manner, cannot set conditions for voting, as long as those conditions are not prohibited. It can hardly be argued that a state law that prevents women citizens, underage citizens, and non-resident citizens of the United States from voting—based on gender, age, or residency—is a denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or prior condition of servitude.
It may be further added that the 2d section of the XIV. Amendment, by the provision that "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors of President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, or executive and judicial officers of the State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, a citizen of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State," implies that the several States may restrict the elective franchise as to other than male citizens. In disposing of this question effect must be given, if possible, to every provision of the Constitution. Article 1, section 2, of the Constitution provides:
It can also be noted that the 2nd section of the XIV Amendment, which states that "when the right to vote in any election for choosing electors of the President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, or state executive and judicial officers, or members of the Legislature, is denied to any male residents of that state who are twenty-one years of age, citizens of the United States, or is restricted in any way, except for participation in rebellion or other crimes, the basis of representation will be reduced in proportion to the number of such male citizens compared to the total number of male citizens who are twenty-one years old in that state," suggests that states can limit voting rights to groups other than male citizens. In addressing this issue, all provisions of the Constitution must be considered where possible. Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution states:
That the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.
That the House of Representatives will consist of members elected every two years by the people of each State, and the voters in each State must meet the qualifications required for voters in the largest branch of the State Legislature.
This provision has always been construed to vest in the several States the exclusive right to prescribe the qualifications of electors for the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, and therefore for Members of Congress. And this interpretation is supported by section 4, article 1, of the Constitution, which provides:
This provision has always been understood to give the various States the exclusive authority to set the qualifications for voters for the largest part of the State Legislature, and consequently for Members of Congress. This interpretation is backed by section 4, article 1, of the Constitution, which states:
That the time, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations except as to the place of choosing Senators.
That the timing, locations, and ways of holding elections for Senators and Representatives will be determined by the Legislature of each State; however, Congress can, at any time, create or change these rules, except for the location of selecting Senators.
Now it is submitted, if it had been intended that Congress should prescribe the qualifications of electors, that the grant would have read: The Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, and also prescribe the qualifications of electors, etc. The power, on the contrary, is limited exclusively to the time, place, and manner, and does not extend to[Pg 464] the qualification of the electors. This power to prescribe the qualification of electors in the several States has always been exercised, and is, to-day, by the several States of the Union; and we apprehend, until the Constitution shall be changed, will continue to be so exercised, subject only to express limitations imposed by the Constitution upon the several States, before noticed. We are of opinion, therefore, that it is not competent for the Congress of the United States to establish by law the right to vote without regard to sex in the several States of this Union, without the consent of the people of such States, and against their constitutions and laws; and that such legislation would be, in our judgment, a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and of the rights reserved to the States respectively by the Constitution. It is undoubtedly the right of the people of the several States so to reform their constitutions and laws as to secure the equal exercise of the right of suffrage at all elections held therein under the Constitution of the United States, to all citizens, without regard to sex; and as public opinion creates constitutions and governments in the several States, it is not to be doubted that whenever, in any State, the people are of opinion that such a reform is advisable, it will be made.
Now it is submitted that if Congress had intended to set the qualifications for voters, the grant would have stated: The Congress may at any time by law make or change such regulations, and also set the qualifications of electors, etc. On the contrary, the power is limited strictly to the time, place, and manner, and does not extend to[Pg 464] the qualifications of the electors. This authority to set the qualifications of voters in the different States has always been used, and is still, today, by the various States of the Union; and we believe that until the Constitution is amended, it will continue to be exercised that way, subject only to specific limitations imposed by the Constitution on the individual States, as previously noted. Therefore, we believe it is not within the authority of Congress to establish by law the right to vote regardless of sex in the various States of this Union, without the consent of the people in those States, and against their constitutions and laws; and that such legislation would, in our view, violate the Constitution of the United States and the rights reserved to the States by the Constitution. It is undeniably the right of the people in the different States to reform their constitutions and laws to ensure equal voting rights at all elections held under the Constitution of the United States, to all citizens, without regard to sex; and since public opinion shapes constitutions and governments in the various States, it is unquestionable that whenever the people in any State feel such a reform is necessary, it will be enacted.
If however, as is claimed in the memorial referred to, the right to vote "is vested by the Constitution in the citizens of the United States without regard to sex," that right can be established in the courts without further legislation.
If, as stated in the referenced memorial, the right to vote "is granted by the Constitution to the citizens of the United States regardless of sex," then that right can be affirmed in the courts without needing any additional legislation.
The suggestion is made that Congress, by a mere declaratory act, shall say that the construction claimed in the memorial is the true construction of the Constitution, or in other words, that by the Constitution of the United States the right to vote is vested in citizens of the United States "without regard to sex," anything in the constitution and laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. In the opinion of the Committee, such declaratory act is not authorized by the Constitution nor within the legislative power of Congress. We therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution:
The proposal is that Congress, through a simple declaration, should assert that the interpretation stated in the memorial is the correct interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to vote for citizens "without regard to sex," regardless of any conflicting state constitutions or laws. The Committee believes that such a declaration is not permitted by the Constitution and is beyond Congress's legislative authority. Therefore, we recommend adopting the following resolution:
Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner be not granted, that the memorial be laid on the table, and that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.
Resolved, That the request of the petitioner not be approved, that the memorial be set aside, and that the Committee on the Judiciary be released from any further discussion of the matter.
Forty-first Congress, 3d Session, House of Representatives, Report No. V., Part 2, Feb. 1, 1871, ordered to be printed.
Forty-first Congress, 3rd Session, House of Representatives, Report No. V., Part 2, Feb. 1, 1871, ordered to be printed.
Mr. Loughridge, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following as the view of the minority:
Mr. Loughridge, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following as the minority's perspective:
In the matter of the Memorial of Victoria C. Woodhull, referred by the House to the Committee on the Judiciary, the undersigned, members of the Committee, being unable to agree to the report of the Committee, present the following as their views upon the subject of the Memorial:
Regarding the Memorial of Victoria C. Woodhull, which was referred by the House to the Committee on the Judiciary, we, the undersigned members of the Committee, are unable to agree with the Committee's report and present the following as our views on the subject of the Memorial:
The memorialist sets forth that she is a native born citizen of the United States, and a resident thereof; that she is of adult age, and has resided in the State of New York for three years past; that by the Constitution of the United States she is guaranteed the right of suffrage; but that she is, by the laws of the State of New York, denied the exercise of that right; and that by the laws of different States and Territories the privilege of voting is denied to all the female citizens of the United States; and petitions for relief by the[Pg 465] enactment of some law to enforce the provisions of the Constitution, by which such right is guaranteed.
The memorialist states that she is a native-born citizen of the United States and currently resides there; that she is of legal age and has lived in New York State for the past three years; that the Constitution of the United States guarantees her the right to vote; but that the laws of New York State prevent her from exercising that right; and that in various States and Territories, all female citizens of the United States are denied the privilege of voting; and she petitions for relief through the[Pg 465]
The question presented is one of exceeding interest and importance, involving as it does the constitutional rights not only of the memorialist but of more than one-half of the citizens of the United States—a question of constitutional law in which the civil and natural rights of the citizen are involved. Questions of property or of expediency have nothing to do with it. The question is not "Would it be expedient to extend the right of suffrage to women," but, "Have women citizens that right by the Constitution as it is." A question of this kind should be met fairly and investigated in that generous and liberal spirit characteristic of the age, and decided upon principles of justice, of right, and of law.
The issue at hand is extremely significant and important, as it concerns the constitutional rights not just of the individual bringing the matter forward but also of over half of the citizens of the United States. It’s a matter of constitutional law that involves the civil and natural rights of the citizen. This isn’t about property or whether it makes sense; the question is not "Would it be sensible to give women the right to vote?" but rather, "Do women citizens have that right according to the Constitution as it stands?" We should approach questions like this with fairness and investigate them in the generous and open-minded spirit of our time, making decisions based on principles of justice, right, and law.
It is claimed by many that to concede to woman the right of suffrage would be an innovation upon the laws of nature, and upon the theory and practice of the world for ages in the past, and especially an innovation upon the common law of England, which was originally the law of this country, and which is the foundation of our legal fabric. If we were to admit the truth of this, it is yet no argument against the proposition, if the right claimed exists, and is established by the Constitution of the United States. The question is to be decided by the Constitution and the fundamental principles of our Government, and not by the usage and dogmas of the past. It is a gratifying fact that the world is advancing in political science, and gradually adopting more liberal and rational theories of government. The establishment of this Government upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence was in itself a great innovation upon the theories and practice of the world, and opened a new chapter in the history of the human race, and its progress toward perfect civil and political liberty.
Many people argue that granting women the right to vote would go against the laws of nature and the long-standing theories and practices of the world, especially those of the common law of England, which was originally the law in this country and serves as the foundation of our legal system. Even if we accepted this viewpoint, it wouldn't be a valid argument against the claim if the right being sought exists and is recognized by the United States Constitution. The issue should be determined by the Constitution and the core principles of our Government, not by past customs and beliefs. It’s encouraging to see that the world is progressing in political science and gradually embracing more liberal and rational theories of governance. The establishment of this Government based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence was itself a significant innovation in the theories and practices of the world, marking a new chapter in human history and its journey toward complete civil and political freedom.
But it is not admitted that the universal usage of the past has been in opposition to the exercise of political power by women. The highest positions of civil power have from time to time been filled by women in all ages of the world, and the question of the right of woman to a voice in government is not a new one by any means, but has been agitated, and the right acknowledged and exercised, in governments far less free and liberal than ours. In the Roman Republic, during its long and glorious career, women occupied a higher position, as to political rights and privileges, than in any other contemporaneous government. In England unmarried women have, by the laws of that country, always been competent to vote and to hold civil offices, if qualified in other respects; at least such is the weight of authority. In "Callis upon Sewers," an old English work, will be found a discussion of the question as to the right of women to hold office in England. The learned and distinguished author uses the following language:
But it’s not accepted that women’s political power has always faced universal opposition in the past. Throughout history, women have periodically held the highest civil positions in various societies, and the question of women’s right to participate in government isn’t new; it has been discussed, recognized, and acted upon in governments that are far less free and liberal than ours. In the Roman Republic, during its long and successful history, women had more political rights and privileges than in any other contemporary government. In England, unmarried women have always been eligible to vote and hold civil offices if they meet other qualifications; at least that is the prevailing interpretation. In "Callis upon Sewers," an old English text, there is a discussion about women’s right to hold office in England. The knowledgeable and respected author uses the following language:
And for temporal governments I have observed women to have from time to time been admitted to the highest places; for in ancient Roman histories I find Eudocia and Theodora admitted at several times into the sole government of the empire; and here in England our late famous Queen Elizabeth, whose government was most renowned; and Semiramis governed Syria; and the Queen of the South, who came to visit Solomon, for anything that appears to the contrary, was a sole queen; and to fall a degree lower, we have precedents that King Richard the First and King Henry the Fifth appointed by commissions their mothers to be regents of this realm in their absence in France.
And in temporary governments, I've noticed that women have occasionally been allowed in the highest positions. In ancient Roman histories, I find that Eudocia and Theodora were in charge of the empire at different times. Here in England, our well-known Queen Elizabeth had a very famous reign. Semiramis ruled Syria, and the Queen of Sheba, who visited Solomon, was a sole queen as far as we know. On a slightly lower note, we have examples of King Richard the First and King Henry the Fifth appointing their mothers as regents of this realm while they were away in France.
But yet I will descend a step lower; and doth not our law, temporal and spiritual,[Pg 466] admit of women to be executrixes and administratrixes? And thereby they have the rule or ordering of great estates, and many times they are guardianesses in chivalry, and have hereby also the government of many great heirs in the kingdom and of their own estates.
But I will go even further; doesn't our law, both civil and religious, [Pg 466] allow women to be executors and administrators? Because of this, they can manage large estates, and often they serve as guardians in chivalry, which gives them control over many significant heirs in the kingdom as well as their own properties.
So by these cases it appeareth that the common law of this kingdom submitted many things to their government; yet the statute of justices of the peace is like to Jethro's counsel to Moses, for there they speak of men to be justices, and thereby seemeth to exclude women; but our statute of sewers is, "Commission of sewers shall be granted by the King to such person and persons as the lords should appoint." So the word persons stands indifferently for either sex. I am of the opinion, for the authorities, reasons and causes aforesaid, that this honorable countess being put into the commission of the sewers, the same is warrantable by the law; and the ordinances and decrees made by her and the other commissions of sewers are not to be impeached for that cause of her sex.
So in these cases, it shows that the common law of this kingdom has entrusted many matters to their governance; yet the statute regarding justices of the peace is similar to Jethro's advice to Moses, as it refers to men as justices and seems to exclude women. However, our statute on sewers states, "Commission of sewers shall be granted by the King to such person or persons as the lords shall appoint." Here, the term "persons" applies equally to both genders. I believe, based on the authorities, reasons, and arguments mentioned, that this honorable countess being included in the commission of sewers is warranted by law, and the rules and decisions made by her and the other commissioners of sewers should not be challenged due to her gender.
And it is said by a recent writer:
And a recent writer says:
Even at present in England the idea of women holding official station is not so strange as in the United States. The Countess of Pembroke had the office of sheriff of Westmoreland and exercised it in person. At the assizes she sat with the judges on the bench. In a reported case it is stated by counsel and assented to by the court that a woman is capable of serving in almost all the offices of the kingdom.
Even today in England, the idea of women in official positions isn't as unusual as it is in the United States. The Countess of Pembroke held the role of sheriff of Westmoreland and carried it out herself. At the assizes, she sat on the bench with the judges. In a documented case, it was stated by the lawyer and agreed upon by the court that a woman is capable of serving in almost all the offices of the kingdom.
As to the right of women to vote by the common law of England, the authorities are clear. In the English Law Magazine for 1868-'69, vol. 26, page 120, will be found reported the case of the application of Jane Allen, who claimed to be entered upon the list of voters of the Parish of St. Giles, under the reform act of 1867, which act provides as follows: Every man shall, in and after the year 1868, be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote for a member or members to serve in Parliament, who is qualified as follows: 1st. Is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, etc., etc. It was decided by the court that the claimant had the right to be registered and to vote; that by the English law, the term man, as used in that statute, included woman. In that case the common law of England upon that question was fully and ably reviewed, and we may be excused for quoting at some length:
As for women's right to vote according to common law in England, the authorities are clear. In the English Law Magazine for 1868-'69, vol. 26, page 120, you'll find the case of Jane Allen, who sought to be added to the voter list of the Parish of St. Giles under the Reform Act of 1867. This act states: Every man shall, beginning in the year 1868, have the right to be registered as a voter, and once registered, to vote for a member or members to serve in Parliament, as long as he qualifies as follows: 1st. Is of legal age and not subject to any legal incapacity, etc. The court ruled that the claimant had the right to be registered and to vote; that according to English law, the term man in that statute also included women. In this case, the common law of England on this matter was thoroughly and skillfully reviewed, and we may be excused for quoting at some length:
And as to what has been said of there being no such adjudged cases, I must say that it is perfectly clear that not perhaps in either of three cases reported by Mr. Shaen, but in those of Catharine vs. Surry, Coates vs. Lyle, and Holt vs. Lyle, three cases of somewhat greater antiquity, the right of women freeholders was allowed by the courts. These three cases were decided by the judges in the reign of James I. (A. D. 1612). Although no printed report of them exists, I find that in the case of Olive vs. Ingraham, they were repeatedly cited by the lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench in the course of four great arguments in that case, the case being reargued three times (7 Mod., 264), and the greatest respect was manifested by the whole court for those precedents. Their importance is all the greater when we consider what the matter was upon which King James' judges sitting in Westminster Hall had to decide. It was not simply the case of a mere occupier, inhabitant, or scot or lot voter. Therefore the question did not turn upon the purport of a special custom, or a charter, or a local act of Parliament, or even of the common right in this or that borough. But it was that very matter and question which has been mooted in the dictum of Lord Coke, the freeholder's franchise in the shire, and upon that the decision in each case expressly was, that a feme sole shall vote if she hath a freehold, and that if she be not a feme sole, but a feme covert having freehold, then her husband during her coverture shall vote in her right. These, then, are so many express decisions which at once displace Lord Coke's unsupported assertion and declare the law so as to constrain my judgment. It is sometimes said, when reference is made to precedents of this kind, that they have never been approved by the bar. But that can not be said of these. Hakewell, the contemporary of Lord Coke and one of the greatest of all parliamentary[Pg 467] lawyers then living—for even Selden and Granvil were not greater than Hakewell—left behind him the manuscript to which I have referred, with his comments on those cases.
And regarding the claim that there are no established cases, I must point out that it's clear that, not necessarily in any of the three cases mentioned by Mr. Shaen, but in the cases of Catharine vs. Surry, Coates vs. Lyle, and Holt vs. Lyle—three cases that are somewhat older—the rights of women who own property were recognized by the courts. These three cases were decided by judges during the reign of James I. (A. D. 1612). Although no printed reports exist for them, I found that in the case of Olive vs. Ingraham, they were cited multiple times by the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench during four significant arguments in that case, which was reargued three times (7 Mod., 264), and the entire court showed great respect for those precedents. Their significance increases when we consider the issue that King James' judges sitting in Westminster Hall had to address. It wasn’t just a simple case involving an occupant, resident, or someone participating in local voting. So the question didn’t hinge on a specific custom, a charter, a local act of Parliament, or even common rights in any borough. Instead, it was the very issue referenced in Lord Coke's statements regarding the freeholder's rights in the shire, and the decision in each case was clear: a single woman can vote if she owns land, and if she is married but owns property, then her husband can vote on her behalf while they are married. These decisions directly contradict Lord Coke's unsupported claim and clarify the law in a way that influences my judgment. It's sometimes argued that precedents like these haven’t been endorsed by the legal community. However, that can’t be said about these cases. Hakewell, a contemporary of Lord Coke and one of the most prominent parliamentary lawyers of his time—even greater than Selden and Granvil—left behind a manuscript that I've mentioned, which includes his comments on those cases.
Sir William Lee, Chief Justice, in his judgment in the case of Olive vs. Ingraham, expressly says that he had perused them, and that they contained the expression of Hakewell's entire approval of the principles upon which they were decided, and of the results deduced; and we have the statement of Lord Chief Justice Lee, who had carefully examined those cases, that in the case of Holt vs. Lyle, it was determined that a feme sole freeholder may claim a vote for Parliament men; but if married, her husband must vote for her. In the case of Olive vs. Ingraham, Justice Probyn says:
Sir William Lee, Chief Justice, in his ruling in the case of Olive vs. Ingraham, specifically mentions that he had reviewed them, and that they reflected Hakewell's complete agreement with the principles on which they were decided, as well as the conclusions drawn. We also have the statement from Lord Chief Justice Lee, who thoroughly examined those cases, stating that in the case of Holt vs. Lyle, it was determined that a single female property owner can claim a vote for Parliament members; however, if she is married, her husband must vote on her behalf. In the case of Olive vs. Ingraham, Justice Probyn says:
The case of Holt vs. Lyle, lately mentioned by our Lord Chief Justice, is a very strong case; "They who pay ought to choose whom they shall pay." And the Lord Chief Justice seemed to have assented to that general proposition, as authority for the correlative proposition, that "women, when sole, had a right to vote." At all events, there is here the strongest possible evidence that in the reign of James I., the feme sole, being a freeholder of a country, or what is the same thing, of a county, of a city, or town, or borough, where, of custom, freeholders had the right to vote, not only had, but exercised the parliamentary franchise. If married, she could not vote in respect merely of her freehold, not because of the incapacities of coverture, but for this simple reason, that, by the act of marriage, which is an act of law, the title of the feme sole freeholder becomes vested for life in the husband. The qualification to vote was not personal, but real; consequently, her right to vote became suspended as soon and for as long as she was married. I am bound to consider that the question as to what weight is due to the dictum of my Lord Coke is entirely disposed of by those cases from the reign of James I. and George II., and that the authority of the latter is unimpeached by any later authority, as the cases of Rex. vs. Stubles, and Regina vs. Aberavon, abundantly show.
The case of Holt vs. Lyle, which was recently mentioned by our Chief Justice, is a very compelling case; "Those who pay should choose whom they will pay." The Chief Justice seemed to agree with that general idea, supporting the related idea that "women, when single, had the right to vote." In any case, there is strong evidence that during the reign of James I, a feme sole, who was a landowner in a county, city, town, or borough where custom allowed landowners to vote, not only had the right but also exercised the parliamentary franchise. If she was married, she could not vote based solely on her ownership of land—not due to the restrictions of marriage, but simply because, through the legal act of marriage, the feme sole's ownership was transferred for life to her husband. The right to vote was not personal but based on property; therefore, her right to vote was suspended as soon as she got married and remained that way as long as she was married. I believe that the question of how much weight to give to the statement of my Lord Coke is completely settled by those cases from the reign of James I and George II, and that the authority of the latter remains unchallenged by any later authority, as shown by the cases of Rex. vs. Stubles, and Regina vs. Aberavon.
In Anstey's Notes on the New Reform Act of 1867, the authorities and precedents upon the right of women to vote in England are examined and summed up, and the author concludes:
In Anstey's Notes on the New Reform Act of 1867, the rules and examples regarding women's right to vote in England are reviewed and summarized, and the author concludes:
It is submitted that the weight of authority is very greatly in favor of the female right of suffrage. Indeed, the authority against it is contained in the short and hasty dictum of Lord Coke, referred to above. It was set down by him in his last and least authoritative institute, and it is certain that he has been followed neither by the great lawyers of his time nor by the judicature. The principles of the law in relation to the suffrage of females will be found in Coates vs. Lyle, Holt vs. Ingraham, and The King vs. Stubles, cases decided under the strict rules for the construction of statutes.
It is argued that the majority of authority strongly supports women's right to vote. In fact, the opposition comes from a brief and rushed statement by Lord Coke, mentioned earlier. This was stated in his last and least influential work, and it's clear that neither the prominent lawyers of his time nor the courts have followed his lead. The legal principles regarding women's suffrage can be found in Coates vs. Lyle, Holt vs. Ingraham, and The King vs. Stubles, which were decided based on strict statutory interpretation rules.
It can not be questioned that from time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, unmarried women have been by the laws of England competent voters, subject to the freehold qualification which applied alike to men and women. Married women could not vote because they were not freeholders; by the common law their property upon marriage became vested in the husband. So that it appears that the admission of woman to participation in the affairs of government would not be so much of an innovation upon the theories and usage of the past as is by some supposed.
It’s undisputed that, since before anyone can remember, unmarried women have been eligible voters under English law, just like men, as long as they met the property qualifications. Married women couldn’t vote because they weren’t property owners; under common law, their property became the husband's upon marriage. Therefore, it seems that allowing women to take part in government affairs wouldn’t be as much of a radical change from past practices as some believe.
In England the theory was that in property representation, all property should be represented. Here the theory is that of personal representation, which of course, if carried out fully, includes the representation of all property. In England, as we have seen, the owner of the property, whether male or female was entitled to representation, no distinction being made on account of sex. If the doctrine contended for by the majority of the committee be correct, then this Government is less liberal upon this question than the[Pg 468] government of England has been for hundreds of years, for there is in this country a large class of citizens of adult age, and owners in their own right of large amounts of property, and who pay a large proportion of the taxes to support the Government, who are denied any representation whatever, either for themselves or their property—unmarried women, of whom it can not be said that their interests are represented by their husbands. In their case, neither the English nor the American theory of representation is carried out, and this utter denial of representation is justified upon the ground alone that this class of citizens are women. Surely we can not be so much less liberal than our English ancestors! Surely the Constitution of this Republic does not sanction an injustice so indefensible as that!
In England, the idea was that all property should have representation. Here, the focus is on personal representation, which, if fully implemented, includes representing all property. As we have seen, in England, the property owner, regardless of whether they are male or female, was entitled to representation, with no distinction made based on sex. If the majority of the committee's argument is correct, then this government is less progressive on this issue than the government of England has been for hundreds of years. In this country, there is a significant group of adult citizens who own substantial amounts of property and pay a large share of taxes to support the government, yet they are completely denied any representation for themselves or their property—specifically, unmarried women, whose interests cannot be said to be represented by their husbands. In their situation, neither the English nor the American theory of representation is applied, and this complete denial of representation is only justified by the fact that these citizens are women. Surely we cannot be less progressive than our English ancestors! Surely the Constitution of this Republic does not endorse such an indefensible injustice!
By the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, what constitutes citizenship of the United States, is for the first time declared, and who are included by the term citizen. Upon this question, before that time, there had been much discussion judicial, political, and general, and no distinct and definite definition of qualification had been settled. The people of the United States determined this question by the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that—
By the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, what it means to be a citizen of the United States is declared for the first time, along with who is included in the term citizen. Before this, there had been extensive discussion—judicial, political, and general—about this issue, but no clear and definite definition of citizenship had been established. The people of the United States resolved this question with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that—
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
All people born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its laws are citizens of the United States and of the state where they live. No state can create or enforce any law that limits the rights or privileges of U.S. citizens; nor can any state take away someone's life, liberty, or property without due process; nor deny any person within its borders equal protection under the law.
This amendment, after declaring who are citizens of the United States, and thus fixing but one grade of citizenship, which insures to all citizens alike all the privileges, immunities and rights which accrue to that condition, goes on in the same section and prohibits these privileges and immunities from abridgment by the States. Whatever these "privileges and immunities" are, they attach to the female citizen equally with the male. It is implied by this amendment that they are inherent, that they belong to citizenship as such, for they are not therein specified or enumerated.
This amendment, after stating who qualifies as citizens of the United States and establishing a single tier of citizenship, ensures all citizens have the same privileges, immunities, and rights that come with that status. It continues in the same section by prohibiting the States from limiting these privileges and immunities. Whatever these "privileges and immunities" may be, they apply to female citizens just as they do to male citizens. This amendment implies that these rights are inherent and belong to all citizens as a fundamental aspect of citizenship, as they are not specifically listed or detailed.
The majority of the committee hold that the privileges guaranteed by the XIV. Amendment do not refer to any other than the privilege embraced in section 2, of article 4, of the original text. The committee certainly did not duly consider this unjustified statement. Section 2, of article 4, provides for the privileges of "citizens of the States," while the first section of the XIV. Amendment protects the privileges of "citizens of the United States." The term citizens of the States and citizens of the United States are by no means convertible.
The majority of the committee believes that the privileges guaranteed by the 14th Amendment only relate to the privilege mentioned in section 2 of article 4 of the original text. The committee definitely did not fully consider this unfounded statement. Section 2 of article 4 outlines the privileges of "citizens of the States," while the first section of the 14th Amendment safeguards the privileges of "citizens of the United States." The terms citizens of the States and citizens of the United States are not interchangeable.
A circuit court of the United States seems to hold a different view of this question from that stated by the committee. In the case of The Live Stock Association vs. Crescent City (1st Abbott, 396), Justice Bradley, of the Supreme Court of the United States, delivering the opinion, uses the following language in relation to the first clause of the XIV. Amendment:
A circuit court of the United States seems to have a different perspective on this issue than what's presented by the committee. In the case of The Live Stock Association vs. Crescent City (1st Abbott, 396), Justice Bradley of the Supreme Court of the United States, while delivering the opinion, uses the following language regarding the first clause of the XIV Amendment:
The new prohibition that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" is not identical with the clause in the Constitution which declared that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." It embraces much more. It is possible that those who framed the article were not themselves aware of the[Pg 469] far-reaching character of its terms, yet if the amendment does in fact bear a broader meaning, and does extend its protecting shield over those who were never thought of when it was conceived and put in form, and does reach social evils which were never before prohibited by constitutional enactment, it is to be presumed that the American people, in giving it their imprimatur, understood what they were doing and meant to decree what in fact they have decreed. The "privileges and immunities" secured by the original Constitution were only such as each State gave to its own citizens, ... but the XIV. Amendment prohibits any State from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, whether its own citizens or any others. It not merely requires equality of privileges, but it demands that the privileges and immunities of all citizens shall be absolutely unabridged and unimpaired.
The new rule that "no State shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" is not the same as the clause in the Constitution that stated "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." It covers much more. It's possible that those who drafted this article weren't fully aware of the broad implications of its wording, but if the amendment does have a broader meaning and protects those who were never considered when it was created, and addresses social issues that were never before banned by the Constitution, then we can assume that the American people, in approving it, knew what they were doing and intended to establish what they in fact established. The "privileges and immunities" guaranteed by the original Constitution were only those provided by each State to its own citizens, ... but the XIV Amendment prevents any State from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, whether they are its own citizens or not. It not only requires equal privileges but also demands that the privileges and immunities of all citizens be entirely unabridged and unimpeded.
In the same opinion, after enumerating some "privileges" of the citizens, such as were pertinent to the case on trial, but declining to enumerate all, the Court further says:
In the same view, after listing some "privileges" of the citizens that were relevant to the case being tried, but choosing not to list them all, the Court also states:
These privileges can not be invaded without sapping the foundation of Republican government. A Republican government is not merely a government of the people, but it is a free government.... It was very ably contended on the part of the defendants that the XIV. Amendment was intended only to secure to all citizens equal capacities before the law. That was at first our view of it. But it does not so read. The language is, "No State shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." What are the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States? Are they capacities merely? Are they not also rights?
These privileges cannot be violated without undermining the foundation of a Republican government. A Republican government is not just a government by the people, but it is a free government... The defendants argued very convincingly that the XIV Amendment was only meant to guarantee all citizens equal rights under the law. That was initially our understanding as well. But that's not how it reads. The language states, "No State shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." What are the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States? Are they just capacities? Aren't they also rights?
The Court in this seems to intimate very strongly that the amendment was intended to secure the natural rights of citizens, as well as their equal capacities before the law.
The Court in this seems to strongly suggest that the amendment was meant to protect the natural rights of citizens, as well as their equal standing under the law.
In a case in the Supreme Court of Georgia, in 1869, the question was before the court whether a negro was competent to hold office in the State of Georgia. The case was ably argued on both sides, Mr. Akerman, the present Attorney General of the United States, being of counsel for the petitioner. Although the point was made and argued fully, that the right to vote and hold office were both included in the privileges and immunities of citizens, and were thus guaranteed by the XIV. Amendment, yet that point was not directly passed upon by the court, the court holding that under the laws and constitution of Georgia, the negro citizen had the right claimed. In delivering the opinion, Chief Justice Brown said:
In a case in the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1869, the court was asked whether a Black person was eligible to hold office in the State of Georgia. The case was skillfully argued on both sides, with Mr. Akerman, the current Attorney General of the United States, representing the petitioner. Although it was fully argued that the right to vote and hold office were both part of the privileges and immunities of citizens, which are guaranteed by the XIV Amendment, the court did not directly rule on that point. Instead, the court determined that under the laws and constitution of Georgia, the Black citizen had the right claimed. In delivering the opinion, Chief Justice Brown said:
It is necessary to the decision of this case to inquire what are the "privileges and immunities" of a citizen, which are guaranteed by the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Whatever they may be, they are protected against all abridgment by legislation.... Whether the "privileges and immunities" of the citizens embrace political rights, including the right to hold office, I need not now inquire. If they do, that right is guaranteed alike by the Constitution of the United States and of Georgia, and is beyond the control of the legislature.
It is important for the decision of this case to examine what the "privileges and immunities" of a citizen are, as guaranteed by the XIV Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Whatever those privileges and immunities may be, they are protected from any reduction by laws. Whether the "privileges and immunities" of citizens include political rights, such as the right to hold office, does not need to be addressed right now. If they do include that right, it is guaranteed by both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Georgia, and cannot be controlled by the legislature.
In the opinion of Justice McKay, among other propositions, he lays down the following:
In Justice McKay's view, among other ideas, he establishes the following:
2d. The rights of the people of this State, white and black, are not granted to them by the constitution thereof; the object and effect of that instrument is not to give, but to restrain, deny, regulate and guarantee rights, and all persons recognized by that constitution as citizens of the State have equal, legal and political rights except as otherwise expressly declared.
2d. The rights of the people of this State, both white and black, are not given to them by the constitution; the purpose and effect of that document is not to grant, but to restrict, deny, regulate, and protect rights. All individuals recognized by that constitution as citizens of the State have equal, legal, and political rights unless explicitly stated otherwise.
3d. It is the settled and uniform sense of the word "citizen," when used in reference to the citizens of the separate States of the United States, and to their rights as such citizens, that it describes a person entitled to every right, legal and political, enjoyed by any[Pg 470] person in that State, unless there he some express exceptions made by positive law covering the particular persons, whose rights are in question.
3d. The established and consistent meaning of the word "citizen," when referring to the citizens of the individual States of the United States and their rights as such, describes a person entitled to every legal and political right enjoyed by any person in that State, unless there are specific exceptions created by positive law regarding the particular individuals whose rights are being considered.
In the course of the argument of this case, Mr. Akerman used the following language upon the point, as to whether citizenship carried with it the right to hold office:
In the discussion of this case, Mr. Akerman stated the following regarding whether citizenship includes the right to hold office:
It may be profitable to inquire how the term (citizen) has been understood in Georgia.... It will be seen that men whom Georgians have been accustomed to revere believed that citizenship in Georgia carried with it the right to hold office in the absence of positive restrictions.
It might be useful to look into how the term (citizen) has been viewed in Georgia.... It will become clear that people whom Georgians traditionally respected thought that citizenship in Georgia included the right to hold office unless there were explicit restrictions.
The majority of the committee having started out with the erroneous hypothesis that the term "privileges of citizens of the United States," as used in the XIV. Amendment, means no more than the term "privileges of citizens," as used in section 2 of article 4, discuss the question thus:
The majority of the committee began with the mistaken assumption that the phrase "privileges of citizens of the United States," as mentioned in the XIV Amendment, is equivalent to the phrase "privileges of citizens," as stated in section 2 of article 4, and they discuss the issue as follows:
The right of suffrage was not included in the privileges of citizens as used in section 2, article 4, therefore that right is not included in the privileges of citizens of the United States, as used in the XIV. Amendment.
The right to vote wasn't included in the privileges of citizens as mentioned in section 2, article 4, so that right isn't part of the privileges of citizens of the United States as referenced in the XIV Amendment.
Their premise being erroneous their whole argument fails. But if they were correct in their premise, we yet claim that their second position is not sustained by the authorities, and is shown to be fallacious by a consideration of the principles of free government. We claim that from the very nature of our Government, the right of suffrage is a fundamental right of citizenship, not only included in the term "privileges of citizens of the United States," as used in the XIV. Amendment, but also included in the term as used in section 2, of article 4, and in this we claim we are sustained both by the authorities and by reason. In Abbott vs. Bayley, (6 Pick., 92,) the Supreme Court of Massachusetts says:
Their argument falls apart because their premise is wrong. However, even if their premise were right, we still argue that their second point isn’t backed by the authorities and is proven to be flawed when considering the principles of free government. We assert that, by the very nature of our Government, the right to vote is a fundamental right of citizenship, not only included in the term "privileges of citizens of the United States," as mentioned in the XIV Amendment, but also included in the term used in section 2 of article 4. We believe we are supported by both authorities and reason in this claim. In Abbott vs. Bayley, (6 Pick., 92,) the Supreme Court of Massachusetts states:
"The privileges and immunities" secured to the people of each State, in every other State, can be applied only to the case of a removal from one State into another. By such removal they become citizens of the adopted State without naturalization, and have a right to sue and be sued as citizens; and yet this privilege is qualified and not absolute, for they can not enjoy the right of suffrage or eligibility to office without such term of residence as shall be prescribed by the constitution and laws of the State into which they shall remove.
"The privileges and immunities" guaranteed to the people of each State in every other State only apply when someone moves from one State to another. By moving, they become citizens of their new State without needing to go through naturalization and have the right to sue and be sued like any other citizens. However, this privilege is limited and not absolute, as they cannot enjoy the right to vote or be eligible for office without the residency requirements set by the constitution and laws of the State they have moved to.
This case fully recognizes the right of suffrage as one of the "privileges of the citizen," subject to the right of the State to regulate as to the term of residence—the same principle was laid down in the case of Corfield vs. Coryell in the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Washington, in delivering the opinion of the court, used the following language:
This case fully acknowledges the right to vote as one of the "privileges of citizenship," while also allowing the State to set rules regarding residency duration—the same principle was established in the case of Corfield vs. Coryell in the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Washington, in giving the court's opinion, stated the following:
"The privileges and immunities conceded by the Constitution of the United States to citizens in the several States," are to be confined to those which are in their nature fundamental, and belong of right to the citizens of all free governments. Such are the rights of protection of life and liberty, and to acquire and enjoy property, and to pay no higher impositions than other citizens, and to pass through or reside in the State at pleasure, and to enjoy the elective franchise as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised.
"The rights and protections granted by the Constitution of the United States to citizens in the various States" should be limited to those that are fundamentally essential and are rightfully held by the citizens of all free governments. These include the rights to protection of life and liberty, the ability to acquire and enjoy property, to face no greater taxes or fees than other citizens, to travel through or live in the State as they choose, and to participate in elections as defined by the laws or constitution of the State in which they are voting.
And this is cited approvingly by Chancellor Kent. (2 Kent, sec. 72).
And this is mentioned positively by Chancellor Kent. (2 Kent, sec. 72).
This case is cited by the majority of the Committee, as sustaining their view of the law, but we are unable so to understand it. It is for them an exceedingly unfortunate citation.
This case is referenced by most of the Committee to support their legal perspective, but we can't see it that way. It's a very unfortunate reference for them.
In that case the court enumerated some of the "privileges of citizens," such as are "in their nature fundamental and belong of right to the citizens[Pg 471] of all free governments" (mark the language), and among those rights, place the "right of the elective franchise" in the same category with those great rights of life, liberty, and property. And yet the Committee cite this case to show that this right is not a fundamental right of the citizen! But it is added by the Court that the right of the elective franchise "is to be enjoyed as regulated and established by the State in which it is to be exercised." These words are supposed to qualify the right, or rather take it out of the list of fundamental rights, where the Court had just placed it. The Court is made to say by this attempt in the same sentence, "the elective franchise is a fundamental right of the citizen, and it is not a fundamental right." It is a "fundamental right," provided the State sees fit to grant the right. It is a "fundamental right of the citizen," but it does not exist, unless the laws of the State give it. A singular species of "fundamental rights!" Is there not a clear distinction between the regulation of a right and its destruction? The State may regulate the right, but it may not destroy it.
In that case, the court listed some of the "privileges of citizens," which are "in their nature fundamental and belong of right to the citizens[Pg 471] of all free governments" (noted language), and among those rights, it included the "right of the elective franchise" alongside the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property. Yet the Committee cites this case to argue that this right isn’t a fundamental right of the citizen! However, the Court adds that the right of the elective franchise "is to be enjoyed as regulated and established by the State in which it is to be exercised." These words seem to limit the right, or rather remove it from the list of fundamental rights where the Court had just placed it. The Court is made to say in the same statement, "the elective franchise is a fundamental right of the citizen, and it is not a fundamental right." It is a "fundamental right," as long as the State decides to grant it. It is a "fundamental right of the citizen," but it doesn’t exist unless the laws of the State provide for it. What a strange type of "fundamental rights!" Isn’t there a clear difference between regulating a right and destroying it? The State may regulate the right, but it cannot destroy it.
What is the meaning of "regulate" and "establish?" Webster says: Regulate—to put in good order. Establish—to make stable or firm. This decision then is, that "the elective franchise is a fundamental right of the citizen of all free governments, to be enjoyed by the citizen, under such laws as the State may enact to regulate the right and make it stable or firm." Chancellor Kent, in the section referred to, in giving the substance of this opinion, leaves out the word establish, regarding the word regulate as sufficiently giving the meaning of the Court. This case is, in our opinion, a very strong one against the theory of the majority of the Committee.
What do "regulate" and "establish" mean? Webster defines them as follows: Regulate—to put in order. Establish—to make stable or firm. So, the decision is that "the right to vote is a fundamental right of every citizen in all free governments, to be enjoyed by the citizen under the laws the State may create to regulate that right and make it stable or firm." Chancellor Kent, in the mentioned section, summarizes this opinion but omits the word establish, believing that regulate sufficiently captures the Court's meaning. In our view, this case strongly contradicts the theory of the majority of the Committee.
The Committee cite the language of Mr. Webster, as counsel in United States vs. Primrose. We indorse every word in that extract. We do not claim that a citizen of Pennsylvania can go into Virginia and vote in Virginia, being a citizen of Pennsylvania. No person has ever contended for such an absurdity. We claim that when the citizen of the United States becomes a citizen of Virginia, the State of Virginia has neither right nor power to abridge the privileges of such citizen by denying him entirely the right of suffrage, and thus all political rights. The authorities cited by the majority of the Committee do not seem to meet the case—certainly do not sustain their theory.
The Committee refers to Mr. Webster's statements as the lawyer in United States vs. Primrose. We agree with every word in that excerpt. We aren’t claiming that a citizen of Pennsylvania can go to Virginia and vote there just because they are from Pennsylvania. No one has ever argued such an absurdity. We assert that once a citizen of the United States becomes a citizen of Virginia, the state has no right or power to limit that citizen's privileges by completely denying them the right to vote, which strips them of all political rights. The sources referenced by the majority of the Committee do not seem to address the issue—nor do they support their argument.
The case of Cooper vs. The Mayor of Savannah (4 Geo., 72), involved the question whether a free negro was a citizen of the United States? The Court, in the opinion, says:
The case of Cooper vs. The Mayor of Savannah (4 Geo., 72) dealt with the issue of whether a free Black person was considered a citizen of the United States. The Court, in its opinion, states:
Free persons of color have never been recognized as citizens of Georgia; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or hold any civil office; they have no political rights, but have personal rights, one of which is personal liberty.
Free persons of color have never been recognized as citizens of Georgia; they are not allowed to own weapons, vote for members of the legislature, or hold any civil office; they have no political rights, but do have personal rights, one of which is personal liberty.
That they could not vote, hold office, etc., was held evidence that they were not regarded as citizens.
That they couldn't vote, hold office, etc., was seen as evidence that they weren't considered citizens.
In the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Scott vs. Sanford (19 Howard, p. 476), Mr. Justice Daniel, in delivering his opinion, used the following language as to the rights and qualities of citizenship:
In the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Scott vs. Sanford (19 Howard, p. 476), Justice Daniel, while giving his opinion, stated the following about the rights and characteristics of citizenship:
For who it may be asked is a citizen? What do the character and status of citizens import? Without fear of contradiction, it does not import the condition of being private property, the subject of individual power and ownership. Upon a principle of etymology alone, the term citizen, as derived from civitas, conveys the idea of connection or identification with the State or government, and a participation in its functions. But beyond[Pg 472] this there is not, it is believed, to be found, in the theories of writers on government, or in any actual experiment heretofore tried, an exposition of the term citizen which has not been understood as conferring the actual possession and enjoyment, or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment, of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political.
For whom can we ask, what does it mean to be a citizen? What do the qualities and status of citizens signify? Without a doubt, it doesn't refer to the status of private ownership or being subject to individual power. Just based on its etymology, the term citizen, derived from civitas, implies a connection or identification with the State or government, and a role in its functions. However, beyond[Pg 472] this, there seems to be no definition of the term citizen found in the theories of political writers or in any previous experiments tried that doesn't imply the actual possession and enjoyment, or the complete right of acquisition and enjoyment, of full equality in civil and political privileges.
And in the same case Chief Justice Taney said: "The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing; they both describe the political body, who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people, and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty." (19 Howard, 404).
And in the same case, Chief Justice Taney said: "The terms 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous and mean the same thing; they both refer to the political community, which, according to our republican institutions, constitutes the sovereignty, and who hold the power and run the Government through their representatives. They are what we commonly refer to as the sovereign people, and every citizen is a part of this group and a member of this sovereignty." (19 Howard, 404).
In an important case in the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice Jay, in delivering the opinion of the Court, said: "At the Revolution the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves. The citizens of America are equal as fellow-citizens, and joint tenants of the sovereignty." (Chishol vs. Georgia, 2 Dallas, 470).
In a significant case in the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice Jay, while presenting the Court's opinion, stated: "During the Revolution, sovereignty passed to the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless you consider the African slaves as such), and have no one to govern but themselves. The citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens and share the sovereignty equally." (Chishol vs. Georgia, 2 Dallas, 470).
In Conner vs. Elliott (18 Howard), Justice Curtis, in declining to give an enumeration of all the "privileges" of the citizen, said, "According to the express words and clear meaning of the clause, no privileges are secured except those that belong to citizenship."
In Conner vs. Elliott (18 Howard), Justice Curtis, in refusing to list all the "privileges" of the citizen, stated, "According to the exact wording and clear meaning of the clause, no privileges are guaranteed except those that are associated with citizenship."
The Supreme Court said, in Corfield vs. Coryell, that the elective franchise is such privilege; therefore, according to Justice Curtis, it belongs to citizenship. In a case in the Supreme Court of Kentucky (1 Littell's Ky. Reports, p. 333), the Court say:
The Supreme Court stated, in Corfield vs. Coryell, that the right to vote is a privilege; therefore, as Justice Curtis noted, it is part of being a citizen. In a case in the Supreme Court of Kentucky (1 Littell's Ky. Reports, p. 333), the Court said:
No one can, therefore, in the correct sense of the term, be a citizen of a State who is not entitled upon the terms prescribed by the institutions of the State to all the rights and privileges conferred by these institutions upon the highest class of society.
No one can truly be considered a citizen of a State unless they are entitled, according to the rules set by the State's institutions, to all the rights and privileges that those institutions grant to the highest social class.
Mr. Wirt, when Attorney-General of the United States, in an official opinion to be found on p. 508, 1st volume Opinions of Attorney-Generals, came to the conclusion that the negroes were not citizens of the United States, for the reason that they had very few of the "privileges" of citizens, and among the "privileges of citizens" of which they were deprived, that they could not vote at any election.
Mr. Wirt, when he was the Attorney General of the United States, stated in an official opinion found on p. 508, 1st volume of Opinions of Attorneys General, that he believed Black people were not citizens of the United States because they had very few of the "privileges" that come with citizenship, including the fact that they were not allowed to vote in any elections.
Webster defines a citizen to be "a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of voting for public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people." Worcester defines the word thus: "An inhabitant of a republic who enjoys the rights of a citizen or freeman, and who has a right to vote for public officers as a citizen of the United States." Bouvier, in his Law Dictionary, defines the term citizen: "One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for Representatives in Congress and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people." Aristotle defines a citizen to be "one who is a partner in the legislative and judicial power, and who shares in the honors of the State." (Aristotle de Repub., lib. 3, cap. 5, D.) The essential properties of Athenian citizenship consisted in the share possessed by every citizen in the legislature, in the election of magistrates, and in the courts of justice. (See Smith's Dictionary of Greek Antiquities, p. 289). The possession of[Pg 473] the jus suffragii, at least, if not also of the jus honorum, is the principle which governs at this day in defining citizenship in the countries deriving their jurisprudence from the civil law. (Wheaton's International Law, p. 892).
Webster defines a citizen as "a person, either native or naturalized, who has the right to vote for public officials and is qualified to hold office as determined by the people." Worcester defines it this way: "An inhabitant of a republic who enjoys the rights of a citizen or free person and has the right to vote for public officials as a citizen of the United States." Bouvier, in his Law Dictionary, defines a citizen as "one who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, has the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and other public officials, and who is qualified to hold office as determined by the people." Aristotle defines a citizen as "one who participates in the legislative and judicial power and shares in the honors of the State." (Aristotle de Repub., lib. 3, cap. 5, D.) The essential attributes of Athenian citizenship consisted of the participation of each citizen in the legislature, the election of magistrates, and the courts of justice. (See Smith's Dictionary of Greek Antiquities, p. 289). The possession of [Pg 473] the jus suffragii, at least, if not also of the jus honorum, is the principle that currently governs the definition of citizenship in countries that derive their legal systems from civil law. (Wheaton's International Law, p. 892).
The Dutch publicist, Thorbecke, says:
The Dutch publicist, Thorbecke, says:
What constitutes the distinctive character of our epoch is the development of the right of citizenship. In its most extended, as well as its most restricted sense, it includes a great many properties. The right of citizenship is the right of voting in the government of the local, provincial, or national community of which one is a member. In this last sense, the right of citizenship signifies a participation in the right of voting, in the general government, as member of the State. (Rev. & Fr. Etr., tom. v, p. 383).
What defines our era is the evolution of citizenship rights. In both broad and narrow terms, it encompasses many aspects. Citizenship rights include the right to vote in the governance of the local, regional, or national community that one belongs to. In this context, citizenship rights mean participating in the voting process as a member of the State. (Rev. & Fr. Etr., tom. v, p. 383).
In a recent work of some research, written in opposition to female suffrage, the author takes the ground that women are not citizens, and urges that as a reason why they can properly be denied the elective franchise, his theory being that if full citizens they would be entitled to the ballot. He uses the following language:
In a recent piece of research against women's right to vote, the author argues that women aren't citizens, claiming that's why they can rightfully be denied the right to vote. His theory is that if they were considered full citizens, they would have the right to the ballot. He states:
It is a question about which there may be some diversity of opinion, what constitutes citizenship or who are citizens. In a loose and improper sense the word citizen is sometimes used to denote any inhabitant of the country, but this is not a correct use of the word. Those, and no others, are properly citizens who were parties to the original compact by which the government was formed, or their successors who are qualified to take part in the affairs of government by their votes in the election of public officers. Women and children are represented by their domestic directors or heads in whose wills theirs is supposed to be included. They, as well as others not entitled to vote, are not properly citizens, but are members of the State, fully entitled to the protection of its laws. A citizen, then, is a person entitled to vote in the elections. He is one of those in whom the sovereign power of the State resides. (Jones on Suffrage, p. 48.)
It’s a topic where opinions may vary about what defines citizenship or who qualifies as a citizen. In a broad and incorrect way, the term citizen is sometimes used to refer to anyone living in the country, but that’s not the right use of the word. Only those who were part of the original agreement that established the government, or their qualified successors who can participate in government affairs by voting in public officer elections, are properly citizens. Women and children are represented by their domestic leaders or heads, whose decisions are assumed to include theirs. They, along with others not eligible to vote, are not considered proper citizens but are members of the State and deserve the protection of its laws. Therefore, a citizen is a person who has the right to vote in elections. They are part of those who hold the sovereign power of the State. (Jones on Suffrage, p. 48.)
But all such fallacious theories as this are swept away by the XIV. Amendment, which abolishes the theory of different grades of citizenship, or different grades of rights and privileges, and declares all persons born in the country or naturalized in it to be citizens, in the broadest and fullest sense of the term, leaving no room for cavil, and guaranteeing to all citizens the rights and privileges of citizens of the republic. We think we are justified in saying that the weight of authority sustains us in the view we take of this question. But considering the nature of it, it is a question depending much for its solution upon a consideration of the government under which citizenship is claimed. Citizenship in Turkey or Russia is essentially different in its rights and privileges from citizenship in the United States. In the former, citizenship means no more than the right to the protection of his absolute rights, and the "citizen" is a subject; nothing more. Here, in the language of Chief Justice Jay, there are no subjects. All, native-born and naturalized, are citizens of the highest class; here all citizens are sovereigns, each citizen bearing a portion of the supreme sovereignty, and therefore it must necessarily be that the right to a voice in the Government is the right and privilege of a citizen as such, and that which is undefined in the Constitution is undefined because it is self-evident.
But all such misleading theories as this are dismissed by the XIV Amendment, which eliminates the idea of different tiers of citizenship or varying rights and privileges. It states that all people born in the country or naturalized are citizens in the broadest and fullest sense of the word, leaving no room for doubt and guaranteeing all citizens the rights and privileges of citizens of the republic. We believe we are justified in saying that the majority of authority supports our view on this issue. However, given the nature of the question, it largely depends on the government under which citizenship is claimed. Citizenship in Turkey or Russia is fundamentally different in terms of rights and privileges compared to citizenship in the United States. In those countries, citizenship means no more than the right to protection of basic rights, and a "citizen" is simply a subject—nothing more. Here, in the words of Chief Justice Jay, there are no subjects. All, whether native-born or naturalized, are citizens of the highest status; all citizens here are sovereigns, each citizen holding a part of the supreme sovereignty. Therefore, it must be that the right to have a voice in the Government is a right and privilege of a citizen, and anything that is not specified in the Constitution is undefined simply because it is self-evident.
Could a State disfranchise and deprive of the right to a vote all citizens who have red hair; or all citizens under six feet in height? All will consent that the States could not make such arbitrary distinctions the ground for denial of political privileges; that it would be a violation of the first article of the XIV. Amendment; that it would be abridging the privileges of citizens. And yet the denial of the elective franchise to citizens on account of sex is[Pg 474] equally as arbitrary as the distinction on account of stature, or color of hair, or any other physical distinction. These privileges of the citizen exist independent of the Constitution. They are not derived from the Constitution or the laws, but are the means of asserting and protecting rights that existed before any civil governments were formed—the right of life, liberty and property. Says Paine, in his Dissertation upon the Principles of Government:
Could a state take away the right to vote from all citizens who have red hair or all citizens under six feet tall? Everyone would agree that states can’t make such arbitrary distinctions as reasons to deny political rights; that would go against the first article of the XIV Amendment and would infringe on citizens' privileges. Yet, the denial of the right to vote to citizens based on their sex is just as arbitrary as distinguishing based on height, hair color, or any other physical trait. These rights of citizens exist independent of the Constitution. They are not granted by the Constitution or laws, but rather are the means to assert and protect rights that existed before any civil government was established—the rights to life, liberty, and property. Paine states in his Dissertation upon the Principles of Government:
The right of voting for representatives is the primary right, by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce man to a state of slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another; and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is, in this case. The proposal, therefore, to disfranchise any class of men is as criminal as the proposal to take away property.
The right to vote for representatives is the fundamental right that protects all other rights. Taking away this right reduces a person to a state of slavery, as slavery means being controlled by someone else's will; anyone without a vote in electing representatives is, in this situation, enslaved. Therefore, the idea of disenfranchising any group of people is just as wrong as the idea of taking away their property.
In a state of nature, before governments were formed, each person possessed a natural right to defend his liberty, his life and his property from the aggressions of his fellow men. When he enters into the free government he does not surrender that right, but agrees to exercise it, not by brute force, but by the ballot, by his individual voice in making the laws that dispose of, control and regulate those rights. The right to a voice in the government is but the natural right of protection of one's life, liberty and property, by personal strength and brute force, so modified as to be exercised in the form of a vote, through the machinery of a free government. The right of self-protection, it will not be denied, exists in all equally in a state of nature, and the substitute for it exists equally in all the citizens after a free government is formed, for the free government is by all and for all.
In a natural state, before governments were created, everyone had the inherent right to protect their freedom, life, and property from the attacks of others. When a person joins a free government, they don't give up that right; instead, they agree to exercise it not through violence, but by voting, using their individual voice to shape the laws that govern and regulate those rights. The right to participate in government is simply the natural right to safeguard one’s life, liberty, and property, but adapted so that it is expressed as a vote within the framework of a free government. The right to self-defense, it’s clear, exists equally for everyone in a natural state, and the alternative to it is available to all citizens once a free government is established, as that government exists for and by everyone.
The people "ordained and established" the Constitution. Such is the preamble. "We, the people." Can it be said that the people acquire their privileges from the instrument that they themselves establish? Does the creature extend rights, privileges and immunities to the creator? No; the people retain all the rights which they have not surrendered; and if the people have not given to the Government the power to deprive them of their elective franchise, they possess it by virtue of citizenship. The true theory of this Government, and of all free governments, was laid down by our fathers in the Declaration of Independence, and declared to be "self-evident." "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving all their just powers from the consent of the governed." Here is the great truth, the vital principle, upon which our Government is founded, and which demonstrates that the right of a voice in the conduct of the government, and the selection of the rulers, is a right and privilege of all citizens. Another of the self-evident truths laid down in that instrument is:
The people "ordained and established" the Constitution. That's the preamble. "We, the people." Can it be said that the people gain their rights from the document they created themselves? Does the creation grant rights, privileges, and protections to its creator? No; the people keep all the rights they haven’t given up; and if the people haven’t given the Government the authority to take away their right to vote, they have that right simply by being citizens. The real theory of this Government, and of all free governments, was outlined by our founders in the Declaration of Independence, and it was stated to be "self-evident." "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are established among men, drawing all their legitimate power from the consent of the governed." Here is the fundamental truth, the essential principle, upon which our Government is built, and which shows that the right to have a say in how the government is run, and the choice of leaders, is a right and privilege for all citizens. Another of the self-evident truths stated in that document is:
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
That whenever any type of government becomes harmful to these goals, the people have the right to change or get rid of it and create a new government, building its foundations on principles that they believe will best ensure their safety and happiness.
How can the people carry out this right without the exercise of the ballot; and is not the ballot then a fundamental right and privilege of the citizen, not given to him by the Constitution, but inherent, as a necessity, from the very nature of the government?[Pg 475]
How can people exercise this right without using the ballot? Isn't the ballot a fundamental right and privilege of citizens, not granted by the Constitution, but inherent to the very nature of government?[Pg 475]
Benjamin Franklin wrote:
Benjamin Franklin wrote:
That every man of the commonalty, except infants, insane persons, and criminals, is, of common right, and by the laws of God, a freeman, and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty. That liberty or freedom consists in having an actual share in the appointment of those who frame the laws, and who are to be the guardians of every man; life, property, and peace; for the all of one man is as dear to him as the all of another, and the poor man has an equal right but more need to have representatives in the legislature than the rich one. That they who have no voice nor vote in the electing of representatives do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes and to their representatives; for, to be enslaved is to have governors whom other men have set over us, and be subject to laws made by the representatives of others, without having had representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf. (Franklin's Works, vol. 2. p. 372.)
That every common person, except for infants, those who are insane, and criminals, is, by common right and the laws of God, a freeman and entitled to fully enjoy their liberty. This liberty or freedom means having a real say in choosing those who create the laws and who will protect each person's life, property, and peace; for what is important to one person is just as valuable to another, and the poor have an equal right, but more need, to be represented in the legislature than the wealthy. Those who have no voice or vote in electing representatives do not truly enjoy liberty, but are completely enslaved to those who do have votes and their representatives; for to be enslaved means being governed by people whom others have placed over us, and being subject to laws made by others' representatives, without having representatives of our own to consent on our behalf. (Franklin's Works, vol. 2. p. 372.)
James Madison said:
James Madison said:
Under every view of the subject it seems indispensable that the mass of the citizens should not be without a voice in making the laws which they are to obey, and in choosing the magistrates who are to administer them. (Madison Papers, vol. 3, p. 14.)
Under every perspective on the topic, it appears essential that the majority of citizens have a say in creating the laws they must follow and in electing the officials who will enforce them. (Madison Papers, vol. 3, p. 14.)
Taxation without representation is abhorrent to every principle of natural or civil liberty. It was this injustice that drove our fathers into revolution against the mother country.
Taxation without representation goes against every principle of natural or civil liberty. This injustice is what led our founding fathers to revolt against the mother country.
The very act of taxing exercised over those who are not represented appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights as freemen, and if continued, seems to be, in effect, an entire disfranchisement of every civil right. For what one civil right is worth a rush after a man's property is subject to be taken from him at pleasure without his consent? If a man is not his own assessor, in person or by deputy, his liberty is gone, or he is entirely at the mercy of others. (Otis's Rights of the Colonies, p. 58.)
The act of taxing people who don’t have representation seems to me to take away one of their most fundamental rights as free individuals. If this continues, it appears to completely strip them of all their civil rights. After all, what value do civil rights hold if a person's property can be taken away at any time without their approval? If someone isn’t able to assess their own situation, either personally or through a representative, then their freedom is lost, and they are completely at the mercy of others. (Otis's Rights of the Colonies, p. 58.)
Nor are these principles original with the people of this country. Long before they were ever uttered on this continent they were declared by Englishmen. Said Lord Summers, a truly great lawyer of England:
Nor are these principles original to the people of this country. Long before they were ever spoken on this continent, they were declared by the English. Lord Summers, a truly great lawyer from England, said:
Amongst all the rights and privileges appertaining unto us, that of having a share in the legislation, and being governed by such laws as we ourselves shall cause, is the most fundamental and essential, as well as the most advantageous and beneficial.
Among all the rights and privileges that belong to us, having a say in the legislation and being governed by the laws we create ourselves is the most fundamental, essential, advantageous, and beneficial.
Said the learned and profound Hooker:
Said the knowledgeable and insightful Hooker:
By the natural law whereunto Almighty God hath made all subject, the lawful power of making laws to command whole politic societies of men, belongeth so properly unto the same entire societies, that for any prince or potentate of what kind soever upon earth to exercise the same of himself (or themselves), and not either by express commission immediately received from God, or else by authority derived at the first from their consent upon whose persons they impose laws, it is no better than mere tyranny! Agreeable to the same just privileges of natural equity, is that maxim for the English constitution, that "Law to bind all must be assented to by all"; and there can be no legal appearance of assent without some degree of representation.
According to the natural law established by Almighty God, the rightful authority to create laws that govern entire societies belongs to those societies themselves. Therefore, it's no better than sheer tyranny for any ruler or powerful individual on earth to take on this role independently, without either a direct commission from God or authority derived from the consent of the people they impose laws upon. In line with these fundamental rights of fairness, the principle in the English constitution states that "laws that bind everyone must be agreed upon by everyone"; and there can be no legal indication of agreement without some level of representation.
The great champion of liberty, Granville Sharpe, declared that—
The great champion of liberty, Granville Sharpe, declared that—
All British subjects, whether in Great Britain, Ireland, or the colonies, are equally free by the laws of nature; they certainly are equally entitled to the same natural rights that are essential for their own preservation, because this privilege of "having a share in the legislation" is not merely a British right, peculiar to this island, but it is also a natural right, which can not without the most flagrant and stimulating injustice be withdrawn from any part of the British empire by any worldly authority whatsoever. No tax can be levied without manifest robbery and injustice where this legal and constitutional representation is wanting, because the English law abhors the idea of taking the least property from freemen without their consent. It is iniquitous (iniquum est, says the maxim) that freemen should not have the free disposal of their own effects, and whatever is iniquitous can never be made lawful by any authority on earth, not even by the united authority of[Pg 476] king, lords, and commons, for that would be contrary to the eternal laws of God, which are supreme.
All British citizens, whether in Great Britain, Ireland, or the colonies, are equally free according to natural law. They certainly have the same natural rights necessary for their own preservation because the right to "participate in legislation" isn't just a British privilege unique to this island; it's also a natural right that cannot be taken away from any part of the British Empire by any worldly authority without extreme injustice. No tax can be imposed without obvious robbery and injustice when there is no legal and constitutional representation, because English law rejects the idea of taking even the smallest property from free people without their consent. It's unjust (as the saying goes) that free people shouldn't have control over their own possessions, and anything unjust can never be made lawful by any earthly authority, not even by the combined power of the king, lords, and commons, as that would go against the eternal laws of God, which are supreme.
In an essay upon the "first principles of government," by Priestly, an English writer of great ability, written over a century since, is the following definition of political liberty:
In an essay on the "first principles of government," by Priestly, a highly capable English writer, written more than a century ago, is the following definition of political liberty:
Political liberty I would say, consists in power, which the members of the State reserve to themselves, of arriving at the public offices, or at least of having votes in the nomination of those who fill them. In countries where every member of the society enjoys an equal power of arriving at the supreme offices, and consequently of directing the strength and sentiments of the whole community, there is a state of the most perfect political liberty.
Political liberty, I would say, is the power that the members of a state keep for themselves to reach public offices or, at the very least, to have a say in who gets those positions. In countries where every member of society has the same chance to access the highest offices and, therefore, to influence the strength and viewpoints of the entire community, there exists the most complete form of political liberty.
On the other hand, in countries where a man is excluded from these offices, or from the power of voting for the proper persons to fill them, that man, whatever be the form of the government, has no share in the government and therefore has no political liberty at all. And since every man retains and can never be deprived of his natural right of relieving himself from all oppression, that is, from everything that has been imposed upon him without his own consent, this must be the only true and proper foundation of all governments subsisting in the world, and that to which the people who compose them have an inalienable right to bring them back.
On the other hand, in countries where a man is excluded from these offices or from voting for the right people to fill them, that man, no matter what type of government it is, has no part in the government and thus has no political freedom at all. And since every man holds onto, and can never lose, his natural right to free himself from any oppression—meaning everything that has been imposed on him without his consent—this must be the only true and appropriate foundation for all governments existing in the world, and to which the people that make them up have an undeniable right to return.
It was from these great champions of liberty in England that our forefathers received their inspiration and the principles which they adopted, incorporated into the Declaration of Independence, and made the foundation and framework of our Government. And yet it is claimed that we have a Government which tramples upon these elementary principles of political liberty, in denying to one-half its adult citizens all political liberty, and subjecting them to the tyranny of taxation without representation. It can not be.
It was from these great champions of freedom in England that our forefathers drew their inspiration and the principles they adopted, included in the Declaration of Independence, and made the foundation and framework of our Government. And yet, it is claimed that we have a Government that disregards these fundamental principles of political freedom by denying half of its adult citizens all political rights and subjecting them to the tyranny of taxation without representation. It cannot be.
When we desire to construe the Constitution, or to ascertain the powers of the Government and the rights of the citizens, it is legitimate and necessary to recur to those principles and make them the guide in such investigation. It is an oft-repeated maxim set forth in the bills of rights of many of the State constitutions that "the frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is necessary for the preservation of liberty and good government." Recurring to these principles, so plain, so natural, so like political axioms, it would seem that to say that one-half the citizens of this republican government, simply and only on account of their sex, can legally be denied the right to a voice in the government, the laws of which they are held to obey, and which takes from them their property by taxation, is so flagrantly in opposition to the principles of free government, and the theory of political liberty, that no man could seriously advocate it.
When we want to interpret the Constitution or determine the powers of the Government and the rights of citizens, it's both appropriate and necessary to refer back to those principles and use them as our guide in such inquiries. It’s a commonly stated principle found in the bills of rights of many State constitutions that "frequently returning to fundamental principles is essential for preserving liberty and good government." Looking back at these principles, which are so obvious and natural, it seems that to claim that half of the citizens in this republican government can legally be denied a voice simply because of their sex—despite being bound by laws and taxed for their property—is so clearly against the principles of free government and the concept of political liberty that no one could genuinely support it.
But it is said in opposition to the "citizen's right" of suffrage that at the time of the establishment of the Constitution, women were in all the States denied the right of voting, and that no one claimed at the time that the Constitution of the United States would change their status; that if such a change was intended it would have been explicitly declared in the Constitution or at least carried into practice by those who framed the Constitution, and, therefore, such a construction of it is against what must have been the intention of the framers. This is a very unsafe rule of construction. As has been said, the Constitution necessarily deals in general principles; these principles are to be carried out to their legitimate conclusion and result by legislation, and we are to judge of the intention of those who[Pg 477] established the Constitution by what they say, guided by what they declare on the face of the instrument to be their object.
But it’s argued against the “citizen’s right” to vote that when the Constitution was established, women in all states were denied the right to vote, and at that time, no one believed that the U.S. Constitution would change that. If change had been intended, it would have been clearly stated in the Constitution or at least implemented by those who created it, so interpreting it this way goes against what the framers likely intended. This is a very unreliable way to interpret it. As has been noted, the Constitution deals with general principles; these principles should be carried out through legislation, and we should understand the intentions of those who[Pg 477] established the Constitution based on what they wrote, guided by what they explicitly stated their goals were.
It is said by Judge Story, in Story on the Constitution:
It is stated by Judge Story in Story on the Constitution:
Contemporary construction is properly resorted to to illustrate and confirm the text.... It can never abrogate the text; it can never fritter away its obvious sense; it can never narrow down its true limitations.
Contemporary construction is rightly used to illustrate and confirm the text.... It can never invalidate the text; it can never undermine its obvious meaning; it can never limit its true boundaries.
It is a well-settled rule that in the construction of the Constitution, the objects for which it was established, being expressed in the instrument, should have great influence; and when words and phrases are used which are capable of different constructions, that construction should be given which is the most consonant with the declared objects of the instrument. We go to the preamble to ascertain the objects and purpose of the instrument. Webster defines preamble thus: "The introductory part of a statute, which states the reason and intent of the law." In the preamble, then, more certainly than in any other way, aside from the language of the instrument, we find the intent. Judge Story says:
It is a well-established principle that when interpreting the Constitution, the purposes for which it was created, as stated in the document, should be given significant weight; and when there are words and phrases that can be understood in different ways, the interpretation should align most closely with the stated purposes of the document. We look to the preamble to understand the aims and objectives of the document. Webster defines a preamble as: "The introductory part of a statute, which states the reason and intent of the law." Therefore, in the preamble, more clearly than anywhere else, aside from the language of the document itself, we find the intent. Judge Story says:
The importance of examining the preamble for the purpose of expounding the language of a statute has been long felt and universally conceded in all juridical discussion. It is an admitted maxim ... that the preamble is a key to open the mind of the matters as to the mischiefs to be remedied and the objects to be accomplished by the statute.... It is properly resorted to where doubts or ambiguities arise upon the words of the enacting part, for if they are clear and unambiguous, there seems little room for interpretation, except in cases leading to an obvious absurdity or a direct overthrow of the intention expressed in the preamble. [Story on the Constitution, sec. 457.]
The importance of looking at the preamble to explain the language of a statute has been recognized and accepted in all legal discussions. It is a well-known principle that the preamble serves as a key to understanding the issues that need to be addressed and the goals to be achieved by the statute. It is appropriately referred to when doubts or uncertainties come up regarding the wording of the main section, because if those words are clear and straightforward, there's usually not much room for interpretation, unless it leads to an obvious absurdity or contradicts the intention stated in the preamble. [Story on the Constitution, sec. 457.]
Try this question by a consideration of the objects for which the Constitution was established, as set forth in the preamble, "to establish justice." Does it establish justice to deprive of all representation or voice in the Government one-half of its adult citizens, and compel them to pay taxes to and support a government in which they have no representation? Is "taxation without representation" justice established? "To insure domestic tranquillity." Does it insure domestic tranquillity to give all the political power to one class of citizens, and deprive another class of any participation in the government? No. The sure means of tranquillity is to give "equal political rights to all," that all may stand "equal before the law."
Consider the goals for which the Constitution was created, as stated in the preamble: "to establish justice." Does it really establish justice if we take away all representation and voice in the Government from half of its adult citizens, forcing them to pay taxes and support a government they have no say in? Is "taxation without representation" true justice? "To ensure domestic tranquility." Does it guarantee domestic peace to give all political power to one group of citizens while excluding another from participating in the government? No. The best way to achieve tranquility is to provide "equal political rights to all," so that everyone can stand "equal before the law."
"To provide for the common defense." We have seen that the only defense the citizen has against oppression and wrong is by his voice and vote in the selection of rulers and law makers. Does it, then, "provide for the common defense," to deny to one half the adult citizens of the republic that voice and vote?
"To provide for the common defense." We’ve seen that the only defense a citizen has against oppression and injustice is through their voice and vote in choosing rulers and lawmakers. So, does it really "provide for the common defense" to deny half of the adult citizens in the republic that voice and vote?
"To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." As has been already said, there can be no political liberty to any citizen deprived of a voice in the government. This is self-evident; it needs no demonstration. Does it, then, "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," to deprive one half the citizens of adult age of this right and privilege?
"To secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our future generations." As has already been mentioned, there can be no political freedom for any citizen who is denied a say in the government. This is obvious and requires no proof. So, does it really "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our future generations" to take away this right and privilege from half of the adult citizens?
Tried by the expressed objects for which the Constitution was established, as declared by the people themselves, this denial to the women citizens of the country of the right and privilege of voting is directly in contravention of these objects, and must, therefore, be contrary to the spirit and letter of the entire instrument. And according to the rule of construction referred[Pg 478] to, no "contemporaneous construction, however universal it may be, can be allowed to set aside the expressed objects of the makers, as declared in the instrument." The construction which we claim for the 1st section of the XIV. Amendment, is in perfect accord with those expressed objects; and even if there were anything in the original text of the Constitution at variance with the true construction of that section, the amendment must control. Yet we believe that there is nothing in the original text at variance with what we claim to be the true construction of the amendment.
Tried by the stated purposes for which the Constitution was created, as declared by the people themselves, denying women citizens the right and privilege to vote directly opposes these purposes and must therefore be against the spirit and letter of the entire document. According to the rule of interpretation mentioned[Pg 478], no "contemporary interpretation, regardless of how widespread it may be, can override the stated purposes of the drafters, as outlined in the document." The interpretation we argue for the 1st section of the XIV Amendment aligns perfectly with those stated purposes; and even if there were something in the original text of the Constitution that conflicted with the correct interpretation of that section, the amendment must take precedence. However, we believe that there is nothing in the original text that contradicts what we assert to be the correct interpretation of the amendment.
It is claimed by the majority of the committee that the adoption of the XV. Amendment was by necessary implication a declaration that the States had the power to deny the right of suffrage to citizens for any other reasons than those of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. We deny that the fundamental rights of the American citizen can be taken away by "implication." There is no such law for the construction of the Constitution of our country. The law is the reverse—that the fundamental rights of citizens are not to be taken away by implication, and a constitutional provision for the protection of one class can certainly not be used to destroy or impair the same rights in another class. It is too violent a construction of an amendment, which prohibits States from, or the United States from, abridging the right of a citizen to vote by reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, to say that by implication it conceded to the States the power to deny that right for any other reason. On that theory the States could confine the right of suffrage to a small minority, and make the State governments aristocratic, overthrowing their republican form. The XV. Article of Amendment to the Constitution clearly recognizes the right to vote, as one of the rights of a citizen of the United States. This is the language:
It is claimed by most of the committee that the adoption of the XV Amendment implied that states had the authority to deny the right to vote to citizens for any reason other than race, color, or previous condition of servitude. We reject the idea that the fundamental rights of American citizens can be taken away by "implication." There is no such law for interpreting the Constitution of our country. The law is actually the opposite—that the fundamental rights of citizens cannot be taken away by implication, and a constitutional provision meant to protect one group cannot be used to destroy or undermine the same rights in another group. It’s too extreme an interpretation of an amendment that prohibits states or the United States from restricting a citizen's right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude to say that it implies states can deny that right for any other reason. Following that reasoning, states could limit the right to vote to a small minority, making state governments aristocratic and undermining their republican form. The XV Article of Amendment to the Constitution clearly recognizes the right to vote as one of the rights of a citizen of the United States. This is the language:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The right of U.S. citizens to vote cannot be denied or limited by the United States or any state based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Here is stated, first, the existence of a right. Second, its nature. Whose right is it? The right of citizens of the United States. What is the right? The right to vote. And this right of citizens of the United States, States are forbidden to abridge. Can there be a more direct recognition of a right? Can that be abridged which does not exist? The denial of the power to abridge the right, recognizes the existence of the right. Is it said that this right exists by virtue of State citizenship, and State laws and Constitutions? Mark the language: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote;" not citizens of States. The right is recognized as existing independent of State citizenship.
Here it is stated, first, that a right exists. Second, what that right is. Whose right is it? It’s the right of citizens of the United States. What is the right? It’s the right to vote. And this right of citizens of the United States cannot be limited by the States. Is there a clearer acknowledgment of a right? Can something that doesn’t exist be restricted? The fact that there’s a prohibition against limiting the right confirms that the right exists. Is it claimed that this right exists because of State citizenship, State laws, and Constitutions? Pay attention to the language: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote;" not citizens of the States. The right is recognized as existing independently of State citizenship.
But it may be said, if the States had no power to abridge the right of suffrage, why the necessity of prohibiting them? There may not have been a necessity; it may have been done through caution, and because the peculiar condition of the colored citizens at that time rendered it necessary to place their rights beyond doubt or cavil.
But some might argue that if the states didn’t have the power to limit the right to vote, why was there a need to prohibit them from doing so? There might not have been an actual need; it could have been done out of caution, especially since the unique situation of the colored citizens at that time made it important to secure their rights without any doubt or debate.
It is laid down as a rule of construction by Judge Story that the natural import of a single clause is not to be narrowed so as to exclude implied powers resulting from its character simply because there is another clause[Pg 479] which enumerates certain powers which might otherwise be deemed implied powers within its scope, for in such cases we are not to assume that the affirmative specification excludes all other implications. (2 Story on Constitution, sec. 449.)
It is established by Judge Story that the natural meaning of a single clause should not be limited to exclude implied powers that arise from its nature just because there is another clause[Pg 479] that lists certain powers that could otherwise be considered implied powers within its range. In these situations, we shouldn't assume that the specific listing excludes all other implications. (2 Story on Constitution, sec. 449.)
There are numerous instances in the Constitution where a general power is given to Congress, and afterward a particular power given, which was included in the former; yet the general power is not to be narrowed, because the particular power is given. On this same principle the fact that by the XV. Amendment the States are specifically forbidden to deny the right of suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, does not narrow the general provision in the XIV. Amendment which guarantees the privileges of all the citizens against abridgment by the States on any account.
There are many places in the Constitution where Congress is given a broad power, followed by a specific power that falls under that broad category; however, the broad power doesn't get limited just because the specific power is granted. Similarly, the fact that the XV Amendment explicitly prohibits states from denying the right to vote based on race, color, or past servitude does not limit the broader guarantee in the XIV Amendment that protects all citizens' rights from being reduced by the states for any reason.
The rule of interpretation relied upon by the committee in their construction of the XV. Amendment is, "that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another," or the specification of particulars is the exclusion of generals. Of these maxims, Judge Story says:
The rule of interpretation that the committee used in their understanding of the XV. Amendment is, "that mentioning one thing excludes another," or specifying certain details excludes general ones. Regarding these maxims, Judge Story says:
They are susceptible of being applied, and often are ingeniously applied, to the subversion of the text and the objects of the instrument. The truth is, in order to ascertain how far an affirmative or negative provision excludes or implies others, we must look to the nature of the provision, the subject-matter, the objects, and the scope of the instrument; these and these only can properly determine the rule of construction (2 Story, 448).
They can be used, and often are cleverly used, to undermine the text and the purposes of the document. The reality is that to determine how much an affirmative or negative clause excludes or suggests others, we need to consider the nature of the clause, the subject, the objects, and the scope of the document; only these factors can accurately establish the rule of interpretation (2 Story, 448).
It is claimed by the committee that the second section of the XIV. Amendment implies that the several States may restrict the right of suffrage as to other than male citizens. We may say of this as we have said of the theory of the committee upon the effect of the XV. Amendment. It is a proposal to take away from the citizens guarantees of fundamental rights, by implication, which have been previously given in absolute terms. The first section includes "all citizens" in its guarantees, and includes all the "privileges and immunities" of citizenship and guards them against abridgment, and under no recognized or reasonable rule of construction can it be claimed that by implication from the provisions of the second section the States may not only abridge but entirely destroy one of the highest privileges of the citizen to one-half the citizens of the country. What we have said in relation to the committee's construction of the effect of the XV. Amendment applies equally to this. The object of the first section of this amendment was to secure all the rights, privileges, and immunities of all the citizens against invasion by the States. The object of the second section was to fix a rule or system of apportionment for Representatives and taxation; and the provision referred to, in relation to the exclusion of males from the right of suffrage, might be regarded as in the nature of a penalty in case of denial of that right to that class. While it, to a certain extent, protected that class of citizens, it left the others where the previous provisions of the Constitution placed them. To protect the colored man more fully than was done by that penalty was the object of the XV. Amendment. In no event can it be said to be more than the recognition of an existing fact, that only the male citizens were, by the State laws, allowed to vote, and that existing order of things was recognized in the rule of representation, just as the institution of slavery was recognized in the original Constitution, in the article[Pg 480] fixing the basis of representation, by the provision that only three-fifths of all the slaves ("other persons") should be counted. There slavery was recognized as an existing fact, and yet the Constitution never sanctioned slavery, but, on the contrary, had it been carried out according to its true construction, slavery could not have existed under it; so that the recognition of facts in the Constitution must not be held to be a sanction of what is so recognized.
It’s claimed by the committee that the second section of the XIV Amendment suggests that the states can limit the right to vote to male citizens only. This is similar to what we’ve said about the committee's interpretation of the XV Amendment. It’s an attempt to take away from citizens guarantees of fundamental rights, implied by the amendment, that were previously given in clear terms. The first section includes “all citizens” in its protections, covering all the “privileges and immunities” of citizenship and preventing their reduction. No recognized or reasonable interpretation could claim that the second section implies that states may not only limit but completely remove one of the highest privileges of citizenship for half the citizens of the country. What we’ve stated about the committee’s interpretation of the XV Amendment applies here as well. The purpose of the first section of this amendment was to protect all rights, privileges, and immunities of all citizens from state interference. The second section aimed to establish a rule or system for apportioning Representatives and taxation; the provision regarding the exclusion of males from the right to vote could be viewed as a penalty for denying that right to that group. While it somewhat protected that group of citizens, it left the others as the previous provisions of the Constitution had defined. The goal of the XV Amendment was to provide greater protection for colored individuals than what that penalty offered. It cannot be said that it does more than acknowledge the fact that only male citizens were allowed to vote under state laws, and that established order was reflected in the rule of representation, just as the institution of slavery was acknowledged in the original Constitution, in the article[Pg 480] establishing the basis of representation, which stated that only three-fifths of all slaves ("other persons") would be counted. Here, slavery was recognized as a fact, and yet the Constitution never approved of slavery; in fact, if it had been implemented according to its true meaning, slavery couldn't have existed under it. Thus, the recognition of facts in the Constitution shouldn't be interpreted as an endorsement of what is recognized.
The majority of the committee say that this section implies that the States may deny suffrage to others than male citizens. If it implies anything it implies that the States may deny the franchise to all the citizens. It does not provide that they shall not deny the right to male citizens, but only provides that if they do so deny they shall not have representation for them. So, according to that argument, by the second section of the XIV. Amendment the power of the States is conceded to entirely take away the right of suffrage, even from that privileged class, the male citizens. And thus this rule of "implication" goes too far, and fritters away all the guarantees of the Constitution of the right of suffrage, the highest of the privileges of the citizen; and herein is demonstrated the reason and safety of the rule that fundamental rights are not to be taken away by implication, but only by express provision. When the advocates of a privileged class of citizens under the Constitution are driven to implication to sustain the theory of taxation without representation, and American citizenship without political liberty, the cause must be weak indeed.
The majority of the committee say that this section suggests that states may deny voting rights to individuals other than male citizens. If it suggests anything, it implies that states may deny voting rights to all citizens. It doesn't state that they can't deny the right to male citizens; it only states that if they do deny that right, they won't receive representation for them. So, according to that argument, the second section of the 14th Amendment allows states to completely remove the right to vote, even from that privileged group, male citizens. Thus, this idea of "implication" goes too far and undermines all the guarantees of the Constitution regarding the right to vote, which is the highest privilege of a citizen. This illustrates the reasoning and importance of the rule that fundamental rights should not be taken away through implication, but only through explicit provision. When supporters of a privileged class of citizens under the Constitution have to rely on implications to justify the theory of taxation without representation and American citizenship without political freedom, it's clear that their case is quite weak.
It is claimed by the majority that by section 2, article 1, the Constitution recognizes the power in States to declare who shall and who shall not exercise the elective franchise. That section reads as follows:
It is said by most people that according to section 2, article 1, the Constitution allows states to decide who can and cannot vote. That section reads as follows:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.
The House of Representatives will be made up of members elected every two years by the people of each State, and the voters in each State must meet the qualifications required for voters in the largest branch of the State Legislature.
The first clause of this section declares who shall choose the Representatives—mark the language—"Representatives shall be chosen by the people of the States," not by the male people; not by certain classes of the people, but by the people; so that the construction sought to be given this section, by which it would recognize the power of the State to disfranchise one half the citizens, is in direct contravention of the first clause of the section, and of its whole spirit, as well as of the objects of the instrument. The States clearly have no power to nullify the express provisions that the election shall be by the people, by any laws limiting the election to a moiety of the people. It is true the section recognizes the power in the State to regulate the qualifications of the electors; but as we have already said, the power to regulate is a very different thing from the power to destroy. The two clauses must be taken together, and both considered in connection with the declared purpose and objects of the Constitution.
The first part of this section states who will choose the Representatives—pay attention to the wording—"Representatives shall be chosen by the people of the States," not just by men; not by specific groups of people, but by the people as a whole. Therefore, any interpretation of this section that suggests it allows a State to disenfranchise half of its citizens goes against both the wording and the overall intent of this section, as well as the goals of the document. States clearly don't have the authority to disregard the explicit requirement that elections are to be held by the people through any laws that limit the vote to a subset of the population. It is true that the section allows States to set rules about who can vote; however, as we have already pointed out, the power to regulate is very different from the power to eliminate. Both clauses need to be read together and in light of the stated purpose and goals of the Constitution.
The constitution is necessarily confined to the statement of general principles. There are regulations necessary to be made as to the qualifications of voters, as to their proper age, their domicil, the length of residence necessary to entitle the citizen to vote in a given State or place. These particulars could not be provided in the Constitution but are necessarily left to the States, and this section is thus construed as to be in harmony with itself,[Pg 481] and with the expressed objects of the framers of the Constitution and the principles of free government. When the majority of the committee can demonstrate that "the people of the States," and one-half the people of the States, are equivalent terms, or that when the Constitution provides that the Representatives shall be elected by the people, its requirements are met by an election in which less than one-half the adult people are allowed to vote, then it will be admitted that this section to some extent sustains them.
The constitution is meant to lay out general principles. There are rules that need to be made about who can vote, such as their age, where they live, and how long they need to have lived in a state to qualify to vote there. These details couldn't be included in the Constitution and are left up to the states. This section is therefore understood to align with itself, [Pg 481], as well as with the intentions of the Constitution's framers and the principles of democratic governance. When the majority of the committee can show that "the people of the States" and half the people of the States are interchangeable terms, or that when the Constitution states that Representatives must be elected by the people, it can be satisfied by an election where less than half of the adult population is allowed to vote, then it will be accepted that this section somewhat supports that view.
The committee say, that if it had been intended that Congress should prescribe the qualifications of electors, the grant would have given Congress that power specifically. We do not claim that Congress has that power; on the contrary, admit that the States have it; but the section of the Constitution does prescribe who the electors shall be. That is what we claim—nothing more. They shall be "the people;" their qualifications may be regulated by the States; but to the claim of the majority of the committee that they may be "qualified" out of existence, we can not assent.
The committee states that if it were meant for Congress to set the qualifications for voters, the Constitution would have specifically given Congress that authority. We don’t argue that Congress has that power; rather, we acknowledge that the States do. However, the section of the Constitution clearly defines who the electors should be. That is our claim—nothing more. They shall be "the people;" the States may regulate their qualifications; but we cannot agree with the committee's majority claim that they can be "qualified" out of existence.
We are told that the acquiescence by the people, since the adoption of the Constitution, in the denial of political rights to women citizens, and the general understanding that such denial was in conformity with the Constitution, should be taken to settle the construction of that instrument. Any force this argument may have it can only apply to the original text, and not to the XIV. Amendment, which is of but recent date. But, as a general principle, this theory is fallacious. It would stop all political progress; it would put an end to all original thought, and put the people under that tyranny with which the friends of liberty have always had to contend—the tyranny of precedent.
We’re told that the acceptance by the people, since the Constitution was adopted, of the denial of political rights to women citizens, and the general belief that this denial was in line with the Constitution, should be seen as a definitive interpretation of that document. Any strength this argument might have only applies to the original text, not to the XIV Amendment, which is more recent. However, as a general rule, this idea is flawed. It would halt all political progress; it would stifle any original thinking and subject the people to a tyranny that advocates for freedom have always faced—the tyranny of precedent.
From the beginning, our Government has been right in theory, but wrong in practice. The Constitution, had it been carried out in its true spirit, and its principles enforced, would have stricken the chains from every slave in the republic long since. Yet, for all this, it was but a few years since declared, by the highest judicial tribunal of the republic, that, according to the "general understanding," the black man in this country had no rights the white man was bound to respect. General understanding and acquiescence is a very unsafe rule by which to try questions of constitutional law, and precedents are not infallible guides toward liberty and the rights of man.
From the start, our government has been right in theory but wrong in practice. The Constitution, if it had been followed in its true spirit and its principles enforced, would have freed every slave in the country a long time ago. Yet, just a few years ago, the highest court in the land ruled that, according to the "general understanding," black people in this country have no rights that white people are obligated to respect. Relying on general understanding and acceptance is a very unreliable way to address questions of constitutional law, and past decisions are not foolproof guides to freedom and human rights.
Without any law to authorize it, slavery existed in England, and was sustained and perpetuated by popular opinion, universal custom, and the acquiescence of all departments of the government as well as by the subjects of its oppression. A few fearless champions of liberty struggled against the universal sentiment, and contended that, by the laws of England, slavery could not exist in the kingdom; and though for years unable to obtain a hearing in any British court, the Somerset case was finally tried in the Court of King's Bench in 1771, Lord Mansfield presiding, wherein that great and good man, after a long and patient hearing, declared that no law of England allowed or approved of slavery, and discharged the negro. And it was then judicially declared that no slave could breathe upon the soil of England, although slavery had up to that time existed for centuries, under the then existing laws. The laws were right, but the practice and public opinion were wrong.
Without any law to support it, slavery existed in England, fueled by public opinion, common practice, and the compliance of all levels of government, as well as by those who were oppressed. A few brave advocates for freedom fought against the widespread belief and argued that, according to English law, slavery couldn't exist in the kingdom. Although they struggled for years to have their case heard in any British court, the Somerset case was finally tried in the Court of King's Bench in 1771, with Lord Mansfield presiding. After a long and patient hearing, this great and honorable man declared that no law in England permitted or endorsed slavery and ordered the release of the enslaved man. It was then legally confirmed that no slave could set foot on English soil, even though slavery had persisted for centuries under the existing laws. The laws were correct, but the practices and public opinion were not.
It is said by the majority of the committee that "if the right of female[Pg 482] citizens to suffrage is vested by the Constitution, that right can be established in the courts." We respectfully submit that, with regard to the competency and qualification of electors for members of this House, the courts have no jurisdiction. This House is the sole judge of the election return and qualification of its own members (article 1, section 5, of Constitution); and it is for the House alone to decide upon a contest, who are, and who are not, competent and qualified to vote. The judicial department can not thus invade the prerogatives of the political department. And it is therefore perfectly proper, in our opinion, for the House to pass a declaratory resolution, which would be an index to the action of the House, should the question be brought before it by a contest for a seat. We, therefore, recommend to the House the adoption of the following resolution:
The majority of the committee states that "if female[Pg 482] citizens have the right to vote as granted by the Constitution, that right can be confirmed in the courts." We respectfully argue that, concerning the qualifications and eligibility of voters for this House, the courts have no authority. This House is the only judge of the election results and qualifications of its members (article 1, section 5, of the Constitution); it is solely up to the House to decide who is qualified to vote in any disputes. The judicial branch cannot overstep the powers of the political branch. Therefore, we believe it is entirely appropriate for the House to pass a declaratory resolution, which would indicate the House's stance should there be a challenge for a seat. We recommend that the House adopt the following resolution:
Resolved, by the House of Representatives, That the right of suffrage is one of the inalienable rights of citizens of the United States, subject to regulation by the States, through equal and just laws.
Resolved, by the House of Representatives, That the right to vote is one of the fundamental rights of citizens of the United States, regulated by the states through fair and just laws.
That this right is included in the "privileges of citizens of the United States," which are guaranteed by section 1 of article XIV. of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and that women citizens, who are otherwise qualified by the laws of the State where they reside, are competent voters for Representatives in Congress.
That this right is part of the "privileges of citizens of the United States," as guaranteed by section 1 of article XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and that women citizens, who meet all other qualifications set by the laws of the State where they live, are eligible voters for Representatives in Congress.
Wm. Loughridge.
Benj. F. Butler.Wm. Loughridge.
Benj. F. Butler.H. Rep. 22, pt. 2——2.
H. Rep. 22, pt. 2——2.
On January 20, 1871, in the House of Representatives, a bill for the better government of the District of Columbia came up. The Hon. George W. Julian, of Indiana, moved to strike out the word "male" in the section providing who shall vote, and supported his amendment as follows:
On January 20, 1871, in the House of Representatives, a bill for improving the government of the District of Columbia was presented. The Hon. George W. Julian from Indiana moved to remove the word "male" from the section specifying who can vote and backed up his amendment with the following:
The establishment of universal male suffrage throughout the United States was preceded by its establishment in the District of Columbia and in the Territories. Following the same order, I desire that the District of Columbia shall first enjoy the further and full extension of the Democratic principle, by giving the ballot to all the people here, irrespective of sex. I know of no reason why this should not be done. I believe the question of woman's rights necessarily involves the question of human rights. The famous maxim of our fathers that "taxation without representation is tyranny" applies not to one-half only, but to the whole people. I am a Democrat in full of all demands, and I can not, therefore, accept as a real democracy, or even a republic, a government "half slave and half free."
The introduction of universal male voting rights across the United States came after it was implemented in the District of Columbia and the Territories. In line with this, I want the District of Columbia to be the first to fully embrace the Democratic principle by allowing everyone here, regardless of gender, to vote. I see no reason why this shouldn't happen. I believe that the issue of women's rights is inherently connected to the issue of human rights. The well-known saying from our founders that "taxation without representation is tyranny" applies to everyone, not just half the population. I am fully committed to all democratic ideals, and I therefore cannot accept a government that is "half slave and half free" as a true democracy or even a republic.
Mr. Cook, of Illinois, who had charge of the bill, objected to "cumbering it with such an amendment," and called the previous question, which being sustained, cut off all debate. Mr. Julian then called for the ayes and noes, thus making every man put himself square on the record. The vote stood 55 ayes[141], 117 noes, 65 not[Pg 483] voting. The next day the House met for general debate, and Hon. Aaron A. Sargent, of California, had an opportunity to express his views of the Amendment, which he had not been able to do the previous day.
Mr. Cook from Illinois, who was in charge of the bill, objected to "burdening it with such an amendment," and called for a vote to end the debate, which was supported, cutting off all discussion. Mr. Julian then requested a roll call vote, making sure that every member had to publicly state their position. The results were 55 in favor, 117 against, and 65 not voting. The next day, the House gathered for general debate, and Hon. Aaron A. Sargent from California was able to share his thoughts on the Amendment, something he hadn’t been able to do the day before.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, if no other gentleman desires to address the House, I will briefly remark that I was glad on yesterday to have an opportunity to cast my vote in favor of the proposition admitting the women of this District to the right of suffrage. I believe the time is rapidly coming when all men will conclude that it is no longer wise or judicious to exclude one-half of the intelligence, and more than one-half of the virtue of the people from the ballot-box. It is a matter of congratulation that one-third of the members who were present yesterday and voting, recorded their votes for that proposition. It was a glorious commencement. I will not take up the time of the House with any elaborate discussion of that proposition, but content myself with the remark that I was very glad of the opportunity to cast my vote for it. I trust the work thus commenced will go on until fully successful. But I would like to say further that I do not agree with those gentlemen who allege that the women who advocate this movement are universally, or to any considerable extent, desirous to unsettle family relations, or that they would change the present honored form of union of the sexes. I believe they embrace among their number, and largely embrace, the best and purest women of the land, who will have an influence growing year by year in favor of the recognition of the rights of their sex. So may it be.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, if no one else wants to speak, I’d like to say that I was pleased to cast my vote yesterday in favor of allowing the women of this District the right to vote. I believe that the time is quickly approaching when everyone will realize it's no longer wise or sensible to keep half of the intelligence and more than half of the virtue of the population from the ballot box. It's encouraging that one-third of the members present yesterday voted for this proposition. It was a fantastic start. I won’t take up too much time discussing this, but I’m really glad I had the chance to support it. I hope the efforts we started will continue until they succeed. However, I want to express that I disagree with those who claim that women advocating for this movement generally want to disrupt family relationships or change the cherished institution of marriage. I believe that among them are many of the best and most virtuous women in the country, who will increasingly advocate for the recognition of women's rights. So may it be.
During Mr. Sargent's candidacy for the Senate the following autumn, a California newspaper objected that he was in favor of woman's suffrage, and called for a denial of the truth of the damning charge. Mr. Sargent took no notice of it until a week or two later, when a suffrage convention met in San Francisco; he then went before that body and delivered a radical speech in favor of woman's rights, taking the most advanced grounds. When he was through he remarked to a friend, "They have my views now, and can make the most of them. I would not conceal them to be Senator." This bold stand ended the objection to him on the ground of his favor to woman's rights. He opened the political campaign in 1874 before an immense audience in Platt's Hall, San Francisco, by saying, as reported in the papers of the day:
During Mr. Sargent's campaign for the Senate that fall, a California newspaper criticized him for supporting women's suffrage and demanded that he publicly deny this damaging claim. Mr. Sargent ignored it until a week or two later when a suffrage convention took place in San Francisco; he then addressed the group and delivered a bold speech in support of women's rights, taking the most progressive stance. After finishing, he told a friend, "They know my views now and can do with them as they please. I wouldn't hide them for a chance to be Senator." This courageous position eliminated the objections against him regarding his support for women's rights. He kicked off the political campaign in 1874 in front of a huge crowd at Platt's Hall, San Francisco, by stating, as reported in the newspapers of the time:
Ladies and Gentlemen, Fellow-Citizens: I trust the time is near at hand when the phrase "fellow-citizens" will not need the explanatory remark, "Ladies and gentlemen." I trust we are nearing the day when our wives and daughters will share with us in the duties and privileges of citizenship, and give expression to their principles and views, not only indirectly by personal influence, but at the ballot-box. I am in favor of this great reform,[Pg 484] and hail the day when it shall purify politics by the influence of women exerted directly and legitimately at elections.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Fellow-Citizens: I believe we are close to the time when the term "fellow-citizens" will stand on its own without needing "Ladies and gentlemen" to clarify it. I hope we are approaching the day when our wives and daughters will participate in the responsibilities and rights of citizenship, and express their principles and opinions, not just through personal influence, but also at the ballot box. I support this significant reform,[Pg 484] and look forward to the day when it will cleanse politics through the direct and rightful influence of women in elections.
The National Woman's Suffrage Association met in Apollo Hall, New York, Anniversary Week, May 11, 1871. The audiences were large and the speakers earnest.[142] Mrs. Griffing, the Corresponding Secretary of the Association, thus summed up the closing events of the past year:
The National Woman's Suffrage Association gathered at Apollo Hall in New York during Anniversary Week on May 11, 1871. The crowds were big and the speakers passionate.[142] Mrs. Griffing, the Corresponding Secretary of the Association, summarized the key events from the past year as follows:
It now appears that under the Federal Constitution and its Amendments, woman is entitled to equal rights of citizenship with man; and as voting is a fundamental right of the citizen in a free government, woman not only may, but should vote. The last Woman Suffrage Convention, held in Washington, January, 1871, called by Paulina W. Davis, J. S. Griffing, and I. B. Hooker, in behalf of the women of the country, contemplated no new issue, proposed only to discuss the XVI. Amendment, and a more thorough system of education for the women of the country, through the issue of a monthly series of tracts. With slight exception, this programme would have been the order of the Convention, as it was the indication of the call, had not the time arrived for the bugle-note, calling all "to the front." Events of the hour at once changed the direction of thought, and inaugurated a line of movement for the practical enfranchisement of, and restoration to woman, of her equal rights as an American citizen. A few days previous to the time of holding this Convention, Mrs. Victoria C. Woodhull, of the City of New York, memorialized Congress for the exercise of the elective franchise, which memorial was read in the House of Representatives by Hon. George W. Julian, early friend of the cause, referred to the Judiciary Committee and ordered to be printed.
It now seems that under the Federal Constitution and its Amendments, women are entitled to the same rights of citizenship as men; and since voting is a fundamental right of citizens in a free government, women not only can, but should vote. The last Woman Suffrage Convention, held in Washington in January 1871, called by Paulina W. Davis, J. S. Griffing, and I. B. Hooker on behalf of women across the country, had no new agenda. It aimed only to discuss the XVI Amendment and to establish a better education system for women through a monthly series of publications. With few exceptions, this would have been the main focus of the Convention, as indicated in the call, had it not been time for the rallying cry to get everyone "to the front." Current events immediately shifted the focus and initiated a movement for the practical enfranchisement of women and the restoration of their equal rights as American citizens. Just a few days before this Convention, Mrs. Victoria C. Woodhull from New York City petitioned Congress for the right to vote. This petition was read in the House of Representatives by Hon. George W. Julian, an early supporter of the cause, and was referred to the Judiciary Committee and ordered to be printed.
This action on the part of Mrs. Woodhull was taken without consultation with, or even knowledge of the movers of the Convention, and by unprecedented energy and great intelligence, pressed upon the attention of both branches of Congress, upon the plea that she was "born upon the soil and was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," and that as a citizen, she desired a voice in legislation, through the only means in a free government, that of a vote; and on this pivot she based her demand. With some difficulty she obtained permission for a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Learning this important step taken by Mrs. Woodhull, a stranger to the Convention, a conference was held between the parties, resulting in a friendly agreement, that with consent of the chairman of the Committee, Mrs. I. B. Hooker, on the part of the Convention, should at the same time, through a constitutional lawyer, Hon. A. G. Riddle, ex-member of Congress, defend the memorialists (30,000 women) whose names were already before Congress, asking to exercise the right of the ballot.
This action by Mrs. Woodhull was taken without consulting, or even informing, the organizers of the Convention. With exceptional determination and intelligence, she drew the attention of both branches of Congress, arguing that she was "born on the soil and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," and as a citizen, she wanted a voice in legislation through the only means available in a free government: a vote. This was the foundation of her demand. After some effort, she secured permission to present her case to the Judiciary Committee. Upon learning of this significant step taken by Mrs. Woodhull, who was new to the Convention, a meeting was held among the involved parties, leading to a friendly agreement that, with the chairman of the Committee's consent, Mrs. I. B. Hooker would represent the Convention while a constitutional lawyer, Hon. A. G. Riddle, a former member of Congress, would defend the memorialists (30,000 women) whose names were already submitted to Congress, requesting to exercise their right to vote.
Mrs. Woodhull spoke with power and marvelous effect, as though conscious of a right unjustly withheld, and feeling a duty, she was forbidden to do. Under the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, and the XIV.[Pg 485] and XV. Amendments thereto, she asked equal protection to person, property, and full citizenship; in response to this, the key-note, Mr. Riddle followed with an unanswerable legal argument, sweeping away all laws of the United States, and of any State, restricting woman in the right to vote, as directly opposed to the supreme law of the land, as pointed out in the XIV. and XV. Amendments to the Federal Constitution, which he showed to be consonant with both the letter and spirit of that instrument. He also suggested that the immediate action of woman, as a citizen, might be found the most speedy method of triumph. The result of this hearing, in the printed reports of Judge Bingham and the majority, and of Judge Loughridge and Hon. B. F. Butler, the minority of the Judiciary Committee, is already before the country, and marks well the beginning of the end.
Mrs. Woodhull spoke with strength and impressive impact, as if she was aware of a right that had been unfairly denied to her, and felt a responsibility she was prevented from fulfilling. Under the ultimate authority of the land, the Constitution, and the XIV.[Pg 485] and XV. Amendments, she demanded equal protection for individuals, property, and full citizenship. In response to this central point, Mr. Riddle presented an unarguable legal case, dismantling all United States laws and any state laws that restricted women's right to vote, asserting they were directly against the supreme law of the land, as highlighted in the XIV. and XV. Amendments of the Federal Constitution, which he demonstrated aligned with both the intent and the meaning of that document. He also proposed that immediate action from women as citizens might be the quickest path to success. The outcome of this hearing, as reflected in the printed reports from Judge Bingham and the majority, and from Judge Loughridge and Hon. B. F. Butler, the minority of the Judiciary Committee, is already available to the public and signifies a notable turning point.
It was now clearly seen by the leaders of the movement that the agitation of woman's wrongs and oppressions was no longer a necessary part of the discussion. That in the statute books, and above all, in the heart of God, a record of this was made, and that henceforth woman's citizenship and full enfranchisement must be declared. That under the supreme law of the land her right to person, property, children, and full and equal citizenship must be pronounced and admitted; and, finally, her duty to vote, and through her highest capabilities, to assume a share of the responsibility of the State, as she has already of the home, are hereafter to be the legitimate theme of discussion till woman is emancipated. These events and this decision indicated an immediate want of a National Woman Suffrage and Educational Committee, to carry forward measures for the speedy execution of the work, and upon consultation with the experienced and wise men and women of the Convention, and with the approval of all well-wishers who were present, a committee, consisting of Mrs. I. B. Hooker (Chairwoman), J. S. Griffing (Secretary), Mrs. M. B. Bowen (Treasurer), Susan B. Anthony, Paulina Wright Davis, and Ruth Carr Dennison, was organized in the City of Washington, D. C., and the machinery set in operation to accomplish what is now known as the work of that committee. For the temporary use of this committee a part of the House of Education and Labor Committee-room, through the marked kindness of Hon. Mr. Arnell, Chairman of the Committee, was granted; afterward, the beautiful, artistic House Agriculture Committee-room, also used for the Committee on Manufactures, was generously proffered by the chairmen of both, Hon. Mr. Morrell and Gen. Smith, and is still retained.
It was now clear to the leaders of the movement that discussing women's rights and oppressions was no longer necessary. That this was recorded in the law books, and most importantly, in the heart of God, and that from now on, women's citizenship and complete enfranchisement must be proclaimed. Under the supreme law of the land, her rights to person, property, children, and full and equal citizenship must be recognized and affirmed; and finally, her obligation to vote, and to take on a share of the state's responsibilities with her highest abilities, just as she already does at home, will now be the legitimate topic of discussion until women are emancipated. These events and this decision showed an immediate need for a National Woman Suffrage and Educational Committee to advance measures for the swift execution of this work, and after consulting with the experienced and wise individuals at the Convention, and with the support of all well-wishers present, a committee was formed in the City of Washington, D.C., consisting of Mrs. I. B. Hooker (Chairwoman), J. S. Griffing (Secretary), Mrs. M. B. Bowen (Treasurer), Susan B. Anthony, Paulina Wright Davis, and Ruth Carr Dennison, and the machinery was set in motion to achieve what is now known as the work of that committee. For the temporary use of this committee, a part of the House of Education and Labor Committee room, through the generous kindness of Hon. Mr. Arnell, Chairman of the Committee, was provided; later, the beautiful, artistic House Agriculture Committee room, also used for the Committee on Manufactures, was generously offered by the chairmen of both, Hon. Mr. Morrell and Gen. Smith, and is still being used.
Books are now opened for signatures to the new Declaration and Pledge,[143][Pg 486] and the autographs of all women ready to exercise the elective franchise. Thousands of tracts, constitutional arguments of Mr. Riddle and Mrs. Woodhull, report of the minority Judiciary Committee, and an address to the women of the United States, are being sent to the whole country, carrying conviction to the weak, force to the active, and hastening the consummation[Pg 487] of a triumph worthy of the struggle and undying faith of all who have nobly borne their part in this history. The names of the earnest women who took part in this Convention, and who participated in the inauguration of the new issue, are recorded in the books of the Committee; and now, only the funds—generous and prompt contributions—are needed to respond[Pg 488] to the call from all the States and Territories for knowledge—either by voice or pen—to complete a reconstruction of the government "of the people, for the people and by the people," without arms, court-martial, or bloodshed.
Books are now open for signatures to the new Declaration and Pledge,[143][Pg 486] and the autographs of all women ready to vote. Thousands of pamphlets, constitutional arguments from Mr. Riddle and Mrs. Woodhull, the report from the minority Judiciary Committee, and a message to the women of the United States are being sent across the country, convincing the unsure, empowering the active, and speeding up the achievement[Pg 487] of a victory that honors the struggle and unwavering belief of everyone who has bravely contributed to this history. The names of the dedicated women who participated in this Convention and who helped launch this new movement are recorded in the Committee’s books; now, only the funds—generous and timely contributions—are needed to respond[Pg 488] to the call from all the States and Territories for knowledge—whether through speech or writing—to complete the reconstruction of the government "of the people, for the people, and by the people," without weapons, court-martial, or bloodshed.
In this connection Mrs. Belva A. Lockwood's very able memorial to Congress asking suffrage for the women of the District should be mentioned. It was a well-sustained argument, showing the writer to be mistress of her subject. Mrs. Lockwood is an efficient, earnest, honest worker. She presented to[Pg 489] Congress a large petition, fully equal in numbers to the one presented by Mrs. Dahlgren and Sherman, whose anti-suffrage petition and memorial against it formed one of the peculiar features of the work of last winter. Mrs. H. C. Spencer, of Washington, answered Mrs. Dahlgren's pamphlet with a most admirable one entitled "Problems," which has already had an extensive circulation, and is more earnestly called for than any other, with the exception of Mrs. Woodhull's constitutional argument, and Mr. Riddle's on the same question. The meetings were held daily in the committee-room during the entire session, and the interchange of thought was often very interesting and encouraging.
In this regard, Mrs. Belva A. Lockwood's impressive petition to Congress requesting voting rights for women in the District should be noted. It was a strong argument that demonstrated her command of the topic. Mrs. Lockwood is a capable, dedicated, and honest advocate. She presented to [Pg 489] Congress a large petition, which had numbers equal to those submitted by Mrs. Dahlgren and Sherman, whose anti-suffrage petition and memorial against it were notable aspects of last winter's activities. Mrs. H. C. Spencer from Washington replied to Mrs. Dahlgren's pamphlet with an excellent piece titled "Problems," which has already circulated widely and is in higher demand than any other, except for Mrs. Woodhull's constitutional argument and Mr. Riddle's on the same topic. Meetings were held daily in the committee room throughout the entire session, and the exchange of ideas was often very engaging and uplifting.
On the day of the adjournment of Congress Mrs. Hooker presented thanks, in the name of the Committee, to such members of the House as had been most active in serving our cause. She said:
On the day Congress was adjourned, Mrs. Hooker expressed gratitude, on behalf of the Committee, to those House members who had been most engaged in supporting our cause. She said:
Gentlemen: The National Woman Suffrage and Educational Committee desire me to express to you their heartfelt thanks for the good service you have rendered the whole woman movement by your willingness to entertain, examine, and, in some instances, advocate our new claim that we are already enfranchised under the original Constitution and the XIV. and XV. Amendments.
Gentlemen: The National Woman Suffrage and Educational Committee wants me to express their sincere gratitude for the valuable support you've provided to the women's movement by being open to discussing, reviewing, and, in some cases, supporting our new assertion that we are already granted the right to vote under the original Constitution and the XIV and XV Amendments.
To you, Mr. Julian, we are especially indebted, in that while you were the first member of the House who introduced our claim to the suffrage under the form of a XVI. Amendment, you were in the front once more when a new issue was presented in the shape of the "Woodhull Memorial." Your resolution asking the House "to participate in the proceedings," by which two women citizens of the United States "might present the moral and constitutional argument in favor of the enfranchisement of the women citizens of the United States, and in support of a memorial lately reported upon by a majority and minority of the Judiciary Committee," was in keeping with every other act of your public life, a protest against injustice, a proposition looking toward perfect equality; and we thank you for it in the name of the disfranchised millions who will one day realize, as they now do not, the significance of that act.
To you, Mr. Julian, we are particularly grateful, as you were the first member of the House to introduce our claim for the right to vote through the XVI Amendment. You stepped up again when a new matter arose with the "Woodhull Memorial." Your resolution urging the House "to participate in the proceedings," allowing two women citizens of the United States "to present the moral and constitutional argument for the enfranchisement of women citizens of the United States, and in support of a memorial recently reported on by both the majority and minority of the Judiciary Committee," aligns with the consistent theme of your public service: a stand against injustice and a push towards true equality. We thank you for it on behalf of the millions who have been denied this right, and who will one day understand the importance of that act, even if they don’t yet.
To you, Mr. Arnell, we owe not only the passage of "A bill to do justice to the female employes of the Government," but the first admission of women to this Capitol as citizens having common rights with the ruling class in the use of buildings devoted to the public service. In your committee-room we found not only a home, but such courtesy, such opportunity for friendly consultation with members of Congress upon subjects of deepest political importance, as must forever silence the absurd charge that men and women will cease to regard the decorums of life, to interchange its happy civilities when they become equally responsible for the welfare of the State.
To you, Mr. Arnell, we owe not just the passage of "A bill to do justice to the female employees of the Government," but also the first acceptance of women into this Capitol as citizens with the same rights as the ruling class in using buildings meant for public service. In your committee room, we found not just a place to gather, but also such kindness and the chance for friendly discussions with members of Congress on issues of great political significance, which will forever put to rest the ridiculous claim that men and women will stop respecting social norms and exchanging friendly interactions when they equally share responsibility for the State's welfare.
To other gentlemen of the House we owe thanks also for their co-operation with you in this manly service, especially to General Wilson, of Ohio, to Mr. Morrill, of Pennsylvania, and General Butler, of Massachusetts, who have, as chairmen of their respective committees, offered us the use of their several rooms, in case the threats of a certain gentleman in the House should so terrify you, sir, that you should feel compelled to withdraw your most friendly offer. We have accepted the use of the Committee-room on Agriculture, leaving you, sir, with reluctance, simply because it is larger and[Pg 490] more accessible than your room, and one so beautifully adorned by art, that our womanly tastes are daily gratified in its use.
To the other gentlemen of the House, we also express our gratitude for their collaboration with you in this noble effort, especially to General Wilson from Ohio, Mr. Morrill from Pennsylvania, and General Butler from Massachusetts, who, as heads of their respective committees, have offered us the use of their rooms in case the threats from a certain gentleman in the House should frighten you, sir, to the point where you felt you had to retract your kind offer. We have taken up the use of the Committee room on Agriculture, leaving you, sir, with regret, simply because it is bigger and[Pg 490] more accessible than your room, and so beautifully decorated with art that it satisfies our refined tastes during its use.
To you, Mr. Loughridge, as the author of the minority report of the Judiciary Committee on the Woodhull Memorial, and to General Butler, your faithful colleague, we owe that most luminous statement of the historic position of woman, her natural, civil, and constitutional rights, and the best method of enforcing these in the interest of the women citizens of the United States. For that report, sir, we thank you from the depth of our hearts. We claim it as our bill of rights. On that line we also fight, not with weapons of steel, but with pen and voice and silent prayer; and when at last the solemn responsibilities of citizenship shall have been laid upon us by the men of this great nation, and together we shall strive to bring justice and equality into legislation and administration, we shall not forget to whom we owe this first judicial protest in these halls against traditional misrepresentations of the constitutional rights of women citizens of the Republic.
To you, Mr. Loughridge, as the author of the minority report from the Judiciary Committee on the Woodhull Memorial, and to General Butler, your loyal colleague, we owe that shining statement of the historic position of women, their natural, civil, and constitutional rights, and the best way to uphold these in the interest of women citizens of the United States. For that report, sir, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. We regard it as our bill of rights. On that front, we also fight, not with weapons of steel, but with pen, voice, and silent prayer; and when the weighty responsibilities of citizenship are finally placed on us by the men of this great nation, and we strive together to bring justice and equality into legislation and administration, we will not forget who we owe this initial judicial protest in these halls against traditional misrepresentations of the constitutional rights of women citizens of the Republic.
And, gentlemen, permit us to congratulate you all, that having secured equal rights to all men in these United States by your vote, and having welcomed the proscribed black man to a seat by your side in halls of legislation, you are now turning your attention to the women of the United States, with a firm resolution that they shall no longer be denied the rights nor excused from the responsibilities of a full citizenship.
And, gentlemen, let us congratulate you all for securing equal rights for everyone in these United States with your vote, and for welcoming the marginalized black man to sit alongside you in legislative halls. You are now focusing on the women of the United States, determined that they will no longer be denied their rights or exempted from the responsibilities of full citizenship.
Permit us to express the hope that in coming years you may be returned to this Capitol by the votes of grateful women citizens, enfranchised through your instrumentality; and should you be called to take upper seats here in remembrance of faithful service during this session, we shall congratulate not only ourselves but our common and well-beloved country; and if, gentlemen, you should find here as colleagues some of the matrons of this Republic whose names are now being daily signed to this new declaration of fealty to human rights, we have confident assurance that you will cheerfully work hand in hand with them, according to the tenor of their pledge to work with you for the maintenance of those equal rights on which our Republic was originally founded, to the end that it may have what is declared to be the first condition of just government—the consent of the governed.
We hope that in the coming years, you will be elected back to this Capitol by the votes of grateful women citizens, empowered through your efforts. If you are honored with higher positions here as a recognition of your dedicated service during this session, we will celebrate not only ourselves but also our beloved country. If, gentlemen, you find yourselves here with some of the remarkable women of this Republic, whose names are now being added daily to this new declaration of commitment to human rights, we are confident that you will gladly collaborate with them, in line with their promise to work alongside you for the protection of the equal rights on which our Republic was originally founded. This is essential for ensuring the first principle of just government—the consent of the governed.
Mr. Julian responded:—I thank you, Mrs. Hooker, and the committee you represent, for your words of cordial approbation. Such a testimony will go far to redeem the ordinary drudgery and dreariness of public life, and I shall ever cherish it with real satisfaction and pride. I ought to say, however, that in performing the acts so handsomely commended by you I did nothing but my simple duty. Indeed, constituted as I am, and believing as I do, it was morally impossible for me to do otherwise. Having espoused the cause of woman's enfranchisement more than twenty years ago, when it was first launched in the United States, and having labored so long and so earnestly for the enfranchisement of the male citizens of our country, irrespective of color or race, it would have been grossly inconsistent in me, not to say recreant and mean, to shrink from the duties for which you compliment me when invited to their performance.
Mr. Julian replied:—Thank you, Mrs. Hooker, and the committee you represent, for your kind words. This recognition really helps brighten the usual grind and monotony of public life, and I will always hold it with true satisfaction and pride. However, I should mention that in doing the things you have praised me for, I was simply fulfilling my duty. Given my beliefs and the person I am, it was morally impossible for me to act otherwise. I have supported the cause of women's rights for over twenty years, ever since it began in the United States, and I have worked hard for the rights of all male citizens in our country, regardless of their color or race. It would have been completely inconsistent, not to mention cowardly and unkind, to avoid the responsibilities you compliment me on when asked to take them on.
You are pleased to express the hope that some of the retiring members of the XLI. Congress may hereafter be returned to the places they[Pg 491] have filled. For myself, I am weary of the service in which I have toiled for so many years, and I welcome a season of rest, or at least a change of labor. But when your hope goes farther, and points to our return here by the votes of enfranchised women, and our welcome from a sisterhood of co-representatives in the halls of Congress, I confess the prophecy is so pleasing and the picture seems so tempting that its realization would completely reconcile me to my restored place in the House of Representatives, or even to a seat in that smaller body at the other end of the Capitol. And I am not lacking in the spirit of good courage and hope which animates you. These are revolutionary times. Whole years of progress are now crowded into days. Who will venture to judge the future by any political almanac of by-gone times? I can say with old Thomas Carlyle, "One strong thing I find here below, the just thing, the true thing." And no man or party is strong enough, no earthly power is strong enough to stay the grand march of events through which the hand of God is visibly guiding the Republic to universal liberty, and through that to enduring prosperity and peace.
You are happy to share the hope that some of the retiring members of the XLI Congress may be returned to the positions they[Pg 491] once held. As for me, I am tired of the work I've been doing for so many years, and I look forward to a period of rest, or at least a change in my duties. But when your hope extends further, envisioning our return here through the votes of enfranchised women, and our welcome from a sisterhood of fellow representatives in Congress, I have to admit that the vision is so appealing and the idea so tempting that I would fully embrace the idea of returning to my seat in the House of Representatives or even taking a place in that smaller body at the other end of the Capitol. I also share in the spirit of courage and hope that inspires you. These are revolutionary times. Years of progress are now packed into mere days. Who is brave enough to judge the future based on any political almanac from the past? I can echo old Thomas Carlyle, "One strong thing I find here below, the just thing, the true thing." No individual or party is powerful enough, no earthly force is strong enough to halt the grand march of events, through which the hand of God is clearly guiding the Republic toward universal liberty, and from that, to lasting prosperity and peace.
Mr. Arnell, of Tennessee, said—Mrs. Hooker and Ladies: You have been kind enough to refer to me by name. I think you have been over-generous in your estimation of my poor services. If I have accomplished anything, no matter how inconsiderable, for your cause, I greatly rejoice. Yet, in reality, it is my cause as much as yours—a man's cause as much as a woman's; for the inquiry you have raised is a great fundamental question, broad as humanity itself. I thank you for your wide interpretation of the invitation I gave you to occupy the Committee-room of Education and Labor. You have rightly touched its true meaning. The doors were opened hopefully, invitingly to you as the advance-guard of American women, who are soon, I trust, to take equal part with their brothers, husbands and fathers in the government of this great and free Republic.
Mr. Arnell, from Tennessee, said—Mrs. Hooker and Ladies: You've been kind enough to mention me by name. I think you've overestimated my meager contributions. If I've done anything, no matter how small, for your cause, I'm really glad. But honestly, this cause is just as much mine as it is yours—it's as much a man's cause as it is a woman's; because the issue you've raised is a significant fundamental question, as broad as humanity itself. I appreciate your generous interpretation of the invitation I extended to you to use the Committee room on Education and Labor. You've correctly captured its true meaning. The doors were opened with hope, warmly inviting you as the vanguard of American women, who I hope will soon take an equal role alongside their brothers, husbands, and fathers in the governance of this great and free Republic.
There is a bit of history connected with this room of Education and Labor. A hard-working woman was once driven from it by vote of the House of Representatives. She carried her work across the ocean, rested it under the Italian skies, until it blossomed into everlasting stone. Then she brought it back. A great admiring city and the self-same men who had voted her out, marveled and said, "Well done, woman." Her success is a triumph for woman. Meantime you, representing, arguing a higher cause than Art, had found a footing in this very apartment from which she had been turned out. This was a higher triumph. The amiable New York Tribune, chuckling over a false rumor that you were denied its further use, has misstated the facts. The Tribune only advertised its own narrow, pretentious wishes.
There’s some history tied to this Education and Labor room. A dedicated woman was once expelled from it by a vote in the House of Representatives. She took her work overseas, let it rest under the Italian skies, until it transformed into lasting stone. Then she brought it back. A great, admiring city, and the very same men who voted her out, were amazed and said, "Well done, woman." Her success is a win for all women. Meanwhile, you, advocating for a cause greater than Art, have established a presence in this very space from which she was removed. This is a greater victory. The friendly New York Tribune, joking about a false rumor that you were denied its further use, has misrepresented the truth. The Tribune only promoted its own limited, pretentious wishes.
In bringing the proposition before Congress to pay women the same price as men for the same work performed, I desired not only to help those spirited, deserving women in the Departments, but also to aid two and a half millions of my working sisters in this country. It seemed to me that just here was room for practical legislation. Here was an angle to be carried in this great contest for justice and freedom, and I drew my best inspiration from a bright, sunny-faced wife, who to-day is far away among the hills of Tennessee. I greatly admire and respect either a working man[Pg 492] or woman, for I devoutly believe in this latest evangel, that "to work is to pray." Allow me to say, as a parting word, "Courage." The world may sneer at you, for it does not believe that a man is moved save by some selfish ambition. Trojan's noble fraction of a line, "indocillis privata loqui," is not generally considered as adapted to, or to be applied to, the domain of every-day life. Yet, ladies, far above all ridicule, misjudgment, slander, and abuse even, is the holy consciousness you have of the nobility of your work, which is, as I have said, the emancipation and elevation of both man and woman. The great Republic, of which you are citizens, by express provision of its fundamental law, can exist only as it is free, as it is just; two ideas that lie, as I understand it, at the bottom of your movement. The country must continue one-sided, ill-balanced, imperfect in its civilization, until woman, with her peculiar nature, is admitted to that individuality which of right belongs to every human being. Therefore I bid you God-speed in your work.
In presenting the proposal to Congress to pay women the same wages as men for equal work, I aimed not only to support those capable and deserving women in the Departments but also to help the two and a half million working sisters in this country. I saw this as an opportunity for practical legislation. This was a crucial point in the ongoing fight for justice and freedom, and I drew my greatest inspiration from a cheerful wife who is currently far away in the hills of Tennessee. I deeply admire and respect both working men and women because I strongly believe in the belief that "to work is to pray." As a final thought, I want to say, "Courage." The world may mock you, as it often assumes that men are driven only by selfish ambitions. Trojan's noble line, "indocillis privata loqui," isn’t typically seen as relevant to everyday life. Yet, ladies, far beyond all ridicule, misjudgment, slander, and even abuse, is the profound awareness you have of the nobility of your work, which, as I've mentioned, is the liberation and upliftment of both men and women. The great Republic of which you are citizens, as stated in its fundamental law, can only thrive when it is free and just—two principles that, as I understand it, are at the core of your movement. The country will remain one-sided, unbalanced, and lacking in its civilization until women, with their unique nature, are granted the individuality that rightfully belongs to every human being. So, I wish you success in your efforts.
Judge Loughridge, of Iowa, spoke as follows—Ladies: I take pleasure in appearing here in response to your kind invitation. I understand fully your desire to express in this way your appreciation of the aid given by a portion of the Representatives to the XLI. Congress to the cause you have so much at heart—the cause of universal suffrage and political liberty.
Judge Loughridge, from Iowa, said—Ladies: I’m pleased to be here in response to your kind invitation. I completely understand your wish to show your appreciation for the support provided by some of the Representatives to the XLI. Congress for the cause that you care deeply about—the cause of universal voting rights and political freedom.
In reference to the report of the minority of the Judiciary Committee, to which Mrs. Hooker has referred in such complimentary terms and in which I had the honor to join with the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Butler, I am glad to know that you are satisfied with it, and that you think it does justice to your cause. What is written there is the honest conviction of my judgment, and in my opinion the principles contended for therein will, before many years, be accepted as the law of the land.
In reference to the report from the minority of the Judiciary Committee, which Mrs. Hooker has spoken about so positively and where I had the honor to team up with the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Butler, I’m glad to hear that you’re happy with it and believe it does justice to your cause. What’s written there reflects my sincere belief, and I think the principles argued in it will, in a few years, be recognized as the law of the land.
I desire to say one word, suggested by the remark which I have heard made frequently of late, that the only resort now for the advocates of woman suffrage is to the courts of the country. I think it is a mistake. In this country, on questions involving political rights, the courts are generally in the rear rank; the people are mostly in advance of the courts. In my opinion the most speedy and certain victory will be acquired through the political departments of the government, which are moulded and controlled by the people, and which will always in the end reflect the will of the people. You applied to Congress; although not successful, yet the support you did receive was greater than the most sanguine expected. Continue your efforts, persevere in your determination, and in the end you will win, for you are right, and the right always triumphs.
I want to share a thought based on a comment I've heard often recently, that the only option left for advocates of women's voting rights is to turn to the courts. I believe that’s a mistake. In this country, when it comes to political rights, the courts usually lag behind; the public is often ahead of them. In my view, the quickest and most sure victory will come through the political branches of government, which are shaped and influenced by the people and will ultimately reflect the will of the people. You made your case to Congress; although it didn’t work out, the support you received was more than anyone expected. Keep pushing, stay committed, and in the end, you will succeed, because you’re on the right side of this issue, and the right always wins.
The ladies then shook hands with each of these gentlemen, and added a few words of personal thanks, after which the committee adjourned.
The ladies then shook hands with each of these gentlemen and offered a few words of personal thanks, after which the committee wrapped up.
One of the interesting episodes of this convention was the invitation extended by the Association to certain non-believers to appear in open session, and meet the champions of the cause in argument. Mrs. Gage wrote an invitation[146] to Mrs. Dahlgren, which she most courteously declined.[147] The idea was suggested to Mrs. Gage by the memorial which Mrs. General Sherman and Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren had presented to the Senate of the United States. Their petition was as follows:
One of the interesting moments at this convention was when the Association invited some non-believers to join an open session and debate the advocates of the cause. Mrs. Gage sent an invitation[146] to Mrs. Dahlgren, who politely declined.[147] The idea came to Mrs. Gage after looking at the memorial that Mrs. General Sherman and Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren had presented to the Senate of the United States. Their petition was as follows:
TO THE U. S. SENATE AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
We, the undersigned, do hereby appeal to your honorable body, and desire respectfully to enter our protest against an extension of suffrage to women; and in the firm belief that our petition represents the sober convictions of the majority of the women of the country. Although we shrink from the notoriety of the public eye, yet we are too deeply and painfully impressed by the grave perils which threaten our peace and happiness in these proposed changes in our civil and political rights, longer to remain silent.
We, the undersigned, respectfully appeal to your esteemed body and wish to formally protest against extending the right to vote to women. We firmly believe that our petition reflects the serious views of the majority of women in the country. While we prefer to avoid the spotlight, we feel too strongly and painfully about the serious risks that these proposed changes to our civil and political rights pose to our peace and happiness to stay silent any longer.
Because, Holy Scripture inculcates a different, and for us higher, sphere apart from public life.
Because Holy Scripture teaches us about a different, and for us, a higher realm beyond public life.
Because, as women, we find a full measure of duties, cares, and responsibilities devolving upon us, and we are therefore unwilling to bear other and heavier burdens, and those unsuited to our physical organization.
Because, as women, we have a lot of duties, concerns, and responsibilities placed on us, and we’re not willing to take on additional and heavier burdens that don't fit with our physical capabilities.
Because, we hold that an extension of suffrage would be adverse to the interests of the workingwomen of the country, with whom we heartily sympathize.
Because, we believe that expanding the right to vote would be harmful to the interests of working women in the country, with whom we fully sympathize.
Because, these changes must introduce a fruitful element of discord in the existing marriage relation, which would tend to the infinite detriment of children, and increase the already alarming prevalence of divorce throughout the land.[Pg 495]
Because, these changes must create a disruptive element in the existing marriage relationship, which would greatly harm children and further increase the already concerning rate of divorce across the country.[Pg 495]
Because, no general law, affecting the condition of all women, should be framed to meet exceptional discontent.
Because, no general law that impacts all women should be created just to address specific dissatisfaction.
For these, and many more reasons, do we beg of your wisdom that no law extending suffrage to women may be passed, as the passage of such a law would be fraught with danger so grave to the general order of the country.
For these reasons, and many more, we ask for your wisdom to prevent any law that grants women the right to vote from being passed, as doing so would pose serious risks to the overall stability of the country.
[Signed by Mrs. General Sherman, Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren, and other ladies to the number of 1,000.]
[Signed by Mrs. General Sherman, Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren, and other ladies numbering 1,000.]
Mrs. Dahlgren presented a form of XVI. Amendment as follows:
Mrs. Dahlgren presented a version of the 16th Amendment as follows:
SHERMAN-DAHLGREN XVI. AMENDMENT.
Congress shall have power to, and shall pass laws which shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Congress shall have the power to make and enforce laws that are consistent across the United States.
To regulate the transfer and descent of all kinds of property.
To manage the transfer and ownership of all types of property.
To regulate marriages and the registration of the same, and the registration of births.
To manage marriages and their registration, as well as the registration of births.
To regulate the right of dower and all rights and obligations of married persons.
To manage the right of dower and all the rights and responsibilities of married people.
To regulate divorces and to grant alimony, but no divorces a vinculo matrimonii shall be granted, except for the cause of adultery, and in such case the offending party shall not have the privilege of marrying during the lifetime of the offended party.
To manage divorces and to award alimony, no divorces a vinculo matrimonii will be granted, except in cases of adultery, and in such instances, the guilty party cannot remarry while the other party is still alive.
In her opening remarks Mrs Stanton said:
In her opening remarks, Mrs. Stanton said:
This is the fourth convention we have held in Washington, and the effect can hardly be estimated in the education of the American people toward woman suffrage. I feel more anxious about how women will vote than in their speedy enfranchisement. So many important political questions are seen in the horizon that woman's influence is needed to guide safely through all storms the ship of state. We propose to change our tactics. Instead of petitioning[Pg 496] Congress for our rights we propose to settle the question before the courts, unless Congress gives us the declaratory act this winter, which I think they will. We have reasoned for twenty-five years, and we now propose to take our rights under the Constitution as it is. The people are beginning already to discuss the fitting celebration for our centennial anniversary. No grander step could mark that great national event than to extend the right of suffrage to one half the citizens of our republic.
This is the fourth convention we've held in Washington, and the impact on educating the American public about women's suffrage is hard to measure. I'm more concerned about how women will vote than about their quick enfranchisement. There are so many significant political issues on the horizon that women's influence is essential to navigate the ship of state safely through turbulent times. We're planning to change our approach. Instead of asking Congress for our rights, we intend to resolve the issue in the courts, unless Congress passes the declaratory act this winter, which I believe they will. We've argued for twenty-five years, and now we plan to claim our rights based on the Constitution as it stands. People are already starting to talk about how to celebrate our upcoming centennial anniversary. There could be no greater gesture to mark that important national occasion than to grant the right to vote to half of the citizens of our republic.
The following letter was read at the morning session:
The following letter was read during the morning session:
Brooklyn, January 1, 1872.
Brooklyn, January 1, 1872.
My Dear Madam: Your letter of December 30th, in which you invite me to take part in the Washington convention in behalf of woman's suffrage, is duly received.
My Dear Madam: I received your letter from December 30th, inviting me to participate in the Washington convention for women's suffrage.
I am engaged during the whole week with lectures in Massachusetts and Maine. I can not say that I am so sanguine of the immediate or new admission of women to the right of suffrage. But of its ultimate accomplishment I have not a doubt, since justice and expediency combine in requiring it. That manhood is, on the whole, made better and stronger by a direct participation in the duties, and responsibilities of active citizenship, notwithstanding incidental evils, is becoming the sentiment of the civilized world; nor is there any reason to doubt that, in spite of temporary and incidental evils, the same advantages would accrue to womanhood. In every wise and Christian movement for the education and enfranchisement of woman I hope always to be in sympathy. I am, respectfully, yours,
I’ll be busy all week with lectures in Massachusetts and Maine. I can’t say I’m very optimistic about women gaining the right to vote right away, but I have no doubt that it will eventually happen because justice and practicality demand it. Overall, it’s becoming clear that manhood is improved and strengthened by taking part in the responsibilities of active citizenship, despite some temporary issues. There’s no reason to believe that, despite temporary challenges, women wouldn’t benefit in the same way. I hope to always support any thoughtful and moral efforts for women’s education and rights. I am, respectfully, yours,
Henry Ward Beecher.
Henry Ward Beecher.
Mr. Burlingame, of R. I., remarked:—I sympathize with this movement. It commands my respect and admiration. I have come here unexpected and unsolicited, because I think my wife and other women should have the same rights as the colored man and Irishman. I believe in this movement, because I believe it to be right; it is the most important question of the times. The speaker then reviewed the objections against female suffrage, and pronounced them all weak, and closed with allusions to the many heroic deeds of illustrious women now a part of history.
Mr. Burlingame, from R. I., said:—I support this movement. It earns my respect and admiration. I’ve come here unexpectedly and without an invitation, because I believe my wife and other women should have the same rights as Black men and Irishmen. I stand with this movement because I believe it’s right; it’s the most important issue of our time. The speaker then addressed the objections against women's voting and dismissed them all as weak, concluding with references to the many heroic actions of remarkable women that are now part of history.
Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker then presented the following report, in relation to the work of the Association for the past year:
Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker then presented the following report regarding the Association's work over the past year:
REPORT.
The work to be done in the future is precisely what has been recommended during the past year by every member of the committee in public and in private.
The work that needs to be done in the future is exactly what every member of the committee has suggested over the past year, both publicly and privately.
1. Women should attempt to qualify and attempt to vote in every State election or otherwise, according to opportunity. This action not only serves the purpose of agitation of the whole question of suffrage, but it puts upon men, our brothers, the onus of refusing the votes of their fellow citizens, and compels them to show just cause for such proceeding. If it could be well understood that every woman who believes that she has a right to vote, would actually test her right by an appearance at the polls before and at the next Presidential election, the question as to nominees for that office would contain a new element, and the views and preferences of this large constituency[Pg 497] would receive serious consideration at the hands of president-makers in both the great parties of the country.
1. Women should strive to qualify and vote in every state election or whenever possible. This action not only stirs up the entire discussion around suffrage, but also places the burden on men, our brothers, to justify denying the votes of their fellow citizens. If it became clear that every woman who believes she has the right to vote would actually assert that right by showing up at the polls before and during the next Presidential election, the question of nominees for that office would include a new factor, and the opinions and preferences of this significant group[Pg 497] would be taken seriously by those who decide presidential candidates in both major political parties.
2. Women should study the question of their present rights and duties, and make their views known in public and in private to the utmost extent of their ability. In a time like this, when the interests of our whole beloved country are at stake; when political corruption is appalling, and men are paralyzed with fear because of the threatened failure of republican institutions, ignorance and indifference on the part of women, who are the natural protectors of purity and honor, whether in the family or the State, are sins against God, their country, and their own souls.
2. Women should examine their current rights and responsibilities and share their opinions publicly and privately as much as they can. In a time like this, when the interests of our beloved country are at risk; when political corruption is shocking, and men are frozen with fear due to the potential failure of our democratic institutions, ignorance and apathy from women, who are the natural defenders of integrity and honor, whether in the home or in society, are offenses against God, their country, and their own souls.
3. Men and women should pour out money like water for the propagation of these views. A copy of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United States, together with an argument on the fair interpretation of these documents, should be put into every family in the United States which has a reading member in it. Your committee are able and willing to send these documents directly into these homes—one at a time, carefully directed and franked by members of Congress, who believe they are making a patriotic and legitimate use of the franking privilege by thus educating their constituents in the first principles of a constitutional government—a government founded upon personal liberty and personal responsibility. Half a million dollars appropriated by Congress itself for this simple purpose would inaugurate a reign of patriotism and purity scarcely dreamed of as yet by the most powerful lovers of their country. But Congress has not yet even printed the able reports from the Judiciary Committee of the House, and the few copies we have been able to send out have been the gift of a private individual. Women must educate themselves—men must help them. The latter hold the purse-strings; and so surely as they desire peace, plenty, and the perpetuity of republican institutions, they must see to it that women are supplied with the sinews of war. Moral warfare costs not only heart's blood, but treasure. Women are offering their very souls in behalf of mankind. Can men do less than empty their pockets for the good of the race?
3. Men and women should spend money freely to promote these ideas. A copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, along with an explanation of how to fairly interpret these documents, should be placed in every American home that has at least one person who can read. Your committee is ready and willing to send these documents directly to homes—one at a time, properly addressed and mailed by members of Congress, who believe they are using their mailing privileges in a patriotic and legitimate way by educating their constituents about the fundamental principles of a constitutional government—one based on personal freedom and personal accountability. If Congress allocated half a million dollars for this simple purpose, it would usher in an era of patriotism and integrity that even the strongest advocates for their country have not yet imagined. However, Congress has not even printed the important reports from the House Judiciary Committee, and the few copies we have managed to distribute have come from a private donor. Women need to educate themselves—men must assist them. Men control the finances; and if they genuinely want peace, prosperity, and the survival of republican institutions, they must ensure that women have the necessary resources. Moral battles require not just passion but also funding. Women are dedicating their very souls for the sake of humanity. Can men do any less than contribute financially for the welfare of society?
And there is one thing more that men can and must do before the reign of justice and equality can be inaugurated. They, being voters, must pledge themselves in their own breasts, and to one another, that they will vote for such candidates in either party as are in favor of woman suffrage, and for no others. Such proceedings would settle the question in less than a year, and the peaceful working of a new regime would prove the wisdom and patriotism of these faithful souls before the whole world. We confidently believe that there are at least 300,000 voters to-day who desire to share the burdens and responsibilities of government with their mothers, wives, and sisters. Let them combine and speak the sovereign words, "Principle before party," and the day is won.
And there’s one more thing that men can and must do before justice and equality can truly begin. As voters, they must commit to each other and themselves to vote only for candidates from either party who support women's suffrage, and for no one else. Such actions would settle the issue in less than a year, and the smooth functioning of a new regime would demonstrate the wisdom and patriotism of these devoted individuals to the entire world. We strongly believe that there are at least 300,000 voters today who want to share the responsibilities of government with their mothers, wives, and sisters. Let them unite and declare the powerful words, "Principle before party," and victory will be theirs.
Mrs. Hooker and other ladies united in a memorial, which was presented in the Senate and referred to the Judiciary Committee, asking for a recognition of the rights of women under the XIV. Amendment, and asking further that the advocates of the cause be heard at the bar of the Senate. Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee, was not willing for this; but, at Mrs. Hooker's solicitation,[Pg 498] he agreed to lay the subject before the committee, and it was finally agreed that a hearing should be given on Friday morning, January 10th, at 11 o'clock.
Mrs. Hooker and several other women came together to create a petition, which was presented in the Senate and sent to the Judiciary Committee. They requested acknowledgment of women's rights under the XIV Amendment and further asked that supporters of the cause be allowed to speak before the Senate. Mr. Trumbull, the committee chairman, was initially resistant, but at Mrs. Hooker's request,[Pg 498] he agreed to present the matter to the committee. It was ultimately decided that a hearing would take place on Friday morning, January 10th, at 11 o'clock.
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled:
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled:
The undersigned, citizens of the United States, believing that under the present Federal Constitution all women who are citizens of the United States have the right to vote, pray your honorable body to enact a law during the present session that shall assist and protect them in the exercise of that right.
The undersigned, citizens of the United States, believing that under the current Federal Constitution all women who are citizens of the United States have the right to vote, respectfully ask your honorable body to pass a law in this session that will support and protect them in exercising that right.
And they pray further that they may be permitted, in person, and in behalf of the thousands of other women who are petitioning Congress to the same effect, to be heard upon this memorial before the Senate and House at an early day in the present session. We ask your honorable body to bear in mind that while men are represented on the floor of Congress, and so may be said to be heard there, women who are allowed no vote, and therefore no representation, can not truly be heard except as Congress shall open its doors to us in person.
And they further hope that they will be allowed, in person, and on behalf of the thousands of other women who are petitioning Congress for the same reason, to be heard regarding this memorial before the Senate and House soon during this session. We ask your respected body to remember that while men are represented on the floor of Congress and can be said to be heard there, women, who have no vote and therefore no representation, cannot truly be heard unless Congress opens its doors to us in person.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Olympia Brown. Isabella Beecher Hooker. Susan B. Anthony. Elizabeth L. Bladen. Josephine S. Griffing. Hartford, Conn., December 12, 1871.
Hartford, Conn., December 12, 1871.
Senate of the United States, Committee on the Judiciary,}
Washington, January 10, 1872 }
Senate of the United States, Committee on the Judiciary,}
Washington, January 10, 1872 }Madam: The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorial of yourself and others, asking to be heard before the Senate in behalf of the constitutional right of women to vote, and modified by your letter of this morning, so as to ask that the committee hold a public meeting in the Senate Chamber for that purpose, have concluded that it would not be consistent with the usage and rules of the Senate to admit memorialists to appear and advocate their claims before the Senate, nor for the committee to ask the use of the Senate Chamber for public discussion before them.
Madam: The Committee on the Judiciary, which considered the petition from you and others requesting to speak before the Senate regarding women's constitutional right to vote, and modified by your letter this morning to ask that the committee hold a public meeting in the Senate Chamber for this purpose, has decided that it would not align with the practices and rules of the Senate to allow petitioners to present and advocate their claims before the Senate, nor for the committee to request the use of the Senate Chamber for public discussion in front of them.
The committee would, however, be happy to receive any communication you and the other memorialists may think proper to make, or, if the memorialists prefer to present their views in person, the committee will hear them in its committee-room at 11 o'clock a.m., next Friday morning.
The committee would be glad to accept any communication you and the other memorialists wish to share. Alternatively, if the memorialists prefer to express their views in person, the committee will listen to them in its committee room at 11 o'clock a.m., next Friday morning.
Very respectfully,
Very respectfully,
Lyman Trumbull,
Lyman Trumbull,
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Chair of the Judiciary Committee.
Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker.
Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker.
Accordingly the hearing being granted, at the appointed hour the whole convention adjourned to the Capitol, crowding not only the committee room but the corridors, thousands of eager, expectant women struggling to gain admission. The committee,[148] seated round[Pg 499] a large table, manifested a respectful attention to each speaker in turn, complimenting them warmly at the close.
Accordingly, the hearing was granted, and at the scheduled time, the entire convention moved to the Capitol, filling not just the committee room but also the hallways, with thousands of eager women trying to get in. The committee,[148] seated around[Pg 499] a large table, listened respectfully to each speaker in order, warmly complimenting them at the end.
Mrs. Hooker said: Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee—In accordance with your courteous invitation of the 10th, I have the honor to present to you an argument upon the question: Are women entitled to vote under the United States Constitution, as amended? It is not important to inquire what was the status of woman before the adoption of the XIV. Amendment. By that amendment they are clearly made citizens. No one denies this. The first section of the amendment is as follows:
Mrs. Hooker said: Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee—In response to your kind invitation on the 10th, I am honored to present to you an argument on the question: Do women have the right to vote under the United States Constitution, as amended? It’s not essential to examine the status of women before the adoption of the XIV Amendment. That amendment clearly grants them citizenship. No one disputes this. The first section of the amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
All people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they live. No state can create or enforce any law that limits the rights or privileges of U.S. citizens.
The whole question is, what is the meaning of the term "citizen" as here used. The term is familiar to law and politics, and the authorities are very numerous and uncontradicted which make citizenship include the right to vote. These authorities consist of lexicographers, English and American, and legal and political writers. It is said, however, that to give the term a meaning by which women become voters under it is contrary to the actual intent of Congress and the State Legislatures in passing the amendment, as, unquestionably, the legislators who voted for it had personally (with, perhaps, a few exceptions) no thought of enfranchising women.
The main question is, what does the term "citizen" mean in this context? The term is well-known in law and politics, and there are many authorities that clearly state citizenship includes the right to vote. These authorities include lexicographers from both England and America, as well as legal and political writers. However, it's argued that interpreting the term in a way that allows women to vote goes against the actual intent of Congress and the State Legislatures when they passed the amendment, since, without a doubt, the legislators who voted for it did not intend to grant voting rights to women, except for maybe a few exceptions.
To this it is replied: 1. That the question is not whether they thought of enfranchising women, but whether they used the term as a term of enfranchisement at all; for if it would have enfranchised black men, it would have equally enfranchised women, and unquestionably the predominant idea in these legislators was a political benefit, not very precisely measured, to black men. 2. An inquiry as to actual intent in such a case is never admissible. A rule that allowed it would make every law uncertain. An enactment can be construed only by the language in fact used, and where that language is doubtful, by other parts of the same enactment, and by a consideration of the public evil which the law was intended to remedy. The evil to be remedied in this case was the political disadvantage under which black men, made free by the XIII. Amendment, still labored. The object was to give them a positive political benefit. The terms used are such that, necessarily and confessedly, whatever benefit accrues to black men under it accrues equally to women.
To this, it is answered: 1. The question isn’t whether they considered giving women the right to vote, but whether they used the term in any sense of granting voting rights at all; because if it would have given black men the right to vote, it would have equally done the same for women, and it’s clear that the main focus of these lawmakers was a political benefit, although not precisely defined, for black men. 2. An inquiry into actual intent in such a situation is never acceptable. A rule that permitted it would make every law uncertain. A law can only be interpreted by the language actually used, and when that language is ambiguous, by other parts of the same law, and by considering the public harm that the law was meant to address. The harm to be addressed in this situation was the political disadvantage that black men, freed by the XIII Amendment, still faced. The aim was to provide them with a clear political benefit. The terms used are such that, inevitably and undeniably, any benefit given to black men under it also applies equally to women.
It is said, in the next place, that the term "citizen" has acquired a meaning in American usage, legal and political, that does not carry with it the idea of suffrage; and the report of the majority of the Judiciary Committee on the Woodhull memorial places its adverse construction of this amendment entirely on the ground of an American use of the term in its restricted sense. Such a use of the term undoubtedly exists. Webster recognizes it, and so do some of our political writers. But this meaning is a secondary and lower one, and has not attained such dignity of use as to encroach at all upon the well-established general meaning,[Pg 500] and would not be presumed in a law, much less in a constitution. The American authorities are strongly in favor of the larger meaning.
It’s been said that the term “citizen” has taken on a meaning in American legal and political contexts that doesn’t include the right to vote; and the report from the majority of the Judiciary Committee regarding the Woodhull memorial bases its negative interpretation of this amendment solely on the American use of the term in this limited sense. This restricted use definitely exists. Webster acknowledges it, and so do some of our political writers. However, this meaning is secondary and lesser, and hasn’t gained enough significance to overshadow the well-established general meaning,[Pg 500] nor would it be assumed in a law, much less in a constitution. The American authorities strongly support the broader meaning.
The term is used in the second section of the original Constitution, article four, which provides that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." In Corfield vs. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. R., 380, the court say: "The inquiry is what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? They may be all comprehended under the following general heads: (Here follows a statement of numerous rights, civil and political, closing as follows:) "To which may be added the elective franchise as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised." And in the Dred Scott case, 19 Howard, 476, Mr. Justice Daniel says:
The term appears in the second section of the original Constitution, article four, which states that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." In Corfield vs. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. R., 380, the court states: "The inquiry is what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? They can all be categorized under the following general heads: (Here follows a statement of numerous rights, civil and political, concluding as follows:) "To which may be added the right to vote as defined and set by the laws or constitution of the State where it is to be exercised." And in the Dred Scott case, 19 Howard, 476, Mr. Justice Daniel says:
There is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of writers on government, or in any actual experiment heretofore tried, an exposition of the term 'citizen' which has not been understood as conferring the actual possession and enjoyment, or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment, of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political.
There is no known theory from writers on government, or any experiments conducted so far, that explains the term 'citizen' without implying the actual ownership and enjoyment, or the full right to acquire and enjoy, complete equality of civil and political privileges.
And the supreme court of Kentucky, 1 Little R., 333, says:
And the Kentucky Supreme Court, 1 Little R., 333, says:
No one can, in the correct sense of the term, be a citizen of a State who is not entitled, upon the terms prescribed by the institutions of the State, to all the rights and privileges conferred by those institutions upon the highest class of society.
No one can truly be a citizen of a State if they are not granted, according to the rules set by the State's institutions, all the rights and privileges that those institutions provide to the highest class of society.
These are American authorities, and would seem to settle the question that the term has not acquired a distinctive American meaning variant from the well-established general meaning.
These are American authorities and seem to confirm that the term hasn't developed a unique American meaning that's different from the widely accepted general meaning.
It is said, in the next place, and finally, that the second section of the XIV. Amendment shows clearly that the term "citizen" could not have been used in the sense of full citizenship. This objection is the most serious one that the argument encounters. That section, so far as relates to this subject, is as follows:
It is said, next, and finally, that the second section of the XIV Amendment clearly shows that the term "citizen" couldn't have been used in the sense of full citizenship. This objection is the biggest challenge the argument faces. That section, as it relates to this subject, is as follows:
When the right to vote is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
When the right to vote is taken away from any male residents of that state who are twenty-one years old and citizens of the United States, the basis for representation there will be lowered in proportion to how many of those male citizens there are compared to the total number of male citizens who are twenty-one years old in that state.
The consideration of this section is perfectly legitimate in the inquiry as to the meaning of the first section. It is said, with great force, that here is an implied admission that the States retained the power to exclude black men from the right to vote, and it will be asked why, if that right is absolutely conferred by the first section, and is one of the privileges and immunities of citizens which no State may abridge, the amendment does not boldly forbid any such State legislation, instead of merely imposing certain limitations upon the State that should assume to exercise such right of exclusion.
The discussion in this section is completely valid when examining the meaning of the first section. It's claimed strongly that there's an implied acknowledgment that the States kept the power to prevent black men from voting. The question arises: if the first section grants this right unconditionally and it's one of the privileges and protections of citizenship that no State can undermine, why doesn't the amendment outright prohibit any State laws that would exclude them, instead of just placing specific restrictions on States that might try to exercise that exclusion?
Two answers have been made by public writers on the subject which are merely specious. One is, that if the second section be construed as admitting the right of a State to exclude certain classes of men from the franchise, yet it could not operate as an admission of the right to exclude women. The fallacy here is, that if the citizenship conferred by the first section does not secure against all legislation the right of suffrage to men, it does not secure it to women; the question being merely as to the meaning of the term "citizen" as used, and not as to its application to[Pg 501] either sex, as such. The other answer that has been made is, that this second section is repealed by the XV. Amendment, which forbids the denial of suffrage in the cases where this section seems to allow it; and it is asked, with apparent confidence, whether a law that is repealed can have any further operation whatever. The fallacy here is, that the operation of this second section, so far as it relates to the present question, is wholly in throwing light upon the meaning of the term "citizen," as used in the first section, and this operation is just as perfect after its repeal as before; precisely as a part of a will that has been revoked by a codicil, may yet be read with the rest of the will if it will throw light upon the meaning of the whole.
Two responses have been given by public writers on this topic that are really just superficial. One is that if the second section is interpreted as allowing a state to deny certain groups the right to vote, it cannot also be seen as allowing the exclusion of women. The flaw in this argument is that if the citizenship granted by the first section doesn't guarantee the right to vote for men against all laws, then it doesn't guarantee it for women either; the issue is simply about what the term "citizen" means in this context and not about its application to [Pg 501] either gender. The other response is that the second section is nullified by the XV. Amendment, which prohibits the denial of voting rights in ways that this section seems to permit. It is confidently questioned whether a law that has been repealed can have any further effect at all. The mistake here is that the relevance of the second section, as far as this issue is concerned, lies entirely in clarifying the meaning of the term "citizen" as used in the first section; this relevance remains just as valid after its repeal as it was before. Just like a part of a will that has been revoked can still be referred to along with the rest of the will if it helps clarify the overall meaning.
It is believed, however, that a valid answer can be made to the objection which is founded upon the second section, and that the view here presented will be ultimately sustained by the legal opinion of the country.
It is believed, however, that a valid answer can be made to the objection based on the second section, and that the perspective presented here will ultimately be supported by the legal opinion of the country.
1. It is not a necessary inference that the right to exclude from suffrage is admitted by the second section, for this section will bear a construction that is consistent with the enlarged construction which we give to the first section; and it is a well-settled principle that a construction that favors the extension of liberty is itself to be favored, and one which restricts liberty is not to be adopted, except under a necessity. This second section provides for a penalty, in the reduction of its basis of representation, in every case where a State should deny to any class of citizens the right of suffrage. Now, this is not necessarily a concession of the right, but may be regarded as a punishment of the attempt to exercise the so-called right. The matter was practically so much within the power of the States (and the States in view were the disorganized Southern States), that it would be far easier for Congress to enforce the penalty for denying the right of suffrage than for the President to protect that right. It may be regarded as a case, well known to the law, of cumulative remedies. It is precisely as if, in addition to the express prohibition by the Constitution of the making of war by any State, there had been a provision that if any State should make war upon a foreign State, such State should pay the entire expense in which the General Government should become involved by the war. This clearly would be only a penalty and not a concession of the right, the object being to increase and not to diminish the security of the General Government against any attempt of a State to do the act prohibited.
1. It isn’t a given that the second section acknowledges the right to exclude individuals from voting, because this section can be interpreted in a way that aligns with the broader interpretation we apply to the first section. It’s a well-established principle that interpretations favoring the expansion of freedom should be prioritized, while those limiting freedom should only be accepted when absolutely necessary. This second section establishes a penalty that reduces the basis for representation in any case where a state denies any group of citizens the right to vote. This isn’t necessarily an acknowledgment of that right; rather, it can be seen as a punishment for trying to exercise what’s referred to as a right. The issue was largely under the control of the states (specifically the disorganized Southern states), making it much easier for Congress to enforce penalties for denying voting rights than for the President to guarantee those rights. This can be viewed as a well-known legal principle of cumulative remedies. It’s similar to having, in addition to the Constitution's clear ban on any state declaring war, a rule stating that if a state were to wage war against a foreign nation, that state would have to cover all expenses incurred by the federal government due to that war. This would obviously be a penalty, not an acknowledgment of the right, aiming to strengthen rather than weaken the protection of the federal government against any state attempting to commit the prohibited act.
2. The first section of the XIV. Amendment is entirely senseless and idle, except upon the construction which we claim. The term "citizen" means either "voter" or merely "member of the nation," as distinguished from an alien. Judge Cartter, in his late opinion in the case of Spencer vs. The Board of Registration, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sees this necessity, and that there is no intermediate status, and holds that the term means merely a person clothed with the civil rights of an inhabitant, as distinguished from an alien. Let it be borne in mind, then, that those who deny the construction which we claim, must make the word citizen mean merely "not an alien." Let it also be borne in mind that by the XIII. Amendment, which abolished[Pg 502] slavery, every inhabitant of the land became a free inhabitant, so that nothing is now added to the force of the term "inhabitant" by prefixing to it the term "free." It follows, therefore, that the XIV. Amendment, under the adverse construction claimed, means only that the persons referred to in it are inhabitants of the land. Let us see, then, how it will read: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are inhabitants of the United States and the State wherein they reside." This is sheer nonsense. In the construction of an ordinary law, passed by a Legislature in the crowded moments of its last hour, every Court would say that it must, if possible, give the law a construction that will make it have a sensible meaning and effect, and that of two constructions, one of which gives it sense and purpose and the other none, the former is without a question to be preferred. How much more should such a rule be applied to an amendment of a national constitution, deliberately adopted first by Congress and then by three-quarters of the Legislatures of the States?
2. The first part of the XIV Amendment is completely meaningless and pointless, unless we consider the interpretation we advocate. The term "citizen" refers either to a "voter" or simply a "member of the nation," distinguishing them from an outsider. Judge Cartter, in his recent opinion in the case of Spencer vs. The Board of Registration, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, recognizes this necessity and asserts that there is no middle ground, holding that the term means just a person who has the civil rights of a resident, as opposed to an alien. It should be noted that those who reject our interpretation must make the word citizen mean merely "not an alien." It's also important to remember that with the XIII Amendment, which abolished[Pg 502] slavery, every person in the country became a free resident, so nothing is added to the meaning of "resident" by saying "free resident." Therefore, the XIV Amendment, under the opposing interpretation claimed, simply states that the individuals mentioned in it are residents of the land. Let's see how it would read: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are residents of the United States and the State where they live." This is complete nonsense. In interpreting an ordinary law passed by a Legislature during the hectic moments of its final hour, every Court would agree that it must, if possible, interpret the law in a way that gives it a sensible meaning and effect, and that between two interpretations—one that gives it meaning and purpose and the other that does not—the former should unquestionably be favored. How much more should this rule apply to an amendment to a national constitution, deliberately adopted first by Congress and then by three-quarters of the State Legislatures?
3. It is a universal rule in the construction of statutes that the construction of an enabling or enlarging statute must be liberal and in the direction of enlargement. This rule is applicable with much greater force to the construction of this amendment, because, in the first place, it is dealing with the most fundamental of all political rights—that of free citizenship in a democracy—and is besides an amendment of a constitution, which is itself the charter of freedom, and the amendment is made for the very purpose of giving larger freedom than that free constitution originally gave. This rule alone is enough to settle the question of the construction of this amendment, especially as the question is between a construction that shall make it an enlargement of liberty and a construction that shall make it confer nothing that was not before possessed.
3. It's a general rule in creating laws that when interpreting an enabling or expanding statute, the approach must be broad and aimed at expansion. This rule applies even more strongly to the interpretation of this amendment because, first, it concerns the most essential political right— that of free citizenship in a democracy—and also because it's an amendment to a constitution, which is fundamentally the foundation of freedom, and the amendment is intended to provide greater freedom than what that free constitution originally offered. This rule alone is sufficient to determine how this amendment should be interpreted, especially since the debate is between an interpretation that broadens liberty and one that states it grants nothing that wasn't already there.
The whole question thus far has been considered with reference to the XIV. Amendment alone. The XV. Amendment, though, as we think, conferring no new rights, yet should be briefly noticed. That amendment is as follows: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Here it will be seen that the language, in its natural meaning, implies a pre-existing right to vote. It is not pertinent to the creation of a new right, but only to the protection of a right already existing. It is like the case occurring in some of the State constitutions, where it is provided that the right of trial by jury shall not be denied or impaired, in which case it has been held not to confer a new right, but merely to protect, in its then existing form, a right that was enjoyed when the constitution was adopted. This construction of the XV. Amendment, however, though the natural and obvious one, is not a necessary one, since, if there had been no XIV. Amendment, the XV. would undoubtedly be held to create a new right of suffrage. The argument, from the language used, though not without very positive weight, can not be regarded as decisive of the question, and the claim that women are entitled to vote must rest essentially upon the construction of the XIV. Amendment.[Pg 503]
The entire discussion so far has focused only on the XIV Amendment. However, the XV Amendment, while we believe it doesn't grant any new rights, should be briefly mentioned. That amendment states: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Here, it becomes clear that the wording implies a pre-existing right to vote. It doesn’t create a new right but rather aims to protect a right that already exists. This is similar to certain state constitutions that specify the right to a trial by jury cannot be denied or weakened, which has been interpreted not as conferring a new right, but simply protecting a right that was already in place when the constitution was adopted. However, this interpretation of the XV Amendment, although it seems the most natural and obvious, isn’t the only one possible. If there hadn’t been a XIV Amendment, the XV would certainly be seen as establishing a new right to vote. The argument based on the wording used, while significant, cannot be seen as conclusive, and the assertion that women have the right to vote primarily depends on interpreting the XIV Amendment.[Pg 503]
There is, however, an adverse claim that is made under the XV. Amendment, which ought to be briefly considered. That claim is that even if the XIV. Amendment gives the right to vote, yet the XV., in prohibiting the denial of the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, impliedly confers the right to prohibit it on all other grounds. Now, if it has this effect, it does so merely by impliedly repealing that clause of the XIV. Amendment which provides that the rights of citizens shall not be abridged. But it is a well-established rule of law that a repeal by implication is never favored, and will not be sustained unless the implication is a clear and necessary one. Much more would not such a repeal be sustained where the clause claimed to be repealed was a part of a constitution, and was intended as a security for human rights and liberty. The rule that would favor a construction toward liberty of the XIV. Amendment, would equally forbid a construction toward curtailment of liberty of the XV.
There is, however, an opposing argument made under the 15th Amendment that should be briefly addressed. This argument claims that even if the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to vote, the 15th Amendment, by prohibiting the denial of the vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, implicitly allows for denial on all other grounds. If this is true, it would essentially be repealing that part of the 14th Amendment which states that citizens' rights cannot be restricted. However, it is a well-established legal principle that implied repeal is not favored and will only be accepted if the implication is clear and necessary. It would be even less likely for such a repeal to be upheld if the clause in question was part of a constitution designed to protect human rights and freedoms. The principle that leans toward a liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment would equally oppose an interpretation that restricts the freedoms under the 15th Amendment.
But it will be said that the XV. Amendment becomes without purpose and effect, and really as senseless as we claim the XIV. Amendment to be under the construction which we oppose, if it is to be regarded as operating only in the way claimed, and not as conferring rights not previously existing. This is a point of some force, and which can be replied to only by the fact that there was an impression upon the minds of the legislators and of the people, that the XIV. Amendment did not confer the right of suffrage. That impression weighs nothing in now determining the meaning of the XIV. Amendment; but it furnishes the explanation that seems to be needed of the passage of the XV. Amendment. It was in our view wholly unnecessary, but was generally thought to be necessary. The difference in the two cases is that the XV. Amendment was passed under a supposed necessity, and with, therefore, a complete object; while the XIV. Amendment, under the construction which our opponents give to it, not only conferred nothing, but was believed at the time to confer nothing, and had therefore no purpose whatever. Our view that the XV. Amendment was unnecessary was held by some leading statesmen at the time. Mr. Sumner in the Senate declared it to be so before its passage, and proposed instead of it a mere law of Congress recognizing the right of suffrage and regulating its exercise.
But it will be said that the XV. Amendment becomes pointless and really as nonsensical as we claim the XIV. Amendment to be under the interpretation we oppose, if it is seen as only operating in the way claimed, and not as granting rights that didn’t exist before. This is a valid point, and it can only be answered by the fact that there was a belief among the legislators and the public that the XIV. Amendment did not grant the right to vote. That belief doesn't weigh in determining the meaning of the XIV. Amendment now; however, it provides an explanation for the passage of the XV. Amendment. We believe it was completely unnecessary, but it was widely thought to be essential. The difference between the two cases is that the XV. Amendment was passed under a perceived necessity, thus with a clear objective; while the XIV. Amendment, under the interpretation our opponents give it, not only conferred nothing, but was believed at the time to confer nothing, and therefore had no purpose at all. Our view that the XV. Amendment was unnecessary was shared by some prominent statesmen at the time. Mr. Sumner in the Senate declared it so before its passage, and proposed instead a simple law of Congress recognizing the right to vote and regulating its exercise.
It is at any rate very clear that the construction of the XV. Amendment, which makes it impliedly allow the denial of suffrage on all other grounds than the three stated, can not be sustained. Such rights as those with which it deals will never be allowed in a free constitution like ours to be curtailed or restricted by mere implication. If that construction is adopted—and a State may deny the right to vote on all other grounds but race and color and previous servitude—then, of course, a State may deny the right to all naturalized foreigners, although they have already acquired and enjoyed the right, and may also deny the right to vote to persons of a particular height or color of hair or profession. Indeed, to reduce the case to an absurdity, suppose the women are allowed to vote in Massachusetts, and, being a great majority over the men, turn around and exclude the men. This would be precisely[Pg 504] the ground on which women are now excluded—that of sex; and yet can any one doubt that the constitutional right to vote of men would be sustained?
It’s pretty clear that the interpretation of the XV. Amendment, which seems to allow the denial of voting rights on all grounds except for the three specified, can't hold up. Rights like these will never be restricted or limited by mere implication in a free constitution like ours. If that interpretation is accepted—and a State can deny voting rights on any grounds except race, color, and previous servitude—then it follows that a State could also deny voting rights to all naturalized citizens, even if they’ve already gained and enjoyed that right. They could also refuse the right to vote based on someone’s height, hair color, or occupation. To make the absurdity clear, imagine if women are allowed to vote in Massachusetts, and since they’re a large majority, they decide to exclude men from voting. This would be exactly the same basis on which women are currently excluded—that of sex; and yet, can anyone doubt that the constitutional right to vote for men would be upheld?
It is worth noticing that the Act of Congress of May 31, 1870, to carry into effect the provisions of the XIV. and XV. Amendments, is entitled, "An Act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union."
It’s important to note that the Act of Congress from May 31, 1870, aimed at enforcing the provisions of the XIV and XV Amendments, is titled "An Act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the various States of this Union."
Our conclusion, stated in a few words, is this: All women are citizens. Every citizen, in the language of Judge Daniel in the Dred Scott case, has "the actual possession and enjoyment or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political." The right to prescribe qualifications rests with the States, in the absence of any law of Congress prescribing them. These qualifications involve time of residence, age, and other matters that are entirely within the reach of the citizen by acquisition or lapse of time. Mr. Sumner has demonstrated in a manner that can not be answered that the qualifications thus left for the States to prescribe must be those under which the citizen can become a voter, and can not be such as would permanently exclude him from the right of suffrage.
Our conclusion, put simply, is this: All women are citizens. Every citizen, as Judge Daniel stated in the Dred Scott case, has "the actual possession and enjoyment or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political." The right to set qualifications belongs to the states, as long as there is no law from Congress that dictates them. These qualifications include length of residence, age, and other factors that are completely attainable for the citizen over time. Mr. Sumner has shown in a way that can't be disputed that the qualifications left for the states to determine must be those that allow the citizen to register to vote and cannot be ones that would permanently prevent them from having the right to vote.
It has been said that it is not fair for women to take advantage of a right to vote, no matter how clearly given them, which there was no actual intention to give. This objection does not touch the argument we have been making, but it may be well to say a word upon it. The law has so far dealt so unfairly with women that it would seem as if they should not be severely criticised for taking advantage of the law, when, though by mere accident, it happens to favor them. But it is especially to be considered that their claim is in accordance with the whole spirit of the Constitution and in harmony with all the fundamental principles of our Government, while the denial of suffrage to them is in opposition to those principles. If anything is settled in this country as an abstract general principle, it is the right of tax-payers to have a voice in the legislation that is to determine their taxes and in the appointment of the officers who are to levy and expend them, and that the members of the nation should elect its rulers. Our error (and the day is not far distant when we shall all see its absurdity) is in making these fundamental rights the rights of men alone and in denying them to women. The latter have equal intelligence, patriotism, and virtue, and their fidelity to their country has been as well proved as that of men, and it is difficult to see any good reason why they should have no voice in deciding who shall be the rulers of the nation, what its laws, what its taxes and how appropriated, what the policy that is to affect, for good or evil, the business interests that they are becoming more and more largely engaged in. With all this equity in their favor, may they not be allowed, without censure, to avail themselves of a legal right? If the freedom of the slave could have been declared by our judicial tribunals under some guarantee of freedom in the National Constitution, originally intended only for white men, all lovers of freedom would have rejoiced. When Alvan Stewart, thirty years ago, attempted to get such a decision from the supreme court of New Jersey, there was not a cavil heard among the opponents of slavery.[Pg 505] So when, in the face of the whole legal opinion of England, Granville Sharpe got a decision in favor of the slave Somerset, forever overthrowing slavery in England, by an application of latent principles of the English constitution, the whole world applauded, and does to this day. It was thus, as we understand it, that slavery was overthrown in Massachusetts, a lawyer claiming before its courts the application to a slave of a clause in its bill of rights supposed to have been intended only for white men. We would add that it would not accord at all with the good sense and directness of method that specially characterize the American people, for the friends of woman suffrage to labor years for the passage of a further constitutional amendment when they already have all that such an amendment could give.
It has been said that it's unfair for women to use a right to vote, regardless of how clearly it was given to them, which there was never any real intention to grant. This objection doesn’t really address the argument we’ve been making, but it’s worth mentioning. The law has historically treated women so unfairly that it seems unreasonable to criticize them for taking advantage of the law, even if by mere chance, it favors them. It’s especially important to recognize that their claim aligns with the overall spirit of the Constitution and is consistent with all the fundamental principles of our Government, while denying them the right to vote goes against those principles. If there’s one clear principle in this country, it’s that taxpayers have the right to have a say in the legislation that decides their taxes and in the appointment of the officials who collect and spend them, and that the members of the nation should choose their leaders. Our mistake (and the day is coming when we will all see how absurd it is) is in defining these basic rights as belonging only to men and denying them to women. Women are just as intelligent, patriotic, and virtuous, and their loyalty to their country has been proven just as much as that of men, making it hard to find a valid reason why they shouldn’t have a say in who will lead the nation, what its laws will be, how taxes will be allocated, and what policies will influence, for better or worse, the business interests they are increasingly involved in. With all this fairness on their side, shouldn’t they be allowed, without criticism, to exercise a legal right? If the freedom of a slave could have been declared by our courts under some guarantee of liberty in the National Constitution, which was originally intended only for white men, all advocates of freedom would have celebrated. When Alvan Stewart, thirty years ago, tried to get such a ruling from the supreme court of New Jersey, there wasn't a single objection heard among those against slavery.[Pg 505] So when, defying the entire legal opinion of England, Granville Sharpe won a ruling in favor of the slave Somerset, ultimately abolishing slavery in England by applying a hidden principle of the English constitution, the whole world applauded, and still does. It was in this way, as we understand it, that slavery was ended in Massachusetts, with a lawyer claiming before its courts that a clause in its bill of rights, thought to be only for white men, applied to a slave. We should also note that it wouldn’t be sensible or direct—qualities that especially define the American people—for supporters of women’s suffrage to spend years pushing for another constitutional amendment when they already possess everything such an amendment could provide.
Having attempted a strictly legal view of this question, permit me, gentlemen, to say that in my heart my claim to vote is based upon the original Constitution, interpreted by the Declaration of Independence. I believe that Constitution comprehensive enough to include all men and all women. I believe that black men needed no other charter than white men. I recognize the stress laid upon Congress, by reason of the infancy of that race, their past bondage, and the duty of protection toward them. But the great principles of liberty and responsibility contained in the Declaration and the Constitution should have afforded protection to every human being living under the flag, and properly applied they would have been found sufficient. For my own part, I will never willingly consent to vote under any special enactment conferring rights of citizenship upon me as upon an alien. Like Paul, I was free-born. "With a great sum obtained I this freedom," said the Roman centurion to this old patriot apostle, but he replied, "I am free-born." There is music in those words to my ear. They are the deep vibrations of a soul that loves its country as itself.
Having taken a strictly legal approach to this issue, let me say, gentlemen, that my claim to vote is rooted in the original Constitution, interpreted through the Declaration of Independence. I believe that Constitution is broad enough to include all men and all women. I believe that Black men don’t need any other charter than white men. I recognize the emphasis placed on Congress due to the youth of that race, their history of bondage, and the obligation to protect them. But the fundamental principles of liberty and responsibility in the Declaration and the Constitution should have provided protection to every human being living under the flag, and if applied correctly, they would have sufficed. As for me, I will never agree to vote under any special law that grants citizenship rights to me as if I were an outsider. Like Paul, I was born free. "I acquired this freedom with a great sum," the Roman centurion said to the old patriot apostle, but he responded, "I am free-born." There’s a beauty in those words for me. They are the deep vibrations of a soul that loves its country as much as itself.
You sit here, gentlemen, in judgment on my rights as an American citizen, as though they were something different from your own! By whatsoever title you sit in these seats and make laws, wise or unwise, just or unjust, for this great people, by that same title do I claim my share in this great responsibility, owing allegiance to God and my own conscience alone. I may have been born with less capacity than the least among you, with small chance of growing to your mental stature, or reaching your standard of moral elevation; but I have a perfect right to sit in your midst, pigmy that I may be, since I am one of "the people" who did ordain this glorious old Constitution, and one of "the governed," whose consent is made the basis of a government that can be called just.
You sit here, gentlemen, judging my rights as an American citizen, as if they’re somehow different from your own! No matter what title you hold in these seats or the laws you make, whether they’re wise or foolish, fair or unfair, I claim my part in this immense responsibility under the same title, pledging loyalty only to God and my own conscience. I might have been born with less ability than any of you, with little chance of matching your intellect or moral standards; but I have every right to be here, no matter how small I may be, since I am one of "the people" who established this great Constitution, and one of "the governed," whose agreement is the foundation of a government that can be called just.
It is for this reason that I and my fellow memorialists have asked to be protected in the use of our present rights, rather than endowed with any new ones; and we do pray you, gentlemen of the committee, to give immediate attention to our claim, and to report to the Senate within a short time, favorably if you can, adversely if you must, because we not only wish, in common with thousands of other women-citizens, to vote for the next President, but to have a potent voice in his nomination, and we wish to know, therefore, how far Congress will aid us, and how far we must work out our own salvation. For we can wait no longer. We feel that[Pg 506] we have neglected our duty already, else what means this appalling official corruption that is bringing dismay to the stoutest hearts among men, and leading them to doubt the wisdom of republican institutions, the strength of the great doctrines of liberty and responsibility on which our Government is founded? We do not doubt these great doctrines, we know what they mean and whereto they tend. Our Ship of State carries two engines, gentlemen, and was built for them, but heretofore you have used only one, and now you have reached the place where not only two seas meet, but all ocean currents are struggling together for the mastery. The man power alone will not save you, but put on the woman power, and our gallant ship will steady itself for a moment, and then ride the waves triumphantly forevermore.
That’s why my fellow memorialists and I have asked to keep our current rights instead of receiving new ones; we urge you, committee members, to pay immediate attention to our request and report back to the Senate soon—favorably if you can, otherwise negatively if necessary—because we, along with thousands of other women citizens, want to vote for the next President and have a significant say in his nomination. We need to know how much help we can expect from Congress and how much we have to do for ourselves. We can’t wait any longer. We feel we’ve already neglected our duty; otherwise, how do you explain the shocking official corruption that is causing distress even among the strongest men and making them question the wisdom of our republican institutions and the core principles of liberty and responsibility on which our Government is built? We do not doubt these important principles; we understand what they mean and where they lead. Our Ship of State has two engines, gentlemen, and was designed for both, but until now, you’ve only used one. Now, you’ve come to a point where not just two seas collide, but all ocean currents are fighting for dominance. Manpower alone won’t be enough, but if you harness woman power, our strong ship will stabilize for a moment and then sail the waves triumphantly forever.
Gentlemen, we come to you with petitions no longer. Here is our declaration and pledge, issued a year ago this day, signed already by thousands of women, and eager names are coming every day. (Mrs. H. read the pledge and exhibited the great autograph book.)
Gentlemen, we're no longer coming to you with petitions. Here is our declaration and pledge, released a year ago today, already signed by thousands of women, with more eager names joining every day. (Mrs. H. read the pledge and showed the large autograph book.)
We did hope to present this to Congress itself in the Senate Chamber to-day. We believe that women, being unrepresented in that body, are entitled to appear there by their memorialists in person, and we have so asked. But Congress has referred us to you, and you have declined even to submit our proposition officially to that body. You find no precedent for this, you say—forgetting, gentlemen, that history makes its own precedents. The men of America made theirs in 1776; the women of America are making theirs to-day, and may God prosper the right.
We hoped to present this to Congress in the Senate Chamber today. We believe that women, being unrepresented in that body, deserve to appear there through their representatives in person, and we have requested this. However, Congress has referred us to you, and you have refused to even submit our proposal officially to that body. You say you find no precedent for this—forgetting, gentlemen, that history creates its own precedents. The men of America made theirs in 1776; the women of America are making theirs today, and may God bless the right.
Mrs. Stanton said: Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee: We appear before you at this time to call your attention to our memorial asking for a "declaratory act" that shall protect women in the exercise of the right of suffrage. Benjamin F. Butler, early in the session, presented a bill in the House to this effect that may soon, in the order of legislation, come before you for consideration in the Senate of the United States. As you well know, women are demanding their rights as citizens to-day under the original Constitution, believing that its letter and spirit, fairly interpreted, guarantee the blessings of liberty to every citizen under our flag. But more especially do we claim that our title deed to the elective franchise is clearly given in the XIV. and XV. Amendments. Therein for the first time, the Constitution defines the term citizen, and, in harmony with our best lexicographers, declares a citizen to be a person possessed of the right to vote. In the last year the question of woman's political status has been raised from one of vague generalities to one of constitutional law.
Mrs. Stanton said: Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee: We are here today to bring your attention to our memorial requesting a "declaratory act" that will protect women in their right to vote. Benjamin F. Butler submitted a bill in the House early in the session that may soon come before you in the Senate of the United States for consideration. As you well know, women today are asserting their rights as citizens under the original Constitution, believing that its text and intent, when interpreted correctly, guarantee the blessings of liberty to every citizen under our flag. More specifically, we argue that our claim to the right to vote is clearly established in the XIV. and XV. Amendments. For the first time, the Constitution defines the term citizen, and in line with our leading dictionaries, it states that a citizen is someone who has the right to vote. Over the past year, the issue of women's political status has shifted from vague generalities to a matter of constitutional law.
The Woodhull memorial, and the able arguments sustaining it made by Mr. Riddle and Mrs. Woodhull herself, and the exhaustive minority report of Messrs. Butler and Loughridge, have been before the nation for one year, and yet remain unanswered; in fact, the opinions of many of our most learned judges and lawyers multiplying on all sides, sustain the positions taken in the "Woodhull Memorial." As our demands are based on the same principles of constitutional interpretation, I will not detain you with the re-statement of arguments already furnished, but[Pg 507] will present a few facts and general principals showing the need of some speedy action on this whole question.
The Woodhull memorial, along with the strong arguments presented by Mr. Riddle and Mrs. Woodhull herself, as well as the thorough minority report from Messrs. Butler and Loughridge, have been out in the public for a year now, yet they still haven’t received a response. In fact, the views of many of our most knowledgeable judges and lawyers continue to support the positions outlined in the "Woodhull Memorial." Since our demands are based on the same principles of constitutional interpretation, I won’t take up your time restating arguments that have already been provided, but[Pg 507] I will share a few facts and general principles that highlight the urgent need for action on this entire issue.
Gentlemen hold seats in Congress to-day by the votes of women. The legality of the election of Mr. Garfield, of Washington Territory, and Mr. Jones, of Wyoming, involves the question whether or not their constituents are legal voters. Ultimately, this question, involving the fundamental rights of citizens, must be considered in the Senate as well as the House. Women have voted in the general elections in several of the States, and if legislators chosen by women choose Senators, their right to their seats can not be decided until it is first decided whether women are legal voters. Some speedy action on this question is inevitable, to preserve law and order.
Gentlemen currently hold seats in Congress thanks to the votes of women. The legitimacy of the election of Mr. Garfield from Washington Territory and Mr. Jones from Wyoming raises the question of whether their constituents are legal voters. Ultimately, this issue, which involves the fundamental rights of citizens, needs to be addressed in both the Senate and the House. Women have voted in general elections in several states, and if legislators elected by women choose Senators, their right to those seats can’t be determined until it is first established whether women are considered legal voters. Some quick action on this matter is necessary to maintain law and order.
In some States women have already voted; in others they are contesting their rights in the courts, and the decisions of judges differ as widely as the capacities of men to see first principles.
In some states, women have already voted; in others, they are fighting for their rights in court, and judges' decisions vary as widely as men's ability to grasp fundamental principles.
Judge Howe, Judge Cartter, and Judge Underwood have given their written opinions in favor of woman's citizenship under the XIV. and XV. Amendments. Even the majority report of the Judiciary Committee, presented by John A. Bingham, though adverse to the prayer of Victoria Woodhull, admits the citizenship of woman. In the late cases of Sarah Spencer against the Board of Registration, and Sarah E. Webster against the superintendent of election, the judge decided that under the XIV. Amendment women are citizens.
Judge Howe, Judge Cartter, and Judge Underwood have shared their written opinions supporting women's citizenship under the XIV and XV Amendments. Even the majority report from the Judiciary Committee, presented by John A. Bingham, although against Victoria Woodhull's request, acknowledges that women are citizens. In the recent cases of Sarah Spencer vs. the Board of Registration and Sarah E. Webster vs. the superintendent of elections, the judge ruled that women are citizens under the XIV Amendment.
We do not ask to vote outside of law, or in open violation of it, nor to avail ourselves of any strained interpretations of constitutional provisions, but in harmony with the Federal Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and our American theory of just government. The women of this country and a handful of foreign citizens in Rhode Island, the only disfranchised classes, ask you to-day to secure to them a republican form of government to protect them against the oppression of State authorities, who, in violation of your amendments, assume the right not merely to regulate the suffrage, but to abridge and deny it to these two classes of citizens. The Federal Constitution, in its Amendment, clearly defines, for the first time, who are citizens: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the States wherein they reside."
We don’t ask to vote outside the law or in direct violation of it, nor to rely on any forced interpretations of constitutional provisions, but in accordance with the Federal Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and our American principle of fair government. The women of this country and a small number of foreign citizens in Rhode Island, the only disenfranchised groups, are asking you today to ensure they have a republican form of government to protect them from the oppression of State authorities, who, in violation of your amendments, claim the right not only to regulate voting but to limit and deny it to these two groups of citizens. The Federal Constitution, in its Amendment, clearly defines, for the first time, who are citizens: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the States wherein they reside."
No one denies that "all persons," in the XIV. Amendment, is used without limitation of sex, or in other words, that not men only, but women also are citizens. Whether in theory the citizenship of women is generally admitted or not, it certainly is in practice. Women pre-empt land; women register ships; women obtain passports; women pay the penalty of their own crimes; women pay taxes, sometimes work out the road tax. In some States, even married women can make contracts, sue and be sued, and do business in their own names; in fact, the old Blackstone idea that husband and wife are one, and that one the husband, received its death blow twenty years ago, when the States of New York and Massachusetts passed their first laws securing to married women the property they inherited in their own right.
No one denies that "all persons" in the XIV Amendment refers to everyone without considering gender, meaning that not only men but also women are citizens. Whether the idea that women are citizens is accepted in theory or not, it is certainly recognized in practice. Women claim land; women register ships; women get passports; women serve their own sentences for crimes; women pay taxes, and some even work off road tax. In some states, married women can make contracts, sue and be sued, and conduct business in their own names; in fact, the old Blackstone belief that a husband and wife are one person, and that person is the husband, was effectively put to rest twenty years ago when New York and Massachusetts passed their first laws to secure property for married women that they inherited in their own right.
You may consider me presumptuous, gentlemen, but I claim to be a[Pg 508] citizen of the United States, with all the qualifications of a voter. I can read the Constitution, I am possessed of two hundred and fifty dollars, and the last time I looked in the old family Bible I found I was over twenty-one years of age.
You might think I’m being bold, gentlemen, but I stand before you as a[Pg 508] citizen of the United States, with all the qualifications to vote. I can read the Constitution, I have two hundred and fifty dollars, and the last time I checked in the old family Bible, I was over twenty-one years old.
"Individual rights," "Individual conscience and judgment," are great American ideas, underlying our whole political and religious life. We are here to-day to ask a Congress of Republicans for that crowning act that shall secure to 15,000,000 women the right to protect their persons, property, and opinions by law. The XIV. Amendment, having told us who are citizens of the republic, further declares that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the 'privileges or immunities' of 'citizens' of the United States." Some say that "privileges and immunities" do not include the right of suffrage. We answer that any person under Government who has no voice in the laws or the rulers has his privileges and immunities abridged at every turn, and when a State denies the right of suffrage, it robs the citizen of his citizenship and of all power to protect his person or property by law.
"Individual rights" and "individual conscience and judgment" are fundamental American concepts that form the foundation of our political and religious life. Today, we are here to urge a Congress of Republicans to take that decisive action to ensure that 15,000,000 women gain the legal right to protect themselves, their property, and their opinions. The XIV Amendment has clarified who are citizens of the republic and further states that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the 'privileges or immunities' of 'citizens' of the United States." Some argue that "privileges and immunities" do not extend to the right to vote. We counter that any person under the government who lacks a voice in the laws or those in power has their privileges and immunities undermined at every turn. When a State denies the right to vote, it strips the citizen of their citizenship and their ability to legally protect themselves or their property.
Disfranchised classes are ever helpless and degraded classes. One can readily judge of the political status of a citizen by the tone of the press. Go back a few years, and you find the Irishman the target for all the gibes and jeers of the nation. You could scarce take up a paper without finding some joke about "Pat" and his last bull. But in process of time "Pat" became a political power in the land, and editors and politicians could not afford to make fun of him. Then "Sambo" took his turn. They ridiculed his thick skull, woolly head, shin-bone, long heel, etc., but he, too, has become a political power; he sits in the Congress of the United States and in the Legislature of Massachusetts, and now politicians and editors can not afford to make fun of him.
Disenfranchised groups are always helpless and degraded. You can easily tell a citizen's political status by the tone of the media. If you look back a few years, you'll see the Irish were the butt of the nation's jokes. You could hardly pick up a newspaper without finding some joke about "Pat" and his latest mishap. But over time, "Pat" became a political force, and editors and politicians couldn’t afford to mock him anymore. Then it was "Sambo's" turn. They made fun of his thick skull, curly hair, and long legs, but he too has become a political force; he’s now a member of the U.S. Congress and the Massachusetts Legislature, and now politicians and editors can't afford to make fun of him either.
Now, who is their target? Woman. They ridicule all alike—the strong-minded for their principles, the weak minded for their panniers. How long think you the New York Tribune would maintain its present scurrilous tone if the votes of women could make Horace Greeley Governor of New York? The editor of the Tribune knows the value of votes, and if, honorable gentlemen, you will give us a "Declaratory law," forbidding the States to deny or abridge our rights, there will be no need of arguments to change the tone of his journal; its columns will speedily glow with demands for the protection of woman as well as broadcloth and pig-iron. Then we might find out what he knows and cares for our real and relative value in the Government.
Now, who are they targeting? Women. They mock everyone equally—the strong-minded for their principles, the weak-minded for their trivial concerns. How long do you think the New York Tribune would keep its current offensive tone if women's votes could make Horace Greeley Governor of New York? The editor of the Tribune understands the importance of votes, and if, honorable gentlemen, you would provide us with a "Declaratory law" that prevents the States from denying or limiting our rights, there would be no need for arguments to change the tone of his newspaper; its pages would quickly fill with calls for the protection of women as well as high fashion and heavy industry. Then we might find out what he truly knows and values about our actual and relative significance in the Government.
Without some act of Congress regulating suffrage for women as well as black men, women citizens of the United States who, in Washington, Utah, and Wyoming Territories, are voters and jurors, and who, in the State of Kansas, vote on school and license questions, would be denied the exercise of their right to vote in all the States of the Union, and no naturalization papers, education, property, residence, or age could help them. What an anomaly is this in a republic! A woman who in Wyoming enjoys all the rights, privileges, and immunities of a sovereign, by crossing the line into Nebraska, sinks at once to the political degradation of a slave. Humiliated with such injustice, one set of statesmen[Pg 509] answer her appeals by sending her for redress to the courts; another advises her to submit her qualifications to the States; but we, with a clearer intuition of the rightful power, come to you who thoughtfully, conscientiously, and understandingly passed that Amendment defining the word "citizen," declaring suffrage a foundation right. How are women "citizens" from Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, moving in other States, to be protected in the rights they have heretofore enjoyed, unless Congress shall pass the bill presented by Mr. Butler, and thus give us a homogeneous law on suffrage from Maine to Louisiana? Remember, these are citizens of the United States as well as of the Territories and States wherein they may reside, and their rights as such are of primal consideration. One of your own amendments to the Federal Constitution, honorable gentlemen, says "that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." We have women of different races and colors, as well as men. It takes more than men to compose peoples and races, and no one denies that all women suffer the disabilities of a present or previous condition of servitude. Clearly the State may regulate, but can not deny the exercise of this right to any citizen.
Without some act of Congress regulating voting rights for women as well as Black men, women citizens of the United States who are voters and jurors in Washington, Utah, and Wyoming, and who vote on school and license issues in Kansas, would be denied their right to vote in all the States of the Union. No amount of naturalization papers, education, property, residence, or age could help them. What an anomaly this is in a republic! A woman who enjoys all the rights, privileges, and immunities of a sovereign in Wyoming instantly loses them and is treated like a slave when she crosses into Nebraska. Faced with such injustice, some lawmakers respond to her pleas by sending her to the courts for redress, while others suggest she submit her qualifications to the States. But we, with a clearer understanding of rightful power, come to you who thoughtfully and conscientiously passed that Amendment defining "citizen" and declaring voting a fundamental right. How are women "citizens" from Utah, Wyoming, and Kansas moving to other States supposed to be protected in the rights they have enjoyed unless Congress passes the bill presented by Mr. Butler, establishing a uniform voting law from Maine to Louisiana? Remember, these are citizens of the United States just as much as the Territories and States in which they reside, and their rights as such are of utmost importance. One of your own amendments to the Federal Constitution states that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." We have women of different races and colors, just like men. It takes more than men to make up communities and races, and no one denies that all women face the disadvantages of a current or past condition of servitude. Clearly, the State may regulate, but it cannot deny any citizen the exercise of this right.
You did not leave the negroes to the tender mercies of the courts and States. Why send your mothers, wives, and daughters suppliants at the feet of the unwashed, unlettered, unthinking masses that carry our elections in the States? Would you compel the women of New York to sue the Tweeds, the Sweeneys, the Connollys, for their inalienable rights, or to have the scales of justice balanced for them in the unsteady hand of a Cardozo, a Barnard, or a McCunn? Nay, nay; the proper tribunal to decide nice questions of human rights and constitutional interpretations, the political status of every citizen under our national flag, is the Congress of the United States. This is your right and duty, clearly set forth in article 1, section 5, of the Constitution, for how can you decide the competency and qualifications of electors for members of either House without settling the fundamental question on what the right of suffrage is based? All power centers in the people. Our Federal Constitution, as well as that of every State, opens with the words, "We, the people." However this phrase may have been understood and acted on in the past, women to-day are awake to the fact that they constitute one half the American people; that they have the right to demand that the constitution shall secure to them "justice," "domestic tranquillity," and the "blessings of liberty." So long as women are not represented in the government they are in a condition of tutelage, perpetual minority, slavery.
You didn't leave the Black community in the hands of the courts and states. Why would you send your mothers, wives, and daughters to beg at the feet of the uneducated, ignorant masses who sway our elections? Would you force the women of New York to fight against the likes of Tweed, Sweeney, or Connolly for their basic rights, or to trust their fate in the unsteady hands of a Cardozo, Barnard, or McCunn? No, no; the right place to address intricate questions of human rights and constitutional interpretations, as well as the political status of every citizen under our national flag, is the U.S. Congress. This is your right and duty, clearly outlined in Article 1, Section 5, of the Constitution, because how can you determine the qualifications and abilities of voters for members of either House without first addressing the fundamental question of what the right to vote is based on? All power rests with the people. Our Federal Constitution, just like that of every state, begins with the phrase, "We, the people." Regardless of how this phrase has been understood and acted upon in the past, women today recognize that they make up half of the American population; they have the right to demand that the Constitution ensures them "justice," "domestic tranquility," and the "blessings of liberty." As long as women are not represented in the government, they are in a state of subjugation, perpetual minority, and slavery.
You smile at the idea of women being slaves in this country. Benjamin Franklin said long ago, "that they who have no voice in making the laws, or in the election of those who administer them, do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes and to their representatives." I might occupy hours in quoting grand liberal sentiments from the fathers—Madison, Jefferson, Otis, and Adams—in favor of individual representation. I might quote equally noble words from[Pg 510] the statesmen of our day—Seward, Sumner, Wade, Trumbull, Schurz, Thurman, Groesbeck, and Julian—to prove "that no just government can be formed without the consent of the governed"; that "the ballot is the columbiad of our political life, and every man who holds it is a full-armed Monitor." But what do lofty utterances and logical arguments avail so long as men, blinded by old prejudices and customs, fail to see their application to the women by their side? Alas! gentlemen, women are your subjects. Your own selfish interests are too closely interwoven for you to feel their degradation, and they are too dependent to reveal themselves to you in their nobler aspirations, their native dignity. Did Southern slaveholders ever understand the humiliations of slavery to a proud man like Frederick Douglass? Did the coarse, low-bred master ever doubt his capacity to govern the negro better than he could govern himself? Do cow-boys, hostlers, pot-house politicians ever doubt their capacity to prescribe woman's sphere better than she could herself? We have yet to learn that, with the wonderful progress in art, science, education, morals, religion, and government we have witnessed in the last century, woman has not been standing still, but has been gradually advancing to an equal place with the man by her side, and stands to-day his peer in the world of thought.
You smile at the thought of women being treated like slaves in this country. Benjamin Franklin said a long time ago, "those who have no voice in making the laws, or in choosing those who enforce them, do not enjoy liberty, but are completely enslaved to those who do have votes and to their representatives." I could spend hours quoting great liberal ideas from our founding fathers—Madison, Jefferson, Otis, and Adams—supporting individual representation. I could also share equally impressive statements from [Pg 510] the politicians of today—Seward, Sumner, Wade, Trumbull, Schurz, Thurman, Groesbeck, and Julian—to demonstrate "that no fair government can exist without the consent of the governed"; that "the ballot is the lifeblood of our political life, and every person who holds it is well-equipped to fight." But what good are lofty speeches and logical arguments as long as men, blinded by outdated prejudices and customs, fail to recognize their relevance to the women beside them? Sadly, gentlemen, women are your subjects. Your own selfish interests are too intertwined for you to feel their suffering, and they are too reliant on you to express their higher aspirations and innate dignity. Did Southern slaveholders ever grasp the humiliations of slavery faced by someone as proud as Frederick Douglass? Did a coarse, unrefined master ever doubt his ability to govern an enslaved person better than he could govern himself? Do cowboys, stablehands, or local politicians ever question their ability to decide a woman's role better than she could? We still need to realize that, with the amazing progress in art, science, education, morals, religion, and government we've seen in the last century, women haven't been stagnant; they have been steadily moving toward equality with the men beside them and today stand as equals in the realm of thought.
American womanhood has never worn iron shoes, burned on the funeral pile, or skulked behind a mask in a harem, yet, though cradled in liberty, with the same keen sense of justice and equality that man has, she is still bound by law in the swaddling bands of an old barbarism. Though the world has been steadily advancing in political science, and step by step recognizing the rights of new classes, yet we stand to-day talking of precedents, authorities, laws, and constitutions, as if each generation were not better able to judge of its wants than the one that preceded it. If we are to be governed in all things by the men of the eighteenth century, and the twentieth by the nineteenth, and so on, the world will be always governed by dead men. The exercise of political power by woman is by no means a new idea. It has already been exercised in many countries, and under governments far less liberal in theory than our own. As to this being an innovation on the laws of nature, we may safely trust nature at all times to vindicate herself. In England, where the right to vote is based on property and not person, the feme sole freeholder has exercised her right all along. In her earliest history we find records of decisions in courts of her right to do so, and discussions on that point by able lawyers and judges. The feme sole voted in person; when married, her husband represented her property, and voted in her stead; and the moment the breath went out of his body, she assumed again the burden of disposing of her own income and the onerous duty of representing herself in the Government. Thus England is always consistent; property being the basis of suffrage, is always represented. Here suffrage is based on "persons," and yet one-half our people are wholly unrepresented.
American womanhood has never been oppressed like that, but even though she's cradled in freedom and shares the same sense of justice and equality as men, she’s still held back by outdated laws. While the world has continually progressed in political understanding, recognizing the rights of new groups, we still find ourselves discussing precedents, authorities, laws, and constitutions, as if each generation can’t judge its own needs better than the last. If we're going to let the men of the eighteenth century govern all our decisions, and the twentieth by the nineteenth, we’ll always be ruled by those who are no longer alive. The idea of women exercising political power isn't new; it has already happened in many countries, even under governments that are much less progressive than ours. Regarding this as a violation of natural laws is misguided; nature eventually proves herself. In England, where the right to vote depends on property ownership rather than being a person, the female landowner has always had that right. Historical records show decisions made in courts about her rights, and skilled lawyers and judges have discussed it too. The unmarried woman voted in person; when she got married, her husband represented her property and voted for her; and the moment he died, she took back the responsibility of managing her income and representing herself in government. Thus, England remains consistent; since property is the basis for voting, it is always represented. Here, voting is based on "people," and yet half of our population is completely unrepresented.
We have declared in favor of a government of the people, for the people, by the people, the whole people. Why not begin the experiment? If suffrage is a natural right, we claim it in common with all citizens; if[Pg 511] it is a political right, that the few in power may give or take away, then it is clearly the duty of the ruling powers to extend it in all cases as the best interests of the State require. No thinking man would admit that educated, refined womanhood would not constitute a most desirable element and better represent the whole humanitarian idea than a government of men alone.
We have declared our support for a government that is of the people, for the people, and by the people—everyone. Why not start the experiment? If voting is a natural right, we claim it alongside all citizens; if it is a political right that can be granted or revoked by those in power, then it is clearly the responsibility of the ruling authorities to provide it whenever it serves the best interests of the State. No reasonable person would argue that educated, refined women wouldn't be a valuable part of representing the full humanitarian vision, rather than a government made up of men alone.
The objections to Mr. Butler's bill, extending the provisions of the enforcement act to women, all summed up, are these:
The objections to Mr. Butler's bill, which expands the enforcement act's provisions to include women, can be summarized as follows:
1st. This is too short a cut to liberty. It is taking the nation by storm. The people are not ready for it. The slower process of a XVI. Amendment would be safer, surer, and do more toward educating the people for the final result. To all of which I answer, the women at least are ready and as well prepared for enfranchisement as were the slaves of the Southern plantation. There could have been no plan devised to educate the people so rapidly as the startling announcement in the Woodhull Memorial that women already had the right to vote. It has roused wise men to thought on the question, stirred the bar and bench of the nation, with the prospect of a new and fruitful source of litigation; it has inspired woman with fresh hope that the day of her enfranchisement is at hand, given the press of the country solid arguments for their consideration, and changed the tone of the speeches in our conventions from whinings about brutal husbands, stolen babies, and special laws, to fundamental principles of human rights.
1st. This is too quick a path to freedom. It’s catching the nation by surprise. The people aren't ready for it. A slower approach, like a XVI. Amendment, would be safer, more reliable, and better for preparing the public for the end goal. To all this, I say that women, at least, are ready and as well-prepared for voting rights as the slaves on Southern plantations were. There couldn’t have been a better plan to educate the public so quickly than the shocking announcement in the Woodhull Memorial that women already had the right to vote. It has prompted thoughtful discussion among educated men on the issue, stirred up the legal system of the nation with the potential for new and significant legal battles; it has filled women with renewed hope that their right to vote is imminent, provided the media with solid arguments to consider, and shifted the focus of speeches in our conventions from complaints about abusive husbands, abducted children, and special laws, to fundamental human rights principles.
This question has been up for discussion in this country over thirty years; it split the first anti-slavery society in two, was a firebrand in the world's convention, and has been a disturbing element in temperance, educational and constitutional conventions ever since, and it is high time it took a short cut to its final consummation. There have been many shorter cuts to liberty than this is likely to be, even with a declaratory act at this session. Why multiply amendments when we have liberty and justice enough in the spirit and letter of the Constitution as it now is to protect every citizen under this Government?
This question has been a topic of debate in this country for over thirty years; it split the first anti-slavery society in two, stirred up controversy at the world’s convention, and has been a disruptive force in temperance, educational, and constitutional conventions ever since. It’s high time we took a more direct path to its resolution. There have been plenty of quicker routes to freedom than this one is likely to be, even with a declaratory act in this session. Why create more amendments when we already have enough liberty and justice in the spirit and letter of the Constitution as it stands to protect every citizen under this government?
The simple opinion of a Chief Justice, a century ago, without any change in legislation, settled in one hour as great a question of human rights as we now submit to your consideration. Lord Mansfield, presiding in the Court of Queen's Bench, listening to the arguments in the fatuous Somerset case, with higher light and knowledge, suddenly awoke to the truth that by the laws of England, a slave could not breathe on that soil, and he so decided, and the negro was discharged. Slavery was abolished in Massachusetts in the same way, without any amendment of her constitution or new legislation, simply by the decision of her Chief Justice. So you perceive, honorable gentlemen, we have two precedents for the "short cut" we propose to liberty.
The straightforward opinion of a Chief Justice, a hundred years ago, without any changes in the law, resolved a major human rights issue in just one hour, similar to what we present to you now. Lord Mansfield, presiding in the Court of Queen's Bench and hearing arguments in the misguided Somerset case, suddenly realized that under English law, a slave could not exist on that land, and he ruled accordingly, leading to the release of the enslaved person. Slavery was also abolished in Massachusetts in the same manner, without any amendments to its constitution or new laws—just by the decision of its Chief Justice. So you see, honorable gentlemen, we have two precedents for the "short cut" we propose to liberty.
2d. Some object that it was not the "intention" of the framers of the original Constitution, nor of the amendments, to enfranchise woman. When ordinary men, in their ordinary condition, talk of the "intentions" of great men specially inspired to utter great political truths, they talk of what they can not know or understand. When by some moral revolution men are cut loose from all their old moorings and get beyond the[Pg 512] public sentiment that once bound them, with no immediate selfish interest to subserve—as, for instance, our fathers in leaving England, or the French Communes in the late war—in hardship and suffering they dig down to the hard-pan of universal principles, and in their highest inspirational moments proclaim justice, liberty, equality for all.
2d. Some argue that it wasn't the "intent" of the creators of the original Constitution, or the amendments, to grant women the right to vote. When regular people, in their everyday lives, discuss the "intentions" of great figures who were specially inspired to express significant political truths, they’re talking about things they can't truly know or understand. When, due to a moral shift, people break free from all their previous ties and move beyond the[Pg 512] societal norms that once held them, without any immediate selfish motivations—as in the case of our ancestors leaving England or the French Communes during the recent war—in times of hardship and suffering, they reach down to universal principles, and in their most inspiring moments declare justice, liberty, and equality for everyone.
Visiting Chicago not long since, I saw great pieces of rock of the most wonderful mineral combination—gold, silver, glass, iron, layer after layer, all welded beautifully together, and that done in the conflagration of a single night which would have taken ages of growth to accomplish in the ordinary rocky formations. Just so revolutions in the moral world suddenly mould ideas, clear, strong, grand, that centuries might have slumbered over in silence; ideas that strike minds ready for them with the quickness and vividness of the lightning's flash. It is in such ways and under such conditions that constitutions and great principles of jurisprudence are written; the letter and spirit are ever on the side of liberty; and highly organized minds, governed by principle, invariably give true interpretations; while others, whose law is expediency, coarse and material in all their conceptions, will interpret law, Bible, constitution, everything, in harmony with the public sentiment of their class and condition. And here is the reason why men differ in their interpretations of law. They differ in their organizations; they see everything from a different standpoint. Could ideas of justice, and liberty, and equality be more grandly and beautifully expressed than in the preamble to our Federal Constitution?
Visiting Chicago recently, I saw amazing pieces of rock with the most incredible mix of minerals—gold, silver, glass, iron—layer after layer, all beautifully fused together, formed in the blaze of a single night that would normally take ages to develop in regular rocky formations. Just like that, revolutions in the moral world can suddenly shape ideas that are clear, strong, and grand—ideas that centuries could have quietly overlooked; ideas that hit minds ready for them with the speed and intensity of a lightning strike. It’s in such moments and under such conditions that constitutions and significant principles of law are created; the letter and spirit always support liberty; and well-organized minds, guided by principle, consistently provide true interpretations; while others, whose law is based on convenience, crude and material in all their views, will interpret law, the Bible, the constitution, everything, in line with the public sentiment of their class and situation. This is why men differ in their interpretations of law. They vary in their designs; they see everything from different perspectives. Could concepts of justice, liberty, and equality be expressed more grandly and beautifully than in the preamble to our Federal Constitution?
It is an insult to those Revolutionary heroes to say that, after seven years' struggle with the despotic ideas of the old world, in the first hour of victory, with their souls all on fire with new-found freedom, they sat down like so many pettifogging lawyers, and drew up a little instrument for the express purpose of robbing women and negroes of their inalienable rights. Does the preamble look like it? Women did vote in America, at the time the Constitution was adopted. If the framers of the Constitution meant they should not, why did they not distinctly say so? The women of the country, having at last roused up to their rights and duties as citizens, have a word to say as to the "intentions" of the fathers. It is not safe to leave the "intentions" of the Pilgrim fathers, or the Heavenly Father, wholly to masculine interpretation, for by Bible and Constitution alike, women have thus far been declared the subjects, the slaves of men.
It’s an insult to those Revolutionary heroes to suggest that, after seven years of fighting against the oppressive ideas of the old world, in the very first hour of victory, with their spirits burning with newfound freedom, they simply sat down like a group of petty lawyers and created a document specifically to take away the inalienable rights of women and Black people. Does the preamble suggest that? Women did vote in America when the Constitution was adopted. If the framers of the Constitution intended for them not to, why didn’t they clearly state it? The women of this country, having finally awakened to their rights and responsibilities as citizens, have a say in the “intentions” of the founders. It’s not wise to leave the “intentions” of the Pilgrim fathers, or the Heavenly Father, solely up to male interpretation, because according to both the Bible and the Constitution, women have so far been regarded as subjects and slaves of men.
But able jurists tell us that the "intention" of the framers of a document must be judged by the letter of the law. Following this rule the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has decided that the XIV. Amendment does affect the status of women; that it advances them to full citizenship, and clothes them with the capacity to become voters. The exact language of Judge Cartter, who spoke for the court, is as follows:
But capable legal experts inform us that the "intention" of the writers of a document must be evaluated by the actual wording of the law. Following this principle, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has ruled that the XIV Amendment does influence the status of women; that it elevates them to full citizenship and grants them the ability to become voters. The precise language of Judge Cartter, who represented the court, is as follows:
All that has been accomplished by this amendment to the Constitution, or its previous provisions, is to distinguish them (women) from aliens, and make them capable of becoming voters. In giving expression to my judgment, this clause does advance them to full citizenship, and clothes them with the capacity to become voters.
All that this amendment to the Constitution, or its earlier provisions, has achieved is to separate them (women) from non-citizens and allow them to become voters. By stating my opinion, this clause elevates them to full citizenship and grants them the ability to become voters.
If so much has been done, we have already gone beyond the "intention" of the framers of the amendments, if, as some say, they did not intend to touch the status of woman at all. But with or without intent, a law stands as it is written—"Lex ita scripta est." The true rule of interpretation, says Charles Sumner, under the National Constitution, especially since its additional amendments, is that anything for human rights is constitutional. "No learning in the books, no skill in the courts, no sharpness of forensic dialectics, no cunning in splitting hairs, can impair the vigor of the constitutional principle which I announce. Whatever you enact for human rights is constitutional, and this is the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
If so much has been accomplished, we have already gone beyond the "intention" of the framers of the amendments, if, as some say, they never meant to address the status of women at all. But whether or not there was intent, a law stands as it is written—"Lex ita scripta est." The true rule of interpretation, says Charles Sumner, under the National Constitution, especially with its additional amendments, is that anything regarding human rights is constitutional. "No amount of learning in books, no skills in the courts, no cleverness in legal arguments, no trickery in splitting hairs, can weaken the strength of the constitutional principle I declare. Whatever you create for human rights is constitutional, and this is the supreme law of the land, regardless of anything in the constitution or laws of any State that says otherwise."
Susan B. Anthony said—Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee: It is not argument nor Constitution that you need; you have already had those. I shall therefore refer to existing facts. Prior to the war the plan of extending suffrage was by State action, and it was our boast that the National Constitution did not contain a word that could be construed into a barrier against woman's right to vote. But at the close of the war Congress lifted the question of suffrage for men above State power, and by the amendments prohibited the deprivation of suffrage to any citizen by any State. When the XIV. Amendment was first proposed in Congress, we rushed to you with petitions, praying you not to insert the word "male" in the second clause. Our best woman-suffrage men, on the floor of Congress, said to us the insertion of the word there puts up no new barrier against woman; therefore do not embarrass us, but wait until the negro question is settled. So the XIV. Amendment, with the word "male," was adopted. Then, when the XV. Amendment was presented without the word "sex," we again petitioned and protested, and again our friends declared to us that the absence of that word was no hindrance to us, and again they begged us to wait until they had finished the work of the war. "After we have freed the negro, and given him a vote, we will take up your case." But have they done as they promised? When we come before you, asking protection under the new guarantees of the Constitution, the same men say to us our only plan is to wait the action of Congress and State Legislatures in the adoption of a XVI. Amendment that shall make null and void the insertion of the word "male" in the XIV., and supply the want of the word "sex" in the XV. Such tantalization endured by yourselves, or by any class of men, would have wrought rebellion, and in the end a bloody revolution. It is only the friendly relations that exist between the sexes that has prevented any such result from this injustice to women.
Susan B. Anthony said—Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee: You don't need arguments or the Constitution; you've already had those. So, I'll refer to the facts as they stand. Before the war, the plan to expand voting rights was through state action, and we prided ourselves on the fact that the National Constitution didn't contain anything that could block women's right to vote. But after the war, Congress took the question of suffrage for men out of state control, and with the amendments, it prohibited any state from denying suffrage to any citizen. When the XIV Amendment was first proposed in Congress, we quickly came to you with petitions, asking you not to include the word "male" in the second clause. Our strongest allies for women's suffrage in Congress told us that including that word wouldn’t create any new barriers for women; so please don’t complicate things, but wait until the issue of the negro is resolved. Thus, the XIV Amendment was passed with the word "male." Then, when the XV Amendment came up without the word "sex," we once again petitioned and protested, and once more our allies assured us that the absence of that word wouldn’t hinder us, begging us to wait until they finished the work from the war. “After we free the negro and give him the vote, we’ll take up your case.” But have they kept their promise? When we come to you asking for protection under the new guarantees of the Constitution, the same men tell us that our only plan is to wait for Congress and state legislatures to adopt a XVI Amendment that will negate the word "male" in the XIV and fill the gap of the word "sex" in the XV. If any group of men had to endure such tantalization, it would have led to rebellion and eventually a bloody revolution. It's only the good relationship between the sexes that has prevented such a response to this injustice against women.
Gentlemen, I should be sure of your decision could you but realize the fact that we, who have been battling for our rights, now more than twenty years, have felt, and now feel, precisely as you would under such circumstances. Men never do realize this. One of the most ardent lovers of freedom (Senator Sumner), said to me, two winters ago, after our hearing before the Committee of the District, "Miss Anthony, I never realized before that you, or any woman, could feel the disgrace, the degradation, of disfranchisement precisely as I should if my fellow-citizens[Pg 514] had conspired to take from me my right to vote." We have petitioned for our rights year after year. Although I am a Quaker and take no oath, yet I have made a most solemn "affirmation" that I would never again beg my rights, but that I would come up to Congress each year, and demand the recognition of them under the guarantees of the National Constitution.
Gentlemen, I would be confident in your decision if you could truly understand that we, who have been fighting for our rights for more than twenty years, have felt, and continue to feel, exactly as you would in such a situation. Men often fail to realize this. One of the most passionate advocates for freedom (Senator Sumner) told me two winters ago, after our hearing before the Committee of the District, "Miss Anthony, I never understood before that you, or any woman, could feel the shame, the humiliation, of being denied the right to vote just as I would if my fellow citizens[Pg 514] plotted to take my voting rights away." We have petitioned for our rights year after year. Even though I am a Quaker and do not take oaths, I have made a very serious "affirmation" that I will never again plead for my rights, but that I will come to Congress each year and demand their recognition under the protections of the National Constitution.
What we ask of the Republican party, is simply to take down its own bars. The facts in Wyoming show how a Republican party can exist in that Territory. Before women voted, there was never a Republican elected to office; after their enfranchisement, the first election sent a Republican to Congress, and seven Republicans to their Territorial Legislature. Thus the nucleus of a Republican party there was formed by the enfranchisement of women. The Democrats seeing this, are now determined to again disfranchise the women. Can you Republicans so utterly stultify yourselves, can you so entirely work against yourselves, as to refuse us a Declaratory Law? Can you longer deny us the protection we ask? We pray you to report immediately, as Mrs. Hooker has said, "favorably, if you can, adversely, if you must." We can wait no longer.
What we're asking from the Republican Party is simply to remove its own barriers. The situation in Wyoming shows how a Republican Party can thrive in that Territory. Before women had the right to vote, no Republicans were elected to office; after they were granted that right, the first election resulted in a Republican being sent to Congress and seven Republicans to their Territorial Legislature. So, the foundation of a Republican Party there was established through women's suffrage. Seeing this, the Democrats are now determined to disenfranchise women again. Can you Republicans truly undermine yourselves like this? Can you really work against your own interests by denying us a Declaratory Law? Can you continue to deny us the protection we seek? We urge you to report promptly, as Mrs. Hooker stated, "favorably, if you can, adversely, if you must." We can no longer wait.
In the House, on January 24, 1872, the following discussion took place:
In the House, on January 24, 1872, the following discussion happened:
Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts.—I ask unanimous consent, out of the usual course of the rules, to present a petition.
Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts.—I request unanimous consent, breaking from the usual rules, to submit a petition.
The Speaker.—Is there objection? The Chair hears none.
The Speaker.—Is there any objection? The Chair hears none.
Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts.—I am honored with the duty of presenting a petition for a declaratory law to assure the right of suffrage to the women citizens of the United States. They believe their absolute constitutional right is to vote. They here and now desire to bring to the attention of Congress the necessity of passing a new law declaring and executing that right. They claim such a law in two views: first, as of right, and secondly, as of expediency to the nation. They insist that this their right ought to be secured to them by law, and they insist also that it is expedient for the Republic that this right should be accorded to them.
Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts.—I am honored to present a petition for a law that clearly establishes women citizens of the United States have the right to vote. They believe it is their fundamental constitutional right. They want to bring to Congress's attention the need for a new law that affirms and enforces that right. They argue for such a law from two perspectives: first, as a matter of right, and second, as something beneficial for the nation. They assert that this right should be legally guaranteed for them, and they also maintain that it is in the best interest of the Republic to grant them this right.
The mothers of the land, who shall form the characters of all its citizens through their teaching in childhood, giving direction to the thoughts which shall hereafter govern the land, may well claim that it is expedient that they shall have a voice in making the laws which govern them, which will give them greater freedom of action than they now have, which will afford them higher opportunities for noble culture than they now have, and raise their thoughts to a plane worthy of the generation that shall come after us, which must in all its social and moral qualities take its impress from their teachings, so that the men of the land shall then be as the women of the land now are; and as you elevate and ennoble woman, in so much, in a greater ratio, will our sons be better fitted for the great duties and responsibilities of the future. No stream shall rise higher than its fountain.
The mothers of the nation, who shape the character of all its citizens through their teaching in childhood, guiding the thoughts that will eventually govern the country, have a valid point in wanting a say in the laws that govern them. This would provide them with more freedom of action than they currently have, offer them better opportunities for personal development than they presently enjoy, and elevate their thinking to a level that befits the generation to come. This next generation will be influenced by their teachings, and as a result, the men of the nation will become like the women of today. As you uplift and empower women, in turn, our sons will be better prepared for the significant responsibilities and duties of the future. No stream can rise higher than its source.
Sir, I recognize the fact that I have no right at this time to trespass on[Pg 515] the business and indulgence of the House to argue the momentous question involved in this memorial, but I present this petition of 35,000 women of America, from almost every State in the Union. From every class and condition of life, from the highest and most refined, and from the humblest and most lowly, all are represented here, all asking that their claim to what they conceive to be their greatest right, and which we claim to be the inalienable right of every male citizen shall be granted to them.
Sir, I know that I don't have the right at this moment to intrude on the business and attention of the House to discuss the important issue raised in this memorial, but I present this petition from 35,000 women across America, representing almost every state in the Union. Women from all walks of life, from the most privileged and sophisticated to the most humble and modest, are here, all demanding that their claim to what they believe is their greatest right—something we consider to be the inalienable right of every male citizen—be granted to them.
The unanimity with which they come here; the fact that without organization, almost as a matter of spontaneity, 35,000 names should have been gathered and sent to this Capitol to a committee, whose voluntary duty it was made to receive them; the fact that other names are now coming in at the rate of some 500 a day; that from California 10,000 more are on the way, all speak to the Representatives of the people in accents that can not be misunderstood, that here is a great and necessary reform which calls for the fullest consideration and the promptest action of the Congress of the United States.
The overwhelming agreement with which people come here; the fact that, without any organization and almost spontaneously, 35,000 names have been collected and sent to this Capitol to a committee that was voluntarily tasked with receiving them; the fact that more names are now coming in at a rate of about 500 a day; that another 10,000 from California are on the way—all of this speaks to the Representatives of the people in a way that cannot be misunderstood. It indicates that there is an important and necessary reform that demands the full attention and swift action of the Congress of the United States.
They are not to be told that this is an innovation, that this is a new thing. Division of property between the husband and the wife was a greater innovation upon the feudal law, which is the foundation of our law as regards women, and a very much greater innovation than this will be. That in the parent State from which we come women have had the right to act in public affairs; from the fact that in that parent State a woman is at the head of public affairs, seems to point to us that women may safely be trusted with the right to vote.
They shouldn't be told that this is a new idea or an innovation. Dividing property between husbands and wives was a much bigger change to the feudal law, which underpins our laws concerning women, and it's a lot more groundbreaking than this will be. The fact that in the home country we come from, women have had the right to participate in public matters, especially since a woman currently leads public affairs there, suggests that we can confidently trust women with the right to vote.
I have desired to say this much, in presenting this petition, in order that it may be brought to the notice of the House and the country; that it may take the same place in the consideration of the people that in a not very far day in the past anti-slavery petitions took, which founded the great party which now has control of the Government of this country. There was a great reform, beginning in the little, urged on by petitions, not so numerous in its early days, and hardly so numerous in its later days, as this, scarcely arriving to the dignity of numbers of applicants which characterizes the petition which I now present; and although, when a great moneyed interest was at stake, it took years to bring that freedom which those petitions asked for, yet let me assure the House of Representatives that in my judgment, much sooner, and as certainly as the sun rolls around in its course a few more times, just so sure will the right asked for in this petition be accorded to the women citizens of the United States.
I want to say this much while presenting this petition so that it can be brought to the notice of the House and the country. I hope it takes the same importance in public discussion as the anti-slavery petitions did not too long ago, which helped create the major party that now controls the Government of this country. There was a significant reform that started small, pushed forward by petitions, which in their early days were not as numerous and even now aren’t as abundant as this one, hardly reaching the level of applicants that this petition has. And even though it took many years to achieve the freedom those petitions requested when a big financial interest was involved, I assure the House of Representatives that I believe, just a few more revolutions of the sun around its path, and the rights asked for in this petition will definitely be granted to the women citizens of the United States.
I ask that this petition, which I propose simply to show to the House in its large volume (unrolling the petition), may be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom this subject has already been referred.
I request that this petition, which I'm presenting to the House in its full size (unrolling the petition), be sent to the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom this matter has already been assigned.
Mr. Eldridge.—I ask that the petition be read.
Mr. Eldridge.—I request that the petition be read.
The Speaker.—With the names?
The Speaker.—With the names?
Mr. Eldridge.—Certainly.
Mr. Eldridge.—Certainly.
The Speaker.—That would require unanimous consent.
The Speaker.—That would require unanimous consent.
Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts.—I pray that may not be done, because I promised the Committee on Appropriations not to take much time. I ask that the petition simply be read.[Pg 516]
Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts.—I hope that won't happen, because I told the Appropriations Committee I wouldn’t take much time. I request that the petition just be read.[Pg 516]
The Clerk read as follows:
The Clerk read as follows:
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled:
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States gathered in Congress:
The undersigned, citizens of the United States, pray your honorable bodies that in any proposed amendment to the Constitution which may come before you in regard to suffrage in the District of Columbia or any Territory, the right of voting may be given to women on the same terms as to men.
The undersigned, citizens of the United States, respectfully ask your esteemed bodies that in any proposed amendment to the Constitution regarding voting rights in the District of Columbia or any Territory, women should be granted the right to vote on the same terms as men.
The petition was then referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The petition was then sent to the Committee on the Judiciary.
In the House, January 29, 1872.—Mr. Parker, of Missouri, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1277) to allow women to vote and hold office in the Territories of the United States; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.
In the House, January 29, 1872.—Mr. Parker, from Missouri, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1277) to permit women to vote and hold office in the Territories of the United States; it was read for the first and second time, sent to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.
In United States Senate on January 29, 1872.—The Vice-President said:—The Chair has been requested to present the protest of ladies of the county of Munroe, Indiana, signed by Mrs. Morton C. Hunter, Mrs. A. Y. Moore, and several hundred other ladies, remonstrating against an extension of the right of suffrage to women, "because the Holy Scripture inculcates a different and for us a higher sphere, apart from public life; because as women we find a full measure of duties, cares, and responsibilities devolving upon us, and we are therefore unwilling to bear other and heavier burdens, and those unsuited to our physical organization; because we hold that an extension of suffrage would be adverse to the interests of the working women of the country, with whom we heartily sympathize: because these changes must introduce a fruitful element of discord in the existing marriage relation, which would tend to the infinite detriment of children, and increase the already alarming prevalence of divorce through the land; because no general law affecting the condition of all women should be framed to meet exceptional discontent." This memorial will be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
In the United States Senate on January 29, 1872.—The Vice-President said:—The Chair has received a protest from the women of Munroe County, Indiana, signed by Mrs. Morton C. Hunter, Mrs. A. Y. Moore, and several hundred other women, opposing the extension of voting rights to women, "because the Holy Scripture teaches a different and, for us, a higher role, separate from public life; because as women we are already burdened with plenty of duties, cares, and responsibilities, and we don't want to take on additional and heavier loads that don't fit our physical makeup; because we believe that expanding suffrage would harm the interests of working women, whom we strongly support; because these changes would create conflict within existing marriages, which would be detrimental to children and increase the already concerning rates of divorce across the country; because no broad law affecting all women should be created to address specific grievances." This memorial will be sent to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The National Woman Suffrage Association held its May Anniversary of 1872 in New York, at Steinway Hall. As can be seen by the call,[149] the intention was to form a political party, but the delegates, after some discussion, decided that nominees without electors were incongruous. As usual a large number of States were represented by delegates, California sending Laura de Force Gordon, and Oregon, Abigail Scott Duniway. This convention was chiefly remarkable as being the first at which the presidency changed hands—Miss Anthony, instead of Mrs. Stanton, being elected to fill the position of chief officer.[Pg 517]
The National Woman Suffrage Association celebrated its May Anniversary of 1872 in New York, at Steinway Hall. As noted in the call,[149] the goal was to create a political party, but the delegates ultimately decided that having nominees without electors didn’t make sense. As usual, many states were represented by delegates, with California sending Laura de Force Gordon and Oregon sending Abigail Scott Duniway. This convention was particularly notable as it marked the first time the presidency changed hands—Miss Anthony was elected as the chief officer instead of Mrs. Stanton.[Pg 517]
A delegation, consisting of Mrs. Hooker, Mrs. De Force Gordon, and Miss Anthony, was sent by the National Woman Suffrage Association to the Presidential Conventions held by the Liberal Republicans at Cincinnati, the Democrats at Baltimore, and the Republicans at Philadelphia. The fruit of all the earnest labor of this delegation was a splinter in the Republican platform. This, however, was something to be grateful for, as it was the first mention of woman in the platform of either of the great political parties during our National existence. On the strength of this plank the following address was issued:
A delegation made up of Mrs. Hooker, Mrs. De Force Gordon, and Miss Anthony was sent by the National Woman Suffrage Association to the Presidential Conventions hosted by the Liberal Republicans in Cincinnati, the Democrats in Baltimore, and the Republicans in Philadelphia. The result of all the hard work from this delegation was a small mention in the Republican platform. Still, this was something to be thankful for, as it marked the first time women were mentioned in the platform of either of the major political parties in our country's history. Based on this statement, the following address was issued:
GRANT AND WILSON—APPEAL TO THE WOMEN OF AMERICA FROM THE NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.
Women of the United States, the hour for political action has come. For the first time in the history of our country woman has been recognized in the platform of a large and dominant party. Philadelphia has spoken and woman is no longer ignored. She is now officially recognized as a part of the body politic. The fourteenth plank of its platform declares:
Women of the United States, the time for political action has arrived. For the first time in our country's history, women have been acknowledged in the platform of a major political party. Philadelphia has made its voice heard, and women are no longer overlooked. She is now officially recognized as a part of the political community. The fourteenth plank of its platform declares:
The Republican party mindful of its obligations to the loyal women of America expresses gratification that wider avenues of employment have been open to women, and it farther declares that her demands for additional rights should be treated with respectful consideration.
The Republican Party, aware of its responsibilities to the loyal women of America, expresses satisfaction that more job opportunities have become available to women, and further states that their demands for additional rights should be given respectful consideration.
We are told that this plank does not say much, that in fact it is only a "splinter;" and our "liberal" friends warn us not to rely upon it as a promise of the ballot to woman. What it is, we know full better than others. We recognize its meagerness; we see in it the timidity of politicians; but beyond and through it all, we farther see its promise of the[Pg 518] future. We see in it the thin edge of the entering wedge which shall break woman's slavery in pieces and make us at last a nation truly free—a nation in which the caste of sex shall fall down by the caste of color, and humanity alone shall be the criterion of all human rights. The Republican party has been the party of ideas, of progress. Under its leadership, the nation came safely through the fiery ordeal of the rebellion; under it slavery was destroyed; under it manhood suffrage was established. The women of the country have long looked to it in hope, and not in vain; for to-day we are launched by it into the political arena, and the Republican party must hereafter fight our battles for us. This great party, this progressive party, having taken the initiative step, will never go back on its record. It needed this new and vital issue to keep it in life, for Cincinnati indorsed its work up to this hour; the constitutional amendments, the payment of the bonds in gold, the civil service reform, the restoration of the States. It thanked the soldiers and sailors of the Republic, it proposed lands to actual settlers. The Republican party went up higher; it remembered all citizens. The widows and orphans of the soldiers and sailors were not forgotten; it acknowledged its obligation to the loyal women of the Republic, and to the demands for additional rights, of all women, whatever their class, color, or birth, it promised "respectful consideration." Its second plank declared that "complete liberty and exact equality in the enjoyment of all civil, political, and public rights should be established and maintained throughout the Union by efficient and appropriate State and Federal legislation." These two planks are the complement of each other, and are the promise of exact and equal justice to woman. They were the work of radical woman suffrage Republicans—of Wilson, Sargent, Loring, Claflin, Hoar, Fairchild, and others. They were accepted by the candidates. General Grant, in his letter, expresses his desire to see "the time when the title of 'citizen' shall carry with it all the protection and privilege to the humblest, that it does to the most exalted." His course since his elevation to the Presidency has always been favorable to increased rights for women. He has officially recognized their competency, and has given them many government positions. Senator Wilson is an old and staunch advocate of woman suffrage, and his letter in pointed terms refers to the recognition given woman by his party, and says, "to her new demands it extends the hand of grateful recognition, and it commends her demands for additional rights to the calm and careful consideration of the nation." And, too, thus early in the campaign, the strongest men of the party, among whom are Forney, of the Philadelphia Press, Gerrit Smith, Bowen, of the New York Independent, and President White, of Cornell University, speak of this recognition as introducing a new era into politics.
We’re told that this plank doesn’t say much, that it’s just a “splinter;” and our “liberal” friends caution us not to see it as a promise of voting rights for women. We know exactly what it is, perhaps even better than they do. We acknowledge its limitations; we observe the fearfulness of politicians; but beyond all that, we also see its promise for the future. We see it as the thin edge of the wedge that will ultimately end women’s oppression and allow us to become a truly free nation—a nation where the differences of sex will be dismantled alongside those of race, and humanity alone will be the standard for all human rights. The Republican party has been the party of ideas and progress. Under its leadership, the nation successfully navigated the intense challenges of the Civil War; it abolished slavery; it established manhood suffrage. Women across the country have long looked to this party with hope, and not without reason; today, we are being propelled into the political arena by it, and the Republican party must now fight our battles. This great party, this progressive party, having taken this crucial step, will never retract its promises. It needed this new and vital issue to stay relevant, for Cincinnati has endorsed its work to this day; the constitutional amendments, the payment of bonds in gold, civil service reform, and the restoration of the States. It has expressed gratitude to the soldiers and sailors of the Republic, and it proposed land to actual settlers. The Republican party has risen higher; it has remembered all citizens. The widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors were not overlooked; it recognized its duty to the loyal women of the Republic, and when it comes to the demands for additional rights of all women, regardless of their class, color, or birth, it promised “respectful consideration.” Its second plank stated that “complete liberty and exact equality in the enjoyment of all civil, political, and public rights should be established and maintained throughout the Union by effective and suitable State and Federal legislation.” These two planks complement each other and promise exact and equal justice for women. They were created by radical woman suffrage Republicans—like Wilson, Sargent, Loring, Claflin, Hoar, Fairchild, and others. They were accepted by the candidates. General Grant, in his letter, expresses his hope for “the time when the title of ‘citizen’ shall carry with it all the protections and privileges for the humblest, just as it does for the most exalted.” Since becoming President, he has consistently supported increased rights for women. He has officially recognized their abilities and has appointed them to many government roles. Senator Wilson is a long-time and passionate supporter of woman suffrage, and his letter clearly refers to the recognition his party gives to women, stating, “to her new demands it extends the hand of grateful recognition, and it commends her demands for additional rights to the calm and careful consideration of the nation.” Even this early in the campaign, the strongest men in the party, including Forney of the Philadelphia Press, Gerrit Smith, Bowen of the New York Independent, and President White of Cornell University, speak of this recognition as ushering in a new era in politics.
While the old and tried Republican party in its platform and candidates thus gives woman assurance that her claim to equal political rights is to be respected, the other party in the field gives her no promise either in its platform or the letters of its nominees. The Liberal Republican party is a new party; it has no record; it has done no work; it is wholly untried; it ignores women; and by its silence in regard to the equal rights of one-half[Pg 519] of the people—the most important question now in the political horizon—it proves itself unworthy of its name, unworthy of woman's confidence, and unworthy of the votes of truly liberal men. In regard to its candidates, Gratz Brown, once our friend, has practically denied his record. Horace Greeley, its chief nominee, has for years been our most bitter opponent. Both by tongue and pen he has heaped abuse, ridicule, and misrepresentation upon our leading women, while the whole power of the Tribune has been used to crush out our great reform. And now that he is a candidate for election to the highest office in the country, he still continues his bitter and hostile course toward one half of its citizens. He presses the iron-heel of his despotism upon their liberties; and, in answer to our appeals, he says he "neither desires our help nor believes us capable of giving any."
While the established Republican party in its platform and candidates assures women that their demand for equal political rights will be respected, the other party in the race offers no promises, either in its platform or in the statements of its nominees. The Liberal Republican party is a new entity; it has no history, no accomplishments, and is entirely untested; it overlooks women; and by its silence on the equal rights of half[Pg 519] of the population—the most critical issue on the political landscape—it shows itself unworthy of its name, unworthy of women's trust, and unworthy of the votes of genuinely progressive individuals. Regarding its candidates, Gratz Brown, once an ally, has effectively disavowed his record. Horace Greeley, its main nominee, has been our most vehement adversary for years. Through both his words and writings, he has directed abuse, mockery, and misrepresentation toward our leading women, while the full influence of the Tribune has been wielded to undermine our significant reform efforts. Now that he is running for election to the highest office in the land, he continues his aggressive and antagonistic stance toward half of the citizenry. He imposes the iron heel of his despotism on their freedoms; in response to our pleas, he states he "neither desires our help nor believes we are capable of offering any."
What can liberty expect from such a man? What can woman hope from such a party? Women of the Republic, you can not in self-respect give your aid to such nominees; you can not in self-respect work for such a party. It has repulsed you, pushed you back, said to you "go hence."
What can freedom expect from a man like this? What can women hope for from a party like that? Women of the Republic, you cannot in good conscience support such nominees; you cannot in good conscience work for such a party. It has rejected you, pushed you aside, and told you to "go away."
The Republican party, with Grant and Wilson as its standard-bearers, opens its doors to you. By its fourteenth plank it invites your aid and co-operation.
The Republican Party, with Grant and Wilson as its leaders, welcomes you. Through its fourteenth plank, it invites your support and collaboration.
Shall it not have it? Women of the South, will you not work for your own freedom? Women of the North, will you not strive for your own enfranchisement?
Shall it not have it? Women of the South, will you not fight for your own freedom? Women of the North, will you not work for your own rights?
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune.
But we must take the current when it serves our turn,
Or lose our ventures.
For us to-day this tide has risen; for us to-day the current serves our turn. Let us lay aside our party preferences. Let us one and all forget our many grievances of the past; let us forget the many times we have been ignored, buffeted, and spurned by politicians. Let us throw our whole influence of voice and pen into this campaign, and in making it a success for the Republican party, make it a success for ourselves.
For us today, this tide has risen; for us today, the current works in our favor. Let's set aside our party preferences. Let's all forget the many grievances of the past; let's forget how many times we've been ignored, pushed around, and dismissed by politicians. Let's put our full voice and effort into this campaign, and by making it a success for the Republican party, we'll make it a success for ourselves.
And now an especial word to the Women Suffrage organizations of the country. Prepare to hold mass meetings in all the large cities of your States; be ready to co-operate with Republican committees; send into the election districts your best women speakers, circulate addresses and documents throughout every school district; persuade fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons to work and vote for Grant and Wilson; offer your own votes, as in many election districts women's votes have already been received and counted; in every possible way throw the whole weight of your influence on the side of the Republican party. By persistent, united action for one party during this Presidential canvass, the women suffragists of the nation will make themselves felt as a power by both.
And now a special message to the women’s suffrage organizations across the country. Get ready to hold mass meetings in all the major cities in your states; be prepared to work with Republican committees; send your best women speakers into the election districts, and distribute addresses and materials throughout every school district; encourage fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons to work and vote for Grant and Wilson; offer your own votes, as in many election districts women’s votes have already been accepted and counted; in every possible way, use your influence to support the Republican party. By consistently and unitedly backing one party during this Presidential campaign, the women suffragists of the nation will establish themselves as a significant force.
Women speakers, do not hesitate, do not vacillate; let no party or personal consideration bias you to act against the Republican party at this momentous crisis. Remember we owe to it a debt of gratitude that it has made for us this opportunity, that it has thus launched our cause into the political arena, where it must go on and on till justice and[Pg 520] equality to woman shall at last triumph in a true Republic; "a government of the people, for the people, and by the people."
Women speakers, don’t hesitate or waver; let nothing personal or political sway you away from supporting the Republican party at this critical moment. Remember, we owe it our gratitude for creating this opportunity and for launching our cause into the political spotlight, where it must continue until justice and[Pg 520] equality for women finally prevail in a true Republic; "a government of the people, for the people, and by the people."
On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.
On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.
Susan B. Anthony, President,
Matilda Joslyn Gage, Chair. Ex. Com.Susan B. Anthony, President,
Matilda Joslyn Gage, Chair. Exec. Committee.Rochester, July 19, 1872.
Rochester, July 19, 1872.
The Congressional Republican Committee published thousands of this appeal, and scattered them over the country. It also telegraphed to the President of the National Woman Suffrage Association, to go to Washington in order to consult with the committee as to what women could do to aid in the coming campaign. Miss Anthony's plan was cordially accepted, and liberal appropriations placed at her disposal by both the National and New York Republican Committees for carrying on a series of meetings.[150] The first of this series was at Rochester, and was presided over by Hon. Carter Wilder, Mayor of the city, the last in Cooper Institute, New York, at which meeting Luther R. Marsh occupied the chair.
The Congressional Republican Committee printed thousands of this appeal and distributed them across the country. They also sent a message to the President of the National Woman Suffrage Association, asking her to come to Washington to discuss what women could do to support the upcoming campaign. Miss Anthony's plan was warmly welcomed, and generous funds were allocated to her by both the National and New York Republican Committees to hold a series of meetings.[150] The first meeting in this series was in Rochester and was led by Hon. Carter Wilder, the Mayor of the city, while the final one took place at Cooper Institute in New York, where Luther R. Marsh chaired the meeting.
Mrs. Livermore and Mrs. Stanton, by special invitation of Republican State Committees, also took part in the canvass in Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
Mrs. Livermore and Mrs. Stanton, by special invitation from Republican State Committees, also participated in the canvass in Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
FOOTNOTES:
[128] On Resolutions—Miss Susan B. Anthony, Dr. J. P. Root, Miss Phoebe Couzins, Rev. Samuel J. May, Mrs. M. E. J. Gage, Mrs. Colby, Mrs. Jacob Ela.
[128] On Resolutions—Miss Susan B. Anthony, Dr. J. P. Root, Miss Phoebe Couzins, Rev. Samuel J. May, Mrs. M. E. J. Gage, Mrs. Colby, Mrs. Jacob Ela.
On Finance—Mrs. Paulina W. Davis, Miss S. B. Anthony, Mrs. B. Lockwood, Mrs. M. Wright, Mr. Wilcox.
On Finance—Mrs. Paulina W. Davis, Miss S. B. Anthony, Mrs. B. Lockwood, Mrs. M. Wright, Mr. Wilcox.
On Credentials—Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing, Mr. Stillman, Mrs. A. D. Cridge.
On Credentials—Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing, Mr. Stillman, Mrs. A. D. Cridge.
[129] Resolved, That the National Woman's Suffrage Convention respectfully ask the XLI. Congress of the United States—
[129] Resolved, That the National Woman's Suffrage Convention respectfully requests the 41st Congress of the United States—
First. To submit to the Legislatures of the several States a XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution, prohibiting the disfranchisement of any of their citizens on account of sex.
First. To submit to the Legislatures of the several States a XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution, prohibiting the disenfranchisement of any of their citizens on account of sex.
Second. To strike the word "male" from the laws governing the District of Columbia.
Second. To remove the word "male" from the laws governing the District of Columbia.
Third. To enfranchise the women of Utah as the one safe, sure and swift means to abolish polygamy in that Territory.
Third. To give women in Utah the right to vote as the one safe, secure, and quick way to end polygamy in that Territory.
Fourth. To amend the laws of the United States so that women shall receive the same pay as men for services rendered the government.
Fourth. To change the laws of the United States so that women get the same pay as men for work done for the government.
Washington, Jan. 19, 1870.
Washington, Jan. 19, 1870.
Miss Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:.... Accept my assurance of full and cordial sympathy with the movement to extend the right of suffrage to the women of the country, and my pledge to make that sympathy active on the first and all occasions that may arise for my official action.
Miss Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:.... I want to express my complete and heartfelt support for the movement to grant voting rights to women in our country. I promise to actively support this cause whenever I have the opportunity in my official capacity.
E. G. Ross.
E. G. Ross.
Very respectfully your obedient servant,
Very respectfully your obedient servant,
Washington, Jan 19.
Washington, Jan 19.
Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton—Madam: Your favor of the 18th instant, inviting me to address the convention now in session in this city for the promotion of the cause of female suffrage, has been received. I regret that my official duties will not allow me the time to comply with this request; but I assure you, and the ladies with whom you are associated, that I am heartily in sympathy with the efforts you are making for the success of the cause which you especially have so long and so ably advocated. I beg further to say that the bestowal of the right of equal political suffrage upon the women of this republic can not, in my judgment, be much longer withheld, and that whatever influence I have shall be exerted, at every proper opportunity, to hasten the consummation for which you are laboring. I have the honor to be, very truly, yours,
Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton—Madam: I received your letter from the 18th, inviting me to speak at the convention happening in this city for the promotion of women's suffrage. I'm sorry to say that my official responsibilities won't allow me to accept your request; however, I want you and the ladies you work with to know that I fully support the efforts you're making for the important cause that you have advocated for so long and so well. I would also like to express that I believe the right to vote should not be denied to the women of this country for much longer, and I will use whatever influence I have to help advance the cause you are working for whenever I can. I am, truly yours,
Matt. H. Carpenter.
Matt. H. Carpenter.
[131] Rev. Olympia Brown, Connecticut; E. H. Heywood and Jennie Collins, Massachusetts; M. Adele Hazlitt, Michigan; Mrs. Francis Minor and Phoebe Couzins, Missouri; Hon. Henry B. Stanton; Judge Barlow, Canastota; Josephine S. Griffing, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Lizzie M. Boynton, Maud D. Molson, Susan B. Anthony, Gen. E. M. Lee, Act Gov. Wyoming; Hon. A. G. Riddle, Washington; Hon. Jas. W. Stillman, Rhode Island; Col. R. G. Ingersoll, Illinois; Hon. J. M. Scovill, New Jersey; Dr. James C. Jackson, New York; Mrs. Louisa H. Dent, New York; Lillie Peckham, Wisconsin; Mrs. M. E. J. Gage, New York; Mrs. Dr. S. Hathaway, Boston; and S. D. Dillaye, Syracuse.
[131] Rev. Olympia Brown, Connecticut; E. H. Heywood and Jennie Collins, Massachusetts; M. Adele Hazlitt, Michigan; Mrs. Francis Minor and Phoebe Couzins, Missouri; Hon. Henry B. Stanton; Judge Barlow, Canastota; Josephine S. Griffing, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Lizzie M. Boynton, Maud D. Molson, Susan B. Anthony, Gen. E. M. Lee, Acting Governor of Wyoming; Hon. A. G. Riddle, Washington; Hon. Jas. W. Stillman, Rhode Island; Col. R. G. Ingersoll, Illinois; Hon. J. M. Scovill, New Jersey; Dr. James C. Jackson, New York; Mrs. Louisa H. Dent, New York; Lillie Peckham, Wisconsin; Mrs. M. E. J. Gage, New York; Mrs. Dr. S. Hathaway, Boston; and S. D. Dillaye, Syracuse.
[132] The Fifth Avenue Conference proposition was presented to the members of the National Association, duly discussed, and so far as one of the parties could do, accepted; that is, the National Society pledged itself to be merged into a Union Association, provided the American would make the same surrender at its first Anniversary. But as this overture for peace was rejected, the mission of the Union Society ended, leaving the National free to reassert itself and go forward with its catholic platform and persistent demands for "National protection for United States citizens," while the American devoted itself primarily to State legislation.
[132] The Fifth Avenue Conference proposal was presented to the members of the National Association, discussed thoroughly, and accepted as much as one party could. The National Society agreed to merge into a Union Association if the American Society would make the same commitment at its first Anniversary. However, since this peace offering was rejected, the mission of the Union Society concluded, allowing the National to reaffirm itself and continue its broad platform and ongoing demands for "National protection for United States citizens," while the American focused mainly on state legislation.
[133] Woman Suffrage Celebration.—The twentieth anniversary of the inauguration of the woman suffrage movement in this country, will be celebrated in Apollo Hall, in the city of New York, on the 19th and 20th of October, 1870. The movement in England, as in America, may be dated from the first National Convention, held at Worcester, Mass., October, 1850. The July following that convention, a favorable criticism of its proceedings and an able digest of the whole question appeared in the Westminster Review, written by Mrs. John Stuart Mill, which awakened attention in both hemispheres. In the call for that convention, the following subjects for discussion were presented: Woman's right to education, literary, scientific and artistic; her avocations, industrial, commercial and professional; her interests, pecuniary, civil and political: in a word, her rights as an individual, and her functions as a citizen. It is hoped that the Old and the New World will both be largely represented by the earlier advocates of this reform who will bring with them reports of progress and plans for future action. An extensive foreign correspondence will also add interest to the meetings. We specially invite the presence of those just awakening to an interest in this great movement, that from a knowledge of the past they may draw fresh inspiration for the work of the future and fraternize with a generation now rapidly passing away. As those who inaugurated a reform, so momentous and far reaching in its consequences, should hold themselves above all party considerations and personal antagonisms, and as this gathering is to be in no way connected with either of our leading woman suffrage organizations, we hope that the friends of real progress everywhere will come together and unitedly celebrate this Twentieth Anniversary of a great National Movement for Freedom.
[133] Woman Suffrage Celebration.—The twentieth anniversary of the start of the woman suffrage movement in this country will be celebrated in Apollo Hall in New York City on October 19th and 20th, 1870. The movement in England, like in America, can be traced back to the first National Convention held in Worcester, Mass., in October 1850. The following July, a positive review of the convention's proceedings and a thorough summary of the entire issue was published in the Westminster Review, written by Mrs. John Stuart Mill, which garnered attention on both sides of the Atlantic. The call for that convention included the following topics for discussion: women's right to education in literary, scientific, and artistic fields; her occupations in industrial, commercial, and professional areas; her interests in financial, civil, and political matters; in short, her rights as an individual and her roles as a citizen. We hope that both the Old and New Worlds will see significant representation from the early advocates of this reform, who will share reports of progress and plans for future action. An extensive correspondence from abroad will also enhance interest in the meetings. We particularly invite the participation of those who are just beginning to engage with this important movement, so they can learn from the past and find fresh motivation for future efforts while connecting with a generation that is quickly fading. As those who initiated a reform so significant and impactful should rise above all party interests and personal conflicts, and since this gathering is completely independent of our leading woman suffrage organizations, we hope that supporters of genuine progress from all areas will come together and collectively celebrate this Twentieth Anniversary of a great National Movement for Freedom.
Committee of Arrangements.—Lucretia Mott, Sarah Pugh, Elizabeth C. Stanton, Ernestine L. Rose, Samuel J. May, Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols. On behalf of the Committee,
Committee of Arrangements.—Lucretia Mott, Sarah Pugh, Elizabeth C. Stanton, Ernestine L. Rose, Samuel J. May, Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols. On behalf of the Committee,
Paulina W. Davis, Chairman.
Paulina W. Davis, Chairman.
[134] In 1843, John Neal, of Portland, Maine, gave a lecture in New York which roused considerable discussion; it was replied to by Mrs. Eliza W. Farnham, with all the objections which have ever been urged, and far more ably than by any of the later objectors. Mrs. Farnham lived long enough to retrace her ground and accept the highest truth. "Woman and her Era" fully refutes her early objections. Mr. Neal's lecture, published in The Brother Jonathan, was extensively copied, and as it reviewed some of the laws relating to woman and her property, it had a wide, silent influence, preparing the way for action. It was a scathing satire, and men felt the rebuke.
[134] In 1843, John Neal from Portland, Maine, delivered a lecture in New York that sparked a lot of discussion; Mrs. Eliza W. Farnham responded, presenting all the objections that had ever been raised, and she did it more convincingly than any later critics. Mrs. Farnham lived long enough to reassess her views and embrace the highest truths. "Woman and her Era" thoroughly disproves her earlier objections. Mr. Neal's lecture, published in The Brother Jonathan, was widely circulated, and since it addressed some laws concerning women and their property, it made a significant, quiet impact, paving the way for change. It was a sharp satire, and men felt the criticism.
In this conflict for principle, the names of Wm. L. Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Edmund Quincy, Oliver Johnson, Parker Pillsbury, S. S. Foster, William Henry Channing, Samuel J. May, Charles Burleigh, James Mott, Frederick Douglass, Edmund M. Davis, and Robert Purvis, stand out conspicuously, and will so be remembered in all the future.
In this struggle for principle, the names of Wm. L. Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Edmund Quincy, Oliver Johnson, Parker Pillsbury, S. S. Foster, William Henry Channing, Samuel J. May, Charles Burleigh, James Mott, Frederick Douglass, Edmund M. Davis, and Robert Purvis are prominent and will be remembered in the future.
[135] Resolved, That at the close of over twenty years of persistent agitation, petitioning, State Legislatures and Congress for the right of suffrage, we, who inaugurated this reform, now demand the immediate adoption of a XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution, that shall prohibit any State from disfranchising its citizens on the ground of sex; and whatever national party does this act of justice, fastens the keystone in the arch of the Republic.
[135] Resolved, That after more than twenty years of relentless campaigning, petitioning, and efforts in State Legislatures and Congress for the right to vote, we, the pioneers of this reform, now demand the swift implementation of a 16th Amendment to the Federal Constitution that will prevent any State from disenfranchising its citizens based on sex; and whichever national party accomplishes this act of justice will secure the foundation of the Republic.
Resolved, That as neither free trade, finance, prohibition, capital and labor, nor any other political question, can be so vital to the existence of the Republic as the enfranchisement of women, it is clearly our duty to aid and support the great National party that shall first inscribe woman suffrage on its banner.
Resolved, That no political issue, not free trade, finance, prohibition, capital and labor, or any other, is as crucial to the survival of the Republic as granting women the right to vote. Therefore, it is our clear responsibility to support and assist the great National party that will be the first to include women's suffrage in its platform.
Resolved, That our thanks are due to the Democratic party of Utah and Wyoming for securing to woman her right of suffrage in those Territories.
Resolved, That we express our gratitude to the Democratic Party of Utah and Wyoming for granting women their right to vote in those territories.
Resolved, That the Democratic party of Kansas, in declaring, at its recent convention at Topeka, the enfranchisement of women in its judgment a most reasonable and timely enterprise, no longer to be justly postponed, is entitled to the hearty support of the friends of our cause in that State.
Resolved, That the Democratic party of Kansas, in stating at its recent convention in Topeka that granting women the right to vote is a reasonable and timely effort that can no longer be justly delayed, deserves the strong support of those who champion our cause in that State.
Resolved, That the American Equal Rights Association, in sending Susan B. Anthony to the National Democratic Convention in 1868, and the Massachusetts Suffrage Association, in sending Mary A. Livermore to the Republican State Convention in 1870, have inaugurated the right political action, which should be followed in the National and State Conventions throughout the country.
Resolved, That the American Equal Rights Association, by sending Susan B. Anthony to the National Democratic Convention in 1868, and the Massachusetts Suffrage Association, by sending Mary A. Livermore to the Republican State Convention in 1870, have started the right political action that should be adopted in National and State Conventions across the country.
Resolved, That we rejoice in the fact that the Republican Legislatures of Iowa and other Western States have submitted to the people the proposition to strike the word "male" from their Constitutions.
Resolved, That we are pleased that the Republican Legislatures of Iowa and other Western States have put forward to the people the proposal to remove the word "male" from their Constitutions.
Resolved, That it is as disastrous to human progress to teach women to bow down to the authority of man, as divinely inspired, as it is to teach man to bow down to the authority of Kings and Popes, as divinely ordained, for in both cases we violate the fundamental idea on which a Republican government and the Protestant religion are based—the right of individual judgment.
Resolved, That it is just as harmful to human progress to teach women to submit to the authority of men, viewed as divinely inspired, as it is to teach men to submit to the authority of Kings and Popes, viewed as divinely ordained, because in both cases we undermine the core principle on which a Republican government and the Protestant religion are founded—the right to individual judgment.
Whereas, The accident of sex no more involves the capacity to govern a family than does the accident of Papal election or royal birth the capacity to govern a dominion or a kingdom; therefore,
Whereas, The accident of being male or female doesn’t determine someone’s ability to lead a family any more than being elected Pope or born into royalty determines someone’s ability to govern a territory or a kingdom; therefore,
Resolved, That the doctrine of woman's subjection, enforced from the text, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands," should be thrown aside, with the exploded theories of kingcraft and slavery, embodied in the injunction, "Honor the king," and "Servants, obey your masters."
Resolved, That the idea of women being subordinate, based on the phrase, "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands," should be discarded, just like the outdated beliefs of monarchy and slavery, which are captured in the commands, "Honor the king," and "Servants, obey your masters."
Resolved, That as the gravest responsibilities of social life must ever rest on the mother of the race, therefore law, religion, and public sentiment, instead of degrading her as the subject of man, should unitedly declare and maintain her sole and supreme sovereignty over her own person."
Resolved, That since the most serious responsibilities of social life always fall on the mother of humanity, law, religion, and public opinion, instead of treating her as a subordinate to man, should together declare and uphold her complete and ultimate authority over her own body.
[137] Chief among the guests were Mrs. Margaret Lucas, of Scotland, sister of John and Jacob Bright; Mrs. Governor Jewell, of Conn.; Mrs. Elmes, of Birmingham; Mrs. Caroline Stratton, and Miss Sarah Pugh, of Philadelphia; Lucretia Mott, Abby H. Price, Adelle Hazlett, Olympia Brown, Mrs. Davis, Mrs. Lucas, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Gage, and Miss Anthony; Mrs. Godbie, wife of one of the leading reform advocates of Utah; Mrs. Denman, of Quincy, Ill.; Mrs. Laura Curtis Bullard, and Dr. Clemence Lozier.
[137] Leading the guests was Mrs. Margaret Lucas from Scotland, sister of John and Jacob Bright; Mrs. Governor Jewell from Connecticut; Mrs. Elmes from Birmingham; Mrs. Caroline Stratton and Miss Sarah Pugh from Philadelphia; Lucretia Mott, Abby H. Price, Adelle Hazlett, Olympia Brown, Mrs. Davis, Mrs. Lucas, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Gage, and Miss Anthony; Mrs. Godbie, wife of a prominent reform advocate from Utah; Mrs. Denman from Quincy, Illinois; Mrs. Laura Curtis Bullard; and Dr. Clemence Lozier.
Among the gentlemen present were Alexander Delmar, Rev. Henry Powers, Mr. Lewis, of the National Intelligencer, Col. Hastings, Theodore Tilton, Oliver Johnson, Prof. Wilcox, and Mr. Packard, of the Business College, and others.
Among the gentlemen present were Alexander Delmar, Rev. Henry Powers, Mr. Lewis, from the National Intelligencer, Col. Hastings, Theodore Tilton, Oliver Johnson, Prof. Wilcox, and Mr. Packard, from the Business College, and others.
[138] Call for a National Suffrage Convention at Washington.—We, the undersigned, desiring to secure a full discussion of the question of the enfranchisement of women during the present session of Congress, with a view to the speedy passage of a XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution, invite all men and women desiring this change in the Constitution to meet us in convention for that purpose in the city of Washington on the 11th and 12th of January. Eminent speakers will be present from all parts of the country, including several members of Congress, and plans of work will be presented and discussed. We earnestly urge you, dear friends, to come together at this time in a spirit of unselfishness and of hard work, and let us take one another by the hand and move onward as never before.
[138] Call for a National Suffrage Convention at Washington.—We, the undersigned, wish to have a thorough discussion on the issue of women's voting rights during the current session of Congress, aiming for the quick passage of a XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution. We invite all those who support this change to join us in a convention for that purpose in Washington, D.C. on January 11th and 12th. Notable speakers from across the country will be present, including several members of Congress, and plans for action will be shared and discussed. We strongly encourage you, dear friends, to come together at this time in a spirit of selflessness and hard work, and let’s join hands and move forward like never before.
Paulina W. Davis, Josephine S. Griffing, Isabella B. Hooker.
Paulina W. Davis, Josephine S. Griffing, Isabella B. Hooker.
[139] Mrs. Esther Morris, a large fine-looking woman, administered justice in that Territory for nearly two years, and none of her decisions were ever questioned.
[139] Mrs. Esther Morris, a tall and impressive woman, served as a judge in that Territory for almost two years, and none of her rulings were ever challenged.
[140] The hearing took place in the committee room, which was crowded with a goodly assemblage of men and women. Judge Bingham, of Ohio, was chairman, Gen. B. F. Butler, of Mass., was prominent in favor of the cause. Messrs. Eldridge, B. C. Cook, I. A. Peters, Ulysses Morcur, Wm. Loughridge, Michael Kerr, S. W. Kellogg, and G. W. Hitchcock formed the rest of the committee. The claimants for woman suffrage were represented by Mrs. V. C. Woodhull and Mrs. L. D. Blake, New York; Mrs. I. B Hooker, Rev. O. Brown, Conn.; Mrs. P. W. Davis, Miss K. Stanton, Rhode Island; Mrs. J. Griffing, and Mrs. Lockwood, D. C.; and Miss Susan B. Anthony. The proceedings were opened by the reading of her memorial by Mrs. Woodhull. It was the first time the lady had ever appeared in public, and her voice trembled slightly with emotion which only made the reading the more effective. She claimed not a XVI. amendment; but that under the XIV. and XV. Amendments, women have already the right to vote, and prayed Congress merely to pass a declaratory resolution to that effect.—The Washington Republican.
[140] The hearing took place in the committee room, which was filled with a large group of men and women. Judge Bingham from Ohio was the chair, and General B. F. Butler from Massachusetts was a key supporter of the cause. Messrs. Eldridge, B. C. Cook, I. A. Peters, Ulysses Morcur, Wm. Loughridge, Michael Kerr, S. W. Kellogg, and G. W. Hitchcock made up the rest of the committee. The advocates for woman suffrage included Mrs. V. C. Woodhull and Mrs. L. D. Blake from New York; Mrs. I. B. Hooker and Rev. O. Brown from Connecticut; Mrs. P. W. Davis and Miss K. Stanton from Rhode Island; Mrs. J. Griffing and Mrs. Lockwood from Washington, D.C.; and Miss Susan B. Anthony. The proceedings began with Mrs. Woodhull reading her memorial. It was her first time speaking in public, and her voice quivered slightly with emotion, which only made her reading more impactful. She claimed that under the XIV and XV Amendments, women already have the right to vote and asked Congress to simply pass a resolution declaring this. —The Washington Republican.
[141] Yeas—Messrs. Allison, Arnell, Asper, Atwood, Banks, Barry, Buck, Buffinton, Burdett, Churchill, Amasa Cobb, Clinton L. Cobb, Coburn, Cullom, Darrall, Joseph Dixon, Ela, Farnsworth, Finkelnburg, Hamilton, Harris, Hawkins, Hoar, Alexander H. Jones, Julian, Kelley, Lawrence, Long, Loughridge, Maynard, Milnes, William Moore, Morey, Daniel J. Morrell, Negley, Orth, Packard, Paine, Pierce, Platt, Pomeroy, Porter, Prosser, Sargent, Scofield, Shanks, William J. Smith, Stevenson, Stoughton, Strickland, Twichell, Cadwallader C. Washburn, Willard, John T. Wilson, and Wolf.
[141] Yes—Messrs. Allison, Arnell, Asper, Atwood, Banks, Barry, Buck, Buffinton, Burdett, Churchill, Amasa Cobb, Clinton L. Cobb, Coburn, Cullom, Darrall, Joseph Dixon, Ela, Farnsworth, Finkelnburg, Hamilton, Harris, Hawkins, Hoar, Alexander H. Jones, Julian, Kelley, Lawrence, Long, Loughridge, Maynard, Milnes, William Moore, Morey, Daniel J. Morrell, Negley, Orth, Packard, Paine, Pierce, Platt, Pomeroy, Porter, Prosser, Sargent, Scofield, Shanks, William J. Smith, Stevenson, Stoughton, Strickland, Twichell, Cadwallader C. Washburn, Willard, John T. Wilson, and Wolf.
[142] Among the speakers were Isabella Beecher Hooker, Paulina Wright Davis, Minnie Swayze, Mrs. Dr. Hallock, Josephine S. Griffing, Victoria C. Woodhull, Anna Middlebrook, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott.
[142] Among the speakers were Isabella Beecher Hooker, Paulina Wright Davis, Minnie Swayze, Mrs. Dr. Hallock, Josephine S. Griffing, Victoria C. Woodhull, Anna Middlebrook, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Lucretia Mott.
[143] An Appeal to the Women of the United States by the National Woman Suffrage and Educational Committee, Washington, D. C.:
[143] An Appeal to the Women of the United States by the National Woman Suffrage and Educational Committee, Washington, D. C.:
Dear Friends:—The question of your rights as citizens of the United States, and of the grave responsibilities which a recognition of those rights will involve, is becoming the great question of the day in this country, and is the culmination of the great question which has been struggling through the ages for solution, that of the highest freedom and largest personal responsibility of the individual under such necessary and wholesome restraints as are required by the welfare of society. As you shall meet and act upon this question, so shall these great questions of freedom and responsibility sweep on, or be retarded, in their course.
Dear Friends:—The issue of your rights as citizens of the United States, along with the serious responsibilities that come with recognizing those rights, is becoming the major topic of discussion in our country. It represents the culmination of a longstanding struggle for the highest level of freedom and the greatest personal responsibility of individuals, balanced by the necessary and beneficial constraints required for the well-being of society. How you approach and engage with this issue will determine whether these significant questions of freedom and responsibility progress or are held back in their development.
This is pre-eminently the birthday of womanhood. The material has long held in bondage the spiritual; henceforth the two, the material refined by the spiritual, the spiritual energized by the material, are to walk hand in hand for the moral regeneration of mankind. Mothers, for the first time in history, are able to assert, not only their inherent first right to the children they have borne, but their right to be a protective and purifying power in the political society into which those children are to enter. To fulfill, therefore, their whole duty of motherhood, to satisfy their whole capacity in that divine relation, they are called of God to participate with man in all the responsibilities of human life, and to share with him every work of brain and heart, refusing only those physical labors that are inconsistent with the exalted duties and privileges of maternity, and requiring these of men as the equivalent of those heavy yet necessary burdens which women alone can bear.
This is truly the birthday of womanhood. The material has long oppressed the spiritual; from now on, the two—material refined by the spiritual and spiritual energized by the material—will work together for the moral uplift of humanity. Mothers, for the first time in history, can claim not only their natural right to the children they have given birth to but also their right to be a protective and purifying force in the political society their children will join. To fully embrace their role as mothers and to fulfill their responsibilities in that sacred relationship, they are called by God to share all the responsibilities of human life with men and to collaborate on every work of mind and heart, taking on only those physical tasks that are in line with the important duties and privileges of motherhood, and expecting men to take on the equivalent heavy but necessary burdens that only women can manage.
Under the Constitution of the United States justly interpreted, you were entitled to participate in the government of the country, in the same manner as you were held to allegiance and subject to penalty. But in the slow development of the great principles of freedom, you, and all, have failed both to recognize and appreciate this right; but to-day, when the rights and responsibilities of women are attracting the attention of thoughtful minds throughout the whole civilized world, this constitutional right, so long unobserved and unvalued, is becoming one of prime importance, and calls upon all women who love their children and their country to accept and rejoice in it. Thousands of years ago God uttered this mingled command and promise, "Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." May we not hope that in the general recognition of this right and this duty of woman to participate in government, our beloved country may find her days long and prosperous in this beautiful land which the Lord hath given her.
Under the Constitution of the United States, fairly interpreted, you were entitled to take part in the government of the country, just like you were expected to show loyalty and faced consequences for not doing so. However, in the gradual unfolding of fundamental principles of freedom, you, along with everyone else, have failed to recognize and value this right; but today, as the rights and responsibilities of women gain the attention of thoughtful individuals across the civilized world, this long-ignored constitutional right is becoming increasingly significant, urging all women who care for their children and their country to embrace and celebrate it. Thousands of years ago, God gave this mixed command and promise: "Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." Can we not hope that with the wider acknowledgment of this right and duty for women to participate in government, our beloved country will enjoy long and prosperous days in this beautiful land that the Lord has provided?
To the women of this country who are willing to unite with us in securing the full recognition of our rights, and to accept the duties and responsibilities of a full citizenship, we offer for signature the following Declaration and Pledge, in the firm belief that our children's children will with fond veneration recognize in this act our devotion to the great doctrines of liberty in their new and wider and more spiritual application, even as we regard with reverence the prophetic utterances of the fathers of the Republic in their Declaration of Independence:
To the women of this country who are ready to join us in ensuring our rights are fully recognized and who accept the duties and responsibilities of complete citizenship, we present the following Declaration and Pledge for your signature. We firmly believe that our descendants will cherish this commitment as a testament to our dedication to the principles of liberty as they evolve into broader and more meaningful applications, just as we honor the visionary words of the Founding Fathers in their Declaration of Independence:
Declaration and Pledge of the Women of the United States concerning their Right to and their Use of the Elective Franchise.
Declaration and Pledge of the Women of the United States regarding their Right to and their Use of the Elective Franchise.
We, the undersigned, believing that the sacred rights and privileges of citizenship in this Republic were guaranteed to us by the original Constitution, and that these rights are confirmed and more clearly established by the XIV. and XV. Amendments, so that we can no longer refuse the solemn responsibilities thereof, do hereby pledge ourselves to accept the duties of the franchise in our several States, so soon as all legal restrictions are removed. And believing that character is the best safeguard of national liberty, we pledge ourselves to make the personal purity and integrity of candidates for public office the first test of fitness. And lastly, believing in God, as the Supreme Author of the American Declaration of Independence, we pledge ourselves in the spirit of that memorable Act, to work hand in hand with our fathers, husbands, and sons, for the maintenance of those equal rights on which our Republic was originally founded, to the end that it may have, what is declared to be the first condition of just government, the consent of the governed.
We, the undersigned, believe that the fundamental rights and privileges of citizenship in this Republic were guaranteed to us by the original Constitution, and that these rights are reaffirmed and clarified by the XIV and XV Amendments. Therefore, we can no longer shy away from the serious responsibilities that come with them. We pledge to fulfill the responsibilities of voting in our respective States as soon as all legal barriers are lifted. Furthermore, we believe that character is the best protection for national freedom, so we commit ourselves to prioritize the personal integrity and honesty of candidates for public office as the primary measure of their suitability. Lastly, with a belief in God, the Supreme Author of the American Declaration of Independence, we pledge ourselves, in the spirit of that significant Act, to work alongside our fathers, husbands, and sons to uphold the equal rights on which our Republic was founded, ensuring that it maintains what is recognized as the essential condition of just government: the consent of the governed.
You have no new issue to make, no new grievances to set forth. You are taxed without representation, tried by a jury not of your peers, condemned and punished by judges and officers not of your choice, bound by laws you have had no voice in making, many of which are specially burdensome upon you as women; in short, your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are daily infringed, simply because you have heretofore been denied the use of the ballot, the one weapon of protection and defense under a republican form of government. Fortunately, however, you are not compelled to resort to force in order to secure the rights of a complete citizenship. These are provided for by the original Constitution, and by the recent amendments you are recognized as citizens of the United States, whose rights, including the fundamental right to vote, may not be denied or abridged by the United States, nor by any State. The obligation is thus laid upon you to accept or reject the duties of citizenship, and to your own consciences and your God you must answer, if the future legislation of this country shall fall short of the demands of justice and equality.
You have no new issues to raise, no new complaints to bring up. You're being taxed without having a say, tried by a jury that's not made up of your peers, condemned and punished by judges and officials you didn't choose, and bound by laws you had no input in creating, many of which are particularly burdensome to you as women. In short, your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are violated every day, simply because you've been denied the right to vote, the one tool for protection and defense in a republic. Fortunately, you don’t have to resort to force to secure your complete citizenship rights. These rights are guaranteed by the original Constitution and by recent amendments, which recognize you as citizens of the United States whose rights, including the essential right to vote, cannot be denied or diminished by the federal government or any state. The responsibility now falls on you to accept or reject the duties of citizenship, and you must answer to your own conscience and to God if the future laws of this country don't meet the demands of justice and equality.
The participation of woman in political affairs is not an untried experiment. Woman suffrage has within a few years been fully established in Sweden and Austria, and to a certain extent in Russia. In Great Britain women are now voting equally with men for all public officers except members of Parliament, and while no desire is expressed in any quarter that the suffrage already given should be withdrawn or restricted, over 126,000 names have been signed to petitions for its extension to parliamentary elections, and Jacob Bright, the leader of the movement in Parliament, and brother of the well known John Bright, says that no well-informed person entertains any doubt that a bill for such extension will soon pass.
The involvement of women in politics is not a new idea. Women’s suffrage has recently been fully established in Sweden and Austria, and to some extent in Russia. In Great Britain, women are now voting alongside men for all public offices except for members of Parliament. While no one is suggesting that the suffrage already granted should be taken away or limited, over 126,000 signatures have been collected for petitions to extend it to parliamentary elections. Jacob Bright, the leader of the movement in Parliament and brother of the well-known John Bright, states that no informed person doubts that a bill for this extension will pass soon.
In this country, which stands so specially on equal representation, it is hardly possible that the same equal suffrage would not be established by law, if the matter were to be left merely to the progress of public sentiment and the ordinary course of legislation. But as we confidently believe, and as we have before stated, the right already exists in our National Constitution, and especially under the recent amendments. The interpretation of the Constitution which we maintain, we can not doubt, will be ultimately adopted by the courts, although, as the assertion of our right encounters a deep and prevailing prejudice, and judges are proverbially cautious and conservative, we must expect to encounter some adverse decisions. In the meantime it is of the highest importance that in every possible way we inform the public mind and educate public opinion on the whole subject of equal rights under a republican government, and that we manifest our desire for and willingness to accept all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, by asserting our right to be registered as voters and to vote at the Congressional elections. The original Constitution provides in express terms that the representatives in Congress shall be elected "by the people of the several States," with no restrictions whatever as to the application of that term. This right, thus clearly granted to all the people, is confirmed and placed beyond reasonable question by the XIV. and XV. Amendments. The act of May, 1870, the very title of which, "An Act to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote," is a concession of all that we claim, provides that the officers of elections throughout the United States shall give an equal opportunity to all citizens of the United States to become qualified to vote by the registry of their names or other prerequisite; and that where upon the application of any citizen such prerequisite is refused, such citizen may vote without performing such prerequisite; and imposes a penalty upon the officers refusing either the application of the citizen to be qualified or his subsequent application to vote. The Constitution also provides that "each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members." When, therefore, the election of any candidate for the lower House is effected or defeated by the admission or rejection of the votes of women, the question is brought directly before the House, and it is compelled to pass at once upon the question of the right of women to vote under the Constitution. All this may be accomplished without the necessity of bringing suits for the penalty imposed upon public officers by the act referred to; but should it be thought best to institute prosecutions where the application of women to register and to vote is refused, the question would thereby at once be brought into the courts. If it be thought expedient to adopt the latter course, it is best that some test case be brought upon full consultation with the National Committee, that the ablest counsel may be employed and the expenses paid out of the public fund. Whatever mode of testing the question shall be adopted, we must not be in the slightest degree discouraged by adverse decisions, for the final result in our favor is certain, and we have, besides, great reason to hope that Congress, at an early day, will pass a declaratory act affirming the interpretation of the Constitution which we claim.
In this country, which prides itself on equal representation, it’s hard to believe that equal voting rights wouldn’t be established by law if it were left solely to public opinion and regular legislative procedures. But we strongly believe, as we've stated before, that this right already exists in our National Constitution, especially under recent amendments. We have no doubt that the interpretation of the Constitution that we uphold will eventually be accepted by the courts, although, because our claim faces significant prejudice and judges tend to be cautious and conservative, we should expect some unfavorable rulings. In the meantime, it’s crucial that we educate the public and shape public opinion on the issue of equal rights within a republic, and that we show our desire and readiness to take on all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship by asserting our right to register as voters and participate in Congressional elections. The original Constitution explicitly states that representatives in Congress shall be elected "by the people of the several States," with no limitations on the meaning of that term. This right, clearly granted to all, is reinforced and confirmed by the XIV and XV Amendments. The act of May 1870, aptly titled "An Act to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote," acknowledges all that we claim and requires election officials across the U.S. to provide equal opportunities for all citizens to qualify to vote by registering their names or meeting other requirements; and if any citizen is denied such prerequisites when applying, that citizen can vote without fulfilling those prerequisites. The law also imposes penalties on officials who refuse either a citizen's request to qualify or their following request to vote. The Constitution further states that "each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members." Therefore, when the election of any candidate for the House is affected by the acceptance or rejection of women’s votes, that issue is presented directly to the House, forcing it to address the question of women’s right to vote under the Constitution. All this can happen without having to file lawsuits for the penalties set on public officials as mentioned; however, if it’s deemed necessary to pursue legal actions where women's requests to register and vote are denied, the matter would then be taken to the courts. If pursuing this route seems advisable, it's best to initiate a test case after thorough consultation with the National Committee, so that skilled legal counsel can be engaged and costs covered by public funds. Regardless of the approach we take to test this issue, we must not be discouraged by negative rulings; the eventual outcome in our favor is guaranteed, and we have strong reasons to believe that Congress will soon pass a declaratory act supporting our interpretation of the Constitution.
The present time is specially favorable for the earnest presentation before the public mind of the question of the political rights of women. There are very positive indications of the approaching disintegration and reformation of political parties, and new and vital issues are needed by both the great parties of the country. As soon as the conviction possesses the public mind that women are to be voters at an early day, as they certainly are to be, the principles and the action of public parties will be shaping themselves with reference to the demands of this new constituency. Particularly in nominations for office will the moral character of candidates become a matter of greater importance.
The current moment is particularly favorable for seriously bringing the issue of women's political rights to the public's attention. There are clear signs of an impending breakdown and transformation of political parties, and both major parties in the country need fresh and significant issues. Once the public is convinced that women will soon have the right to vote, which they definitely will, political parties will begin to align their principles and actions to meet the needs of this new voter base. Especially during candidate nominations, the moral character of candidates will become increasingly important.
To carry on this great work a Board of six women has been established, called "The National Woman Suffrage and Educational Committee," whose office at Washington it is proposed to make the center of all action upon Congress and the country, and with whom their Secretary, resident there, it is desired that all associations and individuals interested in the cause of woman suffrage should place themselves in communication. The Committee propose to circulate the very able and exhaustive Minority Report of the House Judiciary Committee on the constitutional right of woman to the suffrage, and other tracts on the general subject of woman suffrage. They also propose ultimately, and as a part of their educational work, to issue a series of tracts on subjects vitally affecting the welfare of the country, that women may become intelligent and thoughtful on such subjects, and the intelligent educators of the next generation of citizens.
To continue this important work, a Board of six women has been formed, called "The National Woman Suffrage and Educational Committee." Their office in Washington is intended to be the hub for all action focused on Congress and the nation. They hope that all associations and individuals interested in the cause of women's suffrage will connect with their Secretary, who lives there. The Committee plans to distribute the very thorough and detailed Minority Report from the House Judiciary Committee regarding women's constitutional right to vote and other materials related to women's suffrage. They also aim, as part of their educational efforts, to eventually publish a series of pamphlets on issues that significantly impact the country's well-being so that women can become informed and thoughtful on these topics and serve as knowledgeable educators for the next generation of citizens.
The Committee are already receiving urgent appeals from women all over the United States to send them our publications. The little light they have already received concerning their rights under the Constitution, and the present threatening political aspect of the country, make them impatient of ignorance on these vital points. A single tract has often gone the rounds in a neighborhood until worn out, and the call is for thousands and thousands more.
The Committee is already getting urgent requests from women across the United States to send them our publications. The little information they've received about their rights under the Constitution, along with the current troubling political situation in the country, makes them eager to learn more about these crucial issues. A single pamphlet has often circulated in a neighborhood until it's tattered, and now they’re asking for thousands and thousands more.
A large printing fund will therefore be needed by the Committee, and we appeal first to the men of this country, who control so large a part of its wealth, to make liberal donations towards this great educational work. We also ask every thoughtful woman to send her name to the Secretary to be inserted in the Pledge-Book, and if she is able, one dollar. But as many workingwomen will have nothing to send but their names, we welcome these as a precious gift, and urge those who are able, to send us their fifties and hundreds, which we promise faithfully to use and account for. Where convenient, it is better that many names should be sent upon the same paper, and the smallest contributions in money can be put together and sent with them. Every signature and every remittance will be at once acknowledged by the Secretary, and one or more tracts enclosed with a circular as to the work to be done by individuals.
A large printing fund will be needed by the Committee, and we first encourage the men of this country, who control a significant portion of its wealth, to make generous donations for this important educational effort. We also ask every thoughtful woman to send her name to the Secretary to be included in the Pledge-Book, and if possible, to contribute one dollar. However, since many working women may have nothing to send except their names, we value those as a precious gift. We urge those who can to send us their larger donations, which we promise to use responsibly and account for. If it's convenient, it's better for many names to be sent on the same paper, and the smallest monetary contributions can be combined and sent along with them. Every signature and every donation will be promptly acknowledged by the Secretary, and one or more tracts will be included with a circular about the work individuals can do.
| Isabella Beecher Hooker, President. | Paulina Wright Davis, |
| Josephine S. Griffing, Secretary. | Ruth Carr Dennison, |
| Mary B. Bowen, Treasurer. | Susan B. Anthony. |
Washington, D. C., April 19, 1871.
Washington, D.C., April 19, 1871.
[144] The National Woman Suffrage Association will hold its annual convention at Lincoln Hall, Washington, D. C., January 10th, 11th and 12th, 1872. All those interested in woman's enfranchisement are invited there to consider the "new departure"—women already citizens, and their rights as such, secured by the XIV. and XV. Amendments of the Federal Constitution.
[144] The National Woman Suffrage Association will hold its annual convention at Lincoln Hall in Washington, D.C., on January 10th, 11th, and 12th, 1872. Everyone who cares about women's rights is invited to discuss the "new departure"—recognizing women as citizens and ensuring their rights as such, protected by the XIV and XV Amendments of the Federal Constitution.
| Lucretia Mott. | Isabella Beecher Hooker. |
| Elizabeth Cady Stanton. | Susan B. Anthony. |
| Josephine S. Griffing. | |
RESOLUTIONS.
RESOLUTIONS.
Whereas, in the adjustment of the question of suffrage now before the people of this country for settlement, it is of the highest importance that the organic law of the land should be so framed and constructed as to work injustice to none, but secure, as far as possible, perfect political equality among all classes of citizens; and whereas, all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside; be it
Whereas, in addressing the issue of voting rights currently facing the people of this country for resolution, it is crucial that the fundamental laws of the land are designed and implemented in a way that does not create injustice for anyone, but ensures, as much as possible, complete political equality among all groups of citizens; and whereas, all individuals born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States, and of the State in which they live; be it
Resolved, That the privileges and immunities of American citizenship, however defined, are National in character and paramount to all State authority.
Resolved, That the rights and protections of American citizenship, regardless of how they are defined, are national in nature and take precedence over any state authority.
That while the Constitution of the United States leaves the qualifications of electors to the several States, it nowhere gives them the right to deprive any citizen of the elective franchise which is possessed by any other citizen—the right to regulate, not including the right to prohibit the franchise.
That while the Constitution of the United States allows each state to decide the qualifications of voters, it does not give them the authority to deny any citizen the right to vote that is available to any other citizen—the power to regulate does not include the power to ban the right to vote.
That, as the Constitution of the United States expressly declares that "no State shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," those provisions of the several State Constitutions that exclude women from the franchise on account of sex, are violative alike of the spirit and letter of the Federal Constitution.
That, as the Constitution of the United States clearly states that "no State shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," the parts of the various State Constitutions that deny women the right to vote based on their sex go against both the spirit and the letter of the Federal Constitution.
That, as the subject of naturalization is expressly withheld from the States, and as the States clearly would have no right to deprive of the franchise naturalized citizens, among whom women are expressly included, still more clearly have they no right to deprive native-born women citizens of this right.
That, since the subject of naturalization is specifically reserved for the federal government, and since the states clearly have no right to take away the voting rights of naturalized citizens, which includes women, even more clearly they have no right to take away the rights of native-born women citizens.
That justice and equity can only be attained by having the same laws for men and women alike.
That justice and fairness can only be achieved by having the same laws for everyone, regardless of gender.
That having full faith and confidence in the truth and justice of these principles, we will never cease to urge the claims of women to a participation in the affairs of government equally with men.
That, having complete faith and confidence in the truth and fairness of these principles, we will never stop advocating for women's right to participate in government affairs on equal footing with men.
Resolved, That as the XIV. and XV. Amendments to the Constitution of the United States have established the right of woman to the elective franchise, we demand of the present Congress a declaratory act which shall secure us at once in the exercise of this right.
Resolved, That since the XIV and XV Amendments to the Constitution of the United States have established women's right to vote, we ask the current Congress for a clear statement that will ensure we can exercise this right immediately.
As the recognition of woman suffrage involves immediate political action, and as numbers as well as principles control parties,
As the acknowledgment of women's right to vote requires prompt political action, and since both numbers and principles influence parties,
Resolved, That we rejoice in the rapidly organizing millions of Spiritualists, labor reformers, temperance, and educational forces, now simultaneously waking to their need of woman's help in the cause of reform.
Resolved, That we celebrate the quickly growing numbers of Spiritualists, labor reformers, temperance advocates, and educational forces, who are now all recognizing their need for women's support in the reform effort.
Resolved, That the movement for the enfranchisement of woman is the movement of universal humanity; that the great questions now looming upon the political horizon can only find their peaceful solution by the infusion of the feminine element in the councils of the nation. Man, representing force, would continue in the future, as in the past, in the New World as in the Old, to settle all questions by war, but woman, representing affection, would, in her true development, harmonize intellect and action, and weld together all the interests of the human family—in other words, help to organize the science of social, religious, and political life.
Resolved, That the movement for women's rights is a movement for all humanity; that the significant issues now appearing on the political horizon can only find a peaceful resolution through the inclusion of women in the nation's decision-making processes. Men, who represent force, would continue in the future, as they have in the past, in the New World as in the Old, to resolve all issues through war, but women, who represent love, would, in their true development, balance thought and action, and unite all the interests of the human family—in other words, help to organize the principles of social, religious, and political life.
Resolved, That our thanks are due to Governor Campbell, of Wyoming, for his veto, and to the Republican members of the Legislature of Wyoming, for their votes against the bill disfranchising the women of that Territory.
Resolved, That we thank Governor Campbell of Wyoming for his veto and the Republican members of the Wyoming Legislature for their votes against the bill that would disenfranchise the women of that Territory.
Resolved, That the thanks of the women of America are due to Hon. Benjamin F. Butler for introducing so early in the present session of Congress, a bill to enfranchise woman under the Constitution, and also to Hon. Wm. Loughridge and to the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler for their admirable minority report, at the last session, sustaining the Woodhull memorial.
Resolved, That the women of America express their gratitude to Hon. Benjamin F. Butler for introducing a bill to give women the right to vote under the Constitution so early in this session of Congress, and also to Hon. Wm. Loughridge and Hon. Benjamin F. Butler for their excellent minority report from the last session that supported the Woodhull memorial.
Washington, D. C., January 8, 1872.
Washington, D. C., January 8, 1872.
Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren—Madam: The National Woman Suffrage Association is to hold a three days' convention the present week, in Lincoln Hall, commencing on the morning of Wednesday, the 10th. Nothing would afford the officers and speakers of the convention greater pleasure than to hold a debate, during some session, with yourself and your friends, upon the question of woman suffrage. As you have publicly expressed your opposition to woman's enfranchisement, not only through the papers, but also by a petition against it to Congress, we feel sure you will gladly accept our invitation and let us know your reason for the faith that is within you.
Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren—Madam: The National Woman Suffrage Association is holding a three-day convention this week at Lincoln Hall, starting on the morning of Wednesday, the 10th. The officers and speakers of the convention would be thrilled to have a debate during one of the sessions with you and your friends about the issue of woman suffrage. Since you have publicly stated your opposition to women's voting rights, not only through the media but also by submitting a petition against it to Congress, we are confident that you will gladly accept our invitation and share your reasoning behind your beliefs.
Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as president of the association and convention, will afford you every opportunity for argument, and will herself enter the list against you. Not only Mrs. Stanton, but all members of the committee, cordially extend this invitation for debate, to be held at any session most convenient for yourself.
Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as the president of the association and convention, will give you every chance to argue, and she will join the debate herself. Not only Mrs. Stanton, but all the committee members, warmly invite you to participate in this discussion, which can take place at any session that works best for you.
An early answer is desirable.
An early answer is desirable.
Matilda Joslyn Gage,
Matilda Joslyn Gage,
Chairman of the Committee of Arrangements.
Chairperson of the Event Planning Committee.
[147] Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, Chairman Committee of Arrangements—Madam: Mrs. Sherman and myself are this morning in receipt of a note from you in which you invite us, in the name "of the officers and speakers of the National Woman Suffrage Association," to hold a debate upon the question of "woman suffrage," and mention that "Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as President of the association and convention, will afford every opportunity for argument, and will herself enter the lists," etc.
[147] Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, Chair of the Committee of Arrangements—Madam: This morning, Mrs. Sherman and I received a note from you inviting us, on behalf of the officers and speakers of the National Woman Suffrage Association, to participate in a debate on the topic of "woman suffrage." You mentioned that "Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as President of the association and convention, will provide every opportunity for argument and will also join in the discussion," etc.
In reply to this invitation, for which we thank you, in so far as it may have been extended in a true desire to elicit fair argument, we would remind you that in the very fact of soliciting us to "hold debate" on a public platform, on this or any other question, you entirely ignore the principle that ourselves and our friends seek to defend, viz., the preservation of female modesty.
In response to this invitation, which we appreciate, as long as it comes from a genuine desire to inspire fair discussion, we want to remind you that by asking us to "hold a debate" on a public platform, regarding this or any other issue, you completely overlook the principle that we and our friends aim to uphold, namely, the preservation of women's modesty.
The functions of men and women in the State as citizens are correlative and opposite. They can not be made common without seriously impairing the public virtue.
The roles of men and women in the State as citizens are interconnected and contrasting. They cannot be made the same without seriously damaging the public good.
Our men must be brave, and our women modest, if this country may hope to fulfill her true mission for humanity.
Our men need to be strong, and our women need to be humble, if this country is to achieve its true purpose for humanity.
We protest against woman suffrage, because the right of petition may safely be considered as common to all, and its exercise most beneficial.
We oppose women's voting rights because the right to petition is something everyone can safely share, and using it is extremely beneficial.
We publish written articles, giving "our reasons for the faith that is within us," because we may, consistently with the home life and its duties, make such use of whatever talents God may have confided to our keeping. To these printed articles, in which we have fully and at different times explained our views, we are happy to refer you.
We publish written articles, providing "our reasons for the faith that is within us," because we can, while balancing home life and its responsibilities, make use of whatever talents God has entrusted to us. We are pleased to direct you to these printed articles, where we have thoroughly explained our views at various times.
We likewise hold that an appeal to the public made in this manner is much more likely to evolve a clear apprehension of this important subject, as presenting a strict issue to the reasoning faculties, and one undimmed by those personalities which generally are indulged in during the course of oral debate. I am, truly yours,
We also believe that making a public appeal in this way is much more likely to lead to a clear understanding of this important issue, as it presents a straightforward argument for people to think about, without being clouded by the personal attacks that usually come up in spoken debates. I am, truly yours,
Madeline Victor Dahlgren.
Madeline Victor Dahlgren.
Washington, January 9, 1872.
Washington, January 9, 1872.
[149] People's Convention.—The undersigned citizens of the United States, responding to the invitation of the National Woman Suffrage Association, propose to hold a Convention at Steinway Hall, in the city of New York, the 9th and 10th of May.
[149] People's Convention.—We, the undersigned citizens of the United States, are responding to the National Woman Suffrage Association's invitation to hold a Convention at Steinway Hall in New York City on May 9th and 10th.
We believe the time has come for the formation of a new political party whose principles shall meet the issues of the hour, and represent equal rights for all.
We think the time has come to create a new political party that addresses today's issues and stands for equal rights for everyone.
As the women of the country are to take part for the first time in political action, we propose that the initiative steps in the convention shall be taken by them, that their opinions and methods may be fairly set forth, and considered by the representatives from many reform movements now ready for united action; such as the Internationals, and other Labor Reformers—the friends of peace, temperance, and education, and by all those who believe that the time has come to carry the principles of true morality and religion into the State House, the Court, and the market place.
As the women of the country are participating in political action for the first time, we suggest that they take the initiative at the convention so their views and approaches can be properly presented and considered by representatives from various reform movements eager for united action, like the Internationals and other Labor Reformers—the supporters of peace, temperance, and education—and by everyone who believes it's time to bring the principles of true morality and religion into the State House, the courtroom, and the marketplace.
This convention will declare the platform of the People's Party, and consider the nomination of candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, who shall be the best possible exponents of political and industrial reform.
This convention will establish the platform of the People's Party and discuss the nomination of candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, who should be the best representatives of political and industrial reform.
The Republican party, in destroying slavery, accomplished its entire mission. In denying that "citizen" means political equality, it has been false to its own definition of Republican Government; and in fostering land, railroad, and money monopolies, it is building up a commercial feudalism dangerous to the liberty of the people.
The Republican party, by abolishing slavery, achieved its main goal. By claiming that "citizen" doesn't mean political equality, it has gone against its own definition of a Republican Government; and by supporting land, railroad, and money monopolies, it is creating a commercial feudalism that threatens the freedom of the people.
The Democratic party, false to its name and mission, died in the attempt to sustain slavery, and is buried beyond all hope of resurrection.
The Democratic Party, untrue to its name and purpose, failed in its efforts to uphold slavery and is now buried with no chance of returning.
Even that portion of the Labor party which met recently at Columbus, proved its incapacity to frame a national platform to meet the demands of the hour.
Even the part of the Labor Party that recently met in Columbus showed it couldn't create a national platform to address the current needs.
We therefore invite all citizens who believe in the idea of self-government; who demand an honest administration; the reform of political and social abuses; the emancipation of labor, and the enfranchisement of woman, to join with us and inaugurate a political revolution which shall secure justice, liberty, and equality to every citizen of the United States.
We invite all citizens who believe in self-government; who want an honest administration; the reform of political and social issues; the liberation of labor, and the rights of women, to join us and start a political revolution that will ensure justice, freedom, and equality for every citizen of the United States.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Isabella Beecher Hooker,
Matilda Joslyn Gage.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Isabella Beecher Hooker,
Matilda Joslyn Gage.
[150] The speakers were Rev. Olympia Brown, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Susan B. Anthony, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, Helen M. Slocum, Lillie Devereux Blake.
[150] The speakers were Rev. Olympia Brown, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Susan B. Anthony, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, Helen M. Slocum, and Lillie Devereux Blake.
CHAPTER XXIV.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS 1873, '74, '75.
Fifth Washington Convention—Mrs. Gage on Centralization—May Anniversary in New York—Washington Convention, 1874—Frances Ellen Burr's Report—Rev. O. B. Frothingham in New York Convention—Territory of Pembina—Discussion in the Senate—Conventions in Washington and New York, 1875—Hearings before Congressional Committees.
Fifth Washington Convention—Mrs. Gage on Centralization—May Anniversary in New York—Washington Convention, 1874—Frances Ellen Burr's Report—Rev. O. B. Frothingham in New York Convention—Territory of Pembina—Discussion in the Senate—Conventions in Washington and New York, 1875—Hearings before Congressional Committees.
The fifth Washington Convention was held in Lincoln Hall, January 16th and 17th, 1873. The President, Miss Anthony, in opening, said:
The fifth Washington Convention took place at Lincoln Hall on January 16th and 17th, 1873. The President, Miss Anthony, began by saying:
There are three methods of extending suffrage to new classes. The first is for the Legislatures of the several States to submit the question to the vote of the people; that is to those already voters. Before the war this was the only way thought of, and during all those years we petitioned to strike the word "male" from the State Constitutions. The second method is for Congress to submit to the several legislatures a proposition for a XVI. Amendment that shall prohibit the States from depriving women citizens of their right to vote. The third plan is to take our rights under the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution which declares "that all persons are citizens," and "no State shall deny or abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens."
There are three ways to expand voting rights to new groups. The first is for the legislatures of the various states to put the issue to a vote among the current voters. Before the war, this was the only method considered, and for many years we pushed to remove the word "male" from the state constitutions. The second method is for Congress to present a proposal for a XVI. Amendment to the state legislatures that would prevent states from denying women citizens their right to vote. The third approach is to assert our rights under the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution, which states that “all persons are citizens,” and “no state shall deny or abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens.”
Again, there are two ways of securing the right of suffrage under the Constitution as it is; one by a declaratory act of Congress instructing the officers of election to receive the votes of women, the other in appeals to the courts by instituting suits as women have already done, in order to secure a judicial decision on the broad interpretation of the Constitution "that all persons are citizens, and all citizens voters." The vaults in yonder Capitol hold the petitions of many thousands of women for a Declaratory Act, and the calendars of our courts show that many are already testing their right to vote under the XIV. Amendment. I stand here under indictment for having exercised my right as a citizen to vote at the last election; and by a fiction of the law, I am now in custody, and not free on this platform.
Again, there are two ways to ensure the right to vote under the Constitution as it stands: one is through a declaratory act of Congress directing election officials to accept women's votes, and the other is by appealing to the courts through lawsuits, as women have already done, to obtain a judicial ruling on the broad interpretation of the Constitution "that all persons are citizens, and all citizens are voters." The vaults in that Capitol hold the petitions of many thousands of women requesting a Declaratory Act, and the calendars of our courts indicate that many are already challenging their right to vote under the XIV Amendment. I stand here facing charges for exercising my right as a citizen to vote in the last election; and due to a legal fiction, I am now in custody and not free on this platform.
After the appointment of committees,[A] Matilda Joslyn Gage made the annual report. She said:
After the committees were appointed,[A] Matilda Joslyn Gage gave the annual report. She stated:
Though the casual observer might think but little progress had been made during the year, this is not the fact. There has been in many ways a marked advance, and although I do not claim to have a complete and exact record, I would mention points which have come under my notice.
Though a casual observer might think little progress has been made during the year, that’s not the case. There has been a significant advance in many areas, and while I don’t claim to have a complete and exact record, I would like to highlight some points that have caught my attention.
Soon after the opening of the last session of Congress several important bills were introduced. The Hon. Mr. Hoar introduced a bill against Territorial disfranchisement, which, as women vote in two Territories, was a bill having an important bearing upon this question of suffrage. About the same time, the Hon. Mr. Butler introduced a bill for a Declaratory Law to protect women citizens in their right to vote. During the progress of our annual Convention in January last, a memorial was presented, and a hearing obtained before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The speeches made by women at that time have been printed in pamphlet form, and extensively circulated throughout the nation. Within a few days after this hearing, a petition, containing 35,000 names, was presented to the House by the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler. During his remarks upon this occasion his coadjutors left their seats and pressed around him, so anxious were they to hear, until, in order to give all an equal chance, the Speaker was forced to call to order.
Soon after the last session of Congress began, several important bills were introduced. The Hon. Mr. Hoar introduced a bill against territorial disenfranchisement, which was significant for the issue of voting rights since women vote in two territories. Around the same time, the Hon. Mr. Butler introduced a bill for a Declaratory Law to protect women citizens' right to vote. During our annual convention last January, a memorial was presented, and a hearing was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The speeches made by women at that time were printed in pamphlet form and widely circulated across the nation. A few days after this hearing, a petition with 35,000 signatures was presented to the House by the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler. While he spoke on this occasion, his colleagues left their seats and gathered around him, eager to listen, prompting the Speaker to call for order to ensure everyone had a fair chance to hear.
The Hon. Matt. Carpenter made an elaborate argument before the Supreme Court, in the Myra Bradwell case. Mrs. Bradwell, as is well known, is the editor of a paper, entitled the Legal News, which is ably conducted, and accepted as authority by the profession. Mrs. Bradwell, upon applying for admission to the bar in Illinois, found her husband a "legal disability," and carried her case up to the Supreme Court. This argument was also published and circulated in pamphlet form.[Pg 523]
The Hon. Matt. Carpenter presented a detailed argument before the Supreme Court in the Myra Bradwell case. Mrs. Bradwell, as everyone knows, is the editor of a well-respected publication called Legal News, which is considered an authority in the legal community. When Mrs. Bradwell applied for admission to the bar in Illinois, she encountered her husband as a "legal disability," and took her case to the Supreme Court. This argument was also published and distributed in pamphlet form.[Pg 523]
The Hon. Mr. Munroe, member from Indiana, presented a petition from the women of that State, praying for the removal of political disabilities; and in the Senate Mr. Wilson introduced a bill to allow women to hold office in the Territories.
The Hon. Mr. Munroe, representative from Indiana, submitted a petition from the women in that state, asking for the elimination of political restrictions; and in the Senate, Mr. Wilson introduced a bill that would permit women to hold office in the Territories.
In February an argument was made before the Senate Military Committee in behalf of women who served in the army. Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren argued in person before a Congressional committee, in reference to moneys due her deceased husband.
In February, a case was presented to the Senate Military Committee on behalf of women who served in the army. Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren testified in person before a Congressional committee regarding the funds owed to her late husband.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Mrs. Lockwood and Mrs. Spencer both gave interesting statements in regard to women voting in the District of Columbia, and ably argued their right to do so under the National Constitution. Mrs. Lockwood introduced the following resolution:
Mrs. Lockwood and Mrs. Spencer both made compelling statements about women voting in the District of Columbia and effectively argued their right to do so under the National Constitution. Mrs. Lockwood presented the following resolution:
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives, in Congress assembled:
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives, assembled in Congress:
We, the undersigned, citizens of the United States, being deprived of some of the privileges and immunities of citizens, among which is the right to vote, beg leave to submit the following resolution:
We, the undersigned citizens of the United States, having been denied certain rights and privileges of citizenship, including the right to vote, respectfully submit the following resolution:
Resolved, That we, the officers and members of the National Woman Suffrage Association, in convention assembled, respectfully ask Congress to enact appropriate legislation, during its present session, to protect women citizens in the several States of this Union in their right to vote.
Resolved, That we, the officers and members of the National Woman Suffrage Association, gathered here, respectfully urge Congress to pass suitable laws during this current session to safeguard women citizens in the various States of this Union in their right to vote.
Francis Miller, Esq. said that he had one reason for congratulation in being engaged in the suit with Mr. Riddle, as it gave him an opportunity to do something for the women of his country. Under the XIV. Amendment he contended that women had the right to vote, and no lawyer that read the amendment could decide in any other way.
Francis Miller, Esq. said he had one reason to feel good about being involved in the case with Mr. Riddle: it gave him a chance to do something for the women of his country. He argued that under the XIV Amendment, women had the right to vote, and no lawyer who read the amendment could come to any other conclusion.
It was not true that the cohorts of this issue had been defeated every time, but it was true that they had gained two victories. Chief-Justice Cartter had decided that woman was a full citizen, and had not the right to vote, simply because they had not passed a law necessary for the purpose. If the XIV. Amendment did not confer suffrage they must go through the States with a new amendment, and fight a battle in each. He thought that very obscure ideas prevailed on the subject. How could anyone that had no self-government enjoy any inalienable right? It was said that the ballot was a creature of legislation, consequently not natural. This was an absurdity. There was no way in the world for a man to govern himself except by the ballot. To deny any one the only means of exercising that right is a wrong before heaven and should be redressed. He did not propose to go into a legal argument; the best of his ability has been expended in the cause, and is before the public.
It wasn't true that the supporters of this issue had lost every time, but they had won two victories. Chief Justice Cartter had ruled that women were full citizens, but they couldn't vote simply because a necessary law hadn't been passed. If the XIV Amendment didn’t guarantee suffrage, they would have to push for a new amendment through the states and fight for it in each one. He believed that there were very unclear ideas on this topic. How could anyone without self-governance claim to have any inalienable rights? It was argued that the ballot was created by legislation, so it wasn't a natural right. That was nonsense. There was no way for a person to govern themselves except through voting. To deny anyone the only means of exercising that right is a wrong in the eyes of heaven and should be corrected. He didn’t intend to dive into a legal argument; the best of his efforts have been put into this cause and are already available to the public.
At the evening session Mrs. Gage gave the following address:
At the evening session, Mrs. Gage delivered the following address:
Mrs. Gage said: We hear many fears expressed in regard to the danger of "centralized power," and the growing tendency of the nation toward it. The people have been told that through this tendency their liberties were endangered. The truth is just the contrary. "State rights" has from the very commencement of this Government been the rock on which the ship of the nation has many times nearly foundered, and from which it is to-day in great danger. The one question of the hour is, Is the United States a[Pg 524] Nation with full and complete National powers, or is it a mere thread upon which States are strung as are the beads upon a necklace?
Mrs. Gage said: We hear a lot of fears about the risks of "centralized power" and how the country is leaning towards it. People have been warned that this trend puts their freedoms at risk. The reality is quite the opposite. "State rights" has been, from the very start of this Government, the foundation on which the nation’s stability has often nearly capsized and which it currently faces significant threats from. The key question right now is, Is the United States a[Pg 524] Nation with full and complete National powers, or is it just a string holding together individual States like beads on a necklace?
Let us look back a hundred years. The War of the Revolution commenced merely as a rebellion of the Colonies against the Nation to which they belonged. Though all were located on the continent of America, each colony was under its own charter, separate and distinct from every other one. Each colony resisted what it deemed to be acts of oppression against itself. Therefore, the War of the Revolution began as the resistance of individual colonies, but with the progress of this resistance grew up a feeling of united interests, and in 1774 eleven of these colonies, and a portion of the twelfth, connected themselves under certain articles of association. The colonies still considered themselves as belonging to the British Empire, and in these articles avowed their allegiance to His Majesty, George the Third. Although we date the birth of our nation two years later, our nationality actually dates back to these articles of association, for the colonies bound themselves as one in regard to non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption; the first two pledges having National bearing as regarded commerce, and the last one regulating internal affairs in a National manner. This course of the colonies made them one, and has had a bearing on our every step since, even up to this day of grace, January 17, 1873. Resolutions of independence and freedom from all control of Great Britain were introduced into the Colonial Congress in June, 1776, and the committee which was then appointed to draft a declaration of independent government was required to base it upon the first resolution of the June declaration of rights, which said, "These United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent," etc. The veriest school-boy needs not to be told the date of this instrument, which we are fond of terming the "Great Charter of our Liberties;" yet even professed statesmen, from that day to this, have seemingly forgotten that this declaration was agreed to, and signed by the already United Colonies in their Congress assembled, and issued as the action of "one people." No new Congress met; the declaration was not the act of single colonies, or states, but the act of already united colonies, or states, and in this instrument we first find our National name of United States.
Let’s reflect on a hundred years ago. The Revolutionary War started simply as a rebellion of the Colonies against the Nation they were part of. Even though they were all on the continent of America, each colony had its own charter, separate and different from the others. Each colony pushed back against what it saw as unfair treatment. So, the Revolutionary War began as the resistance of individual colonies, but as this resistance grew, a sense of shared interests emerged. By 1774, eleven of these colonies, along with part of the twelfth, came together under certain articles of association. The colonies still viewed themselves as part of the British Empire, and in these articles, they declared their loyalty to King George III. Although we mark the birth of our nation two years later, our nationality actually traces back to these articles of association, as the colonies united in terms of non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption; the first two pledges had national significance for trade, while the last dealt with domestic matters in a national way. This collaboration among the colonies unified them and has impacted every step we've taken since, right up to this day, January 17, 1873. Resolutions for independence and freedom from British control were presented to the Colonial Congress in June 1776, and the committee assigned to draft a declaration of independent governance was instructed to base it on the first resolution of the June declaration of rights, which stated, "These United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent," etc. Even the most basic schoolchild knows the date of this document, which we like to call the "Great Charter of our Liberties;" however, even seasoned politicians, from that day until now, seem to have forgotten that this declaration was agreed upon and signed by the already united Colonies in their Congress, and was issued as the action of "one people." No new Congress convened; the declaration was not the action of individual colonies or states, but the action of the already united colonies or states, and in this document, we first see our national name: the United States.
The members of Congress did not sign this declaration as New Yorkers, or Virginians, or New Englanders, but as Americans. Nor was it referred to different colonies for approbation, but on that very Fourth of July, 1776, Congress, with already National authority, flung to the world the announcement that these united colonies were a Nation, and ordered that copies of the declaration should be sent to the several colonial assemblies, conventions, councils of safety, and to each of the commanding officers of the Continental troops, and that it should be proclaimed in each of the United States, and at the head of the army. We see, therefore, that the Declaration of Independence, in being truly National, was wholly centralizing—and much more so than any act since, and is therefore the truest basis of our liberties.
The members of Congress didn’t sign this declaration as New Yorkers, Virginians, or New Englanders, but as Americans. It wasn't sent to different colonies for approval, but on that very Fourth of July in 1776, Congress, which already had national authority, boldly announced to the world that these united colonies were a nation. They ordered copies of the declaration to be sent to the various colonial assemblies, conventions, councils of safety, and to each of the commanding officers of the Continental troops, and that it should be proclaimed in every state and at the head of the army. Therefore, we see that the Declaration of Independence, being truly national, was completely centralizing—and even more so than any act since, making it the truest foundation of our liberties.
Our age has annihilated space; danger lies in darkness and distance. With every newspaper, every railroad, every line of telegraph, danger from centralized National power grows less. With the newspaper, the railroad,[Pg 525] the telegraph, the course of the government is constantly before our eyes The reporter penetrates everywhere, the lightning flashes everywhere, and before plans are scarcely formed here in Washington, the miner of California, the lumberman of Maine, and the cotton-grower of Carolina are passing opinions and interchanging views upon them with their neighbors. The increase of education in the common schools, and the vast private correspondence of the country, too, help to put the proceedings of the government under the cognizance of the whole people. Our danger lies elsewhere, and to clearly see it we must still look back to the early history of our Nation. For a few months after the Declaration of Independence, our new-born republic worked under a common sentiment, for a common interest; but ultimately self-interest prompted the claim of "State Rights." This doctrine was, by wise men, seen to be utterly destructive to the government, and in the second year of our independence it became necessary to fight this State-right doctrine, and the second step was taken in centralization, by the Articles of Confederation, which were declared to make the Union perpetual, and States were forbidden to coin money, establish their own weights and measures, their own post-offices, and forbidden to do many other things which, by right, belong to independent self-controlling States.
Our era has eliminated distance; threats exist in darkness and separation. With every newspaper, every railroad, and every telegraph line, the danger from centralized government power decreases. Thanks to newspapers, railroads, [Pg 525], and the telegraph, the government's actions are always in our view. Reporters are everywhere, information travels instantly, and before plans are barely set in Washington, the miner in California, the lumberjack in Maine, and the cotton farmer in Carolina are sharing opinions and discussing them with their neighbors. The rise in education in public schools, along with widespread private correspondence, also helps keep the government’s actions visible to everyone. Our threat lies elsewhere, and to see it clearly, we need to look back at our nation's early history. For a few months after the Declaration of Independence, our newly formed republic operated under a shared sentiment for a common interest; but eventually, self-interest led to the demand for "State Rights." Wise individuals recognized that this idea could be extremely damaging to the government, and in the second year of our independence, it became necessary to oppose this State-rights doctrine. This marked a further step toward centralization with the Articles of Confederation, which were intended to make the Union permanent. States were prohibited from coining money, establishing their own weights and measures, creating their own post offices, and doing many other things that would typically belong to independent, self-governing states.
So anxious was the Nation to set its own power upon a firm basis, entirely over and above that of the States, that back in these articles of confederation we find the term "privileges and immunities," that vexed phrase in the present discussion. In the fourth article, the inhabitants of each State were declared to be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens of the several States, etc. These articles, unlike the declaration, were made dependent upon ratification by the Legislatures of the several States, which was not fully accomplished till 1781.
So eager was the Nation to establish its own authority solidly, completely separate from that of the States, that in these articles of confederation we come across the term "privileges and immunities," that troublesome phrase in the current discussion. In the fourth article, the residents of each State were declared to be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens of the various States, etc. Unlike the declaration, these articles were contingent on approval by the Legislatures of the different States, which wasn't fully achieved until 1781.
For awhile all went merry as a marriage bell. Power had been further centralized, and the Nation felt secure. But there had been left a little loophole, which was destined to create State claims in defiance of the general government. Congress soon found that under the articles of confederation the limitation of States was more theoretical than practical. It found that though, in a general way, the United States possessed national powers, as over boundaries, peace and war, the issue of money, the establishment of post-offices, etc., yet in the very necessary matter of revenue, and the regulation of trade and commerce, it was powerless against the States. The old form of the confederation was found insufficient to secure the full independence of the United States as a Nation, and in the very year that the articles were fully adopted, and before the last State had given its adherence (1781), a member of Congress from New Jersey moved a recommendation to the States to invest Congress with additional means of paying the public debt and prosecuting the war of the Revolution, by laying duties on imports and prize goods.
For a while, everything was as happy as a wedding bell. Power had become more centralized, and the Nation felt secure. But a small loophole was left that would lead to State claims against the general government. Congress soon realized that under the articles of confederation, the limitations on States were more theoretical than practical. It discovered that while the United States held national powers in areas like boundaries, peace and war, monetary issues, and establishing post offices, it was powerless against the States when it came to revenue and regulating trade and commerce. The old form of the confederation proved inadequate to secure the full independence of the United States as a Nation, and in the very year the articles were fully adopted, before the last State had consented (1781), a member of Congress from New Jersey proposed that the States give Congress additional authority to pay the public debt and continue the Revolutionary War by imposing duties on imports and prize goods.
This proposition at once roused opposition, and it is well to remember that it did not first come from a Southern State. "State rights" is not a peculiar Southern doctrine. South Carolina was not the original nullifying State. It was Rhode Island, which then, as to-day, set at defiance national authority, and asserted her right to control her own internal affairs. The New England States, which claim to lead the Union in all that is grand and good,[Pg 526] must be made to bear the shame of the evils into which they have also led. Even John C. Calhoun learned his first State rights lessons in Connecticut and Massachusetts of the most eminent men; of President Dwight when a student in Yale college, and Theophilus Parsons, with whom he read law in Massachusetts. When Rhode Island, in 1781, refused to comply with the recommendations of Congress in regard to levying duties on imports and prizes, she looked only at her own interests as a sea-board State. The address of her Assembly to Congress, through Hon. William Bradshaw, gave reasons of purely local self-interest for her refusal; but her State selfishness was seen by the patriots of the hour not to be even that of an enlightened State-interest, and Congress at once declared there "could be no general security, no confidence in the Nation, at home or abroad, if its actions were under the constant revisal of thirteen different deliberations."
This proposal immediately sparked opposition, and it’s important to note that it didn’t originally come from a Southern State. "State rights" isn't just a Southern idea. South Carolina wasn't the first state to nullify federal action; that distinction belongs to Rhode Island, which has historically defied national authority and claimed its right to manage its own internal matters. The New England States, which pride themselves on leading the Union in what is noble and just,[Pg 526] must also acknowledge the shame of the problems they've contributed to. Even John C. Calhoun learned his early lessons on State rights from the prominent figures in Connecticut and Massachusetts, including President Dwight while he was a student at Yale, and Theophilus Parsons, with whom he studied law in Massachusetts. When Rhode Island refused in 1781 to follow Congress's recommendations about imposing duties on imports and privateers, it was solely focused on its own interests as a coastal state. The message from its Assembly to Congress, delivered by Hon. William Bradshaw, cited purely local self-interest for its refusal; however, the patriots of the time recognized that this state selfishness didn’t even reflect a well-informed state interest. Congress promptly stated there would be "no general security, no confidence in the Nation, at home or abroad, if its actions were subject to the constant review of thirteen different deliberations."
It therefore became necessary to take another step in the centralization of power, and let it be remembered that every such successive step we have traced was taken in the interests of liberty, and for the benefit of the whole people. The Nation has acted in the defense of its citizens against the tyranny of States. We are not first citizens of Rhode Island, or South Carolina, but, if we belong to the Nation at all, we are first parts of that Nation. I am first a citizen of the United States, then a citizen of the State of New York, then a citizen of Onondaga county in that State, and then a citizen of the town of Manlius, and lastly, a citizen of the village of Fayetteville. That every person born or naturalized in the Nation, is first a citizen of the Nation, must be borne in mind, for upon that depend the liberties of every man, woman and child in the Nation, black or white, native or foreign. Although Rhode Island led in State rights, she had many followers, as only four States complied with the recommendation of Congress to invest that body with more powers for collecting the revenue and prosecuting the war. This non-compliance led to active debate. In regard to the public debt it was said, "That it must, once for all, be defined and established on the faith of the States, solemnly pledged to each other, and not revocable by any, without a breach of the general compact." If a feeling of insecurity existed in regard to the property interests of the Nation when but thirteen legislative bodies assumed their control, how much greater is the insecurity of our personal interests if they are, as is assumed, under the control of thirty-seven separate legislative bodies, and subject to their constant revision?
It became necessary to take another step in centralizing power, and it's important to remember that every such step we've examined was taken in the name of liberty and for the benefit of everyone. The Nation has acted to protect its citizens from the tyranny of individual States. We are not just citizens of Rhode Island or South Carolina; if we are part of the Nation, we are primarily parts of that Nation. I identify first as a citizen of the United States, then as a citizen of New York, then as a citizen of Onondaga County in that state, and then as a citizen of the town of Manlius, and finally, as a citizen of the village of Fayetteville. It must be remembered that every person born or naturalized in the Nation is primarily a citizen of the Nation, for the liberties of every man, woman, and child in the Nation—black or white, native or foreign—depend on this. While Rhode Island was a leader in advocating for State rights, it had many supporters, as only four States agreed with Congress's recommendation to give more power to collect taxes and conduct the war. This lack of compliance sparked heated debates. Regarding the public debt, it was stated, "It must, once and for all, be defined and established on the faith of the States, solemnly pledged to each other, and not revocable by any, without breaking the general agreement." If there was a feeling of insecurity about the Nation's property interests when only thirteen legislative bodies held control, how much greater is the insecurity concerning our personal interests if they are, as assumed, under the control of thirty-seven separate legislative bodies and subject to their constant changes?
The controversy soon based itself upon the security of human rights. It was said that it "had ever been the pride and boast of America that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature," that "the citizens of the United States were responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society," and that it was for "the people of the United States, by whose will and for whose benefit the Federal Government was instituted, to decide whether they would support their rank as a Nation." Virginia and New York ultimately led in the proceeding which caused the formation of the Constitution; New York, through her Legislature, declaring that the radical source of the government embarrassments lay in the want of sufficient power in Congress, and she suggested a convention for the purpose of establishing a firm National government. Out of this agitation grew the Constitution of the United States, which was the third great step in the centralization[Pg 527] of power. The pride and the boast of this country has been more fully centered, if possible, on the Constitution than on the Declaration, and yet the Constitution was not framed until eleven years after our existence as a Nation—not ratified by the whole of the original States until about fourteen years after we had taken rank as a free and independent people—Rhode Island being the last State to give her adherence—and it was expressly framed and adopted in order to centralize power, and to destroy the State rights doctrine.
The debate quickly centered on the protection of human rights. It was stated that it "has always been America's pride and boast that the rights for which she fought were the rights of human nature," and that "the citizens of the United States were responsible for the greatest trust ever given to a political society." It was up to "the people of the United States, who created and benefit from the Federal Government, to decide whether they would uphold their status as a Nation." Virginia and New York eventually took the lead in the events that led to the creation of the Constitution; New York, through its Legislature, claimed that the root of the government’s challenges lay in the lack of sufficient power in Congress and proposed a convention to establish a strong National government. This movement resulted in the Constitution of the United States, which represented the third significant step in the centralization of power. The pride and focus of this country has increasingly become centered on the Constitution, even more than on the Declaration, and yet the Constitution was not created until eleven years after we became a Nation—not ratified by all the original States until about fourteen years after we had established ourselves as a free and independent people—Rhode Island being the last State to agree—and it was specifically framed and adopted to centralize power and to eliminate the doctrine of states' rights.[Pg 527]
Washington himself, in transmitting, as President of the Convention, the Constitution to Congress, said: "It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all," and in the deliberations of the Convention upon the subject, they kept steadily in view that which appeared to them "the greatest of every true American—the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, safety, and, perhaps, our National existence." Thus we see not only the desire of the originators of the Constitution to strengthen the National power by that instrument, but we also have the views of Washington himself in regard to the necessity of consolidating power in the Nation.
Washington, while serving as President of the Convention and sending the Constitution to Congress, said: "It's clearly impractical for the Federal Government of these States to guarantee all the rights of independent sovereignty to each, while also ensuring the interests and safety of everyone." Throughout the Convention's discussions on this topic, they remained focused on what they believed was "the greatest concern for any true American—the unity of our Union, which is essential for our prosperity, safety, and possibly, our National survival." This reveals not only the original intention of the Constitution's creators to strengthen National power through this document but also Washington's perspective on the importance of consolidating power within the Nation.
The various amendments to the Constitution have been adopted with the intent of further defining and securing National power. The first ten, which were called the conciliatory amendments, were suggested in the conventions of a number of the States at the very time of adopting the Constitution. The first Congress which met thereafter proposed twelve amendments, of which ten were adopted in 1791, only two years after the full adoption of the Constitution. These ten amendments secured religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right of people to be secure in their houses, trials by jury, etc. All of them centralizing power in the National hands, and at the same time securing broader liberty to the people. These amendments were passed at the first session of the First Congress. An eleventh amendment was proposed by the Third National Congress in 1794, and declared ratified in 1798, thus making eleven amendments to the Constitution in the short space of seven years. In 1803 a twelfth amendment was proposed by the Eighth Congress, and ratified in 1804.
The various amendments to the Constitution have been adopted to further define and secure national power. The first ten, known as the conciliatory amendments, were suggested during the conventions in several states at the time of the Constitution's adoption. The first Congress that met afterward proposed twelve amendments, ten of which were adopted in 1791, just two years after the full adoption of the Constitution. These ten amendments guaranteed religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right of people to feel secure in their homes, jury trials, and more. All of them centralized power in national hands while also providing greater liberty to the people. These amendments were passed during the first session of the First Congress. An eleventh amendment was proposed by the Third National Congress in 1794 and officially ratified in 1798, bringing the total to eleven amendments in just seven years. In 1803, a twelfth amendment was proposed by the Eighth Congress and ratified in 1804.
We pass now over quite a space of time, in which the National power and State power retained their relative positions to each other. Perhaps in no better place can I mention two constantly existing, yet diverse tendencies in the people of the United States, which are well-defined in the minds of but few persons. There are two kinds of centralized power, one dangerous to liberty, and the other fortifying and securing liberty. The dangerous is that which has grown to such dimensions in the various States, multiplying legislation and regulating each petty local concern within its borders, down to a village cemetery. This has led to that destruction of liberty—a multiplication of statutes which have scarcely been recorded ere a second legislative body has annulled them. Each State has, in fact, been an immense centralized power; and as bitter as has been the South against centralized National power, we have in it seen a most imperious, tyrannical exercise of centralized power under the specious name of State rights. The evil is such a constantly increasing one under the old constitutions, that they are being[Pg 528] revised in many States with special intent to check this centralizing tendency. New York has now a commission sitting, and Pennsylvania a convention in session, for the purpose of revising their constitutions, and attention has been especially directed to this dangerous feature of State centralization. The new constitution of Illinois limits the passage of special laws by its legislature to certain specified subjects, leaving all local interests in the hands of local corporations. The need of the hour—and, in fact, I may say the new tendency of the hour—is toward diffused power within the limits of States in matters pertaining solely and entirely to their small or local interests.
We now move ahead over quite a stretch of time, during which national power and state power maintained their relative positions. Perhaps there’s no better time to mention two consistently present, yet different tendencies in the people of the United States, which are not clearly defined in the minds of many. There are two types of centralized power: one that threatens liberty and another that strengthens and secures it. The dangerous one has grown to significant levels across various states, leading to an overload of legislation that regulates even the smallest local matters within its borders, down to a village cemetery. This has resulted in a loss of liberty—a proliferation of laws that are barely recorded before being overturned by another legislative body. Each state has, in essence, become a massive centralized power; and despite the South’s strong opposition to centralized national power, we have witnessed a severe and tyrannical use of centralized power disguised under the concept of state rights. The problem is worsening under the old constitutions, prompting many states to revise them with the specific goal of curbing this centralizing tendency. New York currently has a commission in place, and Pennsylvania is holding a convention to revise its constitution, with particular focus on this troubling aspect of state centralization. The new constitution of Illinois restricts the passage of special laws by its legislature to certain specified topics, leaving all local matters in the hands of local corporations. The immediate need, and indeed the emerging trend, is toward distributing power within states regarding issues that pertain solely to their local interests.
The centralization that fortifies and secures liberty is National centralization, which we have traced through six steps since 1776, and which has, within the last ten years, received a new impetus by the XIII., XIV., and XV. Amendments, and which, as they successively followed each other at short intervals, may be termed the seventh, eighth, and ninth steps in centralization. By and through these three amendments the Nation fortified and enlarged its powers in reference to personal rights. It defined citizenship; it secured the exercise of the ballot—and we can not fail to see that in these last three centralizing steps, it more broadly than ever before enlarged the bounds of liberty. The protection of citizens of the Nation, by the Nation, is the national duty.
The centralization that strengthens and secures freedom is national centralization, which we've tracked through six stages since 1776. In the last ten years, it gained new momentum from the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments. These amendments, which followed one after another in quick succession, can be considered the seventh, eighth, and ninth steps in centralization. Through these three amendments, the nation strengthened and expanded its powers regarding personal rights. It defined citizenship and ensured the right to vote. We can't overlook that in these last three steps toward centralization, it significantly broadened the scope of liberty. The protection of citizens by the nation is a national responsibility.
This is the second tendency of which I spoke. Most persons who have been awake to the evils of State centralization, have applied the same rules of judgment to National centralization. The two are dissimilar as are darkness and light. State centralization is tyranny; National centralization is freedom. State centralization means special laws; National centralization means general laws. The continued habit of States to make laws for every part of their own boundaries brought to the surface the "State rights" theory which precipitated upon us our civil war. States had become so absolute in themselves that out of it grew the feeling of absoluteness in regard to the Nation. But is it not strange that after the late sad experience there can still be found people so stupid as not to see that the security of individual citizens of the Nation in matters pertaining to their personal political rights, does lie, and in the very fact of our Nationality must lie, in National power superior to State power? The corner-stone of our Nation is political equality. Our ancestors came here for civil and religious freedom. To secure political freedom they formed themselves into a Nation; if the United States has no power to protect its citizens it is not a Nation.
This is the second tendency I mentioned. Most people who are aware of the problems with State centralization have applied the same judgment to National centralization. The two are as different as night and day. State centralization is tyranny; National centralization is freedom. State centralization results in special laws; National centralization leads to general laws. The ongoing practice of States creating laws for every part of their boundaries brought about the "State rights" theory that led to our civil war. States had become so powerful that it created a sense of power over the Nation as well. But isn’t it strange that after our recent sad experience, there are still people so blind as not to see that the security of individual citizens in terms of their personal political rights lies, and must lie, in National power that is greater than State power? The foundation of our Nation is political equality. Our ancestors came here for civil and religious freedom. To ensure political freedom, they formed a Nation; if the United States has no power to protect its citizens, it is not a Nation.
The eighth step in centralization, the XIV. Amendment, specifically declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States, and of the States in which they reside." Notwithstanding this plain language—notwithstanding the corner-stone of this Nation is political equality—notwithstanding the chief right of citizenship in this country is a right to share in making its laws—notwithstanding the Constitution and laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, are declared to be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding, yet 10,000 naturalized citizens of the United States have, during this session of Congress, petitioned that[Pg 529] body for protection of their rights as citizens of the United States against the State in which they live.
The eighth step in centralization, the XIV Amendment, clearly states that "all people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the states where they live." Despite this straightforward language—despite the fact that the cornerstone of this nation is political equality—despite the principal right of citizenship in this country being the right to participate in making its laws—despite the Constitution and the laws of the United States, which are established based on it, being declared the highest law of the land, and judges in every state being obligated to uphold them, regardless of anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary—yet 10,000 naturalized citizens of the United States have, during this session of Congress, requested that[Pg 529] body protect their rights as citizens of the United States against the state where they reside.
"State rights" is again rearing its head. Rhode Island is again raising her hand against National power. She again assumes to be superior to the United States. All foreign-born citizens of that State, not possessed of a freehold estate of $134 value, or property amounting to an annual rental of $7, are, by State law, forbidden to vote. These men were naturalized under a law of the United States, not under a law of Rhode Island. The United States not only made them citizens, but expressly in the XIV. Amendment declares them to be citizens, and yet little Rhode Island presumes to be stronger than the United States.
"State rights" is making a comeback. Rhode Island is once again challenging federal authority. It claims to be superior to the United States. According to state law, all foreign-born citizens in that state, who do not own a property valued at $134 or have property with an annual rental of $7, are prohibited from voting. These individuals were naturalized under federal law, not Rhode Island law. The United States not only granted them citizenship, but the XIV Amendment explicitly recognizes them as citizens, yet Rhode Island thinks it can stand stronger than the United States.
Here again arises what I have shown to be the question of the hour. Is the United States a Nation? If it does not possess powers to protect its own citizens it is not a Nation. Citizens of the United States are entitled to protection, whether they are robbed of their liberties in a Spanish dungeon, or in the States of Rhode Island or New York. The Judiciary Committee of Congress has reported adversely upon the petition of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island. Does Congress intend to sustain State Rights? What better is it for those 10,000 men that they became naturalized? If they are first citizens of the United States, as the XIV. Amendment declares, they should be protected in their rights of citizenship by the United States against the States, and their thirty-seven isolated methods of legislation. This adverse report of the Judiciary Committee in regard to the 10,000 disfranchised men of Rhode Island, foreshadows the course of Congress in regard to the great class of citizens now knocking at its door. Women claim National protection as citizens of the Nation.
Here we go again with the pressing question of the moment. Is the United States a Nation? If it can’t protect its own citizens, then it’s not a Nation. Citizens of the United States have the right to protection, whether they are having their freedoms taken away in a Spanish prison or in the states of Rhode Island or New York. The Judiciary Committee of Congress has given a negative report on the petition from 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island. Does Congress plan to uphold State Rights? What does it matter for those 10,000 men that they became naturalized citizens? If they are first and foremost citizens of the United States, as stated in the XIV Amendment, they should receive protection for their rights as citizens from the United States against the States and their thirty-seven separate legislative approaches. This negative report from the Judiciary Committee regarding the 10,000 disenfranchised men of Rhode Island hints at how Congress will respond to the larger group of citizens now seeking its attention. Women are demanding National protection as citizens of the Nation.
The original Constitution in its fourth article touches upon State control, for it declares that the Constitution shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government. The "shall" is imperative. It shall! Even as long ago as 1787 it was declared that the people of the States should no longer be dependent upon State caprice for their rights, but the general government took upon itself the authority and the duty of enforcing in each State a republican form of government. Either this article is a mere sounding phrase, or the Constitution has such power, although until the XIV. Amendment the real status of citizenship had not been settled. People thought of themselves as first citizens of the States, then of the United States, but now such a position can not be taken. The eighth step in centralization settled that point; "every person," not every male person—but "every person born or naturalized in the United States"—"is a citizen of the United States, and of the State in which he resides." First, entitled to national protection, and through the Nation to State protection. Moreover,
The original Constitution in its fourth article addresses State control, stating that the Constitution must guarantee a republican form of government for every State. The word "shall" is mandatory. It was established as early as 1787 that the people of the States should no longer rely on State whims for their rights, and the federal government assumed the authority and responsibility to enforce a republican form of government in each State. Either this article is just empty rhetoric, or the Constitution actually holds such power, although the real status of citizenship hadn't been clarified until the XIV Amendment. People viewed themselves primarily as citizens of their States and then of the United States, but that perspective has changed. The eighth step in centralization clarified this; “every person,” not just every male, but “every person born or naturalized in the United States” is now considered “a citizen of the United States, and of the State in which he resides.” First, they are entitled to national protection, and through the Nation, to State protection. Moreover,
The Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, are by article sixth of the Constitution, declared to be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Constitution and the laws created under it are, according to Article Six of the Constitution, stated to be the highest law of the land, and judges in every state must follow it; this is true even if there’s anything in a state’s Constitution or laws that says otherwise.
Is the Constitution supreme in the case of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island, whose petition the honorable judiciary reported adversely upon, the 12th of December?
Is the Constitution the highest authority in the case of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island, whose petition the honorable court reported negatively on, December 12th?
The naturalized citizens of our country should rise en masse against his[Pg 530] attack upon their liberties. If Rhode Island can say that a naturalized citizen shall not vote unless possessed of a certain amount of property, any State can, with equal justice, enact a law declaring that only those naturalized citizens who live in brick houses shall vote; a law, equally as binding as the present property qualification in Rhode Island, can be enacted, that only those foreign-born citizens who come over in a Cunarder shall vote. Why not? If a State has a right to deprive one class of citizens of its vote for one cause, it has a right to deprive any other class of its vote for any reason.
The naturalized citizens of our country should rise en masse against his[Pg 530] attack on their freedoms. If Rhode Island can say that a naturalized citizen can't vote unless they own a certain amount of property, any state can, with equal fairness, make a law stating that only naturalized citizens who live in brick houses can vote; a law, just as binding as the current property requirement in Rhode Island, could be made that only foreign-born citizens who arrive on a Cunarder can vote. Why not? If a state has the right to take away the vote from one group of citizens for one reason, it has the right to take away the vote from any other group for any reason.
The power and the mischief do not stop here. If a State has power over the political rights of a naturalized citizen of the United States, it has like power over the native-born citizen. If a State has power over the franchise of the women citizens of the United States, it also has power over the men citizens. Unjust laws, like curses, go home to roost; they can always be made to plague their enactors. When the rights of any one class of citizens are assailed, a blow is struck against the rights of all. The danger to individual liberty lies in special laws. If States are powerful enough to weaken the National constitution, then are we weak indeed. The safety of the citizen lies in a strong National constitution: it lies in a National centralization of power that shall override the States in their attempt to destroy individual rights.
The power and mischief don't stop here. If a state has power over the political rights of a naturalized citizen of the United States, it has the same power over native-born citizens. If a state has power over the voting rights of women citizens of the United States, it also has power over men citizens. Unjust laws, like curses, eventually come back to haunt their creators. When the rights of any one group of citizens are attacked, it undermines the rights of everyone. The threat to individual freedom comes from special laws. If states are strong enough to undermine the National Constitution, then we are really vulnerable. The safety of the citizen relies on a strong National Constitution: it depends on a centralization of power at the National level that can override the states in their attempts to erode individual rights.
If the National government has not power over the ballot in the several States, where did the United States Commissioner get his authority to institute proceedings against Miss Anthony for voting in the State of New York? If the ballot is in the control of the States, then is the United States guilty of a high-handed outrage against New York, in the case of the fourteen women who are now bound over for trial in Rochester for voting at the last election. If the control of the franchise is the right of each State as sovereign, then the National law of 1870 in regard to frauds in voting was an unauthorized interference of the United States in a matter belonging solely to the respective States. On the contrary, if the question as to who may vote in any State—exclusive of black men, over whom it is conceded the nation has thrown its ægis of protection—is one of National control, how does it happen that the Judiciary Committee of the present Congress reported adversely upon the petition of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island? If, then, voting is a matter of State control alone, what authority had the United States to prosecute Susan B. Anthony? One of two things is plainly true. Either the United States authorities had no right to prosecute Miss Anthony in the State of New York, or, if they had, then they had the right to regulate suffrage in Rhode Island. If the general government could not extend suffrage to Irishmen in Rhode Island, it could not abolish it for women in New York.
If the national government has no power over voting in the various states, then where did the U.S. Commissioner get the authority to bring charges against Miss Anthony for voting in New York? If states control voting, then is the U.S. committing a serious injustice against New York in the case of the fourteen women who are facing trial in Rochester for voting in the last election? If individual states have the right to control who can vote, then the national law from 1870 regarding voting fraud was an unauthorized interference by the U.S. in an issue that belongs entirely to the states. On the other hand, if the determination of who may vote in any state—excluding black men, for whom it is accepted that the nation provides protection—is a matter of national control, then why did the Judiciary Committee of the current Congress respond negatively to the petition from 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island? If voting is solely a matter of state control, what authority did the United States have to prosecute Susan B. Anthony? One of two things is clearly true. Either the U.S. authorities had no right to prosecute Miss Anthony in New York, or if they did, then they also had the authority to regulate voting in Rhode Island. If the federal government could not grant voting rights to Irishmen in Rhode Island, it could not take them away from women in New York.
The time has passed when men can take their choice between "State sovereignty" and "centralized power." What State of the thirty-seven has power to make a treaty, to form an alliance, to declare war? Not one, because not one of them is a sovereign State. An attempt would be treason against the Nation. If the general government can not be secure with a diversity of laws in regard to war, or the tariff, in regard to questions of property, how much less secure is it with diverse laws in regard to personal[Pg 531] rights; in regard to the elective franchise, the vital principle of our government.
The era has passed when states could choose between "state sovereignty" and "centralized power." Which of the thirty-seven states has the authority to make a treaty, form an alliance, or declare war? None, because none of them are sovereign states. Any attempt to do so would be considered treason against the nation. If the federal government can’t be secure with different laws concerning war or tariffs, or property issues, how much less secure is it with varying laws related to personal[Pg 531] rights, including voting, the essential principle of our government?
This government does not stand to-day on free trade, or tariff, or the war-power, or its right to manage post-offices, or to coin money, or to make treaties. Not one of these singly, nor all collectively, form the ground-plan of this Nation. This Nation stands upon the ballot, the self-governing power; it stands upon the right of every person governed by the Nation to share in the election of its rulers.
This government today isn't based on free trade, tariffs, war powers, managing post offices, coining money, or making treaties. None of these individually, or even all of them together, are the foundation of this Nation. This Nation is built on the ballot, the power of self-government; it is built on the right of every citizen governed by the Nation to participate in the election of its leaders.
How can statesmen believe the Nation secure unless personal rights are held inviolable? The National government has control over money, currency, and national banks. It will not trust its question of finance to individual States; shall it trust the personal political rights of its citizens where it can not its money? Is it not an anomaly that the lesser rights shall be held by the Nation, the greater by the States?
How can politicians think the country is safe if personal rights aren't fully protected? The national government manages money, currency, and national banks. It won't leave financial matters up to individual states, so why should it trust the personal political rights of its citizens in areas it won't trust its money? Isn't it strange that the less significant rights are controlled by the nation while the more significant rights are left to the states?
In the case of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island, and that of Susan B. Anthony and other women of New York and elsewhere, who try to vote, there is one great dissimilarity. The suffrage of the 10,000 is only regulated. As soon as each one secures real estate to the small value of one hundred and thirty-four dollars, he votes; but there women can never vote, simply because they are women. Property amounts to nothing; education amounts to nothing; even native-born citizenship amounts to nothing; the ballot for them is not regulated but prohibited because they were born women instead of men. Congress would quickly waken up to an appreciation of its power over the ballot, if under pretense of "regulating" suffrage, all the male citizens of a State were denied the ballot simply because they were men. The Nation would lose no time in deciding that a regulation of a character not possible to overcome was not a regulation, but a prohibition destructive of every natural right. The word "deny" would be elucidated by able lawyers and lexicographers. We should then be told that to deny pre-supposes an existing right; that only positive rights can be denied, and force of arms would be invoked to maintain the existence of those rights.
In the case of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island, and Susan B. Anthony and other women from New York and beyond who try to vote, there's one big difference. The voting rights of the 10,000 are just regulated. As soon as each one owns real estate worth at least one hundred and thirty-four dollars, they can vote; but women are never allowed to vote there, simply because they are women. Ownership doesn’t matter; education doesn’t matter; even being a native-born citizen doesn’t matter; for them, the ballot isn’t regulated but prohibited simply because they were born women instead of men. Congress would quickly realize its power over voting rights if, under the guise of "regulating" suffrage, all the male citizens of a state were denied the vote just because they were men. The nation wouldn’t hesitate to determine that a kind of regulation that is impossible to overcome is not really a regulation at all, but a prohibition that destroys every natural right. The word "deny" would be explained by skilled lawyers and lexicographers. We would then be informed that to deny presupposes an existing right; that only positive rights can be denied, and force would be used to uphold those rights.
The battle for suffrage is narrowed down to the meaning of "privileges and immunities." Those who believe the consent of the governed to be the fundamental principle of the Nation, define "privileges and immunities" as the right of voting, which is the only "consent." Thaddeus Stevens went so far as to affirm that "inalienable rights" in the Declaration meant the ballot. Persons who thus define "inherent rights" belong to the true national, patriotic class. But others, deeply tinctured with belief in the supreme right of States, declare "privileges and immunities" to comprehend anything and everything except the ballot. Even some good Republicans, contrary to the principles indorsed and sustained by them in the war amendments, led by their prejudices against acknowledging woman's right to self-government; have declared that "privileges and immunities" merely signify civil and legal rights, but not political. Such was the groundwork of the argument of the Hon. Matt. Carpenter in the Myra Bradwell case. What a farce! It declared at an early day that the United States possessed the greatest trust ever confided to a "political society."[Pg 532] "Political society" is the foundation of our nation, and our political trust is the ballot.
The fight for voting rights comes down to the meaning of "privileges and immunities." Those who think the consent of the governed is the core principle of our nation define "privileges and immunities" as the right to vote, which is the only true form of "consent." Thaddeus Stevens even claimed that the "inalienable rights" mentioned in the Declaration referred to the ballot. People who define "inherent rights" in this way are part of the true national and patriotic class. On the other hand, some, who strongly believe in the absolute rights of states, argue that "privileges and immunities" cover everything except the right to vote. Even some decent Republicans, despite the principles they supported during the amendments after the war, have let their biases against recognizing women's right to self-govern come into play, insisting that "privileges and immunities" only mean civil and legal rights, but not political ones. This was the basis of the argument presented by Hon. Matt. Carpenter in the Myra Bradwell case. What a joke! It stated long ago that the United States had the greatest trust ever placed in a "political society." [Pg 532] "Political society" is the foundation of our nation, and our political trust is the ballot.
It has been said by a member of the present Congress that no man in that body doubts that the Constitution authorizes women to vote, precisely as it authorizes trial by jury and many other rights guaranteed to the citizens of the United States, but that in order to give them practical force there must be legislation; that these guaranteed rights are not self-executing. This is a fine legal quibble, stated for a purpose; but since legal minds disagree upon this point, a caviller might say no law is self-executing; all laws require enforcement. It may be said that the Ten Commandments are not self-executing; yet though given to Moses, not only as the underlying constitution of the Jewish nation and all nations, they contain self-executing provisions, bearing the penalties of their infraction within themselves. By their simple statement they carry within themselves the authority for their enforcement. The provision that the sun shall each day rise and run its accustomed rounds is a self-executing provision, until some Joshua vetoes this divine right of the sun.
A member of Congress has stated that no one in that body doubts that the Constitution allows women to vote, just like it allows for trial by jury and many other rights guaranteed to the citizens of the United States. However, to make those rights practical, there needs to be legislation because these guaranteed rights aren’t automatically enforced. This is a clever legal argument, made for a reason; but since legal experts disagree on this issue, someone might argue that no law is self-executing; all laws need to be enforced. One could argue that the Ten Commandments are not self-executing either; yet, given to Moses as the foundational constitution of the Jewish nation—and all nations—they contain self-executing provisions, with penalties for breaking them already included. By their very wording, they carry the authority for their own enforcement. The provision that the sun will rise every day and follow its usual path is also a self-executing provision, until some Joshua decides to override this divine right of the sun.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no difficulty should be found in executing its provisions. But while, as aimed against the exercise of arbitrary power, we have no objection to the passage of a declaratory law which shall make plain to every United States judge, and to the most obtuse inspector of election, that women are voters, we still claim that the recent "Act for enforcing the XIV. Amendment" should protect woman in the exercise of her rights of self-government.
The Constitution is the highest law in the country, and there shouldn't be any issues implementing its provisions. While we don't mind having a declaratory law to clarify for every U.S. judge and even the most clueless election inspector that women have the right to vote, we still believe that the recent "Act for enforcing the XIV. Amendment" should ensure that women can exercise their rights to self-government.
Although the States ratified the XIII., XIV. and XV. Amendments by the requisite two-thirds vote, they still find it difficult to realize the fact that these amendments have actually strengthened the National power. The Enforcement Act, and the previous law in regard to frauds in voting, may be called definitions of these last centralizing steps, but as yet neither amendments nor definitions are fully comprehended. A Rhode Island lawyer astutely said: "The people of the United States have not yet awakened to a sense of the vast centralizing power hidden in the XIV. Amendment." Opposition and struggles have already come, and will continue to arise, but legislators may beat their brains as they will, the fact of new National centralization still remains. Though State power dies never so hard, die it must, as only through reorganized National power can the political rights of citizens of the United States be protected.
Although the states ratified the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments with the required two-thirds vote, they still struggle to accept that these amendments have actually increased national power. The Enforcement Act, along with the earlier law regarding voting fraud, can be seen as clarifications of these final centralizing steps, but neither the amendments nor the clarifications are fully understood yet. A Rhode Island lawyer cleverly remarked, "The people of the United States have not yet realized the immense centralizing power concealed in the XIV Amendment." Opposition and conflicts have already emerged and will continue to do so, but no matter how much legislators debate, the reality of new national centralization remains. Even though state power may resist fiercely, it must fade away, as only through a restructured national power can the political rights of U.S. citizens be safeguarded.
"Citizen suffrage" is to-day the battle-ground of "State Rights," and the denial of woman's constitutional right to vote, and of National protection in voting, is the weapon it uses against the Nation. This question of citizen suffrage is not a woman question alone, but it is a question of the rights of citizenship affecting every man in this wide land. Let us, then, have the centralization which shall recognize the United States as the supreme political power of the land, which shall no longer allow the political rights of citizens of the United States to be the plaything of thirty-seven petty legislatures, of thirty thousand ambitious demagogues. Without this, our National experiment is a failure; without this, we are not freemen, but slaves; without this, we are neither protected nor self-protecting; without this, centralized State power, under the specious name of[Pg 533] "State rights," will continue to be a many-headed monster, impossible to overcome. Elect the President direct by the people, and for a single term, if you will; take from him his immense official patronage; base senatorship upon population, not upon State sovereignty through legislative gift; limit the power of the judiciary: these steps must come; make of the people in reality what they now are in theory—sovereigns, not first of States, or the Nation, but of themselves, possessing in themselves all rights, all powers, whose exercise is only delegated to the Nation as their servant.
"Citizen suffrage" is currently the focal point of "State Rights," and denying women their constitutional right to vote, as well as national protection in voting, is the tool it uses against the nation. This issue of citizen suffrage isn't just a women's issue; it affects every man in this country. So let's support centralization that acknowledges the United States as the ultimate political authority, which will stop the political rights of American citizens from being manipulated by thirty-seven minor legislatures and thirty thousand power-hungry politicians. Without this, our national experiment is doomed to fail; without this, we are not free men but slaves; without this, we are not protected, nor can we protect ourselves; without this, the centralized state power, cloaked in the misleading label of [Pg 533] "State rights," will remain an unstoppable, many-headed monster. Elect the President directly by the people, and for a single term, if you wish; strip him of his vast official patronage; base the number of senators on population rather than state sovereignty granted through legislative favors; limit the judiciary's power: these changes must happen; make the people truly what they are only in theory—sovereign, not solely of states or the nation, but of themselves, holding all rights and all powers, which can only be delegated to the nation as their servant.
The call[152] for the annual May Convention in New York announced the interesting fact that it was the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Woman Suffrage movement. The speakers[153] represented many of the far Western States. Among the letters of interest was one from Madam Mathilde Francisca Anneke, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who accompanied her letter with a beautiful laurel wreath to be presented to the founder of the Woman's Rights movement, the venerable Lucretia Mott.[154] The resolutions embody the substance[Pg 534] of the various speeches made at that Convention. The following letters were read:
The announcement[152] for the annual May Convention in New York shared the exciting news that it was the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Women's Suffrage movement. The speakers[153] came from several far Western States. Among the notable letters was one from Madam Mathilde Francisca Anneke of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who included a beautiful laurel wreath to be given to the founder of the Women's Rights movement, the esteemed Lucretia Mott.[154] The resolutions reflect the essence[Pg 534] of the various speeches delivered at that Convention. The following letters were read:
My Dear Miss Anthony:—Being detained from attending this very important Convention, which celebrates twenty-five years of as honest and glorious work as ever was done by man or woman upon the face of the earth, permit me through yourself, as president of the National Society, to address a few words to my fellow-workers in the cause of political equality.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—I can’t attend this very important Convention, which celebrates twenty-five years of truly honest and remarkable work done by both men and women throughout history. Please allow me, through you as the president of the National Society, to share a few words with my fellow advocates for political equality.
At first, let me beg you, my friends, one and all, to read the report of the first Convention held at Seneca Falls, twenty-five years ago, as I have just been doing for the third time, that you may join me in heartfelt admiration[Pg 535] of the distinguished women who there enunciated a "declaration of sentiments" equal to the old Declaration of Independence, and founded on a similar list of grievances as those which provoked and justified the Revolutionary war. Especially will you note the speech of a woman there, hardly thirty years of age, which for philosophic comprehension of the great truths of liberty and responsibility, for patriotism and eloquence, has not been surpassed in the history of our country. This alone should be sufficient to send the name of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, side by side with the grandest of our revolutionary statesmen, down to the latest posterity.
At first, let me urge you, my friends, to read the report of the first Convention held at Seneca Falls, twenty-five years ago, as I have just done for the third time, so that you can share in my genuine admiration[Pg 535] for the remarkable women who declared a "declaration of sentiments" equal to the original Declaration of Independence, based on a similar list of grievances that led to and justified the Revolutionary War. You will particularly notice the speech of a woman there, not even thirty years old, which, for its philosophical understanding of the key truths of freedom and accountability, as well as for its patriotism and eloquence, has not been surpassed in our country’s history. This alone should ensure that the name of Elizabeth Cady Stanton stands proudly alongside our greatest revolutionary leaders for generations to come.
The moving spirit of the occasion, however, we are told, was Lucretia Mott, who spoke with her usual eloquence to a large and intelligent audience on the subject of "Reform in General," and, from time to time, during the numerous sessions of the Convention, swayed the assembly by her beautiful and spiritual appeals, and was the first to affix her name to this prophetic and inspired "Declaration of sentiments"—an act which she will tell you to-day, I trust, has brought to her more joy than, perhaps, any other act of her life.
The driving force of the event, as we are told, was Lucretia Mott, who addressed a large and thoughtful crowd with her usual eloquence on the topic of "Reform in General." Throughout the various sessions of the Convention, she captivated the assembly with her heartfelt and inspiring appeals and was the first to sign this prophetic and powerful "Declaration of Sentiments"—an act that she will today, I hope, say has brought her more joy than perhaps any other moment in her life.
Had I the means, the printed report of this Convention should be placed in the hands of every woman in the United States capable of reading it and understanding its high import. And, my friends, if this could be done, our labors would be well nigh ended, and those women who so desire might approach the polls unmolested, leaving their sisters "who have all the rights they want" in the comfortable security of homes made twice secure in that they are guarded by the watchful care of the mothers as well as by the courage of the fathers of the republic. That these noble women, so intensely in earnest to secure the blessings of liberty to all their posterity, and so deeply conscious of the heavy responsibilities of such a trust, should have suspended their claims during the season of our civil war, and have thrown themselves into the contest for the rights of enslaved black men, is only new proof, where none was wanting, of the unselfishness of their nature, and the purity of their motive. But the war being over, and a new million of black males being added to the many million white males as rulers of the land, what do we find to-day? Susan B. Anthony, the Garrison of the woman's rights movement, not dragged by a rope round her neck, through the streets of Rochester, precisely, but indicted for the crime of attempting to vote for her rulers, she being an honest citizen of the United States, and a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of the State of New York! Nevertheless, permit me, dear friend, to congratulate you upon the immense progress in our work which this indicates. It is but a little time since you and your illustrious compeers were counted only worthy of jests and sneers or contemptuous neglect. That you are called to-day to answer for the crime of loving liberty too well, declares to us who are watching your career, that the beginning of the end is close at hand, that slavery is soon to cease, and reconstruction to begin under the auspices of noble women not a few, and of the noble men who have acted as a body-guard through all these years of struggle.
If I had the means, the printed report of this Convention would be given to every woman in the United States who can read it and grasp its importance. And, my friends, if that could happen, our work would be almost done, and those women who wish to could approach the polls without fear, letting their sisters, "who have all the rights they want," feel secure at home, protected by the attentive care of mothers and the bravery of fathers in our nation. It’s remarkable that these noble women, so dedicated to securing liberty for all their descendants and deeply aware of the heavy responsibilities that come with it, chose to put their own claims on hold during our civil war and instead fought for the rights of enslaved black men. This only reinforces the selflessness of their character and the purity of their intentions. But now that the war is over, and a million black men have joined the many millions of white men as the rulers of the country, what do we see today? Susan B. Anthony, the champion of the women's rights movement, isn't being dragged through the streets of Rochester by a rope around her neck, but she has been indicted for the "crime" of trying to vote for her leaders as an honest, tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of New York! Still, allow me, dear friend, to congratulate you on the significant progress our work has made, as this situation indicates. Just a short time ago, you and your distinguished peers were treated with mockery and scorn or ignored altogether. The fact that you are now being charged with the crime of loving liberty too much shows us who are observing your journey that the end of oppression is near, and reconstruction will soon begin with the support of many noble women and the courageous men who have stood by you throughout these years of struggle.
I have heard that with your accustomed indomitableness you have been attempting to instruct your possible jurors of the county upon the just principles of personal liberty and a republican form of government. But have you considered in doing this to what an incompetent jury you are possibly[Pg 536] consigning your case, and with it the hopes of multitudes of your sisters, who, less favored than yourself, in not actually having been allowed to enter the sacred precincts of the polls, have put their trust in you as in one who should not fail, sooner or later, to achieve a victory for herself and for us all? Have you considered the result of white male legislation for nearly one hundred years, in elaborating a jury that must inevitably consist of fools or knaves, and twelve of these to declare in unison upon a case of which they have formed no previous opinion, though the papers have rung with it, and you have lectured every night for more than a month to crowded houses upon it? But even this difficulty you are able to meet, and we leave our destiny in your hands with unfaltering hope and faith, saying only, as many a time before, God bless Susan B. Anthony.... In conclusion, let me urge upon you, dear friends, one and all, that each man and woman of you shall work for impartial suffrage as though the welfare of our beloved country depended upon the devotion of each single life, and the day is ours. I am now and always yours for liberty,
I’ve heard that with your usual determination, you've been trying to teach the potential jurors in the county about the important principles of personal freedom and republican government. But have you thought about what kind of jury you're assigning your case to, and with it the hopes of many of your sisters, who, less fortunate than you, haven't even been allowed to step into the polls? They’re counting on you to eventually secure a victory for yourself and for all of us. Have you considered the outcome of white male legislation for almost a hundred years, which has created a jury that will inevitably be made up of either fools or dishonest people? And you expect twelve of them to come together and decide on a case about which they have no prior opinion, even though the media has been buzzing about it and you've been speaking to packed audiences every night for over a month? Yet you’re still able to face this challenge, and we place our future in your hands with unwavering hope and belief, saying once again, God bless Susan B. Anthony. In closing, I urge all of you, my dear friends, to work towards equal suffrage as if the well-being of our beloved country depends on the commitment of each individual, and together, we will prevail. I am and will always be yours for liberty,
Isabella Beecher Hooker.
Isabella Beecher Hooker.
Washington, May 5, 1873.
Washington, May 5, 1873.
Miss Susan B. Anthony:—Your favor requesting my opinion of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the New Orleans and Bradwell cases, was received yesterday. I had not then seen those decisions, indeed they were not ready for distribution until to-day. I have very hastily run over them and only feel prepared to say that there is nothing in them necessarily conclusive of the suffrage cases. The opinion of the Court in the New Orleans cases is given by a bare majority, four out of the nine justices dissenting, and the majority expressly say: "We hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which no State can abridge until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so." This language leaves us entirely at liberty to present the question whether suffrage is one of these "privileges" to their consideration.
Miss Susan B. Anthony:—I received your request for my thoughts on the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the New Orleans and Bradwell cases yesterday. At that time, I hadn’t seen those decisions since they weren’t available for distribution until today. I’ve quickly reviewed them and can only say that there’s nothing in them that definitively addresses the suffrage cases. The opinion in the New Orleans cases was given by a slim majority, with four out of the nine justices dissenting, and the majority explicitly state: "We hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which no State can abridge until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so." This wording allows us the freedom to present the question of whether suffrage is one of these "privileges" for their consideration.
There are expressions in the dissenting opinions that upon the rules of interpretation applied to any other subject than the rights of women would indicate that the minority were fully prepared to admit that the recent amendments to the Constitution—the new magna charta as one of the justices styles them—recognized the right of suffrage in women. Justice Field says: "That only is a free government, in the American sense of the term, under which the inalienable right of every citizen to pursue his happiness is unrestrained, except by just, equal, and impartial laws."
There are statements in the dissenting opinions that, based on the rules of interpretation applied to any topic other than women's rights, suggest that the minority was completely willing to accept that the recent amendments to the Constitution—the new magna charta as one of the justices refers to them—acknowledged women's right to vote. Justice Field states: "A free government, in the true American sense, is one where the inalienable right of every citizen to pursue happiness is not restricted, except by fair, equal, and impartial laws."
Justice Bradley says: "The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons. A citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional right to go to and reside in any State he chooses, and to claim citizenship therein, and an equality of rights with every other citizen, and the whole power of the nation is pledged to sustain him in that right. He is not bound to cringe to any superior, or to pray for any act of grace, as a means of enjoying all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens."
Justice Bradley says: "The states don't have the authority now, if they ever did, to limit citizenship to specific classes or individuals. A citizen of the United States has a constitutional right to move and live in any state they choose, claim citizenship there, and enjoy the same rights as every other citizen. The entire power of the nation is committed to protecting that right. They aren’t required to bow to any superior or seek any special favor to enjoy all the rights and privileges that other citizens have."
Such language on any other subject would be conclusive, but the crust of custom and prejudice is hard and thick and strong, and the heat of the lava[Pg 537] of regeneration may not yet have weakened it sufficiently to allow of its destruction and removal.
Such language about any other topic would be definitive, but the layers of tradition and bias are tough, thick, and strong, and the intensity of the lava[Pg 537] of change may not have yet softened it enough for it to be broken down and removed.
We will try to have our cases fully prepared for argument when reached in the call of the calendar, which will be about next January, and after doing our best in them will have to trust for success if not in this in some other effort.
We will aim to have our cases completely ready for argument when they come up on the calendar, which will be around next January. After putting in our best effort, we'll have to rely on our chances for success, if not this time, then in some future attempt.
Francis Miller.
Francis Miller.
Very truly yours,
Very truly yours,
Miss Anthony gave the incidents of her arrest and trial to an immense audience in the evening, moving them alternately to laughter and indignation. At the close of this convention a large reception was given to the friends of woman suffrage by Dr. Clemence Lozier at her hospitable home in 34th street, New York. Her spacious parlors were crowded until a late hour. The occasion was enlivened with music, readings, and short, spicy speeches.
Miss Anthony shared the details of her arrest and trial with a huge audience in the evening, making them alternate between laughter and anger. At the end of this convention, Dr. Clemence Lozier hosted a large reception for supporters of women's suffrage at her welcoming home on 34th Street, New York. Her spacious living rooms were packed until late at night. The event was filled with music, readings, and brief, lively speeches.
The National Woman Suffrage Association held its fifth convention at Washington in January, 1874. Before the arrival of the principal actors, the hall was filled with spectators. Soon after 11 o'clock the President, accompanied by a large number of speakers[155] and friends, came on the stage. Many interesting letters were received[156] and a series of resolutions[157] reported.[Pg 538]
The National Woman Suffrage Association held its fifth convention in Washington in January 1874. Before the main participants arrived, the hall was packed with spectators. Shortly after 11 o'clock, the President, along with a large group of speakers[155] and supporters, took the stage. Many interesting letters were received[156] and a series of resolutions[157] were reported.[Pg 538]
Mrs. Gage occupied the evening with an address on Judge and Jury. The following brief sketch of the convention by Frances Ellen Burr is as good a summary of the proceedings as we find.
Mrs. Gage spent the evening giving a talk on Judge and Jury. The following brief overview of the convention by Frances Ellen Burr is one of the best summaries of the proceedings we have.
(Correspondence Hartford Times,) Washington, Jan. 15, 1874.
(Correspondence Hartford Times,) Washington, Jan. 15, 1874.
The National Woman Suffrage Convention opened in Lincoln Hall this morning with a full house.
The National Woman Suffrage Convention started this morning in Lincoln Hall with a packed audience.
Miss Anthony opened the meeting by reading the call, and then briefly[Pg 539] stated its purposes, which were to bring influences to bear upon Congress that will secure National protection for women in their right to vote. Black men are the only ones guaranteed by the National Constitution in their right to vote. Women ask for the same security. A letter from the Hon. E. G. Lapham, of New York, puts a point in the closing paragraph to the effect that the most degraded elector, who would sell his vote for a dollar, or for a dram, couldn't be induced by the offer of a kingdom to sell his right to vote.
Miss Anthony opened the meeting by reading the notice and then briefly[Pg 539] explained its purposes, which were to urge Congress to provide national protection for women's voting rights. Only Black men are guaranteed their right to vote by the National Constitution. Women are asking for the same assurance. A letter from Hon. E. G. Lapham of New York makes a strong point in the last paragraph, stating that even the most corrupt voter, who might sell his vote for a dollar or a drink, wouldn't be persuaded to sell his voting rights for anything, not even a kingdom.
Miss Anthony stated that the two articles of the woman suffrage creed were: First, That every woman should get her vote into the ballot box whenever she could get a judge of election to take it; and wherever refused, should go just the same again next time. Second, That all women owning property should refuse to pay taxes. She read a memorial to Congress for "no taxation without representation," the closing paragraph running as follows:
Miss Anthony stated that the two main beliefs of the woman suffrage movement were: First, that every woman should cast her vote in the ballot box whenever she had the chance to get a judge of election to take it; and wherever she was refused, she should return the next time without fail. Second, that all women who owned property should refuse to pay taxes. She read a memorial to Congress for "no taxation without representation," with the closing paragraph stating as follows:
Therefore, We pray your honorable bodies to pass a law during the present session of Congress, that shall exempt women from taxation for national purposes so long as they are unrepresented in national councils.
Therefore, we ask your esteemed members to pass a law during the current session of Congress that will exempt women from national taxes as long as they remain unrepresented in national decision-making.
Mrs. Spencer has a case now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. She carried a suit for herself and seventy-two other women who applied to be made voters and were refused. She has prepared a petition for woman suffrage for the women of the District of Columbia, on the ground, as Miss Anthony stated it, that as "this little ten-mile square belongs to us all, if the women here are enfranchised, those of the rest of the nation can not long be shut out." As Congress has absolute control over the District, no one can dispute its right to enfranchise the women here, even though they dispute its control of this matter in other parts of the nation. Miss Spencer submitted the following petition for woman suffrage by the women of the district of Columbia:
Mrs. Spencer currently has a case pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. She has filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and seventy-two other women who applied to register as voters and were denied. She has prepared a petition for women's suffrage for the women of the District of Columbia, based on the argument, as Miss Anthony put it, that "since this little ten-mile square belongs to all of us, if the women here gain the right to vote, those in the rest of the nation won't be able to stay excluded for long." Since Congress has complete control over the District, no one can challenge its authority to grant voting rights to the women here, even if they question its control over this issue in other areas of the country. Miss Spencer submitted the following petition for women's suffrage by the women of the District of Columbia:
Whereas, The Supreme Court or the District or Columbia in the ease of Spencer against the Board of Registration has decided that by the operation of the first section of the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, "Women have been advanced to full citizenship and clothed with the capacity to become voters," and
Whereas, The Supreme Court or the District of Columbia in the case of Spencer v. Board of Registration has ruled that under the first section of the XIV Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, "Women have been granted full citizenship and have the right to vote," and
Whereas, The same court further decided that the said first section of the XIV. Amendment[Pg 540] does not execute itself, but requires the supervention of legislative power in the exercise of legislative discretion to give it effect. And
Whereas, the same court also decided that the first section of the XIV Amendment[Pg 540] does not take effect on its own, but needs the involvement of legislative power exercising its discretion to implement it. And
Whereas, The Congress of the United States is the legislative body having exclusive jurisdiction over this District,
Whereas, the Congress of the United States is the legislative body with exclusive authority over this District,
Therefore, We respectfully pray your honorable bodies for the passage of an act amending an act entitled "An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia," approved Feb. 21, 1871, by striking the word "male" from the seventh section of said act, thus placing the constitutional rights of the women of this District, as declared by the highest judicial tribunal, under the protection of the legislative power.
Therefore, we respectfully ask your honorable bodies to pass a law amending the act titled "An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia," approved on Feb. 21, 1871, by removing the word "male" from the seventh section of that act, thereby ensuring the constitutional rights of the women in this District, as determined by the highest court, are protected by legislative authority.
She said it might surprise and encourage many, as it did her, to learn that neither the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution, nor legislative enactment, general or local, has ever forbidden women to vote. They have simply permitted certain male citizens to vote, and have said nothing about women whatever. It is one thing to forbid women to vote; it is quite another thing to simply fail to expressly declare that they may. Some people think the Bible forbids women to vote because it doesn't say anything about it from beginning to end. True, it does not give any authority for it. Neither does it give any authority for using sewing-machines or clothes-wringers. The zeal of the people who search the Scriptures in the interest of bigotry and intolerance, assumes that all that is not commanded to women is strictly forbidden. Judge Cartter says the general Constitution interposes not a single obstacle to woman suffrage, and there is therefore no need of a new amendment; while the State constitutions simply leave her right in abeyance by omitting to declare it. That this view of the general constitution largely prevails is shown by so many women bringing suits against those who have rejected their votes, under the constitution as it is. Mrs. Spencer's manner is very pleasing, and her speech was pungent and to the point. She closed with the following pithy illustration of the need of woman's influence in legislative matters:
She said it might surprise and encourage many people, just like it did her, to find out that neither the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution or legislative act, whether general or local, has ever explicitly prohibited women from voting. They have only allowed certain male citizens to vote and haven't mentioned anything about women at all. It's one thing to explicitly forbid women from voting; it's quite another to simply not say that they can. Some people believe the Bible forbids women from voting because it doesn’t mention it at all. While it’s true that it doesn’t provide any authority for it, it also doesn’t provide authority for using sewing machines or clothes wringers. The enthusiasm of people who search the Scriptures to support bigotry and intolerance assumes that anything not specifically permitted to women is strictly forbidden. Judge Cartter states that the general Constitution poses no barrier to women's suffrage, meaning there’s no need for a new amendment; similarly, the State constitutions just leave her right unacknowledged by not stating it. This perspective on the general Constitution is supported by the fact that many women are filing lawsuits against those who have rejected their votes based on the Constitution as it stands. Mrs. Spencer's demeanor is very pleasant, and her speech was sharp and direct. She concluded with the following powerful example of the necessity for women's influence in legislative matters:
I wanted a loaf of bread one day in a great hurry, and found six dram-shops on one square and only one bakery, and that was shut.
I was in a big rush one day and wanted a loaf of bread, but I found six liquor stores on one block and only one bakery, which was closed.
Mrs. Spencer was followed by Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Black, and Mr. Davis, of Philadelphia, son-in-law of Lucretia Mott. Committees on resolutions and finance were appointed, and the meeting adjourned till afternoon.
Mrs. Spencer was followed by Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Black, and Mr. Davis from Philadelphia, who was Lucretia Mott's son-in-law. Committees on resolutions and finance were set up, and the meeting was adjourned until the afternoon.
F. E. B.
F. E. B.
Washington, Jan. 17.
Washington, Jan. 17.
This convention, of which I sent you some account in my last letter, adjourned last night, sine die. Lincoln Hall has been crowded at all the sessions except one, when an admission fee was charged. And the admission fee worked up a little unpleasantness in another direction, for in such a case a license has to be bought of the city authorities. So on Thursday evening before the meeting opened, word was sent to Miss Anthony in the ante-room, that a police officer was after her. "Well, let him come then," she replied; "I shan't go after him, that's sure." In due time the policeman walked in, brass buttons and all. Miss Anthony had a pleasant little conversation with him for a few minutes. The policeman was very mild and amiable, and so was Miss A. Having had considerable experience with officers of justice(?), she has gotten a little used to them—in fact, rather indifferent. Hard knocks and rubs conduce to philosophy, and Miss Anthony has acquired a philosophy akin to that of Diogenes in his tub. She told the policeman she had no[Pg 541] intention of paying this government for the poor privilege of coming here to demand justice at its hands. While Miss Anthony was as calm as a June morning, and wholly indifferent in the matter, Mrs. Belva Lockwood, a practicing attorney in this city, raised such a din about the policeman's ears that he took to his heels, and didn't darken the ante-room doors of Lincoln Hall again while the convention was in session. That license remains in statu quo.
This convention, which I mentioned in my last letter, wrapped up last night, sine die. Lincoln Hall was packed at every session except one, when an admission fee was charged. The admission fee caused a bit of tension in another area, as it required a license from the city authorities. So on Thursday evening, just before the meeting started, a message was sent to Miss Anthony in the ante-room that a police officer was looking for her. "Well, let him come then," she replied, "I’m not going to chase after him, that’s for sure." Eventually, the policeman walked in, complete with brass buttons. Miss Anthony had a friendly chat with him for a few minutes. The policeman was quite calm and friendly, and so was Miss A. Having dealt with law enforcement a lot, she’s gotten used to them—actually, she’s pretty indifferent. Tough experiences lead to a certain philosophy, and Miss Anthony has developed a mindset similar to that of Diogenes in his tub. She told the officer she had no[Pg 541] intention of paying the government for the privilege of coming here to demand justice. While Miss Anthony was as unbothered as a cool June morning, Mrs. Belva Lockwood, a practicing attorney in this city, made such a scene that the policeman took off and never returned to the ante-room of Lincoln Hall during the convention. That license status remains in statu quo.
Mrs. Stanton said that people were always saying women didn't want to vote, but the fact that the word "male" was in all the statute books showed that men knew all the time that they would vote if they had a chance. But whether they want to or not is a matter, she claimed, that had nothing to do with the question. It is time woman had a civil rights bill. No woman can enter Columbia College, Princeton, Harvard, or Yale. During the century we have spent $16,000,000 for the boys of New York, and $1,500,000 for the girls. Are you willing to believe, women, that your girls are sixteen times less valuable than the boys? What is the reason of this low valuation of woman? Because she is never to have anything to do with the State. It is a humiliating thing to ask, but I insist that the white women of this country be placed on the same civil and political footing with the colored men from the plantations of the South. If a woman traveling alone is belated at night, the hotels slam their doors in her face and turn her into the street. We want a civil rights bill that shall make every white woman just as respectable as a negro or a white man.
Mrs. Stanton stated that people often claimed women didn’t want to vote, but the fact that "male" appears in all the legal texts showed that men always knew women would vote if given the opportunity. However, whether women actually want to vote or not, she argued, wasn't the real issue. It’s time for women to have a civil rights bill. No woman can attend Columbia College, Princeton, Harvard, or Yale. Over the past century, we’ve spent $16,000,000 on education for boys in New York and only $1,500,000 for girls. Are you willing to accept that your daughters are valued at sixteen times less than your sons? What accounts for this devaluation of women? Because they are expected to have no role in the government. It's a humiliating request, but I insist that the white women of this country be given the same civil and political rights as the black men from the Southern plantations. When a woman traveling alone is out late at night, hotels close their doors on her and kick her out into the street. We demand a civil rights bill that ensures every white woman is regarded as equally respectable as a black man or a white man.
Mrs. Blake followed with an anecdote of a girl who applied for admission to Ann Arbor University. One of the sentences she had to translate from the Greek was this one from Antigone: "Seeing then that we are women, ought we not to be modest and not try to compete with men?" She took the highest honors in Greek, and was ahead of every man in the class. She prepared a Greek composition and introduced this sentence: "Seeing then that we are men, ought we not to be ashamed that we have been vanquished by women?"
Mrs. Blake shared a story about a girl who applied to the University of Ann Arbor. One of the sentences she had to translate from Greek was this one from Antigone: "Since we are women, shouldn't we be modest and not try to compete with men?" She excelled in Greek and outperformed every guy in the class. She created a Greek composition and included this sentence: "Since we are men, shouldn't we be ashamed that we have been defeated by women?"
Mrs. Stanton thought if girls could come out of colleges and schools ahead of the boys in their studies, it was pretty clear proof that they could accomplish almost anything within the power of human capacity, for girls have to study under all sorts of disadvantages that boys do not have to contend with. Hang a hoop-skirt on a boy's hips; lace him up in a corset; hang pounds of clothing and trailing skirts upon him; puff him out with humps and bunches behind; pinch his waist into a compass that will allow his lungs only half their breathing capacity; load his head down with superfluous hair—rats, mice, chignons, etc., and stick it full of hair-pins; and then set him to translating Greek and competing for prizes in a first-class university. What sort of a chance would he stand in running that race or any other!! Mrs. Stanton read a civil rights bill for women, to be presented to Congress. This bill is to secure to them, equally with colored men, all the advantages and opportunities of life; open to them all colleges of learning; secure to them the right to sit on juries; to sue and be sued; to practice in all our courts on the same terms with colored men; to be tried by a jury of their peers; to be admitted to theaters and hotels alone; to walk the streets by night and by day, to ramble in the forest, or beside the lakes and rivers,[Pg 542] as do colored men, without fear of molestation or insult from any white man whatsoever, to secure equal place and pay in this world of work.
Mrs. Stanton believed that if girls could outperform boys in their studies after attending colleges and schools, it was clear evidence that they could achieve nearly anything that humans are capable of, since girls face various disadvantages that boys do not. Imagine putting a hoop skirt on a boy, lacing him into a corset, weighing him down with heavy clothing and long skirts, giving him bumps and padding behind, squeezing his waist to limit his lung capacity, and piling his head with unnecessary hair—extensions, fancy hairstyles, etc., all held in place with hairpins—and then expecting him to translate Greek and compete for prizes at a top university. What chance would he have in that race or any other? Mrs. Stanton read a civil rights bill for women, to be presented to Congress. This bill aims to secure for women, on equal footing with men of color, all the advantages and opportunities in life; to grant them access to all educational institutions; to ensure their right to serve on juries; to sue and be sued; to practice in all our courts on the same terms as men of color; to be tried by a jury of their peers; to be allowed in theaters and hotels on their own; to walk the streets day and night; to explore forests or enjoy lakes and rivers,[Pg 542] just like men of color, without fear of harassment or insult from any white man, and to achieve equal status and pay in the workforce.
She also presented a series of resolutions, nine in number. The first five are for freedom generally, and no taxation without representation. The sixth and seventh denounce the bills of Senators Frelinghuysen and Logan, the former being designed to deprive the women of the Territories of jury trial, and the latter to restore the common law in the Territories. The eighth recognizes the importance of the organization of the Grangers; and the ninth opposes the granting of general amnesty to former rebels. This resolution Mrs. Stanton denounced, speaking in favor of universal amnesty. Quite a spicy discussion ensued on this resolution, which was drawn up by Mrs. Joslyn Gage. Mrs. Stanton in her remarks in opposition, said it was hardly worth while for women in their conventions to throw any stigma on Jefferson Davis. The institution of slavery was sustained by the North as well as the South; the North got out expurgated editions of books for the Southern market. It was in bad taste for the North to denounce the South, and it was in particularly bad taste for woman suffragists who are clamoring for representation and for the ballot, to call for its denial to any part of the nation.
She also presented a series of resolutions, totaling nine. The first five were about general freedom and no taxation without representation. The sixth and seventh criticized the bills from Senators Frelinghuysen and Logan; the former aimed to deny women in the Territories the right to a jury trial, while the latter sought to bring back common law in the Territories. The eighth acknowledged the significance of organizing Grangers; and the ninth opposed granting general amnesty to former rebels. Mrs. Stanton condemned this resolution, advocating instead for universal amnesty. A lively discussion followed regarding this resolution, which was written by Mrs. Joslyn Gage. In her remarks against it, Mrs. Stanton stated that it was unnecessary for women at their conventions to shame Jefferson Davis. The institution of slavery was upheld by both the North and the South; the North even produced sanitized editions of books for the Southern market. It was in poor taste for the North to criticize the South, and especially inappropriate for women suffragists, who were pushing for representation and the vote, to call for its denial to any part of the nation.
Col. R. J. Hinton, of Washington, also denounced the resolution, saying that it violated one of the fundamental principles of the woman suffrage platform, which is that the limitation of suffrage is a gross outrage. Miss Anthony very pertinently said: "All the trouble on this platform is that we haven't the right to vote. If we had it we shouldn't complain of anybody else voting." The resolution was voted down by a large majority.
Col. R. J. Hinton from Washington also condemned the resolution, stating that it went against one of the key principles of the woman suffrage platform, which is that limiting the right to vote is a serious injustice. Miss Anthony pointed out, "The main issue with this platform is that we don't have the right to vote. If we did, we wouldn't be complaining about anyone else voting." The resolution was overwhelmingly rejected.
At the evening session the Hall was literally packed. Mrs. Dundore of Baltimore, and Miss Taintor of California were the first speakers. Then the fascinating St. Louis lawyer, Miss Phoebe Couzins, whose logic is as sound as her wit is sparkling, was introduced, and delivered an address on "Woman as Lawyer," a subject which, in most hands, would have put the audience to sleep, but in hers, kept them wide awake with laughter and applause at her brilliant sallies. At the conclusion of her speech the Hutchinsons sang a stirring song, and then Miss Anthony introduced the colored member of Congress from South Carolina, Mr. A. J. Ransier, who spoke unqualifiedly in favor of woman suffrage. Mr. Ransier is president of a woman suffrage association in South Carolina. He was a little inclined to repeat himself, and after having returned several times to the statement that he had "no speech to make," an old lady in the audience popped up on the bench and said: "Well, if you haven't got a speech to make, I have," and immediately started out at the rate of twenty-five knots an hour, utterly oblivious of the rights of Mr. Ransier, who already had the floor, and who was very politely waiting for her to subside. Miss Anthony, after patiently waiting some time, said she should have to call the lady to order, but she paid no attention to the call. After a while the ludicrous situation set the audience to smiling audibly, and the louder they smiled, and the greater the excitement grew, the swifter flew the old lady's tongue. After consultation among the managers of the meeting, it was finally decided to send a policeman to quietly remove this garrulous disturber of the peace. A policeman was accordingly summoned, but his entreaties had no effect on the old lady, who stoutly maintained her perch, and declared she would not go with him.[Pg 543] Then Miss Couzins descended from the platform, and accomplished with her winning ways what the policeman couldn't. She calmed the troubled waters—got the old lady to sit down by her side and keep the peace the rest of the evening. Who wouldn't maintain the peace when entreated from such a quarter? Mr. Ransier was enabled to finish his speech—a really good one—Miss Anthony remarking at its close that she wished she could have had him for her judge instead of Mr. Hunt. She then made a wide awake and telling speech, which, if this letter were not already too long, I should like to give. At its close she introduced Mrs. Guthrie, a daughter of Frances Wright, that woman of rare mind and original thought, who came from England to this country some forty or more years ago; and who, with Robert Owen and some others, tried to start a colony on the community system. To the surprise of all, Mrs. Guthrie declared herself opposed to woman suffrage. At the close of her remarks the Doxology was sung, and the convention adjourned sine die.
At the evening session, the Hall was completely full. Mrs. Dundore from Baltimore and Miss Taintor from California were the first speakers. Then the captivating St. Louis lawyer, Miss Phoebe Couzins, known for her sharp logic and sparkling wit, was introduced and gave a talk on "Woman as Lawyer." Normally, this topic might bore the audience, but her presentation kept everyone engaged with laughter and applause from her clever remarks. At the end of her speech, the Hutchinsons performed a powerful song, after which Miss Anthony introduced the Black Congressman from South Carolina, Mr. A. J. Ransier, who spoke strongly in favor of women's right to vote. Mr. Ransier is the president of a women's suffrage association in South Carolina. He tended to repeat himself, and after stating several times that he had "no speech to make," an elderly woman in the audience stood up and shouted, "Well, if you don’t have a speech, I do!" She then launched into a speech at high speed, completely ignoring Mr. Ransier's existing turn to speak, as he waited politely for her to finish. Miss Anthony, after waiting a while, said she would have to call the woman to order, but the woman paid no attention. Eventually, the funny situation made the audience start laughing audibly, and the louder they laughed, the faster the old lady spoke. After discussing among the meeting's organizers, it was decided to send a police officer to quietly remove the chatty disruptor. A police officer was called, but his attempts to persuade the woman had no impact. She firmly stated that she wouldn't go with him. Then Miss Couzins came down from the platform and, with her charm, accomplished what the policeman couldn't. She calmed the situation, got the old lady to sit next to her, and kept the peace for the rest of the evening. Who wouldn't want to keep the peace when approached like that? Mr. Ransier was able to finish his speech—a really good one—after which Miss Anthony remarked that she wished he could have been her judge instead of Mr. Hunt. She then gave a lively and impactful speech that I would love to share if this letter weren't already too long. At the end, she introduced Mrs. Guthrie, the daughter of Frances Wright, an extraordinary woman with original ideas who came to this country from England over forty years ago; she, along with Robert Owen and others, attempted to start a community-based colony. To everyone’s surprise, Mrs. Guthrie expressed her opposition to women's suffrage. After her remarks, the Doxology was sung, and the convention adjourned sine die.
F. E. B.
F. E. B.
The correspondent of the Boston Commonwealth, after giving a pen-picture of the ladies on the platform, said:
The reporter from the Boston Commonwealth, after describing the women on the stage, said:
The Convention laid out some very practical work for the consideration and action of Congress. It circulated a petition and obtained six hundred names of citizens, both men and women of the District, asking that the word male be stricken from the organic act of the District government. This was presented by Mr. Dawes, for Mr. Butler, to the House, and referred to the Judiciary Committee, before the members of which the ladies to-day had a hearing. Their case was presented and briefly argued by Mr. Miller, a lawyer of some promise and reputation, a resident of the District. Mrs. Sarah Spencer, of Washington, addressed the Committee on the legal points involved. She said that the petitioners did not conceal the point that the XIV. Amendment did not give them the right to vote, but since Congress had referred them to the State legislatures, they came now to ask that the women of the District be allowed to vote. Mrs. Spencer answered the argument so often made, that all of the bad women would vote and the good ones would stay at home. She said in reply to this oft-repeated objection, that she had found in talking with that class they made the same objection to woman suffrage that the fashionable women make, and were quite as averse to its adoption. Again, she said statistics show the lamentable fact that only one-fifth of this class live to be eighteen years of age; their average length of life being only five years, no real danger was to be apprehended from giving woman the ballot. Mrs. Spencer spoke with feeling, and evidently made a favorable impression upon the Committee. Mrs. Lockwood made a few pertinent remarks. As this lady has lately been admitted to the bar in this city, she can speak from experience upon many points of law and fact. Miss Burr, of Hartford, asked simply for full justice, eschewing law and legal lore upon the subject, willing to be numbered with Plato and John Stuart Mill on this question. Miss Couzins appealed to the heart; as so many knock-down arguments had been hurled at their heads she preferred to attack the heart. She said she felt great delicacy in appearing before so much learning and wisdom, but the veteran commander-in-chief[Pg 544] of the forces, Miss Anthony, had ordered her to the front, and when she told her she must spike a gun, like a good soldier, although a raw recruit, she obeyed. Miss Anthony introduced the speakers, and closed the meeting with a few well-chosen words.
The Convention outlined some very practical tasks for Congress to consider and act on. They circulated a petition and gathered six hundred signatures from citizens, both men and women from the District, requesting that the word "male" be removed from the organic act of the District government. Mr. Dawes presented this petition on behalf of Mr. Butler to the House, which referred it to the Judiciary Committee, where the women had a hearing today. Their case was presented and briefly argued by Mr. Miller, a promising and reputable lawyer who lives in the District. Mrs. Sarah Spencer from Washington addressed the Committee on the legal issues involved. She pointed out that the petitioners did not deny that the XIV Amendment did not grant them the right to vote, but since Congress had referred them to the state legislatures, they were now asking for the women of the District to be allowed to vote. Mrs. Spencer responded to the common argument that only bad women would vote while good ones would stay home. She stated that in her conversations with that demographic, they expressed the same objections to woman suffrage as fashionable women did, and were just as opposed to its adoption. Furthermore, she mentioned that statistics show the unfortunate reality that only one-fifth of that group lives to be eighteen; their average lifespan is only five years, so there’s no real danger in giving women the right to vote. Mrs. Spencer spoke passionately and clearly made a positive impression on the Committee. Mrs. Lockwood added a few relevant comments. As she has recently been admitted to the bar in this city, she could speak from experience on many legal and factual points. Miss Burr from Hartford simply asked for full justice, avoiding legal jargon on the subject, and expressed her willingness to be aligned with Plato and John Stuart Mill on this issue. Miss Couzins appealed to the heart; since many strong arguments had been hurled their way, she preferred to touch upon emotional grounds. She mentioned feeling nervous before such knowledgeable and wise individuals, but the veteran commander, Miss Anthony, had instructed her to step forward, and when she said she needed to be brave like a good soldier, even as a newcomer, she complied. Miss Anthony introduced the speakers and concluded the meeting with a few well-chosen words.
It was a picture worthy the brush of an old master. Eleven lawyers seated around a table, with Benjamin F. Butler at the head, listening to women pleading for the right of self-government. Their faces, as they listened, every one of them with respectful attention, was a study worthy the most thoughtful student of human nature. Some of them listened, no doubt, for the first time to an argument in favor of this innovation, but the most unbelieving were evidently impressed with the earnestness and strong feeling displayed in the advocacy of the cause. The room was well filled with spectators, drawn together, some from sympathy, others from idle curiosity, but all were compelled to respectful consideration by the ease, dignity, and ability displayed by the ladies in presenting their cause. Only upon the faces of a few newspaper reporters just emerging from adolescence into manhood, rested the traditional sneer at the strong-minded; and when the hour for adjournment arrived, one of the members of the Committee remarked he regretted that a longer time could not have been given to the ladies. To those who think the cause of woman suffrage has gone backwards, we commend the proceedings of this meeting of the Judiciary Committee.
It was a scene worthy of an old master’s painting. Eleven lawyers sat around a table, with Benjamin F. Butler at the head, listening to women advocating for the right to self-govern. Each of their faces, as they listened with respectful attention, was a study in human nature. Some of them were probably hearing an argument for this change for the first time, but even the most skeptical seemed genuinely moved by the passion and conviction shown in support of the cause. The room was packed with spectators, some drawn by sympathy and others by mere curiosity, but all were forced to give respectful attention due to the ease, dignity, and skill with which the women presented their case. Only a few young newspaper reporters showed the traditional mockery toward women who are assertive; when it was time to adjourn, one committee member expressed regret that the ladies couldn’t have more time to speak. For those who believe the movement for women’s suffrage has regressed, we suggest they take a look at the proceedings of this Judiciary Committee meeting.
In addition to the petition for suffrage in the District, another one has also been drawn, which Mr. Loughridge, of Iowa, will present at an early day, asking for the remission of the fine imposed upon Miss Anthony for voting at the last Presidential election.
In addition to the petition for voting rights in the District, another one has also been created, which Mr. Loughridge from Iowa will present soon, asking for the cancellation of the fine imposed on Miss Anthony for voting in the last Presidential election.
By the way, an incident showing the singular independence of Gen. Grant happened on Saturday. When the President was taking his afternoon stroll down Pennsylvania Avenue, he met Miss Anthony and Miss Couzins. Instead of bowing and passing on, as most any one of the high dignitaries occupying official position would have done, he stopped, shook hands, and entered into conversation with them. The chief justiceship being the absorbing subject of interest, Miss Couzins suggested the name of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, since he seemed to have so much trouble in getting a man to suit. The President pleasantly replied he would not subject any woman to the ordeal of such an examination as she would be subjected to over Sunday, if the announcement of the nomination to that office were made. Miss Anthony said if he would only nominate Henry R. Selden, her counsel, the man who had brains and courage enough to defend her for voting for him, the country would at once recognize it as the best possible thing that could be done. The group, as they stood there on the avenue, the President of the United States with a pleased and animated face, and Miss Anthony, whom everybody knows and respects, even although they don't believe in suffrage for women, and the strikingly handsome young lawyer from St. Louis, in animated conversation over the Chief Justiceship, was the object of attraction of all passing by. If some fortunate photographer could have taken the picture his fortune would have been secured beyond doubt.
By the way, an incident illustrating Gen. Grant's unique independence occurred on Saturday. While the President was taking his afternoon walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, he encountered Miss Anthony and Miss Couzins. Instead of just bowing and moving on like most high-ranking officials would have done, he stopped, shook hands, and started chatting with them. Since the chief justiceship was the hot topic, Miss Couzins suggested Elizabeth Cady Stanton's name, considering he had so much difficulty finding a suitable man. The President replied with a smile that he wouldn’t put any woman through the grueling examination she would face if her nomination was announced. Miss Anthony said that if he would just nominate Henry R. Selden, her lawyer who had the brains and courage to defend her for voting for him, the country would immediately see it as the best possible move. The scene, with the President of the United States looking pleased and animated, Miss Anthony—well-known and respected by everyone, even those who don’t believe in women’s suffrage—and the strikingly handsome young lawyer from St. Louis engaged in lively conversation about the Chief Justiceship, captured the attention of all who passed by. If a lucky photographer could have snapped a picture, he would have hit the jackpot for sure.
The May Anniversary[158] of 1874 was held in Irving Hall, with the usual list of speakers.[159] The attendance was large throughout. Martha C. Wright, one of the most judicious and clear-sighted women in the movement, was elected president. A large number of letters[160] was received from nearly every State in the Union.
The May Anniversary[158] of 1874 took place in Irving Hall, featuring the usual lineup of speakers.[159] The turnout was high throughout. Martha C. Wright, one of the most insightful and perceptive women in the movement, was elected president. A large number of letters[160] were received from almost every State in the Union.
On May 28th, 1874, while the bill to establish the Territory of Pembina was pending in the Senate, Mr. Sargent, of California, moved to add "sex" to line 10 of section 5, which would make the clause read:
On May 28, 1874, while the bill to create the Territory of Pembina was under consideration in the Senate, Mr. Sargent from California suggested adding "sex" to line 10 of section 5, which would change the clause to read:
Resolved, That the Legislative Assembly shall not, at any time, abridge the right of suffrage, or to hold office, on account of sex, race, color, or previous condition of servitude of any resident of the Territory.
Resolved, That the Legislative Assembly shall not, at any time, limit the right to vote, or to hold office, based on sex, race, color, or past status as a servant of any resident of the Territory.
Mr. Sargent.—In the same connection I move in the first line of section 5 to strike out the word "male," so as to read "every inhabitant of the United States."
Mr. Sargent.—In the same context, I propose in the first line of section 5 to remove the word "male," so that it reads "every inhabitant of the United States."
The President pro tempore.—The question is on the amendment of the Senator from California.
The President pro tempore.—The issue is regarding the amendment proposed by the Senator from California.
Mr. Sargent.—At the time when the last National Convention of the Republican party assembled in Philadelphia, which nominated General Grant for his second term, there was assembled a body of able, respectable ladies of the United States, who urged upon that convention a consideration of the subject involved in the amendment which I propose; and as a concession to the demand made by those persons, a plank was inserted in the platform whereby it was declared that the Republican party would treat with consideration the claims of women to be admitted to additional rights. Since that time, although the Republican party has had a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress and elected the President of its choice, and now has full power and has had ever since the assembling of this Congress to carry out this promise, not one step has been taken in this direction. It has not been for want of petition or solicitation. It certainly has not been because the matter has not been called to the attention of both Houses of Congress, for petition after petition has been presented, and no action has been taken except adverse action in the other House, the committee reporting back those petitions with the recommendation that the prayer be not granted. In the Senate we have not yet been favored with the views of the committee to whom those petitions were referred. Considering that a great constitutional question was involved, it might be assumed that these subjects would receive very early attention at the hands of the committees of the Senate; but up to this time we have had no light on the matter.
Mr. Sargent.—When the last National Convention of the Republican party met in Philadelphia to nominate General Grant for his second term, a group of capable and respected women from across the United States gathered to urge the convention to consider the amendment I'm proposing. In response to their demands, a plank was added to the platform stating that the Republican party would take into account women's claims for additional rights. Since then, despite the Republican party holding a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress and having elected their preferred President, and despite having the full power to fulfill this promise since this Congress started, not a single step has been taken in that direction. This is not due to a lack of petitions or requests. The issue has certainly been brought to the attention of both Houses of Congress, as one petition after another has been submitted, yet the only response has been negative action in the other House, where the committee has returned those petitions with the recommendation that their requests be denied. In the Senate, we have not yet received any feedback from the committee to which those petitions were sent. Given that a significant constitutional issue is at stake, one might expect these topics to be addressed promptly by the Senate committees; however, so far, we have had no clarification on the issue.
I believe, Mr. President, that the amendment which I offer to this bill is justified by the organic law of the United States, and in fact required by that law. Before the adoption of the XIV. and XV. Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States women were hedged from the ballot-box by the use of the word "male." Since that time another rule has been prescribed by the organic law, giving to all citizens of the United States the right to exercise this highest privilege of a citizen. By the XIV. Article of Amendment it is provided that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This most important declaration is now the organic law of the United States. It does not say "all males born or naturalized in the United States," but "all persons," and it can not be contended successfully that a woman is not a person, and not a person within the meaning of this clause of the Constitution.
I believe, Mr. President, that the amendment I’m proposing to this bill is supported by the fundamental law of the United States and is actually required by that law. Before the adoption of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, women were excluded from the ballot box by the use of the word "male." Since then, another rule has been established by the fundamental law, granting all citizens of the United States the right to exercise this highest privilege of citizenship. According to the 14th Amendment, it states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This crucial declaration is now the fundamental law of the United States. It does not say "all males born or naturalized in the United States," but "all persons," and it cannot be convincingly argued that a woman is not a person, or not a person under the meaning of this clause of the Constitution.
This being the status of all individuals, male and female, they being citizens of the United States, it is provided that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Of course if any State is prohibited from doing this, any Territory should be prohibited from doing it, because no Territory can constitutionally do that which a State itself can[Pg 547] not do. Then, if women are citizens of the United States, and there is no right to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as proclaimed by the supreme law of the land, what are these privileges and immunities? Grant White, in his able work on "Words and Their Uses," defines, on page 100, the privileges and immunities of citizens, and among them gives the right to vote and the right to hold office. Webster gives the same definition of the word "citizen" and so does Worcester, and Bouvier's Law Dictionary speaks expressly of these rights of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office; and there is little adverse authority to these definitions.
Given the status of all individuals, both men and women, who are citizens of the United States, it states that "no State shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Clearly, if any State is prohibited from doing this, then any Territory should also be prohibited from doing so, because no Territory can constitutionally do what a State itself cannot do. So, if women are citizens of the United States, and there is no right to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as outlined by the supreme law of the land, what are these privileges and immunities? Grant White, in his effective work on "Words and Their Uses," defines the privileges and immunities of citizens on page 100, including the right to vote and the right to hold office. Webster provides the same definition for the word "citizen," as does Worcester, and Bouvier's Law Dictionary specifically discusses these rights of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office; there is little opposing authority to these definitions.
The Constitution, if it needs construction at all—and it would hardly seem to need it in a case so plain as this—must be construed by the ordinary and authoritative use of the words contained in it; and here is both the ordinary and the authoritative use of those words. This matter has not been without judicial construction. In the Circuit Court Reports (4 Washington, 371), it was held that these privileges and immunities included the right to hold office and to exercise the elective franchise; and this view was adopted by Chancellor Kent in his Commentaries, volume II., page 71. So that both by United States courts and the best and highest commentary upon the laws of the United States the construction which I contend for of the XIV. Amendment is insisted upon and ably illustrated. The considerations which I have urged address themselves not merely to Republicans, they address themselves with great force to my Democratic friends who are such sticklers for the Constitution. Although that is true, nevertheless the Republican party has pledged itself especially to a respectful consideration of these demands in its last national platform, and it has control of both Houses of Congress and of the executive department.
The Constitution, if it even needs interpretation at all—and it hardly seems necessary in such a clear case—must be interpreted according to the common and accepted meanings of the words it contains; and here we have both the common and the accepted meanings of those words. This issue hasn’t been without judicial interpretation. In the Circuit Court Reports (4 Washington, 371), it was determined that these privileges and immunities included the right to hold office and to vote; and this perspective was supported by Chancellor Kent in his Commentaries, volume II, page 71. So, both the United States courts and the most respected commentary on U.S. laws advocate for the interpretation of the XIV Amendment that I am arguing for. The points I’ve made are not just for Republicans; they also resonate strongly with my Democratic friends who are so dedicated to the Constitution. While that's true, the Republican party has specifically committed to a careful consideration of these demands in its latest national platform, and it controls both Houses of Congress and the executive branch.
Passing from that consideration, we have all persons born or naturalized in the United States declared by the Constitution to be citizens; and we have the meaning of the word "citizen" given by our courts, by our lexicographers, by our law commentators; we have further their "privileges and immunities" settled by all these authorities to include the right to vote and the right to hold office. In consonance with this organic law, the policy of which is not open to discussion because it has been adopted according to all the legal forms by the people of the United States, I offer this amendment.
Moving on from that point, the Constitution states that everyone born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen. Our courts, dictionaries, and legal commentators have provided a clear definition of the term "citizen." Additionally, they have established that the "privileges and immunities" of citizenship include the right to vote and the right to hold office. In line with this foundational law, which isn't up for debate since it was passed according to all legal procedures by the people of the United States, I propose this amendment.
Were this the time and place, and were not the discussion foreclosed by the considerations which I have already advanced, I might speak at some length upon the advantage which there would be in the admission of women to the suffrage. I might point with some pride to the experiment which has been made in Wyoming, where women hold office, where they vote, where they have the most orderly society of any of the Territories, where the experiment is approved by the executive officers of the United States, by their courts, by the press, and by the people generally; and if it operates so well in Wyoming, where it has rescued that Territory from a state of comparative lawlessness to one of the most orderly in the Union, I ask why it might not operate equally well in the Territory of Pembina or any other Territory? I hope the time is not far distant when some of the older States of the Union like New York, or Massachusetts, or Ohio[Pg 548] may give this experiment a fuller chance. But so far as it has gone, the experiment has been entirely in favor of legislation for admitting women to the ballot-box. And I do not believe that in putting these higher responsibilities upon women we degrade their character, that we subject them to uncongenial pursuits, that we injure their moral tone, that we tarnish their delicacy, that we in any way make them less noble and admirable as women, as wives, and mothers. I believe that by realizing the intention of the Constitution, which uses words that are so fully explained by our courts and by our writers upon the uses of words, we simply open a wider avenue to women for usefulness to themselves and to society. I think we give them an opportunity, instead of traveling the few and confined roads that are open to them now, to engage more generally in the business of life under some guarantee of their success. I believe that, instead of driving them to irregular efforts like those which they recently have made in many of the States to overthrow liquor selling, it will give them an opportunity through the ballot-box to protect their families, to break up the nefarious traffic and purify society. As it is now, their energies in this direction are repressed, and sometimes in order to have force are compelled to be exercised even in opposition to law. I would give them an opportunity to exercise them under the forms of law, and I would enforce the law by the accession of this pure element. I do not think that they would be corrupted by it, but rather that society and politics would be purified by admitting them to the ballot-box and giving them this opportunity.
If this were the right time and place, and if our discussion wasn’t limited by the points I’ve already made, I could talk extensively about the benefits of allowing women to vote. I could proudly point to the example set by Wyoming, where women can hold office and vote, and where they have the most orderly society of all the Territories. This experiment has received approval from the executive officers of the United States, its courts, the press, and the general public; if it works so well in Wyoming, which has moved from relative lawlessness to one of the most orderly places in the Union, then why wouldn’t it work just as well in Pembina or any other Territory? I hope the older States of the Union, like New York, Massachusetts, or Ohio[Pg 548], will soon give this experiment a fair chance. So far, the results have entirely supported allowing women to vote. I don’t believe that giving women these higher responsibilities degrades their character or forces them into unsuitable roles, harms their moral standing, or diminishes their grace; in fact, I think it enhances their nobility and admiration as women, wives, and mothers. I believe that by fulfilling the intentions of the Constitution, as clarified by our courts and writers on language, we simply open up greater opportunities for women to contribute to themselves and society. I think we provide them a chance, instead of limiting them to the narrow paths currently available, to engage more broadly in life's affairs with some assurance of success. Rather than pushing them into irregular efforts, such as those they have recently made in various States to end the sale of alcohol, this could empower them, through voting, to protect their families, put an end to that harmful trade, and improve society. Right now, their energy in this area is suppressed, and sometimes they’re forced to act even against the law to be effective. I want to provide them the chance to work within the law while also reinforcing it with this positive influence. I don’t think they would be corrupted; rather, I believe that society and politics would be elevated by allowing them to vote and giving them this chance.
I therefore trust that, in the spirit of the pledge that was made by us as Republicans, in the spirit of the adhesion to the Constitution professed by our democratic friends, there may be an assent to this amendment, and that the United States will engraft this feature in the organic law of this new Territory. There is nothing peculiar in the form of this proposition. All the original steps which we took toward circumscribing slavery were taken by engrafting provisos on the organic laws of Territories, from Nebraska down, providing that the Territories, when organized, should not do this or that affecting the liberty of human beings. In the mode pursued by that legislation, and according to those precedents, I now propose that the Constitution shall be invoked; that women shall have the right in this Territory which is guaranteed by the organic law.
I believe that, in the spirit of the promise we made as Republicans and the commitment to the Constitution expressed by our democratic friends, we can agree to this amendment. I hope the United States will include this aspect in the fundamental law of this new Territory. There’s nothing unusual about this proposal. All the initial steps we took to limit slavery involved adding conditions to the foundational laws of Territories, from Nebraska onward, stating that when the Territories were set up, they couldn’t do certain things that would affect the liberty of individuals. Following that approach and those precedents, I now suggest that we call upon the Constitution; that women should have the rights in this Territory that are guaranteed by the foundational law.
Mr. Stewart.—If this region is to be created into a Territory, I think it eminently proper that this amendment should be adopted. The question of female suffrage is a question that is being seriously considered by a large portion of the people of the United States. We may think lightly of it here; we may think it never will be accomplished; but there are a great many earnest people who believe if females had the ballot they could better protect themselves, be more independent, and occupy useful positions in life which are now denied to them. Whether they be correct or not, it is not necessary for us to determine in passing upon this amendment. Here is a new Territory to be created, and it is a good opportunity to try this experiment. If it works badly, when the Territory becomes a State there is nobody committed. It is not an amendment of the organic law of the nation. This is a bill simply providing for the organization of a Territory and for a preliminary government, and I should like for one to see this experiment[Pg 549] tried. It is suggested by my friend on my right (Mr. Conkling) that it can not spread unless it is catching. (Laughter.) If it works well, if it succeeds in protecting females in their rights and enabling them to assert their rights elsewhere and obtain such employment as is suitable to them, I hope it will become catching and spread all over the country, if that is the light in which it is to be treated. I am in earnest about this matter. I think this new Territory is the place to try the experiment. If it works badly, we can see it, and no great harm will be done. If it works well, the example will be a good one and will be imitated. We first tried the experiment of negro suffrage in the District of Columbia, and it became catching and spread all over the South. Now, when there is a large portion of the people of the United States desirous of having this principle illustrated, here is a fair field for the illustration of it, that they may see and we may see, whether there is anything in their arguments by the practical illustration of them for a few years until this new Territory shall become a State. I say let them have female suffrage there and try it. If it works well, their arguments will be vindicated; if it works badly, it need not be followed. I hope that the Senator from Minnesota will consent that this shall become a part of the law. Let us try it. It will do no harm.
Mr. Stewart.—If this area is going to become a Territory, I think it’s very appropriate for this amendment to be adopted. The issue of women’s voting rights is something that a significant number of people in the United States are seriously considering. We might take it lightly here and think it will never happen, but there are many passionate individuals who believe that if women had the right to vote, they could better protect themselves, be more independent, and have access to valuable roles in society that are currently denied to them. Whether they are right or wrong is not something we need to determine while discussing this amendment. Here’s a chance to create a new Territory, and it’s a good opportunity to test this idea. If it doesn’t go well, once the Territory becomes a State, no one will be committed. It’s not an amendment to the nation’s foundational law. This is just a bill that provides for the organization of a Territory and a temporary government, and I would like to see this experiment[Pg 549] tried. My friend on my right (Mr. Conkling) suggests it won't spread unless it’s appealing. (Laughter.) If it goes well, if it protects women’s rights and helps them claim those rights elsewhere and find appropriate jobs, I hope it does become appealing and spreads across the country if that’s how it’s considered. I’m serious about this. I think this new Territory is the right place to test it. If it doesn’t work, we’ll see that, and no significant harm will come from it. If it does work, it will serve as a good example to follow. We first tested African American voting rights in the District of Columbia, and that idea caught on and spread throughout the South. Now, with a large part of the population wanting to see this principle in action, here’s a fair opportunity for that demonstration, allowing us to evaluate whether their arguments hold up through practical examples over the next few years until this new Territory becomes a State. I say let’s allow women’s voting rights there and give it a try. If it works well, it will validate their arguments; if it doesn’t, then we don’t have to continue with it. I hope the Senator from Minnesota agrees to make this a part of the law. Let’s give it a shot. It won’t hurt anything.
Mr. Boreman.—I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of woman suffrage, nor a discussion of the propriety or impropriety of the adoption of a provision in favor of it upon this bill. I think this is not a very good time to "try experiments," to use the language of the Senator from Nevada, and I trust we may have a vote upon this question.
Mr. Boreman.—I don’t intend to discuss whether woman suffrage is constitutional or not, or whether it’s appropriate to include a provision for it in this bill. I believe this isn't the best time to "try experiments," as the Senator from Nevada put it, and I hope we can have a vote on this issue.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Ingalls in the Chair).—The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from California.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Ingalls in the Chair).—The question is about the amendment suggested by the Senator from California.
Mr. Sargent and Mr. Sprague called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.
Mr. Sargent and Mr. Sprague requested a vote, and it was approved.
Mr. Morton.—I desire simply to state my views upon this amendment; views long entertained. I am in favor of the amendment on what I regard as the fundamental principles of our Government, upon the theory upon which we have based our Government from the beginning. The Declaration of Independence says:
Mr. Morton.—I just want to share my thoughts on this amendment; thoughts I've had for a long time. I support the amendment based on what I believe are the core principles of our Government, on the foundation we've established since the beginning. The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We consider these truths to be obvious, that all people are created equal; that they are given by their Creator certain rights that cannot be taken away; that among these are life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
The word "men" in that connection does not mean males, but it means the human family; that all human beings are created equal. This will hardly be denied. I remember it was formerly contended that the Declaration of Independence in this clause did not include black people. It was argued learnedly and frequently, in this Chamber and out of it, that the history surrounding the adoption of that declaration showed that white men only were intended. But that was not the general judgment of the people of this country. It was held to embrace all colors and all races. It embraces both sexes; not simply males, but females. All human beings are created equal. That is the foundation principle of our Government. It then goes on to say:
The word "men" in this context doesn't refer to males specifically, but rather to humanity as a whole; that all human beings are created equal. This is hard to dispute. I remember that it was previously argued that the Declaration of Independence didn’t include black people in this statement. People often debated, both in this Chamber and elsewhere, that the history behind the adoption of that declaration indicated it only applied to white men. But that wasn’t the common belief among the people of this country. It was understood to include all colors and all races. It includes both genders; not just men, but women as well. All human beings are created equal. This is the foundational principle of our Government. It then continues to say:
That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes[Pg 550] destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
That to protect these rights, governments are created among people, getting their legitimate powers from the consent of those they govern; that whenever any type of government becomes destructive to these goals, it is the right of the people to change or get rid of it, and to establish a new government based on principles that they believe will best ensure their safety and happiness.
If these rights are fundamental, if they belong to all human beings as such, if they are God-given rights, then all persons having these God-given rights have a right to use the means for their preservation; the means is government: "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." I ask you whether the women of this country have ever given their consent to this Government? Have they the means of giving their consent to it? The colored men had not given their consent to it. Why? Because they had not the right to vote. There is but one way that the consent to government can be given, and that is by a right to a voice in that government, and that is the right to vote. I know it was argued in times past in regard to the South that the master gave the consent on the part of his slaves; that he represented them; that he had their good at heart, and that he gave their consent. We denied that. We know it was not true. Now, sir, to come down to the main question, I ask if the women of this country have given their consent to this Government? You say they are consenting. I say they are assenting to it, the majority of them; but they have no means of giving their consent to this Government within the theory of the Declaration of Independence; and they can not consent to it unless they have a voice, have a right to vote "yes" or to vote "no."
If these rights are fundamental, if they belong to all human beings as such, if they are rights granted by God, then everyone who has these God-given rights has the right to use the means to protect them; and that means is government: "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." I ask you, have the women of this country ever given their consent to this government? Do they have the means to give their consent? The men of color had not given their consent. Why? Because they did not have the right to vote. There is only one way to give consent to government, and that’s by having a voice in that government, which is the right to vote. I know it was argued in the past regarding the South that the master gave consent on behalf of his slaves; that he represented them; that he had their interests at heart and thus gave their consent. We denied that. We know it was not true. Now, sir, to get to the main question: I ask if the women of this country have given their consent to this government? You say they are consenting. I say they are going along with it, the majority of them; but they have no way to give their consent to this government within the framework of the Declaration of Independence; and they cannot consent unless they have a voice, a right to vote "yes" or to vote "no."
What was the old theory of the common law? It was that the father represented the interests of his daughter, the husband of his wife, and the son of his mother. They were deprived of all legal rights in a state of marriage, because it was said that they were taken care of by those who stood to them in these relations; but they never were taken care of. The husband never took care of the rights of his wife at common law; the father never took care of the rights of his daughter; the son never took care of the rights of his mother. The husband at common law was a tyrant and a despot. Why, sir, he absorbed the legal existence of his wife at common law; she could not make a contract except as his agent. Her legal existence was destroyed, and the very moment the marriage was consummated he became the absolute owner of all her personal property. What was the theory of it? The old theory of the common law, as given in elementary writers, was that if the wife was allowed to own property separate from her husband it would make a distinct interest; it would break up and destroy the harmony of the marriage relation; the marriage relation must be a unit; there must be but one interest; and therefore the legal existence of the wife must be merged into that of the husband. I believe a writer as late as Blackstone laid it down that it would not do to permit the wife to hold any property in severalty from her husband, because it would give to her an interest apart from his.
What was the old theory of common law? It was that the father represented the interests of his daughter, the husband of his wife, and the son of his mother. They were stripped of all legal rights once married, because it was claimed that those in these relationships would take care of them; but they never actually were taken care of. The husband never defended the rights of his wife under common law; the father never defended the rights of his daughter; the son never defended the rights of his mother. The husband under common law was a tyrant and a despot. He absorbed the legal identity of his wife at common law; she couldn’t enter into a contract except as his agent. Her legal identity was erased, and the moment the marriage was consummated, he became the sole owner of all her personal property. What was the reasoning behind it? The old theory of common law, as explained by basic legal texts, was that if a wife was allowed to own property independently from her husband, it would create a separate interest, disrupting the unity of the marriage relationship; the marriage must be a single unit; there must only be one interest; hence the legal identity of the wife must be combined with that of the husband. I believe a writer as recent as Blackstone stated that it would be unacceptable to allow the wife to hold any property separately from her husband, as it would give her an interest apart from his.
We have got over that. It took us one hundred and fifty years to get past that, and from year to year in this country, especially in the last twenty-five years, we have added to the rights of the wife in regard to property and in many other respects. We now give to her a legal status in this country that[Pg 551] she has not in England or in any European country. She has now a legal status that she had not twenty-five years ago, and progress is still going on in that direction. While it was argued by old law-writers and old law-makers that to allow women to hold property separate from their husbands was to break up the harmony of the marriage relation, we know practically that it has not worked that way. We know that as we have made woman independent, recognized her legal existence as a wife, secured her rights, it has elevated her. We know that instead of disturbing the marriage relation, it has improved it constantly; and I believe that the woman has the same natural right to a voice in this Government that the man has. If we believe in the theory of our Government that must be so. I believe that as you make woman the equal of man in regard to civil rights, rights of property, rights of person, political rights, you elevate her, you make her happier; and as you do that you elevate the male sex also.
We’ve moved past that. It took us one hundred and fifty years to get to this point, and year after year in this country, especially in the last twenty-five years, we have expanded the rights of women concerning property and in many other ways. We now provide women a legal status in this country that[Pg 551] they don't have in England or any European country. Their legal status has improved compared to twenty-five years ago, and we’re still making progress in that direction. While older lawmakers and legal writers argued that allowing women to own property separately from their husbands would disrupt the harmony of marriage, we know that hasn’t been the case in practice. We understand that as we've made women independent, acknowledged their legal standing as wives, and secured their rights, it has elevated them. Instead of harming the marriage relationship, it has consistently improved it; and I believe that women have the same natural right to a voice in this government as men. If we believe in our government's principles, that's a must. I am convinced that by making women equal to men regarding civil rights, property rights, personal rights, and political rights, we elevate them and make them happier; and in doing so, we elevate men as well.
This idea that women will be degraded by allowing them to go to the polls comes down to us from other countries and from remote periods of civilization. Why, sir, in countries now that claim to be civilized it is said that to allow the wife or the mother to go to the dinner-table with the husband and meet his guests face to face degrades her and degrades them. In some countries a woman must not appear on the streets unless she is so closely veiled that she can not be recognized; for it is said to allow her to go upon the streets barefaced or so thinly veiled that she can be recognized, subjects her to insult and degrades her; and in some countries to-day it destroys her character as effectually as other things would destroy her character in our country. We know that is a prejudice; and the idea that woman will be degraded by giving her the right of suffrage is a remnant of that same idea. It is born of the same parentage. It has no sounder reason for it than these other nations have. I believe that to give women the right of suffrage would elevate the character of suffrage in this country. It would make the polls more decent, more respectable than they are now. Why, sir, fifty years ago the idea of women attending political meetings was intolerable to a great many people. The idea of her going to lectures of a scientific character was thought to be out of all reason. But now women go to political meetings. In almost every canvass in my State there are nearly as many women who attend the meetings as men. What is the effect of it? Are they degraded? On the contrary, their presence elevates the character of those meetings. It is an assurance of peace, it is a security against rowdyism and violence, because in this country men have to be very low if they are guilty of rowdyism or blackguardism in the presence of women. We have a habitual respect for them; and I can testify from my own experience in politics that the attendance of women upon political meetings, so far from degrading them or affecting men injuriously, has elevated the character of political assemblages, has made them more respectable, has secured to them immunity from violence, and from degrading scenes and blackguardism, and so it will be at the polls. When a woman is allowed to go to the polls and vote her sentiments and convictions, it will have the same effect there that her presence has in society. There is not a bit of doubt about it. And there will be no more discord in the family circle than there was when, in violation and against the old principles of the common law, you gave a woman the right to retain her[Pg 552] legal existence after marriage and to own property separate and apart from her husband. These old notions have been giving away one after another little by little, and we shall finally come down to the true theory of our Government in all respects, and that is to allow every person, man or woman, who is to be affected and controlled by the Government, whose interest or whose happiness is to be controlled by or depends on the administration of that Government, to have an equal voice in that Government. Therefore I give my vote heartily and cheerfully for this amendment.
This idea that women will be degraded by letting them vote has come down to us from other countries and from distant times in history. In countries that now claim to be civilized, it's said that allowing a wife or mother to sit with her husband at the dinner table and meet his guests degrades her and them. In some places, a woman can’t appear in public unless she’s so heavily veiled that she's unidentifiable; it's claimed that letting her walk the streets uncovered or with only a light veil makes her vulnerable to insult and degrades her. In certain countries today, it can ruin her reputation just as effectively as other things could ruin her character here. We know this is just a bias, and the idea that giving women the right to vote will degrade them is just a leftover from that same mindset. It comes from the same origins and lacks any stronger justification than those other nations have. I believe that granting women the right to vote would enhance the integrity of voting in this country. It would make the polls more decent and respectable than they are now. Fifty years ago, the thought of women attending political meetings was unacceptable to many. The idea of them going to scientific lectures seemed absurd. But now, women attend political meetings. In nearly every campaign in my state, there are almost as many women present as men. What’s the effect? Are they degraded? On the contrary, their presence elevates the quality of those meetings. It brings assurance of decorum and prevents rowdiness and violence because, in this country, men tend to behave better when women are around. We have a natural respect for them; and I can personally attest from my political experience that having women at political meetings, rather than degrading them or negatively impacting men, has raised the standards of those gatherings, made them more respectable, and protected them from violence and indecent behavior; and the same will happen at the polls. When a woman is allowed to vote according to her beliefs and principles, it will have the same positive impact there as her presence does in society. There’s no doubt about it. And there won’t be any more conflict in the family than there was when, despite the old common law principles, women were granted the right to retain their legal identities after marriage and own property separately from their husbands. These outdated ideas have gradually faded away, little by little, and we will eventually arrive at the true basis of our government, which is to give every person, man or woman, who is affected and governed by the laws—whose interests or happiness depend on that government—an equal voice in that government. Therefore, I fully and wholeheartedly support this amendment.
Mr. Flanagan.—I confess, sir, that I was delighted when my distinguished friend from California presented this amendment. Unlike my distinguished friend from Indiana, however, I am a new convert to this doctrine. He has been of this opinion long since, I am gratified to learn. I have reflected much on this subject, and within the last few months I have settled down in my determination, and that is to advocate this great measure. Why have I so recently arrived at that conclusion? In the last few months the women's war upon the whisky trade and intemperance at large has prompted me thus to declare unequivocally for them and their glorious efforts. It is from them and with them that I hope, judging from their success up to this time, to save this great Nation from the worst curse known to the human family, that of intemperance; and I believe it is they and only they through Almighty God who can do it. Man has been found incompetent and unable to perform that great and desired object. And gratified am I to receive the idea from my distinguished friend, that if women had the right to vote they would not be expelled from many pursuits as they now are, or be compelled to go upon the streets as they now are, seeking in self-defense the preservation of man. The effect of this measure on politics has been so well described by the distinguished Senator from Indiana that I need not comment upon that branch of the subject. They would tend to purify the atmosphere morally, either at the ballot-box or anywhere else, I care not where it may be. They are more directly interested in good morals, in the temperance of the world and everything bearing on that line, than the husbands are. I think it is a right they are entitled to in every sense of the word, and from this time henceforth I am a woman's rights man.
Mr. Flanagan.—I have to say, I was thrilled when my respected friend from California introduced this amendment. Unlike my esteemed friend from Indiana, I’m new to this belief. He’s been convinced of it for quite some time, which I’m glad to hear. I’ve thought a lot about this topic, and over the past few months, I’ve made up my mind to support this important measure. Why did it take me so long to reach this conclusion? Recently, the efforts of women against the liquor trade and overall intemperance have inspired me to stand firmly with them in their noble cause. I believe that, judging by their success so far, they can save this great nation from the terrible curse of intemperance, a challenge that only they, with the help of Almighty God, can tackle. Men have proven unable to achieve this vital goal. I was pleased to hear from my distinguished friend that if women had the right to vote, they wouldn’t be excluded from many opportunities or forced to wander the streets seeking ways to protect men. The impact of this measure on politics has been so well articulated by the distinguished senator from Indiana that I won’t elaborate on that aspect. Women would help cleanse the political landscape, whether at the ballot box or elsewhere, I care not where it may be. They have a greater stake in morality, in the temperance movement, and similar issues than their husbands do. I believe this is a right they deserve in every sense, and from now on, I fully support women’s rights.
Mr. Merrimon.—Mr. President, I will not yield to any Senator in the measure of my respect for and admiration of woman; I do not propose by any act or word of mine to detract from her dignity or to diminish the pleasures she may enjoy in this life; but I claim the right to be the judge, in conjunction with herself, of what is best calculated to elevate and protect her dignity and promote her happiness. I do not believe that woman herself believes that her dignity would be elevated or her happiness promoted by putting her upon an exact equality, civilly or politically, in both points of view, with man; and very strong and controlling evidence of that fact is, that neither in this country nor in any country has woman—I mean the great mass of them—ever demanded such a state of things. Our Government has existed for about a hundred years, and the number of females who have demanded to be invested with equal political and civil rights and to be placed upon an exact equality with the male portion of our population, compared with those who have remained in retirement, who have staid at their homes and lived and ruled within that sphere in which it seems God[Pg 553] intended that they should rule, is as a drop in the sea. So it appears in this conclusive way that the women of America do not demand this state of things. They do not protect themselves by votes, nor do they need to do so. They shape the man when he is a child, rule him with the power of love, and thus they shape, affect, and often control the destinies of men, nations, and empires. I do not propose, however, to go into a discussion in detail of what the women desire or what we ought to grant. My main purpose is to reply very briefly to some remarks that fell from the honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. Morton] in reference to the Declaration of Independence. I differ, with all respect, from the revolutionary construction which he puts upon that instrument. It is true, as he says, that the Declaration of Independence provides in these words:
Mr. Merrimon.—Mr. President, I want to make it clear that I have immense respect for and admiration of women. I don’t intend to say or do anything that would undermine their dignity or lessen the joys they can experience in life. However, I believe I have the right to judge, along with women themselves, what best elevates and protects their dignity and promotes their happiness. I don’t think women truly believe that their dignity would be enhanced or their happiness improved by achieving complete equality—civilly or politically—with men. Strong evidence of this is that, neither in this country nor in any other, have women—meaning the vast majority of them—ever demanded such equality. Our Government has been around for about a hundred years, and the number of women who have insisted on equal political and civil rights, seeking an exact equality with men, is tiny compared to those who have chosen to stay at home and rule in the sphere where it seems God[Pg 553] intended them to rule. This clearly shows that women in America do not demand such a situation. They don’t protect themselves through voting, nor do they need to. They shape men from childhood, govern them with the power of love, and in doing so, influence and often control the destinies of men, nations, and empires. I don’t plan to delve into a detailed discussion about what women want or what we should grant them. My main aim is to briefly respond to some comments made by the honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. Morton] concerning the Declaration of Independence. I respectfully disagree with the revolutionary interpretation he places on that document. It is true, as he mentioned, that the Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We believe these truths are obvious: all people are created equal; they are given certain rights by their Creator that cannot be taken away; among these are life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now, I maintain in the first place that we must put a reasonable construction on those words. Plainly, to my mind, all men are created equal in point of natural rights, certainly not equal in point of civil rights, not equal in point of political rights. By nature man has no civil or political rights. Natural rights are one sort of rights; civil rights are another sort of rights; and political rights are a third sort of rights. Every human being has a natural right to life and liberty; but every human being has not a natural right to government. He has not a natural right to the civil rights conferred and defined by a system of government. When he becomes subject to civil government he surrenders a part of his natural rights—agrees that civil government may regulate these and then enjoys the benefit of civil rights conferred by civil government; but then he does not thereby necessarily become entitled to political rights. He can not become entitled to political rights until they shall be conferred upon him by government.
Now, I assert first that we need to interpret those words reasonably. Clearly, in my view, all people are equal when it comes to natural rights, but not equal regarding civil rights, and certainly not equal in terms of political rights. By nature, a person has no civil or political rights. Natural rights are one category of rights; civil rights are another; and political rights are a third. Every individual has a natural right to life and freedom; however, not every individual has a natural right to government. They do not have a natural right to the civil rights that are granted and defined by a system of government. When someone becomes subject to civil government, they give up a part of their natural rights—they agree that civil government can regulate these rights and then enjoy the civil rights granted by that government; however, this does not automatically grant them political rights. They can only be entitled to political rights when those rights are granted to them by a government.
Mr. Morton.—Will the Senator cite what follows?
Mr. Morton.—Will the Senator mention what comes next?
Mr. Merrimon.—When our fathers adopted the Declaration of Independence, and declared these general truths, they had reference to the natural rights of man, and only to those rights. They well knew the distinctions to which I have adverted, had them in view and acted upon them, as I shall now proceed to show.
Mr. Merrimon.—When our ancestors embraced the Declaration of Independence and stated these fundamental truths, they were referring specifically to the natural rights of individuals, and only those rights. They were fully aware of the distinctions I mentioned, kept them in mind, and acted on them, as I will now demonstrate.
Mr. Morton.—It says that "to secure these rights" referred to, the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "governments were instituted which derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Now, I ask if women are a part of "the governed?"
Mr. Morton.—It states that "to secure these rights," which includes the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "governments were established to derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Now, I ask if women are included in "the governed?"
Mr. Merrimon.—Yes, sir; they are a part of "the governed," and I say that they have not only assented, but they have consented to this system of government.
Mr. Merrimon.—Yes, sir; they are part of "the governed," and I believe that they have not only agreed, but they have accepted this system of government.
Mr. Morton.—How?
Mr. Morton.—How?
Mr. Merrimon.—I say so, because they have never raised their voice in opposition to it; they have given for nearly a century their highest moral sanction to it; we have had a moral expression from the American women with a degree of unanimity and cordiality that is striking. I am warranted in saying that nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand have given their moral assent, in as full a measure as it was possible for them to[Pg 554] do, to our system of government. They have sustained it under all circumstances with their love, their hands, and their hearts, with their smiles and their tears, educated their children to love it and to die for it. They have manifested their love for it in every form, it has never appeared, be it said to their honor, that they disliked or disapproved it. They have had the right under the bill of rights of every State in the Union, they have had the right under the Constitution of the Union at all times to memorialize the States and to memorialize Congress, protesting against any abridgment of their natural or civil rights, if they deemed there was any abridgment of those rights. But I repeat what I said a while ago, the number who have thus memorialized Congress and the State governments, compared with those who have not opened their mouths on this subject, is as a drop in the sea compared to the waste of waters. They have yielded their assent to this system of government; they have ratified it by every means in their power outside of exercising the political right to vote. I know that there are a few women in the country who complain, but those who complain, compared with those who do not complain, are as one to a million.
Mr. Merrimon.—I say this because they've never opposed it; for nearly a century, they've given their full moral support to it; we've seen an impressive level of agreement and enthusiasm from American women. I can confidently say that 999 out of every 1,000 have fully supported our system of government in every way they could[Pg 554]. They’ve backed it with their love, actions, and devotion, with their happiness and their sadness, raising their children to cherish it and be willing to fight for it. They've shown their love for it in every possible way, and it's important to note that they've never shown any dislike or disapproval of it. They've had the right under the bill of rights in every State in the Union, and they’ve had the right under the Constitution to petition the States and Congress, expressing their concerns about any potential violation of their natural or civil rights if they felt those rights were being infringed. But I want to emphasize again, the number of women who have petitioned Congress and state governments, compared to those who haven’t said a word on this issue, is minuscule. They’ve accepted this system of government; they’ve endorsed it by every means available to them, except for actually voting. I know there are a few women in the country who voice complaints, but those who complain are practically insignificant compared to those who don’t.
But to get back to the point. Those who established the Declaration of Independence gave an exposition to their view of it in the formation and administration of the several State governments they adopted. For years in those State governments they provided civil and political distinctions and discriminations; they provided that certain classes of white men should enjoy certain classes of rights, that certain other men should not enjoy the same rights. They provided that the male population should enjoy rights that the female should not enjoy. They provided that the white race should be free and that the black race should be slaves. They did that, and according to their action and the organic laws which they adopted, they said in the most solemn manner they could, that that system of government carried out the purposes they meant to declare and define in the Declaration of Independence. They not only did that, but they had a right to do it, nor was it inconsistent with the declaration, for it referred only to natural rights, and when they instituted governments they provided civil and political rights, and therefore there was no contradiction and no practical absurdity as is suggested. Their theory was practical and adapted to the comprehension and protection of human rights. They were not visionary theorists but practical statesmen. They were not radical but conservative in their notions of government. Not only the State governments did at first what I have indicated, but when the American people came to establish the Constitution of the United States they again provided in the Constitution a distinction and discrimination between the male and the female portion of the American people; they provided that the males should hold the offices, that the males should have the right to vote; and not only that, but by way of further exposition of their views of the nature, purposes, and meaning of the Declaration, they provided that the black race should be slaves. That Constitution recognizes negro slavery in three several provisions.
But back to the point. Those who created the Declaration of Independence explained their perspective in how they formed and ran the various State governments they established. For years in these State governments, they set up civil and political distinctions and discriminations; they decided that certain classes of white men would enjoy specific rights while certain other men would not have the same rights. They determined that the male population would have rights that women would not. They ruled that the white race would be free while the black race would be enslaved. They did this, and through their actions and the foundational laws they adopted, they stated in the most serious way possible that this system of government accomplished the goals they aimed to declare and define in the Declaration of Independence. Not only did they do that, but they had the right to do it, and it wasn’t inconsistent with the declaration, as it referred only to natural rights. When they set up governments, they provided civil and political rights, so there was no contradiction or practical absurdity as suggested. Their theory was practical and suited to understanding and protecting human rights. They weren’t idealistic theorists but practical statesmen. They were not radical but conservative in their ideas of government. Not only did the State governments initially do what I have mentioned, but when the American people created the Constitution of the United States, they again made distinctions and discriminations between the male and female populations; they stated that men would hold office, that men would have the right to vote; and furthermore, to elaborate on their views of the nature, purposes, and meaning of the Declaration, they established that the black race would be enslaved. That Constitution acknowledges slavery in three separate provisions.
Mr. Morton.—Does the Senator speak of the Constitution of the United States?
Mr. Morton.—Is the Senator talking about the Constitution of the United States?
Mr. Merrimon.—Yes, sir. In the matter of representation, slavery was expressly provided for; it was recognized in another provision relative to[Pg 555] prohibiting the importation of certain persons until after the year 1808; and in another provision which provided that those held to labor, escaping to another State, should be surrendered to their masters on demand. The Constitution of the Union, made in pursuance of this very Declaration of Independence and conforming to it, recognized a distinction between the white race and the black race, and recognized and provided distinctions between the male and the female portions of the people of the American Union, and thereby in the most absolute manner drew the civil and political distinctions that have been kept up in one way or another from that day to this, and which I contend, with a view to good government, so far as the male and female portions of the American people go, ought to be kept up and perpetuated. It seems to me that any one who will take into consideration the facts to which I have called attention must see that the broad, radical construction which the Senator puts on the Declaration of Independence can not be sustained by reason, authority, or practice.
Mr. Merrimon.—Yes, sir. In terms of representation, slavery was specifically included; it was acknowledged in another section regarding [Pg 555] that banned the importation of certain individuals until after 1808; and in a further provision stating that those who escaped labor obligations to another state should be returned to their masters upon request. The Constitution of the Union, created in alignment with this very Declaration of Independence and adhering to it, recognized differences between the white race and the black race, as well as differences between men and women among the people of the American Union, thereby clearly establishing the civil and political distinctions that have persisted in one form or another since then. I argue that, for effective governance, these distinctions between men and women in the American populace should be maintained and continued. It seems to me that anyone who considers the facts I've highlighted must recognize that the Senator's broad, radical interpretation of the Declaration of Independence cannot be supported by reason, authority, or precedent.
But, sir, I want now to refer to the position taken by the Senator from California [Mr. Sargent]. He says that under the Constitution by the XIII., XIV. and XV. articles of Amendment, Congress has no power to deprive the females of this country of the right of suffrage. That I deny as emphatically as I can. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, p. 65:
But, sir, I now want to address the stance taken by the Senator from California [Mr. Sargent]. He claims that under the Constitution, specifically the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments, Congress has no authority to take away the right to vote from the women of this country. I deny that as strongly as possible. I will read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, p. 65:
18. But citizenship of the United States, or of a State, does not of itself give the right to vote; nor, e converso, does the want of it prevent a State from conferring the right of suffrage. (Scott vs. Sandford, 19 Howard, 422.)
18. However, being a citizen of the United States or a State doesn’t automatically grant the right to vote; similarly, not having citizenship doesn’t stop a State from granting the right to vote. (Scott vs. Sandford, 19 Howard, 422.)
The right of suffrage is the right to choose officers of the Government, and it does not carry along the right of citizenship. (Bates on Citizenship, 4, 5.) Our laws make no provision for the loss or deprivation of citizenship. (Id.)
The right to vote is the right to select government officials, and it doesn't automatically include the right of citizenship. (Bates on Citizenship, 4, 5.) Our laws do not provide for the loss or deprivation of citizenship. (Id.)
The word "citizen" is not mentioned in this clause, and its idea is excluded in the qualifications for suffrage in all the State constitutions. (Id., 5, 6.)
The term "citizen" isn't included in this clause, and the concept is left out of the qualifications for voting in all the State constitutions. (Id., 5, 6.)
Mr. Sargent.—What clause is he commenting on?
Mr. Sargent.—Which clause is he referring to?
Mr. Merrimon.—He is commenting on section 2 of article 1. He says further:
Mr. Merrimon.—He is discussing section 2 of article 1. He continues:
American citizenship does not necessarily depend upon nor co-exist with the legal capacity to hold office or the right of suffrage, either or both of them.
American citizenship doesn't necessarily require or coincide with the legal ability to hold office or the right to vote, whether one or both.
No person in the United States did ever exercise the right of suffrage in virtue of the naked, unassisted fact of citizenship. (Id.)
No one in the United States has ever exercised the right to vote simply because they are a citizen. (Id.)
There is a distinction between political rights and political powers. The former belong to all citizens alike, and cohere in the very name and nature of citizenship. The latter (voting and holding office) does not belong to all citizens alike, nor to any citizen merely in virtue of citizenship. His power always depends upon extraneous facts and superadded qualifications; which facts and qualifications are common to both citizens and aliens. (Bates on Citizenship.)
There is a difference between political rights and political powers. Political rights belong to all citizens equally and are inherent to the concept of citizenship itself. On the other hand, political powers (like voting and holding office) are not granted to all citizens equally, nor does any citizen have them simply because they are a citizen. A person's power always depends on external factors and additional qualifications, which can apply to both citizens and non-citizens. (Bates on Citizenship.)
I read these hasty citations of authority which happen to be convenient to show that there is a distinction between political power and political rights, and in further support of the distinction between citizenship, or civil rights, and political rights.
I read these quick references to authority that conveniently illustrate the difference between political power and political rights, and further support the distinction between citizenship, or civil rights, and political rights.
Mr. Sargent.—Will my friend allow me a moment?
Mr. Sargent.—Can my friend give me a moment?
Mr. Merrimon.—Yes, sir.
Mr. Merrimon.—Yes, sir.
Mr. Sargent.—The author there is commenting on the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and I think his reasoning on that upon general principles may be correct, at any rate it is in consonance with the[Pg 556] authority that he cites. But it will be observed that by the XIV. article, section 1, it is provided that—
Mr. Sargent.—The author is commenting on the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and I think his reasoning on that based on general principles may be correct; at least, it aligns with the [Pg 556] authority he cites. However, it should be noted that the XIV. article, section 1, states that—
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
All people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its laws, are citizens of the United States and the state where they live.
And then it says:
And then it says:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens,
No state can create or enforce any law that limits the rights or privileges of citizens,
Covering the whole broad ground. Whatever may be the privileges and immunities of citizens are covered and protected by this clause. This is subsequent to the article commented on there and changes the spirit of the old Constitution, is inconsistent with it, repeals it, or modifies it pro tanto; or else there would be no object in the adoption of the XIV. article.
Covering the entire scope. Whatever rights and protections citizens have are included and safeguarded by this clause. This comes after the article discussed previously and alters the essence of the old Constitution. It conflicts with it, nullifies it, or modifies it pro tanto; otherwise, there would be no purpose in adopting the XIV article.
Mr. Merrimon.—I was just coming to the discussion of that Amendment. The XIV. Amendment applies to civil rights. As I have shown, a citizen merely by virtue of citizenship does not enjoy political rights; neither the right to vote nor the right to hold office. The manifest object and purpose of the XIV. Amendment was to secure to all the American people equality of right in the States, equality of right under the United States, civilly, not politically; and that is made more manifest when we consider the second section of the XIV. Amendment. It is in these words:
Mr. Merrimon.—I was just about to discuss that Amendment. The XIV Amendment deals with civil rights. As I have pointed out, being a citizen does not automatically grant you political rights; you don't have the right to vote or the right to hold office. The clear aim of the XIV Amendment was to ensure that all Americans have equal rights in the States, equal rights under the United States, in civil matters, not political ones; and this becomes even clearer when we look at the second section of the XIV Amendment. It states:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Representatives will be distributed among the various States based on their population, counting everyone in each State, except for untaxed Native Americans. However, if any male residents of that State, who are twenty-one years old and citizens of the United States, are denied the right to vote in elections for electors for President and Vice-President, members of Congress, State executive and judicial officers, or the State Legislature, or if their right to vote is restricted in any way—unless it's due to rebellion or other crimes—the basis for representation will be decreased based on the ratio of those male citizens to the total number of male citizens who are twenty-one years old in that State.
Thus it appears the amendments recognized the right of the State itself to regulate the political right to vote. The XV. article of Amendment still further confirms my view. It provides that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote"—and that word "vote" is material there—"the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State." Note what follows: "On account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The right of a citizen of the United States in the first place to vote shall not be abridged on account of three considerations, to-wit: race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Why was it limited to those three causes? Manifestly because the framers of this article saw that Congress had the power to abridge the rights of the colored race—indeed, any race—in the matter of voting and in the matter of holding office as well. Can it be contended that the United States would not have the power to-day to provide that a negro or an Indian or a Chinese or a Mongolian, if naturalized, and a citizen, should not hold office under the United States Government? It is plain they would have such power. But they can not act upon the ground of race, color, or previous condition as to the matter of voting, and the restriction is to that alone. This clause provides expressly that as to voting the right of no human being shall be abridged because of his race, or his color, or his previous condition of servitude,[Pg 557] but such right may be abridged for any other cause or consideration. This amendment did not impose a restriction simply on the power of the United States. In order to protect the colored race in the Southern States, and indeed I may say throughout the whole Union, this provision embraces the States as well as the United States, and provides that the States shall not have power to abridge the right to vote on any one of three accounts—race, color, or previous condition of servitude. But that does not imply that the States shall not have the power to abridge this right for other causes. Each State has the power to-day to abridge the right to vote because a man can not read, because he can not write, or for any similar cause. The States have power to provide that a man shall not be allowed to hold office or to vote because he can not read or because he can not write, or for any cause whatever. That is not only so according to the plain construction to be given to the XV. Amendment, but some of the States exercise such power in this country to-day.
Thus, it seems that the amendments acknowledged the right of the State itself to manage the political right to vote. The XVth article of the Amendment further supports my viewpoint. It states that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote"—and that word "vote" is crucial—"the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or limited by the United States or by any State." Pay attention to what follows: "On account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The right of a U.S. citizen to vote cannot be limited based on three factors: race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Why was it restricted to just those three reasons? Clearly, the framers of this article recognized that Congress had the authority to limit the voting rights of people of color—indeed, any race—in terms of voting and holding office as well. Can we argue that the United States wouldn’t have the authority today to declare that a Black person, an Indian, a Chinese person, or a Mongolian, if naturalized and a citizen, should not hold office under the U.S. Government? It is evident they would hold that power. However, they cannot act based on race, color, or previous condition regarding voting, and the limitation is specific to that. This clause explicitly states that regarding voting, the right of no individual shall be limited due to their race, color, or previous condition of servitude,[Pg 557] but this right may be limited for any other reason or consideration. This amendment did not merely impose a restriction on the power of the United States. To protect people of color in the Southern States, and indeed throughout the entire nation, this provision includes both the States and the United States, stating that the States cannot limit the right to vote based on any of the three reasons—race, color, or previous condition of servitude. However, this does not mean that States cannot limit this right for other reasons. Each State currently has the authority to restrict voting rights because a person cannot read, cannot write, or for any similar reasons. States have the power to decide that a person cannot hold office or vote because they cannot read or write, or for any reason at all. This is not only supported by the clear interpretation of the XVth Amendment, but some States actually exercise such power in this country today.
Mr. Sargent.—Will the Senator allow me to direct his mind to one consideration?
Mr. Sargent.—Will the Senator let me point out one thing?
Mr. Merrimon.—I will.
Mr. Merrimon.—I will.
Mr. Sargent.—The XV. Amendment to the Constitution which the Senator refers to, reads: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged:" It does not create a right, it says "the right"; it speaks of something existing which shall not be denied. The right, then, to vote is the right of a citizen of the United States; the right exists. In other words, the right which exists of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged.
Mr. Sargent.—The XV. Amendment to the Constitution that the Senator is talking about says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged." It doesn’t create a right; it mentions "the right," referring to something that already exists and cannot be taken away. Therefore, the right to vote is inherent to every citizen of the United States; that right is already there. In simpler terms, the voting right of U.S. citizens cannot be denied or restricted.
Mr. Merrimon.—There is no affirmative provision or principle in the Constitution that confers such a right, and my friend arrives at his conclusion by a simple inference; that is all. And I apprehend that a right of so much moment, contravening the whole policy of the Government, heretofore, can not be established by a simple inference; and especially in the strength and in the face of the fact, however it might be as to other matters, that the United States shall not have the power to abridge the right for the cause mentioned. Besides this, if I concede what the honorable Senator says, he must acknowledge that it is within the power of the United States to abridge the right to vote for other causes than those stated. The constitution of Connecticut prescribes these qualifications: Every white male citizen of the United States; one year's residence; freehold of the yearly value of six dollars; good moral character; able to read any article of the Constitution or any section of the statutes of the State. But if that State had undertaken to restrict the right to vote because a man was black or because he belonged to a particular race, or because heretofore he had been subject to a condition of servitude, that would be absolutely null and void; or if they had put in that he should not vote because he was white it would be null and void.
Mr. Merrimon.—There’s nothing in the Constitution that grants such a right, and my friend reaches his conclusion solely based on an assumption. That’s all it is. I believe that a right as significant as this, which goes against the entire policy of the Government up to this point, cannot be established through mere inference; especially considering the fact that the United States does not have the authority to limit that right for the reasons stated. Furthermore, even if I concede what the honorable Senator claims, he must admit that the United States can restrict the right to vote for reasons other than those mentioned. The constitution of Connecticut outlines these qualifications: Every white male citizen of the United States; one year of residency; property worth at least six dollars a year; good moral character; and the ability to read any part of the Constitution or any section of the state’s statutes. However, if that state tried to limit voting rights because a man was black, belonged to a specific race, or had previously been in servitude, those restrictions would be completely invalid; similarly, if they stated that a white person couldn’t vote, that would also be null and void.
Next, by the constitution of Massachusetts, the right to vote is limited to "male citizens (excepting persons or paupers under guardianship); residence in the State one year; in the town or district six months; having paid all required taxes." That constitution has existed since 1780. It was provided further in that constitution that "no person shall have the right to vote or to be eligible to office under this Commonwealth who shall not be able to[Pg 558] read the constitution in the English language and write his name. So that the power which I insist belongs to the United States, and I think I have shown belongs to the States, not only exists, but is actually exercised by States, at least two States of the Union, at this moment; and indeed in nearly or quite all the States there are more or less restrictions of the right to vote; and the State and the Union have absolute power to abridge the political right to vote except for three causes only, and those three causes are race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Next, according to the constitution of Massachusetts, the right to vote is limited to "male citizens (excluding people or paupers under guardianship); must have lived in the State for one year; in the town or district for six months; and must have paid all required taxes." That constitution has been in place since 1780. It further states that "no person shall have the right to vote or be eligible for office under this Commonwealth who is not able to[Pg 558] read the constitution in English and write his name." So, the power that I argue belongs to the United States, and I believe I have demonstrated belongs to the States, not only exists, but is actively exercised by at least two States of the Union right now; and indeed, in nearly all States, there are varying restrictions on the right to vote. The State and the Union have complete authority to limit the political right to vote except for three reasons: race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Mr. Stewart.—I hope that the Senate will not suppose that there is any constitutional question here involved. It is simply a question of regulating the suffrage in a Territory, exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States. There is no doubt of the power of Congress to allow women to vote in the Territories, and I hope there will not be a great deal of time spent on that matter.
Mr. Stewart.—I hope the Senate doesn't think there's any constitutional issue at stake here. It's just about managing voting rights in a Territory, which is entirely under the authority of the U.S. Congress. There's no question that Congress has the power to grant women the right to vote in the Territories, and I hope this topic won't take up too much time.
Mr. Merrimon.—Why do you want to go into a remote, sparsely settled Territory to make the experiment?
Mr. Merrimon.—Why do you want to venture into a remote, sparsely populated area to try it out?
Mr. Stewart.—Why not try it everywhere? Why not try it in North Carolina? Because we can not.
Mr. Stewart.—Why not give it a shot everywhere? Why not try it out in North Carolina? Because we can’t.
Mr. Merrimon.—Why not try it in this city?
Mr. Merrimon.—Why not give it a shot in this city?
Mr. Stewart.—Because we have not the power to do it.
Mr. Stewart.—Because we don't have the ability to do it.
Mr. Merrimon.—You have in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Merrimon.—You have in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Sargent.—We tried the question of negro suffrage in Nebraska first.
Mr. Sargent.—We first addressed the issue of Black voting rights in Nebraska.
Mr. Stewart.—Negro suffrage was opened in a Territory when there were less people in it than there are here, and see how that has spread.
Mr. Stewart.—Black suffrage was introduced in a territory when there were fewer people there than we have here, and look at how that has expanded.
Mr. Merrimon.—My friend did not hear my question. Why not confer suffrage on the women of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Merrimon.—My friend didn’t hear my question. Why not give voting rights to the women of the District of Columbia?
Mr. Sargent.—We will the first time we get a chance.
Mr. Sargent.—We'll take the first opportunity we get.
Mr. Stewart.—The Senator from North Carolina asks, "Why not try it here?" The question has been suggested whether there is not a constitutional reason for not trying it here, and that constitutional question applies to males as well as females. The Constitution says that Congress shall have exclusive power of legislation within the District of Columbia, and it shall exercise like power over places owned by the United States with the consent of the States for arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings, making this District under the exclusive control of Congress. I think that nothing but the emergencies of the case could have justified the experiment we tried here with negro suffrage; but we did it. We now have a fair field in the West where the country is rich and inviting, as my friend from Minnesota says, a country that is able to become a State; the land fertile, the climate salubrious, and is to be occupied by the very best people, and we can try it there under the most favorable auspices.
Mr. Stewart.—The Senator from North Carolina asks, "Why not try it here?" There's been a question raised about whether there's a constitutional reason for not trying it here, and that constitutional question applies to both men and women. The Constitution states that Congress has exclusive power to legislate in the District of Columbia, and it has the same power over places owned by the United States with the consent of the States for arsenals, dock-yards, and other necessary buildings, making this District under the exclusive control of Congress. I believe that only the urgent circumstances of the situation could have justified the experiment we tried here with Black suffrage; but we did it. We now have a promising opportunity in the West where the land is rich and inviting, as my friend from Minnesota says, a place that is ready to become a State; the land is fertile, the climate is pleasant, and it’s set to be occupied by the best people, and we can give it a go there under the most favorable conditions.
Mr. Conkling.—May I ask a question?
Mr. Conkling.—May I ask a question?
Mr. Stewart.—Most certainly.
Mr. Stewart.—Most certainly.
Mr. Conkling.—The Senator has assured us so often that he is in earnest, that I know he will be able to afford those like me who are following him, although they may be somewhat in the dark, the requisite information. Some Senator inquired of my friend why he did not try the experiment here, and he answered that Congress has power to legislate here, and therefore there is no experiment to try here. Now I know my friend does[Pg 559] not mean to paddle out of any thing, because he has courage enough to stand up to it; and I submit to him that that is rather "thin." Under the organic law of this District men vote here annually; the things upon which they vote are prescribed; and if the Senator is in earnest, I should like to know some better reason why he does not try it here. An amendment is in order on this bill to try it here. We have confessedly in this District, exceptionally in this District the entire power upon this question; and if the Senator is in earnest, knowing as he does that under the organic law, of which as a member of the committee of investigation he has learned so much, voting is to be done and is now committed exclusively to men and denied to women, I beg him to state some broader and better answer to the question why he does not try it here. And let me remind him at the same time that under the rules of the Senate an amendment is in order to this bill; he need not go beyond this bill in order to insure the right in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Conkling.—The Senator has told us many times that he is serious, so I know he can provide those of us who are supporting him, even if we're a bit confused, with the necessary information. A Senator asked my friend why he didn’t try the idea here, and he replied that Congress has the authority to legislate here, so there's nothing to experiment with here. Now, I know my friend does[Pg 559] not intend to avoid anything because he’s brave enough to face it; however, I suggest that’s rather weak. According to the laws governing this District, men vote here every year; the issues they vote on are specified; and if the Senator is serious, I would like to hear a better reason why he doesn’t try it here. An amendment to this bill to implement it here is appropriate. We clearly have the full authority regarding this issue in this District; and if the Senator is serious, understanding as he does that under the governing law, which as a member of the investigative committee he has studied extensively, voting is currently done by men only, with women excluded, I urge him to provide a broader and more substantial answer to the question of why he doesn’t try it here. And let me remind him that under the Senate rules, an amendment to this bill is in order; he does not need to look beyond this bill to secure rights in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Stewart.—Inasmuch as the Senator from New York has designated me as the leader whom he is to follow, and I take it for granted he is in earnest in his question, I shall occupy the time of the Senate briefly in answering it. When the question arises for suffrage at all in this District, with my present ideas, I shall vote for female suffrage in this District. I was saying that I do not think there need be any popular voting at all in this District by males or females, for the reason that the great mass of people here are merely sojourners. I think we should govern the District directly by the Congress of the United States, that can pass all needful laws. When the question comes up properly as to the District, it will be time enough to meet it. Here is the question directly up as to a Territory, and there is no doubt about this being a good opportunity.
Mr. Stewart.—Since the Senator from New York has picked me as the leader he intends to follow, and I assume he's serious in his question, I will take a moment to address it briefly. When the issue of voting rights comes up in this District, I will support female suffrage here. I believe there shouldn't be any popular voting by either men or women in this District because most people here are just temporary residents. I think we should be governed directly by the Congress of the United States, which can enact all necessary laws. When the issue regarding the District arises appropriately, we will be ready to address it. The question right now pertains to a Territory, and there's no doubt this is a good opportunity.
Mr. Conkling.—I beg to inquire when ever in time or eternity that question will come up here, unless some champion who has the courage and genius of my friend brings it up? Who shall bring it up if he refuses to do it? And when a bill is pending to which that amendment is appropriate, and his attention is called to it, if he flinches, if he goes back, who shall we hope for to come hereafter who will break a lance in such a cause? I say to him that unless he wants to discourage me and other men of less courage who are trying to follow him, he must not flinch by saying that he can not do anything about it until it comes on a motion to bring it up. He should bring it up himself.
Mr. Conkling.—I want to ask when, if ever, that question will be raised here, unless a brave and talented defender like my friend decides to tackle it? Who will step up if he doesn't? And when there's a bill being discussed that could benefit from that amendment, if he gets hesitant and retreats when it's pointed out to him, who can we expect in the future to fight for this cause? I say to him that unless he wants to discourage me and others with less courage who are trying to follow his lead, he can’t just say he can't do anything about it until someone makes a motion to bring it up. He should take the initiative himself.
Mr. Stewart.—The only fear I have as to the Senator from New York is that he will not have sufficient courage to follow. (Laughter.) The question is up now. The question is squarely up on this amendment whether we will allow the females in this distant Territory to vote. I propose to vote for it. He has said that I was his leader. The only question now is whether he has the courage to follow my lead, I following the lead of the Senator from California. I want to put his courage to the fullest test now. I only ask him to follow me in this one little step. If he breaks down here, I hope he will not say any thing more about it; and I am afraid he will. I will say to him, however, that the time will come when he will look very much astonished if anybody questions the right of a female to vote; and when that time comes, I shall never mention his past record to him because[Pg 560] I do not mention unpleasant things to gentlemen. I say that for his benefit in case he should not do the gallant thing he proposes to do of following me, I following the lead of the Senator from California. The question is squarely up, and is nothing more than this: will you give women a chance to try this experiment where it is admitted it can do no harm, and where a large portion if not a majority of the people of the United States believe it will do a great good? Try this experiment there; and if the struggle which is inaugurated there shall spread over the country as the struggle that was inaugurated in Kansas spread over the country and finally terminated in the colored man having full rights, if it should have full effect on the rest of the country, so be it. I rather think it will.
Mr. Stewart.—My only concern about the Senator from New York is that he might not have the courage to go along with this. (Laughter.) The issue is now on the table. We need to decide whether we'll allow women in this remote Territory to vote. I plan to vote in favor of it. He mentioned that I was his leader. The real question now is whether he has the guts to follow my lead, as I follow the lead of the Senator from California. I want to test his courage fully right now. I only ask him to take this one small step with me. If he backs down here, I hope he won’t say anything else about it; though I’m worried he might. I will tell him, though, that there will come a time when he will be quite surprised if someone questions a woman's right to vote; and when that time comes, I won’t bring up his past record because[Pg 560] I don’t like to mention unpleasant things in front of gentlemen. I say this for his benefit in case he doesn’t do the brave thing he plans to do by following me, as I follow the Senator from California. The issue is clear, and it's simply this: will you give women a chance to try this experiment in a place where it’s recognized it can’t do any harm, and where a significant number, if not a majority, of the people in the United States believe it will do a lot of good? Let’s try this experiment there; and if the battle that begins there spreads across the country like the one that started in Kansas and eventually led to equal rights for Black men, then so be it. I believe it will.
Mr. Merrimon.—In the discussion in which I engaged, I was more anxious about the principle involved than I was about the particular amendment, and therefore I hardly mentioned it in the hasty argument which I submitted. In order to support my position now, I desire to read a report from the Judiciary Committee which embraces the very subject under discussion, the question of the power of the State governments and the Federal Government to abridge the right to vote and hold office. The subject came before that committee in the way of a petition of certain citizens of the State of Rhode Island who insisted that their rights as citizens of the United States were abridged—
Mr. Merrimon.—In the discussion I participated in, I was more concerned about the principle at stake than the specific amendment, so I barely touched on it in my quick argument. To support my position now, I want to read a report from the Judiciary Committee that covers the exact topic we're discussing: the authority of State governments and the Federal Government to limit the right to vote and hold office. This issue came before that committee in the form of a petition from certain citizens of Rhode Island who claimed that their rights as citizens of the United States were being limited—
Mr. Stewart.—Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. Stewart.—Can I ask the Senator a question?
Mr. Merrimon.—Certainly.
Mr. Merrimon.—Certainly.
Mr. Stewart.—Suppose the American people come to the conclusion that it is right that females should vote, does not the Senator think there will be plenty of ways to accomplish it notwithstanding that report of the Judiciary Committee?
Mr. Stewart.—If the American people decide that women should have the right to vote, doesn’t the Senator believe there will be plenty of ways to make that happen, despite what the Judiciary Committee report says?
Mr. Merrimon.—O yes, I think so; but I do not care to debate that. My object was to throw light on this question. I do not want a wrong construction put upon the powers of the Government at this day. It is important that we should be upon the right line and keep upon it; and with a view to strengthen my argument I ask the Clerk to read the report which I send to the desk. It is very brief; and I beg leave to say now that it is well known to the Senate and must be known to the country that this committee embraces the ablest lawyers in this country on constitutional law.
Mr. Merrimon.—Oh yes, I think so; but I don't want to get into a debate about it. My goal was to clarify this issue. I don't want the government's powers to be misinterpreted at this time. It's crucial that we stay on the right path and stick to it; and to support my argument, I ask the Clerk to read the report I’m sending to the desk. It's very brief; and I want to emphasize that it's well known to the Senate and should be known to the country that this committee includes some of the best constitutional lawyers in the country.
The Chief Clerk read the following report submitted by Mr. Edmunds on the 26th of May, 1870:
The Chief Clerk read the following report submitted by Mr. Edmunds on May 26, 1870:
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition of citizens of Rhode Island setting forth, by reference, the XIV. and XV. Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and stating that, "the State of Rhode Island, notwithstanding the provisions of the above-named amendments, persists, in and by the first section of article 2 of the constitution of said State, in denying and abridging the right of about 10,000 citizens of the United States to vote at any and all elections holden in said State," and praying that Congress will "pass such appropriate legislation as may be found necessary to obtain for, and secure to, the citizens of the United States resident in Rhode Island all the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States," respectfully report:
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition of citizens from Rhode Island, referencing the XIV and XV Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, states that "the State of Rhode Island, despite the provisions of the above-named amendments, continues to deny and restrict the right of about 10,000 citizens of the United States to vote in any and all elections held in said State," and requests that Congress will "pass any necessary legislation to secure for the citizens of the United States living in Rhode Island all the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States," respectfully reports:
That the constitution of Rhode Island, adopted in 1842, prescribes two alternative classes of qualifications for voting. The first gives to all male citizens of the United States of a certain age, etc., the right to vote, if they own real estate of the value of $134, or which shall rent for $7 per annum. The second gives to every male native citizen of[Pg 561] the United States of a certain age, etc., the right to vote, if he pays a tax of $1 a year, etc., although he may not own real estate. No man or party has ever questioned the right of the people of Rhode Island and of every other State to establish such a constitution of government as maybe agreeable to their views of the public welfare in that State, although its provision as to suffrage may not conform to the opinions of other States. At the time when this constitution of Rhode Island was adopted the right to regulate the qualifications of voters belonged exclusively to the respective States. The petition under consideration fully recognizes this, but it raises the question (although studiously framed in such a manner as not to declare or insist upon such a conclusion) whether, by the XIV. and XV. Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, natives of foreign countries who have become citizens of the United States are not entitled to vote in Rhode Island, without regard to the qualifications imposed by her Constitution?
That the constitution of Rhode Island, adopted in 1842, establishes two different classes of qualifications for voting. The first allows all male citizens of the United States of a certain age, etc., to vote if they own real estate valued at $134 or that rents for $7 a year. The second allows every male native citizen of[Pg 561] the United States of a certain age, etc., to vote if he pays a $1 annual tax, etc., even if he doesn’t own real estate. No individual or party has ever challenged the right of the people of Rhode Island and any other state to create a constitution that aligns with their ideas about public welfare, even if its voting provisions differ from those of other states. When this Rhode Island constitution was adopted, the authority to set voter qualifications was solely with the individual states. The petition being discussed acknowledges this but raises the question (though carefully worded not to directly assert this conclusion) of whether, under the XIV and XV Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, immigrants who have become U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in Rhode Island, regardless of the qualifications set by its Constitution.
The committee is unanimously of the opinion that this question must be answered in the negative.
The committee is fully in agreement that this question should be answered as no.
The "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" mentioned in the petition as secured by the XIV. Amendment do not include the right of suffrage. If they did, the right must necessarily exist in all citizens of the United States from the mere fact of citizenship, without the power in any State or in Congress to abridge the same in any degree; and in such case, therefore, no qualification of any kind could be imposed, and all persons (being citizens), males and females, infants, lunatics, and criminals, without respect to age, length of residence, or any other thing, would be entitled to participate directly in all elections. Every provision in every State which experience has proved to be essential to security and good order in society would thereby be overthrown. It is enough to say that the rights secured by this amendment to the constitution are of an altogether different character.
The "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" referenced in the petition, which are guaranteed by the XIV Amendment, do not include the right to vote. If they did, that right would naturally apply to all citizens of the United States simply by virtue of being citizens, without any state or Congress having the authority to limit it in any way. In that case, no qualifications of any type could be enforced, and all individuals (who are citizens), regardless of gender, age, mental ability, or criminal record, would have the right to vote in all elections. Any requirement in any state that has been proven to be essential for security and order in society would be dismantled. It is sufficient to state that the rights guaranteed by this amendment to the constitution are fundamentally different.
The XV. Amendment does apply to rights of suffrage, and to those only. By it the State of Rhode Island, in common with every other State, is forbidden to deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States "to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." But, plainly, the constitution of Rhode Island does not preclude any citizen from voting on either or any of the grounds thus prohibited. No fact of race, or color, or previous servitude prevents any citizen from voting in Rhode Island. Neither of these qualities depends in any degree upon the place of his nativity. This seems too obvious to need discussion. It is also a fact, appearing in the public records of Congress and doubtless known to the petitioners, that when the XV. Amendment was under consideration by Congress it was proposed to embrace in it a prohibition of any denial of suffrage, on account of "nativity," and that this proposition was not agreed to, for the reason that Congress did not think it expedient to restrict the ancient powers of the States in these respects any further than appeared to be absolutely needful to secure to the whole people the great results of the overthrow of the rebellion.
The 15th Amendment applies only to voting rights. By this amendment, the state of Rhode Island, like every other state, is prohibited from denying or limiting the right of U.S. citizens "to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Clearly, the constitution of Rhode Island does not stop any citizen from voting for any of the reasons mentioned. No aspect of race, color, or previous servitude bars any citizen from voting in Rhode Island. These characteristics are not influenced by where a person was born. This point seems so obvious that it doesn't need further discussion. It is also a fact, as shown in the public records of Congress and likely known to the petitioners, that when Congress was considering the 15th Amendment, there was a proposal to include a clause that would prohibit denying the right to vote based on "nativity." This proposal was not accepted because Congress felt it was not necessary to further limit the states' traditional powers in these areas beyond what was essential to ensure that all people could benefit from the end of the rebellion.
The committee is therefore of opinion that there is nothing in the provisions of the constitution of Rhode Island referred to in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
The committee believes that there is nothing in the Rhode Island constitution mentioned that conflicts with the Constitution of the United States.
Whether these provisions are wise or right in themselves is a matter over which neither the committee nor Congress has any control. That subject belongs to the people of Rhode Island, who it must be presumed will correct any and all errors that may from time to time be found to exist in her internal affairs.
Whether these rules are sensible or fair is something that neither the committee nor Congress can dictate. That decision rests with the people of Rhode Island, who we can assume will fix any mistakes that might occasionally arise in their internal matters.
Mr. Merrimon.—I think the Senator from Nevada will be unable to answer that position.
Mr. Merrimon.—I don't think the Senator from Nevada can respond to that point.
Mr. Carpenter (Mr. Ingalls in the chair.)—Mr. President——-
Mr. Carpenter (Mr. Ingalls in the chair.)—Mr. President——-
Mr. Edmunds.—Before the Senator from Wisconsin proceeds with his remarks, I should like to ask the chairman of the committee whether he means to include Indians and Canadians? The language is "every inhabitant of the United States."
Mr. Edmunds.—Before the Senator from Wisconsin continues with his comments, I’d like to ask the committee chairman if he plans to include Indians and Canadians? The wording is "every inhabitant of the United States."
Mr. Sargent.—No, it is qualified further, as the Senator will see if the whole section is read.
Mr. Sargent.—No, it is explained further, as the Senator will understand if the entire section is read.
Mr. Edmunds.—Not as to the first election.[Pg 562]
Mr. Edmunds.—Not regarding the first election.[Pg 562]
Mr. Sargent.—I think myself the section is very inartificially drawn.
Mr. Sargent.—I believe the section is poorly constructed.
Mr. Edmunds.—I do not know but that it is very artificially drawn, if it is intended to include the Indian and the Canadian.
Mr. Edmunds.—I’m not sure, but it seems very contrived if it’s meant to include the Indian and the Canadian.
Mr. Sargent.—To answer the Senator from Vermont I ask that the final proviso of the section be read, which qualifies the part he referred to.
Mr. Sargent.—In response to the Senator from Vermont, I request that the final proviso of the section be read, as it clarifies the part he mentioned.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
Provided, further, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who shall have declared on oath, before a competent court of record, their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution and Government of the United States.
Provided, further, that the right to vote and hold office shall be granted only to citizens of the United States, and to those who have declared their intention to become citizens under oath before a qualified court, and have sworn to support the Constitution and Government of the United States.
Mr. Edmunds.—That does not relate to the first election.
Mr. Edmunds.—That doesn’t connect to the first election.
Mr. Sargent.—That objection applies to the details of the bill; it does not apply to my amendment.
Mr. Sargent.—That objection pertains to the specifics of the bill; it doesn't apply to my amendment.
Mr. Edmunds.—That is true.
Mr. Edmunds.—That is true.
The Presiding Officer.—The Senator from Wisconsin is entitled to the floor.
The Presiding Officer.—The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor.
Mr. Carpenter.—Mr. President, as the yeas and nays have been ordered on this question and I shall vote for this amendment, without going into any argument of the general question, I desire to say one word as to the reason why I shall so vote.
Mr. Carpenter.—Mr. President, since the votes have been ordered on this issue and I plan to support this amendment, without entering into a broader debate, I’d like to briefly explain why I'm voting this way.
I believe it is not one of woman's rights, but it is one of man's that the franchise should be extended to women. I believe there is no situation in which man can be placed where the aid of woman is not beneficial; that in all the relations of life, in all the occupations and all the duties of life it was the intention of God in creating the race that woman should be the helpmate of man, everywhere and in all circumstances and occupations. Look through your country, look in your railroad cars, look in your post-offices, look in your dry-goods stores, and there you see everything decent and orderly and quiet. Why? Because women go there. The only place in this country from which they are excluded by law is the voting place, and in many of our large cities those places are the most disgraceful that can be found under our institutions. Now, I believe if the elections were open to ladies as well as gentlemen, to women as well as men, there would be as much order, quiet, and decency at the voting places as there is in a railroad car, and for precisely the same reason. If our wives and mothers and daughters were going to these election places there would be order and decency there, or there would be a row once for all that would make them decent. I have more confidence in the influence of women at the elections in New York City to reform the condition of things that exists there and bring about decency and order at the elections and the prevention of violence and fraud, than I have in all the Army and Navy that the President can send there under the election bill which was put through here by my honorable friend from New York (Mr. Conkling).
I believe it's not just a woman's right, but a man's responsibility to ensure that women have the right to vote. I think there's no situation where a man's life wouldn't benefit from a woman's support; that in all aspects of life, in all jobs and responsibilities, it was God's intention for women to be partners with men, everywhere and in every role. Look around your country, observe your train cars, your post offices, your retail stores, and you’ll see everything is decent, orderly, and calm. Why? Because women are there. The only place in this country where they are legally excluded is the polling station, and in many of our big cities, those places are among the most disgraceful under our system. I believe that if women were allowed to vote alongside men, there would be just as much order, calm, and decency at the polls as there is in a train car, and for the same reason. If our wives, mothers, and daughters were going to those polling places, there would be order and decency, or there would be such a disturbance that they would have to maintain it. I have more faith in the ability of women voters in New York City to improve the current situation and bring about decency and order at the polls, and to prevent violence and fraud, than in all the military forces the President could send there under the election bill pushed through by my esteemed colleague from New York (Mr. Conkling).
Without enlarging on the subject, I shall vote for this amendment, not because this Territory is located, as some Senator has said, near Minnesota. I would vote for female suffrage in the District of Columbia to-morrow; I would vote for it in the State of Wisconsin; I would vote for it anywhere and everywhere if I had an opportunity to do so.
Without going into detail, I will vote for this amendment, not because, as some Senator mentioned, this Territory is close to Minnesota. I would vote for women's suffrage in the District of Columbia tomorrow; I would vote for it in the State of Wisconsin; I would support it anywhere and everywhere if I had the chance to do so.
Mr. Morrill, of Maine.—Mr. President, I shall vote against this amendment,[Pg 563] and for the reason that I do not consider the right of suffrage a woman's right or a man's right. I do not understand it to be a natural right at all. It is a political right; and I do not understand, as applied to women, that it is a privilege at all. It is akin to a service; and it is a very rough service. It is in its nature akin to militia service. The man who exercises the ballot must be prepared to defend it with the bayonet; and therefore the propriety of its being confined in all ages to men. That it is not a natural right is apparent to anybody who reflects upon it; and it never was so considered in any country in the world.
Mr. Morrill, of Maine.—Mr. President, I’m going to vote against this amendment,[Pg 563] because I don’t see the right to vote as a right for women or men. I don’t believe it’s a natural right at all. It’s a political right, and I don’t think it’s really a privilege for women. It’s more like a duty, and it can be a pretty tough one. In fact, it’s similar to military service. A man who uses the ballot has to be ready to defend it with force; that's why it’s always been limited to men throughout history. Anyone who thinks about it can see that it's not a natural right, and that’s never been the way it was viewed in any country.
We talk about it here now as a natural right, and my honorable friend who sits next me (Mr. Morton) has invoked the principles of the Declaration of Independence and said that it stands with those rights which are called inherent, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not so in any sense whatever, and never was so regarded. If it were, do you not perceive that it applies as well to infants as to adults? If it is natural to all citizens, then it applies, as I have said, to infants as well as to adults. I regard it as strictly a political right. It does not inhere in man naturally, or in woman; and I do not propose, myself, to impose it on women. It is a severe, rugged service, which in my judgment ought not to be imposed on women.
We discuss it here now as a natural right, and my esteemed colleague next to me (Mr. Morton) has referenced the principles of the Declaration of Independence, claiming it aligns with those rights considered inherent, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, this is not true in any sense and was never viewed that way. If it were, wouldn't you agree that it would apply equally to infants and adults? If it is natural for all citizens, then, as I've said, it would apply to infants just as much as to adults. I see it strictly as a political right. It does not naturally belong to men or to women; and I do not intend to impose it on women myself. It is a demanding, tough responsibility that, in my opinion, should not be placed on women.
My honorable friend from Wisconsin says there is no position in life in which the society of woman would not be an improvement. How is it on the deck of a battle-ship? How is it in military affairs? Should she be placed in the militia to enforce the results of a ballot? Is there any one of us who believes that? Is there anybody here who would be glad to see a woman in the train-band, on the muster-field, at the cannon's mouth, or on the decks of your war-ships? That is what your argument means, if it means anything logically.
My honorable friend from Wisconsin says that there's no situation in life where having women around wouldn't make things better. But what about on a battleship? What about in military situations? Should women be part of the militia to make sure election results are upheld? Does anyone really believe that? Is there anyone here who would actually want to see a woman in the military, on the battlefield, at the cannon, or on the decks of your warships? That’s what your argument implies if it makes sense at all.
But sir, I am not going to argue the proposition at all. I am going to vote against it because the right of suffrage is that rugged and severe service which man has no right to devolve upon woman. It is enough to say that when the American women want the ballot, when they come to hanker for it, and fall in love with the exercise of the ballot at the polls, I am in favor of their voting, but not until then; and I am not in favor of that sentimental sort of stuff which is gotten up somewhere or other by portions of the people who would force it upon the American women as a general proposition. Whenever they come to desire it, whenever the American women come to ask it, and particularly when they come to demand it, or even to solicit it, there will be no question as to what the American Congress will do; but until that time comes I shall vote steadily against it.
But sir, I’m not going to debate the proposal at all. I’m going to vote against it because the right to vote is a tough and serious responsibility that no man has the right to push onto a woman. It’s enough to say that when American women want the vote, when they start to crave it and get excited about voting at the polls, I will support their right to vote, but not until then; and I do not support that sentimental nonsense that some people are trying to impose on American women as a general rule. When they truly want it, when American women ask for it, and especially when they demand it or even request it, there will be no doubt about what Congress will do; but until that time comes, I will consistently vote against it.
Nobody will be surprised at these sentiments from me who has had occasion to know the sentiments that I have expressed on this same subject on former occasions. I will send to the desk and ask to have read a paragraph or two from a speech made by me some years ago on the subject of suffrage.
Nobody will be surprised by what I’m saying because I've shared my feelings on this topic before. I’ll go to the desk and request that a paragraph or two from a speech I gave a few years ago about suffrage be read.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
Universal suffrage is affirmed by its advocates as among the absolute or natural rights of man, in the sense of mankind, extending to females as well as males, and susceptible of no limitation unless as opposed to child or infant. It is supposed to originate in rights independent of citizenship; like the absolute rights of liberty, personal security, and[Pg 564] possession of property, it is natural to man. It exists, of course, independent of sex or condition, manhood or womanhood. To admit it in the adult and deny it to the youth would be to abridge the right and ignore the principle. Now, sir, in practice its extension to women would contravene all our notions of the family; "put asunder" husband and wife, and subvert the fundamental principles of family government, in which the husband is, by all usage and law, human and divine, the representative head. Besides, it ignores woman, womanhood, and all that is womanly; all those distinctions of sex whose objects are apparent in creation, essential in character, and vital to society, these all disappear in the manly and impressive demonstration of balloting at a popular election. Here maids, women, wives, men, and husbands promiscuously assemble to vindicate the rights of human nature.
Universal suffrage is claimed by its supporters to be one of the fundamental or natural rights of humanity, applicable to both women and men, and can only be limited in relation to children or infants. It is believed to stem from rights that exist independently of citizenship; similar to the absolute rights to freedom, personal security, and[Pg 564] ownership of property, it is a natural right for all humans. It obviously exists regardless of sex or status, and it shouldn't be granted to adults while being denied to the youth, as that would restrict the right and contradict the principle. Now, sir, in practice, extending this right to women would go against all our ideas about family; it would "put asunder" husband and wife and undermine the basic principles of family authority, where the husband is, by tradition and law, both human and divine, the representative leader. Moreover, it dismisses woman, femininity, and everything that defines being a woman; all those gender distinctions, which are evident in nature, essential in character, and crucial for society, would vanish in the strong and compelling showing of voting at a public election. Here, girls, women, wives, men, and husbands gather together to assert the rights of human nature.
Moreover, it associates the wife and mother with policies of State, with public affairs, with making, interpreting, and executing the laws, with police and war, and necessarily disseverates her from purely domestic affairs, peculiar care for and duties of the family; and, worst of all, assigns her duties revolting to her nature and constitution, and wholly incompatible with those which spring from womanhood.
Moreover, it connects the wife and mother with government policies, public issues, the creation, interpretation, and enforcement of laws, as well as law enforcement and military matters. This inevitably separates her from purely domestic duties and responsibilities that relate to the family. Worst of all, it assigns her roles that go against her nature and constitution, and are completely incompatible with those that arise from being a woman.
Besides, the ballot is the inseparable concomitant of the bayonet. Those who practice the one must be prepared to exercise the other. To introduce woman at the polls is to enroll her in the militia; to transfer her from the class of non-combatants to the class of combatants.—Congressional Globe, part 1, second session Thirty-ninth Congress, 1866-'67, page 40.
Besides, the ballot goes hand in hand with the bayonet. Those who use one must be ready to use the other. Allowing women to vote means including them in the militia; it moves them from being non-combatants to being combatants.—Congressional Globe, part 1, second session Thirty-ninth Congress, 1866-'67, page 40.
Mr. Sargent.—I have no doubt of the consistency of my friend from Maine on this proposition and on every other. I have no doubt that the remarks which he made formerly on this subject he repeats to-day with the same idea of their entire correctness; but I differ with him upon both the propositions which he advances. He says that women do not desire the right of suffrage and there is no evidence before Congress that they do desire it. Why, sir, the tables of your committee-rooms have been loaded with petitions from every State in this Union on this subject, and they come forward day after day.
Mr. Sargent.—I have no doubt about my friend from Maine's consistency on this issue and every other. I’m sure that the comments he made before on this topic are the same ones he stands by today, believing they are completely accurate; however, I disagree with both points he presents. He claims that women don’t want the right to vote and that there’s no evidence before Congress showing they do. Well, sir, the tables in your committee rooms have been overflowing with petitions from every state in the Union regarding this issue, and they keep coming in day after day.
Mr. Edmunds.—And remonstrances also.
Mr. Edmunds.—And remonstrances also.
Mr. Sargent.—Very few indeed.
Mr. Sargent.—Very few indeed.
Mr. Stewart.—I suggest to my friend from California if the only question is whether women desire the right of suffrage or not, that can only be determined by submitting it to them. When we wish to ascertain whether the male citizens of the country desire a proposition, we submit the question to them and let them vote upon it.
Mr. Stewart.—I propose to my friend from California that if the only question is whether women want the right to vote, that can only be settled by asking them. When we want to find out if the male citizens of the country support a proposal, we ask them and let them cast their votes on it.
Mr. Sargent.—That suggestion is very just. But the fact that there are remonstrances against the extension of the suffrage to women shows that there is agitation, and agitation shows interest in the matter. If this opinion were not in danger of prevailing, if it were not sweeping over the country, we would get no remonstrances; it would be looked upon as mere idle wind blowing nowhere and amounting to nothing. I say these petitions are coming here in every form. There are large and popular conventions, attended by ladies and attended by a great many men, making strong efforts to this end. There is as much agitation on this point as there was for the abolition of slavery before the war broke out.
Mr. Sargent.—That suggestion is very valid. But the fact that there are objections to extending the vote to women indicates that there is a movement happening, and a movement shows there’s interest in the issue. If this opinion weren't at risk of gaining traction, if it weren't spreading across the country, we wouldn't be receiving any objections; it would be seen as just empty chatter with no significance. I say these petitions are arriving here in every possible form. There are large and popular gatherings, attended by women and many men, making strong efforts towards this goal. There's as much agitation about this issue as there was for the abolition of slavery before the war started.
Now I come to the other proposition of my friend from Maine. He says the ballot and the bayonet go together, and that he who handles the one must be prepared to handle the other. What do you do with men who are past the years of military service and exempted by your laws? Do you deprive them of the ballot? That of itself is a sufficient answer to that argument.[Pg 565] They are not inseparable. Fortunately for our country the necessity for the use of the bayonet occurs very seldom; but when it does occur there are large classes of male voters who are not called to the field, but are exempted by the policy of our law. No one believes that if women had this privilege, or this immunity, or this right—whatever you may call it—put into their hands we would therefore require of them to do things that would degrade or unsex them, or that would be improper for them to perform. I believe that men would have the same respect for women with the ballot in their hands as without it.
Now I want to address the other argument from my friend in Maine. He claims that voting and military force go hand in hand, and that anyone who uses one must be ready to use the other. What do you do with men who are too old for military service and not required to serve by law? Should we take away their right to vote? That alone is a solid response to that point. They are not inseparable. Thankfully, our country rarely needs to use military force; but when it does, there are many male voters who are not called to serve due to our laws. No one believes that if women had this right—whatever you want to call it—we would demand that they do things that would demean or diminish them, or that would be inappropriate for them. I believe that men would respect women with the vote just as much as without it.[Pg 565]
It is not for the few women who remonstrate from luxurious parlors, sitting upon sofas, in the glare of the gaslight, changing and choosing their phrases, but for the great class of laboring women in the country that I appeal for this redress. I appeal for the women who have been struggling on in these Government offices, doing the same work that men do, aye, and in many cases doing it better, for about one-half of the pay. Do you suppose if they had ballots they would not make their voices heard here and get for the same work the same pay? Who ever knew a labor strike of women to succeed? When women in New York City and other places are bowed down to the earth by their labor—making shirts at a shilling a day—and they strike for more pay, for more bread, for an opportunity to live, who ever heard of one of their strikes succeeding? Men strike from their workshops and they succeed, and why? Because they have the ballot; because they have political force, because they have the power of citizenship behind them in its fullest sense. Give these poor struggling women the same chance and they can make their way to a fair remuneration of wages in the public offices, and they can make their way in the workshops, and these toiling mothers, widows, and sisters supporting orphan brothers and sisters will have some opportunity to vindicate their rights and to procure not merely political rights, but a chance to live, and a chance to avoid infamy.
It’s not just a few women complaining from their fancy living rooms, sitting on sofas in the bright gaslight, carefully picking their words; I'm speaking up for the many working women in this country who need justice. I’m calling out for the women who have been toiling in government jobs, doing the same work as men—often even doing it better—for about half the pay. Do you really think that if they had the right to vote, they wouldn't make their voices heard and demand equal pay for equal work? When have you ever seen a women’s labor strike succeed? In New York City and elsewhere, when women are ground down by their work—like making shirts for a shilling a day—and they strike for better pay, for food, for a chance to survive, when have you ever heard of one of their strikes being successful? Men strike from their jobs and they win, and why is that? Because they have the vote; because they have political power; because they have full citizenship backing them. If we give these struggling women the same opportunity, they can fight for fair wages in government jobs and succeed in factories. These hardworking mothers, widows, and sisters, who support their orphaned siblings, will finally have the chance to assert their rights, not just political rights, but a chance to live with dignity and avoid disgrace.
Senators talk about this question as if the ballot was not demanded for women. Will you tell me why it was that the great party which controls both branches of Congress and holds the Executive, when it met in Philadelphia at that grand convention, put a plank in its platform stating that these demands for further rights should be respectfully considered? Do you think there was no agitation, no desire on the part of women for the ballot when that great convention could be moved to a declaration like this:
Senators discuss this issue as if women didn't demand the right to vote. Can you explain why the major party that controls both houses of Congress and the Executive, when it gathered in Philadelphia for that significant convention, included a statement in its platform saying that these demands for more rights should be taken seriously? Do you really believe there was no movement or interest among women for the vote when that important convention felt compelled to make such a declaration?
The Republican party is mindful of its obligations to the loyal women or America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom. Their admission to higher fields of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction, and the honest demand of any class of citizens for additional rights shall be treated with respectful consideration.
The Republican Party recognizes its responsibilities to the loyal women of America for their devoted support of the freedom movement. Their entry into more significant roles is welcomed, and the sincere requests of any group of citizens for more rights will be met with respectful attention.
Was that mere euphuism, mere phrasing? Did that mean nothing? Did it respond to no demand? Ay, sir, did it not only respond to a demand which was there pressed, but did it not imply a duty, a pledge which this party ought to redeem?
Was that just fancy language, just words? Did it mean nothing? Did it answer to no need? Yes, sir, it not only addressed a need that was clearly there, but it also implied a duty, a promise that this party should fulfill?
But the Senator from Maine, as well as the Senator from North Carolina, asserts that the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution has no relation whatever to political rights, that it relates to something with reference to social equality, something in the far distance, but does not touch this question at all. When I called the attention of the Senator from North Carolina to the[Pg 566] XV. Amendment which says "the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged," assuming the right to exist, not saying that the right hereafter shall exist and shall not be abridged; but the right now existing by fair intendment shall not be abridged, he replied "that I deduced this right by an inference," and he thought a right of this kind ought not to stand on mere inference. His argument for the opposite construction, that the right to vote may be abridged for any other cause than those enumerated in the amendment, is drawn only by an inference from it. The affirmative language is that the right shall not be abridged for certain causes; and then by an inference the Senator says it may be abridged for others. In other words, his argument is that I am not at liberty to infer from the Constitution of the United States rights for women or rights for mankind. I shall not extend it by inference in favor of freedom, but any inference which will limit its operation, which will destroy or curtail its meaning, is legitimate.
But the Senator from Maine, along with the Senator from North Carolina, claims that the XIV Amendment of the Constitution has nothing to do with political rights; rather, it pertains to social equality, something distant, but doesn't address this issue at all. When I pointed out to the Senator from North Carolina the [Pg 566] XV Amendment, which states "the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged," suggesting that the right exists now, not just that it will exist in the future and shouldn’t be limited, he replied that I was inferring this right and believed that a right like this shouldn’t rely on mere inference. His argument against this interpretation is that the right to vote can be limited for reasons other than those listed in the amendment, which is based only on an inference from it. The clear wording states that the right shall not be limited for specific reasons; yet, the Senator claims it may be limited for other reasons through inference. In other words, his argument suggests that I cannot assume from the Constitution of the United States rights for women or for all people. I won’t extend it by inference to support freedom, but any inference that restricts its application or diminishes its meaning is acceptable.
Mr. Merrimon: What clause of the Constitution does the Senator assert creates the right?
Mr. Merrimon: Which clause of the Constitution does the Senator claim gives rise to the right?
Mr. Sargent: The first section of the XV. Amendment declares that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged—speaking of it as an affirmative right; not speaking of it as here established but as a right which of course must have been established by the XIV. Amendment.
Mr. Sargent: The first part of the XV. Amendment states that citizens of the United States cannot have their right to vote denied or limited—framing it as a clear right; not suggesting that it was just established here, but as a right that must have already been established by the XIV. Amendment.
Now, sir, to show that I do not strain the interpretation of the Constitution, I desire to refer to some few authorities even under the old Constitution which go very far to answer the authority that the Senator cited. Bushrod Washington, a member of the United States Supreme Court, and well known as a jurist of high attainments and great powers of mind, in the case of Corfield vs. Coryell declared what I shall read, which is approvingly cited by Kent, the master writer upon American law, in the second volume of his Commentaries:
Now, sir, to show that I'm not stretching the interpretation of the Constitution, I want to reference a few authorities even under the old Constitution that support the argument the Senator made. Bushrod Washington, a member of the United States Supreme Court and recognized as a highly skilled jurist with a brilliant mind, stated in the case of Corfield vs. Coryell what I’m about to read, which is also quoted with approval by Kent, the leading writer on American law, in the second volume of his Commentaries:
It was declared in Corfield vs. Coryell that the privileges and immunities conceded by the Constitution of the United States to citizens in the several States were to be confined to those which were in their nature fundamental, and belonged of right to the citizens of all free governments. Such are the rights of protection of life and liberty, and to acquire and enjoy property, and to pay no higher impositions than other citizens, and to pass through or reside in the State at pleasure, and to enjoy the elective franchise according to the regulations of the laws of the State.
It was stated in Corfield vs. Coryell that the rights and protections granted by the Constitution of the United States to citizens in the various States were meant to be limited to those that are fundamentally essential and rightfully belong to citizens of all free governments. These include the rights to protection of life and liberty, to acquire and enjoy property, to not face higher taxes than other citizens, to travel through or live in the State freely, and to participate in elections according to the State's laws.
Those, according to the decision in Corfield vs. Coryell, cited approvingly by Chancellor Kent, are the rights and immunities of citizens of the United States. Then comes in the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," and further, that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Those rights and privileges, as established in Corfield vs. Coryell and endorsed by Chancellor Kent, belong to citizens of the United States. Then there's the XIV Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States," and it also states that "no State shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Now, sir, I quote from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, under the title "citizen." He gives what the word means, first in English law, and then he comes down to American law:
Now, sir, I quote from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, under the title "citizen." He explains what the word means, first in English law, and then he moves on to American law:
One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for Representatives in Congress and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people.
One who has the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and other public officials under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and who is qualified to hold offices elected by the people.
In the face of authorities like these, who shall deny that the right to vote is one of those privileges and immunities of citizenship, or that citizenship itself carries with it that highest right? Go into literature and you find the same definition; as, for instance, in the work which I hold in my hand entitled "Words and their Uses," by R. Grant White. He says:
In light of authorities like these, who could argue that the right to vote is one of the fundamental privileges and protections of citizenship, or that citizenship itself comes with that most essential right? Look into literature, and you’ll find the same definition; for example, in the book I have here called "Words and their Uses," by R. Grant White. He states:
A citizen is a person who has certain political rights, and the word is properly used only to imply or suggest the possession of these rights.
A citizen is someone who has specific political rights, and the term is rightly used only to indicate or imply the possession of these rights.
Is it a mere question of privilege or immunity? It is a right which exists and so it is considered in all the law; so it is treated in the well-considered decisions on the subject, and by the text writers.
Is it just a matter of privilege or immunity? It's a right that exists, and that's how it's recognized in all the law; that's how it's addressed in the carefully thought-out decisions on the topic and by the legal authors.
By the pledge which was given by the dominant party of the country in their last National Convention, by the allegiance which Democrats themselves owe to the Constitution of the United States, by the higher benefit which will be conferred upon society, upon the women themselves who are struggling for a chance in life, and upon men themselves by the purification of society, I ask that this amendment be adopted.
By the promise made by the ruling party at their last National Convention, by the loyalty that Democrats owe to the Constitution of the United States, by the greater good that will be brought to society, to the women who are fighting for their opportunities in life, and to men through the betterment of society, I urge that this amendment be adopted.
Mr. Bayard: I should like to ask the honorable Senator a question before he takes his seat. I understand that he denies the power of the Congress of the United States or of a State to exclude a female from voting, to make an exclusion based upon sex, because it would be an infringement of her rights as a citizen, under the meaning of that word in the Constitution, according to the construction given it by the courts. I should like to ask him whether he considers that an exclusion by reason of age is not just as arbitrary and unauthorized as the exclusion by reason of sex, and by what right can it be that a State or the United States shall arbitrarily fix a period in a person's life at which he shall attain his civil rights? In most of the States, and by the common law of England, the age of twenty-one years was fixed as what they term the majority, when a person becomes sui juris. Under the laws of the various States of this Union, following the laws of other civilized communities of older date, a period has been fixed in the life of man at which he attains his civil rights. Ordinarily it is at the age of twenty-one years; under the civil law it is twenty-five; it is so in France; it is so in Spain; it is so in the French and Spanish Colonies. Among the English-speaking people the age of twenty-one years is the period fixed. If the rights which have been spoken of by the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from California are inalienable, natural rights, are part and parcel of those "privileges and immunities" referred to by the Constitution of the United States, how can it be that a law, a mere arbitrary enactment by a State or by Congress, shall exclude a man who is twenty years and six months old from exercising those inalienable rights, those privileges and immunities which six months after, by the mere difference of time, they permit him to enjoy? I have stated the question at length for the purpose of letting the Senator from California answer it more fully.
Mr. Bayard: I'd like to ask the honorable Senator a question before he sits down. I understand that he denies the authority of Congress or any State to prevent a woman from voting based on her sex, claiming it infringes on her rights as a citizen according to the Constitution as interpreted by the courts. I'd like to know if he thinks that excluding someone based on age is just as arbitrary and unjustified as excluding someone based on sex, and what right does a State or the United States have to set a specific age at which someone gains their civil rights? In most States, and according to common law in England, the age of twenty-one is considered the age of majority, where a person becomes sui juris. Under the laws of various States in this Union, which align with the laws of other more established civilized communities, a specific age has been set for when a person attains their civil rights. It’s usually set at twenty-one; under civil law, it’s twenty-five; the same applies in France and Spain, as well as in the French and Spanish Colonies. Among English-speaking people, the age is established at twenty-one. If the rights mentioned by the Senators from Indiana and California are inalienable, natural rights that are part of the "privileges and immunities" referred to in the Constitution, how can a law, simply an arbitrary decision made by a State or Congress, deny a man who is twenty years and six months old the ability to exercise those inalienable rights—rights that he would be allowed to enjoy just six months later simply because of the passage of time? I've elaborated on the question so that the Senator from California can respond more thoroughly.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. President, I do not think the Constitution prevents a regulation of the power to vote. The States unquestionably have a right to fix the time when voting shall take place, to fix the places where the voting shall be done, and they have the right to fix the age at which voting shall be exercised. But under the Constitution they have no power to prescribe a test which is not equally attainable by all persons. They have no right to[Pg 568] say that only white men shall vote, for that would exclude black men. They have no right to say that only black men shall vote, for that would exclude white men. They have no right to say that only men shall vote, for that would exclude women. The Constitution says that all shall be put on an equality in this respect, that any test which may be required shall apply to all alike, men and women, black or white.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. President, I don't think the Constitution stops us from regulating voting rights. The states definitely have the authority to determine when voting happens, where it takes place, and the age at which people can vote. However, under the Constitution, they cannot set a requirement that isn’t achievable by everyone. They can’t claim that only white men can vote, because that would exclude Black men. They can’t say that only Black men can vote, because that would exclude white men. They can’t state that only men can vote, because that would exclude women. The Constitution clearly states that everyone should be treated equally in this regard, meaning any requirement must apply to all—men and women, Black or white.
Mr. Bayard: But the law does no such thing. There are classes, and a very large and great class in the State that the Senator represents, who can not become citizens of the United States and can not vote there.
Mr. Bayard: But the law doesn’t do that at all. There are classes, and a very large and significant group in the State that the Senator represents, who cannot become citizens of the United States and cannot vote there.
Mr. Sargent: Why not?
Mr. Sargent: Why not?
Mr. Bayard: Because of their race; because they are Asiatics and not Africans.
Mr. Bayard: Because of their race; because they are Asians and not Africans.
Mr. Sargent: The Constitution of the United States does not prevent it.
Mr. Sargent: The Constitution of the United States doesn't stop it.
Mr. Bayard: No; but the law of Congress prevents it. The Senator says these are all entitled under the law.
Mr. Bayard: No; but the law of Congress stops that. The Senator says everyone here has rights under the law.
Mr. Sargent: I will not detain the Senate now on the point referred to by the Senator. He has shifted his ground and I will not follow him. Whenever legislation comes up on that subject I will discuss it. They are not citizens of the United States. I am dealing now with citizens whose privileges and immunities as such no one has a right to abridge.
Mr. Sargent: I won’t hold up the Senate on the point that the Senator mentioned. He has changed his position, and I won’t go along with him. Whenever legislation on that topic comes up, I’ll talk about it. They are not citizens of the United States. Right now, I’m addressing citizens whose rights and protections as such no one has the authority to limit.
Mr. Ferry, of Michigan: It is not my intention to speak on the merits of this proposition; but inasmuch as the Senator from Maine (Mr. Morrill) has raised the question of consistency and appealed to his record, it reminds me of the fact that the question of woman suffrage appeared as early, I think, as 1858, before the Legislature of Michigan. I had the honor of holding a seat in the Senate of the State at that time, and the question was referred to the committee of which I was a member, and it fell to my lot to report upon it. If my recollection serves me rightly the resolution favoring the right of women to vote was lost by but a majority of three in the Michigan Senate.
Mr. Ferry, from Michigan: I'm not here to discuss the merits of this proposal; however, since the Senator from Maine (Mr. Morrill) brought up the issue of consistency and referenced his record, it reminds me that the issue of woman suffrage was raised as early as 1858 in the Michigan Legislature. I had the privilege of being a member of the State Senate at that time, and the matter was referred to the committee I served on, which I was responsible for reporting on. If I remember correctly, the resolution supporting women's right to vote was defeated by just a 3-vote margin in the Michigan Senate.
Mr. Edmunds: Which way was the report?
Mr. Edmunds: Which direction was the report?
Mr. Ferry, of Michigan: I am reminded by the Senator from Vermont that perhaps I have not intimated which side the report took. The report was in favor of woman suffrage, and it may be regarded as having contributed to so large a vote. To-day, sir, is the first time since that occasion that I have been officially called upon to record my judgment upon the same question. I have had no reason since that report was drawn to shake my belief that the right of suffrage will not be jeopardized or perverted if wielded by the hand of woman. Believing that now and desiring to act in accord with my action in 1858 in the Senate of my native State. I am glad of the opportunity to prove my consistency by voting for woman suffrage to-day.
Mr. Ferry, from Michigan: The Senator from Vermont has reminded me that I might not have made it clear which side the report supported. The report was in favor of women's suffrage, and it likely played a role in securing such a significant vote. Today, sir, is the first time since that report that I've been officially asked to express my opinion on the same issue. I have not wavered in my belief that granting the right to vote to women will not endanger or distort that right. Believing this now and wanting to align my actions with what I stated in 1858 in the Senate of my home state, I appreciate the chance to demonstrate my consistency by voting for women's suffrage today.
Mr. Anthony: Mr. President, I am quite content that this experiment of female suffrage should be tried in this new Territory. I believe that female suffrage is coming with the other ameliorations and changes which have been tending for so many years in the same direction. I have not taken any part in the measures which have been agitated to hasten that event. I think it will come in its own good time; but I should do very great injustice to myself if I should allow it to be supposed that my opinion is based upon some of the arguments that have been made here. I do not believe that suffrage[Pg 569] is a natural right. I believe it is a right that grows out of society, a political right, and that it is within the body-politic to decide upon its limits, its modifications, and its conditions. The only question in my mind is whether it is proper and expedient. I think that the XIV. Amendment has nothing whatever to do with it.
Mr. Anthony: Mr. President, I’m quite satisfied that we should try female suffrage in this new Territory. I believe that female suffrage is on its way along with the other improvements and changes that have been developing for many years in the same direction. I haven't participated in the efforts to speed up that process. I think it will happen in due time; however, I would do myself a great disservice if I let it be assumed that my opinion is based on some of the arguments presented here. I do not believe that suffrage[Pg 569] is a natural right. I believe it is a right that comes from society, a political right, and that it is up to the body politic to determine its limits, modifications, and conditions. The only question I have is whether it is appropriate and necessary. I think that the XIV Amendment has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Morton: Mr. President, the Senators from Rhode Island, Maine, and North Carolina have all said that the right to vote is not a natural right, but merely a political right. Is not that a distinction without a difference? If I have a natural right, I have a right to use the necessary and proper means to enforce that right; it is a part of it. To say that I have a natural right but have not the right to use the means for its protection is illogical; it makes nonsense of it. The natural and proper means to enforce any right are a part of it. The right of self-defense is one of the natural rights; everybody concedes it, and to take from me the natural and effective means of defending myself is to take from me the right itself. Government is the means of securing natural rights, and should depend upon the consent of the governed. Therefore the right to give or to withhold my consent is a part of the natural right. Let us come down to the substance and put away these shadowy distinctions. To say that I have the right of self-defense, but that I have no right to use the knife or any instrument necessary to protect my life against the assassin, is nonsense. So far as the right of government is concerned, the right to assent, to consent, or to dissent, the natural means under our system is the right to vote. You can not conceive any other. Therefore it is a part of the right and without it the other is worth nothing.
Mr. Morton: Mr. President, the Senators from Rhode Island, Maine, and North Carolina have all claimed that the right to vote is not a natural right, but just a political right. Isn’t that a distinction without a difference? If I have a natural right, I should also have the right to use the necessary and proper means to enforce that right; it’s part of it. Saying I have a natural right but no right to use the means to protect it is illogical; it makes no sense. The natural and proper means to enforce any right are inherently part of that right. The right of self-defense is one of those natural rights; everyone agrees on that, and taking away my natural and effective means of defending myself is effectively taking away the right itself. Government exists to secure natural rights and should rely on the consent of the governed. Therefore, the right to give or withhold my consent is part of the natural right. Let’s focus on the essence of the matter and discard these vague distinctions. Saying I have the right of self-defense but no right to use a knife or any tool necessary to protect my life against an attacker is absurd. In terms of government rights, the right to agree, consent, or disagree, the natural means in our system is the right to vote. You can’t think of any other way. So, it is part of the right, and without it, the rest is worthless.
Mr. Edmunds: I wish to ask the Senator from Indiana whether persons under the age of twenty-one and eighteen years respectively have not all the natural rights that grown-up people have?
Mr. Edmunds: I want to ask the Senator from Indiana if people under the age of twenty-one and eighteen don't have all the natural rights that adults do?
Mr. Morton: I think I can answer that question very readily, if the Senator is through.
Mr. Morton: I believe I can answer that question quite easily, if the Senator is finished.
Mr. Edmunds: That is my only question at present.
Mr. Edmunds: That's all I want to ask for now.
Mr. Morton: Every right must have some sort of regulation.
Mr. Morton: Every right needs to have some kind of regulation.
Mr. Edmunds: That does not answer the question.
Mr. Edmunds: That doesn't answer the question.
Mr. Morton: Wait until I get through. We have in our country, and I believe generally in Europe, certainly in England, agreed that twenty-one years is the age when men and women have come into the full possession of their understanding and are supposed to be so well informed that they can take upon themselves the government of their own fortunes and the control of their own property. The mere fact that this thing is to be regulated does not take away the right. The natural right to own and control property is regulated in that way. There must be some age fixed. We know the infant can not do it; we know the child ten years old has not the necessary knowledge of the world or strength of understanding; and we have agreed upon a certain age when men and women come to the possession of their understanding and are able to take care of their own rights, whatever they may be.
Mr. Morton: Wait until I’m done. In our country, and I think generally in Europe, especially in England, it’s been agreed that twenty-one years is when men and women have fully developed their understanding and are expected to be informed enough to manage their own lives and control their own property. Just because this issue is going to be regulated doesn't mean the right is taken away. The natural right to own and manage property is still regulated in this way. There has to be a specific age set. We know that an infant can’t handle it; we know that a ten-year-old child lacks the necessary knowledge of the world or the strength of understanding; and we have all agreed on a certain age when men and women gain the ability to understand and manage their own rights, whatever those might be.
Mr. Edmunds: May I ask the Senator, after all, what his opinion is, whether a child of tender years, say ten years of age, has not every natural right that a man of seventy has?
Mr. Edmunds: Can I ask the Senator what he thinks? Does a young child, let's say ten years old, not have every natural right that a seventy-year-old man has?
Mr. Morton: Certainly.
Mr. Morton: Certainly.
Mr. Edmunds: Morally, legally, and every other way?[Pg 570]
Mr. Edmunds: In terms of ethics, legality, and everything else?[Pg 570]
Mr. Morton: To my mind that furnishes no argument at all.
Mr. Morton: I don’t think that provides any argument at all.
Mr. Edmunds: I am not arguing it.
Mr. Edmunds: I'm not debating it.
Mr. Morton: It is merely putting an extreme case to say that a woman twenty-five years of age shall not have the right to vote because if she votes the child in her arms has the right to vote. Is there any force in that?
Mr. Morton: It's just an extreme example to say that a woman who is twenty-five years old shouldn't have the right to vote because if she votes, the child in her arms would have the right to vote too. Does that really make any sense?
Mr. Edmunds: I have not put any case at all. I am asking the Senator from Indiana, which he seems to be very unwilling to answer, whether a child of tender years has or has not, in his opinion, the same natural rights that a grown-up person has. That can be answered one way or the other without saying it is an argument.
Mr. Edmunds: I haven't made any argument at all. I'm asking the Senator from Indiana, who seems really reluctant to respond, whether he believes a young child has the same natural rights as an adult. That can be answered straightforwardly without claiming it's an argument.
Mr. Morton: I suppose the child has the right, certainly the incipient right; but that amounts to nothing when you apply it to a child that has not the strength, the experience, the knowledge of the world, or the age to exercise it. The common sense of mankind in this and every other country fixes a certain age when men and women shall be regarded as mature and qualified to take care of themselves.
Mr. Morton: I think the child has the right—actually, the initial right; but that doesn’t mean much when you consider a child who lacks the strength, experience, world knowledge, or age to use it. Common sense in this and every other country establishes a certain age when people are seen as mature and capable of taking care of themselves.
Mr. Edmunds: They do not fix the same age, let me suggest to the Senator.
Mr. Edmunds: They don't set the same age, let me suggest to the Senator.
Mr. Morton: Now, Mr. President, unless we are prepared to deny the very fundamental doctrine upon which our Government is based, we must admit that women have the same rights that men have. The Senator from North Carolina will not deny that women have the same natural rights that men have. The Senator nods his assent. Then if that is so, they have the same natural right to use the means necessary to protect those rights that men have. That right, so far as men are concerned, is the ballot.
Mr. Morton: Now, Mr. President, unless we are ready to reject the basic principle our Government is founded on, we must acknowledge that women have the same rights as men. The Senator from North Carolina cannot deny that women have the same natural rights as men. The Senator nods in agreement. If that's the case, then women have the same natural right to use the means necessary to protect those rights that men do. For men, that means having the right to vote.
Mr. Merrimon: Natural means.
Mr. Merrimon: Natural means.
Mr. Morton: Whatever means are necessary and proper to the protection of a natural right are natural means.
Mr. Morton: Any methods that are necessary and appropriate to protect a natural right are considered natural means.
Mr. Bayard: Did the Senator from Indiana answer the Senator from Vermont in the affirmative or negative?
Mr. Bayard: Did the Senator from Indiana respond to the Senator from Vermont with a yes or no?
Mr. Morton: I tried to answer him.
Mr. Morton: I attempted to respond to him.
Mr. Bayard: I merely ask the question. He says now very triumphantly to the Senator from North Carolina that the rights of men and women are the same, their natural rights are the same.
Mr. Bayard: I'm just asking the question. He now confidently tells the Senator from North Carolina that men and women have the same rights; their natural rights are the same.
Mr. Morton: Yes.
Mr. Morton: Yes.
Mr. Bayard: I ask are the rights of children different from those of men?
Mr. Bayard: I ask, are children's rights different from men's?
Mr. Morton: I think not, but I do not think there is any force in that argument, as I said before. There is a certain common sense and a certain practical regulation of natural rights all the world over.
Mr. Morton: I don't agree, but I still believe that argument doesn't hold water, as I mentioned earlier. There’s a basic common sense and a practical approach to natural rights everywhere.
Mr. Edmunds: But is it the common sense of men alone, let me suggest to the Senator. The children may differ with us; they generally do on such questions.
Mr. Edmunds: But is it just the common sense of men, I suggest to the Senator? The children might see things differently; they usually do on these matters.
Mr. Morton: I will not spend any time on that argument.
Mr. Morton: I won't waste any time on that argument.
Mr. Edmunds: I think that is wise.
Mr. Edmunds: I think that's a smart idea.
Mr. Morton: To say that the mature woman has not the right to vote because the child in her arms must have the same right, comes so near making nonsense of the whole business that I dismiss it, and come back to the other statement, that women having the same natural rights that men have, have the right to the use the same means for their protection; and as the means under our form of government for the protection of the natural rights of men[Pg 571] is the right to vote, women should have the same right and power accorded to them. The whole theory of natural rights is mere trash unless you shall give women the right and the power to protect them. The Declaration of Independence says that governments are instituted for that purpose, and that they must depend upon the consent of the governed; and as the women are one-half of the governed, they have a right to give one-half of the consent.
Mr. Morton: Claiming that an adult woman shouldn't be allowed to vote just because she has a child in her arms is almost absurd, so I reject that argument and focus again on the fact that women have the same natural rights as men and thus deserve the same means of protection. Under our system of government, the primary means for protecting the natural rights of individuals[Pg 571] is the right to vote, so women should also have that right and power. The entire concept of natural rights is meaningless unless women are given the right and power to defend them. The Declaration of Independence states that governments are created for this purpose and must rely on the consent of the governed; since women make up half of the governed population, they have the right to provide half of that consent.
The Senator from North Carolina says that the women of the country have consented to our form of government, because they have not dissented. They have no power to refuse their consent. They may remonstrate and scold about it, but that amounts to nothing; their consent one way or the other means nothing except so far as their influence may be concerned. There were four and a half million of slaves who did not remonstrate against their bondage. Why? They had no means of doing it, and if they had had it would not have amounted to anything. Would the Senator argue from that, that they had no natural rights, or that they were consenting to their bondage? When you take into consideration the fact that men have all "political power and all the other sources of influence and power over women," it is not very strange perhaps that a majority of them are not asking for the right of suffrage. Some women at least are asking for it; I know that very many women all over the country believe they have the right to vote and ought to vote who never go near a political meeting and never sign petitions or anything of that kind. I would be willing to-day to submit the question to the votes of the women of the United States whether they should have that privilege or not. But suppose that a majority do not want the ballot, how does that affect the rights of the minority who do want it? One woman can not consent for another.
The Senator from North Carolina claims that the women of the country have agreed to our form of government because they haven’t opposed it. They have no power to withdraw their consent. They can protest and complain about it, but that really doesn’t mean anything; their consent, either way, only matters to the extent of their influence. There were four and a half million slaves who didn’t protest against their bondage. Why? They had no way to do so, and even if they did, it wouldn’t have changed anything. Would the Senator suggest that this means they had no natural rights, or that they were consenting to their enslavement? When you consider the fact that men hold all "political power and all the other sources of influence and power over women," it’s not too surprising that most women aren’t demanding the right to vote. Some women are asking for it; I know many women across the country believe they have the right to vote and should be able to vote, even if they never attend political meetings or sign petitions. I would be willing today to let the women of the United States vote on whether they should have that privilege or not. But suppose a majority don’t want the ballot; how does that impact the rights of the minority who do? One woman can’t give consent for another.
I believe women will never have their rights in this country, will never enjoy the same means for taking care of themselves and making an honest living in the world, until they have the right to vote. As soon as they have that right you will find they will be placed upon an equality with men. The Senator from California refers to the fact, and it is a notorious fact, that in every State in this Union, women are paid only about one-half for the same quantity and the same kind of labor that men receive. Does any man say that there is any sense or any justice in that distinction? Will that ever be remedied until woman has the right to vote? It never will.
I believe women will never have their rights in this country, will never have the same opportunities to take care of themselves and make a decent living, until they have the right to vote. Once they have that right, you'll see that they will be on equal footing with men. The Senator from California points out, and it's a well-known fact, that in every State in this country, women are paid about half of what men are for the same amount and type of work. Does any man think there’s any sense or justice in that distinction? Will that ever change until women have the right to vote? It never will.
I believe, Mr. President, in every point of view the right of suffrage should be extended to woman. I maintain that it is a God-given right to take part in the administration of that government which controls their earthly destinies and interests. I believe it is for the interest of the men, for the interest of children, for the interest of our country, for the interest of the race.
I believe, Mr. President, that from every perspective, the right to vote should be granted to women. I argue that it is an inherent right to participate in the governance of the system that influences their lives and well-being. I think this is in the best interest of men, children, our country, and humanity as a whole.
Mr. Edmunds: I could name a dozen instances all of which show that in all the States of this Union, speaking as a general rule, as it is in Great Britain and in almost all other civilized countries, the law, instead of discriminating against womanhood, discriminates in its favor in every respect whatever except the political respect of voting. That is a fact that no man can truthfully deny who has studied the history of society or who knows anything about the history of legislation in civilized States. Therefore, it does not do to say that the right to vote, the privilege of voting, or the[Pg 572] duty of voting—because I use those phrases as not having the peculiar meaning that the Senator from California imputes to them, is essential to the protection of the female sex as such, because, as I have said, the protection that the law gives them is now in all respects, where their rights or privileges come in collision with the rest of society, greater than is extended to men.
Mr. Edmunds: I could list a dozen examples that show that in all the states of this country, generally speaking, just like in Great Britain and almost all other civilized nations, the law, instead of being biased against women, actually favors them in every way except for the political aspect of voting. That’s a fact that no man can honestly deny if he has studied the history of society or knows anything about the legislative history in civilized countries. Therefore, it’s misleading to say that the right to vote, the privilege of voting, or the[Pg 572] responsibility of voting—because I use those terms without the specific meaning that the Senator from California assigns to them—is essential for the protection of women as a whole, because, as I’ve mentioned, the protection that the law provides to them is now, in all respects, where their rights or privileges conflict with the rest of society, greater than what is granted to men.
The Senator from Indiana insists—and he has a perfect right to do so, of course—that the right to vote is a natural right, and, therefore, if females are excluded from voting, as they are by the constitutions and laws of the various States, it is an infringement upon natural right, and that that infringement ought to be abolished. Of course, his conclusion is correct if his premises are true; but is the right to vote a natural right? Can the Senator refer me to the work of any writer upon natural or municipal law from the beginning of the world to the year 1860, which maintains, or asserts, or insinuates, or suggests that the right to vote in a political community is a natural right?
The Senator from Indiana firmly believes—and he has every right to that opinion—that voting is a natural right. Therefore, if women are barred from voting, as dictated by the constitutions and laws of various states, it infringes upon this natural right, and that infringement should be eliminated. His conclusion is valid if his premises hold true; but is voting truly a natural right? Can the Senator point to any author on natural or municipal law from the beginning of time up until 1860 who claims, hints at, or suggests that the right to vote in a political community is a natural right?
Mr. Morton: I do not call to mind any author.
Mr. Morton: I can't think of any author.
Mr. Edmunds: No; the Senator does not. With candor he says so, because the Senator, learned in history as he is, knows, as the rest of us know, that there is no such thing. He knows that in all the discussions and all the turmoils of society where the rights of men and women in political respects, the rights of society at large, have been discussed and turned over and over and all manner of experiments in government tried and suggested, it never has been suggested that the right to participate in the government of a political community is a natural right belonging to every human being.
Mr. Edmunds: No; the Senator does not. He straightforwardly admits it, because the Senator, as knowledgeable in history as he is, understands, just like the rest of us, that there’s no such thing. He knows that amidst all the debates and chaos in society regarding the rights of men and women politically, and the rights of society as a whole, which have been discussed endlessly with various government experiments proposed and attempted, it has never been argued that the right to be involved in the governance of a political community is a natural right that belongs to every human being.
Mr. Morton: I ask the Senator, if there are natural rights, do not the natural and necessary means to protect those rights become a part of them? What is the right worth if that be denied?
Mr. Morton: I ask the Senator, if there are natural rights, don’t the natural and necessary means to protect those rights become part of them? What is the value of a right if it's denied?
Mr. Edmunds: I answer no, in the broad sense in which the Senator has put it. If he asks of me as to a state of nature, without being organized into any social or political community whatever, then I answer yes, and every man is what the civil writers called in old times a barbarian; and he is invested, upon his own judgment and in his own right, with the power of defending and affirming whatever natural rights he has against all comers, exactly as a nation stands in respect to another nation; no man has a right to impose upon him any restraint; no man has a right to demand from him any concession; he is absolutely independent; and when his rights or claims come in conflict with those of anybody else he "fights it out" or runs away. So far, there is natural right, no doubt, but I hope the Senator has not gone back quite so far from the present condition of the world as to wish to discuss questions of that kind. That is not what he means. What he means by natural rights no doubt is what organized communities recognize as things of natural right, and those are things which are inherent in the person but are regulated and limited and restrained according to the rights and necessities of all the other persons in the community. In an organized society the right of self-defense is not a natural right in the broad sense, so that under all circumstances A B or C D has a right to defend himself against all aggression. An officer may come to arrest me on a warrant issued by a court irregularly. I have not the right to slay the officer because he[Pg 573] takes me on the warrant. My place to resist is not by my natural force, not by raising a mob, but by going to the court that issued the warrant and showing that it had been issued contrary to law. And yet on the Senator's notion every time a man is brought under the law, if he does not agree with the law, his business is to fight. The community can not get along in that way. There is no such right as that in society.
Mr. Edmunds: I say no, not in the general way the Senator framed it. If he’s asking about a state of nature, where no social or political community exists, then I say yes. In that case, every person would be what the old civil writers called a barbarian. Each individual would have the authority, based on their own judgment and rights, to defend and uphold any natural rights against anyone else, just like one nation stands against another. No one has the right to impose restrictions on them; no one can demand concessions from them; they are entirely independent. And when their rights conflict with someone else's, they either "fight it out" or run away. So far, that's natural right, no doubt, but I hope the Senator hasn’t gone back so far as to really want to discuss those kinds of questions. That’s not what he means. What he means by natural rights is likely what organized communities recognize as natural rights, which are inherent to a person but are regulated, limited, and restrained based on the rights and needs of everyone else in the community. In an organized society, the right to self-defense is not a natural right in the broad sense, meaning that under all circumstances, A B or C D can defend themselves against any aggression. An officer might come to arrest me based on a warrant issued irregularly by a court. I don’t have the right to harm the officer just because he’s acting on that warrant. My response shouldn’t be through physical force or inciting a mob, but rather by going to the court that issued the warrant and proving it was issued unlawfully. Yet with the Senator's perspective, every time a person is subjected to the law, if they disagree with it, their business would be to fight. A community can't function that way. There is no such right in society.
Mr. Stewart: I ask the Senator what right, whether it be a natural right or an acquired right, has one man to govern another, or has society to govern the individual?
Mr. Stewart: I’m asking the Senator what right, whether it’s a natural right or a granted right, one person has to control another, or what right society has to control the individual?
Mr. Edmunds: What right?
Mr. Edmunds: What right?
Mr. Stewart: Is it a natural or acquired right?
Mr. Stewart: Is it a natural right or something we've gained?
Mr. Edmunds: No man has a natural right to govern another, or an acquired right, or a political right, or a civil right that I know of, unless he is appointed the guardian of somebody. Of course, of that the Senator has not any experience; certainly not on the side of being a ward.
Mr. Edmunds: No one has a natural right to govern another person, or an acquired right, or a political right, or a civil right that I can think of, unless they are appointed as a guardian for someone. Clearly, the Senator has no experience with that; certainly not from the perspective of being the one being governed.
Mr. Stewart: Then what right has society, the body of men, to govern an individual? Is it a natural right or an acquired right?
Mr. Stewart: So what right does society, the group of people, have to govern an individual? Is it a natural right or one that has been earned?
Mr. Edmunds: Suppose I should answer the Senator and say I do not know?
Mr. Edmunds: What if I replied to the Senator that I don’t know?
Mr. Stewart: What right have they to take from him his freedom in his savage state to do as he pleases? And if they have a right to take it from him, what right have they to say he shall not participate with them equally in the regulations that shall be made for his government? If they have a right to govern him, he has a right, whether it be natural or not, to have a voice in it, if the principle of equality and fair play is one of the fundamental principles that should govern mankind.
Mr. Stewart: What right do they have to take away his freedom in his natural state to do what he wants? And if they can take it from him, what right do they have to say he can't take part equally in the rules that will govern him? If they have the right to govern him, then he has a right, whether it's natural or not, to have a say in it, if the idea of equality and fairness is one of the basic principles that should guide humanity.
Mr. Edmunds: I see the Senator's point. The substance of it is, if I correctly understand him, that if society has a right to govern him, he has a right to govern society, and that makes equality; and if the majority has a right to control him, he has a right to control the majority, and there is equality! Very well. I leave the Senator, with his point, to enjoy it.
Mr. Edmunds: I understand the Senator's argument. What he's saying, if I got it right, is that if society has the right to govern him, then he has the right to govern society, which creates equality; and if the majority has the right to control him, then he has the right to control the majority, which also means equality! Fine. I’ll let the Senator enjoy his point.
Now, let us return to the subject. It is perfectly plain that the right to vote is one which society, as it is organized, is to determine by its fundamental laws. Society does determine, in the State of Vermont, if you please, that voting must only be exercised by males above the age of twenty-one years, those who are not in the penitentiary, those who are not in the lunatic asylums, those who are not idiots, and so on. The laws of Indiana may provide the same thing, or may declare that the age shall be twenty, or may declare as the Roman law used to do, that it shall be twenty-five, and so on; or it may declare as the Constitution of the United States does as to the age of Senators and as to the age of the President of the United States. On the argument of Senators in favor of this amendment to this bill, there would exist no right whatever in constituted society to make any limitation upon the free exercise of political rights to vote and hold office in respect to age. Why say a man can not be a member of the Senate until he is thirty years of age? Who can say he is not just as good at twenty-nine?
Now, let’s get back to the topic. It’s clear that the right to vote is something that society, as it is organized, decides through its fundamental laws. For instance, in the State of Vermont, it’s determined that only males over the age of twenty-one, who are not in prison, not in mental institutions, and not deemed idiots, can vote. The laws in Indiana might set the same requirements, or they might say the voting age is twenty, or as Roman law once stated, it could be twenty-five, and so on. The Constitution of the United States specifies the ages for Senators and the President. During the discussions among Senators about this amendment to this bill, there would be no valid reason for society to impose any limitations on the free exercise of political rights, including voting and holding office, based on age. Why shouldn’t a man be able to join the Senate until he’s thirty? Who can argue that a twenty-nine-year-old isn’t qualified?
The Senator from Indiana says that common sense teaches that we must put some limitation on this. So it does; and common sense has taught that it is left to each political community to determine what are the qualifications[Pg 574] and limitations upon the privilege of exercising political rights; and it has always been so, and it always will be so, because when the Senator proposes to say that the other sex may vote—which I admit he has a perfect right to say, and society may so say—he does not undertake to say that ladies of seventeen, instead of eighteen, shall vote, because they come of age in my State at eighteen, and do in many of the States—the Senator does not propose to say that all ladies of seventeen shall vote; and yet it is impossible to say that there is any distinction in respect to intelligence as a matter of right, any philosophical distinction between one year and another. True, as the Senator says, you may run it down so far that at last you have reached a condition of infancy, and there everybody says the child is not wise enough to vote, is not wise enough to do anything without having guardianship and tutelage. But if you put it upon the ground of natural right, the child has just as good a right to say to you that he shall be the judge of it, as you have to say to him that you must be; and this shows that the notion of any natural right of anybody of any age to participate in the government of society is an absolute absurdity. It is one of those figments of the imagination that have crawled into some people's brains within a very few years, and will go out again as other delusions do.
The Senator from Indiana says that common sense teaches we need to set some limits on this. And it does; common sense tells us that each political community should figure out the qualifications[Pg 574] and restrictions on the privilege of exercising political rights. That's always been the case and always will be, because when the Senator suggests that women should be able to vote—which I agree he has every right to say, and society might agree too—he doesn't propose that seventeen-year-old women should vote instead of eighteen-year-olds, since they come of age at eighteen in my state and in many others. The Senator doesn't suggest that all seventeen-year-old women should vote. Yet it's impossible to claim there's a meaningful difference in intelligence as a matter of right, or any philosophical distinction between one age and another. True, as the Senator states, you can keep going down that path until you reach childhood, and then everyone agrees that a child isn't wise enough to vote, or to do anything without supervision and guidance. But if we base it on natural rights, a child has just as much right to decide for themselves as you do to say they cannot. This illustrates that the idea of anyone, regardless of age, having a natural right to participate in government is completely absurd. It's one of those ideas that has crept into some people's minds in recent years and will fade away like other delusions.
Then when you come to the XIV. Amendment it is equally obvious that that has nothing to do with the subject. If anybody had thought it related to suffrage when the XV. Amendment was passed, nobody would have voted for it, because on that theory the right to vote did exist in all colored persons, females as well as males; and yet nobody of any party or any creed pretended at that time when we proposed the XV. Amendment that we had guaranteed the right to vote by the XIV. Nobody suspected it; nobody suggested it; and nobody believed in it, and very few people do now, for the simple reason that the XIV. Amendment was directed, as everybody knows, by its language, by its history, by its relation to other laws, to what are called civil rights; but I am not going to define what they are, because to do so takes time. So, Mr. President, the XV. Amendment was passed in order to secure a right to vote without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Then when you look at the XIV. Amendment, it's clear that it has nothing to do with this topic. If anyone had believed it was related to voting rights when the XV. Amendment was passed, no one would have voted for it because, under that assumption, the right to vote would have applied to all people of color, both women and men; yet at that time, no one from any political party or belief system claimed that we had ensured the right to vote through the XIV. Amendment. Nobody thought it; nobody mentioned it; and hardly anyone believes it now, mainly because the XIV. Amendment was aimed, as everyone knows, by its wording, by its background, and by its connection to other laws, at what are known as civil rights; but I'm not going to define what those are, as that would take time. So, Mr. President, the XV. Amendment was passed to secure the right to vote regardless of race, color, or past conditions of servitude.
Then you come to the real question which is involved here; and that is the propriety of providing that females, twenty-one years of age, not idiots, not lunatics, not in the penitentiary—standing upon the same limitations that men do in these respects—are to vote. That presents a fair question, one that we have a perfect right to pass upon; and I have only said what I have in order to show that we had not better run crazy over the idea that we were dealing with natural and inalienable rights, and that we were violating human rights if we happened to say no, or that we were vindicating human rights in the sense now spoken of if we should say yes. We are merely considering a question of political expediency, as confessedly we have the power in governing the Territories to let anybody vote we choose. We can put the whole concern in Pembina, if we think it wise, into the hands of the madmen up there, and I do not know but that they are in the majority, for I certainly know nothing about it.... If no other Senator wishes to make any remarks, I move to lay the bill upon the table.
Then we get to the real question here; that is whether it's proper to allow females who are twenty-one years old, not idiots, not insane, and not in prison—under the same restrictions as men in these cases—to vote. That's a valid question, one we have every right to consider; and I've only mentioned this to point out that we shouldn't get carried away thinking that we're dealing with natural and inalienable rights, or that we would be violating human rights if we said no, or affirming human rights in the sense just mentioned if we said yes. We're simply looking at a question of political practicality, since we clearly have the authority to decide who can vote in the Territories. We could give the entire situation in Pembina, if we consider it wise, to the people up there, and I don't know if they might be in the majority, because I certainly have no idea about it.... If no other Senator wants to comment, I motion to table the bill.
Mr. Sargent: I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.[Pg 575]
Mr. Sargent: I request a roll call vote on that motion.[Pg 575]
Mr. Hager: I hope the Senator from Vermont will withdraw his motion. I desire to make a few remarks.
Mr. Hager: I hope the Senator from Vermont will take back his motion. I would like to say a few words.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Clayton in the chair). The motion is not debatable.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Clayton in charge). The motion cannot be debated.
Mr. Hager: I ask the Senator to withdraw the motion for a few minutes.
Mr. Hager: I'm asking the Senator to pause the motion for a few minutes.
Mr. Edmunds: If the Senator will renew it when he finishes his remarks, I will do so.
Mr. Edmunds: If the Senator can do it again after he's done speaking, I will too.
Mr. Hager: Very well.
Mr. Hager: Very well.
Mr. Edmunds: I withdraw the motion.
Mr. Edmunds: I withdraw the motion.
Mr. Hager: Mr. President, it seems to me strange that a question of so much importance as that raised by this amendment appears to be, from the positions taken by Senators on the floor, should be presented upon this bill, which, if amended as proposed, will not confer the right of suffrage upon females throughout the country; and for us to undertake to legislate upon this question in regard to a distant Territory where perhaps there are few or no women, unless they be of the Indian race, is to me a very astonishing thing.... If suffrage should be extended to females let it come up as a distinct, independent proposition by itself, and then every Senator can take his position in regard to a question which affects the whole country, and not a distant Territory merely. That is the way, in my opinion, to get at it.... Inasmuch as in the wisdom of the Government and people of the United States the right to the elective franchise has been conferred upon the black race in this country, I see no reason on the ground of qualification why it should not be conferred upon females.... But I am unwilling to legislate by piecemeal in this manner. If there is any good in it; if, as the Senator from Indiana says, as a matter of right women should be entitled to the franchise, that right should be co-extensive with the whole country, and not be limited to the little Territory of Pembina, which is not yet organized.
Mr. Hager: Mr. President, it strikes me as odd that such an important issue, as raised by this amendment, seems to be linked with this bill, which, if modified as suggested, won’t grant the right to vote to women across the country. Attempting to legislate on this topic regarding a distant Territory, where there might be few or no women—unless they are of Native descent—seems quite astonishing to me.... If women should be granted the right to vote, let it be considered as a separate, independent issue on its own, so that each Senator can express their stance on a matter that affects the entire nation, not just a faraway Territory. That, in my view, is the proper approach.... Since the Government and people of the United States have conferred voting rights to the black community in this country, I see no reason why qualifications shouldn't extend that right to women.... However, I’m not willing to pass legislation in a piecemeal fashion like this. If there's merit to it; if, as the Senator from Indiana argues, women should inherently have the right to vote, then that right should be applicable nationwide, not just to the small Territory of Pembina, which isn’t even organized yet.
Mr. Edmunds.—I renew the motion to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. Edmunds.—I renew the motion to table the bill.
Mr. Sargent.—On that motion I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. Sargent.—I request a roll call vote on that motion. The roll call vote was approved.
Mr. Ramsey.—I should like to appeal to the Senator from Vermont to withdraw the motion for five minutes.
Mr. Ramsey.—I would like to ask the Senator from Vermont to take back the motion for five minutes.
Mr. Stewart.—We will not lay it on the table.
Mr. Stewart.—We won't put it on the table.
Mr. Ramsey.—Very well; let the vote be taken. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas, 24; nays, 24; as follows:
Mr. Ramsey.—Alright; let's take the vote. The question was called with yeas and nays, resulting in—yeas, 24; nays, 24; as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Bayard, Buckingham, Conkling, Conover, Cooper, Davis, Edmunds, Frelinghuysen, Hager, Hamilton of Maryland, Howe, Ingalls, Johnston, Jones, MeCreery, Merrimon, Morrill of Maine, Norwood, Ransom, Scott, Sherman, Wadleigh, Washburn, and Wright—24.
Yes—Messrs. Bayard, Buckingham, Conkling, Conover, Cooper, Davis, Edmunds, Frelinghuysen, Hager, Hamilton of Maryland, Howe, Ingalls, Johnston, Jones, McCreery, Merrimon, Morrill of Maine, Norwood, Ransom, Scott, Sherman, Wadleigh, Washburn, and Wright—24.
Nays—Messrs. Bogy, Boreman, Boutwell, Carpenter, Chandler, Clayton, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Gilbert, Harvey, Hitchcock, Logan, Mitchell, Morton, Patterson, Pratt, Ramsey, Sargent, Spencer, Sprague, Stewart, Tipton, West, and Windom—24.
Nays—Mr. Bogy, Mr. Boreman, Mr. Boutwell, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Clayton, Mr. Ferry of Michigan, Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Hitchcock, Mr. Logan, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Morton, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Pratt, Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Sargent, Mr. Spencer, Mr. Sprague, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Tipton, Mr. West, and Mr. Windom—24.
Absent—Messrs. Alcorn, Allison, Anthony, Brownlow, Cameron, Cragin, Dennis, Dorsey, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Gordon, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Kelly, Lewis, Morrill of Vermont, Oglesby, Pease, Robertson, Saulsbury, Schurz, Stevenson, Stockton, and Thurman—25.
Absent—Messrs. Alcorn, Allison, Anthony, Brownlow, Cameron, Cragin, Dennis, Dorsey, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Gordon, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Kelly, Lewis, Morrill of Vermont, Oglesby, Pease, Robertson, Saulsbury, Schurz, Stevenson, Stockton, and Thurman—25.
So the motion was not agreed to.
So the proposal was not approved.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Clayton in the chair.)—The question is[Pg 576] on the amendment of the Senator from California [Mr. Sargent], upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Clayton in charge)—The question is[Pg 576] about the amendment from the Senator from California [Mr. Sargent], for which the yeas and nays have been called.
Mr. Bayard.—Mr. President, it would seem scarcely credible that in the Senate of the United States an abrupt and sudden change in so fundamental a relation as that borne by the two sexes to our system of Government should be proposed as an "experiment," and that it should be gravely recommended that a newly organized Territory under act of Congress should be set aside for this "experiment," which is in direct, grossly irreverent disregard of all that we have known as a rule, our great fundamental rule, in organizing a government of laws, whether colonial, State, or Federal, in this country.
Mr. Bayard.—Mr. President, it seems hard to believe that in the Senate of the United States, a sudden and drastic change in such a fundamental relationship between the sexes and our system of Government could be proposed as an "experiment." It’s concerning that there are serious recommendations for a newly organized Territory under an act of Congress to be set aside for this "experiment," which shows a blatant and disrespectful disregard for everything we've established as a fundamental rule when organizing a government of laws, whether colonial, State, or Federal, in this country.
I frankly say, Mr. President, that which strikes me most forcibly is the gross irreverence of this proposition, its utter disregard of that Divine will by which man and woman were created different, physically, intellectually, and morally, and in defiance of which we are now to have this poor, weak, futile attempt of man to set up his schemes of amelioration in defiance of every tradition, of every revelation, of all human experience, enlightened as it has been by Divine permission. It seems to me that to introduce so grave a subject as this, to spring it here upon the Senate without notice in the shape of an amendment to a pending measure, to propose thus to experiment with the great laws that lie at the very foundation of human society, and to do it for the most part in the trivial tone which we have witnessed during this debate, is not only mortifying, but it renders one almost hopeless of the permanence of our Government if this is to be the example set by one of the Houses of Congress, that which claims to be more sedate and deliberate, if it proposes in this light and perfunctory way to deal with questions of this grave nature and import. Sir, there is no time at present for that preparation which such a subject demands at the hands of any sensible man, mindful of his responsibilities, who seeks to deal with it.
I honestly say, Mr. President, what stands out to me the most is the complete disrespect of this proposal, its total disregard for the Divine will that created men and women to be different, physically, intellectually, and morally. In defiance of that, we're now faced with this weak and pointless attempt by humans to impose their plans for improvement against every tradition, every revelation, and all human experience, even as it's been enlightened by Divine permission. It seems to me that to bring up such a serious topic and spring it on the Senate without any warning as an amendment to a current bill, to suggest experimenting with the fundamental laws that support human society, and to do it mostly in the trivial tone we've seen during this debate, is not only embarrassing but almost makes one lose hope for the stability of our Government if this is the example set by one of the Houses of Congress, which claims to be more serious and thoughtful. If it proposes to handle such important issues in this casual and hasty manner, then we are in trouble. Sir, this is not the time for the thorough preparation that any sensible person, aware of their responsibilities, should undertake when dealing with such a subject.
This is an attempt to disregard laws promulgated by the Almighty Himself. It is irreverent legislation in the simplest and strongest sense of the word. Nay, sir, not only so, but it is a step in defiance of the laws of revealed religion as given to men. If there be one institution which it seems to me has affected the character of this country, which has affected the whole character of modern civilization, the results of which we can but imperfectly trace and but partly recognize, it is the effect of the institution of Christian marriage, the mysterious tie uniting the one man and the one woman until they shall become one and not two persons. It is an institution which is mysterious, which is beyond the reach and the understanding of man, but he certainly can best exhibit his sense of duty and proper obligation when he reverently shall submit to and recognize its wisdom. All such laws as proposed by this amendment are stumbling-blocks, and are meant to be stumbling-blocks in the way of that perfect union of the sexes which was intended by the law of Christian marriage.
This is an attempt to ignore laws established by the Almighty Himself. It is disrespectful legislation in the simplest and strongest sense of the term. No, sir, not only that, but it is a step that goes against the laws of revealed religion given to humanity. If there is one institution that I believe has influenced the character of this country and modern civilization—with results we can only partly see and recognize—it is the institution of Christian marriage, the mysterious bond uniting one man and one woman until they become one, not two individuals. It's an institution that is mysterious and beyond human understanding, but we can best demonstrate our sense of duty and obligation when we humbly submit to and acknowledge its wisdom. All such laws proposed by this amendment are obstacles, and they are intended to be obstacles in the way of that perfect union of the sexes that was intended by the law of Christian marriage.
Suffrage is a political franchise; it is not a right; because the word "right" is used in reference to voting in the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution, that does not make it a right. It is in the very nature of government a political privilege confided, according to the exigency, the expediency,[Pg 577] by the wisdom of those who control the government, to a certain class. If this right to vote be what the Senator from Indiana declares it to be, a natural and inalienable right, then you have no more right to deny it to a person who is under the age of twenty-one than you have to deny it to a person who is over the age of twenty-one years. Sir, the difference is radical. Voting is no right; it is a privilege granted, a franchise which is granted to certain classes, more or less extended according to the supposed expediency which shall control the minds of those who frame the constitution of government for a people. There is no wrong done, so far as the abnegation of a right is involved, by denying this to certain classes of a community, whether on account of age or sex or any other supposed causes of disqualification. In this country the whole foundation of our institutions has been that the male sex when arrived at years of supposed discretion alone should take part in the political control of the country.
Suffrage is a political privilege; it’s not a right. Just because the term "right" is mentioned in relation to voting in the XIV Amendment to the Constitution, that doesn’t make it a true right. It’s inherently a political privilege assigned, depending on the situation and practicality, by the judgment of those in charge of the government, to a certain class of people. If the right to vote is what the Senator from Indiana claims it to be—an inherent and undeniable right—then you have no more justification to deny it to someone under twenty-one than to deny it to someone over twenty-one. The distinction is fundamental. Voting is not a right; it’s a privilege bestowed on certain groups, granted more or less widely based on what those in power believe is necessary for the governance of the people. There is no injustice done, as far as the refusal of a right is concerned, by denying this to certain segments of society—whether due to age, gender, or any other presumed reasons for disqualification. In this country, the very basis of our institutions has been that only men, once they reach an age of presumed maturity, should participate in the country’s political governance.
It is not necessary for me to speak now of other influences than those that come from politics; it is not necessary for me to dwell upon the actual and potential influences that control the fate of men and of nations. We all know they are not those most apparent. We all know it is the passions, the affections, the sympathies, and desires of the human heart and human ambition that control the vote, and not the vote that controls them. And now you propose to try an "experiment" upon a community composed of your own fellow-citizens, which is in defiance of all human experience, all suggestions of philosophy, of your own laws, and of every lesson you should have drawn from every civilized nation that has preceded you.
I don't need to talk about influences beyond politics right now; it's not important to focus on the actual and potential influences that determine the fate of people and nations. We all know they aren't the most obvious ones. It’s the passions, affections, sympathies, and desires of the human heart and human ambition that shape the vote, not the other way around. And now you want to try an "experiment" on a community made up of your own fellow citizens, which goes against all human experience, all philosophical ideas, your own laws, and every lesson you should have learned from every civilized nation that came before you.
Under the operation of this Amendment, what will become of the family hearthstone around which cluster the very best influences of human education? You will have a family with two heads—a "house divided against itself." You will no longer have that healthful and necessary subordination of wife to husband, and that unity of relationship which is required by a true and a real Christian marriage. You will have substituted a system of contention and difference warring against the laws of nature herself, and attempting by these new fangled, petty, puny, and most contemptible contrivances, organized in defiance of the best lessons of human experience, to confuse, impede, and disarrange the palpable will of the Creator of the world. I can see in this proposition for female suffrage the end of all that home life and education which are the best nursery for a nation's virtue. I can see in all these attempts to invade the relations between man and wife, to establish differences, to declare those to be two whom God hath declared to be one, elements of chaotic disorder, elements of destruction to all those things which are, after all, our best reliance for a good and a pure and an honest government.
Under this Amendment, what will happen to the family home, which is the center of the most positive influences on human education? You will have a family with two leaders—a "house divided against itself." The healthy and necessary hierarchy of wife to husband will vanish, along with the unity in relationships that a true Christian marriage needs. Instead, you will create a system of conflict and differences that go against the natural order and try to undermine the best lessons from human experience through these new, petty, and utterly ridiculous ideas, all while defying the clear will of the Creator. I see in this push for women's voting rights the end of the home life and education that form the foundation of a nation’s virtue. I see in these efforts to disrupt the relationship between husband and wife, to create division, and to declare two where God has made one, the seeds of chaos and destruction for those aspects that are ultimately our strongest support for good, pure, and honest governance.
As I said, Mr. President, I rose simply to express my astonishment that a measure of this kind could have received the assent which it apparently has received from the Senate of the United States in the vote just recorded. The subject is too broad, it is too deep, it is too serious to attempt to discuss it unprepared and within the time which is allotted to me. I sincerely hope that if this subject is to be acted upon, it will be after long, serious, severe, close consideration. Let all sides of the subject be viewed in all its vastness and far-reaching consequences. Let Senators consider the results, and let[Pg 578] at least their aims in this matter be something higher than mere political and partisan considerations, which I fear have animated much of the discussion to which we have listened. Mr. President, I trust sincerely that the vote just taken, indicating the refusal of the Senate to lay this bill upon the table, may not indicate the will of the Senate in respect of this Amendment. We have no right to subject this or any other portion of our fellow-citizens to so sad, so untoward, so unhappy an experiment as is here proposed. I have sat in this Chamber, and seen laws leveled with the most serious and cruel penalties against a class of people practicing polygamy in our Territories. What will this law do? Will it not in fact sever those relations to which I have referred as being essential for the virtue and safety of a State? What is your State unless it is founded upon virtuous and happy homes? And where can there be a virtuous and happy home unless a Christian marriage shall have consecrated it?
As I mentioned, Mr. President, I simply wanted to express my shock that a measure like this seems to have gained the approval of the Senate of the United States in the recent vote. The topic is too broad, too deep, and too serious to discuss without preparation and within the limited time I have. I genuinely hope that if this topic is to be acted on, it will be after thorough, serious, and careful consideration. All aspects of the issue should be examined in its entirety and for its long-term effects. Senators should think about the outcomes, and I hope their goals in this matter rise above mere political and partisan interests, which I worry have influenced much of the discussion we've heard. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that the recent vote, showing the Senate's refusal to set this bill aside, does not reflect the Senate's stance on this Amendment. We have no right to subject any part of our fellow citizens to such a sad and unfortunate experiment as is being proposed here. I have been in this Chamber and seen laws put in place with serious and harsh penalties against a group of people practicing polygamy in our Territories. What will this law achieve? Will it not, in fact, disrupt those relationships that are crucial for the virtue and safety of a State? What is your State if it is not built on virtuous and happy homes? And where can there be a virtuous and happy home unless it is blessed by a Christian marriage?
No, Mr. President, I trust that this Amendment will not be adopted, that we shall not trifle in this way with the happiness of a large portion of our fellow-citizens, that we shall not set what I must consider this indecorous example of government; and I trust that the vote of the Senate most emphatically will stop here, and I trust stop permanently even the suggestion of granting the political franchise of voting to the women of America. They do not need it, sir. I can not, of course, speak for all, but I know that I can speak the sentiment of many when I say that to them the proposition is abhorrent to take them from the retirement where their sway is so admitted, so beneficent, so elevating, and to throw them into another sphere for which they are totally unfitted and where all that at present adorns and protects them must be taken away by the rough and vulgar contact with those struggles which men are much better fitted to meet. No, sir; the relations of the sexes as they exist to-day under the laws of this country have produced happy and stable government, or at least are not responsible for the evil features which we witness. The best protection for the women of America is in the respect and the love which the men of America bear to them. Every man conversant with the practical affairs of life knows that the fact, that the mere fact that it is a woman who seeks her rights in a court of justice alone gives her an advantage over her contestant which few men are able to resist, I would put it to any who has practiced law in the courts of this country; let him stand before a jury composed only of men, let the case be tried only by men; let all the witnesses be men; and the plaintiff or the defendant be a woman, and if you choose to add to that, even more unprotected than women generally are, a widow or an orphan, and does not every one recognize the difficulty, not to find protection for her rights, but the difficulty to induce the men who compose the juries of America to hold the balance of justice steadily enough to insure that the rights of others are not invaded by the force of sympathy for her sex? These are common every-day illustrations. They could be multiplied ad infinitum.
No, Mr. President, I trust that this Amendment will not be adopted, that we will not toy with the happiness of a significant portion of our fellow citizens, that we will not set this inappropriate example of government; and I hope that the Senate will decisively put an end to this and permanently halt any suggestion of granting the right to vote to women in America. They don’t need it, sir. I can’t speak for everyone, but I believe I represent the views of many when I say that the idea of taking them out of their established roles, where they excel, do good, and uplift others, and thrusting them into a sphere for which they are entirely unprepared, where they would lose all the protection and grace they currently have, is unacceptable. No, sir; the current relationships between the sexes, as established by the laws of this country, have produced a happy and stable government, or at least aren’t responsible for the negative aspects we observe. The best protection for American women lies in the respect and love that American men have for them. Every man familiar with real-life situations knows that simply the fact that a woman is seeking her rights in a court of law gives her an advantage that few men can resist. I would challenge anyone who has practiced law in this country; let them stand before a jury made up only of men, let the case be tried solely by men; let all the witnesses be men; and if the plaintiff or defendant is a woman—especially one who is unprotected, like a widow or orphan—doesn’t everyone see the challenge, not to secure her rights, but to persuade the men serving on juries to maintain justice impartially enough to protect the rights of others from being swayed by sympathy for her gender? These are common examples. They could be multiplied ad infinitum.
Mr. President, there never was a greater mistake, there never was a falser fact stated than that the women of America need any protection further than the love borne to them by their fellow-countrymen. Every right, every privilege, many that men do not attempt, many that men can not[Pg 579] hope for, are theirs most freely. Do not imperil the advantages which they have, do not attempt in this hasty, ill-considered, shallow way to interfere with the relations which are founded upon the laws of nature herself. Depend upon it, Mr. President, man's wisdom is best shown by humble attention, by humble obedience to the great laws of nature; and those discoveries which have led men to their chiefest enjoyment and greatest advantages have been from the great minds of those who did lay their ears near the heart of nature, listened to its beatings, and did not attempt to correct God's handiwork by their own futile attempts at improvement.
Mr. President, there has never been a bigger mistake, and there has never been a more false statement than the claim that the women of America need any protection beyond the love they receive from their fellow citizens. Every right, every privilege—many that men don’t pursue, and many that men can’t even hope for—are given to them freely. Don’t jeopardize the advantages they already have; don’t try in this rushed, thoughtless, superficial way to interfere with relationships that are based on the laws of nature itself. Trust me, Mr. President, true wisdom is shown through humble respect and obedience to the great natural laws. The discoveries that have brought the most joy and benefits to humanity have come from those great thinkers who took the time to listen closely to the rhythm of nature and didn’t try to fix God’s work with their own meaningless attempts at improvement.
Mr. Stewart.—Mr. President, I listened to the speech of the Senator from Delaware with great attention; I appreciate his feelings on the subject; and it has occasioned me to have some reflection upon this subject during the time he was speaking. I want to call the attention of the Senator from Delaware and of the Senate and of the country to a few facts in regard to this matter of woman's rights, and to see whether it has not been well to change some of the ancient order of things. There was a time among our Anglo-Saxon fathers when it was seriously discussed in the law-books what size the whip should be with which a husband could properly chastise his wife. If it was no larger than the thumb, I believe no action would lie. Those were the good old times, and those times you can see illustrated to-day all over the world where savages——
Mr. Stewart.—Mr. President, I listened to the speech from the Senator from Delaware with great attention; I appreciate his feelings on the subject, and his words prompted me to reflect on this matter while he was speaking. I want to draw the attention of the Senator from Delaware, the Senate, and the country to a few facts regarding women's rights, and to consider whether it might be time to change some of the outdated traditions. There was a time among our Anglo-Saxon ancestors when legal texts seriously debated how big a whip a husband could use to discipline his wife. If it was no larger than the size of his thumb, I believe no legal action could be taken. Those were the so-called good old days, and you can see similar attitudes reflected today in many parts of the world where there are still people living in primitive conditions—
Mr. Sargent.—That was when we were near to nature.
Mr. Sargent.—That was when we were close to nature.
Mr. Stewart.—Yes; that was when man held sway, and when God's law of man's supremacy was omnipotent! Then harmony was preserved. If you will go out into my State and see the Indian women carrying the loads on their backs and the men riding on horses, and the women doing the work, you will see the harmony of the supremacy of man! Now, I undertake to say that there is no surer criterion of the civilization of any nation than the position which woman occupies; and the less dependent she is, the more she has to do with the management of society, the more she is regarded as an individual, the higher that society stands; but where she depends exclusively on man and man's justice, there you have absolute barbarism. Do you think that women have been less loyal to their husbands, do you think that virtue has been less protected in this country since the rights of women were vindicated by the law, since they were entitled to hold property? Have they not been as good wives as they were formerly? Has society been injured thereby? Show me the nation that elevates its women and acknowledges their rights and protects them by the law and severs them in point of protection from the caprice or the sympathy of men—show me that nation, and that nation shall be first. It is one of the evidences of the advance of civilization in America that woman does occupy the position she does here; and it is idle to say that society will be destroyed by recognizing her as having rights to protect.
Mr. Stewart.—Yes; that was when men were in charge, and when God's law asserting man's superiority was absolute! Back then, harmony was maintained. If you go to my state and see Indian women carrying loads on their backs while the men ride horses and the women do the work, you'll witness the harmony of male supremacy! Now, I can confidently say that there’s no better measure of a nation's civilization than the role women play; the less dependent they are, the more involved they are in managing society, and the more they’re recognized as individuals, the higher that society ranks. But when women rely completely on men and their justice, that's where you find utter barbarism. Do you think women have been less loyal to their husbands? Do you believe virtue has been less protected in this country since women's rights were recognized by law and they were allowed to own property? Haven’t they been just as good wives as before? Has society suffered because of this? Show me a nation that uplifts its women, acknowledges their rights, and protects them by law, separating them from the whims and feelings of men—show me that nation, and that nation will be the first. It's a clear sign of civilization's progress in America that women hold the position they do here; it’s foolish to claim that society will crumble by recognizing her rights to protection.
It is very well for women who chance to have kind husbands and luxurious homes, under the flattery of their husbands, to sneer at their less fortunate sisters who are debarred every right. It is very well for those who have luxury and power and wealth to trample upon the unfortunate that cry for bread and for help. It is very easy to philosophize about laws and[Pg 580] say that women are not fit for this place and not fit for that; that it is indelicate, and all that kind of thing, to allow her to earn an honest living or to have a place in a Department where she can do work; it is very well for us to say, "Here, we will give her only half pay for the same labor;" but they who serve and they who suffer feel it differently. How is the voice of women on this subject to be heard? Shall it be heard from that class only who are satisfied with their protection, or shall the voice of the weak and the starving be heard? There is no way for it to be heard. We see it daily. You talk about degradation. One of the great sources of the degradation of this country, one of the great sources of the breaking up of families and destroying society is your low groggeries and your gambling-houses and your places of resort for bad men, that are tolerated in spite of your laws and will be so long as men only vote. The women suffer by these things; and that consideration alone has often made me hesitate upon this question. I do believe that if the good women of America could speak to-day they would reform many evils that we wink at or allow to exist because we want the votes of the parties who are committing these sins against society. I say let the women have a voice; and when it is said that this is ill-considered, that this is not the proper time, and that this is too serious a business to be considered by the Senate of the United States on this bill, I tell you society is marching on to it, and as I remarked before, it will not be ten years before there will be no voice in this Senate against female suffrage. It is necessary for women, if they are to be protected in society and not to be the prey of man, that they shall have the ballot to protect themselves. It is the only thing in a free government that can protect any one; and whether it is a natural right or an artificial right it is nonsense to discuss. It is a necessary right; it is necessary to freedom; it is necessary to equal rights; it is necessary to protection; it is necessary for every class to have the ballot if we are to have a square deal.
It’s easy for women who happen to have kind husbands and comfortable homes to look down on their less fortunate sisters who are denied basic rights. Those who enjoy luxury, power, and wealth often overlook those in need who are crying out for food and support. It’s simple to preach about laws and claim that women aren’t suited for certain roles or jobs, arguing that it’s inappropriate for them to earn a living or hold positions where they can contribute. It’s easy for us to insist, “Let’s pay her only half for the same work.” But those who serve and those who suffer experience it differently. How will the voices of women on this issue be heard? Will it only be the voices of those who feel protected, or will the voices of the weak and starving be heard as well? There’s no way for that to happen. We witness it every day. You talk about degradation. One of the main causes of the degradation in this country, one of the key reasons for the breakdown of families and the destruction of society, is the seedy bars, gambling joints, and hangouts for bad men that are overlooked despite your laws and will continue to be tolerated as long as only men vote. Women suffer because of these issues; that alone has often made me pause on this topic. I genuinely believe that if the good women of America could speak out today, they would bring reform to many injustices that we ignore or let persist because we want the votes of the parties responsible for these societal wrongs. I say let women have a voice; and when it’s claimed that this proposal is poorly timed and not serious enough for the Senate to consider, I tell you society is moving forward, and as I mentioned earlier, it won’t be long before there’s no one in this Senate opposing women’s suffrage. It’s essential for women, if they are to be safeguarded in society and not become victims of men, to have the ballot as a means of protection. It’s the only thing in a free government that can protect anyone; whether it’s a natural right or an artificial one is irrelevant. It’s a necessary right; it’s crucial for freedom; it’s vital for equal rights; it’s essential for protection; every group must have the ballot if we want fairness.
Mr. Boreman.—I had not intended to utter a word. I supposed the bill would pass upon the report which was made by the committee. I am inclined now to think that if it had not been for the unfortunate, if I may say so, amendment offered by my friend from California [Mr. Sargent] it would have passed long since. But this question of woman suffrage is one upon which all our friends probably do not desire to vote either one way or the other, and it is a very convenient way to get rid of voting on the question directly to lay this bill on the table. Fortunately that question has been settled for the present, and I am glad the Senate has seen fit not to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. Boreman.—I hadn't planned to say anything. I thought the bill would pass based on the committee's report. Now I think that if it weren't for the unfortunate amendment proposed by my friend from California [Mr. Sargent], it would have passed a long time ago. This issue of women's suffrage is one that probably not all of our colleagues want to take a firm stance on, and it's an easy way to avoid voting on it directly by tabling this bill. Thankfully, that issue has been settled for now, and I’m pleased that the Senate decided not to table the bill.
Mr. Edmunds.—The Senator speaks about people not wishing to vote on the amendment directly; and as I made the motion to lay on the table I assume that he refers to me. I beg to disabuse his mind on that subject, inasmuch as I am opposed to the amendment and am perfectly free to vote against it, and in doing so I suppose I represent, according to the latest advices I have, a very large majority of the people of Vermont.
Mr. Edmunds.—The Senator talks about people not wanting to vote on the amendment directly; since I made the motion to table it, I assume he's referring to me. I want to clear that up because I am against the amendment and am completely willing to vote against it. In doing so, I believe I represent, based on the latest information I have, a significant majority of the people of Vermont.
Mr. Boreman.—I agree with the Senator from Vermont on the subject of woman suffrage myself.
Mr. Boreman.—I personally agree with the Senator from Vermont about women's right to vote.
Mr. Edmunds.—Then I hope the Senator will not suggest that I am trying to dodge the question by moving to lay the bill on the table.[Pg 581]
Mr. Edmunds.—I hope the Senator won't claim that I'm trying to avoid the question by proposing to table the bill.[Pg 581]
Mr. Boreman.—Not at all. I did not allude to the Senator who made the motion; and the remark I made was more intended to be playful than serious. I simply thought that probably the bill had enough friends to pass it if that subject was not mooted. I may be mistaken. However, I shall be glad to have a vote on the bill either with or without woman suffrage incorporated in it. I shall vote against incorporating it, but if it is put there I shall nevertheless be gratified to have the bill passed. I feel no interest in it except as representing what I believe to be the interests and wishes of those to be affected by it. I think the circumstances are such as to justify Congress in organizing the Territory, else as representing the committee I should not have reported the bill. That is all I desire to say.
Mr. Boreman.—Not at all. I wasn’t referring to the Senator who made the motion, and my comment was meant to be more playful than serious. I just thought that maybe the bill had enough support to pass if that topic wasn’t brought up. I could be wrong. However, I’d be happy to have a vote on the bill, whether or not woman suffrage is included. I will vote against including it, but if it’s added, I’ll still be pleased to see the bill pass. I have no personal stake in it other than representing what I believe are the interests and wishes of those affected by it. I think the situation warrants Congress organizing the Territory; otherwise, as a representative of the committee, I wouldn’t have reported the bill. That’s all I want to say.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Anthony in the chair).—The question is on the amendment of the Senator from California [Mr. Sargent], upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Anthony in the chair).—The question is regarding the amendment proposed by the Senator from California [Mr. Sargent], on which the votes have been ordered.
The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.
The Secretary moved on to take attendance.
Mr. Johnson (when his name was called).—On this question I am paired with the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Spencer]. If he were here he would vote "yea" and I should vote "nay."
Mr. Johnson (when his name was called).—On this issue, I am paired with the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Spencer]. If he were present, he would vote "yes" and I would vote "no."
Mr. Bogy (after having first voted in the negative).—I rise to withdraw my vote. At the time I voted I forgot that I was paired with the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Dorsey]. I should have voted "nay" and he would have voted "yea."
Mr. Bogy (after initially voting no).—I’d like to change my vote. When I voted, I forgot that I was paired with the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Dorsey]. I should have voted "no," and he would have voted "yes."
The Presiding Officer.—The vote will be withdrawn if there be no objection.
The Presiding Officer.—The vote will be taken off the table if there are no objections.
Mr. Morrill, of Maine (after having first voted in the negative).—It occurs to me that I am paired with the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Oglesby). If he were here he would vote "yea" and I should vote "nay." I ask leave to withdraw my vote.
Mr. Morrill, of Maine (after having first voted no).—I realize that I'm paired with the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Oglesby). If he were here, he would vote "yes" and I would vote "no." I ask for permission to withdraw my vote.
The Presiding Officer.—Leave will be granted if there is no objection.
The Presiding Officer.—Leave will be granted if there are no objections.
The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announced—yeas 19, nays 27; as follows:
The roll call was finished, and the results were announced—yes 19, no 27; as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Carpenter, Chandler, Conover, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Gilbert, Harvey, Mitchell, Morton, Patterson, Pratt, Sargent, Sprague, Stewart, Tipton, Washburn, West, and Windom—19.
Yes—Messrs. Anthony, Carpenter, Chandler, Conover, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Gilbert, Harvey, Mitchell, Morton, Patterson, Pratt, Sargent, Sprague, Stewart, Tipton, Washburn, West, and Windom—19.
Nays—Messrs. Allison, Bayard, Boreman, Boutwell, Buckingham, Clayton, Conkling, Cooper, Davis, Edmunds, Frelinghuysen, Hager, Hamilton of Maryland, Hitchcock, Jones, Kelly, McCreery, Merrimon, Morrill of Vermont, Norwood, Ramsey, Ransom, Saulsbury, Scott, Sherman, Wadleigh, and Wright—27.
Nays—Messrs. Allison, Bayard, Boreman, Boutwell, Buckingham, Clayton, Conkling, Cooper, Davis, Edmunds, Frelinghuysen, Hager, Hamilton of Maryland, Hitchcock, Jones, Kelly, McCreery, Merrimon, Morrill of Vermont, Norwood, Ramsey, Ransom, Saulsbury, Scott, Sherman, Wadleigh, and Wright—27.
Absent—Messrs. Alcorn, Bogy, Brownlow, Cameron, Cragin, Dennis, Dorsey, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Gordon, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Howe, Ingalls, Johnson, Lewis, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Oglesby, Pease, Robertson, Schurz, Spencer, Stevenson, Stockton, and Thurman—27.
Absent—Messrs. Alcorn, Bogy, Brownlow, Cameron, Cragin, Dennis, Dorsey, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Gordon, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Howe, Ingalls, Johnson, Lewis, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Oglesby, Pease, Robertson, Schurz, Spencer, Stevenson, Stockton, and Thurman—27.
So the amendment was rejected.
So the amendment was rejected.
The Presiding Officer.—The question now is on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading.
The Presiding Officer.—The current question is whether to proceed with getting the bill ready for a third reading.
Mr. Morton called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered.
Mr. Morton requested a vote by yeas and nays; and it was approved.
Mr. Edmunds.—I ask the chairman of the committee if the clause still stands in the bill which authorizes all the male inhabitants of that Territory to vote at the first election?
Mr. Edmunds.—I’m asking the chairman of the committee if the clause that allows all the male residents of that Territory to vote in the first election is still in the bill?
Mr. Boreman.—I think the Senator is mistaken about that.[Pg 582]
Mr. Boreman.—I believe the Senator is wrong about that.[Pg 582]
Mr. Edmunds.—I am not asking whether I am mistaken or not; I am asking if the clause remains as it stood reported by the committee?
Mr. Edmunds.—I’m not wondering if I’m wrong or not; I’m asking if the clause still stands as reported by the committee?
Mr. Boreman.—Yes, sir.
Mr. Boreman.—Yes, sir.
Mr. Edmunds.—That is enough for me.
Mr. Edmunds.—That is enough for me.
Mr. Ramsey.—There is nothing new in that.
Mr. Ramsey.—That’s nothing new.
The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 19, nays 29; as follows:
The vote was taken with yeas and nays, resulting in—yeas 19, nays 29; as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Bogy, Boreman, Chandler, Clayton, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Harvey, Hitchcock, Jones, Kelly, Logan, Mitchell, Patterson, Pratt, Ramsey, Sherman, Tipton, Wadleigh, and Windom—19.
Yes—Mr. Bogy, Mr. Boreman, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Clayton, Mr. Ferry from Michigan, Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Hitchcock, Mr. Jones, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Logan, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Pratt, Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Wadleigh, and Mr. Windom—19.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Boutwell, Buckingham, Carpenter, Conkling, Conover, Davis, Edmunds, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Hager, Hamilton of Maryland, Ingalls, Johnson, McCreery, Merrimon, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Norwood, Ransom, Sargent, Saulsbury, Scott, Sprague, Stewart, Washburn, West, and Wright—29.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Boutwell, Buckingham, Carpenter, Conkling, Conover, Davis, Edmunds, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Hager, Hamilton of Maryland, Ingalls, Johnson, McCreery, Merrimon, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Norwood, Ransom, Sargent, Saulsbury, Scott, Sprague, Stewart, Washburn, West, and Wright—29.
Absent—Messrs. Alcorn, Allison, Brownlow, Cameron, Cooper, Cragin, Dennis, Dorsey, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Golthwaite, Gordon, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Howe, Lewis, Morton, Oglesby, Pease, Robertson, Schurz, Spencer, Stevenson, Stockton, and Thurman—25.
Absent—Mr. Alcorn, Mr. Allison, Mr. Brownlow, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Cragin, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Dorsey, Mr. Fenton, Mr. Ferry from Connecticut, Mr. Golthwaite, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Hamilton from Texas, Mr. Hamlin, Mr. Howe, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Morton, Mr. Oglesby, Mr. Pease, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Schurz, Mr. Spencer, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Stockton, and Mr. Thurman—25.
So the bill was rejected.
So the bill was rejected.
Though the measure was lost, and the women sad under repeated disappointments, yet the progress was noted with gratitude. In 1866 only nine Senators voted in favor of woman's enfranchisement after a three days' discussion of the measure. In 1874, after eight years of education, nineteen voted aye to the proposition.
Though the measure failed, and the women were disheartened by ongoing setbacks, the progress was acknowledged with appreciation. In 1866, only nine Senators voted for women's voting rights after three days of debate on the issue. In 1874, after eight years of advocacy, nineteen supported the proposition.
The seventh Washington Convention was held January 14th and 15th, 1875, in Lincoln Hall as usual. Mrs. Stanton opened the proceedings by stating that owing to the death of the President of the association, Martha C. Wright, the duties of presiding officer devolved upon her. After paying a well-merited tribute to her noble coadjutor, she said that many of their noblest friends had passed away. Among them Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Hon. Gerrit Smith, and Rev. Beriah Green.
The seventh Washington Convention took place on January 14th and 15th, 1875, in Lincoln Hall, as always. Mrs. Stanton kicked things off by announcing that due to the passing of the association's president, Martha C. Wright, the role of presiding officer fell to her. After honoring her esteemed colleague, she remarked that many of their greatest supporters had also passed away, including Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Hon. Gerrit Smith, and Rev. Beriah Green.
This meeting comes at a most auspicious moment, when the entire Nation is wide awake to the rights of self-government now being trampled on in Louisiana. At such a crisis it would seem that liberty-loving statesmen might easily be converted to the idea of universal suffrage. On every principle that they now demand self-government for the people of Louisiana, they should extend the right of suffrage to the women of that State now in so unsettled a condition. The annual report and resolutions were discussed and speeches made by Miss Anthony and Mrs. Blake during the morning session. Letters were read from Robert Dale Owen, of Philadelphia, Rev. O. B. Frothingham, of New York, Paulina Wright Davis, of Providence, Dr. J. C. Jackson, of Dansville, N. Y., and Abby Smith, of Glastonbury, Conn. Miss Couzins' speech in the evening on the "Social Trinity" was a touching appeal for woman's moral, spiritual,[Pg 583] and æsthetic influence on humanity at large. Miss Carrie Burnham made an interesting argument showing that the disabilities of women might be directly traced to papal decrees; to the canon rather than the civil law. Miss Lillie Devereux Blake made a strong appeal on the duty of enfranchising the women of the Nation before celebrating the coming Centennial. She thought it would be an act of justice that would glorify that day as it could be done in no other manner. Belva A. Lockwood, Marilla M. Ricker, Catharine Stebbins, Lavinia Dundore, and Dr. Clemence Lozier, all took part in the discussion of the resolutions.
This meeting comes at a crucial time, when the whole nation is fully aware of the rights to self-governance that are currently being violated in Louisiana. Given the situation, it seems that politicians who value freedom might easily be persuaded to support the idea of universal suffrage. Based on the principles they are advocating for the people of Louisiana, they should also grant the right to vote to the women of that state, which is in such an unstable position. The annual report and resolutions were discussed, with speeches made by Miss Anthony and Mrs. Blake during the morning session. Letters were read from Robert Dale Owen in Philadelphia, Rev. O. B. Frothingham in New York, Paulina Wright Davis in Providence, Dr. J. C. Jackson in Dansville, N.Y., and Abby Smith in Glastonbury, Conn. Miss Couzins' speech in the evening on the "Social Trinity" was a heartfelt appeal for women's moral, spiritual, [Pg 583] and aesthetic contributions to humanity as a whole. Miss Carrie Burnham presented an interesting argument showing that women's disabilities could be directly linked to papal decrees, pointing to canon law rather than civil law. Miss Lillie Devereux Blake made a compelling case for the necessity of granting women in the nation the right to vote before celebrating the upcoming Centennial. She believed it would be a just act that would honor that day in a way that nothing else could. Belva A. Lockwood, Marilla M. Ricker, Catharine Stebbins, Lavinia Dundore, and Dr. Clemence Lozier all participated in the discussion of the resolutions.
3. Resolved, That as the duties of citizens are the outgrowth of their rights, a class denied the common rights of citizenship should be exempt from all duties to the State. Hence the Misses Smith, of Glastonbury, Conn., and Abby Kelly Foster, of Worcester, Mass., who refused to pay taxes because not allowed to vote, suffered gross injustice and oppression at the hands of State officials, who seized and sold their property for taxes.
3. Resolved, That since citizens' duties come from their rights, a group denied the basic rights of citizenship should not be held to any responsibilities to the State. Therefore, the Smith sisters from Glastonbury, Conn., and Abby Kelly Foster from Worcester, Mass., who refused to pay taxes because they were not allowed to vote, faced significant injustice and oppression from State officials, who took and sold their property to cover the taxes.
4. Resolved, That to deny the right of suffrage to the women of the Nation, is a dangerous innovation on the rights of man, since the assumed power to deny the right to one class, is the implied power to deny it to all others; acting on this principle, New Hampshire abridges the rights of her citizens by forbidding Catholics to hold office; and Rhode Island abridges the rights of her citizens by forbidding foreigners to vote, except on a property qualification.
4. Resolved, That denying the right to vote to the women of the Nation is a risky change to the rights of individuals, since the power to deny rights to one group implies the power to deny it to all others; based on this idea, New Hampshire limits the rights of its citizens by prohibiting Catholics from holding office; and Rhode Island limits the rights of its citizens by preventing foreigners from voting, except if they meet a property requirement.
5. Resolved, That our thanks are due to the Hon. A. A. Sargent and the other eighteen Senators who voted for woman suffrage on the Pembina Bill, and to the 40,000 brave men who went to the polls and voted for woman suffrage in Michigan.
5. Resolved, That we express our gratitude to Hon. A. A. Sargent and the other eighteen Senators who supported woman suffrage on the Pembina Bill, and to the 40,000 courageous men who went to the polls and voted for woman suffrage in Michigan.
6. Resolved, That in the death of Martha C. Wright, the President of our National Association, Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, the first woman in the country who entered the medical profession, the Rev. Beriah Green, and the Hon. Gerrit Smith, steadfast advocates of woman suffrage, we have in the last year been called to mourn the loss of four most efficient and self-sacrificing friends of our movement—women and men alike true to the great principles of republican government.
6. Resolved, That with the passing of Martha C. Wright, the President of our National Association, Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, the first woman to join the medical profession in the country, the Rev. Beriah Green, and the Hon. Gerrit Smith, dedicated advocates for women's suffrage, we have spent the last year mourning the loss of four incredibly effective and selfless supporters of our cause—both women and men committed to the fundamental principles of democratic government.
Whereas, It is now proposed to celebrate our coming centennial birthday as a free Government, inviting the monarchies of the Old World to join in the festivities, while the women of the country have no share in its blessings; therefore,
Whereas, we are now planning to celebrate our upcoming 100th birthday as a free nation, inviting the monarchies of the Old World to participate in the festivities, while the women of the country are excluded from its benefits; therefore,
Resolved, That the National Woman Suffrage Association will hold a convention in Philadelphia on July 4, 1876, to protest against such injustice unless Congress shall in the meantime secure to woman the rights, privileges, and immunities of American citizens.
Resolved, That the National Woman Suffrage Association will hold a convention in Philadelphia on July 4, 1876, to protest against such injustice unless Congress secures the rights, privileges, and protections of American citizens for women in the meantime.
Resolved, That we cordially invite all women in the Old World and the New, to co-operate with us in promoting the objects of the convention in 1876. As the enfranchisement of woman would be the most fitting way of celebrating this great event in our nation's history, women suffragists throughout the country should now make an united effort with Congress and[Pg 584] all State Legislatures to act on this question, that when the old liberty bell rings in the dawn of the new century, we may all be free and equal citizens of a true republic.
Resolved, That we warmly invite all women from both the Old World and the New to join us in supporting the goals of the 1876 convention. Since granting women the right to vote would be the best way to commemorate this significant moment in our nation's history, women suffragists across the country should now come together with Congress and[Pg 584] all State Legislatures to address this issue, so that when the old liberty bell rings at the start of the new century, we can all be free and equal citizens of a true republic.
Miss Anthony said that man neither supports woman nor protects her. The census reports show that two million women are entirely independent of men in regard to employments. Thousands of women do work outside the home from necessity. A million women are engaged in domestic service providing for their own necessities, and a million more are supporting their families and drunken husbands.
Miss Anthony stated that men neither support women nor protect them. Census reports indicate that two million women are completely independent of men when it comes to jobs. Thousands of women work outside the home out of necessity. A million women are employed in domestic service to meet their own needs, and another million are supporting their families and their alcoholic husbands.
Letters were read from Dr. Mary Thomas, President of the Indiana Association, and from Clara Barton, then traveling in Italy, deploring the subject condition of women in foreign lands. The day after the Convention the ladies received their friends in the spacious parlors at Willard's Hotel. Congressmen, lawyers, clergymen, and many bright girls from the departments were among the guests. Nothing indicates the progress of a reform more readily than the cordial social recognition of its leaders. While pausing now and then to note the adverse winds we are compelled to encounter in the jealousies, discords, and divisions of friends, and in the ridicule and misrepresentation of enemies, a broader vision shows us that the great tidal waves of thought are all flowing in one direction.
Letters were read from Dr. Mary Thomas, President of the Indiana Association, and from Clara Barton, who was traveling in Italy at the time, expressing concern about the poor condition of women in other countries. The day after the Convention, the ladies welcomed their friends in the spacious lounges at Willard's Hotel. Congressmen, lawyers, clergymen, and many talented young women from the departments were among the guests. Nothing shows the progress of a reform more clearly than the warm social recognition of its leaders. While we occasionally stop to acknowledge the challenges we face from jealousy, discord, and divisions among friends, as well as from the mockery and misrepresentation by opponents, a broader perspective reveals that the major waves of thought are all moving in the same direction.
May 11, 1875, the twenty-seventh anniversary of the suffrage movement was held in the new Masonic Temple, Twenty-third street, New York. This magnificent Hall for the first time echoed to the demands of woman for an equal share in the great interests of the world.
May 11, 1875, marked the twenty-seventh anniversary of the suffrage movement, celebrated in the new Masonic Temple on Twenty-third Street in New York. For the first time, this magnificent hall resonated with women's demands for an equal role in the important issues of the world.
The convention was opened with prayer by the Rev. Olympia Brown, who referred most impressively to the coming Centennial, expressing the hope that the Fourth of July, 1876, might indeed be a day of jubilee, in which liberty and justice would be secured to the whole people. The resolutions[161] were discussed with great spirit by[Pg 585] the various speakers.[162] An interesting letter was read from Isabella Beecher Hooker, giving some of her experiences and observations in France.
The convention started with a prayer led by Rev. Olympia Brown, who spoke meaningfully about the upcoming Centennial, hoping that July 4, 1876, would truly be a day of celebration, where freedom and justice would be granted to everyone. The resolutions[161] were passionately discussed by[Pg 585] the various speakers.[162] An interesting letter from Isabella Beecher Hooker was read, sharing some of her experiences and observations in France.
The Hall was crowded in the evening to listen to Mr. Frothingham. His address was an able exposition of the injustice of the heavy taxes laid on women. He read several extracts from the reports of William I. Bowditch, of Boston, in regard to the large number of women in Massachusetts holding property, and in closing, depicted with great feeling the constant sacrifices women were compelled to endure because they had no representation in the Government. After a song by the Hutchinsons, the large audience slowly dispersed.
The hall was packed in the evening to hear Mr. Frothingham. His speech was a strong explanation of the unfair burdens of high taxes placed on women. He shared several excerpts from the reports of William I. Bowditch from Boston about the significant number of women in Massachusetts who owned property, and in conclusion, he vividly portrayed the ongoing sacrifices women had to make due to their lack of representation in the government. After a song by the Hutchinsons, the large crowd gradually broke up.
At a business meeting next day the officers[163] for the year were chosen, and arrangements made to canvass Iowa if, as was proposed, an amendment to the Constitution extending the right of suffrage to the women of that State, should be submitted to the people.
At a business meeting the next day, the officers[163] for the year were selected, and plans were made to campaign in Iowa if, as suggested, an amendment to the Constitution to grant voting rights to the women of that State was put to a vote.
All thoughts were now turned to the Centennial year, as to what new forms of agitation could be suggested; what onward steps of progress accomplished, for after the untiring labors of thirty years, the leaders in this movement naturally felt that the great event of the century could not pass without bringing some new liberty to woman.
All thoughts were now focused on the Centennial year, considering what new ways of activism could be proposed; what further progress had been made, because after thirty years of relentless effort, the leaders of this movement naturally believed that the significant event of the century should lead to some new freedoms for women.
FOOTNOTES:
[151] 2. Resolved, That the present attempts in our courts, by a false construction of the National Constitution, to exalt all men as sovereigns, and degrade all women as slaves, is to establish the most odious form of aristocracy known in the civilized world—that of sex.
[151] 2. Resolved, That the current efforts in our courts, through a misinterpretation of the National Constitution, to elevate all men as sovereigns while reducing all women to a status of subservience, is to create the most repugnant form of aristocracy recognized in the modern world—that of gender.
3. Resolved, That women are "persons" and "citizens," possessed of all the legal qualifications of voters in the several States—age, property, and education—and by the XIV. Amendment of the National Constitution have been secured the right of suffrage.
3. Resolved, That women are "people" and "citizens," meeting all the legal requirements to vote in the various States—age, property, and education—and according to the XIV Amendment of the National Constitution have been granted the right to vote.
4.: Resolved, That it is the duty of Congress, by appropriate legislation, to protect women in their exercise of this right.
4.: Resolved, That it is Congress's responsibility, through proper laws, to safeguard women in their exercise of this right.
5. Resolved, That women are citizens, first of the United States, and second of the States and Territories wherein they reside; hence we claim National protection of our inalienable rights, against all State authority.
5. Resolved, That women are citizens, first of the United States, and second of the States and Territories where they live; therefore, we demand National protection of our inalienable rights against any State authority.
6. Resolved, That States may regulate all local questions of property, taxation, etc., but the inalienable personal rights of citizenship must be declared by the Constitution, interpreted by the Supreme Court, protected by Congress, and enforced by the arm of the Executive.
6. Resolved, That states can manage all local issues related to property, taxes, and so on, but the fundamental personal rights of citizenship must be defined by the Constitution, interpreted by the Supreme Court, safeguarded by Congress, and enforced by the power of the Executive.
7. Resolved, That the criminal prosecution of Susan B. Anthony by the United States, for the alleged crime of exercising the citizen's right of suffrage, is an act of arbitrary authority, unconstitutional, and a blow at the liberties of every citizen of this nation.
7. Resolved, That the criminal prosecution of Susan B. Anthony by the United States, for the supposed crime of exercising the citizen's right to vote, is an act of arbitrary authority, unconstitutional, and a strike against the freedoms of every citizen in this nation.
Business Committee:—Matilda Joslyn Gage, New York; Belva A. Lockwood, District of Columbia; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York; Mrs. Mary Henderson, Missouri; Mrs. Lavinia Dundore, Maryland; Edward M. Davis, Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary A. Dobyns, Kentucky; Mrs. Anna C. Savery, Iowa; Miss Phebe Couzins, St. Louis; Mrs. Jane Graham Jones, Illinois; Mrs. Helen M. Barnard, District of Columbia; Rev. Olympia Brown, Connecticut; Robert Purvis, District of Columbia.
Business Committee:—Matilda Joslyn Gage, New York; Belva A. Lockwood, D.C.; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York; Mrs. Mary Henderson, Missouri; Mrs. Lavinia Dundore, Maryland; Edward M. Davis, Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary A. Dobyns, Kentucky; Mrs. Anna C. Savery, Iowa; Miss Phebe Couzins, St. Louis; Mrs. Jane Graham Jones, Illinois; Mrs. Helen M. Barnard, D.C.; Rev. Olympia Brown, Connecticut; Robert Purvis, D.C.
Finance Committee:—Mrs. Ellen C. Sargent, Belva A. Lockwood; Edward M. Davis, Ruth Carr Dennison, Helen M. Barnard.
Finance Committee:—Mrs. Ellen C. Sargent, Belva A. Lockwood; Edward M. Davis, Ruth Carr Dennison, Helen M. Barnard.
Committee on Resolution:—Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Belva A. Lockwood, Lillie Devereux Blake, Matilda Joslyn Gage.
Committee on Resolution:—Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Belva A. Lockwood, Lillie Devereux Blake, Matilda Joslyn Gage.
[152] Woman Suffrage Anniversary.—National Woman Suffrage Association.—The Twenty-fifth Woman Suffrage Anniversary will be held in Apollo Hall, New York, Tuesday, May 6, 1873. Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who called the first Woman's Rights convention at Seneca Falls, 1848, will be present to give their reminiscences. That Convention was scarcely mentioned by the local press; now, over the whole world, equality for woman is demanded. In the United States, woman suffrage is the chief political question of the hour. Great Britain is deeply agitated upon the same topic; Germany has a princess at the head of its National Woman's Rights organization. Portugal, Spain, and Russia have been roused. In Rome an immense meeting, composed of the representatives of Italian democracy, was recently called in the old Coliseum; one of its resolutions demanded a reform in the laws relating to woman and a re-establishment of her natural rights. Turkey, France, England, Switzerland, Italy, sustain papers devoted to woman's enfranchisement. A Grand International Woman's Rights Congress is to be held in Paris in September of this year, to which the whole world is invited to send delegates, and this Congress is to be under the management of the most renowned liberals of Europe. Come up, then, friends, and celebrate the Silver Wedding of the Woman Suffrage movement. Let our Twenty-fifth Anniversary be one of power; our reform is everywhere advancing, let us redouble our energies and our courage.
[152] Woman Suffrage Anniversary.—National Woman Suffrage Association.—The Twenty-fifth Woman Suffrage Anniversary will be held in Apollo Hall, New York, on Tuesday, May 6, 1873. Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who organized the first Women’s Rights convention at Seneca Falls in 1848, will be there to share their memories. That convention was hardly mentioned by the local press; now, across the globe, people demand equality for women. In the United States, woman suffrage is the most important political issue of the moment. Great Britain is deeply engaged in the same discussion; Germany has a princess leading its National Woman’s Rights organization. Portugal, Spain, and Russia have also become involved. In Rome, a massive gathering, made up of representatives from Italian democracy, was recently held in the old Coliseum; one of its resolutions called for reform in laws regarding women and a restoration of their natural rights. Turkey, France, England, and Switzerland have newspapers dedicated to women’s suffrage. A Grand International Woman’s Rights Congress is set to take place in Paris this September, inviting delegates from all over the world, and this Congress will be organized by the most famous liberals in Europe. So, let’s come together, friends, and celebrate the Silver Anniversary of the Woman Suffrage movement. Let our Twenty-fifth Anniversary be one of strength; our reform is progressing everywhere, so let’s amplify our efforts and our bravery.
| Matilda Joslyn Gage, Ch'n Ex. Com. | Susan B. Anthony, Pres. |
[153] Mrs. Elizabeth Avery Meriwether, Tennessee; Isabella Beecher Hooker, Connecticut; Francis Miller, Washington, D. C.; Sarah R. L. Williams, Toledo, Ohio; Mrs. C. M. Palmer, California; Carrie S. Burnham, Pennsylvania; Ellen C. Sargent, Washington; Le Grand Marvin, Buffalo, N. Y.; Carl Doerflinger, Wisconsin; Emily Pitts Stevens, editor of the Pioneer, San Francisco, Cal.; A. Jane Duniway, editor of the New Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
[153] Mrs. Elizabeth Avery Meriwether, Tennessee; Isabella Beecher Hooker, Connecticut; Francis Miller, Washington, D.C.; Sarah R. L. Williams, Toledo, Ohio; Mrs. C. M. Palmer, California; Carrie S. Burnham, Pennsylvania; Ellen C. Sargent, Washington; Le Grand Marvin, Buffalo, NY; Carl Doerflinger, Wisconsin; Emily Pitts Stevens, editor of the Pioneer, San Francisco, CA; A. Jane Duniway, editor of the New Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
[154] Whereas, This being the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first combined effort of women for the recognition of their civil and political rights; and,
[154] Whereas, This marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first joint effort by women to gain recognition of their civil and political rights; and,
Whereas, The demands first publicly promulgated in an obscure village in the State of New York have now spread over the world; therefore,
Whereas, The demands that were first made known in a little-known village in New York are now widespread across the globe; therefore,
Resolved, That while we congratulate women on the progress of this reform during a quarter of a century, we urge them not to grow discouraged or faint-hearted when obstacles arise in their attack upon hoary wrongs. We remind them that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, and that the nearer we come to victory the stronger will be the effort against us. But our cause is one of eternal justice, and must ultimately prevail.
Resolved, That while we congratulate women on the progress of this reform over the past twenty-five years, we encourage them not to become discouraged or lose heart when facing challenges in their fight against long-standing injustices. We remind them that success doesn’t always go to the fastest, nor victory to the strongest, and that as we get closer to victory, the opposition will likely become fiercer. However, our cause is one of lasting justice and will ultimately triumph.
Resolved, That Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton will evermore be held in grateful remembrance as the pioneers in this grandest reform of the age; that as the wrongs they attacked were broader and deeper than any other, so as time passes they will be revered as foremost among the benefactors of the race, and that we also hold sacred the memory of their co-laborers in the Convention of 1848.
Resolved, That Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton will always be remembered with gratitude as the pioneers of this greatest reform of our time; that as the injustices they fought against were more widespread and profound than any others, they will be honored over time as leading figures among the benefactors of humanity, and that we also cherish the memory of their fellow activists in the 1848 Convention.
Whereas, The underlying principle of our Government is equality of political rights, therefore,
Whereas, the core principle of our government is the equality of political rights, therefore,
Resolved, That in the prosecution and trial of Susan B. Anthony, a citizen of the United State, for having cast a ballot at the last election, the Government of the United States declares it is a crime to vote, thus attempting to undermine the very foundation of the Republic.
Resolved, That in the prosecution and trial of Susan B. Anthony, a citizen of the United States, for having cast a ballot in the last election, the Government of the United States declares it is a crime to vote, thereby trying to undermine the very foundation of the Republic.
Resolved, That as in this trial Susan B. Anthony represents one-half of the people, the whole power of the United States is arrayed against the women of the nation—against law-abiding, tax-paying women citizens.
Resolved, That in this trial, Susan B. Anthony represents half of the population, while all the power of the United States is set against the women of the nation—against law-abiding, tax-paying women citizens.
Resolved, That the trial of Susan B. Anthony, though ostensibly involving the political status of woman alone, in reality questions the right of every man to share in the Government; that it is not Susan B. Anthony, or the women of the Republic who alone are on trial to-day, but it is the Government of the United States, and that as the decision is rendered for or against the political rights of citizenship, so will the men of America find themselves free or enslaved.
Resolved, That the trial of Susan B. Anthony, while appearing to focus solely on the political status of women, actually challenges the right of every man to participate in the Government; that it is not just Susan B. Anthony or the women of the Republic who are on trial today, but it is the Government of the United States itself, and that as the decision is made for or against the political rights of citizenship, so will the men of America find themselves either free or enslaved.
Resolved, That the decisions of the courts in the case of Mrs. Bradwell, of Illinois, Mrs. Spencer and Mrs. Webster, of Washington; Mrs. Minor, of St. Louis; Miss Burnham, of Philadelphia, and others, are warnings to the people that their liberties are in danger.
Resolved, That the court rulings in the cases of Mrs. Bradwell from Illinois, Mrs. Spencer and Mrs. Webster from Washington, Mrs. Minor from St. Louis, Miss Burnham from Philadelphia, and others, serve as alerts to the people that their freedoms are at risk.
Resolved, That it is because women are not voters, and, therefore, have no recognized political power, that the members of the Forty-second Congress, while raising their own salaries from $5,000 to $7,500, dared to reject an amendment to the same bill, which proposed to raise the salaries of the women employés of the Government from $900 to $1,200.
Resolved, That it is because women cannot vote, and thus have no acknowledged political influence, that the members of the Forty-second Congress, while increasing their own salaries from $5,000 to $7,500, had the audacity to turn down an amendment to the same bill, which suggested raising the salaries of the women employees of the Government from $900 to $1,200.
Resolved, That in the coming Centennial of our nation's birth it is mockery to ask woman to lend a helping hand without some pledge to right her wrongs; what cause has she for rejoicing unless the century shall round out with her enfranchisement, and the old liberty bell ring in equality for all.
Resolved, That in the upcoming 100th anniversary of our nation's birth, it is a joke to ask women to help without some promise to address their injustices; what reason does she have to celebrate unless this century concludes with her gaining the right to vote, and the old liberty bell rings for equality for everyone.
Resolved, That the report of the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly of the State of New York in regard to a property suffrage qualification for women, is one of the signs of awakened thought toward our reform.
Resolved, That the report from the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly of the State of New York regarding a property suffrage qualification for women is a clear indication of increased awareness and progress in our reform efforts.
Resolved, That the rapid advance of Woman's Rights in foreign countries is a subject of gratulation, and as a matter of special cheer we call particular attention to the grand international Woman's Rights Congress, under the control of the liberals of Europe, to be held in Paris during the present year.
Resolved, That the quick progress of women's rights in other countries is something to celebrate, and as a point of special joy, we highlight the upcoming grand international women's rights congress, organized by the liberals of Europe, to be held in Paris this year.
Whereas, The National Woman Suffrage Association has been requested to send delegates to the International Woman's Rights Congress to be held in Paris in October next; therefore,
Whereas, The National Woman Suffrage Association has been asked to send delegates to the International Woman's Rights Congress taking place in Paris this October; therefore,
Resolved, That this Association empower Ernestine L. Rose, Paulina Wright Davis, Mathilde F. Wendt, Jane Graham Jones, and Elizabeth Phelps Pearsall, to represent our woman suffrage movement in that congress.
Resolved, That this Association empowers Ernestine L. Rose, Paulina Wright Davis, Mathilde F. Wendt, Jane Graham Jones, and Elizabeth Phelps Pearsall to represent our women’s suffrage movement at that congress.
[155] Mrs. Nettie C. Tabor, Cal.; Frances Ellen Burr, Hartford, Conn.; Mrs. Elizabeth B. Phelps, N. Y.; Mrs. E. Langdon, N. Y.; Jane B. Archibald, D. C.; Miss Jennie V. Jewell, D. C.; Mrs. Adeliah Gardiner, Baltimore; Kate C. Harris, Baltimore; Miss Laura Ewing, Baltimore; Phoebe W. Couzins; Edward M. Davis, Philadelphia; Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville, N. Y.; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York City; Ruth C. Dennison, D. C.; Sara Andrews Spencer, D. C.; Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, New York City; Belva A. Lockwood, Virginia L. Vaughn, James K. Wilcox, and the Hutchinson Family.
[155] Mrs. Nettie C. Tabor, California; Frances Ellen Burr, Hartford, Connecticut; Mrs. Elizabeth B. Phelps, New York; Mrs. E. Langdon, New York; Jane B. Archibald, Washington, D.C.; Miss Jennie V. Jewell, Washington, D.C.; Mrs. Adeliah Gardiner, Baltimore; Kate C. Harris, Baltimore; Miss Laura Ewing, Baltimore; Phoebe W. Couzins; Edward M. Davis, Philadelphia; Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville, New York; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York City; Ruth C. Dennison, Washington, D.C.; Sara Andrews Spencer, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, New York City; Belva A. Lockwood, Virginia L. Vaughn, James K. Wilcox, and the Hutchinson Family.
[156] Letters were received from Paulina Wright Davis, Providence, R. I.; Virginia L. Minor, St. Louis, Mo.; Hon. E. G. Lapham, Canandaigua, N. Y.; Vice-Pres. Henry Wilson, Natick, Mass.; John Van Vhoris, Rochester, N. Y.; Dr. James C. Jackson, Dansville, N. Y.; Hon. Henry R. Selden, Rochester, N. Y.; Hon. John A. Kasson, Iowa; Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Newport, R. I.; Ernestine L. Rose, London, England; Dr. Laura Ross Wolcott, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Carrie S. Burnham, Philadelphia, Pa.; Lewia C. Smith, Rochester, N. Y.; Asenath Coolidge, Watertown, N. Y.; Priscilla Holmes Drake, Alabama; Laura De Force Gordon, California; George F. Downing, Washington, D. C.; The Free Thinkers Club of Milwaukee; The Radical Democracy of Wisconsin.
[156] Letters were received from Paulina Wright Davis, Providence, RI; Virginia L. Minor, St. Louis, MO; Hon. E. G. Lapham, Canandaigua, NY; Vice President Henry Wilson, Natick, MA; John Van Vhoris, Rochester, NY; Dr. James C. Jackson, Dansville, NY; Hon. Henry R. Selden, Rochester, NY; Hon. John A. Kasson, Iowa; Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Newport, RI; Ernestine L. Rose, London, England; Dr. Laura Ross Wolcott, Milwaukee, WI; Carrie S. Burnham, Philadelphia, PA; Lewia C. Smith, Rochester, NY; Asenath Coolidge, Watertown, NY; Priscilla Holmes Drake, Alabama; Laura De Force Gordon, California; George F. Downing, Washington, DC; The Free Thinkers Club of Milwaukee; The Radical Democracy of Wisconsin.
[157] Resolved, That this convention, representing as it does all portions of our country, cordially sympathizes with the proposed efforts of the women of the District of Columbia to secure the practical enjoyment of their constitutional right to vote, as declared by the Supreme Court of said District, by the passage of an act of Congress amending the organic law of the District by striking out the word "male" from the seventh section of said act; and we earnestly request our senators and representatives to support a bill providing for such an amendment by speech and vote.
[157] Resolved, That this convention, representing all parts of our country, fully supports the efforts of the women in the District of Columbia to effectively exercise their constitutional right to vote, as stated by the Supreme Court of the District, by passing a bill in Congress to amend the organic law of the District by removing the word "male" from the seventh section of that act; and we strongly urge our senators and representatives to back a bill for such an amendment through their speeches and votes.
Resolved, That a committee of seven be appointed by the president of this convention to co-operate with the committee heretofore appointed by the women of the District of Columbia in their application to Congress for the passage of an act amendatory of the organic act of said District, as above indicated.
Resolved, That the president of this convention appoint a committee of seven to work alongside the committee previously appointed by the women of the District of Columbia in their request to Congress for the passage of a law amending the organic act of said District, as stated above.
Resolved, That among the important events in our struggle for the equal rights of woman we place the trial of Miss Susan B. Anthony before Hon. Ward Hunt, a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, at Canandaigua, New York, in June last, on an indictment for voting as a citizen at the general election in November, 1872; that the grossly partial course of Judge Hunt on that occasion, his seeming unacquaintance with the plainest rules of law, and his eagerness for the conviction of Miss Anthony, stand in marked contrast with the calm demeanor and clear apprehension of the facts and principles at issue which she exhibited on the trial, and their conduct respectively in this memorable contest affords proof that, though it may be possible that all women have not a constitutional right to be voters, it is very certain that some men are not fit to be judges.
Resolved, That among the key events in our fight for women's equal rights, we highlight the trial of Miss Susan B. Anthony before Hon. Ward Hunt, a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Canandaigua, New York, last June, for voting as a citizen in the general election in November 1872; that Judge Hunt's blatantly biased behavior during that trial, his apparent ignorance of basic legal principles, and his eagerness to convict Miss Anthony stand in stark contrast to the composed demeanor and clear understanding of the facts and issues she displayed during the trial, and their actions in this significant case demonstrate that while it may be true that not all women have a constitutional right to vote, it is very clear that some men are unfit to be judges.
Resolved, That waiving for the present moment the question whether or not Judge Hunt was correct in his decision concerning the constitutional right of women to vote for Federal officers, nevertheless, in the opinion of all sound lawyers and intelligent men, he committed a great outrage against Miss Anthony by assuming, without proof, that she voted for a candidate for Congress, and by arbitrarily refusing to allow the jury to pass upon the question of her innocence, and by peremptorily commanding them to render a verdict of guilty. That so plain is this to the minds of those who possess any clear knowledge of general principles of law, and of the ordinary duties of a criminal court, that Judge Hunt has shown by his conduct on that trial that he is too ignorant to fill his high position, or too arbitrary to be entrusted with its grave responsibilities; and, therefore, in either case, he ought to be impeached and removed from the bench.
Resolved, That setting aside for now the question of whether Judge Hunt was right in his decision about women's constitutional right to vote for Federal officers, it is clear to all reasonable lawyers and thoughtful individuals that he committed a serious injustice against Miss Anthony by assuming, without any evidence, that she voted for a congressional candidate, and by unjustly preventing the jury from considering her innocence, while excessively ordering them to deliver a guilty verdict. It is so obvious to those who understand fundamental legal principles and the typical functions of a criminal court that Judge Hunt's actions during that trial demonstrate that he is either too uninformed to hold his esteemed position or too authoritarian to be trusted with its significant responsibilities; thus, in either case, he should be impeached and removed from the bench.
Resolved, That by the death of John Stuart Mill, woman has lost a wise, brave friend. His great work for the enfranchisement of woman, and for the elevation of all mankind deserves the public thanks of this convention.
Resolved, That with the passing of John Stuart Mill, women have lost a wise, courageous ally. His significant efforts for women's rights and for the betterment of humanity deserve the public gratitude of this convention.
Resolved, That in Hon. John C. Underwood, lately removed from the bench by death, the women of his district have lost that rarest of public servants, a judge to whom the disfranchised could confidently look for justice.
Resolved, That in Hon. John C. Underwood, who was recently taken from us by death, the women of his district have lost a truly exceptional public servant, a judge the disenfranchised could trust to seek justice.
Resolved, That by the death of John M. Morris, late editor of the Washington Chronicle, the cause of woman's freedom lost a tried and valued friend, whose faithfulness and judgment entitled him to the gratitude of the women of this Nation.
Resolved, That with the passing of John M. Morris, the former editor of the Washington Chronicle, the movement for women's freedom has lost a loyal and valuable supporter, whose dedication and insight deserve the gratitude of women across this Nation.
Miss Anthony submitted the following:
Miss Anthony submitted the following:
Resolved, That the thanks of the friends of woman suffrage are due to the Misses Smith, of Glastonbury, Connecticut, for their patriotic resistance to the tyranny of taxation without representation, and that all women tax payers through the country should follow their example.
Resolved, That the friends of women's suffrage owe their thanks to the Misses Smith, of Glastonbury, Connecticut, for their patriotic stand against the injustice of taxation without representation, and that all women taxpayers across the country should follow their lead.
Resolved, That the best means of agitating at the present hour is for all women to insist on their right of representation by actually presenting their votes at every election, and for all property-holding women to refuse to pay another dollar of tax until their right of representation is recognized.
Resolved, That the most effective way to push for change right now is for all women to demand their right to be represented by actively voting in every election, and for all women who own property to stop paying any taxes until their right to representation is acknowledged.
Peterboro, January 5, 1874
Peterboro, January 5, 1874
Susan B. Anthony—My Dear Friend: As I am suffering from an attack of vertigo, I answer your letter by the hand of my wife. Enclosed is my contribution toward defraying the expenses of your convention. Strong as is the Constitutional argument for woman suffrage, I nevertheless hope that your convention will not tolerate the idea of measuring the rights of woman by a man-made constitution. Have you heard of a State in which women and women only bear rule, and the constitution of which was made by women only? Perhaps there is such a flagrantly unjust state, either on this or some other planet. If so, deep is the injury done to its men. But deeper the insult added to this injury if, when the men complain of being excluded from the government, the women apply to the measurement of man's rights the yardstick of a woman-made constitution. Constitutions are useful in settling ten thousand subordinate questions. But the great questions of primary and inherent human rights are to be submitted to no lower decisions than those of God's immutable and everlasting justice.
Susan B. Anthony—My Dear Friend: Since I'm experiencing a bout of vertigo, I'm having my wife respond to your letter. I've enclosed my contribution to help cover the costs of your convention. While the constitutional case for women's suffrage is strong, I still hope your convention won't accept the idea of measuring women's rights through a man-made constitution. Have you heard of any state where only women hold power, and the constitution was created solely by women? Perhaps there's such an incredibly unjust state, either on this planet or another. If that’s the case, the harm done to its men is significant. But the insult is even greater if, when the men complain about being left out of governance, the women use a woman-made constitution to justify measuring men's rights. Constitutions can help resolve countless smaller issues. However, the fundamental questions of primary and inherent human rights should be decided only by God's unchanging and everlasting justice.
Gerrit Smith.
Gerrit Smith.
With high regard, your friend,
With high regard, your friend,
GEN. BUTLER'S LETTER.
GEN. BUTLER'S LETTER.
Washington, December 1.
Washington, December 1.
My Dear Madam: As a rule I have refused to take part in any convention in the District of Columbia about any matter which might come before Congress. I do not think it proper. I went far out of my way in this regard, having given evidence that I am most strongly committed to the legality, propriety and justice of giving the ballot to woman. I do not see how I can add anything to it by appearing on the platform in advocacy of any measure that may come before me as a Member of Congress, and I do not think my sense of propriety would over-balance such considerations. Hoping that your cause may succeed, I have the honor to be, very truly yours,
My Dear Madam: Generally, I have not participated in any conventions in the District of Columbia regarding issues that may come before Congress. I don’t think it’s appropriate. I have gone to great lengths to show that I am entirely committed to the legality, propriety, and fairness of granting women the right to vote. I don’t believe I can contribute anything further by speaking on the platform in support of any measures that may come before me as a Member of Congress, and I don’t think my sense of propriety would outweigh those considerations. Wishing you success in your cause, I remain sincerely yours,
Ben. F. Butler.
Ben. F. Butler.
[158] Annual Convention of the National Woman Suffrage Association.—For more than a quarter of a century the representative women of this nation have held annual meetings, demanding the recognition of their rights as citizens of the United States. In halls of legislation and courts of justice, as well as in Conventions, woman's equality with man in all civil and political rights, privileges and immunities, has been debated and variously decided by popular opinion, statute law and judicial decree, without arriving at any permanent settlement of the question. And until the world learns that there should be but one code of laws and morals for man and woman, this question never can be settled. But the discussion has roused woman herself to new thought and action, and kindled in her an enthusiasm that the best interests of the nation demand should be wisely directed and controlled.
[158] Annual Convention of the National Woman Suffrage Association.—For over twenty-five years, representative women across the nation have gathered annually to demand acknowledgment of their rights as citizens of the United States. In legislative halls and courts, as well as in Conventions, the issue of women's equality with men in all civil and political rights, privileges, and protections has been debated and varying conclusions reached based on public opinion, laws, and judicial decisions, without ever finding a lasting resolution. Until society understands that there should be a single set of laws and morals for both men and women, this issue will remain unresolved. However, the discussions have sparked new thoughts and actions among women, igniting an enthusiasm that the nation's best interests need to have wisely guided and managed.
The fact that women are already voting, holding office and resisting taxation, that thousands are enrolling in the Grange movement and Temperance Crusade, that Woman Suffrage is to be voted upon in Michigan at the next election, should warn the Government that the hour for its action has come. It must now determine whether woman's transition from slavery to freedom shall be through reformation or revolution, whether she shall be permitted to express her interest in national questions through law by the direct power of the ballot, or outside of law by indirect and irresponsible power; and thus, by a blind enthusiasm, plunge the nation into anarchy.
The fact that women are already voting, holding office, and resisting taxation, that thousands are joining the Grange movement and Temperance Crusade, and that Woman Suffrage will be on the ballot in Michigan at the next election should alert the Government that it's time to take action. It now needs to decide whether women's shift from oppression to freedom will happen through reform or revolution, whether they should be allowed to express their views on national issues through legitimate means with the power of the ballot, or resort to indirect and irresponsible methods, which could potentially lead the nation into chaos.
For an earnest discussion of the duty of the hour, we invite all persons interested in woman's enfranchisement to meet in Irving Hall, New York, on the 14th and 15th of May.
For a serious discussion about the important issues of the time, we invite everyone interested in women's rights to gather at Irving Hall, New York, on May 14th and 15th.
Susan B. Anthony, President.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Chairman Ex. Com.
Susan B. Anthony, President.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Chairwoman of the Executive Committee.
[159] The speakers at this Convention were Ernestine L. Rose, Martha C. Wright, O. B. Frothingham, Rev. Olympia Brown, Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Elizabeth B. Phelps, Carrie S. Burnham, Sarah Andrews Spencer, Frances V. Hallock, Amanda Deyo, Dr. J. Mix, Mrs. Helen M. Slocum, Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, Lillie Devereux Blake, Susan B. Anthony.
[159] The speakers at this convention were Ernestine L. Rose, Martha C. Wright, O. B. Frothingham, Rev. Olympia Brown, Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Elizabeth B. Phelps, Carrie S. Burnham, Sarah Andrews Spencer, Frances V. Hallock, Amanda Deyo, Dr. J. Mix, Mrs. Helen M. Slocum, Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, Lillie Devereux Blake, and Susan B. Anthony.
[160] Letters were received at this May Anniversary (1874) from Lucinda B. Chandler, Vineland, New Jersey; Mrs. C. C. Hussey, Report of New Jersey; Mary F. Davis, New Jersey; Catherine F. Stebbins, Michigan; Mary J. Channing, Paulina Wright Davis, Rhode Island; Alfred H. Love, Edward M. Davis, Sarah Pugh, Philadelphia; Lorenza Haynes, Theological School, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N. Y.; Sarah R. L. Williams, Toledo, Ohio; Harriet S. Brooks, Report for Illinois; Catharine V. Waite, Illinois; Lizzie Boynton Harbert, Iowa; Virginia L. Minor, Missouri; Annie L. Quinby, Kentucky; Sarah Burger Stearns, Duluth, Minnesota; Hon. Benj. F. Butler, Massachusetts; Mrs. C. H. Baker, Mrs. H. K. Clapp, Nevada; Sarah J. Wallis, California; Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols, Pomo, California; Mariana Thompson Folsom, Foxboro, Mass.; Emily P. Collins, La.; Mary K. Spalding, Atlanta, Ga.; Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, New York; Mary L. Booth, Harper's Bazar, New York; Ann T. Greeley, Ellsworth, Me.; Mary Olney Brown, Olympia, Washington Territory.
[160] Letters were received at this May Anniversary (1874) from Lucinda B. Chandler, Vineland, New Jersey; Mrs. C. C. Hussey, Report of New Jersey; Mary F. Davis, New Jersey; Catherine F. Stebbins, Michigan; Mary J. Channing, Paulina Wright Davis, Rhode Island; Alfred H. Love, Edward M. Davis, Sarah Pugh, Philadelphia; Lorenza Haynes, Theological School, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N. Y.; Sarah R. L. Williams, Toledo, Ohio; Harriet S. Brooks, Report for Illinois; Catharine V. Waite, Illinois; Lizzie Boynton Harbert, Iowa; Virginia L. Minor, Missouri; Annie L. Quinby, Kentucky; Sarah Burger Stearns, Duluth, Minnesota; Hon. Benj. F. Butler, Massachusetts; Mrs. C. H. Baker, Mrs. H. K. Clapp, Nevada; Sarah J. Wallis, California; Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols, Pomo, California; Mariana Thompson Folsom, Foxboro, Mass.; Emily P. Collins, La.; Mary K. Spalding, Atlanta, Ga.; Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, New York; Mary L. Booth, Harper's Bazar, New York; Ann T. Greeley, Ellsworth, Me.; Mary Olney Brown, Olympia, Washington Territory.
[161] Resolved, That as complete individual development depends on the harmonious exercise of our three-fold nature, and undue power given to either deranges and undermines the whole being, so in the nation, a complete experiment of self-government can be made only by the equal recognition of the rights of all citizens, and in their homogeneous education into the laws of national life.
[161] Resolved, That true individual development relies on the balanced use of our three-part nature, and giving too much power to any one part disrupts and weakens the entire being; similarly, in a nation, a full experiment in self-government can only happen through the equal recognition of all citizens' rights and their unified education in the principles of national life.
Resolved, That the decision of Chief Justice Waite, in the case of Virginia L. Minor of Missouri, that according to the Federal Constitution woman is a citizen, but not entitled to the right of suffrage, is more infamous and retrogressive in principle at this hour, than was Chief-Justice Tancy's decision in the Dred Scott case, that a black man was not a United States citizen, and therefore not entitled to the rights of a citizen of every State.
Resolved, That the ruling of Chief Justice Waite in the case of Virginia L. Minor from Missouri, which states that according to the Federal Constitution, a woman is a citizen but not entitled to vote, is more shameful and backward in principle today than Chief Justice Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, which claimed that a black man was not a United States citizen and therefore not entitled to the rights of a citizen in any state.
Whereas, By the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Myra Bradwell of Illinois, and of Virginia L. Minor of Missouri, the Federal Constitution is declared powerless to protect the civil and political rights of woman.
Whereas, Recent decisions by the Supreme Court in the cases of Myra Bradwell from Illinois and Virginia L. Minor from Missouri have stated that the Federal Constitution cannot protect the civil and political rights of women.
Resolved, That it is the duty of Congress to take the necessary steps to secure an amendment to the Constitution that shall prohibit the several States from disfranchising citizens of the United States on account of sex.
Resolved, That it is the responsibility of Congress to take the necessary actions to secure an amendment to the Constitution that will prevent the states from denying citizens of the United States the right to vote based on their sex.
Whereas, One of the strongest evidences of the degradation of disfranchised classes is the denial of their right to testify against their rulers in courts of justice (slaves could not testify against their masters; Chinamen in California to-day can not testify against white men, nor wives in cases of crim. con. against their husbands); therefore
Whereas, one of the strongest pieces of evidence of the degradation of marginalized groups is the denial of their right to testify against their rulers in courts of law (slaves could not testify against their masters; Chinese people in California today cannot testify against white men, nor can wives in cases of adultery testify against their husbands); therefore
Resolved, That the denial of Elizabeth R. Tilton's right to testify in the pending Brooklyn trial, is but proof of woman's need of the ballot in her own right for self-defence and self-protection.
Resolved, That denying Elizabeth R. Tilton the right to testify in the ongoing Brooklyn trial proves that women need the right to vote for their own defense and protection.
Resolved, That as the proposition for woman's enfranchisement is to be submitted in Iowa, in 1876, the National Woman Suffrage Association will hold there 100 county conventions, and by lectures and the circulation of tracts, help the women of Iowa to make a thorough canvass of the State.
Resolved, That since the proposal for women's voting rights will be presented in Iowa in 1876, the National Woman Suffrage Association will hold 100 county conventions there and assist the women of Iowa in thoroughly canvassing the state through lectures and distributing pamphlets.
Resolved, That we congratulate the women of England for the large vote secured on the Woman's Disabilities Bill in the House of Commons. With a Queen on her throne, 400,000 women already voting, and her Premier in favor of the measure, England bids fair to take the lead in the complete enfranchisement of women.
Resolved, That we congratulate the women of England for the significant vote achieved on the Woman's Disabilities Bill in the House of Commons. With a Queen on her throne, 400,000 women already voting, and her Prime Minister supporting the measure, England is poised to take the lead in fully enfranchising women.
[163] Matilda Joslyn Gage, President; Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Vice-Presidents; Henrietta P. Westbrook, Recording Secretary; Isabella Beecher Hooker, Corresponding Secretary; Ellen Clark Sargent, Treasurer; Susan B. Anthony and fifteen others, Executive Committee.
[163] Matilda Joslyn Gage, President; Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Vice Presidents; Henrietta P. Westbrook, Recording Secretary; Isabella Beecher Hooker, Corresponding Secretary; Ellen Clark Sargent, Treasurer; Susan B. Anthony and fifteen others, Executive Committee.
CHAPTER XXV.
TRIALS AND DECISIONS.
Women voting under the XIV. Amendment—Appeals to the Courts—Marilla M. Ricker, of New Hampshire, 1870—Nannette B. Gardner, Michigan—Sarah Andrews Spencer, District of Columbia—Ellen Rand Van Valkenburgh, California—Catharine V. Waite, Illinois—Carrie S. Burnham, Pennsylvania—Sarah M. T. Huntingdon, Connecticut—Susan B. Anthony, New York—Virginia L. Minor, Missouri—Judges McKee, Jameson, Sharswood, Cartter—Associate Justice Hunt—Chief Justice Waite—Myra Bradwell—Hon. Matt. H. Carpenter—Supreme Court Decisions—Mrs. Gage's Review.
Women voting under the 14th Amendment—Appeals to the Courts—Marilla M. Ricker, of New Hampshire, 1870—Nannette B. Gardner, Michigan—Sarah Andrews Spencer, District of Columbia—Ellen Rand Van Valkenburgh, California—Catharine V. Waite, Illinois—Carrie S. Burnham, Pennsylvania—Sarah M. T. Huntingdon, Connecticut—Susan B. Anthony, New York—Virginia L. Minor, Missouri—Judges McKee, Jameson, Sharswood, Cartter—Associate Justice Hunt—Chief Justice Waite—Myra Bradwell—Hon. Matt. H. Carpenter—Supreme Court Decisions—Mrs. Gage's Review.
We have already shown in previous chapters that by a fair interpretation of the XIV. Amendment women were logically secured in their right to vote. Encouraged by the opinions of able lawyers and judges, they promptly made a practical test of this question by registering and voting during the State and Presidential elections of 1871 and '72. This transferred the discussion, for a time, from the platform and halls of legislation to the courts for final adjudication.
We have already demonstrated in earlier chapters that, through a reasonable interpretation of the XIV Amendment, women were logically guaranteed their right to vote. Motivated by the views of skilled lawyers and judges, they quickly put this question to the test by registering and voting in the state and presidential elections of 1871 and '72. This shifted the conversation, for a while, from the podium and legislative halls to the courts for a final decision.
The first woman to offer her vote was Marilla M. Ricker, of Dover, New Hampshire, a young widow of large property. In March,[164] 1870, the day previous to the election, she made application to the selectmen for registry. No objection being made, and one of the Board, promising to put her name on the check-list, she departed, leaving with them several copies of a speech she had prepared in case of a refusal. On election day she appeared at the polls and offered a straight Republican ticket. It was received by the moderator and her name called, but on examination of the list it was found that the selectman had been false to his promise, and her vote was refused. Extended comments were made by the press of the State, Democrats generally sustaining her, while Republicans were bitter in opposition. Mrs. Ricker in the meantime prepared to sue the selectmen, but being strongly opposed by her republican friends, she silently submitted to the injustice, and thus lost the opportunity of being the first woman to prosecute the authorities for refusing the vote of a citizen on the ground of sex. However, she still enjoys[Pg 587] the distinction of being the first woman to cast a vote under the XIV. Amendment, as the following spring she saw that her name was on the registry list, and her vote was received without opposition.
The first woman to cast her vote was Marilla M. Ricker from Dover, New Hampshire, a young widow with significant property. In March, [164] 1870, the day before the election, she applied to the selectmen to register. With no objections raised and one of the Board promising to add her name to the checklist, she left several copies of a speech she had prepared in case her request was denied. On election day, she showed up at the polls and presented a straight Republican ticket. It was accepted by the moderator, and her name was called, but upon reviewing the list, it was discovered that the selectman had broken his promise, and her vote was rejected. The state press made extensive comments on the situation, with Democrats generally supporting her while Republicans were harshly opposed. During this time, Mrs. Ricker considered suing the selectmen, but faced strong opposition from her Republican friends, so she reluctantly accepted the injustice and missed the chance to be the first woman to challenge the authorities for denying a citizen's vote based on gender. Nevertheless, she still holds the distinction of being the first woman to vote under the XIV Amendment, as she noted the following spring that her name was on the registry list, and her vote was accepted without contest.
The next case was that of Nannette B. Gardner, in Detroit, Michigan. She registered her name in that city March 25, 1871, and voted,[165] unquestioned, April 3d. April 20th, of the same year, Sara Andrews Spencer and Sarah E. Webster, with seventy other women of the District of Columbia, marched in a body to the polls, but their votes were refused at the election as they had been previously refused registration. They immediately took steps to prosecute the Board of Inspectors, and suit was brought in the Supreme Court of the District at the general term, October, 1871. Albert G. Riddle and Francis Miller, able lawyers of the District, and well known advocates of woman suffrage, were retained by the plaintiffs, and in their defense made the following arguments:
The next case involved Nannette B. Gardner from Detroit, Michigan. She registered to vote in that city on March 25, 1871, and cast her vote without challenge on April 3rd. On April 20th of the same year, Sara Andrews Spencer and Sarah E. Webster, along with seventy other women from the District of Columbia, marched together to the polls, but their votes were denied as they had previously been denied registration. They quickly moved to take legal action against the Board of Inspectors, and a lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the District at the general term in October 1871. Albert G. Riddle and Francis Miller, prominent lawyers in the District and known advocates for women's voting rights, were hired by the plaintiffs, and they presented the following arguments in their defense:
Mr. Riddle said: May it please the Court; ... These plaintiffs, describing themselves as women, claim to be citizens of the United States and of this District, with the right of the elective franchise, which they attempted to exercise at the election of April 20th last past, and were prevented. They say that as registration was a prerequisite of the right to vote, they tendered themselves in due form, and demanded it, under the second section of the Act of May 31, 1870 (16th U.S. Stats., 140). That is the "Act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote," etc., and authorizes a suit for refusing registration. They say, that being refused registration, they tendered their votes to the proper inspectors of said election, with proof of their attempt to register, citizenship, etc., as authorized by the third section of said Act, and their votes were refused; and, thereupon, Spencer brings her suit under said second section, against the registering officers, and Webster hers under the third section, which authorizes it, for rejecting her vote. The questions in both cases are identical and presented together.
Mr. Riddle said: May it please the Court; ... These plaintiffs, identifying themselves as women, assert that they are citizens of the United States and this District, with the right to vote, which they tried to exercise during the election on April 20th of last year, and were blocked from doing so. They argue that since registration was a requirement to vote, they formally presented themselves and requested registration, as stated in the second section of the Act of May 31, 1870 (16th U.S. Stats., 140). This is the "Act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote," etc., and it allows for legal action in cases of denied registration. They claim that after being denied registration, they presented their votes to the appropriate election inspectors, along with proof of their registration attempt and citizenship, as permitted by the third section of the Act, and their votes were rejected; consequently, Spencer has filed her lawsuit against the registration officers under the second section, and Webster has filed hers under the third section, which permits this, for the rejection of her vote. The questions in both cases are the same and are presented together.
To the declarations the defendants demur, and thereby raise the only questions we desire to have adjudicated. The defendants, by their demurrer, admit all the allegations of the plaintiffs, severally, but say, that as they are women, they are not entitled to vote in the District of Columbia. That the seventh section of the organic Act, the Constitution of the District, provides, "That all male citizens," etc., "shall be entitled to vote," etc., and that this word male excludes women, of course.
To the claims made by the plaintiffs, the defendants object, and thus present the only questions we want to have decided. By their objection, the defendants acknowledge all the claims of the plaintiffs individually, but argue that, since they are women, they do not have the right to vote in the District of Columbia. The seventh section of the Organic Act, the Constitution of the District, states, "That all male citizens," etc., "shall be entitled to vote," etc., and that this term "male" naturally excludes women.
To this the plaintiffs reply that the language of the statute does exclude women, but they say that in the presence of the first section of the XIV. Amendment, which confers the elective franchise upon "all persons," this word "male" is as if unwritten, and that the statute, constitutionally, reads, "That all citizens shall be entitled to vote." For we contend, your honors, that although the Congress "has exclusive legislation in all cases over this District,"[Pg 588] it can legislate only, as could the States, from which it was taken. It must legislate in accordance with American ideas, and can exercise no power not granted by the Constitution; and that instrument certainly confers no power to limit the right of suffrage. And so we are at issue....
To this, the plaintiffs respond that the wording of the statute does exclude women, but they argue that in light of the first section of the XIV Amendment, which grants the right to vote to "all persons," the term "male" is essentially irrelevant, and that the statute should constitutionally be read as, "That all citizens shall be entitled to vote." We maintain, your honors, that although Congress "has exclusive legislation in all cases over this District,"[Pg 588] it can only legislate in a manner similar to the States from which it originated. It must legislate in accordance with American principles, and it has no authority beyond what the Constitution grants; and that document certainly does not grant the power to restrict the right to vote. And so we find ourselves at an impasse....
As the first proposition of my brief, I contend, that under our system the right to vote is a natural right.
As the first point of my brief, I argue, that under our system, the right to vote is a fundamental right.
Obviously, government is of right or it is an usurpation. If of right, it sprang from some right older than itself; and this older right must have existed in persons (people), in each and all alike, male and female. And having this right, they used it to form for themselves a government. Of course, this supposes that all joined in and consented to the government having the power to dissent; for, to just the extent that a government got itself agoing without the free consent of its people, it is without right. The right of self-government, and from that springs our right to govern others, is a natural right. This is the primary idea of American politics, and the foundation of our Government. This was formulated in the second clause of our great Declaration, and no man has dared to deny it....
Clearly, a government is either legitimate or it's an illegitimate takeover. If it is legitimate, it came from a right that predates it; and this older right must have existed among individuals (people), both men and women. With this right, they created a government for themselves. Obviously, this assumes that everyone agreed and consented to the government, which has the power to dissent; because, to the extent that a government operates without the people's genuine consent, it lacks legitimacy. The right to self-govern is a natural right, and from that, we derive our right to govern others. This is the fundamental idea of American politics and the cornerstone of our Government. This principle was stated in the second clause of our great Declaration, and no one has dared to challenge it....
It follows, then, if the right of government is a natural right, and to be exercised alone by the ballot, that the right to vote is a natural right. This never has been and never can be successfully controverted....
It follows that if the right to govern is a natural right, and it can only be exercised through voting, then the right to vote is also a natural right. This has never been successfully challenged and never can be...
I will read from the highest American authority upon our politico-constitutional questions, partly in support of my proposition that the right to vote is a natural right, and also to show that the assumed claim of one part of the people to exclude another from all share in the Government has the most doubtful and shadowy foundation in right, and to an American it needs no evidence to show that a portion of the people thus excluded are in a state of vassalage. I read from Story on the Constitution, volume 1st, commencing at
I will quote from the top American authority on our political and constitutional issues, partly to back up my claim that the right to vote is a natural right, and also to demonstrate that the supposed right of one group of people to exclude another from having any role in the government is based on a very questionable and uncertain foundation. To an American, it's clear without needing further proof that the group being excluded is essentially in a state of servitude. I will read from Story on the Constitution, volume 1, starting at
Sec. 578. The most strenuous advocate for universal suffrage has never yet contended that the right should be absolutely universal. No one has ever been sufficiently visionary to hold that all persons of every age, degree, and character, should be entitled to vote in all elections of all public officers. Idiots, infants, minors, and persons insane or utterly imbecile, have been, without scruple, denied the right as not having the sound judgment and discretion fit for its exercise. In many countries, persons guilty of crimes have also been denied the right as a personal punishment, or as a security to society. In most countries, females, whether married or single, have been purposely excluded from voting, as interfering with sound policy and the harmony of social life ... And yet it would be extremely difficult, upon any mere theoretical reasoning, to establish any satisfactory principle upon which the one-half of every society has thus been systematically excluded by the other half from all right of participating in government, which would not at the same time apply to and justify many other exclusions. If it be said that all men have a natural, equal, and inalienable right to vote, because they are all born free and equal; that they all have common rights and interests entitled to protection; and, therefore, have an equal right to decide, either personally or by their chosen representatives, upon the laws and regulations which shall control, measure, and sustain those rights and interests; that they can not be compelled to surrender, except by their free consent, what by the bounty and order of Providence belongs to them in common with all their race. What is there in these considerations which is not equally applicable to females as free, intelligent, moral, responsible beings, entitled to equal rights and interests and protection, and having a vital stake in all the regulations and laws of society? And, if an exception, from the nature of the case, could be felt in regard to persons who are idiots, infants, and insane, how can this apply to persons who are of more mature growth, and are yet deemed minors by the municipal law?[Pg 589]
Sec. 578. The strongest proponent for universal suffrage has never claimed that the right should be completely universal. No one has ever been imaginative enough to argue that everyone of any age, status, or character should have the right to vote in all elections for public office. People who are mentally incapacitated, infants, minors, and those who are insane or severely impaired have been denied this right without hesitation, as they are considered to lack the sound judgment and discretion needed to exercise it. In many countries, individuals convicted of crimes have also lost this right as a personal consequence or as a means of protecting society. In most places, women, whether married or single, have been intentionally excluded from voting as it was thought to disrupt sound policy and social harmony... Yet, it would be quite challenging, based on theoretical reasoning alone, to identify any satisfactory principle that justifies why one half of society has systematically excluded the other half from participating in government without also justifying many other exclusions. If it is argued that all men have a natural, equal, and inalienable right to vote because they are all born free and equal; that they all have shared rights and interests that warrant protection; and therefore, they should have an equal say, either directly or through their chosen representatives, on the laws and regulations that govern and support those rights and interests; and that they cannot be forced to give up, except with their own consent, what by the grace and order of Providence belongs to them equally with all their kind. What in these arguments is not equally relevant to women as free, intelligent, moral, responsible individuals who deserve equal rights and protections, and who have a significant stake in all societal laws and regulations? Moreover, if there can be considered an exception for individuals who are mentally incapacitated, infants, or insane, how can this reasoning apply to people who are more mature yet still regarded as minors by local law?[Pg 589]
Sec. 580. If, then, every well-organized society has the right to consult for the common good of the whole; and if, upon the principle of natural law, this right is conceded by the very union of society, it seems difficult to assign any limit to this right which is compatible with the due attainment of the end proposed. If, therefore, any society shall deem the common good and interests of the whole society best promoted under the particular circumstances in which it is placed by a restriction of the right of suffrage, it is not easy to state any solid ground of objection to its exercise of such an authority. At least, if any society has a clear right to deprive females, constituting one-half of the whole population, of the right of suffrage (which, with scarcely an exception, has been uniformly maintained), it will require some astuteness to find upon what ground this exclusion can be vindicated, which does justify, or at least excuse, many other exclusions.
Sec. 580. If every well-organized society has the right to look out for the common good of everyone, and if this right is acknowledged by the very nature of society according to natural law, then it's hard to set any limits on this right that would allow for achieving the goal in mind. Therefore, if a society believes that the common good and interests of everyone are best served under its specific circumstances by limiting the right to vote, it's not easy to find solid reasons to object to exercising that authority. At least, if any society has a clear right to deny women, who make up half of the population, the right to vote (which has been consistently upheld), it will take some clever reasoning to justify this exclusion, which at the same time justifies or excuses many other exclusions.
Sec. 581. Without laying any stress upon this theoretical reasoning which is brought before the reader, not so much because it solves all doubts and objections, as because it presents a view of the serious difficulties attendant upon the assumption of an original and inalienable right of suffrage, as originating in natural law, and independent of civil law, it may be proper to state that every civilized society has uniformly fixed, modified, and regulated the right of suffrage for itself according to its own free will and pleasure. Every constitution of government in these United States has assumed, as a fundamental principle, the right of the people of the State to alter, abolish, and modify the form of its own government according to the sovereign pleasure of the people. In fact, the people of each State have gone much further, and settled a far more critical question, by deciding who shall be the voters entitled to approve and reject the constitution framed by a delegated body under their direction. In the adoption of no State constitution has the assent been asked of any but the qualified voters; and women, and minors, and other persons not recognized as voters by existing laws, have been studiously excluded. And yet the constitution has been deemed entirely obligatory upon them as well as upon the minority, who voted against it. From this it will be seen how little, even in the most free of republican governments, any abstract right of suffrage, or any original and indefeasible privilege, has been recognized in practice.
Sec. 581. Without emphasizing the theoretical reasoning presented here, which is not necessarily intended to answer all questions and objections, but rather to highlight the significant challenges that come with the idea of an original and inalienable right to vote based on natural law, separate from civil law, it’s important to note that every civilized society has consistently established, adjusted, and regulated the right to vote according to its own choices and preferences. Every government constitution in the United States has taken as a fundamental principle the right of the people of the State to change, abolish, and modify their own government as they see fit. In reality, the people of each State have gone even further and addressed a more critical issue by determining who gets to vote on the constitution created by a group they’ve appointed. In the adoption of any State constitution, only qualified voters have been asked for approval; women, minors, and others not recognized as voters by existing laws have been deliberately excluded. Yet, the constitution has been considered fully binding on them, as well as on the minority who opposed it. From this, it’s clear that even in the freest republican governments, any abstract right to vote, or any original and unyielding privilege, has hardly been acknowledged in practice.
This, remember, was written thirty years ago. Where would Story be now, if living? I beg also to read a single paragraph from the "Spirit of Laws," London edition, vol. I., p. 220:
This was written thirty years ago. Where would Story be now if he were alive? I also want to read a single paragraph from the "Spirit of Laws," London edition, vol. I., p. 220:
"All the inhabitants of the several districts ought to have the right to vote at the election of the representatives," etc.
"All the residents of the different districts should have the right to vote in the election of the representatives," etc.
All of the inhabitants, says Montesquieu, ought to have the right to vote. Under such a rule I suppose my learned opponent would contend that a woman could not be an inhabitant, of course. I feel that I ought to apologize for presenting this point to this extent; it is so obvious, and rests on such broad and ample ground, that argument for it is without excuse, and I rest it here. So that if you consider this XIV. Amendment as a grant from the sovereign, then, like all such grants, you must take it most strongly against the grantor, and most favorable to the subject. And if, as I have shown, it is in favor of natural right, then must you construe it most strongly to extend that right. No court needs authority for these propositions.
All the people, Montesquieu says, should have the right to vote. I suppose my learned opponent would argue that a woman couldn’t be counted as a person, obviously. I feel I should apologize for going into this point; it’s so clear and based on solid ground that it doesn’t really require debate, and I’ll leave it at that. So, if you view this XIV Amendment as a grant from the authority, then, like all such grants, you have to interpret it most favorably to the beneficiary and against the grantor. And if, as I’ve demonstrated, it supports natural rights, then you must interpret it in a way that extends those rights. No court needs authority for these ideas.
The second proposition of my brief is, that by the old common law of our English ancestors, the old storehouse of our rights and liberties, as well as the arsenal where we find weapons for their defense, woman always possessed this right of suffrage.
The second proposition of my brief is, that according to the old common law of our English ancestors, the foundational source of our rights and freedoms, as well as the place where we find tools for protecting them, women have always had the right to vote.
I will show by several English cases, by long usage, and general understanding, by principle and precedent, that the English woman both voted and held office; and I will show that not a single case, that not a single resolution of the House of Commons exists to the contrary; and that in all the now innumerable tomes of the common law, of judicial decision, commentary,[Pg 590] or essay, but a single dictum exists to the contrary. And if I thus establish that the construction of the XIV. Amendment, for which I this day contend, is in favor of a common law right, is in accordance with its scope and spirit, every lawyer understands by how much I strengthen my position. And for the satisfaction of the court I am glad to state that this part of my argument will consist entirely of extracts from recent English text-writers, and a reference to two or three old cases. I read first from Mr. Anstey's Notes upon the Reform Act of Great Britain of 1867. The writer in his comment upon the words of the act, "every man of full age," etc., commences by showing that the term man in the act, as in Magna Charta and other statutes, is epicene—means both men and women. And he then goes on to show that to construe this phrase, "every man," to include every woman also, is in strict accordance with the common law from old times to the present. I read from p. 87:
I will demonstrate through various English cases, long-standing practices, general understanding, principles, and precedents that English women both voted and held office. I will show that there isn't a single case or resolution from the House of Commons that says otherwise, and in all the countless volumes of common law, judicial decisions, commentary,[Pg 590] or essays, only one statement exists to the contrary. If I establish that the interpretation of the XIV Amendment, which I argue today, supports a common law right and aligns with its intent and spirit, every lawyer knows how much stronger my argument becomes. For the court's satisfaction, I will only use excerpts from recent English authors and refer to a couple of old cases. I’ll start by reading from Mr. Anstey's notes on the Reform Act of Great Britain from 1867. The author, commenting on the phrase "every man of full age," begins by illustrating that the term "man" in the act, similar to its use in Magna Carta and other statutes, is gender-neutral—encompassing both men and women. He then explains that interpreting the phrase "every man" to include every woman is consistent with common law from ancient times to the present. I will read from page 87:
That the rights in question (the right of suffrage) are not incompatible with the legal status of the woman, the following authorities seem to show. On the other hand, there can not be adduced any one authority against the position that the franchise of the shire and the borough were enjoyed by the female "resiants" equally with those of the male sex in times when "resiants," as such, and not as "tenants," had the franchise. The statutes by which the parliamentary franchise in counties was taken away from the "resiants" and vested in the "tenants," and at length restricted to those of freehold tenure (8 Hen., 6, c. 7; 18 Geo., 2, c. 18; 31 Geo., 2 c. 14), did not in any manner create or recognize any such distinction as that of the male and the female freeholders. Those acts had relation to tenure, not to sex. For the same reason, in all those boroughs where the "common right" prevailed, the suffrage would naturally be exercisable by the female no less than by the male "inhabitants" or "residants." It is believed that in not one of the boroughs where the suffrage was said to be regulated by "charter," or by "custom," or by "prescription" or even where it was regulated by a local act of Parliament, there can be found one instance of any provision or usage whatsoever whereby any voter was excluded from the enjoyment of the suffrage by reason of sex. That a woman may be a householder, or freeholder, or burgage tenant, parishioner, is plain enough. That she may answer the description of "a person paying scot and lot" within the "city of London," has been solemnly decided by the Court of King's Bench (Olive vs. Ingram, 7 Mod. 264, 267, 270, 271,) and that determination was expressly grounded by their Lordships "singly upon the foot of the common law, without regard to the usages of the parishes in London," which usage, nevertheless, had been also shown to be in favor of the same construction. In all cases, whether of statutory, of customary, or of common law qualification for the suffrage, the general rule is that which was laid down by the Court of King's Bench with respect to the choice of parochial officers under the first "Act for the Relief of the Poor," which directed them to be made from among the "substantial householders" of the place. The court held (Rex. vs. Stubbs, 2 T. R., 395)—overruling a dictum in Viner's Abridgment to the contrary—that a woman, being a "substantial householder," was properly chosen under that act to the office of overseer of the poor, notwithstanding the objections raised at the bar that it was a burthensome office and one of which, being once appointed to it, she would be called upon to perform duties some of which were above the bodily and mental powers, and others were inconsistent with the morality, or, at least, the decency of that sex.—(Id. 400.)
That the rights in question (the right to vote) are not incompatible with a woman's legal status is supported by the following authorities. On the other hand, there is no authority against the idea that women who were residents enjoyed the franchise just like men during times when residents, as such, and not as tenants, had the right to vote. The laws that removed the parliamentary franchise in counties from residents and gave it to tenants, eventually restricting it to those with freehold tenure (8 Hen., 6, c. 7; 18 Geo., 2, c. 18; 31 Geo., 2 c. 14), did not create or recognize any distinction between male and female freeholders. These acts were related to ownership, not to gender. For the same reason, in all those boroughs where "common right" applied, voting would naturally be open to females just as much as to males among the "inhabitants" or "residents." It’s believed that in none of the boroughs where voting was said to be regulated by "charter," "custom," "prescription," or even by a local Act of Parliament, is there any instance of a provision or practice that excluded any voter from the right to vote because of gender. It is clear that a woman can be a householder, freeholder, burgage tenant, or parishioner. That she fits the definition of "a person paying scot and lot" within the "city of London" has been firmly established by the Court of King's Bench (Olive vs. Ingram, 7 Mod. 264, 267, 270, 271), and this decision was based solely on common law, without considering the practices of parishes in London, although those practices were shown to support the same interpretation. In all cases, whether based on statutory, customary, or common law qualifications for voting, the general rule was set by the Court of King's Bench regarding the selection of parish officers under the first "Act for the Relief of the Poor," which stated that they should be chosen from among the "substantial householders" of the area. The court held (Rex. vs. Stubbs, 2 T. R., 395)—overruling a statement in Viner's Abridgment to the contrary—that a woman who was a "substantial householder" could rightfully be elected as overseer of the poor, despite objections raised in court about the burdensome nature of the office and that, being appointed, she would be expected to carry out duties that exceeded her physical and mental abilities, and others that were inconsistent with the morality or, at least, the decency of her gender.—(Id. 400.)
And so again on pages 90 and 91:
And so again on pages 90 and 91:
That there are some offices as to which it is the practice, by the "custom of England," to exclude them, is undoubtedly the fact. But it has been well said, as to these, that "there is a difference between being exempted and being incapacitated," and that "an excuse from acting, etc., is different from an incapacity of doing so. For it must not be forgotten, that it is upon the footing, not of disability, but of exemption, that those exclusions are vested, by the authorities which declare them." Thus, Whitelocke: "By the custom[Pg 591] of England, women are not returned of juries, nor put into offices or commissions, nor eligible to serve in Parliament, or admitted to be members of the House of Peers; but, by reason of their sex, they are exempted from such employment. The omission of the electoral franchise from that enumeration [of exemption] is remarkable. If women were, at that time, considered to be excluded by any "custom of England" from the Parliamentary franchise, as well as from Parliament, it is scarcely conceivable that Whitelocke would have omitted to mention so important a fact. Singular to say, there is no trace of any such custom or usage in the reports or amongst the records, not even, so far as the author's researches have been successful, in the Journals of the House of Commons itself; and yet the right of the returning officer to reject the vote of a female elector when tendered at the polling-booth is always assumed to be an adjudged point. Mr. Oldfield appears to have been under the impression that the resolution of the House of Commons upon the occasion of the Westminster election, asserting the incapacity of an alien to vote in elections of members to serve in Parliament, extended to "women" also. If it were so, the incident would have no weight, for the enactment, which, according to a second resolution of the same date, was to be prepared for carrying into effect that intention, never received the sanction even of that House. But, in truth, no mention of "women" appears in either resolution. Nor was there, in that year, or at any other period, any resolution or determination of the House, so far as the author's information goes, directly impeaching the capacity of any female, in respect of her sex, to vote at an election to Parliament. He is aware that the House of Commons did, upon one remarkable occasion, deny the capacity of a female to be heard even as a witness at their bar; and that this extraordinary vote was obtained through the influence of Sir Edward Coke, the only text-writer who can be vouched for the position, that a woman's vote ought not to be received at a parliamentary election.
There are certain offices from which, according to "the custom of England," people are excluded, and this is a well-known fact. However, it's important to point out that "there's a difference between being exempt and being unable to do something," and that "being excused from acting, etc., is not the same as being unable to do so." It should be noted that those exclusions are based on exemption, not on disability, as confirmed by the authorities that state them. As Whitelocke mentioned: "By the custom[Pg 591] of England, women are not summoned for juries, nor placed in offices or commissions, nor allowed to serve in Parliament, nor accepted as members of the House of Peers; they are exempt from such roles because of their sex. It's noteworthy that the right to vote is missing from this list of exemptions. If, at that time, women were considered to be excluded by any "custom of England" from the right to vote in Parliament, as well as from Parliament itself, it's hard to believe that Whitelocke would have neglected to mention such an important detail. Interestingly, there's no evidence of such a custom or practice in reports or records, not even in the Journals of the House of Commons, as far as the author's research has shown; yet, the returning officer's right to reject a female voter’s ballot at the polling booth is commonly assumed to be a settled matter. Mr. Oldfield seemed to think that the House of Commons' resolution during the Westminster election, which stated that an alien couldn't vote in elections for Parliament members, also applied to "women." If that were the case, it wouldn't matter because the legislation intended to enforce that resolution never even received approval from that House. In reality, "women" aren’t mentioned in either resolution. There wasn’t any resolution or ruling from the House during that year, or at any other time, that directly challenged a woman’s capacity to vote in a parliamentary election, based on her sex, as far as the author knows. He is aware that the House of Commons did, on one notable occasion, deny a woman's right to be heard as a witness at their proceedings; this extraordinary decision was influenced by Sir Edward Coke, the only legal writer who can be cited for the claim that a woman's vote should not be accepted in a parliamentary election.
Further on, pages 94 and 95;
Further on, pages 94 and 95;
On the other hand, there are extant many parliamentary returns for counties and boroughs from the earliest times, which were made by female electors, and yet were received. Some of them are enumerated in Prynne's Collections of Parliamentary Writs. Some of later dates are mentioned in the Commons' Journals themselves. Others are to be found in the repositories of the learned or the curious.
On the other hand, there are still many parliamentary records for counties and boroughs from early times that were created by female voters and were accepted. Some of these are listed in Prynne's Collections of Parliamentary Writs. Some from later dates are noted in the Commons' Journals themselves. Others can be found in the archives of scholars or those interested.
Three of the returns in question which related to one and the same borough, were, at a period long subsequent, produced before a "Committee of Privilege and Election," presided over by the great parliamentary lawyer, Mr. Hakewell, as evidence for and against the respective parties in an election trial then pending. The question was whether the borough was close or open; that is to say, whether amongst the former returns so produced, those by "Mrs. Copley, as sole inhabitant," showed the suffrage to be limited to the Lord or Lady of Gatton for the time being, or whether those by "Mrs. Copley, et omnes inhabitantes," showed the suffrage to be of a more popular character. No question of sex was raised on either side, and neither the report of the committee which found for the popular right, nor the resolution of the house for giving effect thereto, and for taking the Lord of the Manor's return off the file, contain any allusion to the question of sex.
Three of the contested returns, which pertained to the same borough, were later presented to a "Committee of Privilege and Election," chaired by the prominent parliamentary lawyer, Mr. Hakewell, as evidence for and against the respective parties in an ongoing election trial. The issue was whether the borough was closed or open; in other words, whether the earlier returns indicated by "Mrs. Copley, as sole inhabitant," showed that voting rights were restricted to the Lord or Lady of Gatton at that time, or whether those by "Mrs. Copley, et omnes inhabitantes," suggested that voting rights were more broadly accessible. No gender-related questions were raised by either side, and neither the committee report that favored the popular right nor the resolution of the house to implement that right, including removing the Lord of the Manor's return from the records, mentioned the issue of gender.
At that time the House of Commons was not prepared to enter into conflict with the courts of law, and "privilege" had not attained to the height which, amid the excitement of the era of 1688, it was doomed to reach. It was impossible for the Committee of Privileges, in the Gatton case, to deny the female suffrage without coming into collision with the law, which had been declared but a few years previously by the judges. (Holt vs. Lyle and Coates vs. Lyle, 14 Jac., 1 and Catherine vs. Surrey, (Hakewell MSS.,) Append., 7 Mod., 264-5.) "The opinion of the judges," it was said by Sir William Lee, a chief justice of the King's Bench in 1739, "was that a feme-sole, if she has a freehold," in a county (as it seems) "may vote for members of Parliament," and that women when sole had a power to vote.... In Lady Packington's case (she) returns to Parliament; that the sheriff made a precept to her, as lady of the manor, to return two members to Parliament.... In the case of Holt vs. Lyle it is determined that a feme-sole freeholder, in counties, may claim a vote for Parliament men, but, if married, her husband must vote for her.... I only mention what I found in a manuscript by the famous Hakewell.
At that time, the House of Commons wasn’t ready to go head-to-head with the courts, and "privilege" hadn’t yet reached the level it would during the tumult of 1688. The Committee of Privileges couldn’t deny women's voting rights in the Gatton case without clashing with the law, which had been established just a few years earlier by the judges. (Holt vs. Lyle and Coates vs. Lyle, 14 Jac., 1 and Catherine vs. Surrey, (Hakewell MSS.,) Append., 7 Mod., 264-5.) "The opinion of the judges," said Sir William Lee, a chief justice of the King's Bench in 1739, "was that a feme-sole, if she owns property," in a county (as it seems) "may vote for members of Parliament," and that women who are single had the right to vote.... In Lady Packington's case (she) returns to Parliament; the sheriff issued a notice to her, as lady of the manor, to send two members to Parliament.... In the case of Holt vs. Lyle, it was decided that a feme-sole freeholder in counties could claim a vote for Parliament members, but if she was married, her husband had to vote for her.... I only mention what I found in a manuscript by the well-known Hakewell.
Chief-Justice—Coverture then incapacitated a woman from voting?
Chief-Justice—So coverture made it so a woman couldn't vote?
Mr. Riddle.—No, your honor; the right to vote attached to the freehold, and by the old law that by marriage vested in the husband.
Mr. Riddle.—No, your honor; the right to vote is tied to the property, and according to the old law, that right transferred to the husband upon marriage.
In the case of Olive vs. Ingram, 7th Mod. Reps., already recited by the author, it was urged that the right of woman suffrage was lost by non-user, which is thus disposed of. I quote from page 97:
In the case of Olive vs. Ingram, 7th Mod. Reps., already mentioned by the author, it was argued that the right to vote for women was lost due to non-user, which is addressed here. I quote from page 97:
The same can not be said of the learned Solicitor General's objection of non-user. "As their claim," he argued, "is at common law, and usage is the only evidence of right at common law, they ought to show it, or else non-user shall be evidence of a waiver of the right, if they ever had any." The reply was conclusive enough. "There was a difference between being exempted and being incapacitated." But there was another and a not less conclusive reply. The franchise was a public, not a private right—omnis libertas regia est, et ad coronam pertinet—[every liberty is royal and pertinent to the crown]—and of such there can be no waiver, for the right implies a duty, and the duty is co-equal and co-extensive with the right.
The same cannot be said about the Solicitor General's argument of non-user. "Since their claim is based on common law, and usage is the only proof of a right under common law, they need to demonstrate it. Otherwise, non-user will be taken as evidence of waiving the right, if they ever had one." The response was pretty convincing: "There is a difference between being exempt and being unable to act." But there was another equally strong response. The franchise is a public right, not a private one—omnis libertas regia est, et ad coronam pertinet—[every freedom is royal and belongs to the crown]—and such a right cannot be waived, because the right comes with a duty, and the duty is equal to and inseparable from the right.
I now ask your attention to the case of Jane Allen, which came before Mr. Anstey in the Revising Court, a tribunal created by the parliamentary elector's trial bill of 1868, and which sits to revise the registration of voters, under the Act of 1867, and from whom appeals lie to the Court of Common Pleas. The case came up in 1868, and was fully and ably argued, and the Revising Barrister went luminously over the whole ground in an exhaustive opinion when he rendered judgment. I find the case in the Eng. Law Mag. and Law Rev. for 1868, at p. 121:
I now ask for your attention to the case of Jane Allen, which was presented to Mr. Anstey in the Revising Court, a body established by the parliamentary elector's trial bill of 1868, responsible for reviewing voter registrations under the Act of 1867, with appeals going to the Court of Common Pleas. The case was brought up in 1868, and it was thoroughly and skillfully argued. The Revising Barrister provided a detailed and clear opinion when he delivered his judgment. I found the case in the Eng. Law Mag. and Law Rev. for 1868, on page 121:
In re Jane Allen (Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields). September 23, 1868.
In re Jane Allen (Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields). September 23, 1868.
This was a claim to be entered on the St. Giles' list of occupiers for the borough, under the "Representation of the People Act, 1867," s. 3; the claimant's name, in common with those of all female occupiers, having been omitted by the overseers.
This was a claim to be added to the St. Giles' list of residents for the borough, under the "Representation of the People Act, 1867," s. 3; the claimant's name, like those of all female residents, had been left out by the overseers.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
The Revising Barrister said, p. 132: In the meantime, and dealing with the case according to my own opinion of what the law is, I hold, in the first place, that this incapacity of mere sex, as it is called, did not exist at common law in any constituency; and (on the authority of the cases cited already of Catherine vs. Surrey, Holt vs. Lyle, and Coates vs. Lyle, which show that there is in counties no such incapacity even as to the freehold franchise, even under the acts passed before 1832, greatly narrowing the basis of that suffrage there), that, à fortiori, there was no such incapacity in boroughs of the common right at least, and also of many, perhaps all, of those by custom also, as appears by the valuable records preserved from the time of the Conquest down to our own time, including the Damesday and the Doom Books of the various boroughs. For I find that (although in some boroughs, a later charter or special act of Parliament was to the contrary), where the common right obtained, the woman burgess took her place, and her name was inscribed on the burgess roll with the male burgesses, enjoying the same rights and liable to the same heavy duties—such as watch and ward, scot and lot, and the like, as the burgesses of the male sex. Curiously enough, I see that it has been objected to the right of female suffrage within the last few days, that there is this analogy between the right of franchise and the liability to watch and ward. It is because that analogy exists, that I think that the claim of franchise must surely prevail, it being clear that, under the common law, a woman was liable to the former burthen, as she is still liable to serve as a constable, as an overseer of the poor, and the like offices, and, therefore, was rightfully put upon the burgess roll, and voted in the borough court equally with the male burgess.
The Revising Barrister said, p. 132: In the meantime, as I interpret the law, I believe, first of all, that this supposed incapacity based simply on sex did not exist at common law in any constituency; and (based on the cases already cited—Catherine vs. Surrey, Holt vs. Lyle, and Coates vs. Lyle, which demonstrate that there is no such incapacity even regarding freehold voting rights in counties, despite the laws passed before 1832 that significantly limited the foundation of that suffrage there), that, à fortiori, there was certainly no such incapacity in boroughs as a common right, at least, and likely in many, if not all, of those based on custom as well, as shown by the valuable records preserved from the time of the Conquest to the present, including the Domesday Book and the Doom Books of various boroughs. I find that (although in some boroughs, a later charter or special act of Parliament contradicted this), where common rights were recognized, female burgesses took their place, and their names were recorded on the burgess roll alongside the male burgesses, enjoying the same rights and subject to the same responsibilities—such as maintaining watch and ward, scot and lot, and similar duties—just like their male counterparts. Interestingly, I have noticed that just a few days ago, an objection was raised against female suffrage, suggesting that there is a connection between voting rights and the obligation to perform watch and ward. It is precisely because that connection exists that I believe the claim for voting rights must prevail, since, under common law, women were subject to the latter obligation and still have to serve as constables, overseers of the poor, and other such roles; therefore, they rightfully belonged on the burgess roll and voted in the borough court just like the male burgesses.
But the matter does not rest there. The Rolls of Parliament, which end with the reign of Queen Mary, certainly contain no notice of the right of women to vote at common law, because they contain no entries relating to the right of suffrage at all, and I, therefore, pass them by. But I make this observation upon them, that they do contain not[Pg 593] unfrequent notices of the presence of women in Parliament itself. But the returns to the parliamentary writs of the period are more to the purpose. Take, for instance, those relating to the county of York, collected by Prynne for quite another purpose than the present. He had to show that the lords and esquires of that great county, and not the freeholders at large, had for the long period of time which began with the reign of Henry IV. and ended with that of Edward IV., alone returned the knights of that shire to Parliament, and among those lords and esquires not a few clearly appear to have been of the female sex. But now I pass to the period of the journal.
But the issue doesn't stop there. The Rolls of Parliament, which end with the reign of Queen Mary, definitely don't mention the right of women to vote under common law, since they have no entries about the right to vote at all, so I'll skip over them. However, I want to point out that they do include some notices of women being present in Parliament itself. But the returns to the parliamentary writs from that time are more relevant. For example, look at those relating to the county of York, which Prynne collected for a different reason. He needed to show that the lords and esquires of that large county, and not the general freeholders, had been the ones returning the knights of that shire to Parliament for a long time, from the reign of Henry IV to that of Edward IV, and among those lords and esquires, some were clearly women. But now I'll move on to the period of the journal.
It was said by Mr. Bennett [who argued against woman suffrage], that if a single instance could be shown in which a woman had voted, and not simply claimed the right to vote, then cadit questio. But two such cases, Lady Packington's case and Mrs. Copley's case, were admitted by Mr. Bennett himself. I do not think that he explained away the effect of that admission. It was certainly not as a mere returning officer that either of those ladies signed and returned the indenture. It was as a person having or claiming to have, the sole property in the soil of the whole of the populous borough of Aylesbury, that Lady Packington made her return; and during two or three generations the Packington family had, or had claimed to have, precisely that right.
Mr. Bennett, who argued against women's right to vote, claimed that if one instance could be provided where a woman voted—not just claimed the right to vote—then cadit questio. However, Mr. Bennett himself acknowledged two such cases: Lady Packington's case and Mrs. Copley's case. I don't believe he adequately addressed the significance of that admission. It was definitely not just as a returning officer that either woman signed and submitted the document. Lady Packington made her return as someone with or claiming to have sole ownership of the entire borough of Aylesbury, a right that the Packington family had held or claimed for two or three generations.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
It is thus made broad and clear that the right of woman to the elective franchise was one of the best acknowledged and clearest of common law rights; and that in the whole circle of English authority the ghost of a dictum can alone be raised to question it. So that if the force of its language compels you to construe the XIV. Amendment as authorizing woman to vote, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that it but restores her to her old common law right in the persons of her American daughters.
It is clearly stated that a woman's right to vote is one of the most recognized and obvious common law rights. Throughout English authority, only a faint suggestion can be found to challenge this. Therefore, if you must interpret the XIV Amendment as allowing women to vote, you can feel satisfied knowing that it simply returns this right to her, now held by her American daughters.
Third. I am now to deal directly with the Amendments. The first clause of Section 1 of the XIV Amendment I now read:
Third. I will now address the Amendments directly. I’ll read the first clause of Section 1 of the XIV Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Section 1. Everyone born or naturalized in the United States, and under its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States and the state where they live. No state can create or enforce any law that takes away the rights or privileges of U.S. citizens.
Until this was promulgated there was no absolute standard or rule of citizenship in the United States. Each State made a rule for itself, and its rule was not always clearly expressed, as you will see by these constitutions. Some of them say that the male citizens of the State, being inhabitants, etc., shall vote, yet do not declare in what citizenship shall consist. Others, that citizens of the United States, etc., shall vote, while no person was a citizen of the United States except as he had become a citizen of a State. Many States permitted aliens, on a short residence, to vote, without naturalization, and they, in that indirect way, became citizens of such State, and hence of the United States. This Amendment puts an end to doubt and cavil, and broadly declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, etc....
Until this was enacted, there was no clear standard or rule for citizenship in the United States. Each state established its own rules, which weren't always clearly stated, as you can see in these constitutions. Some say that male citizens of the state, being residents, etc., can vote, yet don’t specify what citizenship actually means. Others say that citizens of the United States, etc., can vote, while at the time, no one could be a citizen of the United States unless they were first a citizen of a state. Many states allowed non-citizens, after a short residency, to vote without going through naturalization, and in that indirect way, they became citizens of that state and therefore of the United States. This Amendment resolves any uncertainty and clearly states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they live, etc....
By an unwritten article of the American Constitution—for whoever looks to the written text will not find the whole of the Constitution—persons, no matter where born, or however unnatural they may be, are permitted to become domiciled, gain settlements, hold lands, bring suits, and acquire and enjoy every possible right, privilege, and immunity of native born persons. Nor has Congress, nor has any State ever attempted, by law or ordinance, to discriminate against them, nor will either ever dare to do so, nor could or would such a law be enforced. The unwritten Constitution, by the name of[Pg 594] public policy, or without any name, would prevent it. The only possible things which a resident alien may not do, are, he can not vote or hold office. There need be no mistake about this, and it can be reduced to an absolute certainty. What, pray, does the resident alien acquire by the transmuting process of naturalization? What is the sum total of his citizenship? He acquires the right of suffrage, and the right to hold office, and no other thing under the heavens and the Star-Spangled Banner. Does he acquire these rights by virtue of any word or special provision of our naturalization laws, which annexes suffrage to naturalization as its special perquisite? Not a word of it. Nor is there a word in any act of Congress or law of a State that confers suffrage upon the naturalized American as a thing incident to or consequent upon his act of naturalization. He thereby becomes a citizen, and takes up and enjoys its peculiar and distinguishing right. He gets naturalized for that and for no other purpose. Naturalization confers suffrage, then, because suffrage is a property of citizenship.
By an unwritten part of the American Constitution—for anyone looking at the written text won't find the entire Constitution—people, regardless of where they were born or how unconventional they might be, are allowed to settle, gain residency, own land, file lawsuits, and enjoy every right, privilege, and benefit that native-born citizens have. Neither Congress nor any state has ever tried to discriminate against them by law or policy, nor will they dare to do so, and such a law couldn't or wouldn't be enforced. The unwritten Constitution, referred to as [Pg 594] public policy, or without a specific title, would prevent it. The only things that a resident alien cannot do are vote or hold office. There should be no confusion about this; it can be stated with certainty. So, what does a resident alien gain through the process of naturalization? What is the full extent of their citizenship? They gain the right to vote and hold office, and nothing else under the sky and the Star-Spangled Banner. Do they gain these rights due to any specific word or provision in our naturalization laws that links voting rights to naturalization as a special perk? Not at all. There’s not a single word in any act of Congress or state law that grants voting rights to a naturalized American as a consequence of their naturalization. They become a citizen and take on its unique rights. They become naturalized for that reason and no other. Naturalization grants voting rights because voting is a part of citizenship.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
Colored male citizens now vote constitutionally and rightfully, although the word "white" stands as before in most of the State constitutions; and yet they vote in spite of it. Some potent alembic has destroyed the force of this word, although the text remains as of old. We are at once referred to the XV. Amendment for a solution. That has conferred the power of voting upon them, and it is superior to the State constitutions and statutes, and executes itself, as is claimed. I concede, your honors, that if the XV. Amendment does confer suffrage, or remove the exclusion so that colored citizens can vote; if they have derived the franchise from that, then the argument is against me. But, if it does confer it, then judgment must go for me. Let us read it:
Colored male citizens can now vote legally and justly, even though the term "white" still appears in most state constitutions; nevertheless, they vote regardless. Something powerful has neutralized the impact of this word, even though the text remains unchanged. We are immediately directed to the XV Amendment for clarity. That amendment has granted them the right to vote, and it takes precedence over state constitutions and laws, enforcing itself, as they say. I agree, your honors, that if the XV Amendment does grant voting rights or lifts the ban so that colored citizens can participate; if they have gained the right to vote from that, then my argument is weakened. However, if it does grant those rights, then the decision must favor me. Let’s read it:
Article XV., Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Article XV., Section 1. Citizens of the United States have the right to vote, and this right cannot be denied or limited by the United States or any State because of race, color, or past condition of servitude.
Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. (15 Stat., p. 316.)
Sec. 2. Congress has the authority to enforce this article through suitable legislation. (15 Stat., p. 316.)
You see in a moment this does not confer anything. It uses no words of grant or grace, apt or otherwise, nor does it profess to. It expressly recognizes, as an already existing fact, that the citizens of the United States have the right to vote. The right which shall thus be respected is a right peculiar to the citizen—it is not a personal right, but a political right; and a right to vote, the same one mentioned in the second section of the XIV. Amendment—a right not created or conferred by the XV. Amendment. It could not be, for it existed, and, as I have just said, was spoken of in the XIV. Amendment; so that it must be as old as that at the least. This amendment is a solemn mandate to all concerned not to deny this right, because it existed, and because it was of the highest value.
You see, this doesn't grant anything in that moment. It doesn’t use any words of granting or favor, whether they fit or not, nor does it claim to. It clearly acknowledges, as a fact that already exists, that the citizens of the United States have the right to vote. The right that should be respected is unique to citizens—it’s not a personal right, but a political right; and it’s the same right mentioned in the second section of the XIV Amendment—a right not created or conferred by the XV Amendment. It couldn’t be, because it already existed, and, as I just mentioned, was referenced in the XIV Amendment; so it must be at least as old as that. This amendment is a serious directive to everyone involved not to deny this right, because it existed and because it was extremely valuable.
Justice Wylie: It is not to be denied for either of the three reasons mentioned.
Justice Wylie: It cannot be denied for any of the three reasons mentioned.
Mr. Riddle: Yes, your honor, I have not reached that; I am now only showing that it is a right—a citizen right—and older than the XV. Amendment; but, if your honor intends to infer that, because the right can not be denied in any one of those cases, that, therefore, it may be in all others,[Pg 595] then you have another instance of a constitutional right to deny a constitutional right; and, without vanity, I have already pulverized that assumption. It is thus absolutely certain that colored male citizens do not claim their admitted right to vote from this XV. Amendment. They had it before, and this came in to protect and secure them in its enjoyment. Whence did they derive it? From the XIV. Amendment? If so, then did women acquire it by the same amendment? Was it an inherent right in them as a part of "the people?" So women are a much larger and more important part of "the people."
Mr. Riddle: Yes, your honor, I haven't gotten to that yet; I'm just demonstrating that it's a right—a citizen's right—and it's older than the XV. Amendment. But if your honor implies that just because this right cannot be denied in any of those cases, it can be denied in all others,[Pg 595] then you have another example of denying a constitutional right. And, without bragging, I have already disproved that idea. It is absolutely clear that colored male citizens do not derive their recognized right to vote from the XV. Amendment. They had it before that amendment, and this one was created to protect and ensure their enjoyment of it. Where did they get it? From the XIV. Amendment? If that's the case, did women gain it through the same amendment? Was it an inherent right for them as part of "the people?" After all, women make up a much larger and more significant part of "the people."
The right to vote shall not be denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was not used to make the right sacred in male negroes alone, while the rights of all others were left to political caprice, or to be controlled hereafter by these same colored males mayhap; but this amendment was aimed fully at the mischief of the second section of the XIV. Amendment, and there its force is expended. It fossilizes the second section of that amendment. While the broad language of its first section secures, beyond the abridging hand of the States, the great rights it secures—rights which Congress can not abridge on any pretext, for it can exercise no power not granted, and the Constitution confers on it no power to abridge the "privileges or immunities of the citizen" in any instance.
The right to vote cannot be denied based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This wasn't intended to make the right exclusive to male Black individuals while leaving others vulnerable to political whims or possibly controlled by those same men later on. Instead, this amendment directly addresses the issues of the second section of the XIV Amendment, where its impact is fully felt. It essentially solidifies that second section. While the broad language of the first section protects these significant rights from being restricted by the States, Congress also cannot limit these rights for any reason, since it has no authority beyond what is granted to it, and the Constitution does not allow it to infringe on the "privileges or immunities of the citizen" in any case.
And here I rest this solemn argument. I have brought this cause of woman, and of man as well—of the race—into the presence of the court, surrounded by the severe atmosphere of the law, beyond the reach of chronic ribaldry, and into the region of argument, where it must be estimated by its legal merits. I have applied to it the rules of law. I have pushed away the dead exfoliations that cumber the path; and have gone to the foundations, to the ever fresh and preserving spirit of the rules of the common law, and have sought to apply them with candor....
And with that, I conclude this serious argument. I've brought the case for women, and for men too— for the whole human race—before the court, in the serious atmosphere of the law, far from constant mockery, and into a space for reason, where it can be evaluated on its legal merits. I've applied the rules of law to it. I've cleared away the outdated distractions that block the way; I've gone back to the basics, to the ever-relevant and sustaining essence of common law, and I've tried to apply it honestly....
Francis Miller following Mr. Riddle, said: May it please the Court; ... Clearly the XV. Amendment does not confer any right of suffrage. Clearly, prior to the XIV. Amendment, colored men had no right to vote. The XIII. Amendment, which emancipated them, did not give them the right of suffrage, because the States had the constitutional power to say they should not vote. But between the XIII. and XV. Amendments, in some way or other, the colored man came into possession of this right of suffrage; and the question is, where did he get it? If he did not get it under the XIV. Amendment, by what possible authority are they voting by hundreds of thousands throughout this country? The legislative and constitutional provisions that prohibit their voting still remain unrepealed upon the statute books of many of the States, but yet they do vote. There is no possible, no conceivable, means by which they legally can vote, except by the operation of the XIV. Amendment. It may be said that if that is the case the XV. Amendment was not necessary. Well, admit it was not. It was very well said by Justice Swayne, in the case of the United States vs. Rhodes, in answer to the argument that if the XIII. Amendment conferred certain rights upon the colored man it was unnecessary to pass the Civil Rights Bill; "that it was not necessary, but it was well to do it to prevent doubts and differences of opinion." It is not well to leave any man's rights and liberties subject even to a doubt, and the Congress of the United States[Pg 596] had better adopt amendment after amendment than to allow the slightest cloud to rest upon the tenure of the rights of the American citizen....
Francis Miller following Mr. Riddle, said: May it please the Court; ... Clearly the 15th Amendment does not grant any voting rights. Before the 14th Amendment, people of color didn’t have the right to vote. The 13th Amendment, which freed them, didn’t give them the right to vote because the States had the constitutional authority to deny them that right. However, somehow between the 13th and 15th Amendments, the right to vote became available to people of color; and the question is, where did it come from? If they didn’t acquire it through the 14th Amendment, by what authority are they voting by the hundreds of thousands across the country? The laws and constitutional provisions that still keep them from voting remain active in many States, yet they still vote. There is no possible, conceivable way for them to legally vote, except through the 14th Amendment. It might be argued that if that’s the case, the 15th Amendment was unnecessary. Well, let’s say it was unnecessary. Justice Swayne aptly noted in the case of the United States vs. Rhodes, responding to the argument that if the 13th Amendment granted specific rights to people of color, passing the Civil Rights Bill was unnecessary; “it wasn’t necessary, but it was a good thing to do to prevent doubts and differing opinions.” It’s never a good idea to leave anyone’s rights and freedoms open to doubt, and the Congress of the United States[Pg 596] should pass amendment after amendment rather than allow even the smallest question to linger over the rights of American citizens....
The Constitution has formulated into law the Declaration of Independence. We were one hundred years coming to it; but we have reached it at last—certainly by recognizing the political rights of the black man—and, as I believe, those of woman; and that is all this Court is called upon here to declare, to wit: that the Declaration of Independence has been enacted into law, and that you will see that that law is enforced.
The Constitution has turned the Declaration of Independence into law. It took us a hundred years to get here, but we’ve finally arrived—certainly by acknowledging the political rights of Black people—and, as I believe, those of women too; and that’s all this Court is here to state: that the Declaration of Independence has been made law, and that you will ensure that law is upheld.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
If I have established, as I believe I have, that under the first section of the XIV. Amendment women have the right to vote, and there is any particular limitation in the second section that contradicts it, that part of the amendment falls void and useless, so far as its effect upon woman is concerned. There is the declaration of the general principles expressly stated; and, if there is anything contradictory, "the particular and inferior can not defeat the general and superior." (Lieber's Hermeneutics, p. 120.) The great object of that XIV. Amendment, so far as it can be deduced from the words in which it is expressed, is this: that the rights of the citizens of the United States shall not be abridged. If there is anything contradictory of that in the subsequent sections, those sections must fall. But if the second section affects this argument at all, it is because it seems, by implication, to admit that the rights of certain male citizens of the United States can be denied. That is the whole force and effect of it—I mean so far as this argument is concerned. All that can be claimed for it is, that by implication, perhaps, it would permit that to be done. The XV. Amendment comes in and says, in express terms, that that which the second section by implication permits, shall not be done; and by this declaration it strikes out that section, and it is no more in the Constitution now than is that clause of the second section of the first article of the Constitution which permitted States to deny suffrage to any of their citizens—black or white. That section is gone. It is no more a part of the Constitution, because it has been absolutely repealed by the adoption of the XIV. Amendment. Just so this second section of the XIV. Amendment disappeared by the operation of the XV. Amendment.
If I have shown, as I believe I have, that under the first section of the XIV Amendment, women have the right to vote, and if there's any specific restriction in the second section that contradicts it, that part of the amendment is invalid and irrelevant when it comes to women. The general principles are clearly stated; and if there’s anything contradictory, "the specific and lesser cannot override the general and greater." (Lieber's Hermeneutics, p. 120.) The main purpose of the XIV Amendment, based on the wording used, is this: that the rights of citizens of the United States shall not be limited. If there’s anything contradictory in the following sections, those sections have to be discarded. However, if the second section influences this argument at all, it's because it seems to imply that the rights of certain male citizens of the United States can be denied. That is the key point here—as far as this argument goes. All that can be claimed for it is that it may imply permission for such denial. The XV Amendment comes in and states explicitly that what the second section might allow through implication is not permitted; and with this declaration, it nullifies that section, making it no more a part of the Constitution than the clause in the second section of the first article of the Constitution that allowed states to deny suffrage to any of their citizens—black or white. That section is eliminated. It’s no longer part of the Constitution because it has been completely repealed by the adoption of the XIV Amendment. Similarly, this second section of the XIV Amendment vanished due to the enactment of the XV Amendment.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 1. Citizens of the United States cannot be denied or limited the right to vote by the United States or any State because of their race, color, or past status as a servant.
Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. (15 Stat., p. 345.)
Sec. 2. Congress has the authority to enforce this article through suitable legislation. (15 Stat., p. 345.)
The Chief Justice.—There is a very strong implication, is there not, in that Amendment, that you may deny the right of suffrage for other causes.
The Chief Justice.—Isn't there a significant implication in that Amendment that allows you to deny the right to vote for other reasons?
Mr. Miller.—I do not think there can be any implication by which a citizen may be robbed of a fundamental right. It must be something expressed. I do not believe in any power of taking away the rights of citizens by construction. No human being can be robbed of his God-given rights by implication. You can not take away his property by implication. You can not take away his liberty. I think it is equally true that you can not take away his right of self-government by implication.
Mr. Miller.—I don't believe there's any way a citizen can be stripped of a fundamental right. It must be clearly stated. I don’t think anyone has the authority to remove citizens’ rights through interpretation. No one can lose their God-given rights because of assumptions. You can’t take away someone’s property through implication. You can’t take away their freedom. I also believe that you can’t take away their right to self-government through implication.
Finally, in regard to the construction of this XIV. Amendment, it must[Pg 597] be observed that it is remedial in its character, and it must be "construed liberally to carry out the beneficent principles it was intended to embody," (Dwarris on Statutory Law, p. 632,) and that "its construction must be extended to other cases within the reason and rule of it." (Lord Mansfield in Atcheson vs. Everett, Cowper, 382, 391.) Lieber's fourteenth rule of construction is:
Finally, regarding the construction of the XIV Amendment, it must[Pg 597] be noted that it is intended to be remedial in nature, and it should be "interpreted broadly to fulfill the beneficial principles it aimed to represent," (Dwarris on Statutory Law, p. 632,) and "its interpretation should apply to other situations that fall within its reasoning and rule." (Lord Mansfield in Atcheson vs. Everett, Cowper, 382, 391.) Lieber's fourteenth rule of interpretation is:
Let the weak have the benefit of a doubt without defeating the general object of a law. Let mercy prevail, if there be real doubt. (Lieber's Hermeneutics, p. 144.)
Let the vulnerable receive the benefit of the doubt without undermining the overall purpose of a law. Let compassion win out, if there's genuine uncertainty. (Lieber's Hermeneutics, p. 144.)
Now, if mercy must prevail when there is real doubt, still more should justice prevail if there is any doubt. If your honors have any doubt in regard to this decision, I call upon you, not in the name of mercy, but in the name of justice, to give us the benefit of that doubt, and to recognize the right of all human beings to govern themselves.
Now, if mercy is necessary when there is real doubt, even more so should justice be prioritized if there's any uncertainty. If you have any doubts about this decision, I urge you, not in the name of mercy, but in the name of justice, to give us the benefit of that doubt and acknowledge the right of all people to govern themselves.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
Chief Justice Cartter then delivered the opinion of the court, sustaining the demurrer, which is as follows:
Chief Justice Cartter then gave the court's opinion, supporting the demurrer, which is as follows:
These cases, involving the same questions, are presented together. As shown by the plaintiffs' brief, the plaintiffs claim the elective franchise under the first section of the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution. The fourth paragraph of the regulations of the Governor and Judges of the District, made registration a condition precedent to the right of voting at the election of April 20th, 1871. The plaintiffs, being otherwise qualified, offered to register, and were refused. They then tendered their ballots at the polls, with evidence of qualification and offer to register, etc., when their ballots were rejected under the seventh section of the act providing a government for the District of Columbia. Mrs. Spencer brings her suit for this refusal of registration, and Mrs. Webster for the rejection of her vote, under the second and third sections of the act of May 31, 1870. The seventh section of the organic act above referred to, limits the right to vote to "all male citizens," but it is contended that in the presence of the XIV. Amendment, the word male is without effect, and the act authorizes "all citizens" to exercise the elective franchise. The question involved in the two actions which have been argued, and which, for the purposes of judgment, may be regarded as one, is, whether the plaintiffs have a right to exercise within this jurisdiction, the elective franchise. The letter of the law controlling the subject is to be found in the seventh section of the act of February 21, 1871, entitled, "An Act to provide a government for the District of Columbia," as follows:
These cases, which deal with the same issues, are presented together. According to the plaintiffs' brief, they claim the right to vote under the first section of the XIV Amendment of the Constitution. The fourth paragraph of the regulations issued by the Governor and Judges of the District made registration a requirement before being allowed to vote in the election on April 20th, 1871. The plaintiffs, who were otherwise eligible, attempted to register but were denied. They then presented their ballots at the polls, along with proof of qualification and their attempt to register, but their ballots were rejected based on the seventh section of the act that governs the District of Columbia. Mrs. Spencer is suing for the denial of her registration, and Mrs. Webster for the rejection of her vote, under the second and third sections of the act from May 31, 1870. The seventh section of the organic act mentioned above limits the right to vote to "all male citizens," but it is argued that in light of the XIV Amendment, the term male is irrelevant, and the act allows "all citizens" to participate in elections. The central question in the two actions that have been discussed, which can be considered as one for judgment, is whether the plaintiffs have the right to exercise the right to vote in this jurisdiction. The wording of the law that governs the matter is located in the seventh section of the act from February 21, 1871, titled, "An Act to provide a government for the District of Columbia," as follows:
And be it further enacted, That all male citizens of the United States, above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been actual residents of said District for three months prior to the passage of this act, except such as are non compos mentis, and persons convicted of infamous crimes, shall be entitled to vote at said election, in the election district or precinct in which he shall then reside, and shall have so resided for thirty days immediately preceding said election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said district, and for all subsequent elections, twelve months prior residence shall be required to constitute a voter; but the Legislative Assembly shall have no right to abridge or limit the right of suffrage.
And be it further enacted, That all male citizens of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, who have been actual residents of the District for three months before the passing of this act, except for those who are non compos mentis, and individuals convicted of serious crimes, shall be eligible to vote in the upcoming election in the district or precinct where they live, provided they have resided there for thirty days prior to the election. They shall also be eligible for any office within the district, and for all future elections, a twelve-month residency requirement will be necessary to qualify as a voter; however, the Legislative Assembly cannot restrict or limit the right to vote.
It will be seen by the terms of this act that females are not included within its privileges. On the contrary, by implication, they are excluded. We do[Pg 598] not understand that it is even insisted in argument that authority for the exercise of the franchise is to be derived from law. The position taken is, that the plaintiffs have a right to vote, independent of the law; even in defiance of the terms of the law. The claim, as we understand it, is, that they have an inherent right, resting in nature, and guaranteed by the Constitution in such wise that it may not be defeated by legislation. In virtue of this natural and constitutional right, the plaintiffs ask the court to overrule the law, and give effect to rights lying behind it, and rising superior to its authority.
It will be clear from the terms of this act that women are not included in its privileges. On the contrary, they are excluded by implication. We do[Pg 598] not understand that it is even argued that the authority to exercise the right to vote should come from the law. The stance taken is that the plaintiffs have the right to vote, independent of the law, even in defiance of its terms. The claim, as we understand it, is that they have an inherent right that exists in nature and is guaranteed by the Constitution in a way that it cannot be defeated by legislation. Based on this natural and constitutional right, the plaintiffs are asking the court to overturn the law and recognize rights that exist beyond it and have greater authority.
The Court has listened patiently and with interest to ingenious argument in support of the claim, but have failed to be convinced of the correctness of the position, whether on authority or in reason. In all periods, and in all countries, it may be safely assumed that no privilege has been held to be more exclusively within the control of conventional power than the privilege of voting, each State in turn regulating the subject by the sovereign political will. The nearest approach to the natural right to vote, or govern—two words in this connection signifying the same thing—is to be found in those countries and governments that assert the hereditary right to rule. The assumption of Divine right would be a full vindication of the natural right contended for here, provided it did not involve the hereditary obligation to obey.
The Court has listened patiently and with interest to clever arguments in support of the claim, but has not been convinced of its correctness, whether based on authority or reason. Throughout history and across all countries, it's safe to say that no privilege has been more strictly under the control of those in power than the privilege of voting, with each State regulating it according to the political will of the moment. The closest thing to a natural right to vote, or to govern—two terms that mean the same thing in this context—can be found in those countries and governments that claim a hereditary right to rule. The belief in Divine right would fully justify the natural right being discussed here, as long as it didn’t come with the obligation to obey someone based on heredity.
Again, in other States, embracing the Republics, and especially our own, including the States which make up the United States, this right has been made to rest upon the authority of political power, defining who may be an elector, and what shall constitute his qualification; most States in the past period declaring property as the familiar basis of a right to vote; others, intelligence; others, more numerous, extending the right to all male persons who have attained the age of majority. While the conditions of the right have varied in several States, and from time to time been modified in the same State, the right has uniformly rested upon the express authority of the political power, and been made to revolve within the limitations of express law.
Again, in other states, including the republics and especially our own, along with the states that make up the United States, this right is based on political power, defining who can be a voter and what qualifies them. In the past, most states established property ownership as the usual basis for voting rights; others emphasized intelligence; and many extended the right to all adult males. While the criteria for the right have changed across various states and been modified within the same state over time, the right has consistently relied on the explicit authority of political power and has been governed by specific laws.
Passing from this brief allusion to the political history of the question to the consideration of its inherent merits, we do not hesitate to believe that the legal vindication of the natural right of all citizens to vote would, at this stage of popular intelligence, involve the destruction of civil government. There is nothing in the history of the past that teaches us otherwise. There is little in current history that promises a better result. The right of all men to vote is as fully recognized in the population of our large centres and cities as can well be done, short of an absolute declaration that all men shall vote, irrespective of qualifications. The result in these centres is political profligacy and violence verging upon anarchy. The influences working out this result are apparent in the utter neglect of all agencies to conserve the virtue, integrity and wisdom of government, and the appropriation of all agencies calculated to demoralize and debase the integrity of the elector. Institutions of learning, calculated to bring men up to their highest state of political citizenship, and indispensable to the qualifications of the mind and morals of the responsible voter, are postponed to the agency of the dram-shop and gambling hell; and men of conscience and capacity are discarded, to the promotion of vagabonds to power.[Pg 599]
Switching from this brief reference to the political history of the issue to examining its inherent merits, we firmly believe that legally affirming the natural right of all citizens to vote, at this point in our society's understanding, would lead to the collapse of civil government. History shows us nothing to suggest otherwise. There's little in current events that hints at a better outcome. The right of all men to vote is acknowledged in our major urban areas as much as possible, short of a complete statement that every man should be allowed to vote, regardless of qualifications. The outcome in these areas is political corruption and violence that approaches anarchy. The forces creating this situation are evident in the complete disregard for all measures that would uphold the virtue, integrity, and wisdom of governance, as well as the appropriation of all means that are meant to corrupt and undermine the integrity of voters. Educational institutions, which should elevate individuals to their highest potential as political citizens and are essential for developing the mind and morals of responsible voters, are overshadowed by bars and gambling dens; meanwhile, individuals of integrity and ability are overlooked in favor of promoting the unqualified to positions of power.[Pg 599]
This condition demonstrates that the right to vote ought not to be, and is not, an absolute right. The fact that the practical working of the assumed right would be destructive of civilization is decisive that the right does not exist.... It will be seen by the first clause of the XIV. Amendment, that the plaintiffs, in common with all other persons born in the United States, are citizens thereof, and, if to make them citizens is to make them voters, the plaintiffs may, of right, vote. It will be inferred from what has already been said, that to make a person a citizen is not to make him or her a voter. All that has been accomplished by this Amendment to the Constitution, or by its previous provisions, is to distinguish them from aliens, and make them capable of becoming voters.
This situation shows that the right to vote shouldn’t be, and isn’t, an absolute right. The fact that the practical application of the supposed right would be harmful to civilization clearly indicates that the right doesn’t exist.... As indicated by the first clause of the XIV Amendment, the plaintiffs, like all other individuals born in the United States, are citizens. If making them citizens means making them voters, then the plaintiffs have the right to vote. It can be understood from what has already been stated that becoming a citizen doesn’t automatically make someone a voter. All that has been achieved by this Amendment to the Constitution, or by its earlier provisions, is to differentiate them from non-citizens and enable them to become voters.
In giving expression to my own judgment, this clause does advance them to full citizenship, and clothes them with the capacity to become voters. The provision ends with the declaration of their citizenship. It is a constitutional provision that does not execute itself. It is the creation of a constitutional condition that requires the supervention of legislative power in the exercise of legislative discretion to give it effect. The constitutional capability of becoming a voter created by this Amendment lies dormant, as in the case of an infant, until made effective by legislative action. Congress, the legislative power of this jurisdiction, as yet, has not seen fit to carry the inchoate right into effect, as is apparent in the law regulating the franchise of this District. When that shall have been done, it will be the pleasure of this court to administer the law as they find it. Until this shall be done, the consideration of fitness and unfitness, merit and demerit, are considerations for the law-making power. The demurrer in these cases is sustained.
In expressing my own opinion, this clause grants them full citizenship and gives them the ability to become voters. The provision concludes with a statement of their citizenship. It is a constitutional provision that does not implement itself. It creates a constitutional condition that requires legislative power to take action to put it into effect. The constitutional ability to become a voter established by this Amendment remains inactive, like an infant, until it is activated by legislative action. Congress, the legislative authority in this jurisdiction, has not yet chosen to bring this potential right into practice, as is clear in the law governing voting in this District. Once that is accomplished, this court will carry out the law as it stands. Until that happens, considerations of suitability and unsuitability, merit and demerit, are matters for the legislative authority. The demurrer in these cases is sustained.
After the reading of the opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Cartter, Mr. Riddle, counsel for the plaintiffs, in open court, prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. And that highest tribunal affirmed the decision of Judge Cartter.
After Chief Justice Cartter read the Court's opinion, Mr. Riddle, lawyer for the plaintiffs, requested an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States in open court. That highest court upheld Judge Cartter's decision.
This contradictory decision of Judge Cartter averring that the XIV. Amendment clothed women with the capacity to become voters, but did not create them voters, afforded opportunity for criticism and ridicule. The Washington Sunday Morning Herald wittily reported[166] this trial in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.[Pg 600]
This contradictory decision by Judge Cartter stated that the XIV Amendment gave women the ability to vote but didn’t actually make them voters, which opened the door for criticism and mockery. The Washington Sunday Morning Herald cleverly reported[166] on this trial in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.[Pg 600]
On July 21st, 1871, Ellen Rand Van Valkenburg, of Santa Cruz, California, having applied for registration and been refused, brought suit against Albert Brown, of Brown County, who acted as Register upon this occasion. Although later suits exceeded this in interest it was notable for being the first decision under the new amendments.[167]
On July 21, 1871, Ellen Rand Van Valkenburg from Santa Cruz, California, applied for registration but was denied. She took legal action against Albert Brown from Brown County, who was the Register at that time. While later lawsuits gained more attention, this case was significant for being the first ruling under the new amendments.[167]
September 16, 1871, suit was brought by Carrie S. Burnham, an unmarried woman, residing in Philadelphia. She was duly assessed by the canvassers of the Fourteenth Ward of that city as a resident[Pg 601] of the Eleventh Election District of that ward. Two days afterwards she paid her tax, and her name was registered on the canvassers' printed list of legal voters in that division. Having complied with all the laws regulating suffrage in Pennsylvania, she presented her ballot in legal form at the proper time and place at the general election, but her vote was refused. Her argument in the Court of Common Pleas and the opinion of the judge, will be given in the Pennsylvania chapter.
September 16, 1871, a lawsuit was filed by Carrie S. Burnham, an unmarried woman living in Philadelphia. She was properly assessed by the canvassers of the Fourteenth Ward in that city as a resident[Pg 601] of the Eleventh Election District of that ward. Two days later, she paid her tax, and her name was added to the canvassers' printed list of legal voters in that division. Having followed all the laws governing voting in Pennsylvania, she submitted her ballot in the correct form at the right time and place during the general election, but her vote was denied. Her argument in the Court of Common Pleas and the judge's opinion will be covered in the Pennsylvania chapter.
Mrs. Catharine V. Waite, of Illinois, also instituted suit for the refusal of her vote proffered in the fall of 1871, and received an adverse decision, a report of which will be found in the Illinois chapter.
Mrs. Catharine V. Waite from Illinois also filed a lawsuit because her vote submitted in the fall of 1871 was rejected, and she received an unfavorable ruling, the details of which can be found in the Illinois chapter.
Two years previous to these suits for the recognition of the political rights of women a contest of a different character was commenced in Illinois. Mrs. Myra Bradwell, editor of the Chicago Legal News, in September, 1869, having passed the examination, and received the required certificate of qualification, applied for admission to the bar of that State, which was refused by its Supreme court, on the ground that she was a woman. She made this denial of her civil rights a test case by bringing a writ of error against the State of Illinois in the Supreme Court of the United States. We copy from the Legal News of February 5, 1870:
Two years before these lawsuits aimed at recognizing women's political rights, a different kind of battle started in Illinois. In September 1869, Mrs. Myra Bradwell, editor of the Chicago Legal News, passed the examination and received the necessary qualification certificate. She then applied for admission to the state bar, but the Supreme Court denied her request simply because she was a woman. She turned this denial of her civil rights into a test case by filing a writ of error against the State of Illinois in the Supreme Court of the United States. We quote from the Legal News from February 5, 1870:
A WOMAN CAN NOT PRACTICE LAW OR HOLD ANY OFFICE IN ILLINOIS.
Full Report of the Proceedings in the Supreme Court upon the Application of Myra Bradwell to be admitted to the Bar.
Complete Report of the Proceedings in the Supreme Court regarding the Application of Myra Bradwell to be admitted to the Bar.
Licensing Attorneys.—The following extract from rule 76 shows what is required by the Supreme Court of applicants for admission to the bar:
Licensing Attorneys.—The following extract from rule 76 shows what the Supreme Court requires from applicants seeking admission to the bar:
Ordered, That rules 69 and 70 be rescinded, and applicants for license to practice law in the courts of this State, on presenting to any member of this court a certificate of qualification, signed by the Circuit Judge and State's Attorney of the circuit in which the applicant may reside, setting forth that the applicant has been examined and found qualified, will be a sufficient voucher on which to grant a license.
Ordered, That rules 69 and 70 be canceled, and applicants for a license to practice law in the courts of this State, by presenting a certificate of qualification to any member of this court, signed by the Circuit Judge and the State's Attorney of the circuit where the applicant lives, stating that the applicant has been examined and found qualified, will be enough to issue a license.
Certificate of Admission.—The undersigned have examined Mrs. Myra Bradwell as to her qualifications to enter upon the practice of the law, and finding her qualified therefor, recommended that a license should be issued to her.
Certificate of Admission.—We, the undersigned, have reviewed Mrs. Myra Bradwell's qualifications to practice law and, finding her qualified, recommend that she be issued a license.
E. S. Williams, Judge Seventh Judicial Circuit.
Charles H. Reed, State's Attorney.E. S. Williams, Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit.
Charles H. Reed, State Attorney.Chicago, Illinois, August 2, 1869.
Chicago, Illinois, August 2, 1869.
Motion to be Admitted.—Robert Hervey, Esq., of the Chicago Bar, at the September term, kindly, at the request of the applicant, filed her certificate of examination and of character from Judge Jameson of the Superior[Pg 602] Court of Chicago; also the following written application prepared by her, and moved the court that she be admitted:
Motion to be Admitted.—Robert Hervey, Esq., from the Chicago Bar, at the September term, kindly submitted her certificate of examination and character from Judge Jameson of the Superior[Pg 602] Court of Chicago, along with the following written application she prepared, and requested the court to admit her:
Supreme Court of Illinois—Third Grand Division—September Term. 1869—(In the matter of the Application of Myra Bradwell for license to practice law.)
Supreme Court of Illinois—Third Grand Division—September Term. 1869—(Regarding Myra Bradwell's Application for a License to Practice Law.)
To the Honorable the Judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois: Now comes your petitioner, Myra Bradwell, a resident of Chicago, Ill., over twenty-one years of age, and presents to your honors, under rule 76 of this honorable court, the certificate of the Hon. E. S. Williams, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Seventh District, and the Hon. Charles H. Reed, State's Attorney for the said circuit, stating that they have examined your petitioner and found her qualified to practice law, and recommend that a license issue to her for that purpose, and also a certificate as to character from the Superior Court of Chicago, as required by the statute and the rule aforesaid, and moves your honors that an order of this honorable court may be entered directing a license to be given to your petitioner. Your petitioner suggests that the only question involved in her case is—Does being a woman disqualify her under the laws of Illinois from receiving a license to practice law?—and claims that the Legislature has answered this question in the negative. The first section of chapter eleven of the Revised Statutes, in regard to the admission of attorneys, is as follows:
To the Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois: Your petitioner, Myra Bradwell, a Chicago resident over twenty-one years old, respectfully presents to you, under rule 76 of this esteemed court, the certificate from Hon. E. S. Williams, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Seventh District, and Hon. Charles H. Reed, State's Attorney for that circuit, confirming that they have reviewed your petitioner and found her qualified to practice law, recommending that she be granted a license for that purpose, alongside a character certificate from the Superior Court of Chicago, as required by the statute and the aforementioned rule. Your petitioner requests that an order be entered by this honorable court to grant a license to her. She asserts that the only question in her case is—Does being a woman disqualify her under Illinois law from obtaining a license to practice law?—and argues that the Legislature has answered this question in the negative. The first section of chapter eleven of the Revised Statutes regarding the admission of attorneys is as follows:
No person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney or counselor-at-law, or to commence, conduct, or defend any action, suit, or plaint, in which he is not a party concerned, in any court of record within this State, either by using or subscribing his own name or the name of any other person without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from some two of the Justices of the Supreme Court, which license shall constitute the person receiving the same an attorney and counselor-at-law, and shall authorize him to appear in all the courts of record within this State, and there to practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law, according to the laws and customs thereof, for and during his good behavior in said practice, and to demand and receive all such fees as are or hereafter may be established for any services which he shall or may render as an attorney or counselor-at-law in this State.
No one is allowed to practice as an attorney or legal counselor, or to start, manage, or defend any case or lawsuit where they are not directly involved, in any court of record in this state. This includes using or signing their own name or someone else's name without first getting a license from at least two of the Justices of the Supreme Court. This license makes the person an attorney and legal counselor, allowing them to appear in all the courts of record in this state and practice law as defined by its laws and customs as long as they behave well in that practice. They can also charge and receive all fees that are or will be set for any services they provide as an attorney or legal counselor in this state.
Your petitioner claims that the pronoun he, not only in this section, but the whole chapter, is used indefinitely for any person, and may refer to either a man or woman.
Your petitioner claims that the pronoun he, not just in this section but throughout the whole chapter, is used vaguely for any person and can refer to either a man or a woman.
The Legislature devoted the whole of chapter 90 to construing various expressions and words used in the Revised Statutes, and in section 28 said:
The Legislature dedicated the entire chapter 90 to interpreting different terms and phrases used in the Revised Statutes, and in section 28 stated:
When any party or person is described or referred to by words importing the masculine gender, females as well as males shall be deemed to be included.
When any party or person is referred to using words that are typically seen as masculine, both females and males are understood to be included.
It is declared by Act No. 29, appendix to the Revised Statutes, that the several chapters composing the Revised Statutes shall be deemed and taken as one act.
It is stated by Act No. 29, appendix to the Revised Statutes, that the various chapters that make up the Revised Statutes will be considered as one act.
It is evident that if a woman should practice law without a license, recover for her services, and be sued for three times the amount, that under Sec. 11 of Chap. 11 for practicing law without a license, it would be no defense for her to say that the masculine pronoun was used in this section.
It is clear that if a woman practices law without a license, collects payment for her services, and is sued for three times that amount, then according to Sec. 11 of Chap. 11 for practicing law without a license, it won't be a valid defense for her to claim that the masculine pronoun is used in this section.
Section 3 of our Declaration of Rights, says "that all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God," etc. It will not be contended that women are not included within this provision.[Pg 603]
Section 3 of our Declaration of Rights states "that all people have a natural and undeniable right to worship Almighty God," etc. It won't be argued that women are not included in this provision.[Pg 603]
The 8th section declares "that no freeman shall be imprisoned or disseized of his freehold," etc., but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. Will woman be deprived of the guarantees in this section and the right of trial by jury because the masculine pronoun is used? Under the 11th section no man's property can be taken or applied to public use without the consent, etc. Is not the property of a woman as secure under this provision as that of a man? In the chapter upon forcible entry and detainer, the masculine pronoun is used throughout, but no court would hesitate for a moment in holding a woman to be within its provisions if she should wrongfully hold possession of premises.
The 8th section states that "no freeman shall be imprisoned or deprived of his property," etc., except by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. Will women be denied the protections in this section and the right to a jury trial just because the masculine pronoun is used? According to the 11th section, no one’s property can be taken or used for public purposes without consent, etc. Isn’t a woman’s property just as protected under this provision as a man’s? In the section about forcible entry and eviction, the masculine pronoun is used throughout, yet no court would hesitate to hold a woman accountable if she wrongfully occupied a property.
In the whole Chancery Code of this State, consisting of 53 sections, the word woman, female, she, her, herself, or any other feminine pronouns are not to be found, while in the 5th, 8th, 15th, 18th, 19th, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 36th, 37th, and 46th, and some others, the masculine pronouns frequently occur. The same construction that would exclude a woman from the provisions of the statute in regard to the admission of attorneys, would place her without the Chancery Code. Yet no respectable attorney would claim because defendants in chancery are represented in the law by masculine pronouns, that a woman could not be made a defendant in chancery.
In the entire Chancery Code of this State, which includes 53 sections, the terms woman, female, she, her, and any other feminine pronouns don’t appear at all. However, in sections 5, 8, 15, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, and 46, among others, masculine pronouns are commonly used. The same interpretation that would exclude a woman from the provisions regarding the admission of attorneys would also keep her out of the Chancery Code. Still, no reputable attorney would argue that just because defendants in chancery are referred to with masculine pronouns, a woman cannot be made a defendant in chancery.
Myra Bradwell.
Myra Bradwell.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
All of this is respectfully submitted.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COURT.
No order having been entered or opinion filed in this case, on the seventh of October the applicant received from the court, through Hon. Norman L. Freeman, Supreme Court Reporter, the following communication:
No order has been entered or opinion filed in this case. On October 7th, the applicant received a communication from the court, through Hon. Norman L. Freeman, Supreme Court Reporter:
State of Illinois, Supreme Court, Third Grand }
Division, Clerk's Office, Ottawa, Oct. 6, 1869. }State of Illinois, Supreme Court, Third Grand }
Division, Clerk's Office, Ottawa, Oct. 6, 1869. }Mrs. Myra Bradwell—Madam: The court instruct me to inform you that they are compelled to deny your application for a license to practice as an attorney-at-law in the courts of this State, upon the ground that you would not be bound by the obligations necessary to be assumed where the relation of attorney and client shall exist, by reason of the disability imposed by your married condition—it being assumed that you are a married woman.
Mrs. Myra Bradwell—Madam: The court has asked me to let you know that they have to deny your application for a license to practice as an attorney in this State. This decision is based on the belief that you would not be able to take on the necessary responsibilities that come with the attorney-client relationship because of the limitations imposed by your marital status—it is assumed that you are a married woman.
Applications of the same character have occasionally been made by persons under twenty-one years of age, and have always been denied upon the same ground that they are not bound by their contracts, being under a legal disability in that regard.
Applications of the same kind have sometimes been submitted by individuals under twenty-one years old, and these have always been rejected on the same grounds that they are not held to their contracts, due to their legal incapacity in that respect.
Until such disability shall be removed by legislation, the court regards itself powerless to grant your application.
Until that disability is removed by law, the court sees itself as unable to approve your application.
N. L. Freeman.
N. L. Freeman.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
The applicant, satisfied that under the common law, as modified by our statutes, she could not properly be denied a license to practice law solely upon the ground of her married condition, on the 18th of November filed the following printed argument:
The applicant, confident that under common law, as changed by our statutes, she could not justly be denied a license to practice law simply because she was married, filed the following printed argument on November 18th:
ADDITIONAL BRIEF.
In the Supreme Court of Illinois—Third Grand Division—September Term, 1869. [In the matter of the application of Myra Bradwell to obtain a license[Pg 604] to practice as an Attorney-at-law.] And now again comes the said Myra Bradwell, it having been suggested to her that the court had assumed that she is a married woman, and therefore queried whether this would not prevent her from receiving a license, and files this her additional brief.
In the Supreme Court of Illinois—Third Grand Division—September Term, 1869. [In the matter of the application of Myra Bradwell to obtain a license[Pg 604] to practice as an Attorney-at-law.] Myra Bradwell is back before the court, as it's been brought to her attention that the court assumed she is a married woman, which raises the question of whether this would prevent her from getting a license. She is submitting this additional brief.
Your petitioner admits to your honors that she is a married woman (although she believes that fact does not appear in the record), but insists most firmly that under the laws of Illinois it is neither a crime nor a disqualification to be a married woman.
Your petitioner acknowledges to your honors that she is a married woman (though she believes this fact is not recorded), but strongly insists that under Illinois law, being a married woman is neither a crime nor a disqualification.
I propose to state very briefly,
I’d like to say very briefly,
1. What is an attorney?
1. What is an attorney?
2. Who may act as attorneys?
2. Who can serve as attorneys?
3. The rights and powers of married women in relation to their business and property under the common law.
3. The rights and powers of married women regarding their business and property under common law.
4. Their rights and powers as to transacting business under the recent statutes of our State, with reference to their transacting business in their own names and acting as attorneys.
4. Their rights and powers regarding conducting business under the recent laws of our State, concerning doing business in their own names and acting as attorneys.
5. The avenues of trade and the professions opened to women by the liberal enactments of the law-makers, and the construction of the courts.
5. The paths for trade and careers available to women thanks to the progressive laws created by lawmakers and the interpretation of the courts.
6. How the Legislature has regarded petitioner with reference to her rights to carry on business in her own name and act for herself.
6. How the Legislature has viewed the petitioner concerning her rights to operate a business under her own name and to represent herself.
I. What is an Attorney?—An attorney is "one who takes the turn or place of another."—Webster. "An attorney at-law," says Bouvier, "is an officer in a court of justice who is employed by a party in a cause to manage the same for him." All attorneys are agents. They transact business, and appear for, and in the place of their clients who have not the requisite learning, time, or desire to appear in suits for themselves.
I. What is an Attorney?—An attorney is "someone who takes the place of another."—Webster. "An attorney at law," says Bouvier, "is an officer in a court of law who is hired by a party in a case to represent them." All attorneys are agents. They handle business and appear for, and in place of, their clients who lack the necessary knowledge, time, or desire to represent themselves in legal matters.
Mr. Story, in his work upon "Agency," and Mr. Bouvier, in his "Institutes," in treating of the different kinds of agents, both speak first of attorneys-at-law. All the elementary writers upon law tell us that attorneys are agents. Without reference to our recent statutes modifying the common law, we will open the books and see who may be attorneys or agents.
Mr. Story, in his work on "Agency," and Mr. Bouvier, in his "Institutes," both start by discussing attorneys-at-law when talking about the different types of agents. All the basic legal texts inform us that attorneys are agents. Without considering our recent laws that have changed the common law, let's look at the books to see who can be attorneys or agents.
II. Who may be Attorneys or Agents.—Mr. Story, in his work on Agency, says, sec. 7:
II. Who can be Attorneys or Agents.—Mr. Story, in his work on Agency, states, section 7:
Secondly, who are capable of becoming agents? And here it may be stated that there are few persons who are excluded from acting as agents, or from exercising an authority delegated to them by others. Therefore, it is by no means necessary for a person to be sui juris or capable of acting in his or her own right, in order to qualify himself or herself to act for others. Thus, for example, monks, infants, femes covert, persons attainted, outlawed, or excommunicated villains, and aliens, may be agents for others.... A feme covert may be an attorney of another, to make livery to her husband upon a feoffment; and a husband may take such livery to his wife, although they are generally deemed but one person in law. She may also act as agent or otherwise of her own husband, and as such, with his consent, bind him by her contract, or other act; or she may act as the agent of another, in a contract, with her own husband.
Secondly, who can become agents? It's important to note that very few people are completely excluded from acting as agents or from exercising authority granted to them by others. So, it's not necessary for someone to be sui juris or able to act on their own behalf to qualify as someone who can act for others. For instance, monks, minors, femes covert, people who have been convicted, those who are outlawed, excommunicated individuals, and foreigners can all be agents for other people. A feme covert can serve as an attorney for someone else, to make a transfer to her husband following a feoffment; her husband can also receive such a transfer on her behalf, even though they are usually considered one person legally. She can act as her husband’s agent and, with his consent, bind him through her contract or other actions. Alternatively, she can act as an agent for someone else in a contract while being married to her husband.
III. Under the Common Law.—In Cox vs. Kitchin, 1 Bos. & Pul., 438, where a feme covert represented herself falsely to the tradesman to be a feme sole, and obtained goods on credit, it was held that she rendered herself personally responsible.
III. Under the Common Law.—In Cox vs. Kitchin, 1 Bos. & Pul., 438, where a married woman falsely claimed to be single to the tradesman and got goods on credit, it was determined that she made herself personally liable.
In Derry vs. Mazarine, 1 Ld. Raymond, 147, it was held that the wife of an[Pg 605] alien, who was doing business in her own name, in England, was liable as a feme sole. In Hauptman vs. Catlin, 20 N. Y., 248, the Court of Appeals says:
In Derry vs. Mazarine, 1 Ld. Raymond, 147, it was determined that the wife of an[Pg 605] alien, who conducted business under her own name in England, was responsible as a feme sole. In Hauptman vs. Catlin, 20 N. Y., 248, the Court of Appeals states:
Even before the late statute respecting married women, they were regarded as femes sole in respect to their separate property, and were as to such property liable on their contracts respecting the same, to the same extent and as though they were not under the disability of coverture. It was held by Lord Mansfield and his associates, in Corbett vs. Poelnitz, 1 T. R., 5, that if a husband and wife choose to separate, and the husband allows the wife a separate maintenance, she may contract and be sued as though she were unmarried, and may be held to bail and imprisoned on a ca. sa. without her husband. The court made this innovation on the ground that "the times alter new customs, and new manners arise, which require new exceptions, and a different application of the general rule.
Even before the recent law about married women, they were seen as femes sole regarding their own property, and they were responsible for contracts associated with that property as if they weren't affected by the legal restrictions of marriage. Lord Mansfield and his colleagues ruled in Corbett vs. Poelnitz, 1 T. R., 5, that if a husband and wife decide to separate, and the husband provides the wife with separate financial support, she can enter into contracts and be sued as though she were single, and can be held to bail and imprisoned without her husband being involved. The court introduced this change because "times change, new customs emerge, and new behaviors arise, which require new exceptions and a different application of the general rule."
IV. Under the Recent Statutes.—In Conway vs. Smith and Wife, 13 Wis., 125, the court held that "the statute gives to married women, as necessarily incidental to the power of holding property to their own use, the power of making all contracts necessary or convenient to its beneficial enjoyment, and such contracts are to be regarded as valid in law, and may be enforced by legal remedies." Cole, J., dissenting.
IV. Under the Recent Statutes.—In Conway vs. Smith and Wife, 13 Wis., 125, the court stated that "the statute grants married women, as a fundamental aspect of their ability to own property for their own benefit, the authority to enter into any contracts necessary or helpful for the advantageous use of that property, and these contracts are considered legally valid and can be enforced through legal remedies." Cole, J., dissenting.
In Barton vs. Beer, 35 Barbour, 81, the court, in treating of the liability of a married woman, says:
In Barton vs. Beer, 35 Barbour, 81, the court, while discussing the liability of a married woman, states:
If she acts as a feme sole, she ought, in justice to the public, to be subjected to all the duties and liabilities of a feme sole.
If she acts as a feme sole, she should, to be fair to the public, be held accountable for all the responsibilities and obligations of a feme sole.
In Emerson vs. Clayton, 32 Ill., 493, this honorable court held, that a married woman might bring replevin in her own name, for her separate property, against a third party, or even against her own husband, and that the act designed to make and did make a radical and thorough change in the condition of a feme covert; that she is to be regarded as unmarried, so far as her separate property is concerned.
In Emerson vs. Clayton, 32 Ill., 493, this court ruled that a married woman can file a replevin action in her own name for her separate property, against a third party or even her own husband. The law aimed to create and successfully made a significant change in the status of a feme covert; she is to be treated as unmarried when it comes to her separate property.
In Pomeroy vs. Manhattan Life Insurance Co., 40 Ill., 398, Walker, C. J., in delivering the opinion of the court, says:
In Pomeroy vs. Manhattan Life Insurance Co., 40 Ill., 398, Walker, C. J., presenting the court's opinion, states:
Under the statute she is entitled to the benefits it confers, and must be held liable for her acts performed in pursuance of the authority it confers. If it gives the rights of a sole ownership, it must impose the liabilities incident to such an act.
Under the law, she is entitled to the benefits it offers and must be held responsible for her actions taken under the authority it provides. If it grants the rights of sole ownership, it must also impose the responsibilities that come with such an action.
In Brownell vs. Dixon, 39 Ill., 207. this court not only held, under the act of 1861, that a married woman possessed of separate property might employ "an agent to transact her business", but that she might employ her own husband as such agent.
In Brownell vs. Dixon, 39 Ill., 207, this court ruled that under the 1861 act, a married woman with separate property could hire "an agent to handle her business," and that she could choose her own husband for that role.
Relying upon the doctrine laid down in this case, we insist that the power "to employ an agent" carries with it the liability to pay such an agent a reasonable compensation for his services; and that if a married woman employs a man to work on her farm for one day, and agrees to give him two dollars therefor, and fails so to do, that a fair construction of the act of 1861 would allow him to sue her before a justice of the peace, and not drive him to the expense of filing a bill in chancery that would amount to more than a denial of justice.
Based on the principles established in this case, we assert that the authority "to hire an agent" includes the responsibility to pay that agent a fair amount for their work. If a married woman hires a man to work on her farm for one day and agrees to pay him two dollars but fails to do so, a reasonable interpretation of the act of 1861 would permit him to sue her in front of a justice of the peace, rather than forcing him to incur the costs of filing a bill in chancery, which would be tantamount to denying him justice.
Now, if under the Act of 1861 she can employ an agent to transact her business, we insist under the Act of 1869, giving the wife her own earnings, and the rights to sue for the same in her own name, free from her husband,[Pg 606] that she has the right to be employed as an agent, or attorney, or physician, if she is capable, and to agree to do the duties of her profession. It would almost seem that this question is answered by the following extract from the opinion of this honorable court, as delivered by Mr. Justice Lawrence, in Carpenter vs. Mitchell, 2 Legal News, 44:
Now, if under the Act of 1861 she can hire an agent to handle her business, we argue that under the Act of 1869, which grants wives their own earnings and the right to sue for them in their own name, independent of their husbands,[Pg 606] she also has the right to work as an agent, attorney, or physician if she is qualified, and to accept the responsibilities of her profession. It almost seems like this question is addressed by the following excerpt from the opinion of this honorable court, as delivered by Mr. Justice Lawrence, in Carpenter vs. Mitchell, 2 Legal News, 44:
It may be said that a married woman can not adequately enjoy her separate property unless she can make contracts in regard to it. This is true, and hence her power to make contracts, so far as may be necessary for the use and enjoyment of her property, must be regarded as resulting by implication from the statute. If she owns houses she must be permitted to contract for their repair or rental. If she owns a farm she must be permitted to bargain for its cultivation, and to dispose of its products. We give these as illustrations of the power of contracting which is fairly implied in the law.
A married woman can't fully enjoy her separate property unless she can make contracts related to it. This is true, and therefore her ability to make contracts, as needed for the use and enjoyment of her property, should be seen as implied by the law. If she owns houses, she should be allowed to make contracts for their repair or rental. If she owns a farm, she should be allowed to negotiate for its cultivation and sell its products. These examples illustrate the contracting power that is reasonably implied in the law.
It is true, in this opinion the learned Judge confines his remarks strictly to the contracts of the wife made in relation to her separate property, and not in relation to general trade. This case arose before the passage of the Act of 1869. The right of a married woman to bring a suit in her own name is a necessary incident to the law. (Cole vs. Van Riper, 1 Legal News, 41.)
It’s true that in this opinion, the knowledgeable Judge limits his comments solely to the contracts made by the wife regarding her separate property, and not concerning general trade. This case happened before the Act of 1869 was passed. A married woman’s right to file a lawsuit in her own name is a necessary part of the law. (Cole vs. Van Riper, 1 Legal News, 41.)
V. The Trades and Professions open to Women.—The doors of many of our universities and law schools are now open to women upon an equality with men. The Government of the United States has employed women in many of its departments, and appointed many, both single and married, to office. Almost every large city in the Union has its regularly-admitted female physicians. The law schools of the nation have now many women in regular attendance, fitting themselves to perform the duties of the profession. The bar itself is not without its women lawyers, both single and married.
V. The Trades and Professions open to Women.—Many of our universities and law schools are now open to women on equal terms with men. The United States government has employed women in various departments and appointed many, both single and married, to office positions. Almost every large city in the country has its officially recognized female physicians. The law schools nationwide now have many women regularly attending, preparing themselves to fulfill the responsibilities of the profession. The legal field also includes women lawyers, both single and married.
Mrs. Arabella A. Mansfield, wife of Prof. J. M. Mansfield, of Mount Pleasant, Iowa, was admitted to the bar of Iowa, upon the unanimous petition of the attorneys of that place, after a very careful examination, not only of the applicant, but of the statutes regulating the admission of attorneys.
Mrs. Arabella A. Mansfield, the wife of Prof. J. M. Mansfield from Mount Pleasant, Iowa, was admitted to the Iowa bar after the attorneys in that area unanimously petitioned for her admission, following a thorough examination of both her qualifications and the laws governing attorney admissions.
The statute of Iowa provides that "any white male person, twenty-one years of age, who is an inhabitant of this State," and who satisfies the court, "that he possesses the requisite learning, and that he is of good moral character, may, by such court, be licensed to practice in all the courts of the State, upon taking the usual oath of office."
The Iowa statute states that "any white male person, twenty-one years old, who is a resident of this State," and who proves to the court "that he has the necessary education and is of good moral character, may, by that court, be granted a license to practice in all the courts of the State, after taking the standard oath of office."
The clause construing statutes is as follows:
The section interpreting statutes is as follows:
Words importing the singular number only, may be extended to several persons or things; and words importing the plural number only may be applied to one person, or thing; and words importing the masculine gender only may be extended to females.
Words that refer to one person or thing can also apply to multiple people or things; words that refer to multiple people or things can refer to one person or thing; and words that refer to males can also include females.
In Mrs. Mansfield's case, the court not only held that she could be admitted, notwithstanding the fact that she was a married woman, under the clause of the statute giving a construction to the masculine noun "male," and pronoun "he"; but that the affirmative declaration, that male persons may be admitted, is not an implied denial of the right to females. We know of no instance in the United States, where a woman, whether married or single, who has complied with the statutes of the State in which she lived and applied for admission, that the proper court has refused to grant her license.
In Mrs. Mansfield's case, the court ruled that she could be admitted even though she was married, based on the statute that defines the masculine terms "male" and "he"; it also stated that the clear declaration that males may be admitted does not deny the right for females. We are not aware of any instance in the United States where a woman, married or single, who has followed the laws of her state and applied for admission, has been denied her license by the appropriate court.
VI. How the Legislature have Regarded your Petitioner.—It has been held, in England, that a wife who does business in her own name, with either the express or implied consent of her husband, should be[Pg 607] treated as a feme sole, and be sued as such; and, with such consent, could be an administrator, executor, or guardian, in England or America.
VI. How the Legislature has Viewed Your Petitioner.—In England, it has been established that a wife who conducts business in her own name, with either the clear or implied agreement of her husband, should be[Pg 607] treated as a feme sole and can be sued as such; and, with that consent, she could also serve as an administrator, executor, or guardian, both in England and America.
The Legislature has, in repeated instances, acknowledged the capability and capacity of your petitioner to transact business, by providing that the Chicago Legal News, edited by her, and containing the decisions rendered by your honors, should be received in evidence in all the courts of this State, and in the following extract from the charter of the Chicago Legal News Company:
The Legislature has, on multiple occasions, recognized your petitioner's ability to conduct business by stating that the Chicago Legal News, which she edits and includes the decisions made by your honors, should be accepted as evidence in all courts of this State, as stated in the following excerpt from the charter of the Chicago Legal News Company:
And all the real and personal estate of said Myra Bradwell shall be liable for the debts of said company, contracted while she is a stockholder therein, and all stock of said company owned by her, and the earnings thereof, shall be her sole and separate property, the same as if she were an unmarried woman; and she shall have the same right to hold any office or offices in said company, or transact any of its business that a feme sole would have.—Legal News, Edition Laws of 1869, p. 93. Sec. 4, p. 93.
And all the real and personal property of Myra Bradwell will be responsible for the debts of the company she holds stock in, which were incurred while she was a stockholder. All stock she owns in the company and any earnings from it will be her own separate property, just like if she were unmarried. She will have the same rights to hold any positions in the company or conduct any business as a single woman would.—Legal News, Edition Laws of 1869, p. 93. Sec. 4, p. 93.
Your petitioner claims that a married woman is not to be classed with an infant since the passage of the Act of 1869. A married woman may sue in her own name for her earnings, an infant can not. A married woman, if an attorney, could be committed for contempt of court the same as any other attorney. If she should collect money and refuse to pay it over, she could be sued for it the same as if she were single. A married woman is liable at law for all torts committed by her, unless done under the real or implied coercion of her husband. Having received a license to practice law as an attorney, and having acted as such, she would be estopped from saying she was not liable as an attorney upon any contract made by her in that capacity.
Your petitioner argues that a married woman should not be treated the same as a minor since the Act of 1869 was enacted. A married woman can sue in her own name for her earnings, while a minor cannot. A married woman, if she is an attorney, can be held in contempt of court just like any other attorney. If she collects money and refuses to pay it to the rightful person, she can be sued for that just as if she were single. A married woman is legally responsible for all wrongs she commits, unless those actions were taken under the actual or implied pressure from her husband. Having obtained a license to practice law as an attorney and having acted in that role, she cannot claim she is not responsible for any contracts made by her in that capacity.
The fees that a married woman receives for her services as an attorney are just as much her earnings as the dollar that a sewing-woman receives for her day's work, and are just as much protected by the Act of 1869. Is it for the court to say, in advance, that it will not admit a married woman? Should she be admitted, and fail to perform her duty, or to comply with all her contracts as an attorney, could not the court, upon application, strike her name from the roll, or inflict more summary punishment?
The fees a married woman earns as an attorney are just as legitimate as the money a seamstress makes in a day, and they're just as protected by the Act of 1869. Should the court decide in advance that it won't allow a married woman to practice? If she is admitted and then fails to fulfill her duties or meet her obligations as an attorney, can't the court, upon request, remove her name from the roll or impose stricter penalties?
Your petitioner has complied with all the provisions of the statutes of the State regulating the admission of attorneys, and asks, as a matter of right and justice, standing as she does upon the law of the land, that she be admitted.
Your petitioner has followed all the rules set by the State regarding the admission of attorneys, and requests, as a matter of right and fairness, that she be admitted, given her standing under the law.
Not a line of written law, or a single decision in our State, can be found disqualifying a married woman from acting as an attorney. This honorable court can send me from its bar, and prevent me from practicing as an attorney, and it is of small consequence; but if, in so doing, your honors say to me: "You can not receive a license to practice as an attorney-at-law in the courts of this State upon the ground that you would not be bound by the obligations necessary to be assumed, where the relation of attorney and client shall exist, by reason of the disability imposed by your married condition"; you, in my judgment, in striking me down, strike a blow at the rights of every married woman in the great State of Illinois who is dependent on her labor for support, and say to her, you can not enter into the smallest contract in relation to your earnings or separate property, that can be enforced against you in a court of law.[Pg 608]
Not a single written law or decision in our State disqualifies a married woman from being an attorney. This honorable court can dismiss me from its bar and stop me from practicing law, and that’s not a big deal to me; but if, in doing so, your honors say to me: "You cannot get a license to practice law in the courts of this State because you won't be able to fulfill the obligations that come with the attorney-client relationship due to the limitations imposed by your marriage," then, in my view, by pushing me down, you are also pushing down the rights of every married woman in the great State of Illinois who relies on her work for support, telling her that she cannot enter into even the smallest contract regarding her earnings or separate property that can be enforced in a court of law.[Pg 608]
This result can, in my opinion, only be reached by disregarding the liberal statutes of our State, passed for the sole purpose of extending the rights of married women, and forever removing from our law, relating to their power to contract in regard to their earnings and property, the fossil foot-prints of the feudal system, and following the strictest rules of the common law.
This outcome, in my view, can only be achieved by ignoring the progressive laws of our State, which were enacted solely to expand the rights of married women, and permanently eliminating the outdated remnants of the feudal system from our laws concerning their ability to manage their earnings and property, instead adhering to the strictest principles of common law.
Lord Mansfield, notwithstanding the fact that slaves had been held, bought and sold for years in the streets of London, declared that the moment a slave touched British soil his shackles fell. The same noble lord held that a married woman might under certain circumstances, contract, and sue, and be sued at law, as a single woman, upon the ground that, the reason of the law ceasing, the law itself must cease; and that, as the usages of society alter, the law must adapt itself to the various situations of mankind. Mr. Justice Buller, in speaking of this decision years afterward, declared that "the points there decided were founded in good sense, and adapted to the transactions, the understanding, and the welfare of mankind."
Lord Mansfield, despite the fact that slaves had been held, bought, and sold for years in the streets of London, declared that the moment a slave set foot on British soil, their shackles fell off. The same noble lord believed that a married woman could, under certain conditions, make contracts, sue, and be sued in court like a single woman, reasoning that when the reason for a law disappears, the law itself should also vanish; and that as social customs change, the law must adapt to the various circumstances of people. Years later, Mr. Justice Buller remarked that "the points decided in that case were based on common sense and were relevant to the situations, understanding, and well-being of humanity."
Apply this reasoning in our State, now that the Legislature has removed every claim that the husband had, under the common law, upon the property of the wife, except his life estate in her hands, which only commences with her death, and all difficulty is removed, and the case is clear.
Apply this reasoning in our State, now that the Legislature has removed every claim that the husband had under common law to his wife's property, except for his life estate in her hands, which only starts after her death. This resolves any difficulties, and the situation is clear.
Myra Bradwell.
Myra Bradwell.
Applicant, with a view of placing herself in a position to obtain the benefit of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and the Civil Rights Bill, applicable to her case, on the second day of January, 1870, filed the following affidavit and points:
Applicant, aiming to position herself to take advantage of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and the Civil Rights Bill relevant to her case, submitted the following affidavit and points on January 2, 1870:
In the Supreme Court of Illinois, Third Grand Division—September Term, 1869. [In the matter of the application of Myra Bradwell to obtain a license to practice as an Attorney-at-law]—State of Illinois, County of Cook, ss.: Myra Bradwell, being duly sworn, doth depose and say that she was born in Manchester, in the State of Vermont, and that she was a citizen of said State last named, that she is now a citizen of the United States; that she is and has been for many years last past a resident of Chicago, in said State of Illinois, and further deponent says not.
In the Supreme Court of Illinois, Third Grand Division—September Term, 1869. [Regarding Myra Bradwell's application to get a license to practice as a lawyer]—State of Illinois, County of Cook, ss.: Myra Bradwell, having been sworn in, states that she was born in Manchester, Vermont, and that she was a citizen of that state. She is now a citizen of the United States; she has been a resident of Chicago, Illinois, for many years, and she has no further statements to add.
Myra Bradwell.
Myra Bradwell.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of December, a.d. 1869.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of December, a.d. 1869.
E. B. Payne, Notary Public. [Seal.]
E. B. Payne, Notary Public. [Seal.]
And now again comes the said Myra Bradwell, and files the following additional points:
And now Myra Bradwell is back and submits the following additional points:
VII. Your petitioner claims under the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the act commonly known as the "Civil Rights Bill," the "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property," and the right to exercise and follow the profession of an attorney-at-law upon the same terms, conditions, and restrictions as are applied to and imposed upon every other citizen of the State of Illinois, and none other.
VII. Your petitioner claims under the XIV Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the act commonly known as the "Civil Rights Bill" the "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property," as well as the right to practice law on the same terms, conditions, and restrictions that apply to every other citizen of Illinois, and no one else.
And that having complied with all the laws of the State, and the rules and regulations of this honorable court, for the admission of attorneys, it is contrary to the true intent and meaning of said Amendment and said "Civil[Pg 609] Rights Bill," for your petitioner to be refused a license to practice law, upon the sole ground of her "married condition."
And having followed all the state laws and the rules of this honorable court regarding the admission of attorneys, it goes against the true intent and meaning of the Amendment and the "Civil[Pg 609] Rights Bill" for your petitioner to be denied a license to practice law solely based on her "married status."
VIII. And your petitioner further claims, that having been born in the State of Vermont, and having been a citizen of the State last named, and of the United States, and having removed to the State of Illinois, where she has resided for many years, that under the second section of the IV. Article of the Constitution of the United States, which is in these words, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," she has guaranteed to her the privileges and immunities which every other citizen of the State of Illinois has, among which may be named the protection of the Government, the right to the enjoyment of life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, to reside in the State, to carry on trade, and the right to follow any professional pursuit under the laws of the State, which must work equally upon all the citizens of the State, and that under this section of the Constitution she has a right to receive a license to practice law upon the same terms and conditions as the most favored citizen of the State of Illinois.
VIII. Your petitioner further states that, having been born in the State of Vermont and being a citizen of that State and of the United States, she moved to Illinois, where she has lived for many years. According to the second section of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," she is entitled to the same privileges and immunities as every other citizen of Illinois. These include government protection, the right to enjoy life and liberty, the ability to acquire and own property, the right to live in the State, to engage in trade, and the right to pursue any profession under the State's laws, which must apply equally to all citizens. Therefore, under this section of the Constitution, she has the right to obtain a license to practice law under the same terms and conditions as the most privileged citizen of Illinois.
(People vs. Washington, 36 California R., 662. Corfield vs. Coryell, 4 Washington C. R., 381.)
(People vs. Washington, 36 California R., 662. Corfield vs. Coryell, 4 Washington C. R., 381.)
Myra Bradwell.
Myra Bradwell.
On last week the court filed an opinion denying the application, for a very carefully prepared copy of which we are indebted to Mr. Freeman:
On last week, the court issued an opinion denying the application, for which we are very grateful to Mr. Freeman for providing a carefully prepared copy:
OPINION OF THE COURT DENYING THE APPLICATION.
[In the matter of the application of Mrs. Myra Bradwell for a license to practice as an Attorney-at-Law.] Opinion of the Court Delivered by Mr. Justice Lawrence.—At the last term of the court Mrs. Myra Bradwell applied for a license as an attorney-at-law, presenting the ordinary certificates of character and qualifications. The license was refused, and it was stated as a sufficient reason, that under the decisions of this court the applicant, as a married woman, would be bound neither by her express contracts, nor by those implied contracts which it is the policy of the law to create between attorney and client. Since the announcement of our decision, the applicant has filed a printed argument in which her right to a license is earnestly and ably maintained. Of the ample qualifications of the applicant we have no doubt, and we put our decision in writing in order that she or other persons interested may bring the question before the next Legislature.
[Regarding Mrs. Myra Bradwell's application for a license to practice as an Attorney-at-Law.] Court Opinion by Mr. Justice Lawrence.—In the last term of the court, Mrs. Myra Bradwell applied for a license to practice law, providing the usual character and qualifications certificates. The license was denied, with the explanation that according to the court’s previous rulings, as a married woman, the applicant would not be held accountable for her express contracts or the implied contracts that the law typically creates between an attorney and client. Since we made our decision public, the applicant has submitted a printed argument vigorously and skillfully defending her right to a license. We have no doubt about the applicant's qualifications, and we are formalizing our decision in writing so that she or anyone else interested can present the issue to the next Legislature.
The applicant, in her printed argument, combats the decision of the court in the case of Carpenter vs. Mitchell, June term, 1869, in which we held a married woman was not bound by contracts having no relation to her own property. We are not inclined to go over again the grounds of that decision. It was the result of a good deal of deliberation and discussion in our council chamber, and the confidence of the present members of this court in its correctness can not easily be shaken. We are in accord with all the courts in this country which have had occasion to pass upon a similar question, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Conway vs. Smith, 13 Wis., 125, differing from us only on the minor point as to whether, in regard to contracts concerning the separate property of married women, the law side of the court would take jurisdiction.[Pg 610]
The applicant, in her printed argument, challenges the court's decision in the case of Carpenter vs. Mitchell, June term, 1869, where we decided that a married woman is not obligated by contracts unrelated to her own property. We are not inclined to revisit the reasons behind that decision. It resulted from considerable deliberation and discussion in our council chamber, and the current members of this court have strong confidence in its correctness, which is not easily shaken. We align with all the courts in this country that have addressed a similar issue, with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Conway vs. Smith, 13 Wis., 125, only differing from us on the minor point of whether the law side of the court would have jurisdiction over contracts concerning the separate property of married women.[Pg 610]
As to the main question, the right of married women to make contracts not affecting their separate property, the position of those who assert such right is, that because the Legislature has expressly removed the common law disabilities of married women in regard to holding property not derived from their husbands, it has therefore, by necessary implication, also removed all their common law disabilities in regard to making contracts, and invited them to enter, equally with men, upon those fields of trade and speculation by which property is acquired through the agency of contracts.
Regarding the main question about married women's right to enter into contracts that don’t affect their separate property, those who support this right argue that since the Legislature has explicitly eliminated the common law restrictions on married women concerning property not owned by their husbands, it has also implicitly lifted all common law limitations on their ability to make contracts. This change encourages them to participate, alongside men, in the areas of trade and speculation through which property is obtained through contracts.
The hiatus between the premise and the conclusion is too wide for us to bridge. It may be desirable that the Legislature should relieve married women from all their common law disabilities. But to say that it has done so in the Act of 1861, the language of which is carefully guarded, and which makes no allusion to contracts, and does not use that or any equivalent term, would be simple misinterpretation. It would be going as far beyond the meaning of that act as that act goes beyond the common law in changing the legal status of women. The act itself is wise and just, and therefore entitled to a liberal interpretation.
The gap between the premise and the conclusion is too significant for us to close. It might be ideal for the Legislature to remove all the common law restrictions on married women. However, to claim that it has accomplished this in the Act of 1861, which uses very careful language, makes no reference to contracts, and does not use that term or anything like it, would be a clear misinterpretation. It would stretch the meaning of that act just as far as the act itself goes beyond common law in altering the legal status of women. The act is both wise and fair, and therefore deserves a broad interpretation.
This we have endeavored to give it in the cases that have come before us, but we do not intend to decide that the Legislature has gone to a length in its measure of reform for which the language it has carefully used furnishes no warrant.
This is what we have tried to provide in the cases that have come before us, but we do not plan to conclude that the Legislature has gone too far in its reform measures, as the language it has carefully chosen does not support that.
It is urged, however, that the law of the last session of the Legislature, which gives to married women the separate control of their earnings, must be construed as giving to them the right to contract in regard to their personal services. This act had no application to the case of Carpenter vs. Mitchell, having been passed after that suit was commenced, and we were unmindful of it when considering this application at the last term. Neither do we now propose to consider how far it extends the power of a married woman to contract, since, after further consultation in regard to this application, we find ourselves constrained to hold that the sex of the applicant, independently of coverture; is, as our law now stands, a sufficient reason for not granting this license.
It is important to note, however, that the law from the last session of the Legislature, which allows married women to have separate control over their earnings, should be interpreted as granting them the right to enter into contracts regarding their personal services. This act did not apply to the case of Carpenter vs. Mitchell, as it was passed after that lawsuit began, and we were unaware of it when we reviewed this application during the last term. We also do not plan to discuss how far it extends a married woman's ability to contract, since, after further discussion regarding this application, we find ourselves compelled to conclude that the applicant's gender, independent of marriage, is currently enough reason not to grant this license.
Although an attorney-at-law is an agent, as claimed by the applicant's argument, when he has been retained to act for another, yet he is also much more than an agent. He is an officer of the court, holding his commission in this State, from two of the members of this court, and subject to be disbarred by this court for what our statute calls "mal-conduct in his office." He is appointed to assist in the administration of justice, is required to take an oath of office, and is privileged from arrest while attending courts.
Although a lawyer is an agent, as the applicant argues, when he is hired to represent someone else, he is also much more than just an agent. He is an officer of the court, holding his position in this state from two members of this court, and can be disbarred by this court for what our laws term "misconduct in his position." He is appointed to help administer justice, is required to take an oath of office, and is protected from arrest while attending court.
Our statute provides that no person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney or counselor-at-law, without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from two of the justices of the Supreme Court. By the second section of the act, it is provided that no person shall be entitled to receive a license until he shall have obtained a certificate, from the court of some county, of his good moral character, and this is the only express limitation upon the exercise of the power thus intrusted to this court. In all other respects it is left to our discretion to establish the rules by which admission to this office shall be determined. But this discretion is not an arbitrary[Pg 611] one, and must be held subject to at least two limitations. One is, that the court should establish such terms of admission as will promote the proper administration of justice; the second, that it should not admit any persons or class of persons who are not intended by the Legislature to be admitted, even though their exclusion is not expressly required by the statute.
Our statute states that no one is allowed to practice as an attorney or counselor-at-law without first getting a license from two justices of the Supreme Court. The second section of the act specifies that no one can receive a license until they have acquired a certificate from the court of a county confirming their good moral character, and this is the only clear limitation on the authority granted to this court. In every other way, it is up to our discretion to set the rules for admission to this position. However, this discretion is not arbitrary[Pg 611] and must adhere to at least two limitations. First, the court should set terms for admission that will promote proper administration of justice; second, it should not admit any individuals or groups that the Legislature did not intend to have admitted, even if their exclusion isn't expressly mentioned in the statute.
The substance of the last limitation is simply that this important trust reposed in us should be exercised in conformity with the designs of the power creating it.
The essence of the last limitation is that this significant trust placed in us should be exercised according to the intentions of the authority that established it.
Whether, in the existing social relations between men and women, it would promote the proper administration of justice, and the general well-being of society, to permit women to engage in the trial of cases at the bar, is a question opening a wide field of discussion upon which it is not necessary for us to enter. It is sufficient to say that, in our opinion, the other implied limitation upon our power, to which we have above referred, must operate to prevent our admitting women to the office of attorney-at-law. If we were to admit them, we should be exercising the authority conferred upon us in a manner which, we are fully satisfied, was never contemplated by the Legislature.
Whether allowing women to participate in trial cases would enhance the effective administration of justice and the overall well-being of society is a topic that opens up extensive discussion, which we don't need to delve into here. It’s enough to say that, in our view, the other implied limitation on our authority, which we've mentioned above, must prevent us from admitting women to the position of attorney-at-law. If we were to allow this, we would be using the authority granted to us in a way that we are certain was never intended by the Legislature.
Upon this question it seems to us neither this applicant herself, nor any unprejudiced and intelligent person, can entertain the slightest doubt. It is to be remembered that at the time this statute was enacted we had, by express provision, adopted the common law of England; and, with three exceptions, the statutes of that country passed prior to the fourth year of James the First, so far as they were applicable to our condition.
Upon this question, it seems to us that neither this applicant nor any fair-minded and knowledgeable person can have the slightest doubt. It’s important to remember that when this law was passed, we had explicitly adopted the common law of England and, with three exceptions, the laws from that country enacted before the fourth year of James the First, as long as they were relevant to our situation.
It is to be also remembered that female attorneys-at-law were unknown in England, and a proposition that a woman should enter the courts of Westminster Hall in that capacity, or as a barrister, would have created hardly less astonishment than one that she should ascend the bench of Bishops, or be elected to a seat in the House of Commons. It is to be further remembered, that when our act was passed, that school of reform which claims for women participation in the making and administering of the laws had not then arisen, or, if here and there a writer had advanced such theories, they were regarded rather as abstract speculations than as an actual basis for action.
It should also be noted that female lawyers were unheard of in England, and the idea of a woman entering the courts of Westminster Hall as a lawyer or barrister would have caused nearly as much shock as if she were to become a bishop or be elected to the House of Commons. It's important to remember that when our act was passed, the movement advocating for women's participation in creating and enforcing laws had not yet emerged, or if a few writers had proposed such ideas, they were mostly seen as theoretical musings rather than a concrete foundation for action.
That God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action, and that it belonged to men to make, apply, and execute the laws, was regarded as an almost axiomatic truth. It may have been a radical error, and we are by no means certain it was not, but that this was the universal belief certainly admits of no denial. A direct participation in the affairs of government, in even the most elementary form, namely, the right of suffrage, was not then claimed, and has not yet been conceded, unless recently in one of the newly-settled Territories of the West.
That God intended men and women to operate in different areas, with men being responsible for creating, applying, and enforcing laws, was seen as an almost self-evident truth. It might have been a fundamental mistake, and we can't be entirely sure it wasn't, but it's undeniable that this was the widely accepted belief. At that time, there was no claim for direct involvement in government affairs, even in the most basic way, like the right to vote, which had not yet been granted, except maybe recently in one of the new Western Territories.
In view of these facts, we are certainly warranted in saying, that when the Legislature gave to this court the power of granting licenses to practice law, it was with not the slightest expectation that this privilege would be extended equally to men and women.
In light of these facts, we can confidently say that when the Legislature gave this court the authority to grant licenses to practice law, it did so without any expectation that this privilege would be extended equally to both men and women.
Neither has there been any legislation since that period which would[Pg 612] justify us in presuming a change in the legislative intent. Our laws to-day in regard to women, are substantially what they have always been, except in the change wrought by the acts of 1861 and 1869, giving to married women the right to control their own property and earnings.
Neither has there been any legislation since that period which would[Pg 612] justify us in assuming a change in the legislative intent. Our laws today regarding women are essentially the same as they have always been, except for the changes made by the acts of 1861 and 1869, which granted married women the right to manage their own property and earnings.
Whatever, then, may be our individual opinions as to the admission of women to the bar, we do not deem ourselves at liberty to exercise our power in a mode never contemplated by the Legislature, and inconsistent with the usages of courts of the common law from the origin of the system to the present day.
Whatever our personal views might be on allowing women to enter the bar, we do not feel we have the right to use our authority in a way that was never intended by the Legislature and that goes against the practices of common law courts from the beginning of the system to now.
But it is not merely an immense innovation in our own usages as a court that we are asked to make. This step, if taken by us, would mean that in the opinion of this tribunal, every civil office in this State may be filled by women—that it is in harmony with the spirit of our Constitution and laws that women should be made governors, judges, and sheriffs. This we are not yet prepared to hold.
But we're not just being asked to make a huge change in our practices as a court. If we take this step, it would mean that this tribunal believes every civil office in this State can be held by women—that it's in line with the spirit of our Constitution and laws for women to serve as governors, judges, and sheriffs. We're not ready to make that statement yet.
In our opinion, it is not the province of a court to attempt, by giving a new interpretation to an ancient statute, to introduce so important a change in the legal position of one-half the people. Courts of justice were not intended to be made the instruments of pushing forward measures of popular reform. If it be desirable that those offices which we have borrowed from the English law, and which from their origin some centuries ago down to the present time, have been filled exclusively by men, should also be made accessible to women, then let the change be made, but let it be made by that department of the Government to whom the Constitution has intrusted the power of changing the laws. The great body of our law rests merely upon ancient usage. The right of a husband in this State to the personal property of his wife, before the act of 1861, rested simply upon such usage, yet who could have justified this court if, prior to the passage of that act, it had solemnly decided that it was unreasonable that the property of the wife should vest in the husband, and this usage should no longer be recognized? Yet was it not as unreasonable that a woman by marriage should lose the title of her personal property, as it is that she should not receive from us a license to practice law? The rule in both cases, until the law of 1861, rested upon the same common law usage and could have pleaded the same antiquity. In the one case it was never pretended that this court could properly overturn the rule, and we do not see how we could be justified should we disregard it in the other. The principle can not be too strictly and conscientiously observed, that each of the three departments of the Government should avoid encroachment upon the other, and that it does not belong to the judiciary to attempt to inaugurate great social or political reforms. The mere fact that women have never been licensed as attorneys-at-law is, in a tribunal where immemorial usage is as much respected as it is and ought to be in courts of justice, a sufficient reason for declining to exercise our discretion in their favor, until the propriety of their participating in the offices of State and the administration of public affairs shall have been recognized by the law-making department of the Government—that department to which the initiative in great measures of reform properly belongs. For us to attempt, in a matter of this importance, to inaugurate a practice at variance[Pg 613] with all the precedents of the law we are sworn to administer, would be an act of judicial usurpation deserving of the gravest censure. If we could disregard, in this matter, the authority of those unwritten usages which make the great body of our law, we might do so in any other, and the dearest rights of person and property would become a matter of mere judicial discretion.
In our view, it's not the role of a court to change the legal status of half the population by reinterpreting an old statute. Courts should not be used to push for popular reforms. If it's important for the offices we took from English law, which have been held only by men for centuries, to be opened up to women as well, then that change should be made by the government branch that has the authority to change the laws according to the Constitution. Most of our laws are based on long-standing customs. For instance, the right of a husband in this State to his wife's personal property, before the act of 1861, was based solely on this custom. Yet, who could have justified this court if, before that act was passed, it had decided that it was unreasonable for a wife’s property to belong to her husband and that this custom should no longer apply? Isn't it just as unreasonable for a woman to lose ownership of her personal property through marriage as it is for her not to be granted a license to practice law? Both situations, prior to the 1861 law, were based on the same common law customs and had the same long-standing history. In one case, it was never suggested that this court could rightfully overturn the rule, and we don't see how we could justify ignoring it in the other case. It’s essential to strictly and thoughtfully observe the principle that each of the three branches of government should respect each other's boundaries and that the judiciary is not meant to initiate major social or political changes. The fact that women have never been licensed as attorneys is a sufficient reason for us to decline to exercise our discretion in their favor, until the law-making branch of the government acknowledges the appropriateness of their involvement in state roles and public administration—an area where the initiative for significant reforms rightly belongs. For us to attempt to start a practice that contradicts all the laws we are committed to enforcing would be a serious overreach deserving of deep criticism. If we disregarded the authority of those unwritten customs that shape most of our law, we could do so in other instances as well, and the fundamental rights of individuals and property could simply become matters of judicial discretion.
But it is said the 28th section of chapter 90 of the Revised Statutes of 1845 provides that, whenever any person is referred to in the statute by words importing the masculine gender, females as well as males shall be deemed to be included. But the 36th section of the same chapter provides that this rule of construction shall not apply where there is anything in the subject or context repugnant to such construction. That is the case in the present instance.
But it is said that the 28th section of chapter 90 of the Revised Statutes of 1845 states that whenever a person is referred to in the statute using words that indicate the masculine gender, both females and males are included. However, the 36th section of the same chapter states that this rule of interpretation does not apply if there is anything in the subject or context that contradicts this interpretation. That is the case here.
In the view we have taken of this question the argument drawn by the applicant from the Constitution of the United States has no pertinency.
In our perspective on this issue, the argument made by the applicant based on the Constitution of the United States is irrelevant.
In conclusion we would add that, while we are constrained to refuse this application, we respect the motive which prompts it, and we entertain a profound sympathy with those efforts which are being so widely made to reasonably enlarge the field for the exercise of woman's industry and talent. While those theories which are popularly known as "woman's rights" can not be expected to meet with a very cordial acceptance among the members of a profession which, more than any other, inclines its followers, if not to stand immovable upon the ancient ways, at least to make no hot haste in measures of reform, still all right-minded men must gladly see new spheres of action opened to woman, and greater inducements offered her to seek the highest and widest culture. There are some departments of the legal profession in which she can appropriately labor.
In conclusion, we want to say that while we have to deny this application, we respect the motivation behind it, and we deeply sympathize with the ongoing efforts to reasonably expand the opportunities for women’s work and talent. Although the ideas commonly referred to as "women's rights" might not be warmly embraced by members of a profession that tends to stick to traditional methods, or at least to approach reform slowly, all fair-minded people should be pleased to see more opportunities created for women and greater encouragement for them to pursue higher and broader education. There are certain areas in the legal profession where women can work effectively.
Whether, on the other hand, to engage in the hot strifes of the Bar, in the presence of the public, and with momentous verdicts the prizes of the struggle would not tend to destroy the deference and delicacy with which it is the pride of our ruder sex to treat her, is a matter certainly worthy of her consideration. But the important question is, what effect the presence of women as barristers in our courts would have upon the administration of justice, and the question can be satisfactorily answered only in the light of experience.
Whether to participate in the intense conflicts of the Bar, in front of the public, and with significant verdicts at stake, might undermine the respect and sensitivity that our rougher sex takes pride in showing her is certainly something for her to think about. However, the crucial question is what impact having women as barristers in our courts would have on the administration of justice, and this question can only be answered satisfactorily through real experience.
If the Legislature shall choose to remove the existing barriers and authorize us to issue licenses equally to men and women, we shall cheerfully obey, trusting to the good sense and sound judgment of women themselves to seek those departments of the practice in which they can labor without reasonable objection.
If the Legislature decides to remove the existing barriers and allows us to issue licenses equally to men and women, we will gladly comply, trusting that women will use their good sense and sound judgment to pursue the areas of practice where they can work without reasonable objection.
Application denied.
Application denied.
The opinion will be best understood by reading our arguments first, and knowing all the points made before the court. We have not the space to review the opinion in this issue, but shall do so at some future day, and will simply say now, that what the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case was to the rights of negroes as citizens of the United States, this decision is to the political rights of women in Illinois—annihilation.[Pg 614]
The opinion will make more sense if you read our arguments first and understand all the points made before the court. We don’t have the space to go over the opinion in this issue, but we’ll address it at a later time. For now, I’ll just say that what the Supreme Court of the United States decided in the Dred Scott case regarding the rights of Black people as citizens is similar to what this decision means for the political rights of women in Illinois—total denial.[Pg 614]
CAN A WOMAN PRACTICE LAW OR HOLD ANY OFFICE IN ILLINOIS?
Full Report of the Proceedings in the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Supreme Court of the United States, upon the application of Myra Bradwell to be admitted to the Bar.
Full Report of the Proceedings in the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Supreme Court of the United States, regarding Myra Bradwell's application to be admitted to the Bar.
On pp. 145, 146, and 147 of this volume, we gave the proceedings in full in the Supreme Court of this State upon our application to be admitted to practice law, including the opinion of Judge Lawrence, the present learned Chief-Justice of that tribunal, denying the application on the sole ground that a woman could not be admitted to the bar or hold any office in Illinois. As soon after this opinion was announced as we could obtain a certified copy of the record, we placed it in the hands of the Hon. Matt. H. Carpenter, one of the ablest constitutional lawyers in the nation, with a view of obtaining a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Carpenter prepared and presented our petition for a writ of error, together with the record. The following is the indorsement upon the record, allowing the writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States:
On pages 145, 146, and 147 of this volume, we provided the full proceedings in the Supreme Court of this State regarding our application to practice law. This included the opinion of Judge Lawrence, the current Chief Justice of that court, who denied the application solely on the grounds that a woman could not be admitted to the bar or hold any office in Illinois. As soon as we were able to get a certified copy of the record after this opinion was announced, we handed it over to Hon. Matt H. Carpenter, one of the top constitutional lawyers in the country, to seek a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Carpenter prepared and submitted our petition for a writ of error along with the record. The following is the endorsement on the record, granting the writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States:
I allow a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to the Supreme Court of Illinois, in the suit and judgment of which the foregoing record is a transcript.
I permit a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to the Supreme Court of Illinois, in the case and judgment of which the previous record is a copy.
Sam. F. Miller, Asso. Jus. Sup. Court U. S.
Sam. F. Miller, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States
August 16, 1870.
August 16, 1870.
CITATION TO THE STATE OF ILLINOIS TO APPEAR AT WASHINGTON.
The United States of America to the State of Illinois:—The State of Illinois is hereby cited and admonished to appear and be at the Supreme Court of the United States to be holden at Washington City in the District of Columbia, on the first Monday of December next, pursuant to a writ of error filed in the clerk's office of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, wherein Myra Bradwell is plaintiff in error, and the State of Illinois is defendant in error, to show cause, if any there be, why the judgment in the said writ of error mentioned should not be corrected, and speedy justice should not be done to the parties in that behalf.
The United States of America to the State of Illinois:—The State of Illinois is hereby ordered and notified to appear before the Supreme Court of the United States, convening in Washington, D.C., on the first Monday of December next. This is in response to a writ of error filed in the clerk's office of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, where Myra Bradwell is the plaintiff in error, and the State of Illinois is the defendant in error. The State is to show cause, if any, why the judgment mentioned in the writ of error should not be corrected and prompt justice should not be served to the parties involved.
Witness the Honorable Salmon P. Chase, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States this 16th day of August, a.d. 1870.
Witness the Honorable Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States this 16th day of August, a.d. 1870.
Sam. F. Miller, Asso. Jus. Sup. Court U. S.
Sam. F. Miller, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States
WRIT OF ERROR.
United States of America, ss.:
United States of America, ss.:
[Seal.]
[Seal.]
The President of the United States, To the Honorable the Judges of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois—Greeting:
The President of the United States, To the Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois—Hello:
Because, in the record and proceedings, as also in the rendition of the judgment of a plea which is in the said Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, before you, or some of you, being the highest court of law or equity of the said State in which a decision could be had in the said suit in the matter of the application of Myra Bradwell, of Cook County, Illinois for a license to practice law in the courts of said State, wherein was drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision was against their validity; or wherein was drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, said State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision was in favor of such their validity; or wherein was drawn in question the construction of a clause of the Constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under, the United States, and the decision was against the title, right, privilege, or exemption, specially set up or claimed under such clause of the said Constitution, treaty, statute, or commission, a manifest error hath happened, to the great damage of the said Myra Bradwell, as by her complaint appears. We being willing that error, if any hath[Pg 615] been, should be duly corrected, and full and speedy justice done to the parties aforesaid in this behalf, do command you, if judgment be therein given, that then under your seal, distinctly and openly, you send the record and proceedings aforesaid, with all things concerning the same, to the Supreme Court of the United States, together with this writ, so that you have the same at Washington on the first Monday of December next, in the said Supreme Court, to be then and there held, that the record and proceedings aforesaid being inspected, the said Supreme Court may cause further to be done therein to correct that error what of right, and according to the laws and custom of the United States, should be done.
Because in the records and proceedings, as well as in the judgment regarding the plea presented in the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, before you, or some of you, who are the highest court of law or equity in this State, a decision could be made in the case involving Myra Bradwell from Cook County, Illinois, who applied for a license to practice law in the courts of this State, which questioned the validity of a treaty or statute, or authority exercised under the United States, and the decision went against their validity; or in questioning the validity of a statute or authority exercised under this State, arguing that they conflicted with the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision upheld their validity; or in questioning the interpretation of a clause in the Constitution, treaty, statute, or commission held under the United States, where the decision went against the title, right, privilege, or exemption claimed under that clause of the Constitution, treaty, statute, or commission, a clear error has occurred, causing significant harm to Myra Bradwell, as shown in her complaint. We are willing that any error, if it exists, should be corrected, and that full and swift justice should be served to the parties involved. Therefore, we command you, if a judgment has been made, that you send the record and proceedings along with all related documents to the Supreme Court of the United States under your seal, clearly and openly, so that you ensure they arrive in Washington by the first Monday of December next, for the Supreme Court to review the record and proceedings and take necessary action to rectify the error as required by law and the customs of the United States.
Witness the Honorable Salmon P. Chase, Chief-Justice of the said Supreme Court, the first Monday of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine.
Witness the Honorable Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, on the first Monday of December, in the year 1869.
D. W. Middleton, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the U. S.
D. W. Middleton, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
Issued 23d August, 1870.
Issued 23d August, 1870.
Allowed by me,
Allowed by me,
Sam. F. Miller, Asso. Jus. Sup. Court, U. S.
Sam. F. Miller, Associate Justice, Supreme Court, U.S.
While these suits for the recognition of the political rights of women were pending, a contest of a different character took place in Illinois. Mrs. Myra Bradwell, editor of the Chicago Legal News, applied for admission to the bar of that State, and was refused. She made this denial of her civil rights a test case by bringing suit against the State of Illinois in the Supreme Court of the United States. The case was argued for the plaintiff in the December term, 1871, by the Hon. Matt. H. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, an eminent republican United States Senator. In addressing the Court Mr. Carpenter said:
While the cases for recognizing women's political rights were ongoing, a different kind of battle occurred in Illinois. Mrs. Myra Bradwell, the editor of the Chicago Legal News, applied to join the state's bar and was denied. She made this denial of her civil rights a test case by suing the State of Illinois in the Supreme Court of the United States. The case was argued for the plaintiff in the December term, 1871, by the Hon. Matt. H. Carpenter, an esteemed Republican U.S. Senator from Wisconsin. In addressing the Court, Mr. Carpenter said:
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, to review the proceedings of that court, denying the petition of the plaintiff in error to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor of that court, which right was claimed by the plaintiff in error in that court under the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff in error is a married woman, of full age, a citizen of the United States and of the State of Illinois; was ascertained and certified to be duly qualified in respect of character and attainments, but was denied admission to the bar for the sole reason that she was a married woman. This is the error relied upon to reverse the proceedings below.
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois to review the proceedings of that court, which denied the plaintiff in error's petition to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor of that court. The plaintiff in error claimed this right under the XIV Amendment of the United States Constitution. The plaintiff in error is a married woman, of legal age, a citizen of the United States and the State of Illinois; she was determined and certified to be properly qualified in terms of character and qualifications but was denied admission to the bar solely because she is a married woman. This is the error being cited to reverse the proceedings below.
By the rules of this court no person can be admitted to practice at the bar without service for a fixed term in the highest court of the State in which such person resides. Consequently a denial of admission in the highest court of the State is an insurmountable obstacle to admission to the bar of this court. This record, therefore, presents the broad question, whether a married woman, being a citizen of the United States and of a State, and possessing the necessary qualifications, is entitled by the Constitution of the United States to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the courts of the State in which she resides. This is a question not of taste, propriety, or politeness, but of civil right. Before proceeding to discuss this question, it may be well to distinguish it from the question of the right of female citizens to participate in the exercise of the elective franchise.[Pg 616]
According to the rules of this court, no one can practice law here without having served for a specific time in the highest court of the State where they live. Therefore, being denied admission to that highest court creates a major barrier to practicing law here. This case brings up an important question: Is a married woman who is a U.S. citizen, resides in a State, and meets the necessary qualifications entitled to be admitted as an attorney and counselor-at-law in her State's courts under the U.S. Constitution? This question is not about taste, propriety, or politeness; it is about civil rights. Before diving into this issue, it’s important to differentiate it from the question of whether female citizens can vote.[Pg 616]
The great problem of female suffrage, the solution of which lies in our immediate future, naturally enough, from its transcendent importance, draws to itself, in prejudiced minds, every question relating to the civil rights of women; and it seems to be feared that doing justice to woman's rights in any particular would probably be followed by the establishment of the right of female suffrage, which, it is assumed, would overthrow Christianity, defeat the ends of modern civilization, and upturn the world.
The significant issue of women's voting rights, which we'll resolve in the near future, understandably attracts considerable attention, especially from those with biased views, regarding any matter connected to women's civil rights. There's a concern that recognizing women's rights in any specific way would likely lead to granting women the right to vote, which some believe would disrupt Christianity, undermine modern civilization, and cause chaos worldwide.
While I do not believe that female suffrage has been secured by the existing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, neither do I look upon that result as at all to be dreaded. It is not, in my opinion, a question of woman's rights merely, but, in a far greater degree, a question of man's rights. When God created man, he announced the law of his being, that it was not well for him to be alone, and so He created woman to be his helpmate and companion. Commencing with the barbarism of the East, and journeying through the nations toward the bright light of civilization in the West, it will everywhere be found that, just in proportion to the equality of women with men in the enjoyment of social and civil rights and privileges, both sexes are proportionately advanced in refinement and all that ennobles human nature. In our own country, where women are received on an equality with men, we find good order and good manners prevailing. Because women frequent railroad cars and steamboats, markets, shops, and post-offices, those places must be, and are, conducted with order and decency. The only great resorts from which woman is excluded by law are the election places; and the violence, rowdyism, profanity, and obscenity of the gathering there in our largest cities are sufficient to drive decent men, even, away from the polls. If our wives, sisters, and daughters were going to the polls, we should go with them, and good order would be observed, or a row would follow, which would secure order in the future. I have more faith in female suffrage, to reform the abuses of our election system in the large cities, than I have in the penal election laws to be enforced by soldiers and marines. Who believes that, if ladies were admitted to seats in Congress, or upon the bench, or were participating in discussions at the bar, such proceedings would thereby be rendered less refined, or that less regard would be paid to the rights of all?
While I don’t think that women’s right to vote has been guaranteed by the current amendments to the Constitution of the United States, I also don’t see that as something to fear. To me, this isn’t just about women’s rights; it’s much more about men’s rights as well. When God created man, He declared that it wasn’t good for him to be alone, so He created woman to be his partner and companion. Starting from the primitive cultures of the East and moving through nations toward the bright light of civilization in the West, it’s clear that the more equal women are to men in enjoying social and civil rights and privileges, the more advanced both genders become in refinement and everything that elevates humanity. In our own country, where women are treated as equals to men, we see good order and manners prevailing. Because women are present in places like train cars, boats, markets, shops, and post offices, those places must be, and are, managed with order and decency. The only major places where women are legally excluded are polling stations; the chaos, loudness, vulgarity, and indecency often found there in our largest cities is enough to drive even decent men away from voting. If our wives, sisters, and daughters went to the polls, we would go with them, ensuring good order—or there would be a disturbance that would lead to better order in the future. I have more faith that women’s voting rights will help fix the problems in our election system in big cities than I do in the harsh election laws enforced by soldiers and marines. Who thinks that allowing women to have seats in Congress, serve on the bench, or participate in discussions at the bar would make those proceedings any less refined, or that there would be less respect for everyone’s rights?
But whether women should be admitted to the right of suffrage, is one thing; whether this end has already been accomplished, is quite another. The XIV. Amendment forbids the States to make or enforce any law which shall abridge "the privileges or immunities" of a citizen. But whether the right to vote is covered by the phrase "privileges and immunities," was much discussed under the provisions of the old Constitution; and at least one of the earliest decisions drew a distinction between "privileges and immunities" and political rights. On the other hand, Mr. Justice Washington, in a celebrated case, expressed the opinion, that the right to vote and hold office was included in this phrase. But in neither of the cases was this point directly involved, and both opinions are obiter dicta in relation to it.
But whether women should have the right to vote is one issue; whether that goal has already been achieved is quite another. The XIV Amendment prevents states from making or enforcing any law that limits "the privileges or immunities" of a citizen. However, whether the right to vote falls under the term "privileges and immunities" was widely debated under the old Constitution; at least one of the earliest decisions differentiated between "privileges and immunities" and political rights. On the other hand, Justice Washington, in a well-known case, stated that the right to vote and hold office was included in this term. However, in neither of these cases was this point directly addressed, and both opinions are considered obiter dicta in relation to it.
But the XIV. and XV. Amendments seem to settle this question against the right of female suffrage. These amendments seem to recognize the distinction at first pointed out between "privileges and immunities," and the right to vote. The XIV. Amendment declares,[Pg 617]
But the XIV and XV Amendments seem to resolve this issue against the right of women to vote. These amendments appear to acknowledge the distinction that was initially made between "privileges and immunities" and the right to vote. The XIV Amendment states,[Pg 617]
All persons born and naturalized in the United States, etc., are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside.
All individuals born or naturalized in the United States, etc., are citizens of the United States and the state where they live.
Of course, women, as well as men, are included in this provision, and recognized as citizens. This Amendment further declares:
Of course, this provision includes both women and men, recognizing them as citizens. This Amendment also states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
No state can create or enforce any law that will limit the rights or privileges of U.S. citizens.
If the privileges and immunities of a citizen can not be abridged, then, of course, the privileges and immunities of all citizens must be the same. The second section of this Amendment provides that
If the rights and protections of a citizen cannot be limited, then obviously, the rights and protections of all citizens must be the same. The second section of this Amendment states that
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians, not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election, etc., is denied to any of the male inhabitants, being twenty-one years of age, etc., the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Representatives will be distributed among the various States based on their population counts, including everyone in each State except for non-taxed Indians. However, if any male citizens aged twenty-one and older are denied the right to vote in any election, the basis for representation will be decreased in proportion to the number of those male citizens compared to the total number of male citizens aged twenty-one and older in that State.
It can not be denied, that the right or power of a State to exclude a portion of its male citizens from the right to vote, is recognized by this second section; from which it follows, that the right to vote is not one of the "privileges or immunities" which the first section declares shall not be abridged by any State. The right of female suffrage is also inferentially denied by that provision of the second section, above quoted, which provides that when a State shall deny the right to vote to any male citizen,
It can't be denied that the authority of a state to exclude some of its male citizens from voting is acknowledged in this second section; therefore, the right to vote isn’t one of the "privileges or immunities" that the first section states cannot be restricted by any state. The right for women to vote is also implicitly denied by that part of the second section mentioned above, which states that when a state denies the right to vote to any male citizen,
The basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens in such State.
The basis of representation in that case will be reduced in proportion to the number of those male citizens compared to the total number of male citizens in that State.
In the first place, it is to be observed that the basis of representation in a State, which is the whole number of persons—male and female, adults and infants—is only to be reduced when the State shall exclude a portion "of the male inhabitants of such State." The exclusion of female inhabitants, and infants under the age of twenty-one years, does not effect a reduction of the basis of representation in such State. And, again, when a State does exclude a portion of its male inhabitants, etc., the basis of representation in such State is not reduced in the proportion which the number of such excluded males bears to the number of persons—male and female—in such State; but only
In the first place, it's important to note that the foundation of representation in a State, which includes everyone—men and women, adults and children—can only be reduced when the State chooses to exclude a segment "of the male inhabitants of such State." Excluding female inhabitants and children under the age of twenty-one doesn't decrease the basis of representation in that State. Additionally, if a State does decide to exclude some of its male inhabitants, the basis of representation in that State isn't reduced in the same proportion as the number of excluded males compared to the total number of people—men and women—in that State; but only
In the proportion which the number of such (excluded) male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
In the proportion that the number of these (excluded) male citizens represents compared to the total number of male citizens who are twenty-one years old in that State.
This provision assumes that females are no part of the voting population of a State. The XV. Amendment is equally decisive. It recognizes the right—that is, power—of any State to exclude a portion of its citizens from the right to vote, and only narrows this right in favor of a particular class. Its language is:
This provision assumes that women are not part of the voting population of a state. The XV Amendment is also clear. It acknowledges the right—that is, the power—of any state to exclude some of its citizens from the right to vote, and it only limits this right in favor of a specific group. Its wording is:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged, etc., on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or limited based on race, color, or past status of servitude.
This amendment was wholly unnecessary upon the theory that the XIV. Amendment had established or recognized the right of every citizen to vote. It recognizes the right of a State to exclude a portion of its citizens, and only restrains that power so far as to provide that citizens shall not be excluded on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. In every other case, the power of exclusion recognized by the XIV. Amendment is untouched by the XV. It is also worthy of notice that, throughout the XIV.[Pg 618] and XV. Amendments, voting is not treated as, or denominated a privilege, and evidently was not intended to be, nor regarded as included in the "privileges or immunities" of a citizen, which no State can abridge for any cause whatever. I have taken this pains to distinguish between the "privileges and immunities" of a citizen, and the "right" of a citizen to vote, not because I feared that this court would deny one, even if the other would follow, but to quiet the fears of the timid and conservative.
This amendment was completely unnecessary because the XIV Amendment had already established or recognized the right of every citizen to vote. It acknowledges that a state can exclude some of its citizens but only limits that power to ensure that citizens cannot be excluded based on race, color, or previous servitude. In every other situation, the power to exclude recognized by the XIV Amendment remains unchanged by the XV. It's also important to note that, throughout the XIV [Pg 618] and XV Amendments, voting isn't considered a privilege, and it clearly wasn't meant to be seen as part of the "privileges or immunities" of a citizen, which no state can restrict for any reason. I have made this distinction between the "privileges and immunities" of a citizen and the "right" of a citizen to vote, not because I worried this court would deny one if the other were granted, but to calm the fears of those who are cautious and conservative.
I come now to the narrower and precise question before the court: Can a female citizen, duly qualified in respect of age, character, and learning, claim, under the XIV. Amendment, the privilege of earning a livelihood by practicing at the bar of a judicial court? It was provided by the original Constitution:
I now turn to the specific and focused question before the court: Can a female citizen, properly qualified in terms of age, character, and education, claim, under the XIV Amendment, the right to earn a living by practicing law in a court? It was stated in the original Constitution:
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.
The citizens of each state shall have all the rights and protections of citizens in the various states.
Under this provision each State could determine for itself what the privileges and immunities of its citizens should be. A citizen emigrating from one State to another carried with him, not the privileges and immunities he enjoyed in his native State, but was entitled, in the State of his adoption, to such privileges and immunities as were enjoyed by the class of citizens to which he belonged by the laws of such adopted State. A white citizen of one State, where no property qualification for voting was required, emigrating to a State which required such qualification, must conform to it before he could claim the right to vote. A colored citizen, authorized to hold property in Massachusetts, emigrating to South Carolina, where all colored persons were excluded from such right, derived no aid, in this respect, from the Constitution of the United States, but was compelled to submit to all the incapacities laid by the laws of that State upon free persons of color born and residing therein. A married woman, a citizen of the State of Wisconsin, where by law she was capable of holding separate estate, and making contracts concerning the same, emigrating to a State where the common law in this regard prevailed, could not buy and sell property in her own name, or contract in reference thereto.
Under this provision, each state could decide for itself what rights and protections its citizens should have. A citizen moving from one state to another didn't keep the rights and protections from their home state; instead, they were entitled to the rights and protections enjoyed by the category of citizens designated by the laws of their new state. A white citizen from a state without any property requirements for voting, moving to a state that did have such requirements, would have to meet those conditions before claiming the right to vote. A colored citizen who had the right to own property in Massachusetts and moved to South Carolina, where all colored individuals were denied that right, received no support in this matter from the U.S. Constitution and had to comply with the restrictions imposed by the laws of that state against free persons of color born and living there. A married woman from Wisconsin, where by law she could own property independently and make contracts regarding it, moving to a state governed by common law, would not be able to buy and sell property in her own name or enter into contracts about it.
But the XIV. Amendment executes itself in every State of the Union. Whatever are the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the State of New York, such citizen, emigrating, carries them with him into any other State of the Union. It utters the will of the United States in every State, and silences every State constitution, usage, or law which conflicts with it. If to be admitted to the bar, on attaining the age and learning required by law, be one of the privileges of a white citizen in the State of New York, it is equally the privilege of a colored citizen in that State; and if in that State, then in any State. If no State may "make or enforce any law" to abridge the privileges of a citizen, it must follow that the privileges of all citizens are the same. We have already seen that the right to vote is not one of those privileges which are declared to be common to all citizens, and which no State may abridge; but that it is a political right, which any State may deny to a citizen, except on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. It therefore only remains to determine whether admission to the bar belongs to that class of privileges which a State may not abridge, or that[Pg 619] class of political rights as to which a State may discriminate between its citizens.
But the XIV Amendment applies in every state of the Union. Whatever privileges and rights a citizen has in New York, that citizen carries them into any other state. It expresses the will of the United States in every state and overrides any state constitution, practice, or law that conflicts with it. If being admitted to the bar after reaching the required age and education is a privilege for a white citizen in New York, it is equally a privilege for a person of color in that state; and if it's true in that state, then it's true in any state. If no state can "make or enforce any law" that limits the privileges of a citizen, it follows that the privileges of all citizens must be the same. We have already established that the right to vote is not one of those privileges recognized as common to all citizens that no state can limit; instead, it is a political right that any state can deny to a citizen, except based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Therefore, it remains to be determined whether admission to the bar is part of that group of privileges that a state cannot limit, or whether it falls into that[Pg 619] category of political rights where a state can differentiate between its citizens.
In discussing this subject, we are compelled to use the words "privileges and immunities" and the word "rights" in the precise sense in which they are employed in the Constitution. In popular language, and even in the general treatises of law writers, the words "rights" and "privileges" are used synonymously. Those privileges which are secured to a man by the law are his rights; and the great charter of England declares that the ancient privileges enjoyed by Englishmen, are the undoubted rights of Englishmen. But, as we have seen, the XIV. and XV. Amendments distinguish between privileges and rights; and it must be confessed that it is paradoxical to say, as the XIV. Amendment clearly does, that the "privileges" of a citizen shall not be abridged, while his "right" to vote may be. But a judicial construction of the Constitution is wholly different from a mere exercise in philology. The question is not whether certain words were aptly employed—but the context must be searched to ascertain the sense in which such words were used.
In discussing this topic, we have to use the terms "privileges and immunities" and "rights" in the specific way they are used in the Constitution. In everyday language, and even in general legal texts, the terms "rights" and "privileges" are often treated as the same. The privileges guaranteed to a person by the law are considered their rights; and the great charter of England states that the traditional privileges held by Englishmen are their undeniable rights. However, as we have seen, the XIV and XV Amendments make a distinction between privileges and rights; and it seems contradictory to say, as the XIV Amendment clearly does, that a citizen's "privileges" cannot be diminished, while their "right" to vote can be. But interpreting the Constitution involves much more than just a linguistic exercise. The issue isn't whether certain words were used correctly—but we need to analyze the context to understand the meaning behind those words.
It is evident that there are certain "privileges and immunities" which belong to a citizen of the United States as such; otherwise it would be nonsense for the XIV. Amendment to prohibit a State from abridging them; and it is equally evident from the XIV. Amendment that the right to vote is not one of those privileges. And the question recurs whether admission to the bar, the proper qualification being possessed, is one of the privileges which a State may not deny. In Cummings vs. Missouri, 4 Wall., 321, this court say:
It’s clear that there are certain "privileges and immunities" that belong to a citizen of the United States; otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for the XIV Amendment to stop a State from limiting them. It’s also clear from the XIV Amendment that the right to vote is not one of those privileges. The question comes up again about whether being admitted to the bar, if you have the right qualifications, is one of the privileges a State cannot deny. In Cummings vs. Missouri, 4 Wall., 321, this court states:
In France, deprivation or suspension of civil rights, or some of them—and among these of the right of voting, of eligibility to office, of taking part in family councils, of being guardian or trustee, of bearing arms, and of teaching or being employed in a school or seminary of learning—are punishments prescribed by her code. The theory upon which our political institutions rest is, that all men have certain inalienable rights—that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that in the pursuit of happiness all avocations, all honors, all positions, are alike open to every one, and that in the protection of these rights all are equal before the law. Any deprivation or extension of any of these rights for past conduct is punishment, and can be in no otherwise defined.
In France, the deprivation or suspension of civil rights—some of which include the right to vote, eligibility for office, participation in family councils, serving as a guardian or trustee, bearing arms, and teaching or working in a school or educational institution—are penalties outlined in her legal code. The foundation of our political system is that all individuals have certain inalienable rights, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It asserts that everyone should have equal opportunities for all jobs, honors, and positions, and that everyone is equal before the law in the protection of these rights. Any removal or expansion of these rights due to past behavior is considered punishment and cannot be defined any other way.
No broader or better enumeration of the privileges which pertain to American citizenship could be given. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and, in the pursuit of happiness, all avocations, all honors, all positions, are alike open to every one; and in the protection of these rights all are equal before the law." In ex parte Garland (4 Wall., 378) this court say:
No wider or better list of the rights that come with American citizenship could be provided. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and, in the pursuit of happiness, all professions, all honors, and all positions are open to everyone; and in the protection of these rights, all are equal under the law." In ex parte Garland (4 Wall., 378) this court says:
The profession of an attorney and counselor is not like an office created by an act of Congress, which depends for its continuance, its powers, and its emoluments upon the will of its creator, and the possession of which may be burdened with any conditions not prohibited by the Constitution. Attorneys and counselors are not officers of the United States; they are not elected or appointed in the manner prescribed by the Constitution for the election and appointment of such officers. They are officers of the court, admitted as such by its order, upon evidence of their possessing sufficient legal learning and fair private character.... The order of admission is the judgment of the court, that the parties possess the requisite qualifications as attorneys and counselors, and are entitled to appear as such and conduct causes therein. From its entry the parties become officers of the court, and are responsible to it for professional misconduct. They hold their office during good behavior, and can only be deprived of it for misconduct, ascertained and declared by the judgment of the court, after opportunity to be heard has been[Pg 620] offered. (Ex parte Heyfron, 7 How., Miss., 127; Fletcher vs. Daingerfield, 20 Cal., 430.) Their admission or their exclusion is not the exercise of a mere ministerial power. It is the exercise of judicial power, and has been so held in numerous cases.... The attorney and counselor being, by the solemn judicial act of the court, clothed with his office, does not hold it as a matter of grace and favor. The right which it confers upon him to appear for suitors, and to argue causes, is something more than a mere indulgence, revocable at the pleasure of the court, or at the command of the Legislature. It is a right of which he can only be deprived by the judgment of the court, for moral or professional delinquency. The Legislature may undoubtedly prescribe qualifications for the office, to which he must conform, as it may, where it has exclusive jurisdiction, prescribe qualifications for the pursuit of the ordinary avocations of life.
The role of an attorney and counselor isn’t like a position created by an act of Congress, which relies on the creator’s wishes for its continuation, powers, and pay, and can come with any conditions allowed by the Constitution. Attorneys and counselors aren’t officers of the United States; they aren’t elected or appointed in the way the Constitution requires for such officers. They are officers of the court, recognized as such by its order, based on proof that they have adequate legal knowledge and good character. The admission order is the court’s judgment that they have the necessary qualifications to practice as attorneys and counselors, and they are allowed to represent clients and handle cases in that capacity. From that point, they are considered officers of the court and are accountable to it for any professional misconduct. They retain their position as long as they behave properly and can only lose it for misconduct proven and declared by the court after being given a chance to be heard. Their admission or exclusion is not just a routine process; it involves judicial authority and has been confirmed in many cases. The attorney and counselor, through the formal act of the court, does not hold the position as a favor. The right to represent clients and argue cases is more than just a privilege that the court or Legislature can easily revoke. It is a right that can only be taken away through a court judgment for moral or professional misconduct. The Legislature can certainly set qualifications for the position that they must meet, just as it can establish qualifications for other professions in areas where it has exclusive control.
It is now well settled that the courts, in admitting attorneys to, and in expelling them from, the bar, act judicially, and that such proceedings are subject to review on writ of error or appeal, as the case may be. (Ex parte Cooper, 22 N. Y., 67. Strother vs. Missouri, 1 Mo., 605. Ex parte Secomb, 19 How., 9. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall., 378.)
It is now well established that the courts, when admitting or expelling attorneys from the bar, act in a judicial capacity, and that these proceedings are subject to review through a writ of error or appeal, depending on the situation. (Ex parte Cooper, 22 N. Y., 67. Strother vs. Missouri, 1 Mo., 605. Ex parte Secomb, 19 How., 9. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall., 378.)
From these cases the conclusion is irresistible, that the profession of the law, like the clerical profession and that of medicine, is an avocation open to every citizen of the United States. And while the Legislature may prescribe qualifications for entering upon this pursuit, they can not, under the guise of fixing qualifications, exclude a class of citizens from admission to the bar. The Legislature may say at what age candidates shall be admitted; may elevate or depress the standard of learning required. But a qualification, to which a whole class of citizens never can attain, is not a regulation of admission to the bar, but is, as to such citizens, a prohibition. For instance, a State Legislature could not, in enumerating the qualifications, require the candidate to be a white citizen. This would be the exclusion of all colored citizens, without regard to age, character, or learning. Such an act would abridge the rights of all colored citizens, by denying them admission into one of the avocations which this court has declared is alike open to every one. I presume it will be admitted that such an act would be void. I am certain this court would declare it void. And I challenge the most astute mind to draw any distinction between such an act and a custom, usage, or law of a State, which denies this privilege to all female citizens without regard to age, character, or learning. If the Legislature may, under pretense of fixing qualifications, declare that no female citizen shall be permitted to practice law, they may as well declare that no colored citizen shall practice law. It should be borne in mind that the only provision in the Constitution of the United States which secures to colored male citizens the privilege of admission to the bar, or the pursuit of the other ordinary avocations of life, is that provision that
From these cases, it’s clear that the legal profession, like the clergy and medical fields, is open to every citizen of the United States. While the Legislature can set qualifications for entering this profession, they cannot, under the guise of establishing qualifications, exclude a certain group of citizens from practicing law. The Legislature can specify the age at which candidates can be admitted and can raise or lower the standards of required knowledge. However, a qualification that an entire group of citizens cannot meet isn’t a regulation for admission to the bar—it’s effectively a prohibition for those citizens. For example, a State Legislature couldn’t require candidates to be white citizens when listing qualifications, as this would exclude all citizens of color, regardless of age, character, or knowledge. Such a law would infringe upon the rights of all citizens of color by denying them the chance to enter one of the professions that this court has deemed open to everyone. It’s safe to say that such a law would be null and void, and I’m confident that this court would declare it as such. I challenge anyone to find a meaningful distinction between that law and one that denies this privilege to all female citizens, without regard to age, character, or knowledge. If the Legislature can, under the pretense of setting qualifications, declare that no female citizen can practice law, then they could just as easily say that no citizen of color can practice law. It’s important to remember that the only provision in the United States Constitution that guarantees colored male citizens the right to be admitted to the bar, or to pursue other common professions, is that provision that
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of a citizen.
No state can create or enforce any law that limits the rights or privileges of a citizen.
If this provision does not open all the professions, all the avocations, all the methods by which a man may pursue happiness, to the colored as well as the white man, then the Legislatures of the States may exclude colored men from all the honorable pursuits of life, and compel them to support their existence in a condition of servitude. And if this provision does protect the colored citizen, then it protects every citizen, black or white, male or female. Why may a colored citizen buy, hold, and sell land in any State of the[Pg 621] Union? Because he is a citizen of the United States, and that is one of the privileges of a citizen. Why may a colored citizen be admitted to the bar? Because he is a citizen, and that is one of the avocations open to every citizen; and no State can abridge his right to pursue it. Certainly no other reason can be given.
If this provision doesn’t open up all professions, all occupations, and all the ways a person can seek happiness to both Black people and white people, then state legislatures could bar Black individuals from all respectable careers and force them to live in a state of servitude. And if this provision does protect Black citizens, then it protects every citizen, regardless of color or gender. Why can a Black citizen buy, own, and sell property in any state of the[Pg 621] Union? Because they are a citizen of the United States, and that’s one of the rights of citizenship. Why can a Black citizen be allowed to practice law? Because they are a citizen, and that’s one of the professions available to every citizen; and no state can take away that right. There can't be any other justification for it.
Now, let us come to the case of Myra Bradwell. She is a citizen of the United States, and of the State of Illinois, residing therein; she has been judicially ascertained to be of full age, and to possess the requisite character and learning. Indeed, the court below, in their opinion, found in the record, page 9, say: "Of the ample qualifications of the applicant we have no doubt." Still, admission to the bar was denied the petitioner, not upon the ground that she was not a citizen; not for want of age or qualifications; not because the profession of the law is not one of those avocations which are open to every American citizen as matter of right, upon complying with the reasonable regulations prescribed by the Legislature: but upon the sole ground that inconvenience would result from permitting her to enjoy her legal rights in this, to wit, that her clients might have difficulty in enforcing the contracts they might make with her, as their attorney, because of her being a married woman.
Now, let's look at the case of Myra Bradwell. She is a citizen of the United States and the State of Illinois, where she resides; she has been legally confirmed to be of full age and to have the necessary character and education. In fact, the lower court, in their opinion found on page 9 of the record, states: "We have no doubt about the applicant's ample qualifications." Still, the petitioner's admission to the bar was denied, not because she wasn't a citizen; not due to a lack of age or qualifications; not because the legal profession isn't one of those fields open to every American citizen as a right, provided they meet the reasonable regulations set by the Legislature; but solely because it was claimed that allowing her to exercise her legal rights would cause inconvenience, specifically that her clients might have difficulty enforcing contracts they made with her as their attorney because she was a married woman.
Now, with entire respect to that court, it is submitted that this argument ab inconvenienti, which might have been urged with whatever force belongs to it, against adopting the XIV. Amendment in the full scope of its language, is utterly futile to resist its full and proper operation, now that it has been adopted. Concede, for argument, that the XIV. Amendment ought to have read thus:
Now, with all due respect to that court, it is suggested that this argument ab inconvenienti, which could have been made with all its possible weight against fully embracing the XIV. Amendment, is completely useless in opposing its full and proper application now that it has been adopted. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the XIV. Amendment should have been written like this:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizens except married women;
No state shall create or enforce any law that limits the rights or protections of any citizens, except for married women;
yet that exception is not found in the sweeping provision of this amendment. It is provided that citizens may be disfranchised for treason; but it is nowhere provided that a citizen shall be disfranchised for being a married woman. The opinion of the court below puts a limitation upon this unlimited constitutional provision. If this court shall approve this exception, in the very teeth of the unambiguous language of the Constitution, where may we expect judicial legislation to stop? Can this court say that married women have no rights that are to be respected? Can this court say that, when the XIV. Amendment speaks of all persons, etc., and declares them to be citizens, it means all male persons and unmarried females? Or can this court say that, when the XIV. Amendment declares "the privileges of no citizen shall be abridged," it means that the privileges of no male citizen or unmarried female citizen shall be abridged? This would be bold dealing with the constitutional provision. It would be excluding a large proportion of the citizens of the United States from privileges which the Constitution declares shall be the inheritance of every citizen alike.
yet that exception is not found in the broad wording of this amendment. It states that citizens can lose their right to vote for treason; but it doesn’t say that a citizen can lose their right to vote just for being a married woman. The opinion of the lower court places a limit on this unlimited constitutional provision. If this court agrees with this exception, directly contradicting the clear language of the Constitution, where can we expect judicial interpretation to end? Can this court really say that married women have no rights worth respecting? Can this court claim that when the XIV Amendment refers to all persons and declares them to be citizens, it really means all male citizens and unmarried females? Or can this court assert that when the XIV Amendment states "the privileges of no citizen shall be abridged," it means that the privileges of no male citizen or unmarried female citizen can be limited? This would be a bold reinterpretation of the constitutional provision. It would exclude a large portion of the citizens of the United States from the rights that the Constitution says should belong equally to every citizen.
But it is respectfully submitted that the court below erred in holding that a married woman, admitted to the bar under the XIV. Amendment, would not be liable on contracts, express or implied, between her and her clients. In Wisconsin, when the Legislature passed the act protecting married women in the enjoyment of their separate estate, our court, upon reasoning[Pg 622] that can not be gainsaid, held that the Legislature must have intended all the natural and logical results of the act in question; and, therefore, that the contracts of a married woman, relating to her separate estate, were as binding as if made by a feme sole. It is submitted that, for still stronger reasons, the great innovation of the XIV. Amendment should be carried to its logical conclusion, and that it sweeps away the principles of the common law, as it does the express provisions of State constitutions and statutes.
But it is respectfully submitted that the lower court made a mistake by ruling that a married woman, admitted to the bar under the 14th Amendment, would not be liable for contracts, whether express or implied, made between her and her clients. In Wisconsin, when the Legislature passed the law protecting married women’s rights to their separate property, our court logically reasoned[Pg 622] that the Legislature must have intended for all the natural and logical consequences of that law; therefore, the contracts of a married woman concerning her separate property were just as binding as if made by a single woman. It is submitted that, for even stronger reasons, the significant change brought by the 14th Amendment should be taken to its logical conclusion, and that it overrides the principles of common law, just as it does the explicit provisions of state constitutions and statutes.
But again: Mrs. Bradwell, admitted to the bar, becomes an officer of the court, subject to its summary jurisdiction. Any malpractice or unprofessional conduct towards her client would be punishable by fine, imprisonment, or expulsion from the bar, or by all three. Her clients would, therefore, not be compelled to resort to actions at law against her. But if the courts of Illinois should refuse to exercise this summary jurisdiction, and should hold that actions at law could not be maintained on contracts between her and her clients, it might result that she would not be as generally employed as she otherwise would be. But that is no reason why she should be prohibited from appearing and trying causes for clients who are willing to rely upon her integrity and honor.
But again: Mrs. Bradwell, once admitted to the bar, becomes an officer of the court, subject to its direct authority. Any misconduct or unprofessional behavior toward her client could result in a fine, jail time, or being expelled from the bar, or a combination of all three. Therefore, her clients wouldn't need to take legal action against her. However, if the courts of Illinois decide not to use this direct authority, and rule that legal actions can't be upheld based on contracts between her and her clients, it might mean that she wouldn't be hired as often as she otherwise would be. But that’s not a valid reason to prevent her from representing and trying cases for clients who choose to trust her integrity and honor.
But let it not be supposed that, in trying to answer as to the inconveniences imagined by the court below, I am at all departing from the broad ground of constitutional right upon which I rest this cause. I maintain that the XIV. Amendment opens to every citizen of the United States, male or female, black or white, married or single, the honorable professions as well as the servile employments of life; and that no citizen can be excluded from any one of them. Intelligence, integrity, and honor are the only qualifications that can be prescribed as conditions precedent to an entry upon any honorable pursuit or profitable avocation, and all the privileges and immunities which I vindicate to a colored citizen, I vindicate to our mothers, our sisters, and our daughters. The inequalities of sex will undoubtedly have their influence, and be considered by every client desiring to employ counsel.
But don’t think that in addressing the concerns raised by the lower court, I’m stepping away from the solid foundation of constitutional rights on which I base this case. I argue that the XIV Amendment guarantees every citizen of the United States, whether male or female, Black or white, married or single, access to both honorable professions and labor jobs; no citizen should be excluded from any of them. The only qualifications that should be required for entering any respected career or profitable job are intelligence, integrity, and honor. The rights and privileges I advocate for a Black citizen are the same rights I uphold for our mothers, sisters, and daughters. The differences between the sexes will certainly play a role and will be taken into account by any client looking to hire legal counsel.
There may be cases in which a client's rights can only be rescued by an exercise of the rough qualities possessed by men. There are many cases in which the telling sympathy and the silver voice of woman would accomplish more than the severity and sternness of man could achieve. Of a bar composed of men and women of equal integrity and learning, women might be more or less frequently retained, as the taste or judgment of clients might dictate. But the broad shield of the Constitution is over them all, and protects each in that measure of success which his or her individual merits may secure.
There are situations where a client's rights can only be saved through the tough qualities that some men possess. In many instances, the heartfelt sympathy and gentle voice of a woman could achieve more than the harshness and strictness of a man. In a legal team made up of both men and women with equal integrity and knowledge, women might be chosen more or less often, depending on the preferences or judgment of clients. But the broad protection of the Constitution covers everyone, ensuring that each person can succeed based on their individual merits.
Supreme Court of the United States. December Term, 1872. Myra Bradwell, Plaintiff in Error, vs. the State of Illinois. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.
Supreme Court of the United States. December Term, 1872. Myra Bradwell, Plaintiff in Error, vs. the State of Illinois. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.
1. The Supreme Court of Illinois having refused to grant to plaintiff a license to practice law in the courts of that State, on the ground that females are not eligible under the laws of that State, such a decision violates no provision of the Federal Constitution.
1. The Supreme Court of Illinois refused to grant the plaintiff a license to practice law in the courts of that State, arguing that women are not eligible under the laws of that State. This decision does not violate any provision of the Federal Constitution.
2. The second section of the fourth article is inapplicable, because plaintiff is a citizen of the State of whose action she complains, and that section only guarantees privileges and immunities to citizens of other States, in that State.[Pg 623]
2. The second part of the fourth article doesn't apply, because the plaintiff is a citizen of the State related to the action she's challenging, and that part only guarantees privileges and immunities to citizens from other States in that State.[Pg 623]
3. Nor is the right to practice law in the State courts a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the first section of the XIV. Article of Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
3. The right to practice law in state courts is not considered a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States, according to the first section of the XIV. Article of Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
4. The power of a State to prescribe the qualifications for admission to the bar of its own courts is unaffected by the XIV. Amendment, and this court can not inquire into the reasonableness or propriety of the rules it may prescribe.
4. The authority of a State to set the requirements for admission to the bar of its own courts is not impacted by the XIV Amendment, and this court cannot question the reasonableness or appropriateness of the rules it may establish.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Justice Miller gave the Court's opinion.
The plaintiff in error, residing in the State of Illinois, made application to the judges of the Supreme Court of that State for a license to practice law. She accompanied her petition with the usual certificate from an inferior court of her good character, and that on due examination she had been found to possess the requisite qualifications. Pending this application she also filed an affidavit, to the effect "that she was born in the State of Vermont; that she was (had been) a citizen of that State; that she is now a citizen of the United States, and has been for many years past a resident of the city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois." And with this affidavit she also filed a paper claiming that, under the foregoing facts, she was entitled to the license prayed for by virtue of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, and of the XIV. Article of Amendment of that instrument.
The plaintiff in error, living in Illinois, applied to the judges of the Supreme Court of that state for a license to practice law. She submitted her petition with the standard certificate from a lower court confirming her good character and stating that, after a proper examination, she had the necessary qualifications. While her application was pending, she also filed an affidavit stating, "that she was born in Vermont; that she had been a citizen of that state; that she is now a citizen of the United States, and has been for many years a resident of Chicago, Illinois." Along with this affidavit, she submitted a document claiming that, based on the facts outlined, she was entitled to the requested license under the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States and the XIV. Article of Amendment of that document.
The statute of Illinois on this subject enacts that no person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney or counselor-at-law, or to commence, conduct, or defend any action, suit, or plaint, in which he is not a party concerned, in any court of record within this State, either by using or subscribing his own name or the name of any other person, without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from some two of the justices of the Supreme Court, which license shall constitute the person receiving the same an attorney and counselor-at-law, and shall authorize him to appear in all the courts of record within this State, and there to practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law, according to the laws and customs thereof.
The Illinois law on this topic states that no one is allowed to practice as an attorney or counselor-at-law, or to start, conduct, or defend any action, suit, or claim in which they are not a party involved, in any court of record in this state, either by using their own name or the name of someone else, without first obtaining a license from at least two justices of the Supreme Court. This license will make the person an attorney and counselor-at-law and will allow them to appear in all the courts of record in this state and practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law according to the laws and customs of the state.
The Supreme Court denied the application, apparently upon the ground that it was a woman who made it. The record is not very perfect, but it may be fairly taken that the plaintiff asserted her right to a license on the grounds, among others, that she was a citizen of the United States, and that having been a citizen of Vermont at one time, she was, in the State of Illinois, entitled to any right granted to citizens of the latter State. The court having overruled these claims of right, founded on the clauses of the Federal Constitution before referred, those propositions may be considered as properly before this court.
The Supreme Court denied the application, seemingly because it was submitted by a woman. The record isn’t very clear, but it can be understood that the plaintiff claimed her right to a license based on several reasons, including that she was a citizen of the United States and that, having been a citizen of Vermont at one time, she was entitled to the same rights as citizens of Illinois. The court rejected these claims based on the cited clauses of the Federal Constitution, so these arguments can be considered properly before this court.
As regards the provision of the Constitution that citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, the plaintiff in her affidavit has stated very clearly a case to which it is inapplicable. The protection designed by that clause, as has been repeatedly held, has no application to a citizen of the State whose laws are complained of. If the plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Illinois, that provision of the Constitution gave her no protection against its courts or its legislation. The plaintiff seems to have seen this difficulty, and attempts to avoid it by stating that she was born in Vermont. While she remained in Vermont that circumstance made her a citizen of that State. But she states, at the same time, that she is a citizen of the United States, and that[Pg 624] she is now, and has been for many years past, a resident of Chicago, in the State of Illinois.
As for the part of the Constitution that says citizens of each State are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the various States, the plaintiff in her affidavit has clearly presented a case where this doesn’t apply. The protection intended by that clause, as has been repeatedly stated, does not apply to a citizen of the State whose laws are being challenged. If the plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois, that provision of the Constitution did not offer her any protection against its courts or its laws. The plaintiff seems to recognize this issue and tries to get around it by saying she was born in Vermont. While she was in Vermont, that made her a citizen of that State. However, she also states that she is a citizen of the United States, and that[Pg 624] she is currently, and has been for many years, a resident of Chicago, in the State of Illinois.
The XIV. Amendment declares that citizens of the United States are citizens of the State within which they reside; therefore plaintiff was, at the time of making her application, a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the State of Illinois. We do not here mean to say that there may not be a temporary residence in one State, with intent to return to another, which will not create citizenship in the former. But plaintiff states nothing to take her case out of the definition of citizenship of a State as defined by the first section of the XIV. Amendment.
The XIV Amendment states that citizens of the United States are also citizens of the state where they live; therefore, the plaintiff was, at the time she submitted her application, a citizen of the United States and a citizen of Illinois. We don't mean to suggest that someone can't temporarily live in one state with plans to return to another without becoming a citizen of the former. However, the plaintiff hasn't provided anything that would exclude her case from the definition of state citizenship as outlined in the first section of the XIV Amendment.
In regard to that amendment counsel for plaintiff in this court truly says that there are certain privileges and immunities which belong to a citizen of the United States as such; otherwise it would be nonsense for the XIV. Amendment to prohibit a State from abridging them, and he proceeds to argue that admission to the bar of a State of a person who possesses the requisite learning and character is one of those which a State may not deny. In this latter proposition we are not able to concur with counsel. We agree with him that there are privileges and immunities belonging to citizens of the United States, in that relation and character, and that it is these, and these alone, which a State is forbidden to abridge. But the right to admission to practice in the courts of a State is not one of them. The right in no sense depends on citizenship of the United States. It has not, as far as we know, ever been made in any State, or in any case, to depend on citizenship at all. Certainly many prominent and distinguished lawyers have been admitted to practice, both in the State and Federal Courts, who were not citizens of the United States or of any State. But, on whatever basis this right may be placed, so far as it can have any relation to citizenship at all, it would seem that, as to the courts of a State, it would relate to citizenship of the State, and as to Federal Courts, it would relate to citizenship of the United States.
In reference to that amendment, the plaintiff's attorney in this court correctly states that there are certain privileges and immunities that belong to a U.S. citizen; otherwise, it would be meaningless for the XIV Amendment to prevent a State from limiting them. He goes on to argue that a State cannot deny admission to its bar to someone who has the necessary knowledge and character. However, we cannot agree with the attorney on this point. We do acknowledge that there are privileges and immunities that belong to U.S. citizens in that context, and it is these, and only these, that a State is prohibited from restricting. But the right to be admitted to practice in a State's courts is not one of them. This right does not depend on U.S. citizenship in any way. As far as we are aware, it has never been required in any State, or in any case, to be based on citizenship at all. Clearly, many well-known and respected lawyers have been allowed to practice in both State and Federal Courts without being citizens of the United States or any State. Regardless of the basis for this right, if it has any connection to citizenship, it seems that regarding State courts, it would relate to State citizenship, and for Federal Courts, it would relate to U.S. citizenship.
The opinion just delivered in the Slaughter-house Cases from Louisiana renders elaborate argument in the present case unnecessary; for, unless we are wholly and radically mistaken in the principles on which those cases are decided, the right to control and regulate the granting of license to practice law in the courts of a State is one of those powers which are not transferred for its protection to the Federal Government, and its exercise is in no manner governed or controlled by citizenship of the United States in the party seeking such license. It is unnecessary to repeat the argument on which the judgment in those cases is founded. It is sufficient to say they are conclusive of the present case.
The opinion just delivered in the Slaughterhouse Cases from Louisiana makes a detailed argument in this case unnecessary; because, unless we're completely mistaken about the principles on which those cases were decided, the authority to control and regulate the issuance of licenses to practice law in state courts is one of those powers that isn't transferred to the Federal Government for its protection, and its exercise isn't influenced or controlled by the U.S. citizenship of the person applying for such a license. It's not necessary to go over the argument that supports the judgment in those cases again. It's enough to say that they are definitive for the current case.
The judgment of the State court is, therefore, affirmed.
The State court's decision is, therefore, upheld.
D. W. Middleton, C. S. C. U. S.
D. W. Middleton, C. S. C. U. S.
Mr. Justice Bradley gave the following: I concur in the judgment of the court in this case by which the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois is affirmed, but not for the reasons specified in the opinion just read.
Mr. Justice Bradley stated: I agree with the court's decision in this case, which upholds the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois, but not for the reasons mentioned in the opinion just read.
The claim of the plaintiff, who is a married woman, to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law, is based upon the supposed right of every person, man or woman, to engage in any lawful employment for a livelihood. The Supreme Court of Illinois denied the application on[Pg 625] the ground that, by the common law, which is the basis of laws of Illinois, only men were admitted to the bar, and the Legislature had not made any change in this respect, but had simply provided no person should be admitted to practice as attorney or counselor without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from two justices of the Supreme Court, and that no person should receive a license without first obtaining a certificate from the court of some county of his good moral character. In other respects it was left to the discretion of the court to establish the rules by which admission to the profession should be determined. The court, however, regarded itself as bound by at least two limitations. One was that it should establish such terms of admission as would promote the proper administration of justice, and the other that it should not admit any persons, or class of persons, not intended by the Legislature to be admitted, even though not expressly excluded by statute. In view of this latter limitation the court felt compelled to deny the application of females to be admitted as members of the bar. Being contrary to the rules of the common law and the usages of Westminster Hall from time immemorial, it could not be supposed that the Legislature had intended to adopt any different rule.
The plaintiff, who is a married woman, claims the right to practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law based on the belief that everyone, regardless of gender, has the right to pursue any lawful job for a living. The Supreme Court of Illinois rejected her application on[Pg 625] the grounds that, under common law— which is the foundation of Illinois law—only men are allowed to be admitted to the bar, and the Legislature had made no changes to this rule. They only stipulated that no one could practice as an attorney or counselor without first obtaining a license from two justices of the Supreme Court and that no one would receive a license without a certificate from a county court affirming their good moral character. Beyond that, the court had the authority to set the rules for admission into the profession. However, the court recognized it was bound by two key limitations: one, that the admission terms should support the proper administration of justice, and two, that it should not admit anyone or any group that the Legislature did not intend to admit, even if not explicitly excluded by law. Given this second limitation, the court felt it had to deny women the right to join the bar. Since this was contrary to common law and longstanding practices in Westminster Hall, it couldn’t be assumed that the Legislature intended to establish a different rule.
The claim that, under the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution, which declares that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, the statute law of Illinois, or the common law prevailing in that State, can no longer be set up as a barrier against the right of females to pursue any lawful employment for a livelihood (the practice of law included), assumes that it is one of the privileges and immunities of women as citizens to engage in any and every profession, occupation, or employment in civil life.
The assertion that, under the XIV Amendment of the Constitution, which states that no State shall create or enforce any law that limits the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens, the laws of Illinois or the common law in that State can no longer be used to block women's right to pursue any legal job for a living (including practicing law) suggests that it is indeed one of the privileges and immunities of women as citizens to participate in any profession, occupation, or job in society.
It certainly can not be affirmed, as a historical fact, that this has ever been established as one of the fundamental privileges and immunities of the sex. On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interests and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States. One of these is, that a married woman is incapable, without her husband's consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform[Pg 626] the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counselor.
It can't be stated as a historical fact that this has ever been seen as one of the fundamental rights and protections of women. On the contrary, both civil law and nature have always acknowledged a significant difference in the roles and fates of men and women. A man is, or should be, a woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper shyness and sensitivity associated with women clearly make them less suited for many roles in public life. The structure of family life, grounded in both divine principles and the nature of things, points to the home as the appropriate sphere for women. The shared interests and perspectives expected in a family do not align with the idea of a woman pursuing a separate and independent career from her husband. This belief was so strongly held by the founders of common law that it became a principle of that legal system that a woman had no legal existence independent of her husband, who was seen as her head and representative in society. Despite some recent changes to this civil status, many of the specific legal rules stemming from this main principle still apply in most states. One of these rules is that a married woman cannot make contracts that are binding on her or her husband without his consent. This very incapacity was one factor that the Supreme Court of Illinois considered important in determining that a married woman was not fully capable of performing[Pg 626] the duties and responsibilities of an attorney and counselor.
It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and can not be based upon exceptional cases.
It’s true that many women are single and not burdened by the responsibilities, challenges, and limitations that come with being married, but these are exceptions to the overall norm. The primary purpose and role of women is to embrace the important and positive responsibilities of being a wife and mother. This is the Creator’s intent. The rules of society should reflect the general nature of things and cannot be based on rare exceptions.
The humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman's advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex, have my heartiest concurrence. But I am not prepared to say that it is one of her fundamental rights and privileges to be admitted into every office and position, including those which require highly special qualifications and demanding special responsibilities. In the nature of things it is not every citizen of every age, sex, and condition that is qualified for every calling and position. It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs to the police power of the State; and, in my opinion, in view of the peculiar characteristics, destiny, and mission of woman, it is within the province of the Legislature to ordain what offices, positions, and callings shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which are presumed to predominate in the sterner sex.
The humanitarian movements in today's society aim to create more opportunities for women's advancement and jobs suited to their situation and gender, and I fully support them. However, I don't believe it is one of her fundamental rights to be accepted into every job and position, including those that require specific qualifications and responsibilities. Not every citizen, regardless of age, gender, or situation, is qualified for every profession and role. It is the responsibility of lawmakers to create regulations based on nature, reason, and experience to ensure that qualified individuals are admitted to professions that require special skills and trust. This falls under the state’s authority, and, in my view, considering the unique characteristics, role, and purpose of women, it's up to the legislature to decide which jobs and roles should be held by men, benefiting from their energy and responsibilities, as well as the decisiveness and strength usually associated with men.
For these reasons I think that the laws of Illinois now complained of are not obnoxious to the charge of abridging any of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.
For these reasons, I believe that the laws of Illinois currently being criticized do not violate the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States.
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley.
I agree with Mr. Justice Bradley's opinion.
Field, J.
Field, J.
D. W. Middleton, C. S. C. U. S.
D. W. Middleton, C. S. C. U. S.
The result of this suit taught woman that for her civil as well as political rights she had no National protection. This was the first case under the XIV. Amendment that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. This august body based its decision against Mrs. Bradwell on the ground of "no jurisdiction," declaring that the case rested with the Legislature of the State of Illinois. In language stripped of legal verbiage and obscurity, it decided that the civil rights of women could be extended and restricted at the caprice of any legislative body in the several States; that the methods for earning their daily bread, in the trades and professions, the use of their powers of mind and body, could be defined, permitted or denied for the citizen by State authorities.
The outcome of this lawsuit showed women that they lacked National protection for both their civil and political rights. This was the first case under the XIV Amendment decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. This respected court based its decision against Mrs. Bradwell on the grounds of "no jurisdiction," stating that the matter was up to the Legislature of the State of Illinois. In straightforward terms, it concluded that the civil rights of women could be expanded or limited at the whim of any legislative body in the various States; that the ways they could earn a living, in trades and professions, as well as how they could use their mental and physical abilities, could be regulated, allowed, or denied by State authorities.
In Norwalk, Connecticut, long known as the Gibralter of republicanism in that State, Mrs. Sarah M. T. Huntington was allowed to[Pg 627] register by sufferance of the selectmen whose objections she overcame by a logical argument upon the constitutional provisions under the XIV. Amendment, but she was not permitted to vote (see Connecticut chapter). At the same election several ladies voted in Nyack, New York, and in Toledo, Ohio, and many unsuccessful attempts were made by others in several States of the Union.
In Norwalk, Connecticut, long recognized as the stronghold of republicanism in that state, Mrs. Sarah M. T. Huntington was allowed to[Pg 627] register due to the tolerance of the selectmen, whose objections she overcame with a logical argument regarding the constitutional provisions of the XIV Amendment. However, she was not allowed to vote (see Connecticut chapter). At the same election, several women voted in Nyack, New York, and Toledo, Ohio, and many other women made unsuccessful attempts to vote in various states across the country.
It was on November 1st, 1872, at her quiet home in Rochester, while reading her morning paper, that Miss Anthony's eye fell on the following editorial:
It was on November 1st, 1872, at her quiet home in Rochester, while reading her morning paper, that Miss Anthony's eye landed on the following editorial:
Now Register? To-day and to-morrow are the only remaining opportunities. If you were not permitted to vote, you would fight for the right, undergo all privations for it, face death for it. You have it now at the cost of five minutes' time to be spent in seeking your place of registration, and having your name entered. And yet, on election day, less than a week hence, hundreds of you are likely to lose your votes because you have not thought it worth while to give the five minutes. To-day and to-morrow are your only opportunities. Register now!
Now Register? Today and tomorrow are your last chances. If you were denied the right to vote, you'd fight hard for it, endure sacrifices, and even face death for it. You have that right now, and it only takes five minutes to find your registration place and get your name on the list. Yet, on election day, which is less than a week away, hundreds of you might lose your chance to vote because you didn't think it was worth spending those five minutes. Today and tomorrow are your only chances. Register now!
She immediately threw aside her journal, and asking one of her sisters to accompany her, made her determined way to the registration office. The inspectors were young men, entirely unversed in the intricacies of constitutional law, so that when Miss Anthony expounded to them the XIV. Amendment, they were utterly incapable of answering her legal argument. After some hesitation the two Republican members of the board agreed to receive her name, while the Democratic official remained obdurate. The United States Supervisor being present strongly advised the young men against refusing to allow Miss Anthony to register. A full report of this scene appeared in the afternoon papers with varying comments; the Republican paper inclined toward a favorable view of the right of women to vote, while the Democratic paper denounced these proceedings and warned all inspectors that if they received the names of women they would be liable to prosecution under the 19th section of the enforcement act.
She quickly tossed her journal aside and asked one of her sisters to come with her as she confidently made her way to the registration office. The inspectors were young men, completely unaware of the complexities of constitutional law, so when Miss Anthony explained the XIV Amendment to them, they had no idea how to counter her legal argument. After some back and forth, the two Republican members of the board agreed to accept her name, while the Democratic official remained stubborn. The United States Supervisor, who was present, strongly advised the young men against denying Miss Anthony the chance to register. A detailed report of this incident appeared in the afternoon papers with differing opinions; the Republican paper leaned towards a positive stance on women's right to vote, while the Democratic paper criticized the proceedings and warned all inspectors that accepting women's names could lead to prosecution under the 19th section of the enforcement act.
That if at any election for representative or delegate in the Congress of the United States, any person shall knowingly personate and vote, or attempt to vote, in the name of any other person, whether living, dead, or fictitious; or vote more than once at the same election for any candidate for the same office; or vote at a place where he may not be lawfully entitled to vote; or vote without having a lawful right to vote; or do any unlawful act to secure a right to vote, or an opportunity to vote, for himself or any other person; or by force, threats, menace, intimidation, bribery, reward or offer, or promise thereof, or otherwise unlawfully prevent any qualified voter of any State of the United States of America, or of any Territory thereof, from freely exercising[Pg 628] the right of suffrage; or by any such means induce any voter to refuse to exercise such right; or compel or induce, by any such means or otherwise, any officer on any election in any such State or Territory to receive a vote from a person not legally qualified or entitled to vote or interfere in any manner with any officer of said elections in the discharge of his duties, shall be deemed guilty of a crime and shall for such crime be liable to prosecution in any court of the United States, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment for not exceeding three years or both at the discretion of the court.
That if at any election for a representative or delegate in the Congress of the United States, anyone knowingly impersonates and votes, or tries to vote, in the name of someone else, whether they are alive, dead, or fictional; or votes more than once at the same election for any candidate for the same position; or votes at a place where they are not lawfully entitled to vote; or votes without having the legal right to vote; or commits any unlawful act to secure the right to vote, or an opportunity to vote, for themselves or anyone else; or by force, threats, intimidation, bribery, rewards, offers, promises, or in any other unlawful way prevents any qualified voter in any State of the United States or any Territory from freely exercising[Pg 628] their right to vote; or by any such means influences any voter to refuse to exercise that right; or compels or influences, by any such means or otherwise, any official in any election in any such State or Territory to accept a vote from someone who is not legally qualified or entitled to vote or interferes in any way with any election official in carrying out their duties, will be considered guilty of a crime and will be subject to prosecution in any court of the United States. Upon conviction, they may face a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to three years, or both, at the discretion of the court.
Upon reading this article Miss Anthony hastened back to the registration office and assured the young men that she would be personally responsible for all costs growing out of any suit that might be instituted against them for having registered women. As an outgrowth of all this discussion about fifty women registered in the city, fourteen of them in Miss Anthony's own ward. As a whole, the tone of the press was so adverse that all the inspectors except those of the 8th ward were intimidated and refused to receive the votes of women on election day.
Upon reading this article, Miss Anthony quickly returned to the registration office and assured the young men that she would personally cover all costs arising from any lawsuits that might be brought against them for registering women. As a result of all this discussion, about fifty women registered in the city, fourteen of them in Miss Anthony's own ward. Overall, the tone of the press was so negative that all the inspectors, except for those in the 8th ward, were intimidated and refused to accept women's votes on election day.
Bright and early on the morning of November 5th, Miss Anthony and six of the women presented themselves at the polling booth. The ladies went early not in order to vote often, but to avoid any disturbance which might result from so novel a scene if it were enacted when the streets had become crowded. Each of these new voters was in turn challenged, and each swore in her vote, except Rhoda De Garmo, who in true Quaker fashion refused either to "swear" or to "affirm," simply saying "I will tell the truth." Nevertheless her vote was also received.
Bright and early on the morning of November 5th, Miss Anthony and six other women showed up at the polling booth. They arrived early not to vote multiple times, but to avoid any chaos that might come from such an unusual event if it happened when the streets were crowded. Each of these new voters was challenged, and each swore in her vote, except for Rhoda De Garmo, who, in true Quaker style, refused to either "swear" or "affirm," simply saying, "I will tell the truth." Still, her vote was also accepted.
The discussion of this action continued in the papers and on November 28th, Thanksgiving day, those fourteen offending citizens were informed that they were to be prosecuted by the United States Government, and that Commissioner Storrs wished them to call at his office. The ladies refusing to respond to this polite invitation, Marshal Keeney made the circuit to collect the rebellious forces. It was the afternoon of Thanksgiving day that Miss Anthony was summoned to her parlor to receive a visitor. As she entered she saw her guest was a tall gentleman in most irreproachable attire, nervously dandling in his gloved hands a well-brushed high hat. After some incidental remarks the visitor in a hesitating manner made known his mission. "The Commissioner wishes to arrest you" were his first words touching the object of his call. "Is this your usual method of serving a warrant," asked Miss Anthony; whereupon the Marshal summoned courage enough to serve the usual legal[Pg 629] paper.[168] He gallantly offered to leave his prisoner to go alone, but Miss Anthony refusing to take herself to Court, the United States official meekly escorted her to the Commissioner's office. When all the ladies had arrived, the Commissioner, after hours of waiting, announced that the Assistant District Attorney whom he had summoned to examine the culprits, was unable to reach the city that afternoon, and so the ladies were dismissed to appear the next morning.
The discussion about this situation continued in the newspapers, and on November 28th, Thanksgiving Day, those fourteen offending citizens were informed that they would be prosecuted by the United States Government and that Commissioner Storrs wanted them to come to his office. The ladies, however, refused to respond to this polite invitation, prompting Marshal Keeney to make the rounds to gather the rebellious group. That afternoon, Miss Anthony was called to her parlor to receive a visitor. Upon entering, she noticed her guest was a tall gentleman in impeccable attire, nervously holding a well-brushed high hat in his gloved hands. After some small talk, the visitor hesitantly revealed his purpose. "The Commissioner wishes to arrest you," were his first words regarding his visit. "Is this your usual way of serving a warrant?" Miss Anthony asked, at which point the Marshal mustered enough courage to present the usual legal[Pg 629] paper.[168] He gallantly suggested he could leave his prisoner to go alone, but since Miss Anthony refused to go to court by herself, the United States official humbly escorted her to the Commissioner's office. When all the ladies had finally arrived, after hours of waiting, the Commissioner announced that the Assistant District Attorney he had called to examine the offenders was unable to reach the city that afternoon, so the ladies were dismissed to return the next morning.
The voters received their preliminary examination in the same small dingy office where, in the days of slavery, fugitives escaping to Canada had been examined and remanded to bondage. This historic little room is a double disgrace to the American Republic, as within its walls the rights of color and of sex have been equally trampled upon.
The voters underwent their preliminary assessment in the same small, shabby office where, during slavery, fugitives trying to escape to Canada were examined and sent back into bondage. This historic little room is a double shame for the American Republic, as within its walls, both racial and gender rights have been equally violated.
The fourteen women pleaded "not guilty," but the Commissioner ordered bail of $500 each for their appearance at the Albany term of the United States District Court January 21, 1873. Miss Anthony refused to give bail, and petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The Inspectors were also arrested, and had their final hearing the afternoon of the same day before Commissioner Ely,—Hon. John Van Voorhis their counsel—and were bound over to the Albany Term. The hearing on Miss Anthony's petition was had before Judge Hall. The decision was adverse, and bail of $1,000 demanded for her appearance at the May term at Rochester. The Grand Jury found a true bill of indictment against her, the fourteen other women, and the three Inspectors. Miss Anthony objected to giving bail, but was overruled by her counsel, Hon. Henry R. Selden, whose sense of gallantry made him feel it a disgrace to allow his client to go to jail. This was a source of deep regret to Miss Anthony, as it prevented her case going to the Supreme Court of the United States for final adjudication.
The fourteen women pleaded "not guilty," but the Commissioner set bail at $500 each for their appearance at the Albany term of the United States District Court on January 21, 1873. Miss Anthony refused to post bail and requested a writ of habeas corpus. The Inspectors were also arrested and had their final hearing that afternoon before Commissioner Ely, with Hon. John Van Voorhis as their counsel, and were required to appear at the Albany Term. The hearing on Miss Anthony's petition took place before Judge Hall. The decision was unfavorable, and bail of $1,000 was required for her appearance at the May term in Rochester. The Grand Jury returned a true bill of indictment against her, the fourteen other women, and the three Inspectors. Miss Anthony objected to posting bail but was overruled by her counsel, Hon. Henry R. Selden, whose sense of honor compelled him to think it was shameful to let his client go to jail. This caused Miss Anthony great disappointment, as it stopped her case from reaching the Supreme Court of the United States for a final decision.
During the intermediate period between November 28, 1872, and January 21, 1873, Miss Anthony, in the eye of the law, was imprisoned, but the Marshal, though somewhat uneasy, left her free to fulfill her lyceum engagements and attend woman suffrage conventions.[Pg 630] A singularly anomalous position for a criminal, traveling about the country as a teacher of morals to the people! Learning that in case the jury returned a verdict of guilty the judge must declare the costs of the trial against the defendants, she determined to canvass Monroe County, in order to make a verdict of "guilty" impossible. She held meetings in twenty-nine of the post-office districts, speaking on the equal rights of all citizens to the ballot. Hearing that District Attorney Crowley threatened to move her trial out of that county, she sent him word that she would then canvass the next with an army of speakers.
During the time between November 28, 1872, and January 21, 1873, Miss Anthony was considered imprisoned by the law, but the Marshal, although a bit uneasy, allowed her to continue her lyceum engagements and attend women’s suffrage conventions.[Pg 630] It was quite an unusual situation for a criminal, traveling around the country as a moral teacher! Realizing that if the jury found her guilty the judge would impose the trial costs on the defendants, she decided to campaign in Monroe County to make a guilty verdict impossible. She held meetings in twenty-nine post-office districts, advocating for the equal rights of all citizens to vote. When she heard that District Attorney Crowley was planning to move her trial out of the county, she informed him that she would then campaign in the next county with a group of speakers.
The court sat in Rochester May 13th, but several days passed without calling the case. Finally, it was moved by District Attorney Crowley, merely to ask its adjournment to the June United States Circuit Court at Canandaigua. Counsel protested, but without avail, and both the women and the Inspectors were again required to answer the charge and renew bail. This motion for change of venue was made on Friday, and the following Monday night Miss Anthony held her first meeting in Ontario County. In the twenty-two days before the convening of the Court she made twenty-one speeches. Matilda Joslyn Gage came to her aid, and spoke in sixteen townships, thus together making a thorough canvass of that county. Miss Anthony's speech, "Is it a crime for a United States citizen to vote," and that of Mrs. Gage, "The United States on trial, not Susan B. Anthony," were most effective in rousing general thought on the vital principles of republican government, and did much toward enlightening the possible jury in the coming trial.
The court met in Rochester on May 13th, but several days went by without calling the case. Finally, District Attorney Crowley moved to postpone it to the June United States Circuit Court in Canandaigua. The lawyers objected, but it didn’t make a difference, and both the women and the Inspectors had to respond to the charge and renew their bail. This request for a change of venue was made on Friday, and the following Monday night, Miss Anthony held her first meeting in Ontario County. In the twenty-two days leading up to the Court session, she gave twenty-one speeches. Matilda Joslyn Gage joined her efforts and spoke in sixteen townships, together covering the county thoroughly. Miss Anthony's speech, "Is it a crime for a United States citizen to vote," along with Mrs. Gage's, "The United States on trial, not Susan B. Anthony," were particularly effective in sparking public discussion about the essential principles of republican government and significantly helped educate the potential jury for the upcoming trial.
The last meeting of the series was held at Canandaigua on the evening before the trial. Strong resolutions against these acts of injustice toward woman were introduced by Mrs. Gage, and unanimously indorsed by the audience. Thus the case went to trial with ample opportunity for the District Attorney and the Judge to know the opinions of the people, and for the men of Ontario to be too generally enlightened on the subject to find any twelve who could be trusted to bring in a verdict of guilty against the women for voting, or the inspectors for receiving their votes.
The final meeting of the series took place in Canandaigua on the evening before the trial. Mrs. Gage introduced strong resolutions condemning these acts of injustice against women, and the audience unanimously supported them. As a result, the case went to trial with plenty of awareness for the District Attorney and the Judge regarding the people's opinions, and the men of Ontario were generally informed enough that it would be difficult to find twelve individuals who could be relied upon to deliver a guilty verdict against the women for voting or against the inspectors for accepting their votes.
The following is the argument which Miss Anthony made in twenty-nine of the post office-districts of Monroe, and twenty-one of Ontario, in her canvass of those counties, prior to her trial, June 17, 1873:
The following is the argument that Miss Anthony presented in twenty-nine post office districts of Monroe and twenty-one of Ontario during her campaign in those counties, before her trial on June 17, 1873:
Friends and Fellow Citizens:—I stand before you to-night, under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted illegally at the last Presidential election. I shall endeavor this evening to prove to you that in voting, I[Pg 631] not only committed no crime, but simply exercised my "citizen's right," guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any State to deny.
Friends and Fellow Citizens:—I'm here tonight facing accusations for supposedly voting illegally in the last Presidential election. I aim to show you this evening that by voting, I[Pg 631] committed no crime, but rather exercised my "citizen's right," which is guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, and that no State has the authority to take away.
Our democratic republican government is based on the idea of the natural right of every individual member thereof to a voice and a vote in making and executing the laws. We assert the province of government to be to secure the people in the enjoyment of their inalienable rights. We throw to the winds the old dogma that governments can give rights. Before governments were organized, no one denies that each individual possessed the right to protect his own life, liberty, and property. And when 100 or 1,000,000 people enter into a free government, they do not barter away their natural rights; they simply pledge themselves to protect each other in the enjoyment of them, through prescribed judicial and legislative tribunals. They agree to abandon the methods of brute force in the adjustment of their differences, and adopt those of civilization. The Declaration of Independence, the National and State Constitutions, and the organic laws of the Territories, all alike propose to protect the people in the exercise of their God-given rights. Not one of them pretends to bestow rights.
Our democratic republic is built on the idea that every individual has the natural right to have a say and a vote in creating and enforcing laws. We believe the role of government is to ensure that people can enjoy their inalienable rights. We reject the outdated belief that governments can grant rights. Before governments were established, it’s widely accepted that everyone had the right to protect their own life, liberty, and property. When a group of 100 or 1,000,000 people forms a free government, they don’t give up their natural rights; instead, they commit to protecting each other's rights through designated judicial and legislative bodies. They agree to leave behind violent methods for resolving conflicts and embrace civilized processes. The Declaration of Independence, the National and State Constitutions, and the foundational laws of the Territories all aim to protect the people in exercising their God-given rights. None of them claim to give rights.
All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
All men are created equal and are given certain rights by their Creator that cannot be taken away. These rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To protect these rights, governments are formed among people, getting their legitimate power from the agreement of those they govern.
Here is no shadow of government authority over rights, nor exclusion of any class from their full and equal enjoyment. Here is pronounced the rights of all men, and "consequently," as the Quaker preacher said, "of all women," to a voice in the government. And here, in this very first paragraph of the Declaration, is the assertion of the natural right of all to the ballot; for, how can "the consent of the governed" be given, if the right to vote be denied. Again:
Here is no hint of government control over rights, nor the exclusion of any group from fully and equally enjoying them. Here, the rights of all people are clearly stated, and "consequently," as the Quaker preacher said, "of all women," to have a say in the government. And here, in this very first paragraph of the Declaration, is the claim of the natural right for everyone to vote; for how can "the consent of the governed" be given if the right to vote is denied? Again:
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
That whenever any form of government becomes harmful to these goals, it is the people's right to change or get rid of it, and to create a new government, building its foundation on principles and organizing its powers in ways that they believe will best ensure their safety and happiness.
Surely, the right of the whole people to vote is here clearly implied. For, however destructive to their happiness this government might become, a disfranchised class could neither alter nor abolish it, nor institute a new one, except by the old brute force method of insurrection and rebellion. One half of the people of this Nation to-day are utterly powerless to blot from the statute books an unjust law, or to write there a new and a just one. The women, dissatisfied as they are with this form of government, that enforces taxation without representation,—that compels them to obey laws to which they have never given their consent—that imprisons and hangs them without a trial by a jury of their peers—that robs them, in marriage, of the custody of their own persons, wages, and children—are this half of the people left wholly at the mercy of the other half, in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the declarations of the framers of this government, every one of which was based on the immutable principle of equal rights to all. By those declarations, kings, priests, popes, aristocrats, were all alike dethroned, and placed on a common level, politically, with the lowliest born subject or serf. By them, too, men,[Pg 632] as such, were deprived of their divine right to rule, and placed on a political level with women. By the practice of those declarations all class and caste distinction will be abolished; and slave, serf, plebeian, wife, woman, all alike, will bound from their subject position to the proud platform of equality.
Surely, the right of everyone to vote is clearly implied here. Because, no matter how harmful this government might become, a disenfranchised group couldn't change or get rid of it, nor create a new one, except by resorting to the old method of insurrection and rebellion. Half of the people in this nation today are completely powerless to remove an unjust law from the books or to add a new, fair one. The women, frustrated with a government that imposes taxes without representation—forcing them to follow laws they never consented to—that imprisons and executes them without a trial by a jury of their peers—that takes away their rights in marriage regarding their own bodies, wages, and children—are this half of the population left at the mercy of the other half, directly violating the spirit and letter of the principles laid out by the founders of this government, which were all based on the unchanging principle of equal rights for all. Those principles dethroned kings, priests, popes, and aristocrats and placed them politically on the same level as the lowest born subject or serf. They also took away men's so-called divine right to rule and placed them on a political level with women. By following those principles, all class and caste distinctions will be eliminated; and slave, serf, plebeian, wife, and woman alike will rise from their subordinate position to the proud platform of equality.
The preamble of the Federal Constitution says:
The preamble of the Federal Constitution states:
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We, the citizens of the United States, to create a better union, establish justice, ensure peace at home, provide for our common defense, promote the general well-being, and secure the blessings of freedom for ourselves and our future generations, do enact and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It was we, the people, not we, the white male citizens, nor yet we, the male citizens, but we, the whole people, who formed this Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people—women as well as men. And it is downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic republican government—the ballot.
It was us, the people, not just us, the white male citizens, or even just us, the male citizens, but us, the entire population, who created this Union. And we created it, not to hand out the blessings of liberty, but to protect them; not just for half of ourselves and half of our future generations, but for everyone—women as well as men. It’s a complete insult to talk to women about enjoying the blessings of liberty while they are denied the one way to protect them offered by this democratic republican government—the vote.
The early journals of Congress show that when the Committee reported to that body the original Articles of Confederation, the very first article which became the subject of discussion was that respecting equality of suffrage. Article 4th said:
The early journals of Congress show that when the Committee presented the original Articles of Confederation to that body, the very first article that sparked discussion was about equal voting rights. Article 4 said:
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse between the people of the different States of this Union, the free inhabitants of each of the States (paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted), shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the free citizens of the several States.
The better to secure and maintain mutual friendship and communication between the people of the different States in this Union, the free residents of each State (excluding the needy, homeless, and those fleeing justice) will have all the rights and privileges of free citizens in the various States.
Thus, at the very beginning, did the fathers see the necessity of the universal application of the great principle of equal rights to all—in order to produce the desired result—a harmonious union and a homogeneous people. Luther Martin, Attorney-General of Maryland, in his report to the Legislature of that State of the convention that framed the United States Constitution, said:
Thus, at the very beginning, the founders recognized the need for the universal application of the great principle of equal rights for everyone—to achieve the desired outcome of a harmonious union and a unified people. Luther Martin, the Attorney General of Maryland, in his report to the legislature of that state on the convention that drafted the United States Constitution, said:
Those who advocated the equality of suffrage took the matter up on the original principles of government; that the reason why each individual man in forming a State government should have an equal vote, is because each individual, before he enters into government, is equally free and equally independent.
Those who promoted equal voting rights based their argument on the fundamental principles of government; the reason every individual man should have an equal vote in forming a state government is that each person, before entering into government, is equally free and equally independent.
James Madison said:
James Madison said:
Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the mass of the citizens should not be without a voice in making the laws which they are to obey, and in choosing the magistrates who are to administer them.
Under every perspective on the topic, it seems essential that the majority of citizens should have a say in creating the laws they must follow and in selecting the officials who will enforce them.
Also,
Also,
Let it be remembered, finally, that it has ever been the pride and the boast of America that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature.
Let it be remembered, finally, that it has always been America's pride and claim that the rights she fought for were the rights of humanity.
And these assertions of the framers of the United States Constitution of the equal and natural rights of all the people to a voice in the government, have been affirmed and reaffirmed by the leading statesmen of the nation, throughout the entire history of our Government.
And these claims by the creators of the United States Constitution about everyone's equal and natural rights to have a say in the government have been supported and restated by the nation's key leaders throughout the entire history of our Government.
Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said in 1866:
Thaddeus Stevens, from Pennsylvania, said in 1866:
I have made up my mind that the elective franchise is one of the inalienable rights meant to be secured by the Declaration of Independence.
I have decided that voting is one of the essential rights meant to be protected by the Declaration of Independence.
B. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, in the three days' discussion in the United States Senate in 1866, on Senator Cowan's motion to strike "male" from the District of Columbia suffrage bill, said:
B. Gratz Brown, from Missouri, during the three-day debate in the United States Senate in 1866, on Senator Cowan's proposal to remove "male" from the District of Columbia voting bill, stated:
Mr. President, I say here on the floor of the American Senate, I stand for universal suffrage; and as a matter of fundamental principle, do not recognize the right of society to limit it on any ground of race or sex. I will go farther, and say that I recognize the right of franchise as being intrinsically a natural right. I do not believe that society is authorized to impose any limitations upon it that do not spring out of the necessities of the social state itself.
Mr. President, I stand here on the floor of the American Senate, advocating for universal suffrage; and as a matter of fundamental principle, I do not acknowledge society's right to restrict it on any basis of race or gender. I will go further and state that I view the right to vote as inherently a natural right. I don't believe society has the authority to impose any limitations on it that don't arise from the needs of the social structure itself.
Charles Sumner, in his brave protests against the XIV. and XV. Amendments, insisted that, so soon as by the XIII. Amendment the slaves became free men, the original powers of the United States Constitution guaranteed to them equal rights—the right to vote and to be voted for:
Charles Sumner, in his bold protests against the XIV and XV Amendments, argued that as soon as the XIII Amendment freed the slaves, the original powers of the United States Constitution guaranteed them equal rights—the right to vote and to run for office:
I do not hesitate to say that when the slaves of our country became "citizens," they took their place in the body politic as a component part of the "people," entitled to equal rights, and under the protection of these two guardian principles: First, that all just governments stand on the consent of the governed; and second, that taxation without representation is tyranny; and these rights it is the duty of Congress to guarantee as essential to the idea of a Republic.
I can confidently say that when the enslaved people of our nation became "citizens," they became part of the political community as a part of the "people," entitled to equal rights and protected by these two fundamental principles: First, that all just governments are based on the consent of the governed; and second, that taxation without representation is tyranny. It is Congress's duty to guarantee these rights as essential to the concept of a Republic.
The preamble of the Constitution of the State of New York declares:
The preamble of the Constitution of the State of New York declares:
We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
Here is not the slightest intimation, either of receiving freedom from the United States Constitution, or of the State conferring the blessings of liberty upon the people; and the same is true of every one of the thirty-six State Constitutions. Each and all alike declare rights God-given, and that to secure the people in the enjoyment of their inalienable rights, is their one and only object in ordaining and establishing government. And all of the State constitutions are equally emphatic in their recognition of the ballot as the means of securing the people in the enjoyment of these rights. Article 1 of the New York State Constitution says:
Here is no hint of getting freedom from the United States Constitution, nor is there any suggestion that the State grants the blessings of liberty to the people; the same applies to all thirty-six State Constitutions. Each one states that rights are given by God, and that the primary purpose of establishing government is to ensure the people's enjoyment of their inalienable rights. Every State Constitution also clearly recognizes the ballot as the way to secure the people's enjoyment of these rights. Article 1 of the New York State Constitution says:
No member of this State shall be disfranchised or deprived of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.
No one in this State shall lose their voting rights or be deprived of the rights or privileges granted to any citizen, except by law or through a judgment by their peers.
And so carefully guarded is the citizen's right to vote, that the Constitution makes special mention of all who may not vote:
And the citizen's right to vote is so carefully protected that the Constitution specifically mentions everyone who is not allowed to vote:
Laws may be passed excluding from the right of suffrage all persons who have been or may be convicted of bribery, larceny, or any infamous crime.
Laws can be enacted to deny the right to vote to anyone who has been or might be convicted of bribery, theft, or any disgraceful crime.
In naming the various employments that shall not affect the residence of voters, the 3d section of Article 2d says
In listing the different jobs that won't impact where voters live, the 3rd section of Article 2 says
That being kept at any almshouse or other asylum, at public expense, nor being confined at any public prison, shall deprive a person of his residence,
That being in any shelter or other facility, funded by the public, or being held in any public prison, will not take away a person's residency,
and hence his vote. Thus is the right of voting most sacredly hedged about. The only seeming permission in our constitution for the disfranchisement of women is in section 1st of Article 2d:
and therefore his vote. This makes the right to vote extremely important. The only apparent allowance in our constitution for denying women the right to vote is in section 1st of Article 2d:
Every male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, etc., shall be entitled to vote.
Every male citizen who is twenty-one years old or older, etc., shall have the right to vote.
But I insist that in view of the explicit assertions of the equal right of the whole people, both in the preamble and previous article of the constitution, this omission of the adjective "female" in the second, should not be[Pg 634] construed into a denial; but, instead, counted as of no effect. Mark the direct prohibition:
But I insist that considering the clear statements about the equal rights of all people, both in the preamble and the previous article of the constitution, the absence of the word "female" in the second should not be[Pg 634] seen as a denial; rather, it should be regarded as having no impact. Notice the direct prohibition:
"No member of this State shall be disfranchised, unless by the 'law of the land,' or the judgment of his peers."
"No member of this State shall be disenfranchised, except by the 'law of the land' or the judgment of their peers."
"The law of the land," is the United States Constitution; and there is no provision in that document that can be fairly construed into a permission to the States to deprive any class of their citizens of their right to vote. Hence New York can get no power from that source to disfranchise one entire half of her members. Nor has "the judgment of their peers" been pronounced against women exercising their right to vote. No disfranchised person is allowed to be judge or juror—and none but disfranchised persons can be women's peers; nor has the Legislature passed laws excluding them on account of idiocy or lunacy; nor yet the courts convicted them of bribery, larceny, or any infamous crime. Clearly, then, there is no constitutional ground for the exclusion of women from the ballot-box in the State of New York. No barriers whatever stand to-day between women and the exercise of their right to vote save those of precedent and prejudice.
"The law of the land" is the United States Constitution, and there’s no part of that document that can be reasonably interpreted as giving States the right to deny any group of citizens their voting rights. Therefore, New York cannot gain any authority from this document to disenfranchise half of its members. Additionally, "the judgment of their peers" has not been passed regarding women's right to vote. Disenfranchised individuals cannot serve as judges or jurors—and only disenfranchised individuals can be considered women’s peers; also, the Legislature hasn't enacted laws disqualifying them based on insanity or mental incapacity, nor have the courts convicted them of bribery, theft, or any serious crime. Clearly, there is no constitutional basis for excluding women from voting in the State of New York. Currently, the only obstacles preventing women from exercising their right to vote are those based on tradition and bias.
The clauses of the United States Constitution, cited by our opponents as giving power to the States to disfranchise any classes of citizens they shall please, are contained in sections 2d and 4th of article 1st. The second says:
The sections of the United States Constitution that our opponents argue empower the States to disenfranchise any groups of citizens they choose are found in sections 2 and 4 of article 1. The second states:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.
The House of Representatives will be made up of members elected every two years by the people of the various States; and the voters in each State must meet the qualifications required for voters in the largest branch of the State Legislature.
This can not be construed into a concession to the States of the power to destroy the right to become an elector, but simply to prescribe what shall be the qualifications, such as competency of intellect, maturity of age, length of residence, that shall be deemed necessary to enable them to make an intelligent choice of candidates. If, as our opponents assert, the last clause of this section makes it the duty of the United States to protect citizens in the several States against higher or different qualifications for electors for Representatives in Congress, than for members of Assembly, then must the first clause make it equally imperative for the national government to interfere with the States, and forbid them from arbitrarily cutting off the right of one half of the people to become electors altogether. Section 4th says:
This cannot be seen as giving the States the power to take away the right to vote, but rather to set the qualifications, like intelligence, age, and length of residence, needed for people to make informed choices about candidates. If, as our opponents claim, the last part of this section requires the United States to protect citizens in different States from having stricter or different requirements for voting for Representatives in Congress compared to members of the Assembly, then the first part must also require the national government to step in and prevent States from unfairly denying half of the population the right to vote completely. Section 4th says:
The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
The times, places, and ways of holding elections for Senators and Representatives will be determined by each State's Legislature; however, Congress can change these regulations at any time by law, except for where Senators are chosen.
Here is conceded the power only to prescribe times, places, and manner of holding the elections; and even with these Congress may interfere, with all excepting the mere place of choosing Senators. Thus you see, there is not the slightest permission in either section for the States to discriminate against the right of any class of citizens to vote. Surely to regulate can not be to annihilate! nor to qualify to wholly deprive! And to this principle every true Democrat and Republican said amen, when applied to black men by Senator Sumner in his great speeches for EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL from 1865 to 1869; and when, in 1871, I asked that Senator to declare the power of the United States Constitution to protect women in their right to vote—as he had done for black men—he handed me a copy of all his speeches during that reconstruction period, saying:[Pg 635]
Here, the power is granted only to set the times, places, and methods for holding elections; and even then, Congress can step in, except for the specific location of choosing Senators. So, you can see, there’s absolutely no approval in either section for the States to discriminate against any group’s right to vote. Clearly, to regulate does not mean to destroy! Nor does it mean to restrict to the point of complete denial! And every true Democrat and Republican agreed with this principle when Senator Sumner applied it to black men in his powerful speeches for EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL from 1865 to 1869; and when, in 1871, I asked that Senator to affirm the power of the United States Constitution to protect women’s right to vote—as he had for black men—he gave me a copy of all his speeches from that reconstruction era, saying:[Pg 635]
Miss Anthony, put "sex" where I have "race" or "color," and you have here the best and strongest argument I can make for woman. There is not a doubt but women have the constitutional right to vote, and I will never vote for a XVI. Amendment to guarantee it to them. I voted for both the XIV. and XV. under protest; would never have done it but for the pressing emergency of that hour; would have insisted that the power of the original Constitution to protect all citizens in the equal enjoyment of their rights should have been vindicated through the courts. But the newly made freedmen had neither the intelligence, wealth, nor time to wait that slow process. Women possess all these in an eminent degree; and I insist that they shall appeal to the courts, and through them establish the powers of our American magna charta, to protect every citizen of the Republic.
Miss Anthony, replace "race" or "color" with "sex," and you have the strongest argument I can make for women. There’s no doubt that women have the constitutional right to vote, and I will never support an XVI. Amendment to guarantee it for them. I voted for both the XIV. and XV. Amendments against my better judgment; I would never have done it except for the urgent circumstances of that time; I would have insisted that the original Constitution’s power to protect all citizens in their equal rights should have been upheld through the courts. But the newly freedmen lacked the intelligence, wealth, and time to wait for that slow process. Women possess all these qualities to a great extent; and I insist that they should take their case to the courts, and through them, establish the powers of our American magna charta, to protect every citizen of the Republic.
But, friends, when in accordance with Senator Sumner's counsel, I went to the ballot-box, last November, and exercised my citizen's right to vote, the courts did not wait for me to appeal to them—they appealed to me, and indicted me on the charge of having voted illegally. Senator Sumner, putting sex where he did color, would have said:
But, friends, when I followed Senator Sumner's advice and went to the ballot box last November to exercise my right to vote, the courts didn’t wait for me to ask for their help—they came after me and charged me with voting illegally. Senator Sumner, putting gender in place of race, would have said:
Qualifications can not be in their nature permanent or insurmountable. Sex can not be a qualification any more than size, race, color, or previous condition of servitude. A permanent or insurmountable qualification is equivalent to a deprivation of the suffrage. In other words, it is the tyranny of taxation without representation, against which our revolutionary mothers, as well as fathers, rebelled.
Qualifications cannot be permanent or insurmountable. Gender cannot be a qualification any more than size, race, color, or past status of servitude. A permanent or insurmountable qualification is the same as taking away the right to vote. In other words, it's the oppression of taxation without representation, which our revolutionary mothers and fathers fought against.
For any State to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it, the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity. To them, this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy; the most hateful ever established on the face of the globe. An oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor; an oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant; or even an oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but surely this oligarchy of sex, which makes the men of every household sovereigns, masters; the women subjects, slaves; carrying dissension, rebellion into every home of the Nation, can not be endured. And yet this odious aristocracy exists in the face of Section 4, of Article 4, which says:
For any state to make gender a requirement that leads to the disenfranchisement of half the population is essentially enacting a punishment without trial or a retroactive law, which violates the highest law of the land. This effectively denies women and their future generations the benefits of liberty. For them, this government has no legitimate authority derived from the consent of the governed. To them, this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is a repugnant aristocracy; a detestable oligarchy—the most contemptible ever established on the planet. An oligarchy of wealth, where the rich control the poor; an oligarchy of education, where the educated dominate the uninformed; or even an oligarchy of race, where the Anglo-Saxon rules the African, might be bearable; but this oligarchy of gender, which places men as rulers and women as subjects, slaves; introducing conflict and rebellion into every home in the nation, cannot be tolerated. And yet this hateful aristocracy persists despite Section 4 of Article 4, which states:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of government.
The United States will ensure that every state in the union has a Republican form of government.
What, I ask you, is the distinctive difference between the inhabitants of a Monarchical and those of a Republican form of government, save that in the Monarchical the people are subjects, helpless, powerless, bound to obey laws made by superiors—while in the Republican, the people are citizens, individual sovereigns, all clothed with equal power, to make and unmake both their laws and their law makers. And the moment you deprive a person of his right to a voice in the government, you degrade him from the status of a citizen to that of a subject, and it matters very little to him whether his monarch be an individual tyrant, as is the Czar of Russia, or a 15,000,000 headed monster, as here in the United States.
What, I ask you, is the main difference between the people living under a Monarchical government and those under a Republican one, except that in a Monarchy, people are subjects—helpless, powerless, forced to obey laws created by their superiors—while in a Republic, people are citizens, individual sovereigns, all holding equal power to create and change both their laws and their lawmakers. The moment you take away someone's right to participate in government, you reduce them from being a citizen to being a subject, and it hardly matters to them whether their ruler is a single tyrant, like the Czar of Russia, or a 15 million-headed monster, like we have here in the United States.
But, it is urged, the use of the masculine pronouns he, his, and him, in all the constitutions and laws, is proof that only men were meant to be[Pg 636] included in their provisions. If you insist on this version of the letter of the law, we shall insist that you be consistent, and accept the other horn of the dilemma, which would compel you to exempt women from taxation for the support of the government, and from penalties for the violation of laws.
But, it’s argued that using the masculine pronouns he, his, and him in all the constitutions and laws proves that only men were meant to be[Pg 636] included in their provisions. If you stick to this interpretation of the law, we’ll demand that you be consistent and accept the other side of the argument, which would force you to exempt women from paying taxes to support the government and from penalties for breaking the law.
A year and a half ago I was at Walla Walla, Washington Territory. I saw there a theatrical company, the "Pixley Sisters," playing before crowded houses every night of the whole week of the Territorial fair. The eldest of those three fatherless girls was scarce eighteen. Yet every night a United States officer stretched out his long fingers, and clutched six dollars of the proceeds of the exhibitions of those orphan girls, who, but a few years before, were starvelings in the streets of Olympia, the capital of that far-off north-west territory. So the poor widow, who keeps a boarding-house, manufactures shirts, or sells apples and peanuts on the street corners of our cities, is compelled to pay taxes from her scanty pittance. I would that the women of this republic at once resolve, never again to submit to taxation until their right to vote be recognized. Miss Sarah E. Wall, of Worcester, Mass., twenty years ago, took this position. For several years, the officers of the law distrained her property and sold it to meet the necessary amount; still she persisted, and would not yield an iota, though every foot of her lands should be struck off under the hammer. And now, for several years, the assessor has left her name off the tax list, and the collector passed her by without a call. Mrs. J. S. Weeden, of Viroqua, Wis., for the past six years has refused to pay her taxes, though the annual assessment is $75. Mrs. Ellen Van Valkenburg, of Santa Cruz, Cal., who sued the County Clerk for refusing to register her name, declares she will never pay another dollar of tax until allowed to vote; and all over the country, women property holders are waking up to the injustice of taxation without representation, and ere long will refuse, en masse, to submit to the imposition.
A year and a half ago, I was in Walla Walla, Washington Territory. I watched a theater group called the "Pixley Sisters" perform in front of packed audiences every night during the week of the Territorial fair. The oldest of the three girls, who had no father, was barely eighteen. Yet every night, a U.S. officer reached out and grabbed six dollars from the earnings of those orphaned girls, who just a few years earlier were starving in the streets of Olympia, the capital of that distant northwestern territory. So, the poor widow who runs a boarding house, makes shirts, or sells apples and peanuts at street corners in our cities is forced to pay taxes from her meager income. I wish the women of this republic would decide right away to never accept taxation again until their right to vote is recognized. Miss Sarah E. Wall from Worcester, Mass., took this stand twenty years ago. For several years, the law officers seized her property and sold it to cover the required amount, but she held strong and wouldn’t give in, even if every inch of her land was auctioned off. Now, for several years, the assessor has left her name off the tax list, and the collector has skipped her without a visit. Mrs. J. S. Weeden from Viroqua, Wis., has refused to pay her taxes for the past six years, even though her annual assessment is $75. Mrs. Ellen Van Valkenburg from Santa Cruz, Cal., who sued the County Clerk for refusing to register her name, says she will never pay another dollar in taxes until she's allowed to vote; and all over the country, women who own property are realizing the unfairness of taxation without representation and will soon refuse, en masse, to accept this burden.
There is no she, or her, or hers, in the tax laws. The statute of New York reads:
There is no she, or her, or hers, in the tax laws. The statute of New York reads:
Every person shall be assessed in the town or ward where he resides when the assessment is made, for the lands owned by him, etc. Every collector shall call at least once on the person taxed, or at his usual place of residence, and shall demand payment of the taxes charged on him. If any one shall refuse to pay the tax imposed on him, the collector shall levy the same by distress and sale of his property.
Every person will be assessed in the town or neighborhood where they live when the assessment takes place, for the property they own, etc. Every collector will visit at least once to see the person being taxed, or their usual home, and will request payment of the taxes owed. If someone refuses to pay the tax they owe, the collector will collect the payment by seizing and selling their property.
The same is true of all the criminal laws:
The same goes for all the criminal laws:
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, etc.
No one can be forced to testify against themselves, etc.
In the law of May 31, 1870, the 19th section of which I am charged with having violated; not only are all the pronouns masculine, but everybody knows that that particular section was intended expressly to hinder the rebels from voting. It reads:
In the law of May 31, 1870, the 19th section of which I am accused of violating; not only are all the pronouns masculine, but everyone knows that specific section was meant to specifically prevent the rebels from voting. It reads:
If any person shall knowingly vote without his having a lawful right, etc.
If anyone knowingly votes without having the legal right to do so, etc.
Precisely so with all the papers served on me—the U. S. Marshal's warrant, the bail-bond, the petition for habeas corpus, the bill of indictment—not one of them had a feminine pronoun printed in it; but, to make them applicable to me, the Clerk of the Court made a little carat at the left of "he" and placed an "s" over it, thus making she out of he. Then the letters "is" were scratched[Pg 637] out, the little carat placed under and "er" over, to make her out of his, and I insist if government officials may thus manipulate the pronouns to tax, fine, imprison, and hang women, women may take the same liberty with them to secure to themselves their right to a voice in the government.
Exactly the same goes for all the papers served on me—the U.S. Marshal's warrant, the bail bond, the petition for habeas corpus, the bill of indictment—not one of them had a feminine pronoun printed in it; but, to make them applicable to me, the Clerk of the Court put a little caret next to "he" and added an "s" on top of it, turning he into she. Then the letters "is" were scratched[Pg 637] out, a little caret placed underneath and "er" on top, changing his into her, and I argue that if government officials can manipulate pronouns to tax, fine, imprison, and hang women, then women should be able to do the same to secure their right to have a voice in the government.
So long as any classes of men were denied their right to vote, the government made a show of consistency, by exempting them from taxation. When a property qualification of $250 was required of black men in New York, they were not compelled to pay taxes, so long as they were content to report themselves worth less than that sum; but the moment the black man died, and his property fell to his widow, the black woman's name would be put on the assessor's list, and she be compelled to pay taxes on the same property exempted to her husband. The same is true of ministers in New York. So long as the minister lives, he is exempted from taxation on $1,500 of property, but the moment the breath goes out of his body, his widow's name will go down on the assessor's list, and she will have to pay taxes on the $1,500. So much for the special legislation in favor of women. In all the penalties and burdens of the government (except the military), women are reckoned as citizens, equally with men. Also, in all the privileges and immunities, save those of the jury-box and ballot-box, the two fundamental privileges on which rest all the others. The United States government not only taxes, fines, imprisons, and hangs women, but it allows them to pre-empt lands, register ships, and take out passport and naturalization papers. Not only does the law permit single women and widows to the right of naturalization, but Section 2 says:
As long as certain groups of people were denied their right to vote, the government put on a show of fairness by exempting them from taxes. When black men in New York had to meet a property requirement of $250 to vote, they didn’t have to pay taxes as long as they claimed to be worth less than that amount. However, once a black man died and his property passed to his widow, her name would be added to the tax list, and she would have to pay taxes on the very same property that had been exempt for her husband. The same applies to ministers in New York. While the minister is alive, he is exempt from taxes on $1,500 worth of property, but as soon as he dies, his widow’s name will go on the tax list, and she will have to pay taxes on that $1,500. This is a clear indication of the supposed special laws that favor women. In all the penalties and burdens imposed by the government (except for military service), women are recognized as citizens just like men. However, in all privileges and rights, except for those related to serving on juries and voting—the two fundamental rights upon which all others depend—women are treated differently. The United States government not only taxes, fines, imprisons, and executes women, but also allows them to claim land, register ships, and obtain passports and naturalization papers. Furthermore, the law grants single women and widows the right to naturalization, and Section 2 states:
A married woman may be naturalized without the concurrence of her husband. (I wonder the fathers were not afraid of creating discord in the families of foreigners); and again: When an alien, having complied with the law, and declared his intention to become a citizen, dies before he is actually naturalized, his widow and children shall be considered citizens, entitled to all rights and privileges as such, on taking the required oath.
A married woman can be naturalized without her husband's agreement. (I wonder why the fathers weren't concerned about causing disputes in the families of foreigners); and also: If a foreigner has followed the law and expressed their intention to become a citizen but dies before completing the naturalization process, their widow and children will be regarded as citizens, enjoying all rights and privileges as such, once they take the necessary oath.
If a foreign-born woman, by becoming a naturalized, citizen, is entitled to all rights and privileges of citizenship, is not a native-born woman by her National citizenship, possessed of equal rights and privileges?
If a woman born in another country becomes a naturalized citizen, she is entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Isn't a native-born woman, through her national citizenship, also entitled to equal rights and privileges?
The question of the masculine pronouns, yes and nouns too, has been settled by the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Silver vs. Ladd, December, 1868, in a decision as to whether a woman was entitled to lands under the Oregon donation law of 1850. Elizabeth Cruthers, a widow, settled upon a claim and received patents. She died, and her son was heir. He died. Then Messrs. Ladd & Nott took possession, under the general pre-emption law, December, 1861. The administrator, E. P. Silver, applied for a writ of ejectment at the land office in Oregon City. Both the Register and Receiver decided that an unmarried woman could not hold land under that law. The Commissioner of the General Land Office, at Washington, and the Secretary of the Interior, also gave adverse opinions. Here patents were issued to Ladd & Nott, and duly recorded. Then a suit was brought to set aside Ladd's patent, and it was carried through all the State Courts and the Supreme Court of Oregon; each, in turn, giving adverse decisions. At last, in the United States Supreme Court, Associate Justice Miller reversed the decisions of all the lower tribunals, and ordered the land back to the heirs of Mrs. Cruthers. The Court said:[Pg 638]
The issue of masculine pronouns, and nouns too, was resolved by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Silver vs. Ladd in December 1868, which determined whether a woman could inherit land under the Oregon donation law of 1850. Elizabeth Cruthers, a widow, claimed land and received patents. She passed away, leaving her son as her heir. After he died, Messrs. Ladd & Nott took possession under the general pre-emption law in December 1861. The administrator, E. P. Silver, requested a writ of ejectment at the land office in Oregon City. Both the Register and Receiver concluded that an unmarried woman could not own land under that law. The Commissioner of the General Land Office in Washington and the Secretary of the Interior also provided negative opinions. Patents were then issued to Ladd & Nott and properly recorded. A lawsuit was filed to annul Ladd's patent, going through all the State Courts and the Supreme Court of Oregon, each issuing negative rulings. Finally, in the United States Supreme Court, Associate Justice Miller overturned the decisions of all the lower courts and ordered the land to be returned to Mrs. Cruthers' heirs. The Court stated:[Pg 638]
In construing a benevolent statute of the government, made for the benefit of its own citizens, inviting and encouraging them to settle on its distant public lands, the words "single man," and "unmarried man" may, especially if aided by the context and other parts of the statute, be taken in a generic sense. Held, accordingly, that the fourth section of the Act of Congress, of September 27th, 1850, granting by way of donation, lands in Oregon Territory, to every white settler or occupant, American half-breed Indians included, embraced within the term single man an unmarried woman.
In interpreting a generous law from the government meant to benefit its citizens by encouraging them to settle on public lands, the terms "single man" and "unmarried man" can be understood more broadly, especially when considering the context and other parts of the law. Therefore, it was ruled that the fourth section of the Act of Congress from September 27th, 1850, which grants donated land in Oregon Territory to every white settler or occupant, including American half-breed Indians, also includes unmarried women under the term single man.
And the attorney, who carried this question to its final success, is now the Senator elect from Oregon, Hon. J. H. Mitchell, in whom the cause of equal rights to women has an added power on the floor of the United States Senate.
And the lawyer who took this issue to its successful conclusion is now the elected Senator from Oregon, Hon. J. H. Mitchell, who brings added strength to the fight for women's equal rights in the United States Senate.
Though the words persons, people, inhabitants, electors, citizens, are all used indiscriminately in the National and State constitutions, there was always a conflict of opinion, prior to the war, as to whether they were synonymous terms, as for instance:
Though the words persons, people, inhabitants, electors, citizens, are all used interchangeably in the National and State constitutions, there was always a debate, before the war, about whether they were the same terms, like for example:
No person shall be a representative who shall not have been seven years a citizen, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he is chosen. No person shall be a senator who shall not have been a citizen of the United States, and an inhabitant of that State in which he is chosen.
No person can be a representative unless they have been a citizen for seven years, and they must be an inhabitant of the State they are elected in at the time of their election. No person can be a senator unless they have been a citizen of the United States and an inhabitant of the State they are elected in.
But, whatever room there was for a doubt, under the old regime, the adoption of the XIV. Amendment settled that question forever, in its first sentence:
But whatever uncertainty existed under the old system, the XIV Amendment put that question to rest once and for all in its opening line:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
All people born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its authority are citizens of the United States and of the state where they live.
And the second settles the equal status of all persons—all citizens:
And the second establishes that everyone has equal status—all citizens:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No state can create or enforce any law that will limit the rights or freedoms of its citizens; nor can any state take away someone's life, liberty, or property without following fair legal procedures, nor deny anyone within its territory equal protection under the law.
The only question left to be settled now, is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens, and no State has a right to make any new law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several States, is to-day null and void, precisely as is every one against negroes. Is the right to vote one of the privileges or immunities of citizens? I think the disfranchised ex-rebels, and the ex-state prisoners will all agree with me, that it is not only one of them, but the one without which all the others are nothing. Seek first the kingdom of the ballot, and all things else shall be given thee, is the political injunction.
The only question left to settle now is: Are women people? I seriously doubt any of our opponents would be bold enough to say they’re not. Since women are people, they are citizens, and no state has the right to create any new law or enforce any old law that would limit their rights or freedoms. Therefore, any discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the various states is, today, null and void, just like any discrimination against Black people. Is the right to vote one of the rights or freedoms of citizens? I believe that the disenfranchised former rebels and former state prisoners would all agree with me that it is not only one of those rights, but the one without which all the others are meaningless. Seek first the power of the vote, and everything else will follow, is the political advice.
Webster, Worcester and Bouvier all define citizen to be a person, in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office. And prior to the adoption of the XIII. Amendment, by which slavery was forever abolished, and black men transformed from property to persons, the judicial opinions of the country had always been in harmony with these definitions. To be a person was to be a citizen, and to be a citizen was to be a voter. Associate Justice Washington, in defining the privileges and immunities of the citizen, more than fifty years ago, said:
Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen as someone in the United States who has the right to vote and hold office. Before the adoption of the XIII Amendment, which permanently ended slavery and changed black men from property to people, the court's decisions in the country were always consistent with these definitions. To be a person meant to be a citizen, and to be a citizen meant to be a voter. Associate Justice Washington, in defining the rights and protections of citizens more than fifty years ago, said:
They included all such privileges as were fundamental in their nature. And among them is the right to exercise the elective franchise and to hold office.
They included all the essential privileges. Among them are the right to vote and the right to hold office.
Even the "Dred Scott" decision, pronounced by the Abolitionists and[Pg 639] Republicans infamous, because it virtually declared "black men had no rights white men were bound to respect," gave this true and logical conclusion, that to be one of the people was to be a citizen and a voter. Chief Judge Daniels said:
Even the "Dred Scott" decision, labeled infamous by Abolitionists and[Pg 639] Republicans, essentially stated that "black men had no rights white men were bound to respect," leading to the true and logical conclusion that being part of the people meant being a citizen and a voter. Chief Judge Daniels said:
There is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of writers on government, or in any actual experiment heretofore tried, an exposition of the term citizen, which has not been considered as conferring the actual possession and enjoyment of the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political.
There isn't, or at least it's believed there isn't, a definition of the term citizen in the theories of government writers, or in any real-life experiments conducted so far, that doesn't view it as granting the full right to access and enjoy complete equality in civil and political privileges.
Associate Justice Taney said:
Associate Justice Taney said:
The words "people of the United States" and "citizens," are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body, who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government, through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people, and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.
The terms "people of the United States" and "citizens" are interchangeable and mean the same thing. They both refer to the political entity that, according to our republican system, constitutes the sovereignty, holding the power and running the government through their representatives. They are what we commonly refer to as the sovereign people, and every citizen is part of this group and a crucial member of this sovereignty.
Thus does Judge Taney's decision, which was such a terrible ban to the black man while he was a slave, now that he is a person, no longer property, pronounce him a citizen, possessed of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political. And not only the black man, but the black woman, and all women as well. And it was not until after the abolition of slavery, by which the negroes became free men, hence citizens, that the United States Attorney-General Bates rendered a contrary opinion:
Thus, Judge Taney's decision, which was such a harsh restriction for black people while they were enslaved, now that they are recognized as individuals and no longer property, declares them citizens with full equality of rights, both civil and political. This applies not only to black men but also to black women, and to all women in general. It wasn't until after slavery was abolished, making black people free and therefore citizens, that the U.S. Attorney General Bates issued a different opinion:
The Constitution uses the word "citizen" only to express the political quality (not equality, mark) of the individual in his relation to the nation; to declare that he is a member of the body politic, and bound to it by the reciprocal obligations of allegiance on the one side, and protection on the other. The phrase "a citizen of the United States," without addition or qualification, means neither more nor less than a member of the nation.
The Constitution uses the term "citizen" solely to describe the political status (not equality, note) of a person in relation to the nation; to state that they are a member of the political community and are connected to it by the mutual responsibilities of loyalty on one side and protection on the other. The phrase "a citizen of the United States," without any additions or qualifications, means nothing more or less than a member of the nation.
Then, to be a citizen of this Republic, is no more than to be a subject of an Empire. You and I, and all true and patriotic citizens must repudiate this base conclusion. We all know that American citizenship, without addition or qualification, means the possession of equal rights, civil and political. We all know that the crowning glory of every citizen of the United States is, that he can either give or withhold his vote from every law and every legislator under the government. Did "I am a Roman citizen," mean nothing more than that I am a "member" of the body politic of the Republic of Rome, bound to it by the reciprocal obligations of allegiance on the one side, and protection on the other? When you, young man, shall travel abroad among the monarchies of the old world, and there proudly boast yourself an "American citizen," will you thereby declare yourself neither more nor less than a "member" of the American nation?
Then, being a citizen of this Republic is no more than being a subject of an Empire. You and I, and all true and patriotic citizens must reject this false idea. We all know that American citizenship, without any additions or qualifications, means having equal civil and political rights. We all know that the greatest privilege of every citizen of the United States is the ability to either give or withhold their vote from every law and every legislator in the government. Did "I am a Roman citizen" mean nothing more than that I am a "member" of the political body of the Republic of Rome, bound to it by mutual obligations of loyalty on one side and protection on the other? When you, young man, travel abroad among the monarchies of the old world, and proudly declare yourself an "American citizen," will you really be saying you are nothing more than a "member" of the American nation?
And this opinion of Attorney-General Bates, that a black citizen was not a voter, made merely to suit the political exigency of the Republican party in that transition hour between emancipation and enfranchisement, was no less infamous, in spirit or purpose, than was the decision of Judge Taney, that a black man was not one of the people, rendered in the interest and at the behest of the old Democratic party, in its darkest hour of subjection to the Slave power. Nevertheless, all of the adverse arguments, adverse congressional reports and judicial opinions, thus far, have been based on this purely partisan, time-serving opinion of General Bates, that the normal[Pg 640] condition of the citizen of the United States is that of disfranchisement. That only such classes of citizens as have had special legislative guarantee have a legal right to vote. And if this decision of Attorney-General Bates was infamous, as against black men, but yesterday plantation slaves, what shall we pronounce upon Judge Bingham, in the House of Representatives, and Carpenter, in the Senate of the United States, for citing it against the women of the entire nation, vast numbers of whom are the peers of those honorable gentlemen themselves, in morals, intellect, culture, wealth, family—paying taxes on large estates, and contributing equally with them and their sex, in every direction, to the growth, prosperity, and well-being of the Republic? And what shall be said of the judicial opinions of Judges Cartter, Jameson, McKay, and Sharswood, all based upon this aristocratic monarchical idea, of the right of one class to govern another?
And this opinion from Attorney-General Bates that a Black citizen wasn’t a voter, made just to fit the political needs of the Republican party during that critical time between emancipation and voting rights, was just as disgraceful, in spirit and intention, as Judge Taney’s ruling that a Black man wasn’t one of the people, made to benefit and at the request of the old Democratic party, during its darkest period of submission to the Slave power. However, all the negative arguments, unfriendly congressional reports, and judicial opinions so far have been based on this purely partisan, self-serving opinion of General Bates that the default condition of a citizen of the United States is disfranchisement. That only certain classes of citizens who have received specific legislative guarantees have the legal right to vote. And if Attorney-General Bates's opinion was shameful against Black men, who were just recently plantation slaves, what should we say about Judge Bingham in the House of Representatives and Carpenter in the Senate of the United States for using it against women across the nation, many of whom are equal to those honorable gentlemen in morals, intellect, culture, wealth, and family—paying taxes on large estates and contributing equally with them and their gender in many ways to the growth, prosperity, and well-being of the Republic? And what shall we say about the judicial opinions of Judges Cartter, Jameson, McKay, and Sharswood, all based on this elitist monarchical idea of one class having the right to rule over another?
I am proud to mention the names of the two United States judges who have given opinions honorable to our Republican idea, and honorable to themselves—Judge Howe, of Wyoming Territory, and Judge Underwood, of Virginia. The former gave it as his opinion a year ago, when the Legislature seemed likely to revoke the law enfranchising the women of that Territory, that, in case they succeeded, the women would still possess the right to vote under the XIV. Amendment. Judge Underwood, of Virginia, in noticing the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, denying to women the right to vote, under the XIV. Amendment, says:
I’m proud to mention the names of two U.S. judges who have upheld our Republican values and also earned respect for themselves—Judge Howe from Wyoming Territory and Judge Underwood from Virginia. A year ago, the former stated that if the Legislature managed to overturn the law allowing women in that Territory to vote, the women would still retain their right to vote under the XIV Amendment. Judge Underwood, commenting on the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which denied women the right to vote under the XIV Amendment, says:
If the people of the United States, by amendment of their Constitution, could expunge, without any explanatory or assisting legislation, an adjective of five letters from all State constitutions, and thereby raise millions of our most ignorant fellow-citizens to all the rights and privileges of electors, why should not the same people, by the same Amendment, expunge an adjective of four letters from the same State constitutions, and thereby raise other millions of more educated and better informed citizens to equal rights and privileges, without explanatory or assisting legislation?
If the people of the United States can remove, through an amendment to their Constitution, a five-letter adjective from all State constitutions—raising millions of our most uninformed fellow citizens to full voting rights—why can't the same people, through the same Amendment, remove a four-letter adjective from those same State constitutions, thereby granting equal rights and privileges to millions of more educated and informed citizens, without any need for explanatory or additional legislation?
If the XIV. Amendment does not secure to all citizens the right to vote, for what purpose was that grand old charter of the fathers lumbered with its unwieldy proportions? The Republican party, and Judges Howard and Bingham, who drafted the document, pretended it was to do something for black men; and if that something was not to secure them in their right to vote and hold office, what could it have been? For, by the XIII. Amendment, black men had become people, and hence were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the Government, precisely as were the women of the country and foreign men not naturalized. According to Associate Justice Washington, they already had the
If the XIV Amendment doesn't guarantee all citizens the right to vote, what is the point of that great old charter from our founders? The Republican party, along with Judges Howard and Bingham, who created the document, claimed it was meant to benefit black men; and if that benefit wasn’t to ensure their right to vote and hold office, then what was it for? Because, with the XIII Amendment, black men were recognized as people and were thus entitled to all the rights and protections of the Government, just like women in the country and foreign men who weren't naturalized. According to Associate Justice Washington, they already had the
Protection of the Government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general welfare of the whole; the right of a citizen of one State to pass through or to reside in any other State for the purpose of trade, agriculture, professional pursuit, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal, and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State.
Protection from the government, the right to enjoy life and freedom, the ability to acquire and own property of all kinds, and the pursuit of happiness and safety, all while following the reasonable regulations the government sets for the common good; the right for a citizen of one state to travel through or live in any other state for purposes like trade, farming, work, or other activities; the right to benefit from the writ of habeas corpus, to start and carry on legal actions in the state's courts; the ability to own, hold, and sell property, whether real or personal, and to be exempt from higher taxes or fees than those paid by other citizens of the state.
Thus, you see, those newly-made freed men were in possession of every possible right, privilege, and immunity of the Government, except that of suffrage,[Pg 641] and hence, needed no constitutional amendment for any other purpose. What right, I ask you, has the Irishman the day after he receives his naturalization papers that he did not possess the day before, save the right to vote and hold office? And the Chinamen, now crowding our Pacific coast, are in precisely the same position. What privilege or immunity has California or Oregon the constitutional right to deny them, save that of the ballot? Clearly, then, if the XIV. Amendment was not to secure to black men their right to vote, it did nothing for them, since they possessed everything else before. But if it was meant to be a prohibition of the States to deny or abridge their right to vote—which I fully believe—then it did the same for all persons, white women included, born or naturalized in the United States, for the amendment does not say all male persons of African descent, but all persons are citizens.
So, you can see that those newly freed individuals had all the rights, privileges, and protections of the government, except for the right to vote,[Pg 641] and therefore, no constitutional amendment was needed for anything else. What right, I ask, does an Irishman have the day after he gets his naturalization papers that he didn’t have the day before, other than the right to vote and run for office? And the Chinese immigrants, now filling our Pacific coast, are in exactly the same situation. What privilege or protection does California or Oregon have the constitutional right to deny them, other than the ballot? Clearly, if the XIV Amendment wasn’t intended to secure black men’s right to vote, it didn’t do anything for them, since they already had everything else. But if it was meant to prevent the States from denying or limiting their right to vote—which I firmly believe—then it applies to all people, including white women, born or naturalized in the United States, because the amendment doesn’t say all male persons of African descent, but rather that all persons are citizens.
The second section is simply a threat to punish the States, by reducing their representation on the floor of Congress, should they disfranchise any class of male citizens, and does not allow of the inference that the States may disfranchise from any, or all other causes; nor in anywise weaken or invalidate the universal guarantee of the first section. What rule of law or logic would allow the conclusion, that the prohibition of a crime to one person, on severe pains and penalties, was a sanction of that crime to any and all other persons save that one? But, however much the doctors of the law may disagree, as to whether people and citizens, in the original constitution, were one and the same, or whether the privileges and immunities in the XIV. Amendment include the right of suffrage, the question of the right of the citizen to vote is settled forever by the XV. Amendment:
The second section basically threatens to reduce a state's representation in Congress if it denies the right to vote to any group of male citizens. It doesn’t imply that states can disenfranchise for any other reason; nor does it weaken or nullify the universal guarantee in the first section. What principle of law or reasoning would suggest that prohibiting a crime for one person, with serious consequences, somehow allows that crime for everyone else except that one person? However, no matter how much legal experts disagree on whether "people" and "citizens" were considered the same in the original Constitution, or if the privileges and immunities in the XIV. Amendment include the right to vote, the question of a citizen’s right to vote is permanently resolved by the XV. Amendment:
The citizen's right to vote shall not be denied by the United States, nor any State thereof; on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The right to vote shall not be denied to any citizen of the United States or any State because of race, color, or prior status of servitude.
How can the State deny or abridge the right of the citizen, if the citizen does not possess it? There is no escape from the conclusion, that to vote is the citizen's right, and the specifications of race, color, or previous condition of servitude can, in no way, impair the force of the emphatic assertion, that the citizen's right to vote shall not be denied or abridged. The political strategy of the second section of the XIV. Amendment, failing to coerce the rebel States into enfranchising their negroes, and the necessities of the Republican party demanding their votes throughout the South, to insure the re-election of Grant in 1872, that party was compelled to place this positive prohibition of the XV. Amendment upon the United States and all the States thereof.
How can the State deny or limit a citizen's right if the citizen doesn’t actually have it? There's no avoiding the conclusion that voting is a right of the citizen, and characteristics like race, color, or previous status of servitude cannot diminish the strong statement that a citizen’s right to vote shall not be denied or limited. The political strategy in the second section of the XIV Amendment, which failed to pressure the rebel States into allowing their Black citizens to vote, along with the Republican Party's need for their votes in the South to secure Grant's re-election in 1872, forced the party to impose this explicit restriction of the XV Amendment on the United States and all its States.
If we once establish the false principle, that United States citizenship does not carry with it the right to vote in every State in this Union, there is no end to the petty freaks and cunning devices that will be resorted to, to exclude one and another class of citizens from the right of suffrage. It will not always be men combining to disfranchise women; native-born men combining to abridge the rights of naturalized citizens, as in Rhode Island; it will not always be the rich and educated who may combine to cut off the poor and ignorant; but we may live to see the poor, hard-working, uncultivated day laborers, foreign and native born, learning the power of the ballot and their vast majority of numbers, combine and amend State constitutions so as to disfranchise the Vanderbilts and A. T. Stewarts, the Conklings and[Pg 642] Fentons. It is a poor rule that won't work more ways than one. Establish this precedent, admit the right of the States to deny suffrage, and there is no power to foresee the confusion, discord, and disruption that may await us. There is, and can be, but one safe principle of government—equal rights to all. And any and every discrimination against any class, whether on account of color, race, nativity, sex, property, culture, can but embitter and disaffect that class, and thereby endanger the safety of the whole people. Clearly, then, the National government must not only define the rights of citizens, but it must stretch out its powerful hand and protect them in every State in this Union.
If we accept the false idea that U.S. citizenship doesn’t guarantee the right to vote in every state, there will be no limit to the petty tricks and schemes that will be used to exclude different groups of citizens from voting. It won't just be men trying to disenfranchise women; it won’t always be native-born men working to limit the rights of naturalized citizens, like in Rhode Island; it won’t always be the wealthy and educated trying to shut out the poor and uneducated. In fact, we could see hard-working, uneducated laborers—both foreign and native-born—recognizing the power of their vote and their large numbers, uniting to change state constitutions to disenfranchise people like the Vanderbilts and A. T. Stewarts, the Conklings and[Pg 642] Fentons. A rule that doesn’t work in multiple ways is a bad rule. If we set this precedent and allow states to deny voting rights, we can't predict the chaos, conflict, and upheaval that could follow. There is only one safe principle of government—equal rights for everyone. Any discrimination against any group, whether based on color, race, nationality, gender, wealth, or education, will only create resentment and unrest within that group, threatening the safety of all. Clearly, the national government must not only define citizens' rights but also use its power to protect those rights in every state across the Union.
But if you will insist that the XV. Amendment's emphatic interdiction against robbing United States citizens of their right to vote, "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," is a recognition of the right, either of the United States or any State, to rob citizens of that right for any or all other reasons, I will prove to you that the class of citizens for which I now plead, and to which I belong, may be, and are, by all the principles of our Government, and many of the laws of the States, included under the term "previous condition of servitude."
But if you insist that the XV Amendment's strong ban on taking away United States citizens' right to vote "because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" means that it’s okay for the United States or any State to take that right away for any other reasons, I'll show you that the group of citizens I’m advocating for, and belong to, can be, and often are, covered by the term "previous condition of servitude" according to all the principles of our Government and many State laws.
First.—The married women and their legal status. What is servitude? "The condition of a slave." What is a slave? "A person who is robbed of the proceeds of his labor; a person who is subject to the will of another."
First.—The married women and their legal status. What is servitude? "The state of being a slave." What is a slave? "A person who is deprived of the benefits of their work; a person who is controlled by someone else."
By the law of Georgia, South Carolina, and all the States of the South, the negro had no right to the custody and control of his person. He belonged to his master. If he was disobedient, the master had the right to use correction. If the negro didn't like the correction, and attempted to run away, the master had a right to use coercion to bring him back. By the law of every State in this Union to-day, North as well as South, the married woman has no right to the custody and control of her person. The wife belongs to her husband; and if she refuses obedience to his will, he may use moderate correction, and if she doesn't like his moderate correction, and attempts to leave his "bed and board," the husband may use moderate coercion to bring her back. The little word "moderate," you see, is the saving clause for the wife, and would doubtless be overstepped should her offended husband administer his correction with the "cat-o'-nine-tails," or accomplish his coercion with blood-hounds.
By the laws of Georgia, South Carolina, and all the Southern states, Black people had no control over their own bodies. They belonged to their owners. If they disobeyed, the owner had the right to punish them. If a Black person didn't accept this punishment and tried to escape, the owner could use force to bring them back. Under the laws of every state in this country today, both North and South, married women also have no control over their own bodies. A wife belongs to her husband, and if she disobeys him, he can administer reasonable punishment. If she doesn't accept this reasonable punishment and tries to leave their home, her husband can use reasonable force to bring her back. The word "reasonable," you see, is the protection for the wife, and it would likely be disregarded if her angry husband decided to punish her severely or use dogs to capture her.
Again, the slave had no right to the earnings of his hands, they belonged to his master; no right to the custody of his children, they belonged to his master; no right to sue or be sued, or testify in the courts. If he committed a crime, it was the master who must sue or be sued. In many of the States there has been special legislation, giving to married women the right to property inherited, or received by bequest, or earned by the pursuit of any avocation outside of the home; also, giving her the right to sue and be sued in matters pertaining to such separate property; but not a single State of this Union has ever secured the wife in the enjoyment of her right to the joint ownership of the joint earnings of the marriage copartnership. And since, in the nature of things, the vast majority of married women never earn a dollar by work outside of their families, nor inherit a dollar from their fathers, it follows that from the day of their marriage to the day of the death of their husbands, not one of them ever has a dollar, except it shall please her husband[Pg 643] to let her have it. In some of the States, also, there have been laws passed giving to the mother a joint right with the father in the guardianship of the children. But twenty years ago, when our woman's rights movement commenced, by the laws of the State of New York, and all the States, the father had the sole custody and control of the children. No matter if he were a brutal, drunken libertine, he had the legal right, without the mother's consent, to apprentice her sons to rumsellers, or her daughters to brothel keepers. He could even will away an unborn child, to some other person than the mother. And in many of the States the law still prevails, and legal mothers are still utterly powerless under the common law.
Again, the enslaved person had no claim to the money they earned; it belonged to their master. They had no right to the care of their children, who also belonged to their master; no right to sue or be sued, or to testify in court. If they committed a crime, it was the master who had to sue or be sued. In many states, there has been specific legislation granting married women the right to property they inherit, receive through a will, or earn through work outside the home; this also includes the right to sue and be sued regarding such separate property; but not a single state in this union has ever guaranteed a wife the right to jointly own the shared earnings of the marriage partnership. Since, by nature, the vast majority of married women do not earn any money through work outside their families and do not inherit anything from their fathers, it follows that from the day they marry until their husbands die, they have no money unless their husband chooses to give it to them[Pg 643]. In some states, laws have been passed giving mothers joint rights with fathers in the guardianship of children. But twenty years ago, when the women's rights movement began, the laws in New York and all other states stated that fathers had sole custody and control of the children. No matter if he was a cruel, drunken abuser, he had the legal right, without the mother’s consent, to apprentice her sons to liquor sellers or her daughters to brothel owners. He could even will away an unborn child to someone other than the mother. And in many states, this law still exists, leaving legal mothers utterly powerless under common law.
I doubt if there is, to-day, a State in this Union where a married woman can sue or be sued for slander of character, and until quite recently there was not one in which she could sue or be sued for injury of person. However damaging to the wife's reputation any slander may be, she is wholly powerless to institute legal proceedings against her accuser, unless her husband shall join with her; and how often have we heard of the husband conspiring with some outside barbarian to blast the good name of his wife. A married woman can not testify in the courts in cases of joint interest with her husband. A good farmer's wife near Earlville, Ill., who had all the rights she wanted, went to the dentist of the village, who made her a full set of false teeth, both upper and under. The dentist pronounced them an admirable fit, and the wife declared they gave her fits to wear them; that she could neither chew nor talk with them in her mouth. The dentist sued the husband; his counsel brought the wife as witness; the judge ruled her off the stand, saying:
I doubt there’s any state in the U.S. today where a married woman can sue or be sued for defamation, and until recently, there wasn’t one where she could sue or be sued for personal injury either. No matter how damaging slanderous comments might be to her reputation, she has no power to take legal action against her accuser unless her husband joins her; and how often have we seen husbands colluding with outsiders to tarnish their wives’ names? A married woman can’t testify in court if it involves a shared interest with her husband. A farmer’s wife near Earlville, Ill., who had all the rights she needed, went to the local dentist to get a complete set of dentures, both upper and lower. The dentist said they fit perfectly, but the wife said they were uncomfortable to wear; she couldn’t chew or talk with them in. The dentist sued the husband, and his attorney called the wife as a witness, but the judge dismissed her from the stand, saying:
A married woman can not be a witness in matters of joint interest between herself and her husband.
A married woman cannot be a witness in cases where she and her husband have a joint interest.
Think of it, ye good wives, the false teeth in your mouths a joint interest with your husbands, about which you are legally incompetent to speak! If in our frequent and shocking railroad accidents a married woman is injured in her person, in nearly all of the States, it is her husband who must sue the company, and it is to her husband that the damages, if there are any, will be awarded. In Ashfield, Mass., supposed to be the most advanced of any State in the Union in all things, humanitarian as well as intellectual, a married woman was severely injured by a defective sidewalk. Her husband sued the corporation and recovered $13,000 damages. And those $13,000 belong to him bona fide; and whenever that unfortunate wife wishes a dollar of it to supply her needs she must ask her husband for it; and if the man be of a narrow, selfish, niggardly nature, she will have to hear him say, every time:
Think about it, you good wives—your false teeth are a shared interest with your husbands that you’re not legally allowed to discuss! If there’s a serious railroad accident and a married woman gets injured, in nearly all states, it’s her husband who has to sue the company, and any damages awarded will go to him. In Ashfield, Mass., considered the most progressive state in the country, a married woman was badly hurt by a broken sidewalk. Her husband took the corporation to court and won $13,000. That $13,000 legally belongs to him, and whenever that unfortunate wife needs a dollar from it, she has to ask her husband. If he’s a narrow-minded, selfish person, she’ll have to hear him say, every single time:
"What have you done, my dear, with the twenty-five cents I gave you yesterday?"
"What did you do with the twenty-five cents I gave you yesterday, my dear?"
Isn't such a position, I ask you, humiliating enough to be called "servitude"? That husband, as would any other husband, in nearly every State of this Union, sued and obtained damages for the loss of the services of his wife, precisely as the master, under the old slave regime, would have done, had his slave been thus injured, and precisely as he himself would have done had it been his ox, cow, or horse instead of his wife. There is an old saying that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," and I submit if the deprivation by law of the ownership of one's own person,[Pg 644] wages, property, children, the denial of the right as an individual, to sue and be sued, and to testify in the courts, is not a condition of servitude most bitter and absolute, though under the sacred name of marriage?
Isn't such a situation, I ask you, humiliating enough to be called "servitude"? That husband, like any other husband, in nearly every state of this country, sued and received compensation for the loss of his wife's services, just like a master under the old slave system would have done if his slave had been injured, and exactly like he would have done if it were his ox, cow, or horse instead of his wife. There's an old saying that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," and I propose that the legal denial of ownership of one’s own body, wages, property, children, and the right as an individual to sue and be sued, and to testify in court, is not a condition of servitude that is utterly bitter and absolute, even if it’s under the sacred name of marriage?[Pg 644]
Does any lawyer doubt my statement of the legal status of married women? I will remind him of the fact that the old common law of England prevails in every State in this Union, except where the Legislature has enacted special laws annulling it. And I am ashamed that not one State has yet blotted from its statute books the old common law of marriage, by which Blackstone, summed up in the fewest words possible, is made to say: "Husband and wife are one, and that one is the husband."
Does any lawyer doubt my statement about the legal status of married women? I want to remind them that the old common law of England is still in effect in every state in this Union, unless the Legislature has passed specific laws to cancel it. And I’m ashamed that not a single state has removed the old common law of marriage from its statutes, which Blackstone summed up in the simplest terms: "Husband and wife are one, and that one is the husband."
Thus may all married women, wives, and widows, by the laws of the several States, be technically included in the XV. Amendment's specification of "condition of servitude," present or previous. And not only married women, but I will also prove to you that by all the great fundamental principles of our free government, the entire womanhood of the nation is in a "condition of servitude" as surely as were our revolutionary fathers, when they rebelled against old King George. Women are taxed without representation, governed without their consent, tried, convicted, and punished without a jury of their peers. And is all this tyranny any less humiliating and degrading to women under our democratic-republican government to-day than it was to men under their aristocratic, monarchical government one hundred years ago? There is not an utterance of old John Adams, John Hancock, or Patrick Henry, but finds a living response in the soul of every intelligent, patriotic woman of the nation. Bring to me a common-sense woman property holder, and I will show you one whose soul is fired with all the indignation of 1776, every time the tax-gatherer presents himself at her door. You will not find one such but feels her condition of servitude as galling as did James Otis when he said:
Thus, all married women, wives, and widows, according to the laws of the various States, can be technically included in the XV. Amendment's definition of "condition of servitude," whether current or past. And it's not just married women; I will also show you that by all the core principles of our free government, all women in the nation are in a "condition of servitude" just like our revolutionary fathers were when they stood up against old King George. Women are taxed without representation, governed without their consent, tried, convicted, and punished without a jury of their peers. Is this tyranny any less humiliating and degrading to women in our democratic-republican government today than it was for men under their aristocratic, monarchical government a hundred years ago? Every statement from John Adams, John Hancock, or Patrick Henry resonates deeply with the spirit of every intelligent, patriotic woman in the nation. Bring me a sensible woman who owns property, and I'll show you one who feels all the frustration of 1776 every time the tax collector shows up at her door. You won’t find one who doesn't feel her condition of servitude is as unbearable as it was for James Otis when he said:
The very act of taxing exercised over those who are not represented appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights, and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right. For, what one civil right is worth a rush after a man's property is subject to be taken from him at pleasure without his consent? If a man is not his own assessor in person, or by deputy, his liberty is gone, or he is wholly at the mercy of others.
The act of taxing people who have no representation feels like taking away one of their most fundamental rights. If this continues, it basically removes every civil right. After all, what good are civil rights if a person's property can be taken whenever someone feels like it, without their consent? If a person can’t assess their own taxes, either directly or through someone else, their freedom is lost, and they are completely at the mercy of others.
What was the three-penny tax on tea, or the paltry tax on paper and sugar to which our revolutionary fathers were subjected, when compared with the taxation of the women of this Republic? The orphaned Pixley sisters, six dollars a day; and even the women who are proclaiming the tyranny of taxation without representation, from city to city throughout the country, are often compelled to pay a tax for the poor privilege of protesting against the outrage. And again, to show that disfranchisement was precisely the slavery of which the fathers complained, allow me to cite to you old Ben. Franklin, who in those olden times was admitted to be good authority, not merely in domestic economy, but in political as well:
What were the three-penny tax on tea or the small tax on paper and sugar that our revolutionary ancestors faced, compared to the taxation of the women in this Republic? The orphaned Pixley sisters, six dollars a day; and even the women who are shouting about the injustice of taxation without representation, from city to city across the country, are often forced to pay a tax just to have the right to protest against this unfairness. Furthermore, to demonstrate that disenfranchisement was exactly the kind of slavery that our forefathers complained about, let me quote old Ben Franklin, who back in the day was recognized as a reliable source, not just in household management, but in politics as well:
Every man of the commonalty, except infants, insane persons and criminals, is, of common right and the law of God, a freeman and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty. That liberty or freedom consists in having an actual share in the appointment of those who are to frame the laws, and who are to be the guardians of every man's life, property, and peace. For the all of one man is as dear to him as the all of another; and the poor man has an equal right, but more need to have representatives in the Legislature[Pg 645] than the rich one. That they who have no voice or vote in the electing of representatives do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes and their representatives; for to be enslaved is to have governors whom other men have set over us, and to be subject to laws made by the representatives of others, without having had representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf.
Every man in the general public, except for infants, the insane, and criminals, has the right, according to God’s law and common rights, to be a free person and to fully enjoy their freedom. This freedom means having a real say in who gets to make the laws and who protects everyone’s life, property, and peace. What belongs to one person is just as important to them as what belongs to anyone else; and the poor have just as much right, but often a greater need, for representatives in the Legislature[Pg 645] compared to the rich. Those who can’t vote or have a say in choosing their representatives don’t truly enjoy freedom; instead, they are completely enslaved to those who can vote and their representatives. Being enslaved means having rulers imposed on us by others and being subject to laws made by representatives we didn’t choose, without having anyone to represent us and voice our consent.
Suppose I read it with the feminine gender:
Suppose I read it with a female perspective:
That women who have no voice nor vote in the electing of representatives, do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to men who have votes and their representatives; for to be enslaved is to have governors whom men have set over us, and to be subject to the laws made by the representatives of men, without having representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf.
That women who have no voice or vote in electing representatives do not enjoy freedom but are completely enslaved to men who do have votes and their representatives. Being enslaved means being governed by those men have placed over us and being subject to laws created by the representatives of men, without having representatives of our own to give consent on our behalf.
And yet one more authority; that of Thomas Paine, than whom not one of the Revolutionary patriots more ably vindicated the principles upon which our government is founded:
And yet another authority; that of Thomas Paine, who was one of the Revolutionary patriots that most effectively defended the principles on which our government is based:
The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce man to a state of slavery; for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another; and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case. The proposal, therefore, to disfranchise any class of men is as criminal as the proposal to take away property.
The right to vote for representatives is the essential right that protects all other rights. Taking away this right reduces a person to a state of slavery, since slavery means being controlled by someone else; and someone who can't vote in the election of representatives is in that situation. Therefore, the suggestion to disenfranchise any group of people is just as wrong as the suggestion to take away their property.
Is anything further needed to prove woman's condition of servitude sufficiently orthodox to entitle her to the guarantees of the XV. Amendment? Is there a man who will not agree with me, that to talk of freedom without the ballot, is mockery—is slavery—to the women of this Republic, precisely as New England's orator, Wendell Phillips, at the close of the late war, declared it to be to the newly emancipated black men?
Is anything else needed to show that women's situation of servitude is valid enough to deserve the protections of the 15th Amendment? Is there any man who would disagree with me that discussing freedom without the right to vote is a joke—it's slavery—for the women of this country, just like New England's speaker, Wendell Phillips, said it was for the newly freed black men at the end of the last war?
I admit that prior to the rebellion, by common consent, the right to enslave, as well as to disfranchise both native and foreign born citizens, was conceded to the States. But the one grand principle, settled by the war and the reconstruction legislation, is the supremacy of National power to protect the citizens of the United States in their right to freedom and the elective franchise, against any and every interference on the part of the several States. And again and again, have the American people asserted the triumph of this principle, by their overwhelming majorities for Lincoln and Grant. The one issue of the last two Presidential elections was, whether the XIV. and XV. Amendments should be considered the irrevocable will of the people; and the decision was, they shall be—and that it is not only the right, but the duty of the National government to protect all United States citizens in the full enjoyment and free exercise of all their privileges and immunities against any attempt of any State to deny or abridge. And in this conclusion Republicans and Democrats alike agree.
I acknowledge that before the rebellion, it was widely accepted that States had the right to enslave and disenfranchise both native and foreign-born citizens. However, the key principle established by the war and the reconstruction laws is that National power is supreme in protecting U.S. citizens' rights to freedom and voting against any interference from the States. Time and again, the American people have reaffirmed this principle by voting overwhelmingly for Lincoln and Grant. The main issue in the last two Presidential elections was whether the XIV and XV Amendments should be seen as the unchangeable will of the people, and the conclusion was that they shall be viewed that way. It is not only the right but also the responsibility of the National government to ensure that all U.S. citizens fully enjoy and freely exercise all their rights and privileges against any actions by a State to deny or limit them. In this agreement, both Republicans and Democrats stand united.
Senator Frelinghuysen said—The heresy of State rights has been completely buried in these amendments, that as amended, the Constitution confers not only National but State citizenship upon all persons born or naturalized within our limits.
Senator Frelinghuysen said—The idea of State rights has been totally eliminated in these amendments, which state that the Constitution, as amended, grants not only National but also State citizenship to everyone born or naturalized within our borders.
The Call for the National Republican Convention said—Equal suffrage has been engrafted on the National Constitution; the privileges and immunities of American citizenship have become a part of the organic law.
The Call for the National Republican Convention said—Equal voting rights are now part of the National Constitution; the rights and protections of American citizenship have become a fundamental law.
The National Republican Platform said—Complete liberty and exact equality in the enjoyment of all civil, political, and public rights, should be established and maintained throughout the Union by efficient and appropriate State and Federal legislation.
The National Republican Platform stated—Complete freedom and true equality in the enjoyment of all civil, political, and public rights should be established and upheld across the Union through effective and suitable state and federal legislation.
If these assertions mean anything, it is that Congress should pass a law compelling the States to protect women in their equal political rights, and[Pg 646] that the States should enact laws making it the duty of inspectors of election to receive women's votes on precisely the same conditions they do those of men.
If these claims have any significance, it means that Congress should enact a law requiring the States to safeguard women's equal political rights, and[Pg 646] that the States should create laws making it the responsibility of election inspectors to accept women's votes under the same conditions as men's votes.
Judge Stanley Matthews—a substantial Ohio Democrat—in his preliminary speech at the Cincinnati Convention, said most emphatically:
Judge Stanley Matthews—a prominent Democrat from Ohio—stated very clearly in his opening speech at the Cincinnati Convention:
The Constitutional Amendments have established the political equality of all citizens before the law.
The Constitutional Amendments have established that all citizens are politically equal under the law.
President Grant, in his message to Congress March 30, 1870, on the adoption of the XV. Amendment, said:
President Grant, in his message to Congress on March 30, 1870, regarding the adoption of the XV Amendment, stated:
A measure which makes at once four millions of people voters, is indeed a measure of greater importance than any act of the kind from the foundation of the Government to the present time.
A law that instantly turns four million people into voters is definitely more significant than any similar action since the establishment of the Government up to now.
How could the four million negroes be made voters if the two million women were not included?
How could the four million Black people become voters if the two million women weren't included?
The California State Republican Convention said:
The California State Republican Convention stated:
Among the many practical and substantial triumphs of the principles achieved by the Republican party during the past twelve years, we may enumerate with pride and pleasure, the prohibiting of any State from abridging the privileges of any citizen of the Republic, the declaring the civil and political equality of every citizen, and the establishing of all these principles in the Federal Constitution by amendments thereto, as the permanent law.
Among the many significant achievements of the Republican Party over the past twelve years, we can proudly and happily highlight the prohibition against any state limiting the rights of any citizen of the Republic, the declaration of civil and political equality for every citizen, and the establishment of these principles in the Federal Constitution through amendments, making them permanent law.
Benjamin F. Butler, in a recent letter to me said:
Benjamin F. Butler recently wrote to me:
I do not believe anybody in Congress doubts that the Constitution authorizes the right of women to vote, precisely as it authorizes trial by jury and many other like rights guaranteed to citizens. And again, It is not laws we want; there are plenty of laws—good enough, too. Administrative ability to enforce law is the great want of the age, in this country especially. Everybody talks of law, law. If everybody would insist on the enforcement of law, the government would stand on a firmer basis, and questions would settle themselves.
I don’t think anyone in Congress doubts that the Constitution gives women the right to vote, just like it guarantees trial by jury and many other rights for citizens. Also, what we need isn’t more laws; there are already plenty of good ones. What we really need is the administrative ability to enforce those laws, especially in this country. Everyone talks about law, law, law. If everyone demanded that the laws be enforced, the government would be on a stronger foundation, and issues would resolve themselves.
And it is upon this just interpretation of the United States Constitution that our National Woman Suffrage Association, which celebrates the twenty-fifth anniversary of the woman's rights movement, in New York on the 6th of May next, has based all its arguments and action the past three years. We no longer petition Legislature or Congress to give us the right to vote. We appeal to the women everywhere to exercise their too long neglected "citizen's right to vote." We appeal to the inspectors of election everywhere to receive the votes of all United States citizens, as it is their duty to do. We appeal to United States commissioners and marshals to arrest the inspectors who reject the names and votes of United States citizens, as it is their duty to do, and leave those alone who, like our eighth ward inspectors, perform their duties faithfully and well. We ask the juries to fail to return verdicts of "guilty" against honest, law-abiding, tax-paying United States citizens for offering their votes at our elections; or against intelligent, worthy young men, inspectors of election, for receiving and counting such citizens' votes. We ask the judges to render true and unprejudiced opinions of the law, and wherever there is room for a doubt to give its benefit on the side of liberty and equality to women, remembering that
And it is based on this fair interpretation of the United States Constitution that our National Woman Suffrage Association, which is celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the women's rights movement in New York on May 6th, has built all its arguments and actions over the past three years. We no longer ask the Legislature or Congress to grant us the right to vote. Instead, we encourage women everywhere to exercise their long-overlooked "citizen's right to vote." We urge election inspectors everywhere to accept the votes of all United States citizens, as they are obligated to do. We call on United States commissioners and marshals to arrest the inspectors who turn away the names and votes of United States citizens, as it is their responsibility, while leaving alone those who, like our eighth ward inspectors, carry out their duties faithfully and well. We ask juries not to return verdicts of "guilty" against honest, law-abiding, tax-paying United States citizens for attempting to vote in our elections; or against intelligent, deserving young men, who are election inspectors, for accepting and counting those citizens' votes. We ask judges to provide accurate and unbiased rulings on the law, and whenever there is room for doubt, to rule in favor of liberty and equality for women, remembering that
The true rule of interpretation under our National Constitution, especially since its Amendments, is that anything for human rights is constitutional, everything against human rights unconstitutional.
The real rule of interpretation under our National Constitution, especially after its Amendments, is that anything supporting human rights is constitutional, while anything opposing human rights is unconstitutional.
And it is on this line that we propose to fight our battle for the ballot—peaceably,[Pg 647] but nevertheless persistently to complete triumph, when all United States citizens shall be recognized as equals before the law.
And this is where we plan to fight our battle for the ballot—peacefully,[Pg 647] but still persistently until complete victory, when all citizens of the United States will be acknowledged as equals under the law.
Miss Anthony's trial opened the morning of the 18th of June. The lovely village of Canandaigua, with its placid lake reflecting the soft summer sky, gave no evidence of the great event that was to make the day and the place memorable in history. All was still, the usual peaceful atmosphere pervaded that conservative town, and with the exception of a small group of men and women in earnest conversation at the hotel, few there were who thought or cared about the great principles of government involved in the pending trial. When the tolling of the Court House bell announced that the hour had arrived, Miss Anthony, her counsel and friends, promptly appeared, and were soon followed by the District Attorney and Judge, representing the power of the United States,—Miss Anthony to stand as a criminal before the bar of her country for having dared to exercise a freeman's right of self-government, and that country through its Judiciary to falsify its grand declarations as to the equality of its citizens by a verdict of guilty because of sex.
Miss Anthony's trial began on the morning of June 18th. The beautiful village of Canandaigua, with its calm lake reflecting the gentle summer sky, showed no signs of the significant event that would make this day and place historic. Everything was quiet; the usual peaceful vibe filled that conservative town, and aside from a small group of men and women engaged in serious discussion at the hotel, few were thinking about or caring for the important principles of government at stake in the trial. When the Court House bell rang to signal that the time had come, Miss Anthony, along with her lawyer and friends, appeared promptly. They were soon followed by the District Attorney and the Judge, who represented the authority of the United States—Miss Anthony was to stand as a criminal before her country for daring to exercise the right of self-government, while that country, through its Judiciary, would contradict its own grand statements about equality among its citizens with a guilty verdict based on sex.
On the bench sat Judge Hunt, a small-brained, pale-faced, prim-looking man, enveloped in a faultless suit of black broadcloth, and a snowy white neck-tie. This was the first criminal case he had been called on to try since his appointment, and with remarkable forethought, he had penned his decision before hearing it. At times by his side sat Judge Hall, who had declared himself unwilling to try the suit. Within the bar sat Miss Anthony and counsel, the Hon. Henry R. Selden and Hon. John Van Voorhis, several of the ladies who had voted,[169] Mrs. Gage, and the United States District Attorney. Upon the right sat the jury, while all the remaining space was crowded with curious and anxious listeners, among whom were many men[170] prominent in public life.
On the bench sat Judge Hunt, a narrow-minded, pale-faced, prim-looking man, dressed in a perfectly tailored black suit and a crisp white necktie. This was the first criminal case he had been assigned to since his appointment, and with notable foresight, he had written his decision before even hearing the case. Occasionally next to him sat Judge Hall, who had stated that he did not want to handle the case. In the gallery sat Miss Anthony and her legal team, the Hon. Henry R. Selden and Hon. John Van Voorhis, along with several of the ladies who had voted, Mrs. Gage, and the United States District Attorney. To the right sat the jury, while the rest of the room was packed with curious and anxious onlookers, including many prominent men from public life.
United States Circuit Court. (Northern District of New York.)
The United States of America vs. Susan B. Anthony; Hon. Ward Hunt, Presiding. Appearances: For the United States: Hon. Richard Crowley, U. S. District Attorney; For the Defendant: Hon. Henry R. Selden, John Van Voorhis, Esq.
The United States of America vs. Susan B. Anthony; Hon. Ward Hunt, Presiding. Appearances: For the United States: Hon. Richard Crowley, U.S. District Attorney; For the Defendant: Hon. Henry R. Selden, John Van Voorhis, Esq.
Tried at Canandaigua, Tuesday and Wednesday, June 17th and 18th, 1873, before Hon. Ward Hunt, and a jury. Jury impaneled at 2:30 p.m.
Tried at Canandaigua on Tuesday and Wednesday, June 17th and 18th, 1873, before Hon. Ward Hunt and a jury. The jury was selected at 2:30 p.m.
Mr. Crowley opened the case as follows:
Mr. Crowley opened the case like this:
May it please the Court and Gentlemen of the Jury:
May it please the Court and Members of the Jury:
On the 5th of November, 1872, there was held in this State, as well as in other States of the Union, a general election for different officers, and among those, for candidates to represent several districts of this State in the Congress of the United States. The defendant, Miss Susan B. Anthony, at that time resided in the city of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, Northern District of New York, and upon the 5th day of November, 1872, she voted for a representative in the Congress of the United States, to represent the 29th Congressional District of this State, and also for a representative at large for the State of New York, to represent the State in the Congress of the United States. At that time she was a woman. I suppose there will be no question about that. The question in this case, if there be a question of fact about it at[Pg 649] all, will, in my judgment, be rather a question of law than one of fact. I suppose that there will be no question of fact, substantially, in the case when all of the evidence is out, and it will be for you to decide under the charge for his honor, the Judge, whether or not the defendant committed the offense of voting for a representative in Congress upon that occasion. We think, on the part of the Government, that there is no question about it either one way or the other, neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, and that whatever Miss Anthony's intentions may have been—whether they were good or otherwise—she did not have a right to vote upon that question, and if she did vote without having a lawful right to vote, then there is no question but what she is guilty of violating a law of the United States in that behalf enacted by the Congress of the United States.
On November 5, 1872, a general election was held in this State, as well as in other States across the Union, to choose various officials, including candidates to represent several districts in Congress. The defendant, Miss Susan B. Anthony, lived in the city of Rochester, in Monroe County, Northern District of New York, and on that day, she voted for a representative in Congress for the 29th Congressional District and also for a representative at large for the State of New York to serve in Congress. At that time, she was a woman. I assume there won't be any doubt about that. The main issue in this case, if there is any question of fact at all, will likely be more about the law than the facts. I believe there will be no substantial question of fact when all the evidence is presented, and it will be up to you to decide, based on the Judge's instructions, whether the defendant committed the offense of voting for a representative in Congress on that occasion. We, representing the Government, believe that there is no question either way, not a question of fact or law, and that regardless of what Miss Anthony's intentions were—whether good or bad—she did not have the legal right to vote on that matter, and if she did vote without that right, then it is clear she violated a law enacted by Congress.
We don't claim in this case, gentlemen, that Miss Anthony is of that class of people who go about "repeating." We don't claim that she went from place to place for the purpose of offering her vote. But we do claim that upon the 5th of November, 1872, she voted, and whether she believed that she had a right to vote or not, it being a question of law, that she is within the statute. Congress in 1870 passed the following statute: (Reads 19th Section of the Act of 1870, page 144, 16th statutes at large.) It is not necessary for me, gentlemen, at this stage of the case, to state all the facts which will be proven on the part of the Government. I shall leave that to be shown by the evidence and by the witnesses, and if any question of law shall arise his Honor will undoubtedly give you instructions as he shall deem proper. Conceded, that on the 5th day of November, 1872, Miss Susan B. Anthony was a woman.[Pg 650]
We’re not saying here, gentlemen, that Miss Anthony is the type of person who goes around “repeating.” We’re not saying she traveled from place to place just to cast her vote. But we do assert that on November 5, 1872, she voted, and whether or not she believed she had the right to do so, it’s a legal question, and she falls within the statute. Congress passed the following statute in 1870: (Reads 19th Section of the Act of 1870, page 144, 16th statutes at large.) At this point in the case, gentlemen, I don’t need to present all the facts that will be proven by the Government. I’ll leave that to the evidence and the witnesses, and if any legal questions come up, his Honor will certainly give you instructions as he sees fit. It’s acknowledged that on November 5, 1872, Miss Susan B. Anthony was a woman.[Pg 650]
Beverly W. Jones, a witness, called in behalf of the United States, testified as follows: Examined by Mr. Crowley:
Beverly W. Jones, a witness, called on behalf of the United States, testified as follows: Examined by Mr. Crowley:
Q. Mr. Jones, where do you reside? A. 8th Ward, Rochester.
Q. Mr. Jones, where do you live? A. 8th Ward, Rochester.
Q. Where were you living on the 5th of November, 1872? A. Same place.
Q. Where were you living on November 5, 1872? A. Same place.
Q. Do you know the defendant, Miss Susan B. Anthony? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know the defendant, Miss Susan B. Anthony? A. Yes, I do.
Q. In what capacity were you acting upon that day, if any, in relation to elections? A. Inspector of election.
Q. What role were you fulfilling that day, if any, regarding the elections? A. Election inspector.
Q. Into how many election districts is the 8th Ward divided, if it contains more than one? A. Two, sir.
Q. How many election districts does the 8th Ward have, if it has more than one? A. Two, sir.
Q. In what election district were you inspector of elections? A. The first district.
Q. Which election district were you the inspector of elections for? A. The first district.
Q. Who were inspectors with you? A. Edwin T. Marsh and William B. Hall.
Q. Who were the inspectors with you? A. Edwin T. Marsh and William B. Hall.
Q. Had the Board of Inspectors been regularly organized? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was the Board of Inspectors properly organized? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Upon the 5th day of November, did the defendant, Susan B. Anthony, vote in the first election district of the 8th Ward of the city of Rochester?
Q. On November 5th, did the defendant, Susan B. Anthony, vote in the first election district of the 8th Ward of the city of Rochester?
A. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see her vote? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see her vote? A. Yes, I did.
Q. Will you state to the jury what tickets she voted, whether State, Assembly, Congress and Electoral? Objected to as calling for a conclusion.
Q. Can you tell the jury which tickets she voted for, whether it's State, Assembly, Congress, or Electoral? Objection raised as it calls for a conclusion.
Q. State what tickets she voted, if you know, Mr. Jones. A. If I recollect right she voted the Electoral ticket, Congressional ticket, State ticket, and Assembly ticket.
Q. Can you tell us which tickets she voted for, if you know, Mr. Jones? A. If I remember correctly, she voted for the Electoral ticket, Congressional ticket, State ticket, and Assembly ticket.
Q. Was there an election for member of Congress from that district and for Representative at large in Congress, for the State of New York, held on the 5th of November, in the city of Rochester? A. I think there was; yes, sir.
Q. Was there an election for a member of Congress from that district and for Representative-at-Large in Congress for the State of New York held on November 5th in the city of Rochester? A. I believe there was; yes, sir.
Q. In what Congressional District was the city of Rochester at the time? A. The 29th.
Q. What Congressional District was Rochester in at that time? A. The 29th.
Q. Did you receive the tickets from Miss Anthony? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you get the tickets from Miss Anthony? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you do with them when you received them? A. Put them in the separate boxes where they belonged.
Q. What did you do with them when you got them? A. I put them in the separate boxes where they belonged.
Q. State to the jury whether you had separate boxes for the several tickets voted in that election district? A. Yes, sir; we had.
Q. Can you tell the jury if you had separate boxes for the different tickets voted in that election district? A. Yes, we did.
Q. Was Miss Anthony challenged upon that occasion? A. Yes, sir—no; not on that day she wasn't.
Q. Was Miss Anthony confronted about that at the time? A. Yes, sir—no; not on that day she wasn't.
Q. She was not challenged on the day she voted? A. No, sir.
Q. She wasn't questioned on the day she voted? A. No, sir.
Cross-examination by Judge Selden:
Cross-examination by Judge Selden:
Q. Prior to the election, was there a registry of voters in that district made? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before the election, was there a list of voters in that district created? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you one of the officers engaged in making that registry? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you one of the officers involved in creating that registry? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When the registry was being made did Miss Anthony appear before the Board of Registry and claim to be registered as a voter? A. She did.
Q. When the registry was being created, did Miss Anthony show up before the Board of Registry and ask to be registered as a voter? A. She did.
Q. Was there any objection made, or any doubt raised as to her right to vote? A. There was.
Q. Was there any objection or doubt about her right to vote? A. There was.
Q. On what ground? A. On the ground that the Constitution of the State of New York did not allow women to vote.[Pg 651]
Q. Why is that? A. Because the Constitution of the State of New York didn't permit women to vote.[Pg 651]
Q. What was the defect in her right to vote as a citizen? A. She was not a male citizen.
Q. What was wrong with her right to vote as a citizen? A. She wasn't a male citizen.
Q. That she was a woman? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That she was a woman? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did the Board consider that and decide that she was entitled to register? Objected to. Objection overruled.
Q. Did the Board take that into account and decide that she was eligible to register? Objection noted. Objection denied.
Q. Did the Board consider the question of her right to registry, and decide that she was entitled to registry as a voter? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did the Board look into whether she had the right to register and decide that she was eligible to register as a voter? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And she was registered accordingly? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So, she was registered like that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When she offered her vote, was the same objection brought up in the Board of Inspectors, or question made of her right to vote as a woman? A. She was challenged previous to election day.
Q. When she cast her vote, was the same objection raised in the Board of Inspectors, or was there any question about her right to vote as a woman? A. She was challenged before election day.
Q. It was canvassed previous to election day between them? A. Yes, sir; she was challenged on the second day of registering names.
Q. Were they discussing it before election day? A. Yes, sir; she was questioned on the second day of registering names.
Q. At the time of the registry, when her name was registered, was the Supervisor of Election present at the Board? A. He was.
Q. When her name was registered, was the Supervisor of Election present at the Board? A. He was.
Q. Was he consulted upon the question of whether she was entitled to registry, or did he express an opinion on the subject to the inspectors?
Q. Was he asked about whether she should be registered, or did he share his thoughts on the matter with the inspectors?
Mr. Crowley.—I submit that it is of no consequence whether he did or not.
Mr. Crowley.—I say it doesn't matter if he did or not.
Judge Selden.—He was the Government Supervisor under this act of Congress.
Judge Selden.—He was the Government Supervisor according to this law passed by Congress.
Mr. Crowley.—The Board of Inspectors, under the State law, constitute the Board of Registry, and they are the only persons to pass upon that question.
Mr. Crowley.—The Board of Inspectors, according to state law, forms the Board of Registry, and they are the only ones who can make a decision on that matter.
The Court.—You may take it. A. Yes, sir; there was a United States Supervisor of Elections, two of them.
The Court.—You can take it. A. Yes, sir; there were two United States Supervisors of Elections.
By Judge Selden:
By Judge Selden:
Q. Did they advise the registry or did they not? A. One of them did.
Q. Did they inform the registry or not? A. One of them did.
Q. And on that advice the registry was made with the judgment of the inspectors? A. It had a great deal of weight with the inspectors, I have no doubt.
Q. So, was the registry created based on that advice from the inspectors? A. I'm sure it carried a lot of influence with the inspectors.
Re-direct examination by Mr. Crowley:
Re-direct examination by Mr. Crowley:
Q. Was Miss Anthony challenged before the Board of Registry? A. Not at the time she offered her name.
Q. Was Miss Anthony questioned before the Board of Registry? A. Not when she submitted her name.
Q. Was she challenged at any time? A. Yes, sir; the second day of the meeting of the Board.
Q. Was she challenged at any point? A. Yes, sir; the second day of the Board meeting.
Q. Was the preliminary and the general oath administered? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was the preliminary and the general oath given? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Won't you state what Miss Anthony said, if she said anything, when she came there and offered her name for registration? A. She stated that she did not claim any rights under the Constitution of the State of New York; she claimed her right under the Constitution of the United States.
Q. Can you tell us what Miss Anthony said, if she said anything, when she showed up and offered her name for registration? A. She mentioned that she didn't claim any rights under the Constitution of the State of New York; she claimed her rights under the Constitution of the United States.
Q. Did she name any particular amendment? A. Yes, sir; she cited the XIV. Amendment.
Q. Did she mention a specific amendment? A. Yes, she referenced the 14th Amendment.
Q. Under that she claimed her right to vote? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So, she claimed her right to vote? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did the other Federal Supervisor who was present, state it as his opinion that she was entitled to vote under that amendment, or did he protest, claiming that she did not have the right to vote? A. One of them said that there was no way for the inspectors to get around placing the name upon the register; the other one, when she came in, left the room.[Pg 652]
Q. Did the other Federal Supervisor who was there express his opinion that she had the right to vote under that amendment, or did he argue that she didn't have the right to vote? A. One of them said there was no way for the inspectors to avoid adding her name to the register; the other one left the room when she came in.[Pg 652]
Q. Did this one who said that there was no way to get around placing the name upon the register, state that she had her right to register, but did not have the right to vote? A. I didn't hear him make any such statement.
Q. Did the person who said there was no way to avoid putting the name on the register say that she had the right to register but not the right to vote? A. I didn’t hear him say anything like that.
Q. You didn't hear any such statement as that? A. No, sir.
Q. You didn’t hear anything like that? A. No, sir.
Q. Was there a poll list kept of the voters of the first election district of the 8th Ward on the day of election? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there a list of voters for the first election district of the 8th Ward on election day? A. Yes, sir.
Q. (Handing witness two books.) State whether that is the poll list of voters kept upon the day of election in the first election district of the 8th Ward, of the city of Rochester? A. This is the poll list, and also the register.
Q. (Handing witness two books.) Can you confirm if that is the list of voters recorded on election day in the first election district of the 8th Ward in the city of Rochester? A. Yes, this is the list of voters, as well as the register.
Q. Turn to the name of Susan B. Anthony, if it is upon that poll list. A. I have it.
Q. Look for the name Susan B. Anthony on that poll list. A. I've got it.
Q. What number is it? A. Number 22.
Q. What number is it? A. Number 22.
Q. From that poll list what tickets does it purport to show that she voted upon that occasion? A. Electoral, State, Congress, and Assembly.
Q. From that poll list, what tickets does it claim she voted on that occasion? A. Electoral, State, Congress, and Assembly.
United States rests.
United States rests.
Judge Selden opened the case in behalf of the defendant, as follows:
Judge Selden began the case on behalf of the defendant, saying:
If the Court please, Gentlemen of the Jury:
If it pleases the Court, gentlemen of the jury:
This is a case of no ordinary magnitude, although many might regard it as one of very little importance. The question whether my client here has done anything to justify her being consigned to a felon's prison or not, is one that interests her very essentially, and that interests the people also essentially. I claim and shall endeavor to establish before you that when she offered to have her name registered as a voter, and when she offered her vote for Member of Congress, she was as much entitled to vote as any man that voted at that election, according to the Constitution and laws of the Government under which she lives. If I maintain that proposition, as a matter of course she has committed no offense, and is entitled to be discharged at your hands.
This isn't a typical case, although many may see it as unimportant. The question of whether my client deserves to be sent to a felon's prison is something that deeply concerns her, as well as the public. I argue and will try to prove to you that when she tried to register as a voter and cast her vote for Member of Congress, she had every right to vote just like any man who voted in that election, based on the Constitution and laws of the government she lives under. If I can support that claim, then naturally, she hasn't committed any crime and deserves to be released by you.
But, beyond that, whether she was a legal voter or not, whether she was entitled to a vote or not, if she sincerely believed that she had a right to vote, and offered her ballot in good faith, under that belief, whether right or wrong, by the laws of this country she is guilty of no crime. I apprehend that that proposition, when it is discussed, will be maintained with a clearness and force that shall leave no doubt upon the mind of the Court or upon your minds as the gentlemen of the jury. If I maintain that proposition here, then the further question and the only question which, in my judgment, can come before you to be passed upon by you as a question of fact is whether or not she did vote in good faith, believing that she had a right to vote. The public prosecutor assumes that, however honestly she may have offered her vote, however sincerely she may have believed that she had a right to vote, if she was mistaken in that judgment, her offering her vote and its being received makes a criminal offense—a proposition to me most abhorrent, as I believe it will be equally abhorrent to your judgment.
But beyond that, whether she was a legal voter or not, whether she had the right to vote or not, if she genuinely believed that she had the right to vote and presented her ballot in good faith based on that belief, whether she was right or wrong, by the laws of this country she has committed no crime. I believe that this argument, when discussed, will be presented with such clarity and strength that there will be no doubt in the mind of the Court or in your minds as the members of the jury. If I stand by this argument here, then the further question—and the only question that, in my opinion, you should consider as a matter of fact—is whether or not she voted in good faith, believing that she had a right to vote. The public prosecutor assumes that, no matter how honestly she may have cast her vote or how sincerely she might have believed she had the right to vote, if she was wrong in that belief, her casting her vote and its acceptance constitutes a criminal offense—a notion that I find deeply troubling, and I believe you will find just as troubling.
Before the registration, and before this election, Miss Anthony called upon me for advice upon the question whether, under the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, she had a right to vote. I had not[Pg 653] examined the question. I told her I would examine it and give her my opinion upon the question of her legal right. She went away and came again after I had made the examination. I advised her that she was as lawful a voter as I am, or as any other man is, and advised her to go and offer her vote. I may have been mistaken in that, and if I was mistaken, I believe she acted in good faith. I believe she acted according to her right as the law and Constitution gave it to her. But whether she did or not, she acted in the most perfect good faith, and if she made a mistake, or if I made one, that is not a reason for committing her to a felon's cell.
Before the registration and this election, Miss Anthony reached out to me for advice on whether, under the XIV Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, she had the right to vote. I hadn't [Pg 653] looked into the question yet. I told her I would investigate it and provide my opinion on her legal right. She left and returned after I had done my research. I advised her that she was as much a lawful voter as I am or as any other man is, and I encouraged her to go and cast her vote. I may have been wrong about that, and if so, I believe she acted in good faith. I think she was acting according to the rights granted to her by law and the Constitution. However, regardless of whether she did or not, she acted in the utmost good faith, and if there was a mistake made—by her or by me—that shouldn’t be a reason to send her to a felon's cell.
For the second time in my life, in my professional practice, I am under the necessity of offering myself as a witness for my client.
For the second time in my career, I have to put myself forward as a witness for my client.
Henry R. Selden, a witness sworn in behalf of the defendant, testified as follows: Before the last election, Miss Anthony called upon me for advice, upon the question whether she was or was not a legal voter. I examined the question, and gave her my opinion, unhesitatingly, that the laws and Constitution of the United States authorized her to vote, as well as they authorize any man to vote; and I advised her to have her name placed upon the registry and to vote at the election, if the inspectors should receive her vote. I gave the advice in good faith, believing it to be accurate, and I believe it to be accurate still. [This witness was not cross-examined.]
Henry R. Selden, a witness sworn in for the defendant, testified as follows: Before the last election, Miss Anthony came to me for advice about whether she was a legal voter. I looked into the matter and confidently told her that the laws and Constitution of the United States allowed her to vote just as they allow any man to vote. I advised her to have her name added to the registry and to vote in the election, provided the inspectors accepted her vote. I gave this advice in good faith, believing it to be correct, and I still believe it is accurate. [This witness was not cross-examined.]
Judge Selden: I propose to call Miss Anthony as to the fact of her voting—on the question of the intention or belief under which she voted.
Judge Selden: I want to call Miss Anthony to discuss the fact that she voted—specifically about the intention or belief behind her decision to vote.
Mr. Crowley: She is not competent as a witness in her own behalf. [The Court so held.] Defendant rests.
Mr. Crowley: She is not qualified to testify on her own behalf. [The Court agrees.] The defendant rests.
John E. Pound, a witness sworn in behalf of the United States, testified as follows, examined by Mr. Crowley:
John E. Pound, a witness sworn in for the United States, testified as follows, examined by Mr. Crowley:
Q. During the months of November and December, 1872, and January, 1873, were you Assistant United States District Attorney for the Northern District of New York? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you the Assistant United States District Attorney for the Northern District of New York during November and December of 1872 and January of 1873? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know the defendant, Susan B. Anthony? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know the defendant, Susan B. Anthony? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you attend an examination before Wm. C. Storrs, a United States Commissioner, in the city of Rochester, when her case was examined? A. I did.
Q. Did you go to an examination with Wm. C. Storrs, a United States Commissioner, in the city of Rochester, when her case was reviewed? A. I did.
Q. Was she called as a witness in her own behalf upon that examination? A. She was.
Q. Was she called as a witness in her own defense during that examination? A. She was.
Q. Was she sworn? A. She was.
Q. Was she sworn? A. She was.
Q. Did she give evidence? A. She did.
Q. Did she give evidence? A. She did.
Q. Did you keep minutes of evidence on that occasion? A. I did.
Q. Did you record the evidence from that time? A. I did.
Q. (Handing the witness a paper). Please look at the paper now shown you and see if it contains the minutes you kept upon that occasion? A. It does.
Q. (Handing the witness a paper). Please take a look at this paper and see if it has the notes you took on that occasion? A. It does.
Q. Turn to the evidence of Susan B. Anthony? A. I have it.
Q. Can you provide the evidence of Susan B. Anthony? A. I have it.
Q. Did she, upon that occasion, state that she consulted or talked with Judge Henry R. Selden, of Rochester, in relation to her right to vote?
Q. Did she mention that she spoke with Judge Henry R. Selden from Rochester about her right to vote?
Judge Selden: I object to that upon the ground that it is incompetent, that if they refuse to allow her to be sworn here, they should be excluded from producing any evidence that she gave elsewhere, especially when they want to give the version which the United States officer took of her evidence.[Pg 654]
Judge Selden: I object to that because it's not valid. If they won't let her be sworn in here, then they shouldn't be allowed to present any evidence she gave elsewhere, especially when they want to present the version that the United States officer recorded of her testimony.[Pg 654]
The Court: Go on.
The Court: Go on.
By Mr. Crowley:
By Mr. Crowley:
Q. State whether she stated on that examination, under oath, that she had talked or consulted with Judge Henry R. Selden in relation to her right to vote? A. She did.
Q. Did she say during that examination, under oath, that she had talked to or consulted with Judge Henry R. Selden about her right to vote? A. She did.
Q. State whether she asked, upon that examination, if the advice given her by Judge Henry R. Selden would or did make any difference in her action in voting, or in substance that? A. She stated on the cross-examination, "I should have made the same endeavor to vote that I did had I not consulted Judge Selden. I didn't consult any one before I registered. I was not influenced by his advice in the matter at all; have been resolved to vote, the first time I was at home thirty days, for a number of years."
Q. Did she say during that examination whether the advice given to her by Judge Henry R. Selden affected her decision to vote, or anything like that? A. During cross-examination, she said, "I would have made the same effort to vote that I did even if I hadn’t talked to Judge Selden. I didn’t consult anyone before I registered. His advice didn’t influence me at all; I was determined to vote the first time I was home for thirty days in many years."
Cross-examination by Mr. Van Voorhis:
Cross-examination by Mr. Van Voorhis:
Q. Mr. Pound, was she asked there if she had any doubt about her right to vote, and did she answer, "Not a particle"? A. She stated, "Had no doubt as to my right to vote," on the direct examination.
Q. Mr. Pound, was she asked there if she had any doubt about her right to vote, and did she respond, "Not at all"? A. She said, "I had no doubt about my right to vote," during the direct examination.
Q. There was a stenographic reporter there, was there not? A. A reporter was there taking notes.
Q. There was a stenographer there, right? A. Yes, a reporter was there taking notes.
Q. Was not this question put to her, "Did you have any doubt yourself of your right to vote?" and did she not answer, "Not a particle"?
Q. Wasn't this question asked of her, "Did you have any doubt about your right to vote?" and didn't she respond, "Not at all"?
The Court: Well, he says so, that she had no doubt of her right to vote.
The Court: Well, he claims that she was completely confident in her right to vote.
Judge Selden: I beg leave to state, in regard to my own testimony, Miss Anthony informs me that I was mistaken in the fact that my advice was before her registry. It was my recollection that it was on her way to the registry, but she states to me now that she was registered and came immediately to my office. In that respect I was under a mistake.
Judge Selden: I would like to clarify my own testimony. Miss Anthony has informed me that I was wrong about the timing of my advice concerning her registration. I thought it was before she registered, but she tells me now that she was already registered and came straight to my office after that. In that regard, I was mistaken.
Evidence closed.
Evidence closed.
ARGUMENT OF MR. SELDEN FOR THE DEFENDANT.
The defendant is indicted under the 19th section of the Act of Congress of May 31, 1874 (16 St. at L., 144), for "voting without having a lawful right to vote." The words of the statute, so far as they are material in this ease, are as follows:
The defendant is charged under the 19th section of the Act of Congress from May 31, 1874 (16 St. at L., 144), for "voting without a legal right to vote." The relevant wording of the statute, as it applies in this case, is as follows:
If at any election for representative or delegate in the Congress of the United States, any person shall knowingly ... vote without having a lawful right to vote ... every such person shall be deemed guilty of a crime ... and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or by both, in the discretion of the court, and shall pay the costs of prosecution.
If, during any election for a representative or delegate in the Congress of the United States, someone knowingly votes without having the legal right to do so, that person will be considered guilty of a crime. Upon conviction, they could face a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to three years, or both, depending on the court's discretion, and will be responsible for the costs of prosecution.
The only alleged ground of illegality of the defendant's vote is that she is a woman. If the same act had been done by her brother under the same circumstances, the act would have been not only innocent, but honorable and laudable; but having been done by a woman it is said to be a crime. The crime, therefore, consists not in the act done, but in the simple fact that the person doing it was a woman and not a man. I believe this is the first instance in which a woman has been arraigned in a criminal court merely on account of her sex. If the advocates of female suffrage had been allowed to choose the point of attack to be made upon their position, they could not have chosen it more favorably for themselves; and I am disposed to thank those who have been instrumental in this proceeding, for presenting[Pg 655] it in the form of a criminal prosecution. Women have the same interest that men have in the establishment and maintenance of good government; they are to the same extent as men bound to obey the laws; they suffer to the same extent by bad laws, and profit to the same extent by good laws; and upon principles of equal justice, as it would seem, should be allowed equally with men, to express their preference in the choice of law-makers and rulers. But however that may be, no greater absurdity, to use no harsher term, could be presented, than that of rewarding men and punishing women, for the same act, without giving to women any voice in the question which should be rewarded, and which punished.
The only supposed reason for the illegality of the defendant's vote is that she is a woman. If her brother had done the same thing under the same circumstances, it would have been seen as innocent, honorable, and commendable; but because it was done by a woman, it is considered a crime. Therefore, the crime lies not in the act itself, but in the simple fact that the person doing it was a woman and not a man. I believe this is the first time a woman has been brought to a criminal court solely because of her sex. If the proponents of women's voting rights had been allowed to choose the best angle to challenge their position, they couldn’t have selected a more advantageous one for themselves; and I feel it’s appropriate to thank those involved in this case for presenting it as a criminal prosecution. Women have the same stake as men in establishing and maintaining good governance; they are just as obligated as men to follow the laws; they suffer equally from bad laws and benefit equally from good laws; and based on principles of equal justice, it seems that they should be granted the same ability as men to express their preferences when it comes to choosing lawmakers and leaders. Regardless, nothing could be more absurd, to put it mildly, than rewarding men and punishing women for the same act, without giving women any say in determining who should be rewarded and who should be punished.
I am aware, however, that we are here to be governed by the Constitution and laws as they are, and that if the defendant has been guilty of violating the law, she must submit to the penalty, however unjust or absurd the law may be. But courts are not required to so interpret laws or constitutions as to produce either absurdity or injustice, so long as they are open to a more reasonable interpretation. This must be my excuse for what I design to say in regard to the propriety of female suffrage, because with that propriety established there is very little difficulty in finding sufficient warrant in the Constitution for its exercise. This case, in its legal aspects, presents three questions, which I purpose to discuss.
I understand, though, that we are here to be governed by the Constitution and the laws as they stand, and that if the defendant has broken the law, she must face the consequences, no matter how unfair or ridiculous the law might be. However, courts aren't obligated to interpret laws or constitutions in a way that results in absurdity or injustice, as long as they are open to a more reasonable interpretation. This is my justification for what I plan to say about the appropriateness of female suffrage, because once that appropriateness is established, it becomes quite easy to find solid support in the Constitution for its implementation. This case has three legal questions that I intend to discuss.
1. Was the defendant legally entitled to vote at the election in question?
1. Was the defendant allowed to vote in the election in question?
2. If she was not entitled to vote, but believed that she was, and voted in good faith in that belief, did such voting constitute a crime under the statute before referred to?
2. If she wasn’t allowed to vote but honestly thought she was and voted in good faith based on that belief, did her voting count as a crime under the previously mentioned statute?
3. Did the defendant vote in good faith in that belief?
3. Did the defendant act in good faith based on that belief?
If the first question be decided in accordance with my views, the other questions become immaterial; if the second be decided adversely to my views, the first and third become immaterial. The first two are questions of law to be decided by the court, the other is a question for the jury.
If the first question is decided the way I think it should be, the other questions don't matter; if the second question is decided against my views, then the first and third don't matter. The first two are legal questions for the court to decide, while the other is a question for the jury.
The Court suggested that the argument should be confined to the legal questions, and the argument on the other question suspended. This suggestion was assented to, and the counsel proceeded.
The Court suggested that the discussion should focus on the legal questions, while the debate on the other issue be put on hold. This suggestion was agreed upon, and the lawyers continued.
My first position is that the defendant had the same right to vote as any other citizen who voted at that election. Before proceeding to the discussion of the purely legal question, I desire, as already intimated, to pay some attention to the propriety and justice of the rule which I claim to have been established by the Constitution.
My first point is that the defendant had the same right to vote as any other citizen who voted in that election. Before moving on to the purely legal question, I want to, as mentioned earlier, focus on the fairness and justice of the rule that I believe was established by the Constitution.
Miss Anthony, and those united with her in demanding the right of suffrage, claim, and with a strong appearance of justice, that upon the principles upon which our Government is founded, and which lie at the basis of all just government, every citizen has a right to take part, upon equal terms with every other citizen, in the formation and administration of government. This claim on the part of the female sex presents a question the magnitude of which is not well appreciated by the writers and speakers who treat it with ridicule. Those engaged in the movement are able, sincere, and earnest women, and they will not be silenced by such ridicule, nor even by the villainous caricatures of Nast. On the contrary, they justly place all those things to the account of the wrongs which they think their sex has suffered. They believe, with an intensity of feeling which men who have not associated[Pg 656] with them have not yet learned, that their sex has not had, and has not now, its just and true position in the organization of government and society. They may be wrong in their position, but they will not be content until their arguments are fairly, truthfully, and candidly answered.
Miss Anthony and those who stand with her in demanding the right to vote assert, with a strong sense of justice, that based on the principles our Government is founded on—which are the foundations of all just governance—every citizen has the right to participate, on equal terms with every other citizen, in both the formation and administration of government. This demand from women presents a question of significant importance that is not well understood by those writers and speakers who ridicule it. The individuals involved in this movement are capable, sincere, and dedicated women, and they will not be silenced by such mockery or even by the malicious caricatures of Nast. Instead, they attribute all of this to the injustices they believe their gender has faced. They feel, with a depth of emotion that men who haven’t engaged with them have not yet grasped, that their gender has not had, and still does not have, its rightful and true place in the structure of government and society. They may be mistaken in their beliefs, but they will not be satisfied until their arguments are addressed fairly, truthfully, and openly.
In the most celebrated document which has been put forth on this side of the Atlantic, our ancestors declared that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Blackstone says:
In the most famous document presented on this side of the Atlantic, our ancestors stated that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Blackstone says:
The lawfulness of punishing such criminals (i.e., persons offending merely against the laws of society) is founded upon this principle; that the law by which they suffer was made by their own consent; it is a part of the original contract into which they entered when first they engaged in society; it was calculated for and has long contributed to their own security.
The legitimacy of punishing these criminals (i.e., individuals who only break societal laws) is based on this principle: the law that punishes them was created with their own agreement; it's part of the original contract they entered when they first joined society; it was designed for and has long helped to ensure their own safety.
Quotations, to an unlimited extent, containing similar doctrines from eminent writers, both English and American, on government, from the time of John Locke to the present day, might be made. Without adopting this doctrine which bases the rightfulness of government upon the consent of the governed, I claim that there is implied in it the narrower and unassailable principle that all citizens of a State, who are bound by its laws, are entitled to an equal voice in the making and execution of such laws. The doctrine is well stated by Godwin in his treatise on "Political Justice." He says:
Quotations, to an unlimited extent, could be gathered from notable writers, both English and American, on government, from John Locke’s time to today. Without fully embracing the idea that the legitimacy of government relies on the consent of the governed, I assert that it inherently includes the narrower and undeniable principle that all citizens of a state, who are bound by its laws, deserve an equal say in the creation and enforcement of those laws. This principle is clearly articulated by Godwin in his work "Political Justice." He states:
The first and most important principle that can be imagined relative to the form and structure of government, seems to be this: that as government is a transaction in the name and for the benefit of the whole, every member of the community ought to have some share in its administration. Again, Government is a contrivance instituted for the security of individuals; and it seems both reasonable that each man should have a share in providing for his own security, and probable, that partiality and cabal should by this means be most effectually excluded. And again, To give each man a voice in the public concerns comes nearest to that admirable idea of which we should never lose sight, the uncontrolled exercise of private judgment. Each man would thus be inspired with a consciousness of his own importance, and the slavish feelings that shrink up the soul in the presence of an imagined superior would be unknown.
The first and most important principle regarding the form and structure of government seems to be this: since government exists as a transaction on behalf of and for the benefit of everyone, every member of the community should have a say in its administration. Furthermore, government is a system set up to ensure the safety of individuals; it makes sense that everyone should have a role in securing their own safety, and this approach is likely to prevent bias and manipulation. Lastly, allowing each person to have a voice in public matters comes closest to that ideal we should always remember: the free exercise of personal judgment. This way, everyone would feel their own significance, and the submissive feelings that can diminish a person's spirit in the presence of an imagined superior would disappear.
The mastery which this doctrine, whether right or wrong, has acquired over the public mind, has produced as its natural fruit, the extension of the right of suffrage to all the adult male population in nearly all the States of the Union; a result which was well epitomized by President Lincoln, in the expression, "government by the people for the people." This extension of the suffrage is regarded by many as a source of danger to the stability of free government. I believe it furnishes the greatest security for free government, as it deprives the mass of the people of all motive for revolution; and that government so based is most safe, not because the whole people are less liable to make mistakes in government than a select few, but because they have no interest which can lead them to such mistakes, or to prevent their correction when made. On the contrary, the world has never seen an aristocracy, whether composed of few or many, powerful enough to control a government, who did not honestly believe that their interest was identical with the public interest, and who did not act persistently in accordance with such belief; and, unfortunately, an aristocracy of sex has not proved an exception to the rule. The only method yet discovered of overcoming this tendency to the selfish use of power, whether consciously or unconsciously, by those possessing it, is the distribution of the power among[Pg 657] all who are its subjects. Short of this the name free government is a misnomer.
The influence this doctrine, right or wrong, has gained over people’s minds has naturally led to the expansion of voting rights to almost all adult men in nearly all states of the Union. President Lincoln captured this idea well when he said, "government by the people for the people." Many see this expansion of voting rights as a threat to the stability of free government. I believe it actually provides the greatest security for free government because it removes any motive for the majority of people to revolt. A government based on this principle is safer, not because the whole population makes fewer mistakes than a select few, but because they have no interests that could lead them to make mistakes or prevent fixing those mistakes. In contrast, the world has never seen an aristocracy, whether made up of a few or many, strong enough to control a government that didn’t sincerely believe that their interests aligned with those of the public and act on that belief. Unfortunately, a male-dominated aristocracy is no exception to this rule. The only method discovered so far to combat this tendency toward selfish use of power—whether intentionally or unintentionally—by those in charge, is to distribute power among[Pg 657] all who are governed by it. Without this, the term "free government" is misleading.
This principle, after long strife, not yet entirely ended has been, practically at least, very generally recognized on this side of the Atlantic, as far as relates to men; but when the attempt is made to extend it to women, political philosophers and practical politicians, those "inside of politics," two classes not often found acting in concert, join in denouncing it. It remains to be determined whether the reasons which have produced the extension of the franchise to all adult men, do not equally demand its extension to all adult women. If it be necessary for men that each should have a share in the administration of government for his security, and to exclude partiality, as alleged by Godwin, it would seem to be equally, if not more, necessary for women, on account of their inferior physical power; and if, as is persistently alleged by those who sneer at their claims, they are also inferior in mental power, that fact only gives additional weight to the argument in their behalf, as one of the primary objects of government, as acknowledged on all hands, is the protection of the weak against the power of the strong.
This principle, after a long struggle that isn’t fully resolved yet, has been widely recognized on this side of the Atlantic, at least when it comes to men. However, when there's an effort to extend this principle to women, political philosophers and politicians—two groups that usually don’t work together—join forces to reject it. It remains to be seen whether the reasons that led to granting voting rights to all adult men don’t equally justify extending those rights to all adult women. If it’s necessary for men to have a say in how government is run for their own security and to prevent bias, as Godwin claimed, it would seem even more necessary for women, due to their lesser physical strength. Furthermore, if those who mock their demands argue that women are also mentally weaker, that only strengthens the case for their rights, since one of the main purposes of government—agreed upon by everyone—is to protect the weak from the strong.
I can discover no ground consistent with the principle on which the franchise has been given to all men, upon which it can be denied to women. The principal argument against such extension, so far as argument upon that side of the question has fallen under my observation, is based upon the position that women are represented in the government by men, and that their rights and interests are better protected through that indirect representation than they would be by giving them a direct voice in the government. The teachings of history in regard to the condition of women under the care of these self-constituted protectors, to which I can only briefly allude, show the value of this argument as applied to past ages; and in demonstration of its value as applied to more recent times, even at the risk of being tedious, I will give some examples from my own professional experience. I do this because nothing adds more to the efficacy of truth than the translation of the abstract into the concrete. Withholding names, I will state the facts with fullness and accuracy.
I can find no valid reason, based on the principle that all men are given the right to vote, to deny that right to women. The main argument against extending this right to women, as far as I've seen, is that women are represented in government by men, and that their rights and interests are better protected through this indirect representation than if they had a direct voice in government. The lessons of history regarding the status of women under the care of these self-appointed protectors, which I can only briefly mention, demonstrate the weakness of this argument when looking at the past; and to show its weakness in more recent times, even if it might seem tedious, I will provide some examples from my own professional experience. I believe that nothing strengthens the power of truth more than turning abstract ideas into concrete examples. Without naming names, I will present the facts clearly and accurately.
An educated and refined woman, who had been many years before deserted by her drunken husband, was living in a small village of Western New York, securing, by great economy and intense labor in fine needlework, the means of living, and of supporting her two daughters at an academy, the object of her life being to give them such an education as would enable them to become teachers, and thus secure to them some degree of independence when she could no longer provide for them. The daughters were good scholars and favorites in the school, so long as the mother was able to maintain them there. A young man, the nephew and clerk of a wealthy but miserly merchant, became acquainted with the daughters, and was specially attentive to the older one. The uncle disapproved of the conduct of his nephew, and failing to control it by honorable means, resorted to the circulation of the vilest slanders against mother and daughters. He was a man of wealth and influence. They were almost unknown. The mother had but recently come to the village, her object having been to secure to her daughters the educational advantages which the academy afforded. Poverty, as well as perhaps an excusable if not laudable pride, compelled her to live in obscurity, and consequently the assault upon their characters fell upon her and her daughters with crushing force. Her employment mainly ceased, her daughters were of necessity withdrawn from school, and all were deprived of the means, from their own exertions, of sustaining life. Had they been in fact the harlots which the miserly scoundrel represented them to be, they would[Pg 658] not have been so utterly powerless to resist his assault. The mother in her despair naturally sought legal redress. But how was it to be obtained? By the law the wife's rights were merged in those of the husband. She had in law no individual existence, and consequently no action could be brought by her to redress the grievous wrong; indeed, according to the law she had suffered no wrong, but the husband had suffered all, and was entitled to all the redress. Where he was the lady did not know; she had not heard from him for many years. Her counsel, however, ventured to bring an action in her behalf, joining the husband's name with hers, as the law required. When the cause came to trial the defendant made no attempt to sustain the charges which he had made, well knowing that they were as groundless as they were cruel; but he introduced and proved a release of the cause of action, signed by the husband, reciting a consideration of fifty dollars paid to him. The defendant's counsel had some difficulty in proving the execution of the release, and was compelled to introduce as a witness the constable who had been employed to find the vagabond husband and obtain his signature. His testimony disclosed the facts that he found the husband in the forest in one of our north-eastern counties, engaged in making shingles (presumably stealing timber from the public lands and converting it into the means of indulging his habits of drunkenness), and only five dollars of the fifty mentioned in the release had in fact been paid. The Court held, was compelled to hold, that the party injured in view of the law, had received full compensation for the wrong—and the mother and daughters with no means of redress were left to starve. This was the act of the representative of the wife and daughters to whom we are referred, as a better protector of their rights than they themselves could be. It may properly be added, that if the action had proceeded to judgment without interference from the husband, and such amount of damages had been recovered as a jury might have thought it proper to award, the money would have belonged to the husband, and the wife could not lawfully have touched a cent of it. Her attorney might, and doubtless would have paid it to her, but he could only have done so at the peril of being compelled to pay it again to the drunken husband if he had demanded it.
An educated and refined woman, who had been abandoned years earlier by her alcoholic husband, was living in a small village in Western New York. She supported herself and her two daughters through strict budgeting and hard work in fine needlework, aiming to provide them with an education that would allow them to become teachers and gain some degree of independence once she could no longer care for them. The daughters excelled academically and were well-liked at school, as long as their mother could keep them enrolled. A young man, the nephew and clerk of a wealthy but stingy merchant, got to know the daughters and paid special attention to the older one. The uncle disapproved of his nephew's behavior, and unable to control it through decent means, he resorted to spreading vicious rumors about the mother and her daughters. He was a man of wealth and influence; they were virtually unknown. The mother had recently moved to the village to provide her daughters with the educational benefits of the academy. Poverty, along with perhaps a justifiable if not admirable pride, forced her into obscurity, making the attack on their reputations hit them hard. Her work came to a halt, her daughters had to leave school, and they lost the ability to support themselves. If they had truly been the immoral women the stingy scoundrel accused them of being, they wouldn't have been so utterly powerless to fight back against his claims. In her despair, the mother sought legal justice. But how could that be achieved? By law, a wife’s rights were absorbed by her husband’s. Legally, she had no separate existence, so she couldn't file any action to address the terrible wrong they faced; indeed, according to the law, she had suffered no wrong, while her husband had suffered all and was entitled to any compensation. She didn't even know where he was; she hadn't heard from him in years. Her lawyer, however, took a chance and filed a suit on her behalf, including the husband’s name as required by law. When the case went to trial, the defendant made no effort to support the accusations he had made, knowing they were as baseless as they were cruel. Instead, he presented and proved a release of the cause of action, signed by the husband, stating a consideration of fifty dollars. The defendant’s lawyer faced some trouble proving the release's validity and had to call the constable who had been sent to track down the missing husband and get his signature. His testimony revealed that he found the husband in a forest in one of our northeastern counties, making shingles (presumably stealing timber from public lands to fund his drinking habits), and learned that only five dollars of the fifty mentioned in the release had actually been paid. The Court ruled, as it had to, that the injured party in the eyes of the law, had received full compensation for the wrong done to them—and the mother and daughters, with no means for recourse, were left to starve. This was the act of the representative of the wife and daughters, deemed a better protector of their rights than they could be themselves. It is worth noting that if the case had gone to judgment without any input from the husband, and a jury had awarded damages, that money would have gone to the husband, and the wife wouldn’t have been able to touch a cent. Her attorney might have given it to her, but he would risk having to pay it back to the drunken husband if he demanded it.
In another case, two ladies, mother and daughter, some time prior to 1860 came from an eastern county of New York to Rochester, where a habeas corpus was obtained for a child of the daughter less than two years of age. It appeared on the return of the writ, that the mother of the child had been previously abandoned by her husband, who had gone to a Western State to reside, and his wife had returned with the child to her mother's house, and had resided there after her desertion. The husband had recently returned from the West, had succeeded in getting the child into his custody, and was stopping overnight with it in Rochester on the way to his Western home. No misconduct on the part of the wife was pretended, and none on the part of the husband, excepting that he had gone to the West, leaving his wife and child behind, no cause appearing, and had returned, and somewhat clandestinely obtained possession of the child. The Judge, following Blackstone's views of husbands' rights, remanded the infant to the custody of the father. He thought the law required it, and perhaps it did; but if mothers had had a voice, either in making or administering the law, I think the result would have been different. The distress of the mother on being thus separated from her child can be better imagined than described. The separation proved a final one, as in less than a year neither father nor mother had any child on earth to love or care for. Whether the loss to the little one of a mother's love and watchfulness had any effect upon the result, can not, of course, be known.
In another case, a mother and daughter came to Rochester from an eastern county in New York some time before 1860. They obtained a habeas corpus for the daughter’s child, who was under two years old. When the writ was returned, it was revealed that the child’s mother had been abandoned by her husband, who moved to a Western State. She returned with the child to her mother’s house and had lived there after being deserted. The husband had recently come back from the West, managed to get custody of the child, and was staying overnight in Rochester on his way back home. There was no allegation of wrongdoing by the wife, and the husband had no justification other than leaving his wife and child behind when he moved west and coming back to secretly take the child. The Judge, adhering to Blackstone’s views on husbands' rights, decided to return the child to the father’s custody. He believed the law required this outcome, and maybe it did; but if mothers had had any say in creating or enforcing the law, the result would likely have been different. The mother’s anguish from being separated from her child is easier to imagine than describe. The separation turned out to be permanent because within a year, neither parent had a child left to love or care for. Whether the loss of a mother’s love and attention had any impact on this outcome is something we can never know.
The state of the law a short time since, in other respects, in regard to the rights of married women, shows what kind of security had been provided for them by their assumed representatives. Prior to 1848, all the personal property of every woman on marriage became the absolute property of the husband—the use of all her real estate became his during coverture, and on the birth of a living child, it became his during his life. He could squander it in dissipation or bestow it upon harlots, and the wife could not touch or interfere with it. Prior to 1860, the husband could by will take the custody of his infant children away from the surviving mother, and[Pg 659] give it to whom he pleased—and he could in like manner dispose of the control of the children's property, after his death, during their minority, without the mother's consent. In most of these respects the state of the law has undergone great changes within the last twenty-five years. The property, real and personal, which a woman possesses before marriage, and such as may be given to her during coverture, remains her own, and is free from the control of her husband. If a married woman is slandered she can prosecute the slanderer in her own name, and recover to her own use damages for the injury. The mother now has an equal claim with the father to the custody of their minor children, and in case of controversy on the subject, courts may award the custody to either in their discretion. The husband can not now by will effectually appoint a guardian for his infant children without the consent of the mother, if living. These are certainly great ameliorations of the law; but how have they been produced? Mainly as the result of the exertions of a few heroic women, one of the foremost of whom is she who stands arraigned as a criminal before this Court to-day. For a thousand years the absurdities and cruelties to which I have alluded have been imbedded in the common law, and in the statute books, and men have not touched them, and would not until the end of time, had they not been goaded to it by the persistent efforts of the noble women to whom I have alluded.
The state of the law not long ago, in terms of married women's rights, shows the kind of security their supposed representatives provided for them. Before 1848, all personal property that a woman had upon marriage became her husband's absolute property—the use of all her real estate became his during marriage, and upon the birth of a living child, it remained his for life. He could waste it or give it to others, and the wife couldn't touch or interfere with it. Before 1860, the husband could by will take custody of their young children away from the mother and give it to anyone he wanted—and he could similarly control the children's property after his death, during their childhood, without the mother's consent. In many of these respects, the law has seen significant changes over the past twenty-five years. The property, both real and personal, that a woman owned before marriage, and anything that may be given to her during marriage, remains hers and isn't under her husband's control. If a married woman is slandered, she can sue the slanderer in her own name and recover damages for the harm done to her. The mother now has equal claim with the father for the custody of their minor children, and in case of a dispute, courts can award custody to either as they see fit. The husband can no longer by will appoint a guardian for his young children without the mother's consent, if she is alive. These are certainly significant improvements to the law; but how did they come about? Mostly due to the efforts of a few brave women, one of whom stands accused as a criminal before this Court today. For a thousand years, the absurdities and cruelties I've mentioned were embedded in common law and the statute books, and men wouldn't change them until the end of time if they hadn't been pushed by the relentless efforts of the noble women I have mentioned.
Much has been done, but much more remains to be done by women. If they had possessed the elective franchise, the reforms which have cost them a quarter of a century of labor would have been accomplished in a year. They are still subject to taxation upon their property, without any voice as to the levying or destination of the tax; and are still subject to laws made by men, which subject them to fine and imprisonment for the same acts which men do with honor and reward—and when brought to trial no woman is allowed a place on the bench or in the jury box, or a voice in her behalf at the bar. They are bound to suffer the penalty of such laws, made and administered solely by men, and to be silent under the infliction. Give them the ballot, and, although I do not suppose that any great revolution will be produced, or that all political evils will be removed (I am not a believer in political panaceas), but if I mistake not, valuable reforms will be introduced which are not now thought of. Schools, alms-houses, hospitals, drinking saloons, and those worse dens which are destroying the morals and the constitutions of so many of the young of both sexes, will feel their influence to an extent now little dreamed of. At all events women will not be taxed without an opportunity to be heard, and will not be subject to fine and imprisonment by laws made exclusively by men for doing what it is lawful and honorable for men to do.
Much has been accomplished, but there's still a lot left for women to achieve. If they had the right to vote, the reforms that have taken them twenty-five years of hard work would have been finished in a year. They are still taxed on their property without having any say in how those taxes are set or spent, and they are subject to laws created by men that punish them with fines and jail time for the same actions that men are rewarded for. When they go to court, no woman is allowed to sit on the bench or in the jury box, nor can she speak in her defense. They are forced to endure the consequences of laws made and enforced solely by men, with no chance to defend themselves. Grant them the right to vote, and while I don’t believe it will lead to a major revolution or solve all political issues (I don’t believe in political quick fixes), it seems likely that important reforms will emerge that we haven’t even considered yet. Schools, shelters, hospitals, bars, and those even worse places that are ruining the morals and health of so many young people will feel their impact in ways we can barely imagine. In any case, women will no longer be taxed without a chance to express their opinions, and they won’t be penalized by laws created only by men for doing things that are legal and respectable for men to do.
It may be said in answer to the argument in favor of female suffrage derived from the cases to which I have referred, that men, not individually, but collectively, are the natural and appropriate representatives of women, and that, notwithstanding cases of individual wrong, the rights of women are, on the whole, best protected by being left to their care. It must be observed, however, that the cases which I have stated, and which are only types of thousands like them, in their cruelty and injustice, are the result of ages of legislation by these assumed protectors of women. The[Pg 660] wrongs were less in the men than in the laws which sustained them, and which contained nothing for the protection of the women. But passing this view, let us look at the matter historically and on a broader field.
It can be argued in response to the case for women's voting rights based on the examples I've mentioned, that men, not as individuals, but collectively, are the natural and suitable representatives of women. And that, despite some individual injustices, women's rights are generally best safeguarded by leaving them in men's hands. However, it’s important to note that the situations I’ve described, which are just examples of countless similar cases characterized by cruelty and injustice, are the outcome of years of legislation by these so-called protectors of women. The[Pg 660] injustices stemmed more from the laws that upheld them than from the men themselves, who provided no protections for women. But setting this perspective aside, let’s examine the issue from a historical viewpoint and on a broader scale.
If Chinese women were allowed an equal share with men in shaping the laws of that great empire, would they subject their female children to torture with bandaged feet, through the whole period of childhood and growth, in order that they might be cripples for the residue of their lives? If Hindoo women could have shaped the laws of India, would widows for ages have been burned on the funeral pyres of their deceased husbands? If Jewish women had had a voice in framing Jewish laws, would the husband, at his own pleasure, have been allowed to "write his wife a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house"? Would women in Turkey or Persia have made it a heinous, if not capital, offense for a wife to be seen abroad with her face not covered by an impenetrable veil? Would women in England, however learned, have been for ages subjected to execution for offenses for which men, who could read, were only subjected to burning in the hand and a few months imprisonment?
If Chinese women were given an equal role alongside men in shaping the laws of that vast empire, would they really force their daughters to go through the pain of foot binding during childhood, only to live the rest of their lives as cripples? If Hindu women had the power to influence the laws of India, would widows have been burned on their husbands' funeral pyres for centuries? If Jewish women had a say in creating Jewish laws, would husbands still be allowed to simply "write their wives a bill of divorcement, hand it to them, and send them out of their homes"? Would women in Turkey or Persia have deemed it a serious, if not deadly, crime for a wife to be seen in public with her face uncovered? Would women in England, no matter how educated, have faced execution for crimes for which men, who could read, were only punished with having their hands burned and a few months in jail?
The principle which governs in these cases, or which has done so hitherto, has been at all times and everywhere the same. Those who succeed in obtaining power, no matter by what means, will, with rare exceptions, use it for their exclusive benefit. Often, perhaps generally, this is done in the honest belief that such use is for the best good of all who are affected by it. A wrong, however, to those upon whom it is inflicted, is none the less a wrong by reason of the good motives of the party by whom it is inflicted.
The principle that applies in these situations, or that has always applied, has been consistent everywhere and at all times. Those who gain power, regardless of how they do it, will, except in rare cases, use it for their own benefit. Often, and maybe usually, this is done with the sincere belief that it benefits everyone affected by it. However, a wrong done to those who experience it remains a wrong, regardless of the good intentions of the person inflicting it.
The condition of subjection in which women have been held is the result of this principle; the result of superior strength, not of superior rights, on the part of men. Superior strength, combined with ignorance and selfishness, but not with malice. It is a relic of the barbarism in the shadow of which nations have grown up. Precisely as nations have receded from barbarism the severity of that subjection has been relaxed. So long as merely physical power governed in the affairs of the world, the wrongs done to women were without the possibility of redress or relief; but since nations have come to be governed by laws, there is room to hope, though the process may still be a slow one, that injustice in all its forms, or at least political injustice, may be extinguished. No injustice can be greater than to deny to any class of citizens not guilty of crime, all share in the political power of a State, that is, all share in the choice of rulers, and in the making and administration of the laws. Persons to which such share is denied, are essentially slaves, because they hold their rights, if they can be said to have any, subject to the will of those who hold the political power. For this reason it has been found necessary to give the ballot to the emancipated slaves. Until this was done their emancipation was far from complete. Without a share in the political powers of the State, no class of citizens has any security for its rights, and the history of nations to which I briefly alluded, shows that women constitute no exception to the universality of this rule.
The situation of submission that women have faced comes from this principle; it stems from physical strength, not from any inherent rights of men. This superior strength, along with ignorance and selfishness, but not malice, has led to this dynamic. It's a leftover from the barbaric times through which nations have developed. As nations have moved away from barbarism, the harshness of this submission has eased up. When mere physical power ruled the world, the injustices against women could not be addressed or remedied; however, now that nations are governed by laws, there is hope—albeit slow—that injustices, particularly political ones, can be eliminated. No injustice is greater than denying any group of citizens, who haven't committed a crime, a voice in the political power of a State, meaning no input in choosing leaders or in creating and enforcing laws. Those denied such a voice are essentially enslaved because their rights, if they have any, are dependent on the whims of those who hold political power. That's why it was crucial to grant voting rights to freed slaves; until that happened, their freedom wasn't fully realized. Without political power, no class of citizens can secure its rights, and the history of nations I briefly mentioned shows that women are no exception to this rule.
Great errors, I think, exist in the minds of both the advocates and the opponents of this measure in their anticipation of the immediate effects to be produced by its adoption. On the one hand it is supposed by some that[Pg 661] the character of women would be radically changed—that they would be unsexed, as it were, by clothing them with political rights, and that instead of modest, amiable, and graceful beings, we should have bold, noisy, and disgusting political demagogues, or something worse, if anything worse can be imagined. I think those who entertain such opinions are in error. The innate character of women is the result of God's laws, not of man's, nor can the laws of man affect that character beyond a very slight degree. Whatever rights may be given to them, and whatever duties may be charged upon them by human laws, their general character will remain unchanged. Their modesty, their delicacy, and intuitive sense of propriety, will never desert them, into whatever new positions their added rights or duties may carry them.
I believe there are significant misconceptions among both supporters and critics of this measure regarding the immediate effects of its implementation. Some people think that[Pg 661] women will be fundamentally transformed—that granting them political rights will strip them of their femininity, turning them from modest, kind, and graceful individuals into loud, aggressive political figures, or even worse, if you can imagine anything worse. I believe those who hold such views are mistaken. The inherent nature of women is shaped by the laws of nature, not by human laws, and those laws can only influence that nature to a small extent. No matter what rights they are granted or what responsibilities are placed on them by society, their overall character will stay the same. Their modesty, delicacy, and natural sense of appropriateness will always be with them, regardless of the new roles their expanded rights or responsibilities may lead them to.
So far as women, without change of character as women, are qualified to discharge the duties of citizenship, they will discharge them if called upon to do so, and beyond that they will not go. Nature has put barriers in the way of any excessive devotion of women to public affairs, and it is not necessary that nature's work in that respect should be supplemented by additional barriers invented by men. Such offices as women are qualified to fill will be sought by those who do not find other employment, and others they will not seek, or if they do, will seek in vain. To aid in removing as far as possible the disheartening difficulties which women dependent upon their own exertions encounter, it is, I think, desirable that such official positions as they can fill should be thrown open to them, and that they should be given the same power that men have to aid each other by their votes. I would say, remove all legal barriers that stand in the way of their finding employment, official or unofficial, and leave them, as men are left, to depend for success upon their character and their abilities. As long as men are allowed to act as milliners, with what propriety can they exclude women from the post of school commissioners when chosen to such positions by their neighbors?
As far as women are able to fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship without changing who they are as women, they will step up if needed, and they won’t go beyond that. Nature has already set limits on how much women can get involved in public matters, and there’s no need for men to create additional obstacles on top of that. Women will pursue the roles they are qualified for, especially if they don’t have other job options, and they won’t seek out roles they’re not suited for, or if they do, they will be unsuccessful. To help lessen the frustrating challenges that self-reliant women face, I believe it’s important to make official positions available to them, and to grant them the same power as men to support each other through their votes. I suggest removing all legal barriers that prevent them from finding jobs, whether official or unofficial, and allowing them to rely on their character and skills for success, just like men do. If men can work as milliners, how can they justifiably keep women from being school commissioners when they are chosen for those roles by their communities?
To deny them such rights, is to leave them in a condition of political servitude as absolute as that of the African slaves before their emancipation. This conclusion is readily to be deduced from the opinion of Chief-Justice Jay in the case of Chisholm's Ex'rs vs. The State of Georgia (2 Dallas, 419-471), although the learned Chief-Justice had of course no idea of any such application as I make of his opinion. The action was assumpsit by a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and the question was, whether the United States Court had jurisdiction, the State of Georgia declining to appear. The Chief-Justice, in the course of his opinion, after alluding to the feudal idea of the character of the sovereign in England, and giving some of the reasons why he was not subject to suit before the courts of the kingdom, says:
To deny them such rights leaves them in a state of political servitude as absolute as that of African slaves before they were freed. This conclusion can easily be drawn from Chief Justice Jay's opinion in the case of Chisholm's Ex'rs vs. The State of Georgia (2 Dallas, 419-471), although the Chief Justice obviously had no idea that his opinion would be applied in this way. The case was a lawsuit by a citizen of South Carolina, and the question was whether the United States Court had jurisdiction, as the State of Georgia chose not to appear. In his opinion, the Chief Justice, after mentioning the feudal concept of the sovereign's character in England and explaining a few reasons why he was not subject to lawsuits in the kingdom, states:
The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here. At the Revolution the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow-citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.
The same feudal concepts are present throughout their legal system, constantly reminding us of the difference between the ruler and the people. Such concepts do not exist here. At the Revolution, power was transferred to the people, and they are truly the rulers of the country, but they are rulers without subjects (unless we consider the African slaves among us as such), and have no one to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens and as shared owners of the sovereignty.
Now I beg leave to ask, in case this charge against Miss Anthony can be sustained, what equality and what sovereignty is enjoyed by the half of the[Pg 662] citizens of these United States to which she belongs? Do they not, in that event, occupy politically exactly the position which the learned Chief-Justice assigns to the African slaves? Are they not shown to be subjects of the other half, who are the sovereigns? And is not their political subjection as absolute as was that of the African slaves? If that charge has any basis to rest upon, the learned Chief-Justice was wrong. The sovereigns of this country, according to the theory of this prosecution, are not sovereigns without subjects. Though two or three millions of their subjects have lately ceased to be such, and have become freemen, they still hold twenty millions of subjects in absolute political bondage. If it be said that my language is stronger than the facts warrant, I appeal to the record in this case for its justification.
Now I’d like to ask, if this accusation against Miss Anthony can be proven, what equality and sovereignty do the half of the[Pg 662] citizens of these United States that she belongs to actually have? In that case, do they not occupy a political position exactly like what the learned Chief Justice describes for African slaves? Are they not effectively shown to be subjects of the other half, who are the sovereigns? And is their political subjugation not as complete as that of the African slaves? If that accusation has any validity, then the learned Chief Justice was mistaken. The sovereigns of this country, according to the theory of this case, are not truly sovereign without subjects. Even though two or three million of their subjects have recently stopped being such and become freemen, they still have twenty million subjects in total political bondage. If it’s claimed that my language is stronger than the facts support, I refer to the record in this case for justification.
As deductions from what has been said, I respectfully insist, 1st, That upon the principles upon which our government is based, the privileges of the elective franchise can not justly be denied to women. 2d. That women need it for their protection. 3d. That the welfare of both sexes will be promoted by granting it to them.
As a conclusion from what has been discussed, I respectfully insist, 1st, That based on the principles our government is founded on, women cannot justly be denied the right to vote. 2nd. That women need this right for their protection. 3rd. That granting this right to women will promote the welfare of both sexes.
It would not become me, however clear my own convictions may be on the subject, to assert the right of women, under our Constitution and laws as they now are, to vote at Presidential and Congressional elections, is free from doubt, because very able men have expressed contrary opinions on that question, and, so far as I am informed, there has been no authoritative adjudication upon it; or, at all events, none upon which the public mind has been content to rest as conclusive. I proceed, therefore, to offer such suggestions as occur to me, and to refer to such authorities bearing upon the question, as have fallen under my observation, hoping to satisfy your honor, not only that my client has committed no criminal offense, but that she has done nothing which she had not a legal and Constitutional right to do. It is not claimed that, under our State Constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it, women are authorized to vote at elections, other than those of private corporations, and consequently the right of Miss Anthony to vote at the election in question, can only be established by reference to an authority superior to and sufficient to overcome the provisions of our State Constitution. Such authority can only be found, and I claim that it is found in the Constitution of the United States. For convenience I beg leave to bring together the various provisions of that Constitution which bear more or less directly upon the question:
It wouldn't be appropriate for me, no matter how strongly I feel about this issue, to claim that women have an undeniable right to vote in Presidential and Congressional elections, as our Constitution and laws currently stand. This is because many knowledgeable men have held different views on this matter, and, to my knowledge, there hasn't been any official ruling on it; or at least, none that the public has accepted as definitive. Therefore, I will present my thoughts and refer to the relevant authorities I have encountered, with the hope of demonstrating to your honor that my client has committed no crime and has acted within her legal and constitutional rights. It is not argued that, according to our State Constitution and the laws derived from it, women are allowed to vote in elections, except for those regarding private corporations. Therefore, Miss Anthony's right to vote in the election in question can only be demonstrated by referencing an authority that is higher than and able to override the provisions of our State Constitution. Such authority exists, and I assert that it can be found in the Constitution of the United States. For clarity, I would like to compile the various provisions of that Constitution that are relevant to this issue:
Article I, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year, by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.
Article I, Section 2. The House of Representatives will be made up of members elected every two years by the people of the various States; and the voters in each State must meet the qualifications required for voters in the largest branch of the State Legislature.
Article I, Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six years; and each senator shall have one vote.
Article I, Section 3. The Senate of the United States will consist of two senators from each state, selected by the state's Legislature for a term of six years; each senator will have one vote.
Article II, Section 1. Each State shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
Article II, Section 1. Each state will choose, in a way determined by its legislature, a number of electors equal to the total number of senators and representatives that the state is allowed in Congress.
Article IV, Section 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.
Article IV, Section 2. The citizens of each State have the right to all the privileges and protections that citizens enjoy in other States.
Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government.[Pg 663]
Article IV, Section 4. The United States will guarantee a republican form of government to every State in the Union.[Pg 663]
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT. (DECEMBER 18, 1865.)
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
1. Neither slavery nor forced labor, except as punishment for a crime for which the person has been properly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place under their authority.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
2. Congress has the power to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. (JULY 28, 1868.)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 1. All people born or naturalized in the United States, and under its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the state where they live. No state can make or enforce any law that limits the rights or privileges of U.S. citizens; nor can any state take away a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 2. Representatives will be distributed among the various States based on their population, counting all people in each State, except for untaxed Native Americans. However, if the right to vote in any election for choosing electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, State Executive and Judicial officers, or State Legislature members is denied to any male residents of that State who are twenty-one years old and citizens of the United States, or if it is restricted in any way, except due to participation in rebellion or other crimes, the basis for representation in that State will be reduced according to the ratio of those male citizens to the total number of male citizens aged twenty-one and over in that State.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 5. Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of this article through appropriate legislation.
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT. (MARCH 30, 1870.)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
Section 1. Citizens of the United States have the right to vote, and this right cannot be denied or limited by the United States or any State due to race, color, or past conditions of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 2. Congress has the authority to enforce this article through suitable legislation.
By reference to the provisions of the original Constitution, here recited, it appears that prior to the XIII., if not until the XIV. Amendment, the whole power over the elective franchise, even in the choice of Federal officers, rested with the States. The Constitution contains no definition of the term "citizen," either of the United States, or of the several States, but contents itself with the provision that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." The States were thus left free to place such restrictions and limitations upon the "privileges and immunities" of citizens as they saw fit, so far as is consistent with a republican form of government, subject only to the condition that no State could place restrictions upon the "privileges or immunities" of the citizens of any other State, which would not be applicable to its own citizens under like circumstances. It will be seen, therefore, that the whole subject, as to what should constitute the "privileges and immunities" of the citizen being left to the States, no question, such as we now present, could have arisen under the original Constitution of the United States.
By looking at the provisions of the original Constitution mentioned here, it’s clear that before the XIII Amendment, and possibly even until the XIV Amendment, all power over voting rights, including the selection of Federal officials, lay with the States. The Constitution does not define the term "citizen," whether in relation to the United States or its individual States, but simply states that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." This meant that States had the freedom to impose any restrictions and limitations on the "privileges and immunities" of their citizens as they saw fit, as long as these were consistent with a republican form of government. The only requirement was that no State could impose restrictions on the "privileges or immunities" of citizens from other States that wouldn’t also apply to its own citizens in similar situations. Thus, it becomes evident that since the whole matter of what constitutes the "privileges and immunities" of a citizen was left to the States, no issues like the one we are discussing now could have arisen under the original Constitution of the United States.
But now, by the XIV. Amendment, the United States have not only declared what constitutes citizenship, both in the United States and in the several States, securing the rights of citizens to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States"; but have absolutely prohibited the States from making or enforcing "any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of[Pg 664] citizens of the United States." By virtue of this provision, I insist that the act of Miss Anthony in voting was lawful. It has never, since the adoption of the XIV. Amendment, been questioned, and can not be questioned, that women as well as men are included in the terms of its first section, nor that the same "privileges and immunities of citizens" are equally secured to both.
But now, with the XIV Amendment, the United States has not only defined what citizenship means, both in the U.S. and in individual states, ensuring that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" are recognized as citizens; it has also completely banned the states from creating or enforcing "any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of[Pg 664] citizens of the United States." Because of this provision, I argue that Miss Anthony's act of voting was legal. Since the adoption of the XIV Amendment, it's never been questioned, and cannot be questioned, that women, just like men, are included in the meanings of its first section, nor that the same "privileges and immunities of citizens" are guaranteed to both.
What, then, are the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" which are secured against such abridgment, by this section? I claim that these terms not only include the right of voting for public officers, but that they include that right as pre-eminently the most important of all the privileges and immunities to which the section refers. Among these privileges and immunities may doubtless be classed the right to life and liberty, to the acquisition and enjoyment of property, and to the free pursuit of one's own welfare, so far as such pursuit does not interfere with the rights and welfare of others; but what security has any one for the enjoyment of these rights when denied any voice in the making of the laws, or in the choice of those who make, and those who administer them? The possession of this voice, in the making and administration of the laws—this political right—is what gives security and value to the other rights, which are merely personal, not political. A person deprived of political rights is essentially a slave, because he holds his personal rights subject to the will of those who possess the political power. This principle constitutes the very corner-stone of our Government—indeed, of all republican government. Upon that basis our separation from Great Britain was justified. "Taxation without representation is tyranny." This famous aphorism of James Otis, although sufficient for the occasion when it was put forth, expresses but a fragment of the principle, because government can be oppressive through means of many appliances besides that of taxation. The true principle is, that all government over persons deprived of any voice in such government, is tyranny. That is the principle of the Declaration of Independence. We were slow in allowing its application to the African race, and have been still slower in allowing its application to women; but it has been done by the XIV. Amendment, rightly construed, by a definition of "citizenship," which includes women as well as men, and in the declaration that "the privileges and immunities of citizens shall not be abridged."
What, then, are the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" that this section protects against being limited? I argue that these terms include not only the right to vote for public officials but that this right is the most important of all the privileges and immunities mentioned in the section. Among these privileges and immunities are certainly the rights to life and liberty, to acquire and enjoy property, and to pursue one's own well-being as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights and well-being of others; but what security does anyone have to enjoy these rights when they're denied any say in the creation of the laws or in the selection of those who create and enforce them? The ability to participate in making and administering the laws—this political right—is what provides security and value to the other rights, which are just personal, not political. A person without political rights is essentially a slave, because their personal rights depend on the will of those who hold political power. This principle is the foundation of our Government—and indeed, of all republican governments. This is what justified our separation from Great Britain. "Taxation without representation is tyranny." This famous saying by James Otis, while sufficient at the time it was made, captures only part of the principle, because a government can be oppressive in many ways beyond taxation. The true principle is that any government over people who have no voice in that government is tyranny. That is the principle of the Declaration of Independence. We were slow to apply it to African Americans and even slower to apply it to women; however, it has been addressed by the XIV Amendment, interpreted correctly, through a definition of "citizenship" that includes women as well as men, and by the statement that "the privileges and immunities of citizens shall not be abridged."
If there is any privilege of the citizen which is paramount to all others, it is the right of suffrage; and in a constitutional provision, designed to secure the most valuable rights of the citizen, the declaration that the privileges and immunities of the citizen shall not be abridged must, as I conceive, be held to secure that right before all others. It is obvious, when the entire language of the section is examined, not only that this declaration was designed to secure to the citizen this political right, but that such was its principal, if not its sole object, those provisions of the section which follow it being devoted to securing the personal rights of "life, liberty, property, and the equal protection of the laws." The clause on which we rely, to wit: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," might be stricken out of the section, and the residue would secure to the citizen every right which is now secured, excepting the political rights of voting and holding office. If the clause in question does not secure those political rights, it is entirely nugatory, and might as well have been omitted.[Pg 665]
If there's any right that stands above all others for a citizen, it's the right to vote. In a constitutional provision meant to protect the most important rights of citizens, the statement that the privileges and immunities of citizens cannot be limited must, I believe, be interpreted to prioritize that right above all else. It's clear, when we look at the entire language of this section, not only that this statement was intended to guarantee this political right, but also that this was its main, if not its only purpose, while the rest of the section focuses on protecting personal rights like "life, liberty, property, and equal protection under the law." The clause we rely on, specifically: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," could be removed from the section, and the remaining text would still guarantee all the rights that are currently safeguarded, except for the political rights to vote and hold office. If this clause doesn't secure those political rights, it serves no purpose and could just as easily have been left out.[Pg 665]
If we go to the lexicographers and to the writers upon law, to learn what are the privileges and immunities of the "citizen" in a republican government, we shall find that the leading feature of citizenship is the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. The definition of the term "citizen" by Bouvier is:
If we consult lexicographers and legal writers to understand the privileges and immunities of a "citizen" in a republican government, we'll discover that the main aspect of citizenship is the right to vote. Bouvier defines the term "citizen" as:
One who under the Constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for Representatives in Congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people.
One who has the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and other public officials under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and who is qualified to hold offices elected by the people.
By Worcester:
By Worcester:
An inhabitant of a republic who enjoys the rights of a freeman, and has a right to vote for public officers.
An individual in a republic who enjoys the rights of a free person and has the right to vote for public officials.
By Webster:
By Webster:
In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.
In the United States, a person, whether born here or naturalized, who has the right to vote and meet the qualifications to elect leaders, as well as to buy and own real estate.
The meaning of the word "citizen" is directly and plainly recognized by the latest Amendment of the Constitution, the XV.:
The meaning of the word "citizen" is clearly defined by the most recent Amendment to the Constitution, the 15th.
The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The citizens of the United States have the right to vote, and that right cannot be denied or restricted by the United States or any State based on race, color, or past status of servitude.
This clause assumes that the right of citizens, as such, to vote, is an existing right. Mr. Richard Grant White, in his late work on "Words and their Uses," says of the word citizen:
This clause assumes that the right of citizens to vote is a current right. Mr. Richard Grant White, in his recent work on "Words and their Uses," says of the word citizen:
A citizen is a person who has certain political rights, and the word is properly used to imply or suggest the possession of these rights.
A citizen is someone who has specific political rights, and the term is correctly used to indicate or imply having these rights.
Mr. Justice Washington, in the case of Corfield vs. Coryell (4 Wash. C. C. Rep. 380), speaking of the "privileges and immunities" of the citizen, as mentioned in Sec. 2, Art. 4, of the Constitution, after enumerating the personal rights mentioned above, and some others, as embraced by those terms, says,
Mr. Justice Washington, in the case of Corfield vs. Coryell (4 Wash. C. C. Rep. 380), discussing the "privileges and immunities" of citizens, as stated in Sec. 2, Art. 4 of the Constitution, after listing the personal rights mentioned above and a few others included in those terms, says,
To which may be added the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised.
To which may be added the right to vote, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State where it is to be exercised.
At that time the States had entire control of the subject, and could abridge this privilege of the citizen at its pleasure; but the judge recognizes the "elective franchise" as among the "privileges and immunities" secured, to a qualified extent, to the citizens of every State by the provisions of the Constitution last referred to. When, therefore, the States were, by the XIV. Amendment, absolutely prohibited from abridging the privileges of the citizen, either by enforcing existing laws, or by the making of new laws, the right of every "citizen" to the full exercise of this privilege, as against State action, was absolutely secured.
At that time, the states had full control over the issue and could limit this privilege of citizens whenever they wanted. However, the judge recognizes the "elective franchise" as one of the "privileges and immunities" that, to some extent, are guaranteed to the citizens of every state by the Constitution mentioned earlier. Therefore, when the XIV Amendment completely prohibited states from limiting citizens' privileges, whether by enforcing current laws or creating new ones, the right of every "citizen" to fully exercise this privilege, against state actions, was fully secured.
Chancellor Kent and Judge Story both refer to the opinion of Mr. Justice Washington, above quoted, with approbation. The Supreme Court of Kentucky, in the case of Amy, a woman of color, vs. Smith (1 Littell's Rep. 326), discussed with great ability the questions as to what constituted citizenship, and what were the "privileges and immunities of citizens" which were secured by Sec. 2, Art. 4, of the Constitution, and they showed, by an unanswerable argument, that the term "citizens," as there used, was confined to those who were entitled to the enjoyment of the elective franchise, and that that was among the highest of the "privileges and immunities" secured to the citizen by that section. The court say that,[Pg 666]
Chancellor Kent and Judge Story both commend Mr. Justice Washington's opinion, previously quoted. The Supreme Court of Kentucky, in the case of Amy, a woman of color, vs. Smith (1 Littell's Rep. 326), skillfully discussed the issues surrounding citizenship and what the "privileges and immunities of citizens" were, as guaranteed by Sec. 2, Art. 4, of the Constitution. They provided a compelling argument that the term "citizens," as used there, was limited to those who had the right to vote, which was among the highest "privileges and immunities" protected for citizens by that section. The court states that,[Pg 666]
To be a citizen it is necessary that he should be entitled to the enjoyment of these privileges and immunities, upon the same terms upon which they are conferred upon other citizens; and unless he is so entitled he can not, in the proper sense of the term, be a citizen.
To be a citizen, it is necessary that one is entitled to enjoy these privileges and rights on the same terms as other citizens; and unless one is entitled, they cannot, in the true sense of the word, be considered a citizen.
In the case of Scott vs. Sanford (19 How. 404), Chief-Justice Taney says:
In the case of Scott vs. Sanford (19 How. 404), Chief Justice Taney states:
The words "people of the United States," and "citizens," are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing; they describe the political body, who according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and hold the power, and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people, and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.
The phrases "people of the United States" and "citizens" are interchangeable and mean the same thing; they refer to the political group that, according to our republican system, exercises sovereignty, holds power, and runs the government through their representatives. We commonly refer to them as the sovereign people, and every citizen is part of this group and a member of this sovereignty.
Mr. Justice Daniel, in the same case (p. 476), says:
Mr. Justice Daniel, in the same case (p. 476), says:
Upon the principles of etymology alone, the term citizen, as derived from civitas, conveys the idea of connection or identification with the State or Government, and a participation in its functions. But beyond this, there is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of writers on government, or in any actual experiment heretofore tried, an exposition of the term citizen, which has not been understood as conferring the actual possession and enjoyment, or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political.
Based on etymology alone, the term citizen, which comes from civitas, suggests a connection or identification with the State or Government, along with participation in its functions. However, beyond this, it is believed that in the theories of writers on government or any real-life examples so far, there hasn't been a definition of the term citizen that doesn't imply the actual possession and enjoyment, or the complete right to acquire and enjoy, full equality of civil and political privileges.
Similar references might be made to an indefinite extent, but enough has been said to show that the term citizen, in the language of Justice Daniel, conveys the idea "of identification with the State or Government, and a participation in its functions." Beyond question, therefore, the first section of the XIV. Amendment, by placing the citizenship of women upon a par with that of men, and declaring that the "privileges and immunities" of the citizen shall not be abridged, has secured to women, equally with men, the right of suffrage, unless that conclusion is overthrown by some other provision of the Constitution.
Similar references could be made indefinitely, but enough has been said to show that the term citizen, as Justice Daniel describes it, means "identification with the State or Government, and participation in its functions." Therefore, it's clear that the first section of the XIV Amendment, by placing women's citizenship on equal footing with men's and stating that the "privileges and immunities" of citizens cannot be restricted, has granted women the same voting rights as men, unless this conclusion is overturned by another provision of the Constitution.
It is not necessary for the purposes of this argument to claim that this Amendment prohibits a State from making or enforcing any law whatever, regulating the elective franchise, or prescribing the conditions upon which it may be exercised. But we do claim that in every republic the right of suffrage, in some form and to some extent, is not only one of the privileges of its citizens, but is the first, most obvious and most important of all the privileges they enjoy; that in this respect all citizens are equal, and that the effect of this Amendment is, to prohibit the States from enforcing any law which denies this right to any of its citizens, or which imposes any restrictions upon it, which are inconsistent with a republican form of government. Within this limit, it is unnecessary for us to deny that the States may still regulate and control the exercise of the right.
It’s not necessary for this argument to assert that this Amendment prevents a State from creating or enforcing any law regarding the right to vote or setting conditions for how it can be exercised. However, we do argue that in every republic, the right to vote, in some way and to some degree, is not only one of the rights of its citizens, but is the first, most apparent, and most significant of all the rights they hold; that in this regard, all citizens are equal, and that the purpose of this Amendment is to stop the States from enforcing any law that denies this right to any citizen, or imposes any restrictions on it that are contrary to a republican form of government. Within this boundary, it’s unnecessary for us to dispute that the States can still regulate and oversee the exercise of this right.
The only provisions of the Constitution which it can be contended conflict with the construction which has here been put upon the first section of the XIV. Amendment, are the XV. Amendment, and the second section of the XIV. In regard to the XV. Amendment, I shall only say, that if my interpretation of the XIV. is correct, there was still an object to be accomplished and which was accomplished by the XV. The prohibition of any action abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens, contained in the XIV. Amendment, applies only to the States, and leaves the United States Government free to abridge the political privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as such, at its pleasure. By the XV. Amendment both the United States and the State governments are prohibited[Pg 667] from exercising this power, "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" of the citizen.
The only parts of the Constitution that could be argued to conflict with the interpretation I've provided for the first section of the XIV Amendment are the XV Amendment and the second section of the XIV. Regarding the XV Amendment, I'll just say that if my interpretation of the XIV is accurate, there was still something important to achieve, which was accomplished by the XV. The prohibition against any action that limits the privileges and rights of citizens in the XIV Amendment applies only to the States, allowing the United States Government the freedom to limit the political privileges and rights of U.S. citizens as it sees fit. The XV Amendment prohibits both the United States and State governments from using this power "because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" of the citizen.[Pg 667]
The first remark to be made upon the second section of the XIV. Amendment is, that it does not give, and was not designed to give to the States any power to deny or abridge the right of any citizen to exercise the elective franchise. So far as it touches that subject, it was designed to be restrictive upon the States. It gives to them no power whatever. It takes away no power, and it gives none; but if the States possess the power to deny or abridge the right of citizens to vote, it must be derived from some other provision of the Constitution. I believe none such can be found, which was not necessarily abrogated by the first section of this Amendment. It may be conceded that the persons who prepared this section supposed that, by other parts of the Constitution, or in some other way, the States would still be authorized, notwithstanding the provisions of the first section, to deny to the citizens the privilege of voting, as mentioned in the second section; but their mistake can not be held to add to, or to take from the other provisions of the Constitution. It is very clear that they did not intend, by this section, to give to the States any such power, but, believing that the States possessed it, they designed to hold the prospect of a reduction of their representation in Congress in terrorem over them to prevent them from exercising it. They seem not to have been able to emancipate themselves from the influence of the original Constitution which conceded this power to the States, or to have realized the fact that the first section of the Amendment, when adopted, would wholly deprive the States of that power.
The first point to make about the second section of the XIV Amendment is that it does not grant, and wasn't intended to grant, the States any authority to deny or limit a citizen's right to vote. In relation to this issue, it was meant to restrict the States. It provides them with no power at all. It neither takes away power nor gives any; however, if the States have the authority to deny or limit citizens' voting rights, that must come from some other part of the Constitution. I don't believe there is any such provision that wasn't overridden by the first section of this Amendment. It's possible that those who drafted this section thought that, through other parts of the Constitution or some other means, the States would still have the authority, despite the first section's provisions, to deny citizens the right to vote as stated in the second section. However, their error cannot change the other parts of the Constitution. It's clear that they didn’t intend, with this section, to give the States any such power; rather, believing that the States had it, they meant to use the threat of reducing their representation in Congress as leverage to keep them from using it. They seemed unable to free themselves from the influence of the original Constitution, which granted this power to the States, or to recognize that the adoption of the first section of the Amendment would completely strip the States of that power.
But those who prepare constitutions are never those who adopt them, and consequently the views of those who frame them have little or no bearing upon their interpretation. The question for consideration here is, what the people, who, through their representatives in the legislatures, adopted the Amendments, understood, or must be presumed to have understood, from their language. They must be presumed to have known that the "privileges and immunities" of citizens which were secured to them by the first section beyond the power of abridgment by the States, gave them the right to exercise the elective franchise, and they certainly can not be presumed to have understood that the second section, which was also designed to be restrictive upon the States, would be held to confer by implication a power upon them, which the first section in the most express terms prohibited.
But the people who create constitutions are never the ones who actually adopt them, so their perspectives have little to no influence on how the constitutions are interpreted. The question to consider here is what the people, who adopted the Amendments through their representatives in the legislatures, understood or could reasonably be expected to understand from their wording. They should be assumed to have known that the "privileges and immunities" of citizens guaranteed by the first section were protected from being limited by the States, giving them the right to vote. They certainly shouldn't be assumed to have understood that the second section, which was also meant to limit the States, could be interpreted to give them a power that the first section explicitly prohibited.
It has been, and may be again asserted, that the position which I have taken in regard to the second section is inadmissible, because it renders the section nugatory. That is, as I hold, an entire mistake. The leading object of the second section was the readjustment of the representation of the States in Congress, rendered necessary by the abolition of chattel slavery [not of political slavery], effected by the XIII. Amendment. This object the section accomplishes, and in this respect it remains wholly untouched, by my construction of it. Neither do I think the position tenable which has been taken by one tribunal, to which the consideration of this subject was presented, that the constitutional provision does not execute itself. The provisions on which we rely were negative merely, and were designed to nullify existing as well as any future State legislation interfering with our rights. This result was accomplished by the constitution[Pg 668] itself. Undoubtedly before we could exercise our right, it was necessary that there should be a time and place appointed for holding the election and proper officers to hold it, with suitable arrangements for receiving and counting the votes. All this was properly done by existing laws, and our right being made complete by the Constitution, no further legislation was required in our behalf. When the State officers attempted to interpose between us and the ballot-box the State Constitution or State law, whether ancient or recent, abridging or denying our equal right to vote with other citizens, we had but to refer to the United States Constitution, prohibiting the States from enforcing any such constitutional provision or law, and our rights were complete; we needed neither Congressional nor State legislation in aid of them. The opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley, in a case in the United States Circuit Court in New Orleans (1 Abb. U. S. Rep., 402) would seem to be decisive of this question, although the right involved in that case was not that of the elective franchise. The learned Justice says:
It has been, and might be again claimed, that the stance I’ve taken on the second section is unacceptable because it makes the section meaningless. I believe that is a complete misunderstanding. The main goal of the second section was to reorganize how states are represented in Congress, which became necessary after the abolishment of chattel slavery [not political slavery], as accomplished by the XIII Amendment. This goal is achieved by the section, and my interpretation does not change that aspect at all. I also don’t find the argument convincing that has been made by one court regarding this topic, which suggests that the constitutional provision does not apply on its own. The provisions we rely on were purely negative and intended to nullify both existing and any future state laws that interfere with our rights. This outcome was achieved directly by the Constitution[Pg 668] itself. Certainly, before we could exercise our right, it was necessary to have a designated time and place for the election and proper officials to conduct it, along with appropriate measures for receiving and counting the votes. All of this was properly managed by existing laws, and since our rights were fully established by the Constitution, no further legislation was needed on our behalf. When state officials tried to block us from the ballot box, citing the State Constitution or state laws, whether old or new, that limited or denied our equal right to vote like other citizens, we could simply point to the United States Constitution, which prevents the states from enforcing any such laws, and our rights were secured; we didn’t need additional Congressional or state legislation to support them. The opinion of Justice Bradley in a case in the United States Circuit Court in New Orleans (1 Abb. U. S. Rep., 402) seems to clarify this issue, even though the right at stake in that case was not the right to vote. The learned Justice states:
It was very ably contended on the part of the defendants that the XIV. Amendment was intended only to secure to all citizens equal capacities before the law. That was at first our view of it. But it does not so read. The language is: "No State shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." What are the privileges and immunities of citizens? Are they capacities merely? Are they not also rights?
It was strongly argued by the defendants that the XIV Amendment was meant solely to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunities under the law. That was initially our perspective. However, that’s not how it reads. The text states: "No State shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." What exactly are the privileges and immunities of citizens? Are they just opportunities? Are they not also rights?
Senator Carpenter, who took part in the discussion of the XIV. Amendment in the Senate, and aided in its passage, says:
Senator Carpenter, who participated in the discussion of the XIV Amendment in the Senate and helped secure its passage, states:
The XIV. Amendment executes itself in every State of the Union.... It is thus the will of the United States in every State, and silences every State Constitution, usage, or law which conflicts with it.... And if this provision does protect the colored citizen, then it protects every citizen, black or white, male or female.... And all the privileges and immunities which I vindicate to a colored citizen, I vindicate to our mothers, our sisters, and our daughters.—Chicago Legal News, vol. IV., No. 15.
The XIV Amendment is applied in every State of the Union.... It represents the will of the United States in all States and overrides any State Constitution, customs, or laws that conflict with it.... If this provision protects citizens of color, then it protects all citizens, regardless of race or gender.... The rights and privileges I claim for a person of color are the same rights I claim for our mothers, our sisters, and our daughters.—Chicago Legal News, vol. IV., No. 15.
It has been said, with how much or how little truth I do not know, that the subject of securing to women the elective franchise was not considered in the preparation or in the adoption of these Amendments. It is wholly immaterial whether that was so or not. It is never possible to arrive at the intention of the people in adopting constitutions, except by referring to the language used. As is said by Mr. Cooley, "the intent is to be found in the instrument itself" (p. 55), and to that I have confined my remarks. It is not a new thing for constitutional and legislative acts to have an effect beyond the anticipation of those who framed them. It is undoubtedly true, that in exacting Magna Charta from King John, the Barons of England provided better securities for the rights of the common people than they were aware of at the time, although the rights of the common people were neither forgotten nor neglected by them. It has also been said, perhaps with some truth, that the framers of the original Constitution of the United States "builded better than they knew;" and it is quite possible that in framing the Amendments under consideration, those engaged in doing it have accomplished a much greater work than they were at the time, aware of. I am quite sure that it will be fortunate for the country, if this great question of female suffrage, than which few greater were ever presented for the consideration of any people, shall be found, almost unexpectedly, to have been put at rest. The opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley, in regard to this Amendment, in the case above referred to, if I understand it, corresponds[Pg 669] very nearly with what I have here said. The learned Judge, in one part of his opinion, says:
It has been said, whether there's much truth to it or not, that the issue of securing the right to vote for women wasn't considered when these Amendments were prepared or adopted. It doesn't really matter if that's true. We can only understand the people's intent in adopting constitutions by looking at the language used. As Mr. Cooley stated, "the intent is to be found in the instrument itself" (p. 55), and that's where I've focused my comments. It's not uncommon for constitutional and legislative actions to have effects beyond what the creators anticipated. It's certainly true that when the Barons of England forced King John to sign the Magna Charta, they secured better protections for the rights of ordinary people than they realized at the time, even though they hadn't forgotten or neglected those rights. It has also been said, perhaps with some truth, that the framers of the original Constitution of the United States "built better than they knew;" and it's quite possible that in drafting the Amendments we're discussing, those involved achieved much more than they were aware of at the time. I'm confident that it will be a positive outcome for the country if this significant issue of women's voting rights, which is one of the most crucial matters ever presented for any society’s consideration, turns out to be resolved almost unexpectedly. Justice Bradley's opinion regarding this Amendment, in the case mentioned earlier, if I understand it correctly, aligns very closely with what I've said here. The learned Judge, in one part of his opinion, states:
It is possible that those who framed the article were not themselves aware of the far-reaching character of its terms. They may have had in mind but one particular phase of social and political wrong, which they desired to redress—yet, if the Amendment, as framed and expressed, does, in fact, have a broader meaning, and does extend its protecting shield over those who were never thought of when it was conceived and put in form, and does reach such social evils which were never before prohibited by constitutional amendment, it is to be presumed that the American people, in giving it their imprimatur, understood what they were doing, and meant to decree what has, in fact, been done.... It embraces much more. The "privileges and immunities" secured by the original Constitution were only such as each State gave its own citizens. Each was prohibited from discriminating in favor of its own citizens, and against the citizens of other States. But the XIV. Amendment prohibits any State from abridging the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, whether its own citizens or any others. It not merely requires equality of privileges, but it demands that the privileges and immunities of all citizens shall be absolutely unabridged, unimpaired. (1 Abbott's U. S. Rep., 397).
It’s possible that those who wrote the article weren’t fully aware of the extensive implications of its terms. They may have only considered one specific aspect of social and political injustice that they wanted to address—yet, if the Amendment, as written, actually has a broader meaning and extends its protective coverage to those who weren’t even considered during its creation, and addresses social issues that were never before banned by constitutional amendment, we can assume that the American people, by giving it their approval, understood what they were doing and intended to establish what has indeed been achieved.... It covers much more. The "privileges and immunities" guaranteed by the original Constitution were only those provided by each State to its own citizens. Each State was prohibited from favoring its own citizens over those from other States. But the XIV Amendment prohibits any State from restricting the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, whether they are its own citizens or others. It not only requires equal privileges but also demands that the privileges and immunities of all citizens remain completely unbroken and untouched. (1 Abbott's U. S. Rep., 397).
It will doubtless be urged as an objection to my position (that citizenship carries with it the right to vote) that it would, in that case, follow that infants and lunatics, who, as well as adults and persons of sound mind, are citizens, would also have that right. This objection, which appears to have great weight with certain classes of persons, is entirely without force. It takes no note of the familiar fact, that every legislative provision, whether constitutional or statutory, which confers any discretionary power, is always confined in its operation to persons who are compos mentis. It is wholly unnecessary to except idiots and lunatics out of any such statute. They are excluded from the very nature of the case. The contrary supposition would be simply absurd. And, in respect to every such law, infants, during their minority, are in the same class. But are women, who are not infants, ever included in this category? Does any such principle of exclusion apply to them? Not at all. On the contrary, they stand, in this respect, upon the same footing as men, with the sole exception of the right to vote and the right to hold office. In every other respect, whatever rights and powers are conferred upon persons by law may be exercised by women as well as by men. They may transact any kind of business for themselves, or as agents or trustees for others; may be executors and administrators, with the same powers and responsibilities as men; and it ought not to be a matter of surprise or regret that they are now placed, by the XIV. Amendment, in other respects upon a footing of perfect equality.
It will likely be argued against my position (that citizenship comes with the right to vote) that this would mean infants and the mentally ill, who are also citizens alongside adults and mentally sound individuals, would also have that right. This objection, which seems significant to some people, is completely unfounded. It disregards the well-known fact that every law—whether constitutional or statutory—that grants any discretionary power is always limited to individuals who are compos mentis. It's unnecessary to specifically exclude the mentally challenged or mentally ill from such legislation; they are excluded by the nature of the situation. The opposite idea would simply be ridiculous. Similarly, minors are in the same category with respect to such laws. But what about women, who are not minors? Are they ever included in this exclusion? Absolutely not. In fact, they stand on equal footing with men in every way except for the right to vote and the right to hold office. In every other respect, any rights and powers granted by law can be exercised by women just as they are by men. They can conduct any type of business for themselves, or act as agents or trustees for others; they can be executors and administrators with the same powers and responsibilities as men; and it should not be surprising or regrettable that they are now placed, by the XIV. Amendment, in a position of complete equality in other respects.
Although not directly connected with the argument as to the right secured to women by the Constitution, I deem it not improper to allude briefly to some of the popular objections against the propriety of allowing females the privilege of voting. I do this because I know from past experience that these popular objections, having no logical bearing upon the subject, are yet, practically, among the most potent arguments against the interpretation of the XIV. Amendment, which I consider the only one that its language fairly admits of.
Although not directly related to the discussion about the rights granted to women by the Constitution, I think it’s worth mentioning some common objections to allowing women the right to vote. I bring this up because I know from experience that these widely held objections, while lacking logical support, are still some of the most powerful arguments against the interpretation of the XIV Amendment, which I believe is the only interpretation that its wording truly allows.
It is said that women do not desire to vote. Certainly many women do not but that furnishes no reason for denying the right to those who do desire to vote. Many men decline to vote. Is that a reason for denying the[Pg 670] right to those who would vote? I believe, however, that the public mind is greatly in error in regard to the proportion of female citizens who would vote if their right to do so were recognized. In England there has been to some extent a test of that question, with the following result, as given in the newspapers, the correctness of which, in this respect, I think there is no reason to doubt:
It’s said that women don’t want to vote. Sure, many women don’t, but that’s no reason to deny the right to those who do want to vote. A lot of men choose not to vote. Does that mean we should take away the[Pg 670] right from those who would? I believe, though, that the general perception is pretty off about how many female citizens would vote if their right to do so was acknowledged. In England, there has been a partial test of this question, with the following result, as reported in the newspapers, the accuracy of which I have no reason to doubt:
Woman suffrage is, to a certain extent, established in England, with the result as detailed in the London Examiner, that in 66 municipal elections, out of every 1,000 women who enjoy equal rights with men on the register, 516 went to the poll, which is but 48 less than the proportionate number of men. And out of 27,949 women registered, where a contest occurred, 14,416 voted. Of men there were 166,781 on the register, and 90,080 at the poll. The Examiner thereupon draws this conclusion: "Making allowance for the reluctance of old spinsters to change their habits, and the more frequent illness of the sex, it is manifest that women, if they had opportunity, would exercise the franchise as freely as men. There is an end, therefore, of the argument that women would not vote if they had the power."
Women's suffrage is somewhat established in England, as detailed in the London Examiner. In 66 municipal elections, out of every 1,000 women who have equal voting rights with men, 516 participated in the polls, which is only 48 fewer than the corresponding number of men. Out of 27,949 women registered where a contest took place, 14,416 voted. There were 166,781 men registered, and 90,080 of them voted. The Examiner concludes: "Considering the hesitance of older single women to change their routines and the more frequent illnesses among women, it's clear that if given the chance, women would vote as freely as men. Thus, the argument that women wouldn't vote if they had the right is put to rest."
Our law books furnish, perhaps, more satisfactory evidence of the earnestness with which women in England are claiming the right to vote, under the reform act of 1867, aided by Lord Brougham's act of 1850. The case of Chorlton, appellant, vs. Lings, respondent, came before the Court of Common Pleas in England in 1869. It was an appeal from the decision of the revising barrister, for the borough of Manchester, to the effect "that Mary Abbott, being a woman, was not entitled to be placed on the register." Her right was perfect in all respects excepting that of sex. The court, after a very full and able discussion of the subject, sustained the decision of the revising barrister, denying to women the right to be placed on the register, and consequently denying their right to vote. The decision rested upon the peculiar phraseology of several Acts of Parliament, and the point decided has no applicability here. My object in referring to the case has been to call attention to the fact stated by the reporter, that appeals of 5,436 other women were consolidated and decided with this. No better evidence could be furnished of the extent and earnestness of the claim of women in England to exercise the elective franchise.—Law Rep. Com. Pleas, 4-374. I infer, without being able to say how the fact is, that the votes given by women, as mentioned in the newspapers, were given at municipal elections merely, and that the cases decided by the Court of Common Pleas relate to elections for members of Parliament.
Our legal books provide perhaps more convincing evidence of how seriously women in England are claiming the right to vote, following the Reform Act of 1867, supported by Lord Brougham's Act of 1850. The case of Chorlton, appellant, vs. Lings, respondent, was brought before the Court of Common Pleas in England in 1869. This was an appeal against the decision of the revising barrister for the borough of Manchester, which stated that "Mary Abbott, being a woman, was not entitled to be placed on the register." Her right was completely valid in every way except for her sex. After a thorough discussion of the matter, the court upheld the revising barrister's decision, denying women the right to be included on the register and thus denying them the right to vote. The ruling was based on the specific wording of several Acts of Parliament, and the point decided isn’t relevant here. I bring up this case to highlight the fact mentioned by the reporter, that appeals from 5,436 other women were combined and decided alongside this one. There couldn’t be clearer evidence of the extent and seriousness of women's claims in England to exercise the right to vote.—Law Rep. Com. Pleas, 4-374. I gather, without being completely sure, that the votes cast by women, as reported in the newspapers, were only at municipal elections, and that the cases decided by the Court of Common Pleas pertain to elections for members of Parliament.
Another objection is, that the right to hold office must attend the right to vote, and that women are not qualified to discharge the duties of responsible offices. I beg leave to answer this objection by asking one or more questions. How many of the male bipeds who do our voting are qualified to hold high offices? How many of the large class to whom the right of voting is supposed to have been secured by the XV. Amendment, are qualified to hold office? Whenever the qualifications of persons to discharge the duties of responsible offices is made the test of their right to vote, and we are to have a competitive examination on that subject, open to all claimants, my client will be content to enter the lists, and take her chances among the candidates for such honors.
Another objection is that the right to hold office should come with the right to vote, and that women aren’t qualified to handle the responsibilities of important positions. I want to address this objection by asking a couple of questions. How many of the men who do our voting are actually qualified to hold high office? How many of the large group that the XV. Amendment was intended to give the right to vote are qualified to hold office? If the qualifications for people to handle the duties of important offices become the test for their right to vote, and if we’re going to have a competitive examination on that topic, open to everyone claiming that right, my client will be ready to join in and take her chances among the candidates for those honors.
But the practice of the world, and our own practice, give the lie to this objection. Compare the administration of female sovereigns of great kingdoms,[Pg 671] from Semiramis to Victoria, with the average administration of male sovereigns, and which will suffer by the comparison? How often have mothers governed large kingdoms, as regents, during the minority of their sons, and governed them well? Such offices as the "sovereigns" who rule them in this country have allowed women to hold (they having no voice on the subject), they have discharged the duties of with ever-increasing satisfaction to the public; and Congress has lately passed an act, making the official bonds of married women valid, so that they could be appointed to the office of postmaster.
But the way things actually are in the world and our own experiences contradict this argument. If you compare the rule of female monarchs in major kingdoms, from Semiramis to Victoria, with the typical rule of male monarchs, which one comes out looking worse? How often have mothers effectively governed large kingdoms as regents during their sons' childhoods? The roles that "sovereigns" in this country have allowed women to take on, without having any say in the matter, have been managed with growing satisfaction from the public. Recently, Congress passed a law making the official bonds of married women valid, allowing them to be appointed as postmasters.
The case of Olive vs. Ingraham (7 Modern Rep. 263) was an action brought to try the title to an office. On the death of the sexton of the parish of St. Butolph, the place was to be filled by election, the voters being the housekeepers who "paid Scot and lot" in the parish. The widow of the deceased sexton (Sarah Bly) entered the lists against Olive, the plaintiff in the suit, and received 169 indisputable votes, and 40 votes given by women who were "housekeepers, and paid to church and poor." The plaintiff had 174 indisputable votes, and 22 votes given by such women as voted for Mrs. Bly. Mrs. Bly was declared elected. The action was brought to test two questions: 1. Whether women were legal voters; and 2. Whether a woman was capable of holding the office. The case was four times argued in the King's Bench, and all the Judges delivered opinions, holding that the women were competent voters; that the widow was properly elected, and could hold the office. In the course of the discussion it was shown that women had held many offices, those of constable, church warden, overseer of the poor, keeper of the "gate house" (a public prison), governess of a house of correction, keeper of castles, sheriffs of counties, and high constable of England. If women are legally competent to hold minor offices, I would be glad to have the rule of law, or of propriety, shown which should exclude them from higher offices, and which marks the line between those which they may and those which they may not hold.
The case of Olive vs. Ingraham (7 Modern Rep. 263) was a legal action to determine who was entitled to an office. When the sexton of St. Butolph parish died, the position was to be filled by election, with voters being the housekeepers who "paid Scot and lot" in the parish. The deceased sexton's widow, Sarah Bly, entered the race against the plaintiff, Olive, and received 169 valid votes, plus 40 votes from women who were "housekeepers and contributed to the church and the poor." Olive received 174 valid votes and 22 votes from women who supported Mrs. Bly. Mrs. Bly was declared the winner. The case was brought to address two questions: 1. Whether women could legally vote; and 2. Whether a woman could hold the office. The case was argued four times in the King's Bench, with all the judges expressing the opinion that women were qualified voters, that the widow was correctly elected, and that she could hold the office. During the discussion, it was shown that women had held various positions, including constable, churchwarden, overseer of the poor, keeper of the "gate house" (a public prison), governess of a house of correction, keeper of castles, sheriffs of counties, and high constable of England. If women can legally hold minor offices, I would like to see the legal or moral rationale that would exclude them from higher positions and define the boundary between the offices they can and cannot hold.
Another objection is that women can not serve as soldiers. To this I answer that capacity for military service has never been made a test of the right to vote. If it were, young men from sixteen to twenty-one would be entitled to vote, and old men from sixty and upward would not. If that were the test, some women would present much stronger claims than many of the male sex.
Another argument is that women can't be soldiers. To this, I respond that the ability to serve in the military has never been a requirement for voting rights. If it were, young men aged sixteen to twenty-one would have the right to vote, while older men aged sixty and above would not. If that were the standard, some women would have much stronger claims than many men.
Another objection is that engaging in political controversies is not consistent with the feminine character. Upon that subject, women themselves are the best judges, and if political duties should be found inconsistent with female delicacy, we may rest assured that women will either effect a change in the character of political contests, or decline to engage in them. This subject may be safely left to their sense of delicacy and propriety. If any difficulty on this account should occur, it may not be impossible to receive the votes of women at their places of residence. This method of voting was practiced in ancient Rome under the republic; and it will be remembered that when the votes of the soldiers who were fighting our battles in the Southern States were needed to sustain their friends at home, no difficulty was found in the way of taking their votes at their respective camps.
Another objection is that getting involved in political debates doesn’t fit with the feminine nature. When it comes to this issue, women are the best judges, and if political responsibilities are found to conflict with women's grace, we can be confident that women will either change the nature of political contests or choose not to participate in them. This issue can be safely left to their sense of elegance and appropriateness. If any challenges arise from this, it might still be possible to gather women's votes at their homes. This kind of voting was done in ancient Rome during the republic; and it's worth remembering that when the votes of soldiers fighting our battles in the Southern States were needed to support their friends back home, there was no problem in collecting their votes at their respective camps.
I humbly submit to your honor, therefore, that on the Constitutional[Pg 672] grounds to which I have referred, Miss Anthony had a lawful right to vote; that her vote was properly received and counted; that the first section of the XIV. Amendment secured to her that right, and did not need the aid of any further legislation. But conceding that I may be in error in supposing that Miss Anthony had a right to vote, she has been guilty of no crime, if she voted in good faith believing that she had such right. This proposition appears to me so obvious, that were it not for the severity to my client of the consequences which may follow a conviction, I should not deem it necessary to discuss it.
I respectfully submit to your honor that, based on the constitutional grounds I mentioned, Miss Anthony had the legal right to vote; that her vote was correctly received and counted; that the first section of the XIV. Amendment guaranteed her that right, and didn't require any additional legislation. However, even if I’m mistaken in believing that Miss Anthony had a right to vote, she committed no crime if she voted in good faith, thinking she had that right. This point seems so obvious to me that if it weren't for the serious consequences my client could face due to a conviction, I wouldn’t feel the need to discuss it.
To make out the offense, it is incumbent on the prosecution to show affirmatively, not only that the defendant knowingly voted, but that she so voted knowing that she had no right to vote. That is, the term "knowingly" applies, not to the fact of voting, but to the fact of want of right. Any other interpretation of the language would be absurd. We can not conceive of a case where a party could vote without knowledge of the fact of voting, and to apply the term "knowingly" to the mere act of voting, would make nonsense of the statute. This word was inserted as defining the essence of the offense, and it limits the criminality to cases where the voting is not only without right, but where it is done willfully, with a knowledge that it is without right. Short of that there is no offense within the statute. This would be so upon well-established principles, even if the word "knowingly" had been omitted, but that word was inserted to prevent the possibility of doubt on the subject, and to furnish security against the inability of stupid or prejudiced judges or jurors, to distinguish between willful wrong and innocent mistake. If the statute had been merely that "if at any election for representative in Congress any person shall vote without having a lawful right to vote, such person shall be deemed guilty of a crime," there could have been justly no conviction under it without proof that the party voted knowing that he had not a right to vote. If he voted innocently supposing he had the right to vote, but had not, it would not be an offense within the statute. An innocent mistake is not a crime, and no amount of judicial decisions can make it such. Mr. Bishop says, (I Cr. Law, § 205),
To establish the offense, the prosecution must clearly demonstrate that the defendant knowingly voted, and that she did so with the awareness that she had no right to vote. In other words, "knowingly" refers not to the act of voting itself but to the lack of right to vote. Any other interpretation would be unreasonable. It's hard to imagine a scenario where someone could vote without being aware that they were voting, and applying "knowingly" to just the act of voting would undermine the statute. This term was included to define the core of the offense, confining criminality to situations where voting occurs without the right and is done willfully, with an understanding of that lack of right. Without this understanding, there is no violation of the statute. This is in line with well-established principles, even if "knowingly" was not mentioned; however, that term was added to eliminate any doubts and to protect against the inability of ignorant or biased judges or jurors to distinguish between willful wrongdoing and genuine mistakes. If the statute simply stated that "if at any election for representative in Congress any person votes without having a lawful right to vote, that person shall be considered guilty of a crime," then a conviction would only be justified if there was proof that the person voted with knowledge of their lack of voting rights. If someone voted innocently, believing they had the right, but did not, it would not be a violation of the statute. An innocent mistake is not a crime, and no amount of judicial rulings can change that. Mr. Bishop says, (I Cr. Law, § 205),
There can be no crime unless a culpable intent accompanies the criminal act. The same author (1 Cr. Prac. § 521), repeated in other words, the same idea: In order to render a party criminally responsible, a vicious will must concur with a wrongful act.
There can be no crime unless a guilty intent goes along with the criminal act. The same author (1 Cr. Prac. § 521) expressed the same idea in different words: To hold someone criminally responsible, a bad intention must accompany a wrongful action.
I quote from a more distinguished author:
I’m quoting from a more esteemed author:
Felony is always accompanied with an evil intention, and therefore shall not be imputed to a mere mistake or misanimadversion, as where persons break open a door, in order to execute a warrant, which will not justify such proceeding: Affectio enim tua nomen imponit operi tuo: item crimen non contrahitur nisi nocendi, voluntas intercedat, which, as I understand, may read: For your violation puts the name upon your act; and a crime is not committed unless the will of the offender takes part in it. (1 Hawk. P. C., p. 99, Ch. 25, § 3.)
Felony always involves an evil intention, so it cannot be attributed to a simple mistake or misjudgment, like when people break down a door to carry out a warrant, which does not justify such actions: Affectio enim tua nomen imponit operi tuo: item crimen non contrahitur nisi nocendi, voluntas intercedat, which, as I understand it, can be read as: Your violation gives your act its name; and a crime isn’t committed unless the offender's will is involved. (1 Hawk. P. C., p. 99, Ch. 25, § 3.)
This quotation by Hawkins is, I believe, from Bracton, which carries the principle back to a very early period in the existence of the common law. It is a principle, however, which underlies all law, and must have been recognized at all times, wherever criminal law has been administered, with even the slightest reference to the principles of common morality and justice. I quote again on this subject from Mr. Bishop:[Pg 673]
This quote by Hawkins, I think, comes from Bracton, which traces the principle back to the very early days of common law. It's a principle that underpins all law and must have been acknowledged at all times, wherever criminal law has been applied, even in the slightest connection to the principles of common morality and justice. I’ll quote again on this topic from Mr. Bishop:[Pg 673]
The doctrine of the intent as it prevails in the criminal law, is necessarily one of the foundation principles of public justice. There is only one criterion by which the guilt of man is to be tested. It is whether the mind is criminal. Criminal law relates only to crime. And neither in philosophical speculation, nor in religious or moral sentiment, would any people in any age allow that a man should be deemed guilty unless his mind was so. It is, therefore, a principle of our legal system, as probably it is of every other, that the essence of an offense is the wrongful intent without which it can not exist. (1 Bishop's Crim. Law, § 287.)
The principle of intent in criminal law is a fundamental aspect of public justice. There is only one standard to determine a person's guilt: whether their mindset is criminal. Criminal law is concerned solely with crime. Throughout history and across cultures, no society has accepted that someone should be considered guilty unless their mind is guilty as well. Thus, it is a principle of our legal system, and likely of all others, that the core of an offense is the wrongful intent; without it, the offense cannot exist. (1 Bishop's Crim. Law, § 287.)
Again, the same author, writing on the subject of knowledge, as necessary to establish the intent, says:
Again, the same author, discussing the topic of knowledge, which is crucial for understanding the intent, states:
It is absolutely necessary to constitute guilt, as in indictments for uttering forged tokens, or other attempts to defraud, or for receiving stolen goods, and offenses of a similar description. (1 Crim. Prac. § 504.)
It is absolutely necessary to establish guilt, as in cases involving charges for using forged items, or other attempts to commit fraud, or for receiving stolen property, and offenses of a similar nature. (1 Crim. Prac. § 504.)
In regard to the offense of obtaining property by false pretenses, the author says:
In relation to the crime of obtaining property by deception, the author states:
The indictment must allege that the defendant knew the pretenses to be false. This is necessary upon the general principles of the law, in order to show an offense, even though the statute does not contain the word "knowingly." (2 Id. § 172.)
The indictment has to claim that the defendant was aware the pretenses were false. This is required under general legal principles to establish an offense, even if the law doesn’t use the term "knowingly." (2 Id. § 172.)
As to a presumed knowledge of the law, where the fact involves a question of law, the same author says:
As for the assumed knowledge of the law, when the situation involves a legal question, the same author states:
The general doctrine laid down in the foregoing sections (i.e., that every man is presumed to know the law, and that ignorance of the law does not excuse), is plain in itself and plain in its application. Still, there are cases, the precise nature and extent of which are not so obvious, wherein ignorance of the law constitutes, in a sort of indirect way, not in itself a defense, but a foundation on which another defense rests. Thus, if the guilt or innocence of a prisoner depends on the fact to be found by the jury, of his having been or not, when he did the act, in some precise mental condition, which mental condition is the gist of the offense, the jury in determining this question of mental condition, may take into consideration his ignorance or misinformation in a matter of law. For example, to constitute larceny, there must be an intent to steal, which involves the knowledge that the property taken does not belong to the taker; yet, if all the facts concerning the title are known to the accused, and so the question is one merely of law whether the property is his or not; still he may show, and the showing will be a defense to him against the criminal proceeding, that he honestly believed it his through a misapprehension of the law.
The general principle outlined in the previous sections (i.e. , that everyone is assumed to know the law, and that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse) is straightforward and clear in its application. However, there are situations where the specifics are not so clear-cut, in which ignorance of the law serves, in a somewhat indirect way, not as a defense itself, but as a basis for another defense. For instance, if a defendant's guilt or innocence hinges on whether he was in a specific mental state at the time of the act, and that mental state is central to the offense, the jury may consider his ignorance or misinformation about a legal matter when deciding on his mental condition. For example, to establish larceny, there must be an intent to steal, which means that the person must know the property belongs to someone else; however, if the accused knows all the facts regarding ownership and the question is merely a legal one over whether the property belongs to him or not, he may still present evidence showing that he honestly believed it was his due to a misunderstanding of the law, and this could serve as a defense against the criminal charges.
The conclusions of the writer here are correct, but in a part of the statement the learned author has thrown some obscurity over his own principles. The doctrines elsewhere enunciated by him, show with great clearness, that in such cases the state of the mind constitutes the essence of the offense, and if the state of the mind which the law condemns does not exist, in connection with the act, there is no offense. It is immaterial whether its non-existence be owing to ignorance of law or ignorance of fact, in either case the fact which the law condemns, the criminal intent, is wanting. It is not, therefore, in an "indirect way," that ignorance of the law in such cases constitutes a defense, but in the most direct way possible. It is not a fact which jurors "may take into consideration" or not, at their pleasure, but which they must take into consideration, because, in case the ignorance exists, no matter from what cause, the offense which the statute describes is not committed. In such case, ignorance of the law is not interposed as a shield to one committing a criminal act, but merely to show, as it does show, that no criminal act has been committed. I quote from Sir Matthew Hale on the subject. Speaking of larceny, the learned author says:[Pg 674]
The writer's conclusions here are accurate, but in part of the statement, the knowledgeable author has created some confusion around his own principles. The ideas he has expressed elsewhere clearly demonstrate that in these situations, the state of mind is what defines the offense. If the mental state that the law condemns is absent in relation to the act, there is no offense. It doesn't matter whether this absence is due to ignorance of the law or ignorance of the facts; in either case, the criminal intent, which is what the law condemns, is missing. Therefore, ignorance of the law does not constitute a defense in an "indirect way" in these cases, but rather in the most direct way possible. It’s not something that jurors can "consider" at their discretion, but something they must take into account because if ignorance exists—regardless of the cause—then the offense described by the statute hasn't been committed. In this context, ignorance of the law is not a defense for someone committing a crime, but simply demonstrates, as it does, that no crime has occurred. I quote from Sir Matthew Hale on the subject. Speaking of larceny, the knowledgeable author says:[Pg 674]
As it is cepit and asportavit, so it must be felonice, or animo furandi, otherwise it is not felony, for it is the mind that makes the taking of another's goods to be a felony, or a bare trespass only; but because the intention and mind are secret, the intention must be judged of by the circumstances of the fact, and these circumstances are various, and may sometimes deceive, yet regularly and ordinarily these circumstances following direct in the case. If A., thinking he hath a title to the house of B., seizeth it as his own ... this regularly makes no felony, but a trespass only; but yet this may be a trick to color a felony, and the ordinary discovery of a felonious intent is, if the party doth it secretly or being charged with the goods denies it. (1 Hale's P. C, 509.)
As it is cepit and asportavit, so it must be felonice, or animo furandi; otherwise, it isn't considered a felony. It's the mindset that turns taking someone else's property into a felony rather than just a simple trespass. However, since intentions and thoughts are private, we have to judge the intention based on the circumstances of the act. These circumstances can be varied and might sometimes mislead us, but generally, they guide the case. If A, believing he has the right to B's house, takes possession of it as if it were his own, this usually constitutes a trespass, not a felony. However, this could be a tactic to disguise a felony, and the usual way to identify a felonious intent is if the person acts secretly or denies ownership when questioned about the goods. (1 Hale's P. C, 509.)
I concede, that if Miss Anthony voted, knowing that as a woman she had no right to vote, she may properly be convicted, and that if she had dressed herself in men's apparel, and assumed a man's name, or resorted to any other artifice to deceive the board of inspectors, the jury might properly regard her claim of right to be merely colorable, and might, in their judgment, pronounce her guilty of the offense charged, in case the constitution has not secured to her the right she claimed. All I claim is, that if she voted in perfect good faith, believing that it was her right, she has committed no crime. An innocent mistake, whether of law or fact, though a wrongful act may be done in pursuance of it, can not constitute a crime.
I admit that if Miss Anthony voted, knowing that she had no right to vote as a woman, she could be rightly convicted. If she dressed in men's clothes, took on a man's name, or used any other trick to mislead the board of inspectors, the jury could justifiably see her claim to the right as merely pretend, and they might decide she is guilty of the charge if the constitution hasn't granted her the right she claimed. What I argue is that if she voted in good faith, believing it was her right, she hasn't committed any crime. An innocent mistake, whether it's about the law or the facts, cannot be considered a crime, even if a wrongful act occurs because of it.
[The following cases and authorities were referred to and commented upon by the counsel, as sustaining his positions: U. S. vs. Conover, 3 McLean's Rep., 573; The State vs. McDonald, 4 Harrington, 555; The State vs. Homes, 17 Mo., 379; Rex vs. Hall, 3 C. & P., 409 (S. C. 14 Eng., C. L.); The Queen vs. Reed, 1 C. &. M., 306 (S. C. 41 Eng., C. L.); Lancaster's Case, 3 Leon, 208; Starkie on Ev., Part IV., Vol. 2, p. 828, 3d Am. Ed.]
[The following cases and references were mentioned and discussed by the lawyer to support his arguments: U. S. vs. Conover, 3 McLean's Rep., 573; The State vs. McDonald, 4 Harrington, 555; The State vs. Homes, 17 Mo., 379; Rex vs. Hall, 3 C. & P., 409 (S. C. 14 Eng., C. L.); The Queen vs. Reed, 1 C. & M., 306 (S. C. 41 Eng., C. L.); Lancaster's Case, 3 Leon, 208; Starkie on Ev., Part IV., Vol. 2, p. 828, 3d Am. Ed.]
The counsel then said, there are some cases which I concede can not be reconciled with the position which I have endeavored to maintain, and I am sorry to say that one of them is found in the reports of this State. As the cases are referred to in that, and the principle, if they can be said to stand on any principle, is in all of them the same, it will only be incumbent on me to notice that one. That case is not only irreconcilable with the numerous authorities and the fundamental principles of criminal law to which I have referred, but the enormity of its injustice is sufficient alone to condemn it. I refer to the case of Hamilton vs. The People (57 Barb., 725). In that case Hamilton had been convicted of a misdemeanor, in having voted at a general election, after having been previously convicted of a felony, and sentenced to two years imprisonment in the State prison, and not having been pardoned; the conviction having by law deprived him of citizenship and right to vote, unless pardoned and restored to citizenship. The case came up before the General Term of the Supreme Court, on writ of error. It appeared that on the trial evidence was offered, that before the prisoner was discharged from the State prison, he and his father applied to the Governor for a pardon, and that the Governor replied in writing, that on the ground of the prisoner's being a minor at the time of his discharge from prison, a pardon would not be necessary, and that he would be entitled to all the rights of a citizen on his coming of age. They also applied to two respectable counselors of the Supreme Court, and they confirmed the Governor's opinion. All this evidence was rejected. It appeared that the prisoner was seventeen years old when convicted of the felony, and was nineteen when discharged from prison. The rejection of the evidence was approved by the Supreme Court on the ground that the prisoner was bound to know the law, and was presumed to do so, and his conviction was accordingly confirmed.[Pg 675]
The lawyer then said that there are some cases which I admit cannot be aligned with the position I’ve tried to support, and unfortunately, one of them is documented in the reports from this State. Since these cases are mentioned there, and the principle, if it can be considered a principle, is the same in all of them, I only need to address that one. That case is not only incompatible with the numerous authorities and foundational principles of criminal law I’ve discussed, but the sheer injustice of it is enough to condemn it. I’m referring to the case of Hamilton vs. The People (57 Barb., 725). In that case, Hamilton was convicted of a misdemeanor for voting in a general election after previously being convicted of a felony and sentenced to two years in state prison without a pardon; the conviction had by law stripped him of his citizenship and voting rights unless pardoned and restored to citizenship. The case was brought before the General Term of the Supreme Court on a writ of error. Evidence was presented during the trial that before the prisoner was released from state prison, he and his father asked the Governor for a pardon, and the Governor responded in writing that since the prisoner was a minor at the time he was released from prison, a pardon wasn’t necessary, and he would regain all the rights of a citizen upon reaching adulthood. They also sought advice from two respected counselors of the Supreme Court, who confirmed the Governor’s opinion. All this evidence was dismissed. It showed that the prisoner was seventeen when convicted of the felony and nineteen when released from prison. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the evidence on the grounds that the prisoner was expected to know the law and was presumed to do so, resulting in his conviction being confirmed.[Pg 675]
Here a young man, innocent so far as his conduct in this case was involved, was condemned for acting in good faith upon the advice (mistaken advice it may be conceded), of one governor and two lawyers to whom he applied for information as to his rights; and this condemnation has proceeded upon the assumed ground, conceded to be false in fact, that he knew the advice given to him was wrong. On this judicial fiction the young man, in the name of justice, is sent to prison, punished for a mere mistake, and a mistake made in pursuance of such advice. It can not be, consistently with the radical principles of criminal law to which I have referred, and the numerous authorities which I have quoted, that this man was guilty of a crime, that his mistake was a crime, and I think the judges who pronounced his condemnation, upon their own principles, better than their victim, deserved the punishment which they inflicted. The condemnation of Miss Anthony, her good faith being conceded, would do no less violence to any fair administration of justice.
Here, a young man, innocent in terms of his actions in this situation, was sentenced for trusting the advice (which may have been incorrect) of one governor and two lawyers he consulted about his rights; and this conviction was based on the false assumption that he knew the advice was wrong. On this legal fiction, the young man, in the name of justice, is sent to prison, punished for simply making a mistake, one made by following that advice. It cannot be, in line with the fundamental principles of criminal law I’ve discussed, as well as the many precedents I’ve cited, that this man committed a crime, that his mistake constituted a crime. I believe the judges who issued this sentence, based on their own standards, deserved the punishment they imposed more than their victim did. The conviction of Miss Anthony, with her good intentions acknowledged, would equally undermine any fair application of justice.
One other matter will close what I have to say. Miss Anthony believed, and was advised that she had a right to vote. She may also have been advised, as was clearly the fact, that the question as to her right could not be brought before the courts for trial, without her voting or offering to vote, and if either was criminal, the one was as much so as the other. Therefore she stands now arraigned as a criminal, for taking the only step by which it was possible to bring the great constitutional question as to her right, before the tribunals of the country for adjudication. If for thus acting, in the most perfect good faith, with motives as pure and impulses as noble as any which can find place in your honor's breast in the administration of justice, she is by the laws of her country to be condemned a a criminal. Her condemnation, however, under such circumstances, would only add another most weighty reason to those which I have already advanced, to show that women need the aid of the ballot for their protection.
One more thing to wrap up what I have to say. Miss Anthony believed, and was told, that she had the right to vote. She may have also been advised, as was clearly the case, that the question of her right couldn't be taken to court without her voting or trying to vote, and if either of those was illegal, then they were equally so. So now she’s facing charges as a criminal for taking the only step possible to bring this important constitutional issue about her right before the country's courts for a decision. If for acting this way, in totally good faith, with motives as pure and noble as any you might have in serving justice, she is to be condemned as a criminal by her country’s laws, then her condemnation, in such circumstances, would only provide another strong reason to support what I’ve already argued: that women need the vote for their protection.
Upon the remaining question, of the good faith of the defendant, it is not necessary for me to speak. That she acted in the most perfect good faith stands conceded.
Upon the remaining question of the defendant's good faith, I don't need to say much. It's accepted that she acted with the utmost good faith.
Thanking your honor for the great patience with which you have listened to my too extended remarks, I submit the legal questions which the case involves for your honor's consideration.
Thank you, Your Honor, for the great patience you've shown while listening to my lengthy remarks. I submit the legal questions this case involves for your consideration.
District Attorney Crowley followed Judge Selden with an argument two hours in length. He stated that, in his view, the case simply presented questions of law, and that his argument, therefore, would be addressed strictly to the court, leaving the court to give such instructions to the jury upon the facts as he might deem proper. He contended that the right to vote was not included in "privileges and immunities," and was only given by State laws and State constitutions. He concluded his argument by saying that an honest mistake of the facts may sometimes excuse, but a mistake of the law never. The Court addressed the jury as follows:
District Attorney Crowley followed Judge Selden with a two-hour argument. He expressed that, in his opinion, the case only raised legal questions, and that his argument would strictly focus on the court, allowing the court to provide whatever instructions to the jury on the facts that it deemed appropriate. He argued that the right to vote was not part of "privileges and immunities" and was only granted by state laws and state constitutions. He wrapped up his argument by saying that an honest mistake regarding the facts might sometimes be excused, but a mistake concerning the law never is. The Court addressed the jury as follows:
Gentlemen of the Jury: I have given this case such consideration as I have been able to, and, that there might be no misapprehension about my views, I have made a brief statement in writing.[Pg 676]
Gentlemen of the Jury: I have thought about this case as much as I can, and to avoid any misunderstandings about my opinions, I have written a short statement.[Pg 676]
The defendant is indicted under the act of Congress of 1870, for having voted for Representatives in Congress in November, 1872. Among other things, that Act makes it an offense for any person knowingly to vote for such Representatives without having a right to vote. It is charged that the defendant thus voted, she not having a right to vote because she is a woman. The defendant insists that she has a right to vote; that the provision of the Constitution of this State limiting the right to vote to persons of the male sex is in violation of the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and is void.
The defendant is being charged under the 1870 Act of Congress for voting in the election for Representatives in Congress in November 1872. Among other things, that Act makes it illegal for anyone to knowingly vote for Representatives without having the right to vote. It’s claimed that the defendant voted unlawfully because she doesn’t have the right to vote since she is a woman. The defendant argues that she does have the right to vote; that the part of the Constitution of this State that limits voting rights to men violates the XIV Amendment of the United States Constitution and is therefore invalid.
The XIII., XIV., and XV. Amendments were designed mainly for the protection of the newly emancipated negroes, but full effect must nevertheless be given to the language employed. The XIII. Amendment provided that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should longer exist in the United States. If honestly received and fairly applied, this provision would have been enough to guard the rights of the colored race. In some States it was attempted to be evaded by enactments cruel and oppressive in their nature; as that colored persons were forbidden to appear in the towns except in a menial capacity; that they should reside on and cultivate the soil without being allowed to own it; that they were not permitted to give testimony in cases where a white man was a party. They were excluded from performing particular kinds of business, profitable and reputable, and they were denied the right of suffrage. To meet the difficulties arising from this state of things, the XIV. and XV. Amendments were enacted.
The XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments were primarily created to protect the newly freed Black people, but the wording used must still be taken seriously. The XIII Amendment stated that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude would exist in the United States any longer. If this had been genuinely recognized and fairly enforced, it would have been sufficient to protect the rights of the Black community. In some states, attempts were made to sidestep this by passing cruel and oppressive laws, such as prohibiting Black people from appearing in towns except in servant roles, forcing them to live on and work the land without allowing them to own it, and not letting them testify in cases involving a white person. They were also barred from engaging in certain profitable and respected occupations and denied the right to vote. To address the challenges arising from this situation, the XIV and XV Amendments were created.
The XIV. Amendment created and defined citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except as that condition arose from citizenship of some State. No mode existed, it was said, of obtaining a citizenship of the United States except by first becoming a citizen of some State. This question is now at rest. The XIV. Amendment defines and declares who shall be citizens of the United States, to wit: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The latter qualification was intended to exclude the children of foreign representatives and the like. With this qualification every person born in the United States or naturalized is declared to be a citizen of the United States, and of the State wherein he resides.
The XIV Amendment created and defined citizenship in the United States. It had long been argued, and many knowledgeable authorities held the view, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except as that status arose from being a citizen of a State. It was said that there was no way to obtain United States citizenship without first becoming a citizen of a State. This question is now settled. The XIV Amendment defines and states who shall be citizens of the United States, namely: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This latter condition was meant to exclude the children of foreign diplomats and similar cases. With this condition, every person born in the United States or naturalized is recognized as a citizen of the United States and of the State in which they live.
After creating and defining citizenship of the United States, the Amendment provides that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States. This clause is intended to be a protection, not to all our rights, but to our rights as citizens of the United States only; that is, the rights existing or belonging to that condition or capacity. (The words "or citizen of a State," used in the previous paragraph, are carefully omitted here.) In article 4, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the United States it had been already provided in this language, viz: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States." The rights of citizens of the States and of citizens of the United States are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights were separate and[Pg 677] distinct, was held in the Slaughter-house Cases recently decided by the United States Supreme Court at Washington.
After establishing and defining U.S. citizenship, the Amendment states that no State can create or enforce any law that limits the privileges or rights of a citizen of the United States. This clause is meant to protect, not all our rights, but specifically our rights as U.S. citizens; in other words, the rights that come with that status. (The phrase "or citizen of a State," used in the previous paragraph, is intentionally left out here.) In Article 4, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, it was already stated: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the various States." The rights of State citizens and U.S. citizens are each protected by these different rules. The distinction between these rights was affirmed in the Slaughterhouse Cases recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.
The rights of citizens of the State, as such, are not under consideration in the XIV. Amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the XIV. Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions. The rights of citizens of the States have been the subject of judicial decision on more than one occasion. (Corfield agt. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. R., 371. Ward agt. Maryland, 12 Wall., 430. Paul agt. Virginia, 8 Wall., 140.) These are the fundamental privileges and immunities belonging of right to the citizens of all free governments, such as the right of life and liberty; the right to acquire and possess property, to transact business, to pursue happiness in his own manner, subject to such restraint as the Government may adjudge to be necessary for the general good. In Cromwell agt. Nevada, 6 Wallace, 36, is found a statement of some of the rights of a citizen of the United States, viz:
The rights of citizens of the State, as they are, are not being considered in the XIV Amendment. They remain the same as they were before the XIV Amendment was adopted and are fully protected by other laws. The rights of citizens of the States have been examined in court more than once. (Corfield agt. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. R., 371. Ward agt. Maryland, 12 Wall., 430. Paul agt. Virginia, 8 Wall., 140.) These are the basic privileges and immunities that all citizens of free governments have, such as the right to life and liberty; the right to acquire and own property, conduct business, and pursue happiness in their own way, as long as they follow any rules the Government deems necessary for the common good. In Cromwell agt. Nevada, 6 Wallace, 36, there's a mention of some of the rights of a citizen of the United States, namely:
To come to the seat of the Government to assert any claim he may have upon the Government, to transact any business he may have with it; to seek its protection; to share its offices; to engage in administering its functions. He has the right of free access to its seaports through which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several States.
To come to the seat of the Government to assert any claim he has against the Government, to handle any business he has with it; to seek its protection; to share its offices; to get involved in running its functions. He has the right to freely access its seaports through which all foreign trade operations are conducted, as well as to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the various States.
Another privilege of a citizen of the United States, says Miller, Justice, in the "Slaughter-house" cases, is to demand the care and protection of the Federal Government over his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government. The right to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, he says, are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.
Another privilege of a citizen of the United States, says Miller, Justice, in the "Slaughter-house" cases, is to request the care and protection of the Federal Government for his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas or under the jurisdiction of a foreign government. The right to gather and petition for a resolution of grievances, along with the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, he states, are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.
The right of voting, or the privilege of voting, is a right or privilege arising under the Constitution of the State, and not of the United States. The qualifications are different in the different States. Citizenship, age, sex, residence, are variously required in the different States, or may be so. If the right belongs to any particular person, it is because such person is entitled to it by the laws of the State where he offers to exercise it, and not because of citizenship of the United States. If the State of New York should provide that no person should vote until he had reached the age of thirty-one years, or after he had reached the age of fifty, or that no person having gray hair, or who had not the use of all his limbs, should be entitled to vote, I do not see how it could be held to be a violation of any right derived or held under the Constitution of the United States. We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent State; but if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class derived from his position as a citizen of the State, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States, and such was the decision in Corfield agt. Coryell, supra.
The right to vote, or the privilege of voting, is a right or privilege based on the Constitution of the State and not on the Constitution of the United States. The requirements vary across different States. Citizenship, age, gender, and residence are all different criteria that States may impose. If a person has the right to vote, it is because they are entitled to it under the laws of the State where they are trying to vote, not simply because they are a U.S. citizen. For instance, if New York decided that no one could vote until they turned thirty-one or only allowed those under fifty, or if it stated that no one with gray hair or without the full use of their limbs could vote, I don’t see how this could be seen as violating any rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. We might argue that such rules are unfair, oppressive, or unsuitable for managing a knowledgeable State; however, if the rights of a citizen are being infringed, they stem from their status as a citizen of that State, not from the limited rights they have as a U.S. citizen, as was determined in Corfield agt. Coryell, supra.
The United States rights appertaining to this subject are those first under article 1, paragraph 2, of the United States Constitution, which provides that electors of Representatives in Congress shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, and second, under the XV. Amendment, which provides that the right of[Pg 678] a citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. If the Legislature of the State of New York should require a higher qualification in a voter for a representative in Congress than is required for a voter for a member of Assembly, this would, I conceive, be a violation of a right belonging to one as a citizen of the United States. That right is in relation to a federal subject or interest, and is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The inability of a State to abridge the right of voting on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, arises from a federal guaranty. Its violation would be the denial of a federal right—that is, a right belonging to the claimant as a citizen of the United States.
The rights of individuals in the United States regarding this matter stem from two main sources: first, from Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which states that voters for Representatives in Congress must meet the same qualifications as voters for the most populous branch of the State Legislature; and second, from the 15th Amendment, which guarantees that the right of any citizen of the United States to vote will not be denied or restricted by the United States or any State due to race, color, or previous status of servitude. If the New York State Legislature were to impose greater qualifications for voting in congressional elections than are required for voting in Assembly elections, I believe this would violate the rights of a person as a citizen of the United States. This right concerns a federal issue and is protected by the Federal Constitution. A State's inability to limit voting rights based on race, color, or previous status of servitude is derived from federal guarantees. Violating this would mean denying a federal right—specifically, a right that belongs to the individual as a citizen of the United States.
This right, however, exists by virtue of the XV. Amendment. If the XV. Amendment had contained the word "sex," the argument of the defendant would have been potent. She would have said, an attempt by a State to deny the right to vote because one is of a particular sex, is expressly prohibited by that Amendment. The Amendment, however, does not contain that word. It is limited to race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Legislature of the State of New York has seen fit to say, that the franchise of voting shall be limited to the male sex. In saying this there is, in my judgment, no violation of the letter or of the spirit of the XIV. or of the XV. Amendment.
This right, however, exists because of the 15th Amendment. If the 15th Amendment had included the word "sex," the defendant’s argument would have been strong. She could have said that a state's attempt to deny the right to vote based on someone's sex is clearly prohibited by that Amendment. However, the Amendment does not include that word. It is restricted to race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The New York State Legislature has decided that the right to vote will be limited to males. In my opinion, this does not violate either the letter or the spirit of the 14th or 15th Amendment.
This view is assumed in the second section of the XIV. Amendment, which enacts that if the right to vote for Federal officers is denied by any State to any of the male inhabitants of such State, except for crime, the basis of representation of such State shall be reduced in proportion specified. Not only does this section assume that the right of male inhabitants to vote was the especial object of its protection, but it assumes and admits the right of a State, notwithstanding the existence of that clause under which the defendant claims to the contrary, to deny to classes or portions of the male inhabitants the right to vote which is allowed to other male inhabitants. The regulation of the suffrage is thereby conceded to the States as a State's right.
This perspective is taken in the second section of the XIV Amendment, which states that if any State denies the right to vote for Federal officers to any of its male residents, except for crimes, the basis for representing that State will be reduced as specified. This section not only suggests that the voting rights of male residents were specifically intended to be protected, but it also acknowledges that a State can deny certain male residents the right to vote that is granted to other male residents, despite the existence of that clause which the defendant argues against. Therefore, the regulation of voting rights is recognized as a power of the States.
The case of Myra Bradwell, decided at a recent term of the Supreme Court of the United States, sustains both the positions above put forth, viz: First, that the rights referred to in the XIV. Amendment are those belonging to a person as a citizen of the United States and not as a citizen of a State; and second, that a right of the character here involved is not one connected with citizenship of the United States. Mrs. Bradwell made application to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the Courts of Illinois. Her application was denied, and upon appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, it was there held that to give jurisdiction under the XIV. Amendment, the claim must be of a right pertaining to citizenship of the United States, and that the claim made by her did not come within that class of cases. Mr. Justice Bradley and Mr. Justice Field held that a woman was not entitled to a license to practice law. It does not appear that the other Judges passed upon that question. The XIV. Amendment gives no right to a woman to vote, and the voting by Miss Anthony was in violation of the law.[Pg 679]
The Myra Bradwell case, decided recently by the Supreme Court of the United States, supports both points mentioned earlier: First, the rights addressed in the XIV Amendment belong to a person as a citizen of the United States, not as a citizen of a State; and second, the right involved here is not related to U.S. citizenship. Mrs. Bradwell applied to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the Illinois Courts. Her application was denied, and upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was determined that to establish jurisdiction under the XIV Amendment, the claim must pertain to rights associated with U.S. citizenship, and her claim did not fit into that category. Justice Bradley and Justice Field concluded that a woman was not entitled to a license to practice law. It seems that the other Justices did not address that issue. The XIV Amendment does not grant a woman the right to vote, and Miss Anthony's voting was against the law.[Pg 679]
If she believed she had a right to vote, and voted in reliance upon that belief, does that relieve her from the penalty? It is argued that the knowledge referred to in the act relates to her knowledge of the illegality of the act, and not to the act of voting; for it is said that she must know that she voted. Two principles apply here: First, ignorance of the law excuses no one; second, every person is presumed to understand and to intend the necessary effects of his own acts. Miss Anthony knew that she was a woman, and that the Constitution of this State prohibits her from voting. She intended to violate that provision—intended to test it, perhaps, but certainly intended to violate it. The necessary effect of her act was to violate it, and this she is presumed to have intended. There was no ignorance of any fact, but all the facts being known, she undertook to settle a principle in her own person. She takes the risk, and she can not escape the consequences. It is said, and authorities are cited to sustain the position, that there can be no crime unless there is a culpable intent; to render one criminally responsible a vicious will must be present. A. commits a trespass on the land of B., and B., thinking and believing that he has a right to shoot an intruder on his premises, kills A. on the spot. Does B.'s misapprehension of his rights justify his act? Would a Judge be justified in charging the jury that if satisfied that B. supposed he had a right to shoot A he was justified, and they should find a verdict of not guilty? No Judge would make such a charge. To constitute a crime, it is true that there must be a criminal intent, but it is equally true that knowledge of the facts of the case is always held to supply this intent. An intentional killing bears with it evidence of malice in law. Whoever, without justifiable cause, intentionally kills his neighbor, is guilty of a crime. The principle is the same in the case before us, and in all criminal cases. The precise question now before me has been several times decided, viz: That one illegally voting was bound and was assumed to know the law, and that a belief that he had a right to vote gave no defense, if there was no mistake of fact. (Hamilton against The People, 57th of Barbour, p. 625; State against Boyet, 10th of Iredell, p. 336; State against Hart, 6th Jones, 389; McGuire against State, 7 Humphrey, 54; 15th of Iowa reports, 404.) No system of criminal jurisprudence can be sustained upon any other principle. Assuming that Miss Anthony believed she had a right to vote, that fact constitutes no defense if in truth she had not the right. She voluntarily gave a vote which was illegal, and thus is subject to the penalty of the law.
If she believed she had the right to vote and cast her vote based on that belief, does that exempt her from the penalty? It's argued that the knowledge mentioned in the law relates to her awareness of the act's illegality, not to the act of voting itself; it’s said that she must know she voted. Two principles come into play here: First, ignorance of the law excuses no one; second, everyone is presumed to understand and to intend the consequences of their actions. Miss Anthony knew she was a woman and that the Constitution of this State prohibits her from voting. She meant to break that law—perhaps to challenge it, but she definitely intended to break it. The inevitable result of her action was to violate that law, and we assume she intended that. There was no ignorance of any facts; all the facts were known, and she chose to resolve a principle personally. She takes the risk and cannot avoid the consequences. It’s said, and references are made to support this view, that there can be no crime without a guilty mind; to make someone criminally responsible, there must be wrongful intention. A person (A) trespasses on someone else's land (B), and B, believing he has the right to shoot an intruder on his property, kills A immediately. Does B's misunderstanding of his rights justify his action? Would a judge be right to tell the jury that if they believe B thought he had the right to shoot A, he was justified, and they should find him not guilty? No judge would instruct the jury that way. While it's true that a crime requires criminal intent, it’s equally true that knowledge of the case facts always provides that intent. An intentional killing suggests malice in law. Whoever, without justification, deliberately kills their neighbor is guilty of a crime. The same principle applies in the case before us and in all criminal cases. The specific question I'm addressing has been settled multiple times: that someone who votes illegally is considered to know the law and that a belief in their right to vote offers no defense if there is no factual mistake. (Hamilton against The People, 57th of Barbour, p. 625; State against Boyet, 10th of Iredell, p. 336; State against Hart, 6th Jones, 389; McGuire against State, 7 Humphrey, 54; 15th of Iowa reports, 404.) No system of criminal law can stand on any other principle. Assuming Miss Anthony believed she had the right to vote, that fact provides no defense if she actually did not have that right. She willingly cast an illegal vote and is therefore subject to legal penalties.
The Judge directed the jury to find a verdict of guilty.
The judge instructed the jury to deliver a guilty verdict.
Judge Selden: I submit that on the view which your honor has taken, that the right to vote and the regulation of it is solely a State matter. That this whole law is out of the jurisdiction of the United States Courts and of Congress. The whole law upon that basis, as I understand it, is not within the constitutional power of the General Government, but is one which applies to the States. I suppose that it is for the jury to determine whether the defendant is guilty of a crime or not. And I therefore ask your honor to submit to the jury these propositions:
Judge Selden: I propose that based on the view your honor has taken, the right to vote and its regulations are entirely a State issue. That this entire law falls outside the jurisdiction of the United States Courts and Congress. As I understand it, this law is not within the constitutional authority of the Federal Government, but pertains to the States. I believe it's the jury's responsibility to decide whether the defendant is guilty of a crime. Therefore, I ask your honor to present these propositions to the jury:
First.—If the defendant, at the time of voting, believed that she had a right to vote and voted in good faith in that belief, she is not guilty of the offense charged.[Pg 680]
First.—If the defendant believed she had the right to vote at the time of voting and acted in good faith based on that belief, she is not guilty of the offense charged.[Pg 680]
Second.—In determining the question whether she did or did not believe that she had a right to vote, the jury may take into consideration, as bearing upon that question, the advice which she received from the counsel to whom she applied.
Second.—In deciding whether she believed she had the right to vote, the jury may consider the advice she received from the lawyer she consulted.
Third.—That they may also take into consideration, as bearing upon the same question, the fact that the inspectors considered the question and came to the conclusion that she had a right to vote.
Third.—That they may also consider, regarding the same issue, the fact that the inspectors examined the matter and concluded that she had the right to vote.
Fourth.—That the jury have a right to find a general verdict of guilty or not guilty as they shall believe that she has or has not committed the offense described in the statute.
Fourth.—That the jury has the right to decide on a general verdict of guilty or not guilty based on their belief about whether she committed the offense described in the statute.
A professional friend sitting by has made this suggestion which I take leave to avail myself of as bearing upon this question: "The Court has listened for many hours to an argument in order to decide whether the defendant has a right to vote. The arguments show the same question has engaged the best minds of the country as an open question. Can it be possible that the defendant is to be convicted for acting upon such advice as she could obtain while the question is an open and undecided one?"
A professional friend nearby has made a suggestion that I’d like to consider regarding this issue: "The Court has listened for hours to arguments aimed at deciding whether the defendant has the right to vote. These arguments reveal that this issue has attracted the attention of the country's brightest minds as an unresolved question. Is it really fair for the defendant to be convicted for following the advice she could get when the question is still open and undecided?"
The Court.—You have made a much better argument than that, sir.
The Court.—You've made a much stronger argument than that, sir.
Judge Selden.—As long as it is an open question, I submit that she has not been guilty of an offense. At all events, it is for the jury.
Judge Selden.—As long as it's still an open question, I argue she hasn't committed any offense. In any case, it's up to the jury.
The Court.—I can not charge these propositions of course. The question, gentlemen of the jury, in the form it finally takes, is wholly a question or questions of law, and I have decided as a question of law, in the first place, that under the XIV. Amendment, which Miss Anthony claims protects her, she was not protected in a right to vote. And I have decided also that her belief and the advice which she took do not protect her in the act which she committed. If I am right in this, the result must be a verdict on your part of guilty, and I therefore direct that you find a verdict of guilty.
The Court.—I’m unable to charge these propositions, of course. The question, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in the form it ultimately takes, is entirely a question or questions of law. And I have determined as a matter of law, first of all, that under the XIV Amendment, which Miss Anthony argues protects her, she was not afforded the right to vote. I have also concluded that her belief and the advice she received do not shield her from the act she committed. If I’m correct in this, the outcome must be a verdict of guilty from you, and I therefore instruct you to find a verdict of guilty.
Judge Selden.—That is a direction no Court has power to make in a criminal case.
Judge Selden.—That is an instruction no court is allowed to give in a criminal case.
The Court.—Take the verdict, Mr. Clerk.
The Court.—Hand over the verdict, Mr. Clerk.
The Clerk.—Gentlemen of the jury, hearken to your verdict as the Court has recorded it. You say you find the defendant guilty of the offense whereof she stands indicted, and so say you all?
The Clerk.—Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, listen to your verdict as the Court has noted it. You say you find the defendant guilty of the charge against her, and is that your final decision?
Judge Selden.—I don't know whether an exception is available, but I certainly must except to the refusal of the Court to submit those propositions, and especially to the direction of the Court that the jury should find a verdict of guilty. I claim that it is a power that is not given to any Court in a criminal case. Will the Clerk poll the jury? The Court.—No. Gentlemen of the jury, you are discharged.
Judge Selden.—I'm not sure if an exception can be made, but I definitely object to the Court's refusal to present those propositions, and especially to the Court's instruction that the jury should deliver a guilty verdict. I argue that this is not a power granted to any Court in a criminal case. Could the Clerk please poll the jury? The Court.—No. Gentlemen of the jury, you are dismissed.
On the next day a motion for a new trial was made and argued by Judge Selden, as follows:
On the next day, Judge Selden presented and argued a motion for a new trial, as follows:
May it please the Court:—The trial of this case commenced with a question of very great magnitude—whether by the Constitution of the United States the right of suffrage was secured to female equally with male citizens. It is likely to close with a question of much greater magnitude—whether the right of trial by jury is absolutely secured by the Federal Constitution to persons charged with crime before the Federal Courts.
May it please the Court:—The trial of this case started with a significant question—whether the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to vote for women just as it does for men. It is expected to conclude with a question of even greater importance—whether the right to a trial by jury is fully guaranteed by the Federal Constitution to individuals accused of crimes in Federal Courts.
I assume, without attempting to produce any authority on the subject, that[Pg 681] this Court has power to grant to the defendant a new trial in case it should appear that in the haste and in the lack of opportunity for examination which necessarily attend a jury trial, any material error should have been committed prejudicial to the defendant, as otherwise no means whatever are provided by the law for the correction of such errors.
I assume, without trying to present any authority on the subject, that[Pg 681] this Court has the power to grant the defendant a new trial if it turns out that, due to the rush and lack of opportunity for examination that come with a jury trial, any significant error that harmed the defendant was made, since otherwise the law provides no way to correct such errors.
The defendant was indicted under the nineteenth section of the act of Congress of May 31, 1870, entitled, "An act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union, and for other purposes," and was charged with having knowingly voted, without having a lawful right to vote, at the Congressional election in the Eighth Ward of the City of Rochester, in November last; the only ground of illegality being that the defendant was a woman.
The defendant was charged under the nineteenth section of the act of Congress from May 31, 1870, called "An act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union, and for other purposes," and was accused of knowingly voting without a legal right to do so in the Congressional election in the Eighth Ward of the City of Rochester last November; the only reason for the illegality was that the defendant was a woman.
The provisions of the act of Congress, so far as they bear upon the present case, are as follows:
The provisions of the act of Congress, as they relate to the current case, are as follows:
Section 19. If at any election for representative or delegate in the Congress of the United States, any person shall knowingly personate and vote, or attempt to vote, in the name of any other person, whether living, dead, or fictitious, or vote more than once at the same election for any candidate for the same office, or vote at a place where he may not be lawfully entitled to vote, or vote without having a lawful right to vote, ... every such person shall be deemed guilty of a crime, and shall for such crime be liable to prosecution in any court of the United States, of competent jurisdiction, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both, in the discretion of the Court, and shall pay the costs of prosecution.
Section 19. If at any election for a representative or delegate in the Congress of the United States, anyone knowingly impersonates and votes, or tries to vote, in someone else's name—whether that person is alive, dead, or made up—or votes more than once in the same election for any candidate for the same position, or votes at a location where they aren't legally allowed to vote, or votes without having the legal right to do so, ... every such person will be considered guilty of a crime and can be prosecuted in any court of the United States with appropriate authority, and upon conviction, will face a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to three years, or both, at the court's discretion, and will be responsible for the costs of prosecution.
It appeared on the trial that before voting the defendant called upon a respectable lawyer, and asked his opinion whether she had a right to vote, and he advised her that she had such right, and the lawyer was examined as a witness in her behalf, and testified that he gave her such advice, and that he gave it in good faith, believing that she had such right.
It came out during the trial that before voting, the defendant consulted a reputable lawyer and asked for his opinion on whether she had the right to vote. He advised her that she did have that right. The lawyer was called as a witness in her favor and testified that he gave her that advice and did so in good faith, believing she had that right.
It also appeared that when she offered to vote, the question whether as a woman she had a right to vote, was raised by the inspectors, and considered by them in her presence, and they decided that she had a right to vote, and received her vote accordingly.
It also seemed that when she offered to vote, the inspectors brought up the question of whether she, as a woman, had the right to vote, and discussed it in her presence, ultimately deciding that she did have the right to vote and accepted her ballot.
It was also shown on the part of the Government, that on the examination of the defendant before the commissioner on whose warrant she was arrested, she stated that she should have voted, if allowed to vote, without reference to the advice she had received from the attorney whose opinion she had asked; that she was not influenced to vote by that opinion; that she had before determined to offer her vote, and had no doubt about her right to vote.
It was also shown by the Government that during the defendant's examination before the commissioner who issued her arrest warrant, she stated that she would have voted, if allowed to do so, regardless of the advice she received from the attorney she consulted; that she wasn't swayed to vote by that opinion; that she had already decided to cast her vote, and had no doubt about her right to vote.
At the close of the testimony the defendant's counsel proceeded to address the jury, and stated that he desired to present for consideration three propositions, two of law and one of fact:
At the end of the testimony, the defendant's lawyer began speaking to the jury and said he wanted to put forward three points for their consideration: two legal issues and one factual issue:
First.—That the defendant had a lawful right to vote.
First.—That the defendant had a legal right to vote.
Second.—That whether she had a lawful right to vote or not, if she honestly believed that she had that right and voted in good faith in that belief, she was guilty of no crime.
Second.—That whether she had a legal right to vote or not, if she truly believed she had that right and voted in good faith based on that belief, she committed no crime.
Third.—That when she gave her vote she gave it in good faith, believing that it was her right to do so.
Third.—That when she cast her vote, she did so in good faith, believing it was her right to do so.
That the first two propositions presented questions for the Court to decide, and the last for the jury.[Pg 682]
That the first two statements raised issues for the Court to resolve, and the last one for the jury.[Pg 682]
When the counsel had proceeded thus far, the Court suggested that the counsel had better discuss in the first place the questions of law; which the counsel proceeded to do, and having discussed the two legal questions at length, asked leave then to say a few words to the jury on the question of fact. The Court then said to the counsel that he thought that had better be left until the views of the Court upon the legal question should be made known.
When the lawyer had gone this far, the Court suggested that it would be better for the lawyer to first address the legal questions. The lawyer then did so, discussing the two legal questions in detail, and asked for permission to say a few words to the jury regarding the factual issue. The Court then informed the lawyer that it would be best to wait until the Court's opinions on the legal question were revealed.
The District Attorney thereupon addressed the Court at length upon the legal questions, and at the close of his argument the Court delivered an opinion adverse to the positions of the defendant's counsel upon both of the legal questions presented, holding that the defendant was not entitled to vote; and that if she voted in good faith in the belief in fact that she had a right to vote, it would constitute no defense—the grounds of the decision on the last point being that she was bound to know that by law she was not a legal voter, and that even if she voted in good faith in the contrary belief, it constituted no defense to the crime with which she was charged. The decision of the court upon these questions was read from a written document.
The District Attorney then spoke to the Court in detail about the legal issues, and at the end of his argument, the Court issued an opinion against the positions of the defendant's lawyer on both legal questions presented. The Court stated that the defendant was not entitled to vote; and even if she voted in good faith, believing she had the right to vote, it would not be a valid defense. The reasoning behind this was that she should have known she was not a legal voter according to the law, and that even if she voted honestly believing otherwise, it wouldn’t be a defense against the crime she was charged with. The court's decision on these matters was read from a written document.
At the close of the reading, the Court said that the decision of these questions disposed of the case and left no question of fact for the jury, and that he should therefore direct the jury to find a verdict of guilty, and proceeded to say to the jury that the decision of the Court had disposed of all there was in the case, and that he directed them to find a verdict of guilty, and he instructed the clerk to enter a verdict of guilty.
At the end of the reading, the Court stated that the decision on these questions resolved the case and left no factual issues for the jury. Therefore, he directed the jury to deliver a guilty verdict and explained to them that the Court's decision addressed everything in the case. He instructed the clerk to record a guilty verdict.
At this point, before any entry had been made by the clerk, the defendant's counsel asked the Court to submit the case to the jury, and to give to the jury the following several instructions: [Here Judge Selden repeated the instructions. See page 665.]
At this point, before the clerk had made any entries, the defendant's lawyer asked the Court to present the case to the jury and to provide the jury with the following instructions: [Here Judge Selden repeated the instructions. See page 665.]
The Court declined to submit the case to the jury upon any question whatever, and directed them to render a verdict of guilty against the defendant. The defendant's counsel excepted to the decision of the Court upon the legal questions—to its refusal to submit the case to the jury; to its refusal to give the instructions asked; and to its direction to the jury to find a verdict of guilty against the defendant—the counsel insisting that it was a direction which no Court had a right to give in a criminal case.
The Court chose not to bring the case before the jury on any issue and ordered them to deliver a guilty verdict against the defendant. The defendant's lawyer objected to the Court's decision on the legal matters—its refusal to present the case to the jury, its refusal to provide the requested instructions, and its order for the jury to find the defendant guilty—arguing that it was an order no Court should be allowed to give in a criminal case.
The Court then instructed the clerk to take the verdict, and the clerk said, "Gentlemen of the jury, hearken to the verdict as the Court hath recorded it. You say you find the defendant guilty of the offense charged. So say you all." No response whatever was made by the jury, either by word or sign. They had not consulted together in their seats or otherwise. None of them had spoken a word. Nor had they been asked whether they had or had not agreed upon a verdict. The defendant's counsel then asked that the clerk be requested to poll the jury. The Court said, "That can not be allowed. Gentlemen of the jury, you are discharged," and the jurors left the box. No juror spoke a word during the trial, from the time they were impaneled to the time of their discharge.
The Court then instructed the clerk to read the verdict, and the clerk said, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, listen to the verdict as the Court has recorded it. You say you find the defendant guilty of the offense charged. Do you all agree?" There was no response from the jury, either verbally or with any gestures. They hadn’t talked to each other in their seats or otherwise. None of them had said a word. Nor had they been asked if they had reached an agreement on a verdict. The defendant's lawyer then requested that the clerk poll the jury. The Court replied, "That cannot be allowed. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are dismissed," and the jurors left the box. No juror spoke a word during the trial, from the moment they were sworn in until they were dismissed.
Now I respectfully submit, that in these proceedings the defendant has been substantially denied her constitutional right of trial by jury. The jurors composing the panel have been merely silent spectators of the conviction[Pg 683] of the defendant by the Court. They have had no more share in her trial and conviction than any other twelve members of the jury summoned to attend this Court, or any twelve spectators who have sat by during the trial. If such course is allowable in this case, it must be equally allowable in all criminal cases, whether the charge be for treason, murder, or any minor grade of offense which can come under the jurisdiction of a United States Court; and as I understand it, if correct, substantially abolishes the right of trial by jury.
Now I respectfully submit that in these proceedings, the defendant has been significantly denied her constitutional right to a trial by jury. The jurors on the panel have been nothing more than silent spectators of the defendant’s conviction by the Court. They have had no more involvement in her trial and conviction than any other twelve members of the jury called to this Court, or any twelve spectators who sat through the trial. If this approach is acceptable in this case, it must also be acceptable in all criminal cases, whether the charge is treason, murder, or any lesser offense that falls under the jurisdiction of a United States Court; and as I understand it, if this is correct, it effectively abolishes the right to a trial by jury.
It certainly does so in all those cases where the judge shall be of the opinion that the facts which he may regard as clearly proved, lead necessarily to the guilt of the defendant. Of course by refusing to submit any question to the jury, the judge refuses to allow counsel to address the jury in the defendant's behalf. The constitutional provisions which I insist are violated by this proceeding are the following:
It definitely happens in all those situations where the judge believes that the facts he sees as clearly established necessarily point to the defendant's guilt. By not allowing any questions to go to the jury, the judge is also preventing the lawyer from speaking to the jury on behalf of the defendant. The constitutional provisions that I argue are being violated by this process are the following:
Constitution of the United States, article 3, section 2. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.
Constitution of the United States, article 3, section 2. The trial for all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, will be by jury.
Amendments to Constitution, article 6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendments to Constitution, article 6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury from the State and District where the crime was committed, which district must be determined by law beforehand; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to confront the witnesses against them; to have the ability to obtain witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of a lawyer for their defense.
In accordance with these provisions, I insist that in every criminal case, where the party has pleaded not guilty, whether upon the trial the guilt of such party appears to the judge to be clear or not, the response to the question, guilty or not guilty, must come from the jury, must be their voluntary act, and can not be imposed upon them by the Court.
In line with these rules, I emphasize that in every criminal case where the defendant pleads not guilty, whether the judge sees the defendant's guilt as clear or not during the trial, the answer to the question of guilty or not guilty must come from the jury. It has to be their voluntary decision and cannot be forced upon them by the Court.
No opportunity has been given me to consult precedents on this subject, but a friend has referred me to an authority strongly supporting my position, from which I will quote, though I deem a reference to precedents unnecessary to sustain the plain declarations of the Constitution: I refer to the case of the State vs. Shule (10 Iredell, 153), the substance of which is stated in 2 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, page 363. Before stating that case I quote from the text of G. & W.
I haven't had the chance to look into past cases on this matter, but a friend pointed me to an authority that strongly backs my view, and I’ll quote it, even though I believe referring to past cases isn’t necessary to support the clear statements of the Constitution. I'm talking about the case of the State vs. Shule (10 Iredell, 153), which is summarized in 2 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, page 363. Before discussing that case, I’ll quote from the text of G. & W.
The verdict is to be the result of the deliberation of the jury upon all the evidence in the case. The Court has no right to anticipate the verdict by an expression of opinion calculated so to influence the jury as to take from them their independence of action.
The verdict will come from the jury's discussion of all the evidence in the case. The Court has no right to hint at the verdict with an opinion that could sway the jury and compromise their independence.
In the State vs. Shule two defendants were indicted for an affray. The jury remaining out a considerable time, at the request of the prosecuting attorney they were sent for by the Court. The Court then charged them that although Jones (the other defendant) had first commenced a battery on Shule, yet, if the jury believed the evidence, the defendant, Shule, was also guilty. Thereupon, one of the jurors remarked that they had agreed to convict Jones, but were about to acquit Shule. The Court then charged the jury again, and told them that they could retire if they thought proper to do so. The jury consulted together a few minutes in the court room. The prosecuting attorney directed the clerk to enter a verdict of guilty as to both defendants. When the clerk had entered the verdict, the jury were asked to attend to it, as it was about to be read by the clerk. The clerk then read the verdict in the hearing of the jury. The jury, upon being requested, if any of them disagreed to the verdict to make it known by a nod, seemed to express their unanimous assent; and no juror expressed his dissent.
In the State vs. Shule, two defendants were charged with a fight. After the jury deliberated for quite a while, the prosecuting attorney requested that they be brought back by the Court. The Court then instructed them that even though Jones (the other defendant) had started the fight with Shule, if the jury believed the evidence, Shule was also guilty. One of the jurors then mentioned that they had decided to convict Jones but were planning to acquit Shule. The Court then readdressed the jury, telling them they could take a break if they felt it was necessary. The jury talked among themselves for a few minutes in the courtroom. The prosecuting attorney told the clerk to record a guilty verdict for both defendants. Once the clerk recorded the verdict, the jury was asked to pay attention as it was about to be read. The clerk then announced the verdict in front of the jury. When the jury was asked to indicate by a nod if anyone disagreed with the verdict, they seemed to show unanimous agreement; no juror voiced any dissent.
In reviewing the case the Court say:
In reviewing the case, the Court says:
The error complained of is, that before the jury had announced their verdict, and in fact after they had intimated an intention to acquit the defendant, Shule, the Court allowed the clerk to be directed to enter a verdict finding him guilty, and after the verdict was so entered, allowing the jury to be asked if any of them disagreed to the verdict which had been recorded by the clerk. No juror expressed his dissent; but by a nod which appeared to be made by each juror, expressed their unanimous assent. The innovation is, that instead of permitting the jury to give their verdict, the Court allows a verdict to be entered for them, such as it is to be presumed the Court thinks they ought to render, and then they are asked if any of them disagree to it; thus making a verdict for them, unless they are bold enough to stand out against a plain intimation of the opinion of the Court.
The issue raised is that before the jury announced their verdict, and actually after they indicated their intention to acquit the defendant, Shule, the Court permitted the clerk to record a verdict of guilty. After this verdict was recorded, the jury was asked if any of them disagreed with what the clerk had written down. No juror expressed disagreement; instead, each one seemed to nod in agreement, showing their unanimous approval. The problem here is that instead of letting the jury provide their own verdict, the Court allows a verdict to be recorded for them, based on what the Court presumably thinks they should decide, and then asks if anyone disagrees; this effectively makes a verdict for them unless someone is brave enough to oppose a clear indication of the Court's view.
A venire de novo was ordered. The principal difference between this case and the one under consideration is, that in the latter the Court directed the clerk to enter the verdict, and in the former he was allowed to do so, and in the latter the Court denied liberty to the jurors to dissent from the verdict, and in the former the Court allowed such dissent.
A venire de novo was ordered. The main difference between this case and the one we're looking at is that in the latter, the Court told the clerk to record the verdict, while in the former, he was permitted to do so. Also, in the latter, the Court did not allow the jurors to disagree with the verdict, whereas in the former, the Court permitted such disagreement.
With what jealous care the right of trial by jury in criminal cases has been guarded by every English-speaking people from the days of King John, indeed from the days of King Alfred, is known to every lawyer and to every intelligent layman, and it does not seem to me that such a limitation of that right as is presented by the proceedings in this case, can be reconciled either with constitutional provisions, with the practice of courts, with public sentiment on the subject, or with safety in the administration of justice. How the question would be regarded by the highest Court of this State may fairly be gathered from its decision in the case of Cancemi, 18 N. Y., 128, where, on a trial for murder, one juror, some time after the trial commenced, being necessarily withdrawn, a stipulation was entered into, signed by the District Attorney, and by the defendant and his council, to the effect that the trial should proceed before the remaining eleven jurors, and that their verdict should have the same effect as the verdict of a full panel would have. A verdict of guilty having been rendered by the eleven jurors, was set aside and a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeals, on the ground that the defendant could not, even by his own consent, be lawfully tried by a less number of jurors than twelve. It would seem to follow that he could not waive the entire panel, and effectually consent to be tried by the Court alone, and still less could the Court, against his protest, assume the duties of the jury, and effectually pronounce the verdict of guilty or not guilty in their stead.
With what jealous care the right to a jury trial in criminal cases has been protected by every English-speaking community since the days of King John, and even back to King Alfred, is well-known to every lawyer and informed layperson. It seems to me that any limitation of that right as shown by the proceedings in this case cannot be justified by constitutional provisions, court practices, public opinion, or safety in the justice system. We can reasonably infer how the highest Court of this State would view this issue from its decision in the case of Cancemi, 18 N. Y., 128. In that case, during a murder trial, one juror was withdrawn, and a stipulation was made, signed by the District Attorney, the defendant, and his counsel, stating that the trial would continue with the remaining eleven jurors, and that their verdict would have the same authority as a full jury's verdict. However, when the eleven jurors rendered a guilty verdict, the Court of Appeals set it aside and ordered a new trial, arguing that the defendant could not legally be tried by fewer than twelve jurors, even with his consent. It follows that he could not waive the entire jury, consent to be tried solely by the Court, and even more so, the Court could not, against his objection, take on the jury's role and deliver a guilty or not guilty verdict in their place.
It will doubtless be insisted that there was no disputed question of fact upon which the jury were required to pass. In regard to that, I insist that however clear and conclusive the proof of the facts might appear to be, the response to the question, guilty or not guilty, must under the Constitution come from the jury and could not be supplied by the judgment of the court, unless, indeed, the jury should see fit to render a special verdict, which they always may, but can never be required to do. It was the province of the court to instruct the jury as to the law, and to point out to them how clearly the law, on its view of the established facts, made out the offense; but it has no authority to instruct them positively on any question of fact, or to order them to find any particular verdict. That must be their spontaneous work.
It’s clear that some will argue there was no disputed factual issue for the jury to decide. However, I maintain that no matter how obvious and convincing the evidence of the facts might seem, the answer to the question, guilty or not guilty, must come from the jury according to the Constitution and cannot be determined by the judge. Unless the jury chooses to give a special verdict, which they always have the option to do but are never required to, this remains true. It’s the court's role to guide the jury on the law and to show them how the law clearly applies to the established facts in determining the offense. However, the court has no power to direct them on any factual questions or to tell them what verdict to reach. That decision must be their own.
But there was a question of fact, which constituted the very essence of the[Pg 685] offense, and one on which the jury were not only entitled to exercise, but were in duty bound to exercise, their independent judgment. That question of fact was, whether the defendant, at the time when she voted, knew that she had not a right to vote. The statute makes this knowledge the very gist of the offense, without the existence of which, in the mind of the voter at the time of voting, there is no crime. There is none by the statute and none in morals. The existence of this knowledge, in the mind of the voter at the time of voting, is under the statute, necessarily a fact and nothing but a fact, and one which the jury was bound to find as a fact, before they could, without violating the statute, find the defendant guilty. The ruling which took that question away from the jury, on the ground that it was a question of law and not of fact, and which declared that as a question of law, the knowledge existed, was, I respectfully submit, a most palpable error, both in law and justice. It was an error in law, because its effect was to deny any force whatever to the most important word which the statute uses in defining the offense—the word "knowingly." It was also unjust, because it makes the law declare a known falsehood as a truth, and then by force of that judicial falsehood condemns the defendant to such punishment as she could only lawfully be subject to, if the falsehood were a truth.
But there was a factual question that was at the very heart of the[Pg 685] offense, and one that the jury not only had the right to consider but also had a duty to evaluate on their own. That factual question was whether the defendant knew she didn’t have the right to vote at the time she cast her vote. The law states that this knowledge is essential to the offense; without it existing in the mind of the voter at the time of voting, there is no crime. There’s none according to the law and none morally. The existence of this knowledge in the voter’s mind at the time of voting is, under the law, strictly a fact—a fact that the jury had to determine before they could find the defendant guilty without violating the law. The ruling that took this question away from the jury, arguing it was a legal issue rather than a factual one, and which declared that legally the knowledge existed, was, I respectfully argue, a clear error in both law and justice. It was an error in law because it effectively dismissed the significance of the most crucial word in the statute defining the offense—the word "knowingly." It was also unjust because it allowed the law to proclaim a known falsehood as truth, and thereby, based on that judicial falsehood, condemned the defendant to a punishment she could only lawfully receive if the falsehood were indeed the truth.
I admit that it is an established legal maxim that every person (judicial officers excepted) is bound, and must be presumed, to know the law. The soundness of this maxim, in all the cases to which it can properly be applied, I have no desire to question; but it has no applicability whatever to this case. It applies in every case where a party does an act which the law pronounces criminal, whether the party knows or does not know that the law has made the act a crime. That maxim would have applied to this case, if the defendant had voted, knowing that she had no legal right to vote; without knowing that the law had made the act of knowingly voting without a right, a crime. In that case she would have done the act which the law made a crime, and could not have shielded herself from the penalty by pleading ignorance of the law. But in the present case the defendant has not done the act which the law pronounces a crime. The law has not made the act of voting without a lawful right to vote, a crime, where it is done by mistake, and in the belief by the party voting that he has the lawful right to vote. The crime consists in voting "knowingly," without lawful right. Unless the knowledge exists in fact, the very gist of the offense is wanting. To hold that the law presumes conclusively that such knowledge exists in all cases where the legal right is wanting, and to reject all evidence to the contrary, or to deny to such evidence any effect, as has been done on this trial, is to strike the word "knowingly" out of the statute—and to condemn the defendant on the legal fiction that she was acting in bad faith, it being all the while conceded that she was in fact acting in good faith. I admit that there are precedents to sustain such ruling, but they can not be reconciled with the fundamental principles of criminal law, nor with the most ordinary rules of justice. Such a ruling can not but shock the moral sense of all right-minded, unprejudiced men.
I acknowledge that it's a well-known legal principle that everyone (except judges) is expected to know the law. I don't wish to question the validity of this principle in cases where it applies, but it doesn't apply here. It applies in situations where someone performs an act that the law labels as criminal, regardless of whether they are aware that the law defines that act as a crime. This principle would be relevant if the defendant had voted while knowing she didn't have the legal right to vote, even if she wasn't aware that voting without that right was a crime. In that scenario, she would have committed a criminal act and couldn't defend herself by claiming ignorance of the law. However, in this case, the defendant didn't commit an act that is classified as a crime. The law hasn't deemed voting without a legal right a crime when it's done mistakenly and under the belief that the person has the right to vote. The crime lies in voting "knowingly" without the legal right to do so. If the actual knowledge is absent, then the essence of the offense is missing. To assume that the law conclusively presumes such knowledge exists in every situation lacking legal right and to dismiss any evidence to the contrary, as has happened in this trial, essentially removes the word "knowingly" from the statute—and unjustly condemns the defendant under the fictitious notion that she acted in bad faith, even though it’s accepted that she acted in good faith. I recognize that there are precedents supporting such a ruling, but they can't be aligned with the foundational principles of criminal law or basic justice. Such a ruling is bound to offend the moral sense of any fair-minded, impartial individuals.
No doubt the assumption by the defendant of a belief of her right to vote might be made use of by her as a mere cover to secure the privilege of giving a known illegal vote, and of course that false assumption would[Pg 686] constitute no defense to the charge of illegal voting. If the defendant had dressed herself in male attire, and had voted as John Anthony, instead of Susan, she would not be able to protect herself against a charge of voting with a knowledge that she had no right to vote, by asserting her belief that she had a right to vote as a woman. The artifice would no doubt effectually overthrow the assertion of good faith. No such question, however, is made here. The decision of which I complain concedes that the defendant voted in good faith, in the most implicit belief that she had a right to vote, and condemns her on the strength of the legal fiction, conceded to be in fact a mere fiction, that she knew the contrary. But if the facts admitted of a doubt of the defendant's good faith, that was a question for the jury, and it was clear error for the court to assume the decision of it.
There's no doubt that the defendant's belief in her right to vote could be used as a mere excuse to justify casting an illegal vote, and obviously, that false belief would[Pg 686] not be a valid defense against the charge of illegal voting. If the defendant had dressed as a man and voted as John Anthony instead of Susan, she wouldn't be able to defend herself against a charge of knowing she didn't have the right to vote by claiming she believed she had the right to vote as a woman. This tactic would clearly undermine any claim of good faith. However, that's not the issue at hand here. The decision I’m criticizing accepts that the defendant voted in good faith, fully believing she had the right to do so, and penalizes her based on a legal fiction, acknowledged to be simply a fiction, that she knew otherwise. But if there was any doubt about the defendant's good faith, that should have been a question for the jury, and it was a serious mistake for the court to take that decision upon itself.
Again. The denial of the right to poll the jury was most clearly an error. Under the provisions of the Constitution which have been cited, the defendant could only be convicted on the verdict of a jury. The case of Cancemi shows that such jury must consist of twelve men; and it will not be claimed that anything less than the unanimous voice of the jury can be received as their verdict. How then could the defendant be lawfully deprived of the right to ask every juror if the verdict had his assent? I believe this is a right which was never before denied to a party against whom a verdict was rendered in any case, either civil or criminal. The following cases show, and many others might be cited to the same effect, that the right to poll the jury is an absolute right in all cases, civil and criminal. (The People vs. Perkins, 1 Wend., 91; Jackson vs. Hawks, 2 Wend., 619; Fox vs. Smith, 3 Cowen, 23.)
Again. Denying the right to poll the jury was clearly a mistake. According to the provisions of the Constitution mentioned earlier, the defendant can only be convicted based on a jury's verdict. The Cancemi case shows that a jury must consist of twelve jurors, and it’s undisputed that a unanimous decision from the jury is required for their verdict. So, how could the defendant be legally denied the right to ask each juror if they agreed with the verdict? I believe this is a right that has never before been denied to a party who received a verdict in any case, whether civil or criminal. The following cases demonstrate, and many more could be cited similarly, that the right to poll the jury is an absolute right in all cases, civil and criminal. (The People vs. Perkins, 1 Wend., 91; Jackson vs. Hawks, 2 Wend., 619; Fox vs. Smith, 3 Cowen, 23.)
The ground on which the right of the defendant to vote has been denied, is, as I understood the decision of the Court,
The reason the defendant's right to vote has been denied, is, as I understood the Court's decision,
That the rights of the citizens of the State as such were not under consideration in the XIV. Amendment; that they stand as they did before that Amendment.... The right of voting or the privilege of voting is a right or privilege arising under the Constitution of the State, and not of the United States. If the right belongs to any particular person, it is because such person is entitled to it as a citizen of the State where he offers to exercise it, and not because of citizenship of the United States.... The regulation of the suffrage is conceded to the States as a State right.
That the rights of citizens in the State were not addressed in the XIV Amendment; they remain the same as they were before that Amendment.... The right to vote or the privilege of voting is a right or privilege that comes from the State's Constitution, not from the United States. If the right belongs to a specific person, it's because that person is entitled to it as a citizen of the State where they are trying to exercise it, not because they are a citizen of the United States.... The authority to regulate voting is granted to the States as a State right.
If this position be correct, which I am not now disposed to question, I respectfully insist that the Congress of the United States had no power to pass the act in question; that by doing so it has attempted to usurp the rights of States, and that all proceedings under the act are void.
If this stance is accurate, which I'm not inclined to challenge at the moment, I firmly maintain that the Congress of the United States did not have the authority to enact the law in question; by doing so, it has tried to overstep the rights of the States, and all actions taken under this law are invalid.
I claim therefore that the defendant is entitled to a new trial.
I assert that the defendant deserves a new trial.
First—Because she has been denied her right of trial by jury.
First—Because she has been denied her right to a trial by jury.
Second—Because she has been denied the right to ask the jury severally whether they assented to the verdict which the Court had recorded for them.
Second—Because she has been denied the right to ask the jury individually whether they agreed with the verdict that the Court had recorded for them.
Third—Because the Court erroneously held, that the defendant had not a lawful right to vote.
Third—Because the Court mistakenly decided that the defendant did not have a legal right to vote.
Fourth—Because the Court erroneously held, that if the defendant, when she voted, did so in good faith, believing that she had a right to vote, that fact constituted no defense.
Fourth—Because the Court wrongly determined that if the defendant voted in good faith, believing she had the right to vote, that fact provided no defense.
Fifth—Because the Court erroneously held that the question, whether the defendant at the time of voting knew that she had not a right to vote, was a question of law to be decided by the Court, and not a question of fact to be decided by the jury.[Pg 687]
Fifth—Because the Court wrongly decided that the question of whether the defendant knew at the time of voting that she didn’t have the right to vote was a legal question for the Court to determine, rather than a factual question for the jury to decide.[Pg 687]
Sixth—Because the Court erred in holding that it was a presumption of law that the defendant knew that she was not a legal voter, although in fact she had not that knowledge.
Sixth—Because the Court was wrong to assume that the defendant knew she wasn't a legal voter, even though she actually did not have that knowledge.
Seventh—Because Congress had no Constitutional right to pass the act under which the defendant was indicted, and the act and all proceedings under it are void.
Seventh—Because Congress had no Constitutional authority to pass the act under which the defendant was charged, the act and all proceedings related to it are invalid.
Sir, so far as my information in regard to legal proceedings extends, this is the only court in any country where trial by jury exists, in which the decisions that are made in the haste and sometimes confusion of such trials, are not subject to review before any other tribunal. I believe that to the decisions of this court, in criminal cases, no review is allowed, except in the same court in the informal way in which I now ask your honor to review the decisions made on this trial. This is therefore the court of last resort, and I hope your honor will give to these, as they appear to me, grave questions, such careful and deliberate consideration as is due to them from such final tribunal.
Your Honor, based on what I know about legal proceedings, this is the only court in any country where trial by jury exists, and the decisions made in the rush and sometimes chaos of these trials are not subject to review by any other court. I believe that for the decisions of this court in criminal cases, no review is permitted except informally in the same court, just as I am currently requesting your Honor to reconsider the decisions made in this trial. Therefore, this is the final court of appeal, and I hope your Honor will give these serious questions the careful and thoughtful consideration they deserve from such a high tribunal.
If a new trial shall be denied to the defendant, it will be no consolation to her to be dismissed with a slight penalty, leaving the stigma resting upon her name, of conviction for an offense of which she claims to be, and I believe is, an innocent as the purest of the millions of male voters who voted at the same election, are innocent of crime in so voting. If she is in fact guilty of the crime with which she stands charged, and of which she has been convicted by the court, she deserves the utmost penalty which the court under the law has power to impose; if she is not guilty she should be acquitted, and not declared upon the records of this high court guilty of a crime she never committed.
If the defendant is denied a new trial, it won’t help her at all to be given a minor penalty, leaving her with the stain of a conviction for an offense she claims to have not committed, and I believe she is as innocent as the most upstanding of the millions of male voters who participated in the same election and are innocent of wrongdoing in their voting. If she is actually guilty of the crime she has been charged with and convicted of by the court, she deserves the maximum penalty that the law allows. However, if she is not guilty, then she should be acquitted, rather than being recorded in this esteemed court as guilty of a crime she never committed.
The Court, after listening to an argument from the District Attorney, denied the motion for a new trial.
The Court, after hearing an argument from the District Attorney, denied the request for a new trial.
The Court: The prisoner will stand up. Has the prisoner anything to say why sentence shall not be pronounced?
The Court: The prisoner will rise. Does the prisoner have anything to say as to why the sentence should not be pronounced?
Miss Anthony: Yes, your honor, I have many things to say; for in your ordered verdict of guilty, you have trampled underfoot every vital principle of our government. My natural rights, my civil rights, my political rights, are all alike ignored. Robbed of the fundamental privilege of citizenship, I am degraded from the status of a citizen to that of a subject; and not only myself individually, but all of my sex, are, by your honor's verdict, doomed to political subjection under this so-called Republican government.
Miss Anthony: Yes, your honor, I have a lot to say; because in your ruling of guilty, you have disregarded every essential principle of our government. My natural rights, civil rights, and political rights are all being overlooked. Stripped of the basic privilege of citizenship, I am reduced from being a citizen to being a subject; and not just me individually, but all women are, by your honor's verdict, condemned to political subjugation under this so-called Republican government.
Judge Hunt: The Court can not listen to a rehearsal of arguments the prisoner's counsel has already consumed three hours in presenting.
Judge Hunt: The Court cannot hear a repeat of arguments that the prisoner's lawyer has already spent three hours presenting.
Miss Anthony: May it please your honor, I am not arguing the question, but simply stating the reasons why sentence can not, in justice, be pronounced against me. Your denial of my citizen's right to vote is the denial of my right of consent as one of the governed, the denial of my right of representation as one of the taxed, the denial of my right to a trial by a jury of my peers as an offender against law, therefore, the denial of my sacred rights to life, liberty, property, and—
Miss Anthony: Your Honor, I'm not here to argue the question, but rather to explain why it's unjust to pronounce a sentence against me. Denying my right to vote as a citizen means denying my right to consent as someone being governed, denying my right to representation as a taxpayer, and denying my right to a trial by a jury of my peers if I'm accused of breaking the law. Therefore, it's also a denial of my fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, and—
Judge Hunt: The Court can not allow the prisoner to go on.
Judge Hunt: The Court cannot allow the prisoner to continue.
Miss Anthony: But your honor will not deny me this one and only poor privilege of protest against this high-handed outrage upon my citizen's[Pg 688] rights. May it please the Court to remember that since the day of my arrest last November, this is the first time that either myself or any person of my disfranchised class has been allowed a word of defense before judge or jury—
Miss Anthony: But your honor can't deny me this one basic right to protest against this blatant injustice to my citizenship[Pg 688] rights. I ask the Court to remember that since my arrest last November, this is the first time that either I or anyone in my disenfranchised group has been given a chance to defend ourselves before a judge or jury—
Judge Hunt: The prisoner must sit down; the Court can not allow it.
Judge Hunt: The prisoner needs to sit down; the Court can't allow otherwise.
Miss Anthony: All my prosecutors, from the 8th Ward corner grocery politician, who entered the complaint, to the United States Marshal, Commissioner, District Attorney, District Judge, your honor on the bench, not one is my peer, but each and all are my political sovereigns; and had your honor submitted my case to the jury, as was clearly your duty, even then I should have had just cause of protest, for not one of those men was my peer; but, native or foreign, white or black, rich or poor, educated or ignorant, awake or asleep, sober or drunk, each and every man of them was my political superior; hence, in no sense, my peer. Even, under such circumstances, a commoner of England, tried before a jury of lords, would have far less cause to complain than should I, a woman, tried before a jury of men. Even my counsel, the Hon. Henry R. Selden, who has argued my cause so ably, so earnestly, so unanswerably before your honor, is my political sovereign. Precisely as no disfranchised person is entitled to sit upon a jury, and no woman is entitled to the franchise, so, none but a regularly admitted lawyer is allowed to practice in the courts, and no woman can gain admission to the bar—hence, jury, judge, counsel, must all be of the superior class.
Miss Anthony: All of my accusers, from the grocery store politician in the 8th Ward who filed the complaint, to the U.S. Marshal, Commissioner, District Attorney, District Judge, and your honor on the bench, none of them are my equal; rather, they are all my political superiors. If your honor had submitted my case to the jury, as was your clear responsibility, I would still have grounds for protest because not one of those men is my equal; whether native or foreign, white or black, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, awake or asleep, sober or drunk, each of them is my political superior; therefore, in no way can they be considered my equals. Even under such circumstances, a commoner in England tried before a jury of lords would have far less reason to complain than I, a woman, tried before a jury of men. Even my attorney, the Hon. Henry R. Selden, who has argued my case so effectively, passionately, and convincingly before your honor, is my political superior. Just as no disenfranchised person is entitled to serve on a jury, and no woman has the right to vote, so too, only a licensed lawyer may practice in the courts, and no woman can be admitted to the bar—therefore, the jury, judge, and counsel must all belong to the superior class.
Judge Hunt: The Court must insist—the prisoner has been tried according to the established forms of law.
Judge Hunt: The Court must emphasize—the defendant has been tried following the proper legal procedures.
Miss Anthony: Yes, your honor, but by forms of law all made by men, interpreted by men, administered by men, in favor of men, and against women; and hence, your honor's ordered verdict of guilty, against a United States citizen for the exercise of "that citizen's right to vote," simply because that citizen was a woman and not a man. But, yesterday, the same man-made forms of law declared it a crime punishable with $1,000 fine and six months' imprisonment, for you, or me, or any of us, to give a cup of cold water, a crust of bread, or a night's shelter to a panting fugitive as he was tracking his way to Canada. And every man or woman in whose veins coursed a drop of human sympathy violated that wicked law, reckless of consequences, and was justified in so doing. As then the slaves who got their freedom must take it over, or under, or through the unjust forms of law, precisely so now must women, to get their right to a voice in this Government, take it; and I have taken mine, and mean to take it at every possible opportunity.
Miss Anthony: Yes, your honor, but by laws created by men, interpreted by men, enforced by men, benefiting men, and oppressing women; and because of this, your honor's verdict of guilty against a United States citizen for exercising "that citizen's right to vote," simply because that citizen is a woman and not a man, is unjust. Just yesterday, these same man-made laws declared it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and six months in jail for any of us to offer a glass of cold water, a piece of bread, or a night's shelter to a desperate fugitive on the way to Canada. And anyone, man or woman, who had even an ounce of human compassion broke that unjust law, disregarding the consequences, and was right to do so. Just as the slaves who sought their freedom had to navigate through or around the unfair laws, so too must women fight for their right to participate in this government. I have taken my stand and will continue to assert it at every opportunity.
Judge Hunt: The Court orders the prisoner to sit down. It will not allow another word.
Judge Hunt: The Court orders the prisoner to take a seat. No more words will be permitted.
Miss Anthony: When I was brought before your honor for trial, I hoped for a broad and liberal interpretation of the Constitution and its recent amendments, that should declare all United States citizens under its protecting ægis—that should declare equality of rights the national guarantee to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. But failing to get this justice—failing, even, to get a trial by a jury not of my peers—I ask not leniency at your hands—but rather the full rigors of the law.
Miss Anthony: When I stood before you for trial, I hoped for a wide and open interpretation of the Constitution and its recent amendments, which would ensure that all citizens of the United States are under its protection—that would guarantee equality of rights for everyone born or naturalized in the United States. But since I did not receive that justice—since I didn’t even get a trial by a jury of my peers—I don't ask for leniency from you, but instead request the full force of the law.
Judge Hunt: The Court must insist— (Here the prisoner sat down.)[Pg 689]
Judge Hunt: The Court has to be firm— (At this point, the prisoner took a seat.)[Pg 689]
Judge Hunt: The prisoner will stand up. (Here Miss Anthony arose again.) The sentence of the Court is that you pay a fine of one hundred dollars and the costs of the prosecution.
Judge Hunt: The prisoner will stand up. (Here Miss Anthony stood up again.) The court's sentence is that you pay a fine of one hundred dollars and the prosecution costs.
Miss Anthony: May it please your honor, I shall never pay a dollar of your unjust penalty. All the stock in trade I possess is a $10,000 debt, incurred by publishing my paper—The Revolution—four years ago, the sole object of which was to educate all women to do precisely as I have done, rebel against your man-made, unjust, unconstitutional forms of law, that tax, fine, imprison, and hang women, while they deny them the right of representation in the Government; and I shall work on with might and main to pay every dollar of that honest debt, but not a penny shall go to this unjust claim. And I shall earnestly and persistently continue to urge all women to the practical recognition of the old revolutionary maxim, that "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God."
Miss Anthony: Your honor, I will never pay a single dollar of your unfair penalty. The only thing I have is a $10,000 debt from publishing my paper—The Revolution—four years ago, which was solely aimed at teaching all women to do exactly what I have done: rise up against your unjust, illegal laws created by men, which tax, fine, imprison, and execute women while denying them the right to representation in the government. I will work tirelessly to pay off that legitimate debt, but not a cent will go towards this unfair claim. I will also continue to strongly encourage all women to embrace the old revolutionary saying that "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God."
Judge Hunt: Madam, the Court will not order you committed until the fine is paid.
Judge Hunt: Ma'am, the Court won't send you to jail until the fine is paid.
Immediately after the verdict, Miss Anthony, her counsel, her friends, and the jury, passed out together talking over the case. Said Judge Selden: "The war has abolished something besides slavery, it has abolished jury trial. The decision of Justice Hunt was most iniquitous. He had as much right to order me hung to the nearest tree, as to take the case from the jury and render the decision he did," and he bowed his head with shame at this prostitution of legal power.
Immediately after the verdict, Miss Anthony, her lawyer, her friends, and the jury all exited together, discussing the case. Judge Selden remarked, "The war has ended more than just slavery; it has also ended the right to a jury trial. Justice Hunt's decision was incredibly unjust. He had just as much right to have me hanged from the nearest tree as he did to take the case away from the jury and make the decision he did," and he hung his head in shame at this misuse of legal authority.
The jury with freedom now to use their tongues, when too late, also canvassed the trial and the injury done. "The verdict of guilty would not have been mine, could I have spoken," said one, "nor should I have been alone. There were others who thought as I did, but we could not speak."
The jury, now free to express their opinions, reflected on the trial and the harm caused. "If I could have spoken, my verdict wouldn't have been guilty," one juror said, "and I wouldn't have been the only one. There were others who felt the same way, but we couldn’t speak up."
The decision of Judge Hunt was severely criticised.[172] Even among those who believed women had no right to vote, and who did not hesitate to say that Miss Anthony's punishment was inadequate, there was a wide questioning as to his legal right to take the case from the jury and enter the verdict of guilty, without permitting them in any way to indicate their opinion. It was deemed a tyrannical and arrogant assumption on the part of Judge Hunt, and one which endangered the rights of the whole people. It was pertinently asked, "If this may be done in one instance, why not in all?" and "If the courts may thus arbitrarily direct what verdicts shall be rendered, what becomes of the right to trial by an impartial jury, which the Constitution guarantees to all persons alike, whether male or female?" These questions were of the gravest importance, and[Pg 690] the more so because from this court there was no appeal. To deprive Miss Anthony of the benefit of jury trial seemed, however, in unison with every step taken in the cases of women under the XIV. Amendment.
The decision by Judge Hunt was heavily criticized.[172] Even among those who thought women shouldn’t vote, and who openly claimed that Miss Anthony's punishment was too lenient, there was significant doubt about his legal authority to remove the case from the jury and declare a guilty verdict without allowing them to express their views. It was seen as a tyrannical and arrogant assumption by Judge Hunt that threatened the rights of everyone. People asked, "If this can happen in one case, why not in all?" and "If courts can arbitrarily decide what verdicts to deliver, what happens to the right to a trial by an impartial jury, which the Constitution guarantees to everyone, regardless of gender?" These questions were crucial, especially since there was no chance to appeal this court's decision. Denying Miss Anthony the right to a jury trial seemed to align perfectly with every action taken against women's rights under the XIV Amendment.
The design of the Government was evidently to crush at once, and arbitrarily, all efforts of women for equality of rights with men. The principles of law and justice involved did not, however, apply to women alone, but to all persons alike. Where the rights of the most insignificant or humble are outraged those of all are endangered. The decisions in these cases are the more remarkable since they were based on the most ultra State Rights doctrine, and yet were rendered in every instance by members of the Republican party which held its position by reason of its recent success against the extreme demands of State sovereignty. The right of women to vote under national protection was but the logical result of the political guarantees of the war, and Republican leaders should have been anxious to clinch their war record by legislative and judicial decisions.
The government clearly aimed to immediately and arbitrarily shut down any efforts by women to gain equal rights with men. The principles of law and justice at stake didn't only apply to women, but to everyone equally. When the rights of even the most insignificant or humble are violated, it puts everyone's rights at risk. The rulings in these cases are especially noteworthy because they were based on extreme State Rights doctrine, yet all were made by members of the Republican party, which maintained its position due to its recent victory over those very demands for State sovereignty. The right for women to vote under national protection was simply a logical outcome of the political guarantees established during the war, and Republican leaders should have been eager to strengthen their war record through legislative and judicial decisions.
But a more thorough recognition of the State Rights theory never was presented than in the proceedings of this Judge of the Supreme Court in his verdict against Miss Anthony, nor a more absolute exhibition of National power in State affairs than his decision in the case of the Inspectors, who were State officers, working under State authority and State laws, and not under authority derived from the Constitution of the United States, but who were tried by an United States judge, and punished for what was held as a crime against the State of New York—a monstrous usurpation of National authority! Each of these trials was, in its way, an example of authority overriding law, and an evidence of the danger to the liberties of the people from a practically irresponsible judiciary. Men need to feel their indebtedness and their responsibility to those who place them in position; first, in order to preserve them from despotism; and, second, that they may be removed when infirmity demands the substitution of a competent person in their place.
But a more comprehensive acknowledgment of the State Rights theory was never shown than in the proceedings of this Supreme Court judge in his verdict against Miss Anthony, nor a clearer display of National power in State matters than his decision in the case of the Inspectors, who were State officials, operating under State authority and State laws, not under authority granted by the Constitution of the United States, yet were tried by a United States judge and punished for what was deemed a crime against the State of New York—a shocking overreach of National authority! Each of these trials was, in its own way, an illustration of authority surpassing law and a sign of the threat to people's freedoms from an almost unchecked judiciary. People need to recognize their obligation and responsibility to those who put them in positions of power; first, to protect them from tyranny; and second, so they can be replaced when incompetence calls for a competent individual to take their place.
Although for a period little has been said in regard to the usurpations of the judiciary, a time will come in the history of the country when the course of Justice Hunt will be recalled as a dangerous precedent.
Although there hasn’t been much discussion lately about the overreach of the judiciary, there will come a time in the country's history when Justice Hunt's actions will be seen as a dangerous precedent.
It was more than a year after Miss Anthony's trial was completed before her case received notice in the chief legal journal of the State of New York. At that time, in an article entitled, "Can a Judge Direct a Verdict of Guilty?"[173] Judge Hunt's course in refusing to[Pg 691] poll the jury was reviewed and condemned as contrary to justice and law. To Mrs. Gage's review of this article, the Law Journal said, "If Mrs. Gage and Miss Anthony are not pleased with our laws, they had better emigrate." This would make real, in case of woman, Edward Everett Hale's story of the "Man Without a Country." Women are, by this advice, assumed to have no country; to be living in the United States upon sufferance, a species of useful aliens, which possesses no rights that man is bound to respect, which are not to be permitted to vote, nor even to protest when the dearest rights are trampled upon. While admitting that Justice Hunt usurped power in taking the case from the jury, the Albany Law Journal expressed a desire that it should have gone to the jury, not on the ground of legal right, but on the ground that the jury would have brought in a verdict of guilty.
It was over a year after Miss Anthony's trial ended before her case got attention in the main legal journal of New York State. At that time, in an article titled, "Can a Judge Direct a Verdict of Guilty?"[173] Judge Hunt's decision to refuse to[Pg 691] poll the jury was reviewed and criticized as being against justice and the law. In response to Mrs. Gage's review of this article, the Law Journal stated, "If Mrs. Gage and Miss Anthony are unhappy with our laws, they should just emigrate." This suggestion would echo Edward Everett Hale's story of the "Man Without a Country" for women. By this advice, women are assumed to have no country; they are seen as living in the United States on sufferance, like a kind of useful foreigners, having no rights that men are obligated to respect, not allowed to vote, nor even to object when their most cherished rights are violated. While acknowledging that Justice Hunt abused his power by taking the case away from the jury, the Albany Law Journal expressed a wish that it should have been passed to the jury, not based on legal grounds, but because the jury would likely have returned a guilty verdict.
But had the case been allowed to go to the jury, no verdict of guilty would have been rendered. The jury did not believe the defendant guilty, but they were not permitted to give their opinion. Their opinions counted for nothing; they were wronged as well as Miss Anthony.
But if the case had gone to the jury, no guilty verdict would have been given. The jury didn't believe the defendant was guilty, but they weren’t allowed to share their opinion. Their opinions meant nothing; they were wronged just like Miss Anthony.
It was said of the infamous Lord Jeffries, that when pre-determined upon a conviction he always wore a red cap. In such cases juries were useless appendages to his court. Justice Hunt, through this trial, wore an invisible red cap which only came into view at its close.
It was said of the notorious Lord Jeffries that whenever he was determined to convict someone, he always wore a red cap. In those situations, juries were just unnecessary additions to his court. Justice Hunt, during this trial, wore an invisible red cap that only became visible at the end.
The effect of Miss Anthony's prosecution, conviction, and sentence, was in many ways advantageous to the cause of freedom. Her trial served to awaken thought, promote discussion, and compel an investigation of the principles of government. The argument of Judge Selden, clearly proving woman's constitutional right to vote, published[174] in all the leading papers, arrested the attention of legal minds as no popular discussions had done.
The impact of Miss Anthony's prosecution, conviction, and sentencing was, in many ways, beneficial to the cause of freedom. Her trial sparked thought, encouraged discussion, and forced an examination of government principles. Judge Selden's argument, which clearly established women's constitutional right to vote, was published[174] in all the major newspapers and captured the attention of legal thinkers like no public debate had before.
Thus the question of the abstract rights of each individual, their civil and political rights under State and National Constitutions, were widely discussed. And when the verdict, contrary to law, was rendered by the Judge, and the jury dismissed without having been permitted to utter a word, the whole question of woman's rights and wrongs was brought into new prominence through this infringement of the sacred right of jury trial.
Thus, the issue of each individual's abstract rights, along with their civil and political rights under State and National Constitutions, was widely debated. And when the Judge issued a verdict that went against the law, and the jury was dismissed without being allowed to say anything, the entire debate about women's rights and injustices gained new attention due to this violation of the fundamental right to a jury trial.
A nolle prosequi was entered for the women who voted with Miss Anthony. Immediately after the decision in her case, the trial of the Inspectors took place before the same court. This was in reality[Pg 692] a continuation of the same question—a citizen's right to vote—and like that of Miss Anthony's was a legal farce, the decision in this case evidently having also been pre-determined. The indictment stated that:
A nolle prosequi was filed for the women who voted with Miss Anthony. Right after her case was decided, the trial of the Inspectors happened in the same court. This was really[Pg 692] a follow-up on the same issue—a citizen's right to vote—and just like Miss Anthony's case, it was a legal joke, with the outcome clearly having been decided in advance. The indictment said that:
Beverly W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh, and William B. Hall, Inspectors of Election in and for said first election district of said eight ward of said city of Rochester, etc., did then and there knowingly and willfully register as a voter of said District, one Susan B. Anthony, she, said Susan B. Anthony, then and there not being entitled to be registered as a voter of said District in that she, said Susan B. Anthony was then and there a person of the female sex, contrary to the form of the statute of the United States of America in such case made and provided, and against the peace of the United States of America and their dignity.
Beverly W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh, and William B. Hall, Election Inspectors for the first election district of the eighth ward in the city of Rochester, knowingly and intentionally registered Susan B. Anthony as a voter in that district, even though she was not eligible to be registered because she was female, violating the laws of the United States and undermining its dignity.
Although the above indictment may have been legal in form, it clearly proved the inadequacy of man alone to frame just laws, holding, as it did, Susan B. Anthony to be "then and there a person of the female sex, contrary to the form of the statutes of the United States of America," etc.
Although the indictment mentioned above might have been legally correct, it clearly demonstrated that relying solely on humans to create fair laws is insufficient, as it deemed Susan B. Anthony to be "then and there a person of the female sex, contrary to the form of the statutes of the United States of America," etc.
Witnesses were first called on behalf of the United States; during whose examination it was again conceded that the women named in the indictment were women on the 5th day of November, 1872, thus again clearly showing the animus of these trials to be against sex—making sex a crime in the eye of United States laws. While the right to testify in her own behalf was denied to Miss Anthony it was granted to the Inspectors of election.
Witnesses were first called for the United States; during their questioning, it was again acknowledged that the women mentioned in the indictment were indeed women on November 5, 1872, thus again clearly revealing the bias of these trials against gender—making gender a crime in the view of United States law. While Miss Anthony was denied the right to testify on her own behalf, the Inspectors of election were allowed to do so.
Beverly W. Jones, and each of the other defendants, was duly sworn as a witness in his own behalf, and Susan B. Anthony was called as a witness in behalf of the defendants.
Beverly W. Jones, along with each of the other defendants, was officially sworn in as a witness for himself, and Susan B. Anthony was summoned as a witness for the defendants.
Miss Anthony: I would like to know if the testimony of a person who has been convicted of a crime can be taken?
Miss Anthony: I'd like to know if the testimony of someone who has been convicted of a crime can be used?
The Court: They call you as a witness, madam.
The Court: They are calling you as a witness, ma'am.
The witness, having been duly affirmed, testified as follows:
The witness, having been officially sworn in, testified as follows:
Examined by Mr. Van Voorhis:
Examined by Mr. Van Voorhis:
Q. Miss Anthony, I want you to state what occurred at the Board of Registry, when your name was registered? A. That would be very tedious, for it was full an hour.
Q. Miss Anthony, can you tell us what happened at the Board of Registry when you registered your name? A. That would take a long time, because it was a full hour.
Q. State generally what was done, or what occupied that hour's time?
Q. Can you summarize what was done or what took up that hour?
Objected to.
Objected to.
Q. Well, was the question of your right to be registered a subject of discussion there? A. It was.
Q. So, was the issue of your right to register discussed there? A. It was.
Q. By and between whom? A. Between the supervisors, the inspectors, and myself.
Q. By whom and with whom? A. Between the supervisors, the inspectors, and me.
Q. State, if you please, what occurred when you presented yourself at the polls on election day? A. Mr. Hall decidedly objected[Pg 693]—
Q. Can you tell me what happened when you went to vote on election day? A. Mr. Hall strongly opposed[Pg 693]—
Mr. Crowley: I submit to the Court that unless the counsel expects to change the version given by the other witnesses, it is not necessary to take up time.
Mr. Crowley: I argue to the Court that unless the lawyer plans to alter the account provided by the other witnesses, there's no need to waste time.
The Court: As a matter of discretion, I don't see how it will be any benefit. It was fully related by the others, and doubtless correctly.
The Court: I don’t think it will be beneficial, just based on my judgment. The others completely covered it, and I'm sure they were accurate.
Mr. Crowley: It is not disputed.
Mr. Crowley: It is not disputed.
The Witness: I would like to say, if I might be allowed by the Court, that the general impression that I swore I was a male citizen, is an erroneous one.
The Witness: I’d like to point out, if the Court will permit me, that the common belief that I stated I was a male citizen is incorrect.
Mr. Van Voorhis: You took the two oaths there, did you? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Voorhis: You took those two oaths, right? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: You presented yourself as a female, claiming that you had a right to vote? A. I presented myself not as a female at all, sir; I presented myself as a citizen of the United States. I was called to the United States ballot-box by the XIV. Amendment, not as a female, but as a citizen, and I went there.
The Court: You identified as a woman, claiming you had the right to vote? A. I didn't identify as a woman at all, sir; I identified as a citizen of the United States. I was called to the United States ballot box by the XIV Amendment, not as a woman, but as a citizen, and I went there.
Miss Anthony's emphatic reply and intimation that, although a condemned criminal for having voted, she still believed in her citizenship as securing that right to her, closed the lips of the Court, and she was summarily dismissed from the witness-box, and the case rested.
Miss Anthony's strong response and suggestion that, even though she was labeled a criminal for voting, she still believed her citizenship granted her that right, silenced the Court, and she was quickly dismissed from the witness stand, leaving the case unresolved.
Mr. Van Voorhis addressed the Court at some length, submitting that there was no ground whatever to charge these defendants (the Inspectors) with any criminal offense,
Mr. Van Voorhis spoke to the Court for quite a while, arguing that there was absolutely no reason to accuse these defendants (the Inspectors) of any crime,
1. Because the women who voted were legal voters. 2. Because they were challenged and took the oaths which the statute requires of Electors, and the Inspectors had no right, after such oath, to reject their votes. 3. Because no malice is shown. Whether the women were entitled to have their names registered and to vote, or not, the defendants believed they had such right, and acted in good faith, according to their best judgment, in allowing the registry of their names—and in receiving their votes—and whether they decided right or wrong in point of law, they are not guilty of any criminal offense.
1. Because the women who voted were legally allowed to vote. 2. Because they were challenged and took the oaths that the law requires from Electors, and the Inspectors had no right to reject their votes after they took that oath. 3. Because there’s no evidence of malice. Whether the women were entitled to have their names registered and to vote or not, the defendants believed they had that right and acted in good faith, based on their best judgment, in allowing their names to be registered—and in accepting their votes—and whether they were right or wrong in terms of the law, they are not guilty of any criminal offense.
These points were amplified by the counsel at some length, who closed by saying, "The defendants should be discharged by the Court." Mr. Crowley then rose to make his argument, when the Court said:
These points were elaborated on by the lawyer for a while, who concluded by saying, "The defendants should be released by the Court." Mr. Crowley then stood up to present his argument, when the Court said:
The Court: I don't think it is necessary for you to spend time in argument, Mr. Crowley. I think upon the last authority cited by the counsel there is no defense in this case. It is entirely clear that where there is a distinct judicial act, the party performing the judicial act is not responsible, civilly or criminally, unless corruption is proven, and in many cases when corruption is not proven. But where the act is not judicial in its character—where there is no discretion—then there is no legal protection. That is the law as laid down in the authority last quoted, and the authority quoted by Judge Selden in his opinion. It is undoubtedly good law. They hold expressly in[Pg 694] that case that the inspectors are administrative officers, and not judicial officers.
The Court: I don’t think it’s necessary for you to spend time arguing, Mr. Crowley. Based on the last authority cited by the counsel, there’s no defense in this case. It’s clear that when there’s a clear judicial act, the person performing that act isn’t held responsible, either civilly or criminally, unless corruption is proven, and often even when corruption isn’t proven. But when the act isn’t judicial in nature—when there’s no discretion—then there’s no legal protection. That’s the law as stated in the last authority quoted, and in the authority cited by Judge Selden in his opinion. It’s definitely solid law. They explicitly state in [Pg 694] that the inspectors are administrative officers, not judicial officers.
Now, this is the point in the case, in my view of it: If there was any case in which a female was entitled to vote, then it would be a subject of examination. If a female over the age of twenty-one was entitled to vote, then it would be within the judicial authority of the inspectors to examine and determine whether in the given case the female came within that provision. If a married woman was entitled to vote, or if a married woman was not entitled to vote, and a single woman was entitled to vote, I think the inspectors would have a right in a case before them, to judge upon the evidence whether the person before them was married or single. If they decided erroneously, their judicial character would protect them. But under the law of this State, as it stands, under no circumstances is a woman entitled to vote. When Miss Anthony, Mrs. Leyden, and the other ladies came there and presented themselves for registry, and presented themselves to offer their votes, when it appeared that they were women—that they were of the female sex—the power and authority of the inspectors was at an end. When they act upon a subject upon which they have no discretion, I think there is no judicial authority. There is a large range of discretion in regard to the votes offered by the male sex. If a man offers his vote, there is a question whether he is a minor—whether he is twenty-one years of age. The subject is within their jurisdiction. If they decide correctly, it is well; if they decide erroneously, they act judicially, and are not liable. If the question is whether the person presenting his vote is a foreigner or naturalized, or whether he has been a resident of the State or district for a sufficient length of time, the subject is all within their jurisdiction, and they have a right to decide, and are protected if they decide wrong.
Now, here’s my take on the case: If there was ever a situation where a woman was eligible to vote, then it would be worth looking into. If a woman over the age of twenty-one was eligible to vote, it would be the inspectors' duty to check and decide if she met that requirement. If a married woman had the right to vote, or if she didn’t, and a single woman did, I believe the inspectors would have the right in a case before them to determine, based on the evidence, whether the individual was married or single. If they made a mistake in their decision, their official role would protect them. However, according to the law in this State, under any circumstances, women are not allowed to vote. When Miss Anthony, Mrs. Leyden, and the other women came to register and tried to cast their votes, once it was clear they were women, the inspectors' power and authority ended. When they act on something they have no discretion over, I believe there is no judicial authority. There is a wide range of discretion concerning votes from men. If a man presents his vote, there’s a question of whether he’s a minor or if he’s actually twenty-one. That matter falls within their jurisdiction. If they make the correct decision, great; if they make a mistake, they still act within judicial boundaries and aren’t liable. If the question is about whether the person voting is a foreigner or naturalized, or whether they have resided in the state or district long enough, that topic is also within their jurisdiction, and they have the right to decide and are protected even if they decide improperly.
But upon the view which has been taken of this question of the right of females to vote, by the United States Court at Washington, and by the adjudication which was made this morning, upon this subject there is no discretion, and therefore I must hold that it affords no protection. In that view of the case, is there anything to go to the jury?
But based on the perspective taken by the United States Court in Washington regarding the issue of women's right to vote, and the decision that was made this morning on this matter, there is no judgment to be made, and so I must conclude that it offers no protection. Given that situation, is there anything for the jury to consider?
Mr. Van Voorhis: Yes, your honor. The Court: What?
Mr. Van Voorhis: Yes, your honor. The Court: What?
Mr. Van Voorhis: The jury must pass upon the whole case, and particularly as to whether any ballots were received for representative in Congress, or candidates for representative in Congress, and whether the defendants acted willfully and maliciously.
Mr. Van Voorhis: The jury needs to consider the entire case, especially regarding whether any ballots were cast for a congressional representative or candidates for a congressional representative, and whether the defendants acted intentionally and with malice.
The Court: It is too plain to argue that. Mr. Van Voorhis: There is nothing but circumstantial evidence.
The Court: It’s obvious there’s no point in debating that. Mr. Van Voorhis: There’s only circumstantial evidence.
The Court: Your own witness testified to it. Mr. Van Voorhis: But "knowingly," your honor, implies knowing that it is a vote for representative in Congress.
The Court: Your own witness confirmed that. Mr. Van Voorhis: But "knowingly," your honor, means being aware that it is a vote for a representative in Congress.
The Court: That comes within the decision of the question of law. I don't see that there is anything to go to the jury. Mr. Van Voorhis: I can not take your honor's view of the case, but of course must submit to it. We ask to go to the jury upon this whole case, and claim that in this case, as in all criminal cases, the right of trial by jury is made inviolate by the Constitution—that the Court has no power to take it from the jury. The Court: I am going to submit it to the jury.[Pg 695]
The Court: That's part of the decision regarding the legal question. I don't think there's anything for the jury. Mr. Van Voorhis: I can't agree with your honor's take on the case, but I have to accept it. We request to present the entire case to the jury, insisting that in this matter, just like in all criminal cases, the right to a jury trial is protected by the Constitution—that the Court has no authority to remove it from the jury. The Court: I'm going to present it to the jury.[Pg 695]
Gentlemen of the Jury: This case is now before you upon the evidence as it stands, and I shall leave the case with you to decide. Mr. Van Voorhis: I claim the right to address the jury.
Members of the Jury: This case is now in your hands based on the evidence presented, and I will let you make the decision. Mr. Van Voorhis: I request the opportunity to speak to the jury.
The Court: I don't think there is anything upon which you can legitimately address the jury. Gentlemen, the defendants are charged with knowingly, willfully, and wrongfully receiving the votes of the ladies whose names are mentioned, in November last, in the city of Rochester. They are charged in the same indictment with willfully and improperly registering those ladies. I decided in the case this morning, which many of you heard, probably, that under the law as it stands the ladies who offered their votes had no right to vote whatever. I repeat that decision, and I charge you that they had no right to offer their votes. They having no right to offer their votes, the inspectors of election ought not to receive them. The additional question exists in this case whether the fact that they acted as inspectors will relieve them from the charge in this case. You have heard the views which I have given upon that. I think they are administrative officers. I charge you that they are administrative and ministerial officers in this respect, and that they are not judicial officers whose action protects them, and that therefore they are liable in this case. But, instead of doing as I did in the case this morning—directing a verdict—I submit the case to you with these instructions, and you can decide it here, or you may go out.
The Court: I don’t believe there’s anything you can rightfully present to the jury. Gentlemen, the defendants are accused of knowingly, willfully, and wrongfully accepting the votes of the women named in November last in the city of Rochester. They are also charged in the same indictment with willfully and improperly registering those women. I ruled on this case this morning, which many of you probably heard, that under the current law, the women who attempted to vote had no right to do so. I repeat that ruling and instruct you that they had no right to offer their votes. Since they had no right to offer their votes, the election inspectors should not have accepted them. An additional question in this case is whether their role as inspectors will exempt them from the charges. You’ve heard my opinions on that. I believe they are administrative officers. I instruct you that they are administrative and ministerial officers in this regard, which means they are not judicial officers whose actions protect them, and therefore they are liable in this case. However, instead of doing what I did this morning—directing a verdict—I am submitting the case to you with these instructions, and you can decide it here, or you may go out.
Mr. Van Voorhis: I ask your honor to instruct the jury that if they find these inspectors acted honestly, in accordance with their best judgment, they should be acquitted. The Court: I have expressly ruled to the contrary of that, gentlemen; that that makes no difference.
Mr. Van Voorhis: I request that you tell the jury that if they believe these inspectors acted honestly and used their best judgment, they should be found not guilty. The Court: I have clearly ruled the opposite, gentlemen; that doesn’t matter.
Mr. Van Voorhis: And that in this country—under the laws of this country—The Court: That is enough—you need not argue it, Mr. Van Voorhis.
Mr. Van Voorhis: And that in this country—under the laws of this country—The Court: That’s enough—you don’t need to argue that, Mr. Van Voorhis.
Mr. Van Voorhis: Then. I ask your honor to charge the jury that they must find the fact that these inspectors received the votes of these persons knowingly, and that such votes were votes for some person for member of Congress, there being in the case no evidence that any man was voted for, for member of Congress, and there being no evidence except that secret ballots were received; that the jury have a right to find for the defendants, if they choose. The Court: I charge the jury that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment upon this point.
Mr. Van Voorhis: So, I ask you, your honor, to instruct the jury that they must determine that these inspectors knowingly accepted the votes from these individuals, and that those votes were cast for someone running for Congress. There is no evidence in this case that any specific person was voted for to be a member of Congress, and the only evidence is that secret ballots were collected. The jury has the right to rule in favor of the defendants if they decide to do so. The Court: I instruct the jury that there is enough evidence to support the indictment on this matter.
Mr. Van Voorhis: I ask your honor also to charge the jury that there is sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of not guilty. The Court: I can not charge that.
Mr. Van Voorhis: I also request that you instruct the jury that there is enough evidence to support a not guilty verdict. The Court: I cannot instruct that.
Mr. Van Voorhis: Then why should it go to the jury? The Court: As a matter of form.
Mr. Van Voorhis: Then why should it go to the jury? The Court: It's just a formality.
Mr. Van Voorhis: If the jury should find a verdict of not guilty, could your honor set it aside? The Court: I will debate that with you when the occasion arises. Gentlemen, you may deliberate here, or retire, as you choose.
Mr. Van Voorhis: If the jury decides to acquit, can your honor override that? The Court: I'll discuss that with you when the time comes. Gentlemen, you can deliberate here or go somewhere else, as you prefer.
The jury retired for consultation, and the Court took a recess. The Court re-convened at 7 o'clock, when the clerk called the jury and asked them if they had agreed upon their verdict. The foreman replied in the negative.[Pg 696]
The jury went to discuss their decision, and the Court took a break. The Court came back together at 7 o'clock, when the clerk called the jury and asked if they had reached a verdict. The foreman answered no.[Pg 696]
The Court: Is there anything upon which I can give you any advice gentlemen, or any information? A Juror: We stand eleven for conviction, and one opposed.
The Court: Is there anything I can advise you on or provide information about, gentlemen? A Juror: We have eleven in favor of conviction and one against.
The Court: If that gentleman desires to ask any questions in respect to the questions of law, or the facts in the case, I will give him any information he desires. [No response from the jury.] It is quite proper, if any gentleman has doubts about anything, either as to the law or the facts, that he should state it to the Court. Counsel are both present, and I can give such information as is correct. A Juror: I don't wish to ask any questions.
The Court: If that gentleman wants to ask any questions about the legal issues or the facts of the case, I'm here to provide any information he needs. [No response from the jury.] It's important that if anyone has any doubts about anything, whether it's the law or the facts, they should bring it up to the Court. Both lawyers are here, and I can provide accurate information. A Juror: I don’t want to ask any questions.
The Court: Then you may retire again, gentlemen. The Court will adjourn until to-morrow morning.
The Court: You may leave again, gentlemen. The Court will reconvene tomorrow morning.
The jury retired, and after an absence of about ten minutes returned into court. The clerk called the names of the jury.
The jury went out, and after about ten minutes, they came back into the courtroom. The clerk called out the names of the jury.
The Clerk: Gentlemen, have you agreed upon your verdict? The Foreman: We have.
The Clerk: Gentlemen, have you all reached a decision on your verdict? The Foreman: We have.
The Clerk: How say you, do you find the prisoners at the bar guilty of the offense whereof they stand indicted, or not guilty? The Foreman: Guilty.
The Clerk: What do you say, do you find the prisoners at the bar guilty of the crime they are charged with, or not guilty? The Foreman: Guilty.
The Clerk: Hearken to your verdict as it stands recorded by the court. You say you find the prisoners at the bar guilty of the offense whereof they stand indicted, and so say you all. Mr. Van Voorhis: I ask that the jury be polled. The clerk polled the jury, each juror answering in the affirmative to the question, "Is this your verdict."
The Clerk: Listen to your verdict as it has been recorded by the court. You say you find the defendants guilty of the charges against them, and that’s what you all agree on. Mr. Van Voorhis: I request that the jury be asked individually. The clerk then asked each juror, and every juror responded with "yes" to the question, "Is this your verdict?"
On the next day, June 19, 1873, the counsel for the defendants, Mr. John Van Voorhis, made a motion to the court for a new trial in behalf of Beverley W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh, and William B. Hall. The following are the grounds of the motion:
On the following day, June 19, 1873, the defendants' attorney, Mr. John Van Voorhis, filed a motion with the court for a new trial on behalf of Beverley W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh, and William B. Hall. The grounds for the motion are as follows:
1. The indictment contains no sufficient statement of any crime under the Acts of Congress, upon which it is framed. 2. The court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the offense. 3. It was an error, for which a new trial should be granted, to refuse the defendants the fundamental right to address the jury through their counsel. This is a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. (See Article VI. of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 1 Graham and Waterman on New Trials, pages 682, 683, and 684.) 4. The defendants were substantially deprived of the right of jury trial. The instructions of the court to the jury were imperative. They were equivalent to a direction to find a verdict of guilty. It was said by the court in the hearing of the jury, that the case was submitted to the jury "as a matter of form." The jury was not at liberty to exercise its own judgment upon the evidence, and without committing a gross discourtesy to the court, could render no verdict except that of guilty. 5. Admitting that the defendants acted without malice, or any corrupt motive, and in accordance with their best judgments, and in perfect good faith, it was error to charge that that was no defense. 6. The defendants are admitted to have acted in accordance with their duty as defined by the laws of New York (1 R. S.[Pg 697] Edmonds' Ed., pp. 126-127, sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19) as construed by the Court of Appeals. (People vs. Pease, 27 N. Y. 45.)
1. The indictment doesn't adequately state any crime under the Acts of Congress that it's based on. 2. The court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the offense. 3. It was a mistake to deny the defendants the fundamental right to address the jury through their lawyer, for which a new trial should be granted. This is a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. (See Article VI of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 1 Graham and Waterman on New Trials, pages 682, 683, and 684.) 4. The defendants were effectively denied the right to a jury trial. The court's instructions to the jury were mandatory, essentially directing them to return a guilty verdict. The court stated in front of the jury that the case was submitted to them "as a matter of form." The jury was not free to use their own judgment based on the evidence and could only return a guilty verdict without showing great disrespect to the court. 5. Even if the defendants acted without malice or corrupt intent, and did so according to their best judgment and in good faith, it was a mistake to state that this was not a valid defense. 6. The defendants are recognized as having acted in accordance with their duties as defined by New York law (1 R. S.[Pg 697] Edmonds' Ed., pp. 126-127, sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) as interpreted by the Court of Appeals. (People vs. Pease, 27 N. Y. 45.)
They are administrative officers and bound to regard only the evidence which the statute prescribes. They are not clothed with the power to reject the vote of a person who has furnished the evidence which the law requires of a right to vote, on what they or either of them might know, as to the truth or falsity of such evidences. They have no discretion, and must perform their duty, as it is defined by the laws of New York and the decisions of her courts. 7. The defendant, William B. Hall, has been tried and convicted in his absence from the court. This is an error fatal to the conviction in his case.
They are administrative officers and must only consider the evidence that the law requires. They don’t have the authority to reject the vote of someone who has provided the necessary proof of their right to vote, based on what they might personally know about the truthfulness of that evidence. They have no discretion and must fulfill their responsibilities as outlined by the laws of New York and the rulings of its courts. 7. The defendant, William B. Hall, has been tried and convicted while he was absent from the court. This is a critical error that invalidates his conviction.
The court denied the motion; then asked the defendants if they had anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced, in response to which they replied as follows:
The court denied the motion and then asked the defendants if they had any reasons why the sentence shouldn't be pronounced. In response, they replied as follows:
Beverly W. Jones said: Your honor has pronounced me guilty of crime; the jury had but little to do with it. In the performance of my duties as an inspector of election, which position I have held for the last four years, I acted conscientiously, faithfully and according to the best of my judgment and ability. I did not believe that I had the right to reject the ballot of a citizen who offered to vote, and who took the preliminary and general oaths; and answered all questions prescribed by law. The instructions furnished me by the State authorities declared that I had no such right. As far as the registry of the names is concerned, they would never have been placed upon the registry if it had not been for Daniel Warner, the Democratic federal supervisor of elections, appointed by this court, who not only advised the registry, but addressed us, saying, "Young men, do you know the penalty of the law if you refuse to register these names?" And after discharging my duties faithfully and honestly and to the best of my ability, if it is to vindicate the law that I am to be imprisoned, I willingly submit to the penalty.
Beverly W. Jones said: You have found me guilty of a crime; the jury played a minor role in this. In my role as an election inspector, a position I've held for the last four years, I acted with integrity, dedication, and to the best of my judgment and capability. I didn't believe I had the right to reject the vote of a citizen who came to cast their ballot, who took the required oaths, and answered all the questions set by law. The instructions given to me by the State officials stated that I had no such right. As far as the voter registry is concerned, those names would never have made it onto the list if it weren't for Daniel Warner, the Democratic federal elections supervisor appointed by this court, who not only advised the registry but also told us, "Young men, do you know the penalty of the law if you refuse to register these names?" So, after fulfilling my duties honestly and to the best of my ability, if I'm to be imprisoned to uphold the law, I accept the punishment willingly.
Edwin T. Marsh said: In October last, just previous to the time fixed for the sitting of the Board of Registrars in the first district of the eighth ward of Rochester, a vacancy occurred. I was solicited to act, and consenting, I was duly appointed by the common council. I had never given the matter a thought until called to the position, and as a consequence knew nothing of the law. On the morning of the first day of the last session of the board, Miss Anthony and other women presented themselves and claimed the right to be registered. So far as I knew, the question of woman suffrage had never come up in that shape before. We were in a position where we could take no middle course. Decide which way me might, we were liable to prosecution. We devoted all the time to acquiring information on the subject that our duties as Registrars would allow. We were expected, it seems, to make an infallible decision, inside of two days, of a question in regard to which some of the best minds of the country are divided. The influences by which we were surrounded, were nearly all in unison with the course we took. I believed then, and believe now, that we acted lawfully.
Edwin T. Marsh said: In October last year, just before the scheduled meeting of the Board of Registrars in the first district of the eighth ward of Rochester, a vacancy opened up. I was asked to step in, and after agreeing, I was officially appointed by the common council. I had never thought about it until I was called to the position, so I didn't know anything about the law. On the morning of the first day of the last session of the board, Miss Anthony and other women showed up and claimed the right to register. As far as I knew, the issue of women's suffrage had never come up like this before. We were in a situation where we couldn't take a neutral stance. No matter which way we decided, we could face prosecution. We spent all the time we had, given our responsibilities as Registrars, trying to gather information on the topic. It seemed we were expected to make a flawless decision within two days on a question that even some of the most esteemed minds in the country are divided over. The influences around us were mostly in agreement with the direction we took. I believed then, and I still believe now, that we acted within the law.
I faithfully discharged the duties of my office according to the best of my ability, in strict compliance with the oath administered to me. I consider[Pg 698] the argument of our counsel unanswered and unanswerable. The verdict is not the verdict of the jury. I am not guilty of the charge.
I carried out my responsibilities in my position to the best of my ability, fully adhering to the oath I took. I believe[Pg 698] that our lawyer's argument hasn't been addressed and can't be challenged. The verdict is not the jury's verdict. I am not guilty of the accusation.
The Court then sentenced the defendants to pay a fine of $25 each, and the costs of the prosecution.[175]
The Court then ordered the defendants to pay a fine of $25 each, along with the prosecution costs.[175]
The following petition was presented in the Senate by Mr. Sargent, the present (1882) United States Minister to Germany, and in the House by Mr. Loughridge, of Iowa:
The following petition was presented in the Senate by Mr. Sargent, the current (1882) United States Minister to Germany, and in the House by Mr. Loughridge, from Iowa:
Forty-third Congress, First Session, Senate, Mis. Doc. No. 39. A petition of Susan B. Anthony praying for the remission of a fine imposed upon her by the United States Court for the Northern District of New York, for illegal voting. January 22, 1874. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.
Forty-third Congress, First Session, Senate, Mis. Doc. No. 39. A petition of Susan B. Anthony requesting the cancellation of a fine imposed on her by the United States Court for the Northern District of New York for voting illegally. January 22, 1874. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.
To the Congress of the United States:
To the Congress of the United States:
The petition of Susan B. Anthony, of the city of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, and State of New York, respectfully represents: That, prior to the late presidential election, your petitioner applied to the Board of Registry in the Eighth Ward of the city of Rochester, in which city she had resided for more than twenty-five years, to have her name placed upon the register of voters; and the Board of Registry, after consideration of the subject, decided that your petitioner was entitled to have her name placed upon the register, and placed it there accordingly. On the day of election your petitioner, in common with hundreds of other American citizens, her neighbors, whose names had also been registered as voters, offered to the inspectors of election her ballots for electors of President and Vice-President, and for members of Congress, which were received and deposited in the ballot-box by the inspectors. For this act of your petitioner an indictment was found against her by the grand jury, at the sitting of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, at Albany, charging your petitioner, under the nineteenth section of the act of Congress of May 31, 1870, entitled "An act to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union, and for other purposes," with having "knowingly voted without having a lawful right to vote."
The petition of Susan B. Anthony, from the city of Rochester, in Monroe County, New York, respectfully states: Before the recent presidential election, she applied to the Board of Registry in the Eighth Ward of Rochester, where she had lived for over twenty-five years, to have her name added to the voter registration list. The Board of Registry reviewed her application and determined that she was eligible, adding her name to the register. On election day, she, along with hundreds of other American citizens and neighbors who were also registered to vote, presented her ballots for President, Vice-President, and members of Congress to the election inspectors, who accepted and placed them in the ballot box. As a result of this action, a grand jury indicted her at the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York in Albany, charging her, under the nineteenth section of the act of Congress of May 31, 1870, called "An act to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union, and for other purposes," with having "knowingly voted without having a lawful right to vote."
To that indictment your petitioner pleaded not guilty, and the trial of the issue thus joined took place at the Circuit Court in Canandaigua, in the county of Ontario, before the Honorable Ward Hunt, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the 18th day of June last. Upon that trial the facts of voting by your petitioner, and that she was a woman, were not denied; nor was it claimed on the part of the Government than your petitioner lacked any of the qualifications of a voter, unless disqualified by reason of her sex. It was shown on behalf of your petitioner, on the trial, that before voting she called upon a respectable lawyer and asked his opinion whether she had a right to vote, and he advised her that she had such right, and the lawyer was examined as a witness in her behalf, and testified that he gave her such advice, and that he gave it in good faith, believing[Pg 699] that she had such right. It also appeared that when she offered to vote, the question whether, as a woman, she had a right to vote, was raised by the inspectors, and considered by them in her presence, and they decided that she had a right to vote, and received her vote accordingly.
To that indictment, your petitioner pleaded not guilty, and the trial of the issue took place at the Circuit Court in Canandaigua, Ontario County, before the Honorable Ward Hunt, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, on June 18th of this year. During that trial, the facts that your petitioner voted and that she was a woman were not contested; nor did the Government claim that your petitioner lacked any qualifications to vote, except for being disqualified due to her sex. It was presented on behalf of your petitioner that before voting, she consulted a reputable lawyer and asked if she had the right to vote, and he advised her that she did. The lawyer testified as a witness in her favor, stating that he provided this advice sincerely, believing[Pg 699] that she had that right. It was also established that when she attempted to vote, the question of her right as a woman to vote was raised by the inspectors, and they deliberated on it in her presence, ultimately deciding that she did have the right to vote and accepted her vote.
It was shown on the part of the Government that, on the examination of your petitioner before the commissioner on whose warrant she was arrested, your petitioner stated that she should have voted if allowed to vote, without reference to the advice of the attorney whose opinion she asked; that she was not induced to vote by that opinion; that she had before determined to offer her vote, and had no doubt about her right to vote. At the close of the testimony, your petitioner's counsel proceeded to address the jury, and stated that he desired to present for consideration three propositions, two of law, and one of fact: 1. That your petitioner had a lawful right to vote. 2. That whether she had a right to vote or not, if she honestly believed that she had that right, and voted in good faith in that belief, she was guilty of no crime. 3. That when your petitioner gave her vote she gave it in good faith, believing that it was her right to do so.
It was demonstrated by the Government that, during the examination of your petitioner before the commissioner who issued the warrant for her arrest, your petitioner stated that she would have voted if she had been allowed to vote, regardless of the advice from the attorney whose opinion she sought; that she was not influenced to vote by that opinion; that she had already decided to cast her vote and had no doubt about her right to vote. At the end of the testimony, your petitioner's lawyer addressed the jury and mentioned that he wanted to present three points for consideration, two legal and one factual: 1. That your petitioner had a legal right to vote. 2. That whether she had the right to vote or not, if she honestly believed she had that right and voted in good faith based on that belief, she committed no crime. 3. That when your petitioner cast her vote, she did so in good faith, believing it was her right to do so.
That the two first propositions presented questions for the court to decide, and the last question for the jury. When your petitioner's counsel had proceeded thus far, the judge suggested that the counsel had better discuss, in the first place, the questions of law, which the counsel proceeded to do; and, having discussed the two legal questions at length, asked then to say a few words to the jury on the question of fact. The judge then said to the counsel that he thought that had better be left until the views of the court upon the legal questions should be made known.
That the first two propositions raised questions for the court to decide, while the last question was for the jury. When the petitioner's lawyer had gone this far, the judge suggested that the lawyer should first discuss the legal questions, which the lawyer then proceeded to do. After discussing the two legal questions in detail, the lawyer asked to say a few words to the jury about the factual question. The judge then told the lawyer that it would be better to wait until the court’s views on the legal questions were made clear.
The district attorney thereupon addressed the court at length upon the legal questions, and at the close of his argument the judge delivered an opinion adverse to the positions of your petitioner's counsel upon both of the legal questions presented, holding that your petitioner was not entitled to vote; and that if she voted in good faith in the belief in fact that she had a right to vote, it would constitute no defense; the ground of the decision on the last point being that your petitioner was bound to know that by the law she was not a legal voter, and that even if she voted in good faith in the contrary belief, it constituted no defense to the crime with which she was charged.
The district attorney then spoke to the court at length about the legal issues, and at the end of his argument, the judge gave an opinion that went against your petitioner's lawyer on both legal questions raised. The judge concluded that your petitioner was not allowed to vote; even if she voted honestly believing she had the right to, it wouldn’t be a valid defense. The reasoning for this decision was that your petitioner should have known that under the law, she was not a legal voter, and that even if she voted in good faith believing otherwise, it didn’t serve as a defense against the charges she was facing.
The decision of the judge upon those questions was read from a written document, and at the close of the reading the judge said that the decision of those questions disposed of the case and left no question of fact for the jury, and that he should therefore direct the jury to find a verdict of guilty. The judge then said to the jury that the decision of the court had disposed of all there was in the case, and that he directed them to find a verdict of guilty; and he instructed the clerk to enter such a verdict.
The judge's decision on those issues was read from a document, and once he finished reading, he stated that his ruling resolved the case and left no factual questions for the jury. He then instructed the jury to find a guilty verdict. The judge informed the jury that the court's decision had taken care of everything in the case, and he directed them to deliver a guilty verdict; he also instructed the clerk to record that verdict.
At this time, before any entry had been made by the clerk, your petitioner's counsel asked the judge to submit the case to the jury, and to give to the jury the following several instructions. [See page 680.]
At this point, before the clerk had recorded anything, your petitioner's lawyer requested the judge to present the case to the jury and to provide the jury with the following instructions. [See page 680.]
The judge declined to submit the case to the jury upon any question whatever, and directed them to render a verdict of guilty against your petitioner. Your petitioner's counsel excepted to the decision of the judge upon the legal questions, and to his direction to the jury to find a verdict[Pg 700] of guilty, insisting that it was a direction which no court had a right to give in any criminal case.
The judge refused to present the case to the jury on any matter and instructed them to deliver a guilty verdict against your petitioner. Your petitioner's lawyer objected to the judge's decision on the legal issues and to his instruction for the jury to find a guilty verdict[Pg 700], arguing that it was an order that no court should issue in any criminal case.
The judge then instructed the clerk to take the verdict, and the clerk said, "Gentlemen of the jury, hearken to your verdict as the court hath recorded it. You say you find the defendant guilty of the offense charged; so say you all." No response whatever was made by the jury, either by word or sign. They had not consulted together in their seats or otherwise. Neither of them had spoken a word, nor had they been asked whether they had or had not agreed upon a verdict. Your petitioner's counsel then asked that the clerk be requested to poll the jury. The judge said, "That can not be allowed. Gentlemen of the jury, you are discharged;" and the jurors left the box. No juror spoke a word during the trial, from the time when they were empaneled to the time of their discharge. After denying a motion for a new trial, the judge proceeded upon the conviction thus obtained to pass sentence upon your petitioner, imposing upon her a fine of $100 and the costs of the prosecution.
The judge then told the clerk to announce the verdict, and the clerk said, "Gentlemen of the jury, listen to the verdict as the court has recorded it. You say you find the defendant guilty of the charge; do you all agree?" The jury gave no response, either verbally or with gestures. They hadn't discussed anything among themselves or otherwise. None of them had said a word, nor were they asked if they had reached a verdict. Your petitioner's lawyer then requested that the clerk be asked to poll the jury. The judge said, "That can't be allowed. Gentlemen of the jury, you are dismissed;" and the jurors left the box. No juror spoke throughout the trial, from when they were selected to when they were dismissed. After rejecting a motion for a new trial, the judge proceeded with the conviction to sentence your petitioner, imposing a fine of $100 and covering the prosecution costs.
Your petitioner respectfully submits that, in these proceedings, she has been denied the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all persons accused of crime, the right of trial by jury, and the right to have the assistance of counsel for their defense. It is a mockery to call her trial a trial by jury; and unless the assistance of counsel may be limited to the argument of legal questions, without the privilege of saying a word to the jury upon the question of the guilt or innocence in fact of the party charged, or the privilege of ascertaining from the jury whether they do or do not agree to the verdict pronounced by the court in their name, she has been denied the assistance of counsel for her defense.
Your petitioner respectfully states that, in these proceedings, she has been denied the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to everyone accused of a crime, including the right to a jury trial and the right to have legal representation for her defense. It is absurd to call her trial a jury trial; and unless legal representation is limited to arguing legal issues, without the ability to speak to the jury about the accused's actual guilt or innocence, or the chance to find out from the jury whether or not they agree with the verdict announced by the court on their behalf, she has been denied adequate legal assistance for her defense.
Your petitioner also respectfully insists that the decision of the judge that good faith on the part of your petitioner in offering her vote did not constitute a defense, was not only a violation of the deepest and most sacred principle of the criminal law, that no one can be guilty of crime unless a criminal intent exists; but was also a palpable violation of the statute under which the conviction was had; not on the ground that good faith could, in this, or in any case, justify a criminal act, but on the ground that bad faith in voting was an indispensable ingredient in the offense with which your petitioner was charged. Any other interpretation strikes the word "knowingly" out of the statute, the word which alone describes the essence of the offense. The statute means, as your petitioner is advised, and humbly submits, a knowledge in fact, not a knowledge falsely imputed by law to a party not possessing it in fact, as the judge in this case has held. Crimes can not, either in law or in morals, be established by judicial falsehood. If there be any crime in the case, your petitioner humbly insists it is to be found in such an adjudication.
Your petitioner also respectfully argues that the judge's decision that your petitioner’s good faith in casting her vote didn’t count as a defense was not only a violation of the fundamental principle of criminal law — that no one can be guilty of a crime without criminal intent — but also a clear violation of the statute under which the conviction was made. This is not because good faith could justify a criminal act in this or any case, but because bad faith in voting is a necessary element of the offense your petitioner was charged with. Any other interpretation removes the word "knowingly" from the statute, which is the term that defines the essence of the offense. The statute, as your petitioner understands and humbly submits, refers to actual knowledge, not knowledge that is falsely imputed by law to someone who does not possess it in fact, as the judge has ruled in this case. Crimes cannot, in law or in ethics, be established through judicial falsehood. If there is any crime in this matter, your petitioner humbly insists it lies in such a judgment.
To the decision of the judge upon the question of the right of your petitioner to vote, she makes no complaint. It was a question properly belonging to the court to decide, was fully and fairly submitted to the judge, and of his decision, whether right or wrong, your petitioner is well aware she can not here complain. But in regard to her conviction of crime, which she insists, for the reasons above given, was in violation of the principles of the common law, of common morality, of the statute under which she[Pg 701] was charged, and of the Constitution—a crime of which she was as innocent as the judge by whom she was convicted—she respectfully asks, inasmuch as the law has provided no means of reviewing the decisions of the judge, or of correcting his errors, that the fine imposed upon your petitioner be remitted, as an expression of the sense of this high tribunal that her conviction was unjust.
To the judge's decision on whether your petitioner has the right to vote, she has no complaints. That was a question that was rightly for the court to decide, it was fully and fairly presented to the judge, and your petitioner understands that she cannot complain about his decision, whether it was right or wrong. However, regarding her criminal conviction, which she asserts, for the reasons mentioned above, was against the principles of common law, common morality, the statute under which she[Pg 701] was charged, and the Constitution—a crime of which she was as innocent as the judge who convicted her—she respectfully requests that, since the law has provided no means for reviewing the judge's decisions or correcting his errors, the fine imposed on your petitioner be waived, as a reflection of this high tribunal's belief that her conviction was unjust.
Susan B. Anthony.
Susan B. Anthony.
Dated January 12, 1874.
Dated January 12, 1874.
In the Senate of the United States, June 20, 1874, Mr. Edmunds submitted the following report:
In the Senate of the United States, June 20, 1874, Mr. Edmunds submitted the following report:
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 391) to enable Susan B. Anthony to pay a fine imposed upon her by the District Court for the Northern District of New York, and a petition praying for the remission of said fine, report:
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 391) to allow Susan B. Anthony to pay a fine given to her by the District Court for the Northern District of New York, along with a request for the cancellation of that fine, reports:
That they are not satisfied that the action of the Court was such as represented in the petition, and that, if it were so, the Senate could not legally take any action in the premises, and move that the Committee be discharged from the further consideration of the petition, and that the bill be postponed indefinitely.
That they are not convinced that the Court's actions were as described in the petition, and that, even if they were, the Senate could not legally act on the matter, and they propose that the Committee be released from any further consideration of the petition, and that the bill be postponed indefinitely.
Mr. Carpenter asked, and obtained, leave of the Senate to present the following as the views of the minority:
Mr. Carpenter asked for and received permission from the Senate to share the following as the minority's perspective:
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorial of Susan B. Anthony, praying to be relieved from a certain judgment, rendered against her by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York:
The Committee on the Judiciary, which was assigned the memorial of Susan B. Anthony, requesting to be freed from a specific judgment made against her by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York:
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
The majority of the Committee have determined that inasmuch as the relief prayed for by the memorial can not be granted, the Committee will ask to be discharged from its further consideration, and will not express any opinion as to the correctness or incorrectness of the course pursued on the trial of Miss Anthony.
The majority of the Committee has decided that since the relief requested by the memorial cannot be granted, the Committee will ask to be released from further consideration and will not express any opinion on the correctness or incorrectness of the trial conducted for Miss Anthony.
The House of Lords in England or the Senate of the United States may engage in any investigation looking to legislation, although, as an incident to, or a result of, such investigation, it may appear that some officer who is impeachable has been guilty of conduct for which he might be impeached. Then, surely, in a case like this, where there is neither suggestion nor suspicion of corrupt conduct on the part of the estimable judge before whom the trial was conducted, it can not be improper for a committee of the Senate to inquire whether, in the trial of a citizen for alleged violation of the laws of the United States, a precedent dangerous to the liberties of every citizen has been set. Indeed, the injurious effect of every judicial departure from sound principle is in proportion to the eminence and purity of the judge by whom it is committed. The outrages perpetrated by Scroggs and Jeffreys in the administration of criminal justice were grievous upon the individuals unjustly or illegally convicted, but do no harm as precedents. A vicious precedent, set by an infamous judge, is harmless; while a similar violation of the law by a pure and upright magistrate is attended by far-reaching and detrimental consequences.[Pg 702]
The House of Lords in England or the Senate of the United States can conduct any investigation related to legislation. However, during such an investigation, it might become clear that an impeachable officer has acted in a way that could warrant impeachment. In a situation like this, where there’s no hint or doubt about the integrity of the judge overseeing the trial, it’s completely reasonable for a Senate committee to look into whether a dangerous precedent has been set in the trial of a citizen accused of breaking U.S. laws. In fact, the negative impact of any judicial deviation from sound principles increases with the status and integrity of the judge involved. The wrongs committed by Scroggs and Jeffreys in criminal justice were severe for those unjustly or illegally convicted, but they don't set harmful precedents. A bad precedent created by a notorious judge is relatively harmless, whereas a similar breach of the law by a respected and honorable magistrate can lead to serious and widespread negative effects.[Pg 702]
It is fashionable, we know, just now to heap contumely upon women who demand to be allowed to enjoy their civil political rights. Ridicule is the chief weapon employed against them, and is freely applied to all who advocate their cause. Gentlemen who would blush to be thought negligent in the offices of frivolous gallantry lack the manhood to accord to women their substantial rights. And, strange to say, ladies dwelling in luxurious ease join with the fops of society to cast contempt upon the earnest aspirations of woman for the possession of her just rights. We have acted upon the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence, so far as to make all men equal before the law; but women, our mothers, our wives, our sisters, and our daughters, we condemn to inequality—many to servitude. But the cry of women, who, in poverty and want, are driven from the employments of honest industry to indulgence in vice and to the haunts of shame, is rising on every hand, and appeals to the heart with as much power as the wailings of a slave beneath the lash of his master.
It’s trendy right now to insult women who want to enjoy their civil and political rights. Ridicule is the main tool used against them and is widely directed at anyone who supports their cause. Men who would be embarrassed to be seen as neglectful in trivial acts of chivalry lack the courage to give women their real rights. Oddly enough, women living in comfort join with the vain members of society to look down on the sincere hopes of women seeking their rightful place. We have followed the ideas of the Declaration of Independence enough to make all men equal under the law; yet we condemn women—our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters—to inequality, with many relegated to servitude. But the cries of women, who, in poverty and desperation, are pushed from honest work into vice and disgrace, are growing louder all around us, appealing to our hearts with as much force as the cries of a slave under the whip of his master.
The wrongs of Martin Koszta in a foreign land touched the heart of the nation. But the denial of her rights to Miss Susan B. Anthony in a court of the Union is thought to be unworthy the attention of the American Senate. To those who are indifferent whether a woman be deprived of or be permitted to enjoy even the rights which are secured to her by the Constitution, it may be suggested that a bad precedent set in the trial of a woman who has presumed to express her choice as to those who should make laws for her, laws by which her rights are to be affected and her property be taxed, may stand in the way of some man's rights hereafter. It may yet happen, in the revolutions of time, that some one of the majority of your committee may be subjected to an unjust and false accusation, which must be submitted to the judgment of twelve men in the jury-box or of one man on the bench; twelve men fresh from the people and warmed with the instinctive sympathies of humanity, or one man, separated from the people by his station and by the habits of a life passed in seclusion and study. A jury-trial must be the same whether a man or woman be arraigned. And the subject under consideration is important even to men who are regardless of the rights of women.
The injustices faced by Martin Koszta in a foreign land moved the nation deeply. However, the denial of rights to Miss Susan B. Anthony in a federal court is seen as unworthy of the American Senate's attention. For those who don’t care whether a woman is stripped of or allowed to enjoy the rights guaranteed to her by the Constitution, it might be noted that a damaging precedent set during the trial of a woman who dared to voice her opinion on who should create laws affecting her rights and taxing her property could hinder some man’s rights in the future. It might eventually occur, over time, that one of the majority members of your committee could face an unfair and false accusation, which must be judged by a jury of twelve men or by a single man on the bench; twelve men who are close to the people and driven by a natural sense of compassion, or one man, distanced from the people through his position and lifestyle shaped by isolation and study. A jury trial should be the same whether it’s a man or a woman on trial. The issue being discussed is significant even for men who disregard women's rights.
I shall, therefore, proceed to inquire, as I think the committee ought to have done, whether the memorialist has been deprived, as she alleges, of the right of trial by jury secured to her by the Constitution of the United States. The memorialist claims that the court erred in its ruling, and in taking the case from the jury and directing a verdict against her; and also in refusing to have the jury polled in regard to their verdict; and she prays that her fine may be remitted by act of Congress.
I will, therefore, investigate whether the person making the request has been denied, as she claims, the right to a trial by jury guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The requester asserts that the court made a mistake in its decision, by removing the case from the jury and directing a verdict against her; and also in not allowing the jury to be polled about their verdict. She requests that her fine be canceled by an act of Congress.
The first question is, whether in a criminal trial, plea not guilty, the jury have a right to render a general verdict involving questions of law as well as fact, under instructions by the court upon matters of law; or whether, when the testimony is not conflicting, the court may take the case from the jury and direct a verdict of guilty to be entered.
The first question is whether, in a criminal trial with a not guilty plea, the jury has the right to give a general verdict that includes both questions of law and fact, based on instructions from the court regarding legal matters; or whether, when the evidence is not conflicting, the court can remove the case from the jury and order a guilty verdict to be entered.
It is the practice in civil causes for the court, if there is no conflict in the evidence, to direct a verdict for the plaintiff or for the defendant, because in such case the court may set aside a verdict and grant a new trial in favor of plaintiff or defendant. It would, therefore, be a barren[Pg 703] form to require the jury to deliberate and find a verdict in a case where if the verdict was not one way, the court would set it aside and order a new trial, and so on, until a verdict should be found that was satisfactory to the court. So in practice it is usual for the court to direct the jury to acquit the prisoner in a criminal case; because, if the jury find against the prisoner, the court may set the verdict aside and order a new trial, and continue to do so until a verdict of acquittal shall be rendered; though it is doubtful whether, even in a civil cause, the court could refuse to let the jury be polled, or could enter a verdict for the jury to which they did not agree. The court could direct the jury what to do, and set aside the verdict if they did otherwise; but it is not admitted that, even in a civil cause, the court could enter a verdict against the wishes of the jury.
In civil cases, if there’s no disagreement in the evidence, the court usually directs a verdict for the plaintiff or defendant. This is because the court can overturn a verdict and grant a new trial in favor of either party. Therefore, it would be pointless to have the jury deliberate and reach a verdict in a situation where, if it isn’t favorable, the court would simply set it aside and order a new trial until a verdict is found that the court approves. Similarly, in criminal cases, it’s common for the court to instruct the jury to acquit the defendant; if the jury decides against the defendant, the court may overturn that verdict and order a new trial, continuing this process until a verdict of not guilty is reached. However, it’s uncertain whether, even in a civil case, the court could refuse to allow the jury to be polled or enter a verdict that the jury does not agree with. The court can direct the jury’s actions and can set aside a verdict if they don’t comply, but it is generally accepted that even in civil cases, the court cannot issue a verdict that goes against the jury's wishes.
But at the common law and in the Federal courts it is certain that where the jury render a verdict of acquittal, even against the evidence and the instructions of the court on propositions of law, the court can not set aside the verdict and order another trial. From this it follows that the court can not take from the jury this power of acquittal in a criminal case, by directing and compelling a verdict against the prisoner, and refusing to have the jury polled. But the importance of this question requires its examination not only in the light of reason, but of authority. The Constitution of the United States provides:
But under common law and in federal courts, it’s clear that when a jury delivers a verdict of not guilty, even if it goes against the evidence and the court's legal instructions, the court cannot overturn that verdict and force a new trial. This means that the court cannot strip the jury of their power to acquit in a criminal case by ordering and forcing a verdict against the defendant and refusing to let the jury be polled. However, the significance of this issue warrants an examination not just through reason, but also through authority. The Constitution of the United States states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and a public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, etc.
In all criminal cases, the accused has the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury from the state and district where the crime was committed, etc.
The Constitution does not define or regulate the trial by jury, but secures it as it was then known to the common law. This is a proposition so well settled by judicial determination that I shall spend no time upon it beyond citing the following authorities: Norval vs. Rice, 2 Wis., 22; May vs. R. R. Co., 3 Wis., 219; Byers & Davis vs. Com., 42 Penn. St., 89; United States vs. Lorenzo Dow, Taney Decis., 35; Lamb et al. vs. Lane, 4 Ohio Stat., 167.
The Constitution doesn't define or regulate the trial by jury, but it guarantees it as it was understood at that time according to common law. This is a point so firmly established by court rulings that I won’t elaborate further, except to reference the following cases: Norval vs. Rice, 2 Wis., 22; May vs. R. R. Co., 3 Wis., 219; Byers & Davis vs. Com., 42 Penn. St., 89; United States vs. Lorenzo Dow, Taney Decis., 35; Lamb et al. vs. Lane, 4 Ohio Stat., 167.
Therefore, if it can be shown that, at the time the Constitution was adopted, it was well settled that the jury in a criminal cause might find a general verdict, including both law and fact, then this right is secured to juries in the Federal courts by the Constitution itself; and not even an act of Congress could take it away. What the law was at that time, is mere matter of historical inquiry, wholly different from another question, which is so often mistaken for it, whether juries ought to possess the right.
Therefore, if it can be demonstrated that, when the Constitution was adopted, it was well understood that a jury in a criminal case could deliver a general verdict that included both legal and factual determinations, then this right is guaranteed to juries in the Federal courts by the Constitution itself; and not even an act of Congress can take it away. What the law was at that time is purely a historical question, entirely separate from another issue, which is frequently confused with it, regarding whether juries should have that right.
What, then, was the law upon this subject when the Constitution was adopted? Mr. Hargrave, in one of his annotations upon Lord Coke's first Institute, declares that, inasmuch as the jury may, as often as they think fit, find a general verdict, it was unquestionable that they might so far decide upon the law as well as fact, such a verdict necessarily involving both.
What was the law on this topic when the Constitution was adopted? Mr. Hargrave, in one of his notes on Lord Coke's first Institute, states that since the jury can find a general verdict as often as they choose, it's clear that they can decide on the law as well as the facts, as such a verdict necessarily includes both.
In this opinion, says Mr. Hargrave, I have the authority of Littleton himself, who writes, "that if the inquest will take upon them the knowledge of the law upon the matter, they may give their verdict generally."
In this opinion, Mr. Hargrave says, I have the authority of Littleton himself, who writes, "that if the inquest takes it upon themselves to understand the law regarding the matter, they may give their verdict generally."
In People vs. Croswell, 3 Johnson's Cases, 336, Chief-Justice Kent reviewed all the preceding authorities with great care, and discussed the philosophy of the doctrine under consideration, with the ability which characterizes his most celebrated opinions; and his decision in this case stands to this day as one of the landmarks upon this subject. After reciting the authorities, he says:
In People vs. Croswell, 3 Johnson's Cases, 336, Chief Justice Kent carefully reviewed all the earlier cases and discussed the reasoning behind the doctrine at hand, showcasing the skill that defines his most famous opinions. His ruling in this case is still regarded today as a key reference on this topic. After outlining the relevant cases, he states:
To meet and resist directly this stream of authority is impossible. But while the power of the jury is admitted, it is denied that they can rightfully or lawfully exercise it without compromitting their consciences, and that they are bound implicitly in all cases to receive the law from the court. The law must, however, have intended, in granting this power to a jury, to grant them a lawful and rightful power, or it would have provided a remedy against the undue exercise of it. The true criterion of a legal power is its capacity to produce a definitive effect, liable to neither censure nor review. And the verdict of not guilty in a criminal case is, in every respect, absolute and final. The jury are not liable to punishment, nor the verdict to control. No attaint lies, nor can a new trial be awarded. The exercise of this power in the jury has been sanctioned and upheld in constant activity from the earliest ages. It was made a question by Bracton (fol. 119, a. b.), who was to sit in judgment and decide upon points of law on appeals in capital cases. It could not be the king, he says, for then he would be both prosecutor and judge; nor his justices, for they represented him. He thinks, therefore, the curia and pares were to be judges in all cases of life and limb, or disherison of heir, where the crown was the prosecutor. And, indeed, it is probable that in the earliest stages of the English juridical history the jury, instead of deciding causes under the direction of the judge, decided all causes without the assistance of the judge. (Barrington on the Statutes, 18, 26, 311.)
To confront and oppose this flow of authority directly is impossible. However, while the power of the jury is acknowledged, it's argued that they cannot justly or lawfully exercise it without compromising their consciences, and that they are obligated to accept the law from the court in all situations. The law must have intended, in granting this power to a jury, to give them a lawful and rightful authority, or it would have established a remedy for the improper use of it. The true test of a legal power is its ability to produce a final outcome that isn’t subject to criticism or review. The verdict of not guilty in a criminal case is absolute and final in every way. The jury cannot be punished, nor can the verdict be overturned. There is no means of challenge, nor can a new trial be granted. This exercise of power by the jury has been validated and upheld consistently since ancient times. It was questioned by Bracton (fol. 119, a. b.), who determined who should sit in judgment and make legal decisions on appeals in capital cases. It couldn’t be the king, he argues, because then he would be both the prosecutor and the judge; nor could it be his justices, as they represented him. He concludes that the curia and pares were to serve as judges in all cases concerning life and limb, or disinheritance of heirs, where the crown was the prosecutor. Indeed, it seems likely that in the earliest phases of English legal history, the jury decided all cases independently, without the judge's input. (Barrington on the Statutes, 18, 26, 311.)
He then proceeds to review the trial of Lilburn for high treason in 1549; Bushell's case, Vaughan, 135, and Sir T. Jones, 113; Algernon Sidney's case, 3 State Trials, 817; Tuchin's case, 5 State Trials, 542, and other cases. Again, he says:
He then goes on to discuss Lilburn's trial for high treason in 1549; Bushell's case, Vaughan, 135, and Sir T. Jones, 113; Algernon Sidney's case, 3 State Trials, 817; Tuchin's case, 5 State Trials, 542, and other cases. Again, he states:
To deny to the jury the right of judging of the intent and tendency of the act, is to take away the substance, and with it the value and security of this mode of trial. It is to transfer the exclusive cognizance of crimes from the jury to the court, and to give the judge the absolute control of the press. There is nothing peculiar in the law of libels to withdraw it from the jurisdiction of the jury. The twelve judges in their opinion in the House of Lords (April, 1792), admitted that the general criminal law of England was the law of libel. And by the general criminal law of England, the office of the jury is judicial. "They only are the judges," as Lord Somers observes (Essay on the Power and Duty of Grand Juries, p. 7), "from whose sentence the indicted are to expect life or death. Upon their integrity and understanding the lives of all that are brought into judgment do ultimately depend. From their verdict there lies no appeal. They resolve both law and fact, and this has always been their practice."
To deny the jury the right to judge the intent and impact of an act removes the essence and, along with it, the value and security of this trial method. It shifts the sole authority to decide on crimes from the jury to the court, giving the judge complete control over the press. There is nothing unique about libel law that should keep it out of the jury's jurisdiction. The twelve judges, in their opinion in the House of Lords (April, 1792), acknowledged that the general criminal law of England is the law of libel. Under this general criminal law, the role of the jury is judicial. "They alone are the judges," as Lord Somers notes (Essay on the Power and Duty of Grand Juries, p. 7), "from whose decision the indicted can expect life or death. The lives of everyone brought to trial ultimately depend on their integrity and understanding. There is no appeal from their verdict. They determine both law and fact, and this has always been their practice."
And, after referring to the case of Franklin, and other cases holding a contrary doctrine, he denounces them as innovations, and adding that the subject underwent a patient investigation and severe scrutiny upon principle and precedent in Parliament, says:
And, after mentioning the case of Franklin, along with other cases that support a different view, he criticizes them as new ideas, and stating that the topic was thoroughly examined and rigorously evaluated based on principles and past decisions in Parliament, he says:
And a bill declaratory of the right of the jury to give a general verdict upon the whole matter put in issue, without being required or directed to find the defendant guilty merely on the proof of publication and the truth of the innuendoes, was at length agreed to, and passed with uncommon unanimity. It is entitled "An act to remove doubts respecting the functions of juries in cases of libel"; and, although I admit that a declaratory statute is not to be received as conclusive evidence of the common law, yet it must be considered as a very respectable authority in the case, and especially as the circumstances attending the passage of this bill reflect the highest honor on the moderation, the good sense, and the free and independent spirit of the British Parliament.
And a bill that clarifies the jury's right to issue a general verdict on the entire matter at hand, without being forced or instructed to find the defendant guilty solely based on the proof of publication and the truth of the insinuations, was finally agreed upon and passed with remarkable unanimity. It is titled "An act to remove doubts about the roles of juries in libel cases"; and while I acknowledge that a declaratory statute should not be seen as definitive evidence of common law, it must be regarded as a very credible authority in this matter, especially since the circumstances surrounding the passage of this bill highlight the moderation, common sense, and free and independent spirit of the British Parliament.
And again he says: The result, from this view, is, to my mind, a firm conviction that[Pg 705] this court is not bound by the decisions of Lord Raymond and his successors. By withdrawing from the jury the consideration of the essence of the charge, they render their function nugatory and contemptible. Those opinions are repugnant to the more ancient authorities which had given to the jury the power, and with it the right, to judge of the law and the fact, when they were blended by the issue, and which rendered their decisions, in criminal cases, final and conclusive. The English bar steadily resisted those decisions as usurpations on the rights of the jury. Some of the judges treated the doctrine as erroneous, and the Parliament at last declared it an innovation by restoring the trial by jury, in cases of libel, to that ancient vigor and independence by which it had grown so precious to the nation as the guardian of liberty and life, against the power of the court, the vindictive persecution of the prosecutor, and the oppression of the government.
And again he says: The conclusion, from this perspective, is, in my opinion, a strong belief that[Pg 705] this court is not obligated to follow the decisions of Lord Raymond and his successors. By taking away from the jury the ability to consider the core of the charge, they render their role worthless and contemptible. Those opinions conflict with the older authorities that had given the jury the power, and the right, to judge both the law and the facts when they were intertwined by the issue, which made their decisions, in criminal cases, final and conclusive. The English bar consistently opposed those decisions as encroachments on the jury's rights. Some judges regarded the doctrine as wrong, and eventually, Parliament declared it an innovation by restoring the trial by jury, in cases of libel, to its former strength and independence that had made it so valuable to the nation as the protector of liberty and life, against the power of the court, the vengeful pursuit of the prosecutor, and the oppression of the government.
This celebrated opinion may safely be relied upon as a correct statement of the law as it stood when it was delivered in 1804. But still more conclusive authority remains to be considered. The sedition act of 1798, after defining what should be a criminal libel, and declaring that the defendant might give the truth of the matter in evidence, provides as follows:
This well-known opinion can be trusted as an accurate reflection of the law as it was in 1804. However, even more definitive authority still needs to be examined. The Sedition Act of 1798, after outlining what constitutes a criminal libel and stating that the defendant can present the truth as evidence, states the following:
And the jury who shall try the cause shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases. (1 Stat. at L., 507.)
And the jury that will hear the case has the right to determine both the law and the facts, under the guidance of the court, like in other cases. (1 Stat. at L., 507.)
The language of this act, "as in other cases," recognizes the right here contended for. In the celebrated Callender trial, in 1800, which was a prosecution under this statute, Mr. Justice Chase, whose general bearing was so unfriendly to the defendant as to secure his impeachment by the House of Representatives, admitted this right of the jury. He said:
The wording of this act, "as in other cases," acknowledges the right being argued here. In the famous Callender trial in 1800, which was a case under this law, Justice Chase, who was generally very biased against the defendant to the point that he was impeached by the House of Representatives, recognized this right of the jury. He stated:
We all know that juries have the right to decide the law as well as the fact. (Wharton's State Trials, 710.) And again he says:
We all know that juries have the authority to decide both the law and the facts. (Wharton's State Trials, 710.) And again he says:
I admit that the jury are to compare the statute with the facts proved, and then to decide whether the acts done are prohibited by the law, and whether they amount to the offense described in the indictment. (Ib., p. 713.)
I acknowledge that the jury needs to compare the law with the proven facts, and then decide if the actions taken are against the law and if they constitute the offense specified in the indictment. (Ib., p. 713.)
Though, with seeming want of logic, he held that the jury could not decide whether the statute was constitutional or not. But the full admission that the jury were judges of the law as well as the fact, shows the general understanding upon this subject, though the judge may have erred in applying the principle in the case before him. In Fries's case, who was tried for treason, 1799-1800, the jury were instructed by Judge Peters as follows:
Though it may seem illogical, he believed that the jury couldn't determine if the statute was constitutional. However, the complete acknowledgment that the jury was responsible for judging both the law and the facts demonstrates a general understanding of this issue, even if the judge may have made a mistake in applying this principle in the current case. In Fries's case, who was tried for treason from 1799 to 1800, the jury was instructed by Judge Peters as follows:
It is the duty of the court to declare the law; though both facts and law, which, I fear, are too plain to admit a reasonable doubt, are subject to your consideration. (Wharton's State Trials, 587.)
It is the court's responsibility to state the law; however, both the facts and the law, which I worry are too obvious to leave any room for reasonable doubt, are open to your evaluation. (Wharton's State Trials, 587.)
And, in the second trial of Fries, Judge Chase instructed the jury as follows:
And in the second trial of Fries, Judge Chase instructed the jury like this:
It is the duty of the court in this case, and in all criminal cases, to state to the jury their opinion of the law arising on the facts; but the jury are to decide in the present, and in all criminal cases, both the law and the facts, on their consideration of the whole case. (2 Chase's Trial, Appendix 1.)
It is the court's responsibility in this case, and in all criminal cases, to share their understanding of the law based on the facts; however, the jury must determine, in this case and in all criminal cases, both the law and the facts by considering the entire case. (2 Chase's Trial, Appendix 1.)
In the answer of Judge Chase to articles of impeachment against him, he says:
In Judge Chase's response to the impeachment articles against him, he states:
He well knows that it is the right of juries, in criminal cases, to give a general verdict of acquittal, which can not be set aside on account of its being contrary to law, and that hence results the power of juries to decide on the law as well as on the facts in all criminal cases. This power he holds to be a sacred part of our legal privileges, which he has[Pg 706] never attempted, and never will attempt to abridge or obstruct. (1 Chase's Trial, pp. 5, 34, 35.)
He knows very well that juries have the right, in criminal cases, to deliver a general verdict of not guilty, which cannot be overturned just because it's against the law. This implies that juries have the authority to judge both the law and the facts in all criminal cases. He believes this power is a fundamental part of our legal rights, which he has[Pg 706] never tried, and will never try, to limit or interfere with. (1 Chase's Trial, pp. 5, 34, 35.)
In Georgia vs. Brailsford, 3 Dallas, 4, in 1794, Chief-Justice Jay charged the jury as follows:
In Georgia vs. Brailsford, 3 Dallas, 4, in 1794, Chief Justice Jay instructed the jury as follows:
It may not be amiss here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court, to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have, nevertheless, a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court; for as, on the one hand, it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts, it is, on the other hand, presumable that the court are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.
It might be helpful to remind you, gentlemen, of the classic rule: the jury decides questions of fact, while the court decides questions of law. However, you also have the right to judge both aspects and determine the law as well as the facts in dispute. On this and every other occasion, we trust you will respect the court's opinion; after all, while juries are typically the best at judging facts, courts are usually the best at judging law. Yet, both areas are legally within your decision-making authority.
This charge was delivered in a jury trial, at the bar of the Supreme Court, and expressed the unanimous opinion of the judges of that court, and that, too, in a civil cause. The decision in Georgia vs. Brailsford has never been expressly overruled by that court; although the practice in civil causes is for the court to direct a verdict where there is no conflict in regard to the testimony. In Beavans vs. The United States, 13 Wall, 56, which was an action ex contractu, on a receiver's bond, the court says:
This instruction was given during a jury trial in the Supreme Court and reflected the unanimous opinion of the judges on that court in a civil case. The ruling in Georgia vs. Brailsford has never been explicitly overturned by that court, although it's standard practice in civil cases for the court to direct a verdict when there is no disagreement in the testimony. In Beavans vs. The United States, 13 Wall, 56, which was a proceeding ex contractu regarding a receiver's bond, the court states:
The objection that the jury was instructed to find for the plaintiffs the amount claimed by the papers given in evidence (viz, the official settlements), with interest thereon, is entirely without merit. There was no evidence to impeach the accounts stated, or to show set-off, release, or payment. The instruction was, therefore, in accordance with the legal effect of the evidence, and there were no disputed facts upon which the jury could pass.
The argument that the jury was told to rule in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount claimed in the documents presented (namely, the official settlements), along with interest, is completely unfounded. There was no evidence to challenge the stated accounts or to show any offsets, releases, or payments. Therefore, the instruction aligned with the legal implications of the evidence, and there were no contested facts for the jury to decide on.
An act of Congress declares that the papers of official settlement shall be prima facie evidence of the condition of the accounts. No testimony was offered in this case to impeach that statement. There was, therefore, no fact in issue; and the instruction of the court to find a verdict for the plaintiff was, in substance, ruling upon matters of law only. And the Supreme Court, in their opinion, recognize, and merely recognize, the practice which now obtains universally in the trial of civil causes. And, although it is inconsistent with Georgia vs. Brailsford, and substantially overrules it, it does not impair the value of the decision in that case, as showing the understanding of the profession and the courts about the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
An act of Congress states that the documents of official settlement serve as prima facie evidence of the account's status. No evidence was presented in this case to challenge that statement. Therefore, there was no factual dispute; the court's instruction to return a verdict for the plaintiff was essentially a legal ruling. The Supreme Court, in their opinion, acknowledges, and only acknowledges, the current practice that is now universally accepted in civil trials. Although this is inconsistent with Georgia vs. Brailsford and effectively overrules it, it doesn't diminish the significance of that decision, as it reflects the understanding of the legal profession and the courts at the time the Constitution was adopted.
In United States vs. Wilson (1 Bald., 108), the jury were instructed as follows:
In United States vs. Wilson (1 Bald., 108), the jury was instructed as follows:
We have thus stated to you the law of this case under the solemn duties and obligations imposed on us, under the clear conviction that in doing so we have presented to you the true test by which you will apply the evidence to the case; but you will distinctly understand that you are the judges both of the law and the fact in a criminal case, and are not bound by the opinion of the court. You may judge for yourselves; and if you should feel it your duty to differ from us, you must find your verdict accordingly. At the same time, it is our duty to say that it is in perfect accordance with the spirit of our legal institutions that the courts should decide questions of law, and the juries of facts. The nature of the tribunals naturally leads to this division of powers; and it is better, for the sake of public justice, that it should be so. When the law is settled by a court there is more certainty than when done by a jury. It will be better known and more respected in public opinion. But if you are prepared to say that the law is different[Pg 707] from what you have heard from us, you are in the exercise of a constitutional right to do so.
We have explained the law in this case according to the serious responsibilities we have, fully believing that we have given you the real measure to assess the evidence. However, you need to understand clearly that you are the judges of both the law and the facts in a criminal case, and you are not obligated to follow the court's opinion. You can make your own judgments, and if you feel it's your duty to disagree with us, your verdict should reflect that. At the same time, we must emphasize that it's entirely in line with the principles of our legal system for courts to address legal questions and juries to handle factual matters. The structure of the courts naturally leads to this division of responsibilities, and it's better for public justice that it works this way. When a court establishes the law, there is greater certainty than when it's left to a jury. It will be more widely understood and respected in public discourse. But if you believe that the law differs from what we've presented to you, you have the constitutional right to say so.
In United States vs. Porter (1 Bald., 108), the doctrine was stated more guardedly, as follows:
In United States vs. Porter (1 Bald., 108), the principle was expressed more cautiously, as follows:
In repeating what was said on a former occasion to another jury, that you have the power to decide on the law as well as the facts of this case, and are not bound to find according to our opinion of the law, we feel ourselves constrained to make some explanations not then deemed necessary, but now called for from the course of the defense.
In repeating what was said before to another jury, you have the power to decide both the law and the facts of this case, and you’re not required to follow our interpretation of the law. We feel we need to provide some explanations that weren’t considered necessary back then, but are now needed because of the defense’s approach.
You may find a general verdict of guilty or not guilty as you think proper, or may find the facts specially, and leave the guilt or innocence of the prisoner to the judgment of the court. If your verdict acquits the prisoner, we can not grant a new trial, however much we may differ with you as to the law which governs the case; and, in this respect, a jury are the judges of law if they choose to become so.
You can deliver a general verdict of guilty or not guilty as you see fit, or you can find the facts specifically and leave the determination of the prisoner’s guilt or innocence to the court's judgment. If your verdict clears the prisoner, we cannot grant a new trial, no matter how much we might disagree with you about the law that applies to the case; in this context, the jury acts as the judges of the law if they choose to take on that role.
In Farmer's trial before the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire in 1821, the Chief-Justice, speaking for the whole court, told the jury that they were the judges both of the law and the fact; that
In Farmer's trial before the Supreme Court of New Hampshire in 1821, the Chief Justice, speaking for the entire court, told the jury that they were the judges of both the law and the facts; that
It was the duty of the court to give them proper instructions and to aid them in forming a correct opinion as to the law applicable to the case. But if, contrary to his intentions, any expression should escape him which might seem to indicate any opinion as to the facts, they must disregard it; their verdict ought to be according to their own opinion as to the prisoner's guilt or innocence. (See Farmer's Trial, p. 68.)
It was the court's responsibility to provide them with clear instructions and to help them understand the relevant law for the case. However, if he unintentionally said anything that might suggest a viewpoint on the facts, they needed to ignore it; their verdict should reflect their own judgment regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence. (See Farmer's Trial, p. 68.)
In the trial of William S. Smith for misdemeanor, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the State of New York, in July, 1806, the jury were instructed as follows:
In the trial of William S. Smith for a misdemeanor in the Circuit Court of the United States for the State of New York in July 1806, the jury was instructed as follows:
You have heard much said upon the right of a jury to judge of the law as well as the fact. Be assured that on this occasion there is not the least desire to abridge those rights. I am an advocate for the independence of the jury. It is the basis of civil liberty; and in this country, I trust, will ever be a sacred bulwark against oppression and encroachment upon political freedom. The law is now settled that this right appertains to a jury in all criminal cases.
You’ve heard a lot about the jury’s right to judge both the law and the facts. Rest assured, there is no intention here to limit those rights. I support the independence of the jury. It’s the foundation of civil liberty, and in this country, I hope it will always be a crucial defense against oppression and attacks on political freedom. The law is now established that this right belongs to a jury in all criminal cases.
On the trial of John Hodges for high treason, before the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, in 1815, the Court charged the jury as follows:
On the trial of John Hodges for high treason, before the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, in 1815, the Court instructed the jury as follows:
The court said they were bound to declare the law whenever they were called upon, in civil or criminal cases. In the latter, however, it was also their duty to inform the jury that they were not obliged to take their direction as to the law. (Hodge's Trial, p. 20.)
The court stated they were required to explain the law whenever asked, whether in civil or criminal cases. In criminal cases, though, it was also their responsibility to let the jury know that they didn’t have to follow the court's guidance on the law. (Hodge's Trial, p. 20.)
The elementary writers declare the same principle. Blackstone, 4 Comm., 361, says:
The basic writers state the same principle. Blackstone, 4 Comm., 361, says:
And such public or open verdict may be either general (guilty or not guilty) or special, setting forth all the circumstances of the case, and praying the judgment of the court, whether, for instance, on the facts stated, it be murder, manslaughter, or no crime at all. This is where they doubt the matter of the law, and therefore choose to leave it to the determination of the court; though they have an unquestionable right of determining upon all the circumstances and finding a general verdict, if they think proper so to hazard a breach of their oaths; and, if their verdict be notoriously wrong, they may be punished and the verdict set aside by attaint at the suit of the King, but not at the suit of the prisoner. But the practice heretofore in use of fining, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing jurors, merely at the discretion of the court, for finding their verdict contrary to the direction of the Judge, was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal, and is treated as such by Sir Thomas Smith two hundred years ago, who accounted "such doings to be very violent, tyrannical, and contrary to the liberty and custom of the realm of England." For, as Sir Matthew Hale well observes, it would be a most unhappy case for the Judge[Pg 708] himself if the prisoner's fate depended upon his directions; unhappy also for the prisoner, for, if the Judge's opinion must rule the verdict, the trial by jury would be useless. Yet, in many instances where contrary to evidence the jury have found the prisoner guilty, their verdict hath been mercifully set aside and a new trial granted by the court of King's Bench; for in such case, as hath been said, it can not be set right by attaint. But there hath been yet no instance of granting a new trial where the prisoner was acquitted upon the first.
And such a public or open verdict can either be general (guilty or not guilty) or special, detailing all the circumstances of the case and asking the court for a ruling on whether, for example, based on the facts presented, it's murder, manslaughter, or no crime at all. This occurs when there is uncertainty about the legal aspects, so they choose to leave it up to the court's judgment; although they have the undeniable right to decide on all the circumstances and reach a general verdict if they feel it's worth the risk of breaking their oaths. If their verdict is clearly wrong, they could face punishment and their verdict may be overturned by attaint at the King's suit, but not by the prisoner's. However, the previous practice of fining, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing jurors at the court's discretion for giving a verdict that contradicted the Judge's direction was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal, as noted by Sir Thomas Smith two hundred years ago, who considered "such actions to be very violent, tyrannical, and against the liberty and custom of the realm of England." For, as Sir Matthew Hale rightly points out, it would place the Judge in a regrettable position if the prisoner's fate depended on their instructions; it would also be unfortunate for the prisoner, as if the Judge's opinion dictated the verdict, then the trial by jury would lose its purpose. Yet, in many cases where the jury has wrongfully found the prisoner guilty against the evidence, their verdict has been rightly overturned and a new trial granted by the court of King's Bench; because, in such situations, as mentioned, it cannot be rectified by attaint. But there has yet to be an instance of a new trial being granted when the prisoner was acquitted in the first trial.
In Wilson's Lectures, Vol. II., p. 72, the same doctrine is declared and illustrated; and he says:
In Wilson's Lectures, Vol. II., p. 72, the same teaching is stated and explained; and he says:
The jury must do their duty and their whole duty. They must decide the law as well as the fact. This doctrine is peculiarly applicable to criminal cases, and from them, indeed, derives its peculiar importance.
The jury must fulfill their duty completely. They need to determine both the law and the facts. This principle is especially relevant in criminal cases, and it gains its unique significance from them.
In Forsyth's Jury Trials, after an examination of the subject, it is said, p. 265:
In Forsyth's Jury Trials, after looking into the topic, it is stated, p. 265:
It can not therefore be denied that, in all criminal cases, the jury do virtually possess the power of deciding questions of law as well as of fact.
It cannot be denied that, in all criminal cases, the jury effectively has the power to decide questions of law as well as facts.
The authorities quoted from conclusively show that at the time the Constitution was adopted, and for nearly a quarter of a century afterward, juries were understood and declared to possess the right to pass upon questions of law as well as fact in all criminal cases; and this is all that need be shown to bring this right within the protection of the Constitution.
The authorities cited clearly demonstrate that when the Constitution was adopted, and for almost 25 years afterward, juries were recognized and stated to have the right to decide on questions of law as well as facts in all criminal cases; and this is all that needs to be established to include this right under the protection of the Constitution.
The first case it is believed in which the contrary doctrine received favor in any American court was in the case of the United States vs. Battiste, 2 Sum., 240, decided in 1835. Mr. Justice Story, in that case, said:
The first case where the opposing doctrine was accepted in any American court is thought to be the United States vs. Battiste, 2 Sum., 240, decided in 1835. Justice Story stated in that case:
My opinion is that the jury are no more judges of the law in a criminal case upon the plea of not guilty than they are in every civil case tried upon the general issue. In each of these cases their verdict, when general, is necessarily compounded of law and of fact, and includes both. In each they must necessarily determine the law as well as the fact. In each they have the physical power to disregard the law as laid down to them by the court. But I deny that in any case, civil or criminal, they have the moral right to decide the law according to their own notions or pleasure.
My view is that the jury is no more a judge of the law in a criminal case where the plea is not guilty than they are in any civil case tried on the general issue. In both situations, their verdict, when it's general, is made up of both law and fact, and includes both elements. In both, they must determine the law as well as the fact. They have the physical ability to ignore the law as presented to them by the court. However, I argue that in any case, civil or criminal, they don't have the moral right to interpret the law according to their own beliefs or preferences.
In Commonwealth vs. Porter, 10 Met., decided in 1845, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts followed the decision in Battiste's case, and held that the jury are under a moral obligation to decide the case as instructed by the court, and the court sum up the subject as follows:
In Commonwealth vs. Porter, 10 Met., decided in 1845, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts followed the decision in Battiste's case and ruled that the jury has a moral obligation to decide the case according to the court's instructions. The court summarized the issue as follows:
On the whole subject, the views of the court may be summarily expressed in the following propositions: That in all criminal cases it is competent for the jury, if they see fit, to decide upon all questions of fact embraced in the issue, and to refer the law arising thereon to the court in the form of a special verdict. But it is optional with the jury thus to return a special verdict or not, and it is within their legitimate province and power to return a general verdict if they see fit. In thus rendering a general verdict, the jury must necessarily pass upon the whole issue, compounded of the law and of the fact, and they may thus incidentally pass on questions of law.
Overall, the court's views can be summed up in the following points: In all criminal cases, the jury has the right to decide on all factual questions involved in the case and can refer any legal issues to the court in the form of a special verdict if they choose to. However, it is up to the jury to decide whether or not to return a special verdict, and they have the authority to issue a general verdict if they prefer. By delivering a general verdict, the jury must address the entire issue, which includes both the law and the facts, and they can also make incidental decisions about legal questions.
The opinion in this case was delivered by Chief-Justice Shaw, and is rather a discussion of what is a convenient distribution of powers between the court and jury than an examination into the actual state of the law; and he neither cites nor refers to a single authority from the beginning to the end of the opinion. Again, the conclusions arrived at by the opinion admit the power of the jury to decide questions of law; and[Pg 709] that, in cases where the jury acquit the defendant, there is no power to reverse or even to review the finding of the jury. And this opinion holds that the defendant, in all criminal cases, is entitled to address the jury upon the questions of law as well as of fact involved in the case. To maintain that the defendant has the right to address the jury upon matters which the jury have no right to determine, and yet that the jury possess the power—the ultimate and final power—to decide matters of law, and are nevertheless under moral obligation never to exercise the power, are palpable inconsistencies.
The opinion in this case was delivered by Chief Justice Shaw, and it's more of a discussion about how powers should be reasonably distributed between the court and the jury than a detailed look into the current state of the law; he doesn't cite or reference a single authority from start to finish. Furthermore, the conclusions in the opinion recognize the jury's ability to decide legal questions, and[Pg 709] in instances where the jury acquits the defendant, there’s no authority to overturn or even review the jury’s decision. This opinion asserts that the defendant, in all criminal cases, has the right to speak to the jury regarding both legal and factual questions in the case. Claiming that the defendant has the right to address the jury on issues that the jury has no right to decide, while also implying that the jury has the ultimate authority to decide legal matters but is morally bound never to use that power, presents clear inconsistencies.
The Supreme Court of Vermont in State vs. Croteau, 23 Ver., 14, in a very able opinion, review these two cases and other subsequent decisions which follow their doctrine, and, after an able and critical examination of all the English and American cases, repudiate this new doctrine, and declare that in criminal prosecutions it is the ancient, common-law right of the jury in favor of the prisoner to determine the whole matter in issue—the law as well as the fact.
The Supreme Court of Vermont in State vs. Croteau, 23 Ver., 14, in a well-reasoned opinion, reviews these two cases and other later decisions that follow their principles. After a thorough and critical examination of all the English and American cases, they reject this new doctrine and declare that in criminal prosecutions, it is the long-standing common-law right of the jury, in favor of the defendant, to decide the entire issue at hand—the law as well as the facts.
There are some American cases holding a contrary doctrine, but the current of American as well as of English authorities is overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that juries in criminal causes are judges of the law as well as of the facts.[176]
There are some American cases that support a different view, but the general trend of both American and English authorities strongly supports the idea that juries in criminal cases are judges of both the law and the facts.[176]
In late years there has been considerable discussion, and some contrariety of judicial opinion, in regard to the moral right of juries to find a general verdict of not guilty against the instructions of the court on matters of law. This subject, however, need not be further discussed, because it is believed that no reported case can be found denying to juries the power of determining the law as well as the fact in all criminal cases. The utmost extent to which any case goes is, that the jury, in deciding upon the law, are morally bound to adopt the opinion expressed by the court; but every case admits their power to do otherwise if they see fit. But admitting the existence of the distinction between the legal power and the moral right of juries, still the decision of the court on the trial of Miss Anthony was erroneous, because the court did not instruct the jury in regard to the law, and then leave the jury to perform their duty in the premises. On the contrary, the court took the case from the jury altogether and directed their verdict; thus denying to the jury not only the moral right, but even the power of rendering a verdict of not guilty; and refused the request of counsel to have the jury polled in regard to their verdict. No precedent has been shown for this proceeding, and it is believed none exists. It is altogether a departure from, and a most dangerous innovation upon, the well-settled method of jury-trial in criminal cases. Such a doctrine renders the trial by jury a farce. The memorialist had no jury-trial within the meaning of the Constitution, and her conviction was therefore erroneous.
In recent years, there has been a lot of discussion, and some conflicting opinions, regarding the moral right of juries to issue a general verdict of not guilty against the court's instructions on legal matters. However, this topic doesn’t need more discussion because it’s believed that there isn't any reported case denying juries the power to determine both the law and the facts in all criminal cases. The furthest any case goes is that the jury, when deciding on the law, is morally expected to follow the court's opinion; but every case allows them the power to choose otherwise if they want. Nevertheless, acknowledging the difference between the legal power and the moral right of juries, the court's decision in the trial of Miss Anthony was wrong, as the court failed to inform the jury about the law and then left them to fulfill their duty. Instead, the court removed the case entirely from the jury and ordered their verdict, denying them not only the moral right but also the power to deliver a not guilty verdict; and it rejected the request of the defense to have the jury asked about their verdict. No precedent has been presented for this action, and it’s believed none exists. This approach is a significant deviation from, and a very dangerous innovation on, the established method of jury trials in criminal cases. Such a doctrine turns the trial by jury into a mockery. The memorialist did not receive a jury trial as defined by the Constitution, making her conviction incorrect.
But it may be said that the ruling of the court was correct in point of[Pg 710] law, and, had the court submitted the case to the jury, it would have been the duty of the jury to find the memorialist guilty; therefore she is not aggrieved by the judgment which the court pronounced. Should this reasoning be adopted, it would follow that the memorialist had been tried by the court and by Congress; but it would still be true that she had been denied trial by a jury which the Constitution secures to her.
But it can be argued that the court's ruling was correct in terms of law, and if the court had submitted the case to the jury, it would have been the jury's duty to find the memorialist guilty; therefore, she is not wronged by the judgment that the court issued. If this reasoning is accepted, it would suggest that the memorialist had already been tried by both the court and Congress; however, it would still be true that she was denied a trial by jury, which the Constitution guarantees to her.
It is not safe thus to trifle with the rights of citizens. The trial by jury—the judgment of one's peers—is the shield of real innocence imperiled by legal presumptions. A Judge would charge a jury that a child who had stolen bread to escape starvation had committed the crime of larceny, but all the Judges in Christendom could not induce a jury to convict in such a case. It is the humane policy of our law, that, before any citizen shall suffer punishment, he shall be condemned by the verdict of his peers, who may be expected to judge as they would be judged. To sustain the judgment in this case, is to strike a fatal blow at this sacred right.
It’s not safe to mess with the rights of citizens. The trial by jury—the judgment of one's peers—is the protection for those who are truly innocent against legal assumptions. A judge might tell a jury that a child who stole bread to avoid starving committed the crime of theft, but no jury in the world would convict in such a situation. Our law’s compassionate approach ensures that before any citizen is punished, they must be found guilty by the verdict of their peers, who should judge as they would want to be judged. Upholding the judgment in this case would deal a serious blow to this sacred right.
But the question remains, What relief can be granted? I concur with the majority of the Committee that Congress can not remit the judgment; that would be to exercise the pardoning power. Congress can not grant a new trial; that would be an exercise of judicial power. There is no Court of the Government which has jurisdiction to review the case. In Commonwealth vs. Austin, 5 Gray, 226, Chief-Justice Shaw says:
But the question still stands: What relief can be given? I agree with the majority of the Committee that Congress cannot overturn the judgment; that would mean using the pardoning power. Congress cannot grant a new trial; that would be an act of judicial power. There is no Government Court that has the authority to review the case. In Commonwealth vs. Austin, 5 Gray, 226, Chief Justice Shaw states:
Now, when a new statute is passed, and a question of law is raised by counsel, it must first come before the court, charged by law with the conduct and superintendence of a jury trial; and, in any well-ordered system of jurisprudence, provision is made that it be re-examinable by the court of last resort. When this question is definitively adjudged by the tribunal of last resort—the principles on which it is adjudged being immutable, and the rule of law adjudged in any one case being equally applicable to every other case presenting the same facts—the decision is necessarily conclusive of the law. I do not say how and after what consideration it maybe considered as definitively decided. In the first instance it may be misunderstood or feebly presented. It may have been misapprehended by the judges, and not considered in all its bearings, or they may have wanted time and means for a careful and thorough investigation, and may therefore consent and desire to reconsider it one or more times. But I only say that, when thus definitively adjudged, the decision must be deemed conclusive and stand as a rule of law.
Now, when a new law is enacted and a legal question comes up from a lawyer, it must first go before the court responsible for overseeing a jury trial; and in any properly organized legal system, there are provisions allowing it to be reviewed by the highest court. When this question is ultimately decided by the highest court—based on principles that are unchanging, and the legal rule applied in one case also being applicable to every other case with the same facts—the decision is necessarily final. I’m not saying how and after what consideration it may be viewed as definitively decided. Initially, it might be misunderstood or poorly presented. The judges might have misinterpreted it, not considered it from all angles, or they might not have had enough time or resources for a careful and thorough review, leading them to agree to reconsider it one or more times. But I’m only saying that once it is definitively decided, the ruling must be regarded as conclusive and serves as a rule of law.
Unfortunately the United States has no "well-ordered system of jurisprudence." A citizen may be tried, condemned, and put to death by the erroneous judgment of a single inferior judge, and no court can grant him relief or a new trial. If a citizen have a cause involving the title to his farm, if it exceed two thousand dollars in value, he may bring his cause to the Supreme Court; but if it involves his liberty or his life, he can not. While we permit this blemish to exist on our judicial system, it behooves us to watch carefully the judgments inferior courts may render; and it is doubly important that we should see to it that twelve jurors shall concur with the Judge before a citizen shall be hanged, incarcerated, or otherwise punished.
Unfortunately, the United States doesn’t have a “well-ordered system of justice.” A citizen can be tried, condemned, and executed based on the wrong decision of a single lower court judge, and no court can offer them relief or a new trial. If someone has a case involving the title to their farm and it’s worth more than two thousand dollars, they can take it to the Supreme Court; but if it’s about their freedom or life, they can’t. As long as we allow this flaw to exist in our judicial system, we need to closely monitor the decisions made by lower courts; and it’s even more critical that we ensure that twelve jurors agree with the Judge before a citizen is hanged, imprisoned, or otherwise punished.
I concur with the majority of the Committee that Congress can not grant the precise relief prayed for in the memorial; but I deem it to be the duty of Congress to declare its disapproval of the doctrine asserted[Pg 711] and the course pursued in the trial of Miss Anthony; and all the more for the reason that no judicial court has jurisdiction to review the proceedings therein.
I agree with most of the Committee that Congress cannot provide the exact relief requested in the memorial; however, I believe it is Congress's responsibility to express its disapproval of the doctrine claimed[Pg 711] and the actions taken during Miss Anthony's trial, especially since no court has the authority to review the proceedings involved.
I need not disclaim all purpose to question the motives of the learned Judge before whom this trial was conducted. The best of judges may commit the gravest of errors amid the hurry and confusion of a nisiprius term; and the wrong Miss Anthony has suffered ought to be charged to the vicious system which denies to those convicted of offenses against the laws of the United States a hearing before the court of last resort—a defect it is equally within the power and the duty of Congress speedily to remedy.
I don't have to deny any intention to question the motives of the learned Judge who oversaw this trial. Even the best judges can make serious mistakes in the rush and chaos of a nisiprius term; and the injustice Miss Anthony has faced should be blamed on the flawed system that denies those convicted of federal offenses a chance to be heard by the highest court—an issue that Congress has both the power and the responsibility to fix quickly.
Matt H. Carpenter.
Matt H. Carpenter.
Mr. Tremaine, from the House Judiciary Committee, reported adversely on the prayer of Miss Anthony's Petition, and Benjamin F. Butler favorably.
Mr. Tremaine, from the House Judiciary Committee, reported unfavorably on the request of Miss Anthony's Petition, while Benjamin F. Butler reported favorably.
Forty-third Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Report No. 608, Susan B. Anthony, May 25, 1874, recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.
Forty-third Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Report No. 608, Susan B. Anthony, May 25, 1874, recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.
Mr. B. F. Butler, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following Report to accompany bill H. R. 3492:
Mr. B. F. Butler, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following report to go along with bill H. R. 3492:
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorial of Susan B. Anthony, of the city of Rochester, in the State of New York, praying that a fine alleged to have been unjustly imposed on the petitioner by a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, may be remitted, having considered the prayer of the petitioner and the statement of facts set forth in the memorial, respectfully beg leave to report:
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorial of Susan B. Anthony from the city of Rochester in New York, asking for a fine that was unfairly imposed on her by a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York to be canceled, has considered her request and the details provided in the memorial, and respectfully submits this report:
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Are these positions of the petitioner well founded? By necessary division there arise two questions: First, has Congress any power, or is there any precedent for entertaining such petition for such purpose? And, secondly, are the acts and order of the judge in accordance with the law of the land, and not in derogation of the right of the citizen to trial by jury at common law as guaranteed by the Constitution, as known and practiced in the courts of the United States? If the first should be answered in the negative, of course the committee and the House would be spared the discussion of the second.
Are the petitioner's claims valid? This breaks down into two main questions: First, does Congress have the authority, or is there any precedent for considering such a petition for this purpose? And secondly, do the actions and rulings of the judge align with the law, and do they uphold the citizen's right to a jury trial under common law as guaranteed by the Constitution, as recognized and practiced in U.S. courts? If the answer to the first question is no, then the committee and the House would naturally avoid discussing the second.
It seems to your committee that there are two very noted and historical cases which may form the precedents for this application, and favorable action thereon by Congress—in the proceeding concerning the fines imposed by the courts on Matthew Lyon and General Jackson.
It appears to your committee that there are two well-known historical cases that could set the precedent for this application, and favorable action on it by Congress—the case involving the fines imposed by the courts on Matthew Lyon and General Jackson.
Lyon was fined by a United States judge for a seditious libel. He petitioned for a remission of fine upon the ground that the law was unconstitutional under which he was convicted. That petition was very fully considered, and, in 1820, a report was presented to the Senate by Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, which, after elaborating the considerations, concludes thus:
Lyon was fined by a U.S. judge for seditious libel. He requested to have the fine waived on the basis that the law he was convicted under was unconstitutional. That request was thoroughly examined, and in 1820, a report was submitted to the Senate by Mr. Barbour from Virginia, which, after discussing the details, concludes as follows:
In this case, therefore, the committee think the Government is under a moral obligation to indemnify the petitioner.
In this situation, the committee believes the Government has a moral responsibility to compensate the petitioner.
In this claim of Lyon, after remaining before Congress until 1840, a bill, upon a favorable report of the Committee on the Judiciary, was passed by the House, restoring the fine with interest, by a vote of 124 to 15. This case, however, is subject to the criticism, that in it Congress undertook to do justice to a citizen suffering from an unconstitutional law which it had enacted, and thereby distinguishes it from the present application: but the case of General Jackson, so familiar to all that its facts need not be recited, covers that point. There was the remitting of a fine imposed by a judge in excess of his authority in acting without warrant of law.
In the Lyon claim, after being in front of Congress until 1840, a bill was passed by the House, reinstating the fine with interest, based on a favorable report from the Committee on the Judiciary, with a vote of 124 to 15. However, this case faces criticism because Congress attempted to provide justice to a citizen affected by an unconstitutional law it had created, setting it apart from the current request. But the case of General Jackson, which is well-known enough that its details don't need to be repeated, addresses that issue. In that situation, a fine imposed by a judge who exceeded his authority while acting without legal backing was remitted.
Assuming, therefore, that this application is properly before us, we come to the second question of whether, by the proceedings in court, the legal rights of the petitioner have been infringed, from which she has suffered. It would not seem to be germane to this question to inquire whether or not the petitioner had the legal right to vote, because that was a question of law fully within the competency of the judge to decide, and his decision did not necessarily work a hardship to the defendant, even if mistaken in judgment. Or, in other words, it was a rightful execution of a power intrusted to him by law, from which there was no appeal to this or any other jurisdiction.
Assuming that this application is properly before us, we move on to the second question of whether the legal rights of the petitioner have been violated through the court proceedings, causing her harm. It doesn't seem relevant to this question to ask whether the petitioner had the legal right to vote, since that was a legal issue fully within the judge's authority to decide, and his decision did not necessarily create a hardship for the defendant, even if it was a mistaken judgment. In other words, it was a proper exercise of the power given to him by law, and there was no appeal to this or any other jurisdiction.
We come, therefore, to the great question in this case: whether the judge erred in withdrawing the case from the jury. Upon this question it would seem that the judge himself vacillated in the trial, because he permitted evidence to be gone into on both sides as a question of fact, tending to show whether the petitioner did or did not vote, knowing that she had no right so to do; but afterward withdrew the consideration of that evidence, upon the fact of intention or guilty knowledge, wholly from the jury, and ordered a verdict to be entered up upon his own decision, without allowing the question either to be argued or submitted to the jury, or the jury to pass upon it.
We come to the big question in this case: did the judge make a mistake by taking the case away from the jury? It seems that the judge wavered during the trial because he allowed evidence from both sides regarding whether the petitioner voted, knowing she wasn’t allowed to do so. However, he later removed the jury's ability to consider that evidence, focusing solely on the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing, and instructed that a verdict be made based on his own judgment, without letting the issue be discussed or presented to the jury for their consideration.
There certainly can be no graver question affecting the rights of citizens than this. The whole theory of trial by jury at common law consists in the fundamental maxim that before any conviction can be had for a crime it must be passed upon by twelve good and lawful men, the peers of the accused; and the very oath prescribed to jurors by the common law most distinctly guaranteed this right to the accused: "You shall well and truly try and true deliverance make, between the King and the prisoner at the bar, according to your evidence;" while at the common law the oath prescribed in civil cases gave a right to a judge to direct the jury in the matter of law, and to direct the verdict one way or the other, as he saw fit, the oath being substantially as follows: "You shall well and truly try the issue between party and party according to the law and the evidence given you."
There can be no more serious question concerning the rights of citizens than this. The whole idea of trial by jury in common law is based on the fundamental principle that before anyone can be convicted of a crime, it must be decided by twelve good and lawful individuals, the peers of the accused; and the oath required of jurors by common law clearly guarantees this right to the accused: "You shall well and truly try and true deliverance make, between the King and the prisoner at the bar, according to your evidence;" while under common law, the oath for civil cases allowed a judge to direct the jury on matters of law and to guide the verdict in one direction or the other, as he deemed appropriate, the oath essentially stating: "You shall well and truly try the issue between party and party according to the law and the evidence given to you."
Whatever changes may have been made in the practice of the States since the time of the earlier amendments to the Constitution, certain it is that at that time, after a jury had been impaneled, there was no way that the accused could be put in jeopardy of life or limb without his cause being submitted to twelve men, and their unanimous verdict passing upon the fact of his guilt or innocence. And this right your committee deem is not one lightly to be sacrificed. Burke once said[Pg 713] that the whole English Constitution and machinery of government—not quoting words—were only to put into a jury-box twelve honest men. What advantage could it be to an accused to put twelve honest men into the jury-box, if the judge, without asking for their opinion, or without their intervention, can order a verdict of guilty to be entered up against the accused?
Whatever changes may have occurred in the practices of the States since the earlier amendments to the Constitution, it's clear that back then, once a jury was selected, there was no way the accused could be put in danger of losing their life or freedom without their case being brought before twelve people, and their unanimous decision determining their guilt or innocence. This right, your committee believes, is not something to be taken lightly. Burke once said[Pg 713] that the entire English Constitution and government were fundamentally about getting twelve honest people into a jury box. What benefit is it for the accused to have twelve honest jurors if the judge can declare a guilty verdict without seeking their opinion or involvement?
Nothing, therefore, can be of more consequence to the citizen in troublous times to protect him against the exercise of usurped or other power for oppression, than the intervention of the judgment of his peers upon the question whether he has been guilty of a crime, or alleged offense against the Government. And in the judgment of your committee, we can not too scrupulously guard, in the interest of the liberty of the citizen, this great and almost invaluable right. The friends of liberty under the common-law system have stood for it and stood by it, strenuously and assiduously, as the palladium of their liberties and the impenetrable shield of the people from oppression. By the order of the judge the defendant was deprived of this right, and if, in this case of minor consequence so far as regards the punishment inflicted, this can be done, so in the trial for murder or treason a judge may order a verdict of the jury without allowing them to pass upon the fact. It has been sometimes said "Can this be done?" We are clearly of the opinion that it can not and ought not to be done. It is sometimes said as a triumphant argument in favor of the exercise of this power, "Has not the judge the power to order a verdict of acquittal?" The answer to that, as a matter of law, is "No; he can only direct the jury that upon the facts and matter of law he believes the case can not be maintained, but that it is for the jury to say whether they will follow that direction;" and his remedy is to set aside that verdict, and that power has always been exercised at common law in favor of the prisoner, but he can not set aside the verdict of not guilty. Sometimes, in the darker hours of English jurisprudence, the judges fined the jury when they were not the obedient instruments of their will but persisted in finding the defendants in state prosecutions not guilty when the judge thought they ought to have been found guilty; but neither Jeffreys nor Scroggs ever dared to set aside a verdict of not guilty.
Nothing is more important for a citizen in troubled times than the protection against the misuse of power for oppression, especially when it comes to having the judgment of their peers regarding whether they've committed a crime or an alleged offense against the government. In the view of your committee, we must rigorously safeguard this essential and almost priceless right in the interest of individual freedom. Advocates for liberty within the common-law system have defended this principle diligently, viewing it as a cornerstone of their freedoms and an impenetrable defense against oppression. When the judge ordered the defendant to forfeit this right, it set a concerning precedent. If this can happen in a situation with minor consequences, it could also occur in serious cases like murder or treason, allowing a judge to dictate a jury's verdict without allowing them to deliberate on the facts. Some might ask, "Can this really be done?" We firmly believe it cannot and shouldn't happen. It's sometimes argued triumphantly in favor of this power that "Doesn't the judge have the authority to order an acquittal?" The legal answer is "No; he can only guide the jury by stating that based on the facts and the law, he believes the case shouldn't stand, but it’s up to the jury to decide whether they will take that guidance." The judge’s recourse is to overturn the verdict, a power that has historically been exercised in favor of the defendant at common law, but not to reverse a not guilty verdict. In some of the bleak moments in English legal history, judges imposed fines on juries when they refused to deliver a guilty verdict in state prosecutions, despite the judge's belief that a guilty verdict was warranted; however, neither Jeffreys nor Scroggs ever dared to overturn a not guilty verdict.
Your committee have been led by the great consequence of this precedent more carefully and at length to give an examination to this question to which its importance would not otherwise have entitled it. But your committee do not find it necessary to impute any intent of wrong to the learned judge who tried this case; but the effect of his error was to deprive this petitioner of a great and beneficent right, guaranteed to her as strongly as any other by the Constitution of her country, to have the question of her guilt passed upon by her peers, which error has had the same effect upon her rights as an intentional assumption of power would have had, and may have hereafter, in bad times, wherein corrupt judges, wielding instruments of power, shield themselves by precedents set by good judges in good times.
Your committee has been led by the significant implications of this precedent to examine this issue more thoroughly than its importance would usually warrant. However, your committee does not feel it's necessary to assign any ill intent to the knowledgeable judge who handled this case; still, the impact of his mistake was to deny this petitioner a vital and beneficial right, guaranteed to her just as strongly as any other by her country's Constitution: the right to have her guilt assessed by her peers. This error has affected her rights in the same way as an intentional abuse of power would have, and may do so again in the future, especially in difficult times, where corrupt judges, using their power, might protect themselves by relying on precedents established by reputable judges during better times.
Therefore, because the fine has been imposed by a court of the United States for an offense triable by jury, without the same being submitted[Pg 714] to the jury, and because the court assumed to itself the right to enter a verdict without submitting the case to the jury, and in order that the judgment of the House of Representatives, if it concur with the judgment of the committee, may, in the most signal and impressive form, mark its determination to sustain in its integrity the common-law right of trial by jury, your committee recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be granted, and to this end report the following bill, with the recommendation that it do pass.
Therefore, since the fine was imposed by a court in the United States for an offense that should be tried by a jury, without it being submitted[Pg 714] to the jury, and because the court took it upon itself to deliver a verdict without presenting the case to the jury, in order for the House of Representatives' judgment, if it aligns with the committee's judgment, to clearly and powerfully reaffirm its commitment to uphold the common-law right to a jury trial, your committee recommends that the petitioner’s request be granted, and to this end, we present the following bill, with the recommendation that it be passed.
The Inspectors were counseled to refuse to pay their fines, and take the consequences.
The Inspectors were advised to not pay their fines and accept the consequences.
House of Representatives, Washington, Feb. 22, 1874.
House of Representatives, Washington, Feb. 22, 1874.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—In regard to the Inspectors of Election, I would not, if I were they, pay, but allow any process to be served; and I have no doubt the President will remit the fine if they are pressed too far.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—Regarding the Election Inspectors, if I were in their position, I wouldn’t pay, but I would let any legal action happen. I’m sure the President will waive the fine if they’re pushed too hard.
Benjamin F. Butler.
Benjamin F. Butler.
I am yours truly,
I am yours truly,
On Miss Anthony's return home, February 26, 1874, she found the three Inspectors lodged in jail. She at once called on Judge Selden, and after consultation with him as to what could be done for their protection, telegrams were sent to influential friends in Washington, to which the following reply was received:
On Miss Anthony's return home, February 26, 1874, she found the three Inspectors locked up in jail. She immediately reached out to Judge Selden, and after discussing what could be done to protect them, telegrams were sent to influential friends in Washington, to which the following reply was received:
Washington, D. C., March 2, 1874—12 noon.
Washington, D. C., March 2, 1874—12 PM.
To Miss Susan B. Anthony:—I laid the case of the Inspectors before the President to-day. He kindly orders their pardon. Papers are being prepared.
To Miss Susan B. Anthony:—I presented the situation of the Inspectors to the President today. He has graciously approved their pardon. The necessary documents are being prepared.
A. A. Sargent.
A. A. Sargent.
An Associated Press dispatch, dated Washington, March 2, 1874, said:
An Associated Press report, dated Washington, March 2, 1874, said:
At the written request of Senator Sargent, the President to-day directed the Attorney-General to prepare the necessary papers to remit the fine and imprisonment of Hall, Marsh, and others, the Rochester Election Inspectors, who were tried and convicted in June, 1873, of registering Susan B. Anthony and other women, and receiving their votes.
At the written request of Senator Sargent, the President today instructed the Attorney General to prepare the necessary documents to lift the fine and prison sentences of Hall, Marsh, and other Rochester Election Inspectors. They were tried and convicted in June 1873 for registering Susan B. Anthony and other women and accepting their votes.
The Rochester Evening Express of Feb. 26, 1874, said:
The Rochester Evening Express of Feb. 26, 1874, said:
Tyranny in Rochester.—The arrest and imprisonment in our city jail of the Election Inspectors who received the votes of Susan B. Anthony and other ladies, at the polls of the Eighth Ward, some months ago, is a petty but malicious act of tyranny, of which the officers who are responsible for it will yet be ashamed. It should be known to the public that these young men received Miss Anthony's vote by the advice of the best legal talent that could be procured. The ladies themselves took oath that they were citizens of the United States and entitled to vote.... The Court, however, fined these inspectors $25 and costs, for an offense which at the worst is merely technical, and now, nearly nine months after conviction, in default of payment, they are seized and shut up in jail, away from their families and their business, and subjected to all the inconvenience to say nothing of the odium of such an incarceration. This is an outrage which ought[Pg 715] not to be tolerated in this country, and we shall be disappointed if public sentiment does not yet rebuke, in thunder-tones, the authorities who have perpetrated it. Miss Anthony is willing to fight her own battles and take the consequences, but she naturally feels indignant that others should suffer in this matter through no fault of their own....
Tyranny in Rochester.—The arrest and imprisonment in our city jail of the Election Inspectors who counted the votes of Susan B. Anthony and other women in the Eighth Ward several months ago is a small but spiteful act of tyranny, and the officials responsible for it will eventually regret their actions. It's important for the public to know that these young men accepted Miss Anthony's vote based on the advice of highly regarded legal experts. The women themselves swore an oath that they were citizens of the United States and had the right to vote.... The Court, however, imposed a $25 fine and additional costs on these inspectors for what is, at most, a minor technical violation, and now, almost nine months after their conviction, they are imprisoned for failing to pay the fine, separated from their families and jobs, and facing all the inconveniences—and the shame—of such imprisonment. This is a violation that should[Pg 715] not be accepted in this country, and we will be disappointed if public opinion does not vocally condemn the authorities who have committed it. Miss Anthony is ready to fight her own battles and accept the consequences, but she understandably feels outraged that others are suffering for something they didn’t do....
The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle of March 26th, said:
The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle from March 26th said:
An Outrage.—.... We regard this action on the part of District Attorney Crowley as an outrage, in that these young men, who, at the worst, are but accessories in the violation of law, are made to feel its terrors, while the chief criminal is allowed to defy the law with impunity. No effort has been made to satisfy the judgment of the court against Miss Anthony. She contemns the law which adjudged her guilty, and its duly appointed administrators are either too timid or too negligent of duty to endeavor to enforce it.... It is doubtful whether they had the right to refuse those votes. In any event their offense is venial as compared with hers. It does not look well for the District Attorney thus to proceed against the lesser offenders, while the chief offender snaps her fingers at the law, and dares its ministers to make her a martyr.... We write in no spirit of vindictiveness, nor even in one of antagonism toward Miss Anthony; but in the name of justice we are called upon to protest against the unseemly proceeding which persecutes those excellent young men and hesitates to attack this woman, who stands as a representative of what she regards a great reform, and in its advocacy shrinks not from any of the terrors the law may have in store for her. Mr. District Attorney, it is your duty to arrest Miss Anthony; to cross swords with an antagonist worthy of your steel. Your present action looks ignoble, and is unworthy of you or of the office you fill.
An Outrage.—.... We see District Attorney Crowley's actions as an outrage, as these young men, who are at worst just minor players in breaking the law, are made to feel its harsh consequences, while the main criminal is free to disregard the law without any repercussions. No attempts have been made to enforce the court's judgment against Miss Anthony. She openly disdains the law that found her guilty, and those responsible for enforcing it are either too afraid or too negligent to act.... It's questionable whether they even had the authority to deny those votes. Regardless, their wrongdoing pales in comparison to hers. It doesn’t look right for the District Attorney to go after the lesser offenders while the primary offender mocks the law and dares its enforcers to turn her into a martyr.... We are not expressing this out of spite or even hostility toward Miss Anthony; rather, in the name of justice, we feel compelled to speak out against the inappropriate actions that persecute these outstanding young men while shying away from confronting this woman, who believes she is fighting for a significant reform and is not afraid of any consequences the law may impose on her. Mr. District Attorney, it is your duty to arrest Miss Anthony and to engage with an opponent who is truly worthy of your efforts. Your current actions seem dishonorable and are unworthy of you or the position you hold.
More than a week elapsed before the arrival of President Grant's pardon papers, and during that time hundreds of the people of Rochester visited the "boys" in jail, and the best of dinners were furnished them daily by the fourteen women voters of the Eighth Ward.
More than a week passed before President Grant's pardon papers arrived, and during that time, hundreds of people from Rochester visited the "boys" in jail, with the fourteen women voters of the Eighth Ward providing them with the best dinners every day.
VIRGINIA L. MINOR'S PETITION
in the circuit court of st. louis county, december term, 1872.
In the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, December Term, 1872.
St. Louis County, ss.: Virginia L. Minor and Francis Minor, her husband, Plaintiffs, vs. Reese Happersett, Defendant.
St. Louis County, ss.: Virginia L. Minor and Francis Minor, her husband, Plaintiffs, vs. Reese Happersett, Defendant.
The plaintiff, Virginia L. Minor (with whom is joined her husband, Francis Minor, as required by the law of Missouri), states, that under the Constitution and law of Missouri, all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by law, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise.
The plaintiff, Virginia L. Minor (along with her husband, Francis Minor, as required by Missouri law), states that under the Constitution and the laws of Missouri, anyone who wants to vote in an election must first be registered as specified by law, which is a necessary condition to be eligible to vote.
That on the fifteenth day of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), and long prior thereto, she was a native-born, free white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, and on the day last mentioned she was over the age of twenty-one years.
That on October 15, 1872 (one of the days set by law for voter registration), and long before that date, she was a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and the State of Missouri, and on the date mentioned, she was over the age of twenty-one.
That on said day, the plaintiff was a resident of the thirteenth election district of the city and county of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, and had[Pg 716] been so residing in said county and election district, for the entire period of twelve months and more, immediately preceding said fifteenth day of October, 1872, and for more than twenty years had been and is a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of the county and State aforesaid.
That on that day, the plaintiff lived in the thirteenth election district of the city and county of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, and had[Pg 716] been living in that county and election district for over twelve months leading up to the fifteenth day of October, 1872. For more than twenty years, he had been and continues to be a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of the county and state mentioned above.
That on said last mentioned day, the defendant, having been duly and legally appointed Registrar for said election district, and having accepted the said office of Registrar and entered upon the discharge of the duties thereof at the office of registration, to wit: No. 2004 Market Street, in said city and county of St. Louis, it became and was then and there his duty to register all citizens, resident in said district as aforesaid, entitled to the elective franchise, who might apply to him for that purpose.
That on the last mentioned day, the defendant, who had been officially appointed as the Registrar for that election district, accepted the position of Registrar and began carrying out the duties of the role at the registration office, specifically located at No. 2004 Market Street, in the city and county of St. Louis. It then became his responsibility to register all citizens living in that district who were eligible to vote and who came to him for that purpose.
The plaintiff further states, that wishing to exercise her privilege as a citizen of the United States, and vote for Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a Representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the General Election held in November, 1872: While said defendant was so acting as Registrar, on said 15th day of October, 1872, she appeared before him, at his office aforesaid, and then and there offered to take and subscribe the oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Missouri, as required by the registration law of said State, approved March 10, 1871, and respectfully applied to him to be registered as a lawful voter, which said defendant then and there refused to do.
The plaintiff further states that, wanting to exercise her rights as a citizen of the United States and vote for Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, as well as for a Representative in Congress and other officials during the General Election held in November 1872: While the defendant was acting as Registrar on October 15, 1872, she appeared before him at his office and offered to take the oath to support the Constitution of the United States and that of the State of Missouri, as required by the registration law of that State, approved March 10, 1871, and respectfully requested to be registered as a lawful voter, which the defendant refused to do.
The plaintiff further states, that the defendant, well knowing that she, as a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, resident as aforesaid, was then and there entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship, chief among which is the elective franchise, and as such, was entitled to be registered, in order to exercise said privilege: yet, unlawfully intending, contriving, and designing to deprive the plaintiff of said franchise or privilege, then and there knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and corruptly refused to place her name upon the list of registered voters, whereby she was deprived of her right to vote.
The plaintiff further states that the defendant, fully aware that she, as a citizen of the United States and the State of Missouri, was entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship, especially the right to vote, was entitled to be registered in order to exercise that right. Yet, with the unlawful intent to deprive the plaintiff of that right, the defendant knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and corruptly refused to add her name to the list of registered voters, thereby denying her the right to vote.
Defendant stated to plaintiff, that she was not entitled to be registered, or to vote, because she was not a "male" citizen, but a woman! That by the Constitution of Missouri, Art. II., Sec. 18, and by the aforesaid registration law of said State, approved March 10, 1871, it is provided and declared, that only "male citizens" of the United States, etc., are entitled or permitted to vote.
Defendant told plaintiff that she wasn't allowed to be registered or to vote because she wasn't a "male" citizen, but a woman! According to the Constitution of Missouri, Art. II., Sec. 18, and the registration law of the state approved on March 10, 1871, it states and declares that only "male citizens" of the United States, etc., are allowed to vote.
But the plaintiff protests against such decision, and she declares and maintains that said provisions of the Constitution and registration law of Missouri aforesaid, are in conflict with, and repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, which is paramount to State authority; and that they are especially in conflict with the following articles and clauses of said Constitution of the United States, to wit:
But the plaintiff disagrees with this decision, and she states and insists that the mentioned provisions of the Constitution and registration law of Missouri are in conflict with and contradict the Constitution of the United States, which takes precedence over state authority; and that they are particularly in conflict with the following articles and clauses of the Constitution of the United States, namely:
Art. I. Sec. 9.—Which declares that no Bill of Attainder shall be passed.
Art. I. Sec. 9.—This states that no Bill of Attainder can be enacted.
Art. I. Sec. 10.—No State shall pass any Bill of Attainder, or grant any title of nobility.
Art. I. Sec. 10.—No State can pass any Bill of Attainder or grant any titles of nobility.
Art. IV. Sec. 2.—The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.
Art. IV. Sec. 2.—The citizens of each State are entitled to all the privileges and rights of citizens in other States.
Art. IV. Sec. 4.—The United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government.
Art. IV. Sec. 4.—The United States will ensure that every State has a republican form of government.
Art. VI.—This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.[Pg 717]
Art. VI.—This Constitution and the laws of the United States that are made in accordance with it will be the highest law of the land, regardless of anything in the Constitutions or laws of any State that might disagree.[Pg 717]
AMENDMENTS.
Art. V.—No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Art. V.—No one shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Art. IX.—The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Art. IX.—Listing certain rights in the Constitution doesn’t mean that other rights held by the people are denied or belittled.
Art. XIV. Sec. 1.—All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.
Art. XIV. Sec. 1.—All individuals born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the state where they live. No state can create or enforce any law that limits the privileges or rights of U.S. citizens. Nor can any state take away a person's life, freedom, or property without following due process; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.
The plaintiff states, that by reason of the wrongful act of the defendant as aforesaid, she has been damaged in the sum of ten thousand dollars, for which she prays judgment.
The plaintiff claims that, due to the defendant's wrongful actions mentioned above, she has suffered damages totaling ten thousand dollars, for which she requests a judgment.
John M. Krum,
Francis Minor,
John B. Henderson,} Att'ys for Plffs. Demurrer. In the Circuit Court of St. Louis County: Virginia L. Minor and Francis Minor, her husband, Plaintiffs, vs. Reese Happersett.
Demurrer. In the Circuit Court of St. Louis County: Virginia L. Minor and her husband, Francis Minor, Plaintiffs, vs. Reese Happersett.
The defendant, Reese Happersett, demurs to the petition of plaintiffs, and for cause of demurrer defendant states that said petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, for the following reasons:
The defendant, Reese Happersett, raises an objection to the plaintiffs' petition, stating that the petition does not provide enough facts to establish a valid cause of action for the following reasons:
1. Because said Virginia L. Minor, plaintiff, had no right to vote at the general election held in November, 1872, in said petition referred to.
1. Because Virginia L. Minor, the plaintiff, had no right to vote in the general election that took place in November 1872, as mentioned in the petition.
2. Because said Virginia L. Minor had no right to be registered for voting by said defendant, at the time and in the manner in said petition alleged.
2. Because Virginia L. Minor had no right to be registered to vote by the defendant at the time and in the way stated in the petition.
3. Because it was the duty of the defendant to refuse to place said Virginia L. Minor's name upon the list of registered voters in said petition referred to.
3. Because it was the defendant's responsibility to deny putting Virginia L. Minor's name on the list of registered voters mentioned in the petition.
All of which appears by said petition.
All of this is shown by the mentioned petition.
Smith P. Galt, Atty for Deft.
Smith P. Galt, Atty for Deft.
The defense, in substance, being based upon the Constitution of Missouri, which provides (Art. II., Sec. 18) that "every male citizen of the United States, etc., ... shall be entitled to vote"; and also upon the registration law of said State, approved March 10, 1871, which is as follows:
The defense essentially relies on the Constitution of Missouri, which states (Art. II., Sec. 18) that "every male citizen of the United States, etc., ... shall be entitled to vote"; and also on the registration law of that State, approved March 10, 1871, which is as follows:
An act to provide for a uniform registration of voters, the appointment of judges of elections, and repealing all former acts relating thereto.
An act to create a consistent system for registering voters, appointing election judges, and canceling all previous laws related to this.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:
Section 1.—Every male citizen of the United States, and every person of foreign birth who may have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, according to law, not less than one year nor more than five years before he offers to vote, who is over the age of twenty-one years, who has resided in this State one year next preceding his registration as a voter, and during the last sixty days of that period shall have resided in the county, city, or town where he seeks registration as a voter, who is not convicted of bribery, perjury, or other infamous crime, nor directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election for which such registration is made, nor serving at the time of such registration in the regular army or navy of the United States, shall be entitled to vote at such elections for all officers, State, county, or municipal, made elective by the people, or any other election held in pursuance of the laws of this State; but he shall not vote elsewhere than in the election district where his name is registered, except as provided in the twenty-first section of the second article of the Constitution.
Section 1.—Every male citizen of the United States, and every person born outside the U.S. who has declared their intention to become a U.S. citizen according to the law, must have done so at least one year and no more than five years before they offer to vote. They must be over the age of twenty-one, have lived in this State for one year prior to their voter registration, and during the last sixty days of that time, must have resided in the county, city, or town where they want to register. They should not have been convicted of bribery, perjury, or any other serious crime, nor should they have any direct or indirect interest in any bet or wager based on the outcome of the election for which they are registering. Additionally, they should not be serving in the regular army or navy of the United States at the time of registration. They will be entitled to vote in such elections for all officers, State, county, or municipal, that are elected by the people, or in any other election held according to the laws of this State; but they may only vote in the election district where they are registered, except as provided in the twenty-first section of the second article of the Constitution.
Sec. 2.—The several clerks of the County Courts in this State shall provide a suitable registration book for each election district in their several counties, which shall have written or printed therein the following oath: "We the undersigned, do solemnly swear[Pg 718] or affirm that we will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Missouri."
Sec. 2.—The clerks of the County Courts in this State will provide a proper registration book for each election district in their respective counties, which will have the following oath written or printed inside: "We the undersigned, do solemnly swear[Pg 718] or affirm that we will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Missouri."
Sec. 3.—On or before the 9th day of March, 1871, the several County Courts in this State shall appoint some competent person to act as Registrar in each election district in their respective counties, who shall have the qualifications of an elector in his election district, and who shall hold his office until the general election in 1872, and until his successor is elected and qualified. Said Registrar shall have authority to administer all oaths which may be necessary in the registration of voters.
Sec. 3.—On or before March 9, 1871, the County Courts in this State will appoint a qualified person to serve as Registrar for each election district in their counties. This person must meet the voting qualifications for their election district and will hold the position until the general election in 1872, or until a successor is elected and qualified. The Registrar will have the authority to administer any necessary oaths for voter registration.
Sec. 4.—Any person having the qualification of a voter as prescribed in the first section of this act, and who shall take and subscribe the oath required of voters by the second section of this act, and who applies for registration at the time and in the manner prescribed by law, and any naturalized citizen who shall subscribe to a written statement, under oath, before the Registrar, that he is naturalized according to the laws of the United States and of this State, and has resided in this State, according to the first section of this act, and that his naturalization papers or evidence of his citizenship have been lost or destroyed, or that the same are not accessible to him, and shall state where he was naturalized, shall be accepted by the registering officer, and duly registered as a qualified voter.
Sec. 4.—Anyone who meets the qualifications to vote as outlined in the first section of this act, and who takes and signs the oath required of voters by the second section of this act, and who applies for registration at the time and in the way specified by law, as well as any naturalized citizen who signs a written statement, under oath, in front of the Registrar, confirming that he is naturalized according to the laws of the United States and this State, has lived in this State according to the first section of this act, and that his naturalization papers or proof of citizenship have been lost or destroyed, or that they are not accessible to him, and who specifies where he was naturalized, will be accepted by the registering officer and properly registered as a qualified voter.
It is claimed, therefore, that the defendant was justified in refusing to register the plaintiff on account of her sex. The plaintiff, however, denies the validity of this clause of the Missouri Constitution, and the registration act based thereon, and contends that they are in violation of, and repugnant to, the Constitution of the United States, and particularly to those articles and clauses thereof which she has specified in her petition.
It is argued, therefore, that the defendant was right to refuse to register the plaintiff because of her gender. The plaintiff, however, challenges the validity of this part of the Missouri Constitution and the registration act that stems from it, claiming they violate and contradict the Constitution of the United States, particularly the articles and clauses she has mentioned in her petition.
It is admitted, by the pleadings, that the plaintiff is a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri; that the defendant is a Registrar, qualified and acting as such; that the plaintiff, in proper time and in proper form made application to him to be registered, and that the defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the reason that she is a female (and that she possesses the qualifications of an elector, in all respects, except as to the matter of sex, as before stated).
It is acknowledged in the legal documents that the plaintiff is a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and the State of Missouri; that the defendant is a qualified Registrar and is acting in that role; that the plaintiff submitted her application to be registered in a timely and correct manner, and that the defendant refused to register her solely because she is a woman (and that she meets all the qualifications of a voter in every way, except for her gender, as mentioned earlier).
The question is thus broadly presented of a conflict between the Constitution of the State of Missouri and that of the United States, as contemplated by the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789, and the supplemental act of February 5, 1867.
The question is therefore widely presented regarding a conflict between the Constitution of the State of Missouri and that of the United States, as outlined by the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789, and the supplemental act of February 5, 1867.
Assignment of Errors.—And now comes Virginia L. Minor, the plaintiff in error in the above entitled cause, by her attorneys, John B. Henderson, John M. Krum, and Francis Minor, and says that in the records and proceedings in the above entitled cause, in said Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, there is manifest error in this, to wit:
Assignment of Errors.—And now Virginia L. Minor, the plaintiff in error in the above-mentioned case, by her attorneys, John B. Henderson, John M. Krum, and Francis Minor, states that there is a clear error in the records and proceedings in this case, in the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, namely:
1st. Because the said Supreme Court erred in affirming the judgment of the St. Louis Circuit Court—thereby, in effect, sustaining the demurrer filed in said Circuit Court by the defendant to the petition of the plaintiff.
1st. Because the Supreme Court made a mistake in upholding the judgment of the St. Louis Circuit Court, effectively supporting the defendant's demurrer against the plaintiff's petition.
2d. Because the said Supreme Court erred in its judgment affirming the judgment of the St. Louis Circuit Court—thereby, in effect, declaring that the plaintiff in error was not entitled to vote at the election mentioned in the record.
2d. Because the Supreme Court made a mistake in its decision upholding the St. Louis Circuit Court's ruling—essentially declaring that the plaintiff in error was not allowed to vote in the election mentioned in the record.
3. Because the said Supreme Court of Missouri erred in affirming the judgment of the St. Louis Circuit Court—thereby, in effect, declaring that the Constitution and laws of Missouri, before recited, do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
3. Because the Supreme Court of Missouri made a mistake in upholding the judgment of the St. Louis Circuit Court—essentially stating that the Constitution and laws of Missouri mentioned earlier do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
Statement.—This was an action, brought by the plaintiff, against the defendant, a registering officer, for refusing to register her as a lawful voter.
Statement.—This was a lawsuit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, a registration officer, for not allowing her to register as a legitimate voter.
The defendant demurred to the petition, the defense, in substance, being[Pg 719] based upon the Constitution of Missouri, which provides (Art 2, Sec. 18) that "every male citizen of the United States, etc., ... shall be entitled to vote";—and also upon the registration law of said State, approved March 10, 1871, to the same effect; and it was claimed, therefore, that the defendant was justified in refusing to register the plaintiff on account of her sex.
The defendant objected to the petition, arguing that under the Constitution of Missouri (Art 2, Sec. 18), "every male citizen of the United States, etc., ... shall be entitled to vote." The defense also relied on the registration law of the state, approved on March 10, 1871, which supports the same principle. Therefore, it was claimed that the defendant was justified in denying the plaintiff registration due to her sex.
The plaintiff, however, denied the validity of this clause of the Missouri Constitution, and the registration act based thereon, and contended that they are in violation of, and repugnant to, the Constitution of the United States, and particularly to those articles and clauses thereof which she had specified in her petition.
The plaintiff, however, challenged the validity of this clause in the Missouri Constitution and the registration act based on it, arguing that they violate and contradict the Constitution of the United States, especially the articles and clauses she outlined in her petition.
It was admitted, by the pleadings, that the plaintiff was a native-born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri; that the defendant was a Registrar, qualified and acting as such; that the plaintiff, in proper time, and in proper form, made application to him to be registered, and that the defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the reason that she was a female (and that she possessed the qualifications of an elector, in all respects, except as to the matter of sex, as before stated). The question was thus broadly presented of a conflict between the Constitution of the State of Missouri and that of the United States, as contemplated by the 25th section of the Judiciary act of 1789, and 5th February, 1867.
It was acknowledged in the legal documents that the plaintiff was a native-born, free, white citizen of the United States and the State of Missouri; that the defendant was a Registrar, qualified and performing his duties; that the plaintiff, in a timely and proper manner, applied to him to be registered, and that the defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely because she was female (and she met all the qualifications of a voter, except for the issue of gender, as mentioned earlier). This raised a significant issue regarding a conflict between the Constitution of the State of Missouri and that of the United States, as outlined by the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and February 5, 1867.
Argument and Brief.—We think the chief difficulty in this case is one of fact rather than of law. The practice is against the plaintiff. The States, with one exception, which we shall notice hereafter more in detail, have uniformly claimed and exercised the right to act, as to the matter of suffrage, just as they pleased—to limit or extend it, as they saw proper. And this is the popular idea on the subject. Men accept it as a matter of fact, and take for granted it must be right. So in the days of African slavery, thousands believed it to be right—even a Divine institution. But this belief has passed away; and, in like manner, this doctrine of the right of the States to exercise unlimited and absolute control over the elective franchise of citizens of the United States, must and will give way to a truer and better understanding of the subject. The plaintiff's case is simply one of the means by which this end will ultimately be reached.
Argument and Brief.—We believe the main challenge in this case is more about facts than law. The practice is against the plaintiff. The States, with one exception that we will discuss in more detail later, have consistently claimed and exercised the right to manage suffrage as they see fit—to limit or extend it as they think is appropriate. This is the common belief on the topic. People accept it as a fact and assume it must be correct. Just like in the days of African slavery, where many thought it was right—even a Divine institution. But that belief has faded away, and similarly, this idea that States have unlimited and absolute control over the voting rights of U.S. citizens must and will evolve into a more accurate and better understanding of the issue. The plaintiff's case is simply one of the ways to achieve this eventual change.
We claim, and presume it will not be disputed, that the elective franchise is a privilege of citizenship within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. In order to get a clearer idea of the true meaning of this term citizenship, it may be well to recur for a moment to its first introduction and use in American law.
We assert, and we expect this won't be challenged, that the right to vote is a privilege of citizenship under the Constitution of the United States. To better understand the true meaning of the term citizenship, it might be helpful to briefly revisit its initial introduction and application in American law.
Before the colonists asserted their independence they were politically bound to the sovereign of Great Britain, by what is termed in English law, "allegiance"; and those from whom this allegiance was due were termed "subjects." But when these "bands," as they are termed in the Declaration of Independence, were dissolved, the political relation became changed, and we no longer hear in the United States the term "subject" and "allegiance," except the latter, which is used to express the paramount duty of our citizens to our own government. The term citizen was substituted for that of "subject." But this was not a mere change of name; the[Pg 720] men who framed the Constitution of the United States had all been "subjects" of the English king, and they well knew the radical change wrought by the revolution.
Before the colonists declared their independence, they were politically tied to the ruler of Great Britain through what is known in English law as "allegiance," and those owed this allegiance were called "subjects." However, when these "bonds," as referred to in the Declaration of Independence, were broken, the political relationship changed, and we no longer hear the terms "subject" and "allegiance" in the United States, except for the latter, which is used to express the primary duty of our citizens to our own government. The term "citizen" replaced "subject." But this was more than just a name change; the[Pg 720] men who created the Constitution of the United States had all been "subjects" of the English king, and they understood the significant change brought about by the revolution.
In the new political sovereignty thus created, the feudal idea of dependence gave way to that of independence, and the people became their own sovereigns or rulers in the government of their own creation. Of this body politic, represented by the Constitution of the United States, all persons born or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are members; without distinction as to political rights or privileges, except that the head or chief of the new government must be native-born—and this exception the more strongly proves the rule. It is to this Constitution, therefore, we must look for the limitations, if any, that may be placed upon the political rights of the people or citizens of the United States. A limitation not found there, or authorized by that instrument, can not be legally exercised by any lesser or inferior jurisdiction.
In the new political sovereignty that was established, the feudal concept of dependence was replaced by independence, allowing the people to become their own rulers in the government they created. This political body, represented by the Constitution of the United States, includes all individuals born or naturalized in the country and subject to its laws, without distinction regarding political rights or privileges, except that the head or chief of the new government must be a native-born citizen—and this exception actually reinforces the general rule. Therefore, we must refer to this Constitution for any limitations that may be placed on the political rights of the people or citizens of the United States. Any limitation not found in or authorized by that document cannot be legally enforced by any lesser authority.
But the subject of suffrage (or the qualifications of electors, as the Constitution terms it) is simply remitted to the States by the Constitution, to be regulated by them; not to limit or restrict the right of suffrage, but to carry the same fully into effect. It is impossible to believe that anything more than this was intended. In the first place, it would be inconsistent and at variance with the idea of the supremacy of the Federal government; and, next, if the absolute, ultimate, and unconditional control of the matter had been intended to be given to the States, it would have been so expressed. It would not have been left to doubt or implication. In so important a matter as suffrage, the chief of all political rights or privileges, by which, indeed, life, liberty, and all others are guarded and maintained, and without which they would be held completely at the mercy of others; we repeat, it is impossible to conceive that this was intended to be left wholly and entirely at the discretion of the States.
But the issue of voting rights (or the qualifications of voters, as the Constitution puts it) is simply left to the States by the Constitution to be managed by them; not to limit or restrict the right to vote, but to fully implement it. It's hard to believe that anything more than this was meant. First, it would contradict the idea of the Federal government's supremacy; and second, if complete and unconditional control over the matter was meant to be given to the States, it would have been clearly stated. It wouldn't have been left up for interpretation. In such a crucial matter as voting, which is the most important political right or privilege that protects life, liberty, and all other rights, and without which those rights would be completely vulnerable to others, we repeat, it is impossible to think that this was meant to be left entirely to the States' discretion.
A right so important must not be the subject of implication.[177] Some positive warrant or authority must be shown for it, and in the case at bar we challenge its production. There is another view of the subject that is important to be considered. There can be no division of citizenship, either of its rights or its duties. There can be no half-way citizenship. Woman, as a citizen of the United States, is entitled to all the benefits of that position, and liable to all its obligations, or to none. Only citizens are permitted to pre-empt land, obtain passports, etc., all of which woman can do; and, on the other hand, she is taxed (without her "consent") in further recognition of her citizenship; and yet, as to this chief privilege of all, she is forbidden to exercise it. We call upon the State to show its warrant for so doing—for inflicting upon the plaintiff and the class to which she belongs, the bar of perpetual disfranchisement, where no crime or offense is alleged or pretended, and without "due process of law."
A right this important should not be something implied.[177] There needs to be some clear justification or authority for it, and in this case, we challenge that justification. There’s another perspective on this issue that’s crucial to consider. Citizenship cannot be divided in terms of its rights or its responsibilities. There’s no such thing as partial citizenship. As a citizen of the United States, a woman is entitled to all the benefits that come with that status and is responsible for all its obligations, or none at all. Only citizens can pre-empt land, obtain passports, and so on—all of which women can do; yet, on the flip side, she is taxed (without her "consent") as further acknowledgment of her citizenship, and yet, when it comes to this most fundamental right, she is barred from exercising it. We urge the State to provide its justification for this—to impose on the plaintiff and her class the barrier of ongoing disenfranchisement, where no crime or offense is claimed or suggested, and without "due process of law."
We charge it as a "bill of attainder" of the most odious and oppressive character. The State can no more deprive a citizen of the United States of one privilege than of another, except by the "law of the land." There is no[Pg 721] security for freedom if this be denied. To use the language of Mr. Madison, such a course "violates the vital principle of free government, that those who are to be bound by laws, ought to have a voice in making them." (Madison Papers, vol. 3—appendix, p. 12.)
We see it as a "bill of attainder" that is extremely unfair and oppressive. The State cannot take away one privilege from a United States citizen any more than any other, except through the "law of the land." There is no[Pg 721] security for freedom if this is denied. In the words of Mr. Madison, such an action "violates the vital principle of free government, that those who are to be bound by laws ought to have a voice in making them." (Madison Papers, vol. 3—appendix, p. 12.)
It is sometimes said this is one of the "reserved rights" of the States. But this can not be, for the simple reason that, as to the "privileges and immunities" of federal citizenship, they had no existence prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution; how then could they be reserved?
It is sometimes said that this is one of the "reserved rights" of the States. But this can't be true because, regarding the "privileges and immunities" of federal citizenship, they didn't exist before the adoption of the Federal Constitution; so how could they be reserved?
As Mr. Justice Story says: "The States can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out of the existence of the National Government, which the Constitution does not delegate to them.... No State can say that it has reserved what it never possessed." (Commentaries, §§ 624-627.)
As Mr. Justice Story says: "The States can exercise no powers at all that solely arise from the existence of the National Government, which the Constitution does not give to them.... No State can claim it has reserved what it never had." (Commentaries, §§ 624-627.)
We say, then, that the States may regulate, but they have no right to prohibit the franchise to citizens of the United States. They may prescribe the qualifications of the electors. They may require that they shall be of a certain age, be of sane mind, be free from crime, etc., because these are conditions for the good of the whole, and to which all citizens, sooner or later, may attain. But to single out a class of citizens and say to them, "Notwithstanding you possess all these qualifications, you shall never vote, or take part in your government," what is it but a bill of attainder?
We assert that states can regulate, but they have no right to deny voting rights to citizens of the United States. They can set the qualifications for voters. They can require that voters be of a certain age, have a sound mind, be free from criminal convictions, and so on, since these are conditions that benefit everyone and that all citizens can eventually meet. However, to target a specific group of citizens and tell them, "Even though you meet all these qualifications, you will never be allowed to vote or participate in your government," what is that if not a bill of attainder?
To show that the mere regulation of this matter of suffrage was left to the States for the purpose we have indicated, and not to their absolute and ultimate control, we will now quote the language of one of the framers of the Constitution, to whom, indeed, has been applied the epithet of "Father of the Constitution"—James Madison; and this, too, in reply to questions by Mr. Monroe, who sought an explanation on these very points. We quote from the debates in the Virginia convention upon the adoption of the Federal Constitution:
To demonstrate that the regulation of voting rights was given to the States for the reasons we've mentioned, and not for their complete and final authority, we will now reference a statement from one of the framers of the Constitution, known as the "Father of the Constitution"—James Madison. This was in response to questions from Mr. Monroe, who was looking for clarification on these specific issues. We will quote from the discussions in the Virginia convention regarding the adoption of the Federal Constitution:
Mr. Monroe wished that the honorable gentleman who had been in the Federal Convention would give information respecting the clause concerning elections. He wished to know why Congress had an ultimate control over the time, place, and manner of elections of Representatives, and the time and manner of that of Senators, and also why there was an exception as to the place of electing Senators.
Mr. Monroe wanted the respected gentleman who had been in the Federal Convention to provide some insight about the clause regarding elections. He wanted to understand why Congress had the final say over the timing, location, and way of electing Representatives, as well as the timing and method for Senators, and also why there was a different rule for where Senators were elected.
Mr. Madison: Mr. Chairman, the reason of the exception was, that if Congress could fix the place of choosing the Senators, it might compel the State Legislatures to elect them in a different place from that of their usual sessions, which would produce some inconvenience, and was not necessary for the object of regulating the elections. But it was necessary to give the General Government a control over the time and manner of choosing the Senators, to prevent its own dissolution.
Mr. Madison: Mr. Chairman, the reason for the exception was that if Congress could decide where to elect the Senators, it might force State Legislatures to choose them in a location different from their usual meeting place, causing some inconvenience, which wasn't needed for the purpose of regulating elections. However, it was important to grant the General Government authority over the timing and method of electing Senators to prevent its own collapse.
With respect to the other point, it was thought that the regulation of time, place, and manner of electing the Representatives should be uniform throughout the continent. Some States might regulate the elections on the principles of equality, and others might regulate them otherwise. This diversity would be obviously unjust. Elections are regulated now unequally in some States, particularly South Carolina, with respect to Charleston, which is represented by thirty members.
In regard to the other point, it was believed that the rules for the time, place, and manner of electing Representatives should be consistent across the entire continent. Some States might set election regulations based on principles of equality, while others might do the opposite. This inconsistency would clearly be unfair. Elections are currently regulated unequally in some States, especially South Carolina, where Charleston is represented by thirty members.
Should the people of any State by any means be deprived of the right of suffrage, it was judged proper that it should be remedied by the General Government.
If the people of any state are deprived of their right to vote, it is considered appropriate for the federal government to address the issue.
It was found impossible to fix the time, place, and manner of the election of Representatives in the Constitution. It was found necessary to leave the regulation of these, in the first place, to the State Government, as being best acquainted with the situation of the people, subject to the control of the General Government, in order to enable it to produce[Pg 722] uniformity, and prevent its own dissolution. And, considering the State Governments and General Government as distinct bodies, acting in different and independent capacities for the people, it was thought the particular regulations should be submitted to the former and the general regulations to the latter. Were they exclusively under the control of the State Governments, the General Government might easily be dissolved. But if they be regulated properly by the State Legislature, the Congressional control will very properly never be exercised. The power appears to me satisfactory, and as unlikely to be abused as any part of the Constitution. (Elliot's Debates, vol. 2, pages 276-7.)
It was found impossible to determine the time, place, and method of electing Representatives in the Constitution. It was deemed necessary to leave the regulation of these matters primarily to the State Governments, as they are best familiar with the needs of their people, while still being under the supervision of the General Government to ensure consistency and prevent its own collapse. By viewing the State Governments and the General Government as separate entities working independently for the people, it was decided that specific regulations should be handled by the former and general regulations by the latter. If these were solely managed by the State Governments, the General Government could easily fall apart. However, if they are properly regulated by the State Legislature, Congressional oversight will appropriately never need to be applied. This power seems satisfactory to me and is as unlikely to be misused as any other part of the Constitution. (Elliot's Debates, vol. 2, pages 276-7.)
It seems to us that nothing can be clearer or plainer than this, coming to us, as it does, with all the weight and authority of Mr. Madison himself. But it may be asked: If this be so, why was not the question sooner raised? We answer, at that very time, and for nearly twenty years afterward, women did vote, unquestioned and undisputed, in one of the States (New Jersey). The men who framed the Constitution were then living—some of them in this very State; yet we hear no mention of its being unconstitutional, no objection made to it whatever.
It seems to us that nothing could be clearer than this, especially since it comes to us with all the weight and authority of Mr. Madison himself. But one might ask: If this is true, why wasn’t the question raised earlier? We respond that at that time, and for nearly twenty years afterward, women did vote without question or dispute in one of the States (New Jersey). The men who wrote the Constitution were still alive—some of them in this very State; yet we hear no claims of it being unconstitutional, nor any objections made at all.
It is true that subsequently this provision was omitted (about 1807) in the revisal of the State Constitution (as we think, very unjustly), but the fact remains of the unquestioned exercise of this privilege by women at the very time the Federal Constitution was adopted, and for years afterward. This fact is worth a thousand theories. Again, we think that one of the causes of the popular error on this subject arises from forgetting or overlooking the dual nature of our citizenship.
It’s true that this provision was taken out (around 1807) during the review of the State Constitution (which we believe was very unfair), but the reality is that women were undeniably exercising this right at the same time the Federal Constitution was adopted, and for many years after that. This fact is more valuable than a thousand theories. Additionally, we think that one reason for the common misconception on this issue comes from forgetting or ignoring the dual nature of our citizenship.
We are citizens of a State, as well as of the United States. This is alluded to in several of the early cases, and its importance is clearly pointed out. We quote, first, from Talbut vs. Jansen, 3 Dallas, Sup. Ct. Rep., 153 (1795), in which Mr. Justice Patterson says: "The act of the Legislature of Virginia does not apply. Ballard was a citizen of Virginia, and also of the United States. If the Legislature of Virginia pass an act specifying the causes of expatriation and prescribing the manner in which it is to be effected by the citizens of that State, what can be its operation on the citizens of the United States?"
We are citizens of both a state and the United States. This is mentioned in several early cases and its significance is clearly highlighted. We quote first from Talbut vs. Jansen, 3 Dallas, Sup. Ct. Rep., 153 (1795), where Justice Patterson states: "The act of the Virginia Legislature doesn't apply. Ballard was a citizen of Virginia, as well as a citizen of the United States. If the Virginia Legislature passes a law outlining the reasons for expatriation and the process for citizens of that state to carry it out, how can it affect the citizens of the United States?"
If the act of Virginia affects Ballard's citizenship so far as respects that State, can it touch his citizenship so far as regards the United States? Allegiance to a particular State is one thing; allegiance to the United States is another. Will it be said that the renunciation of allegiance to the former implies or draws after it a renunciation of allegiance to the latter? The sovereignties are different; the allegiance is different; the right, too, may be different. Our situation being new, unavoidably creates new and intricate questions. We have sovereignties moving within a sovereignty.
If Virginia's law affects Ballard's citizenship in that state, can it also impact his citizenship in the United States? Being loyal to a specific state is one thing; being loyal to the United States is another. Can we really say that giving up allegiance to the former also means giving up allegiance to the latter? The sovereignties are distinct; the allegiance is distinct; and the rights could also be different. Our new situation inevitably raises new and complex questions. We have sovereignties operating within a larger sovereignty.
Judge Cabell, also of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, alludes to it briefly in the case of Murray vs. McCarty, 2 Munford, 398. He says: "But although the Constitution of the United States has wisely given to the citizens of each State the privileges of a citizen of any other State, yet it clearly recognizes the distinction between the character of a citizen of the United States and a citizen of any individual State, and also of citizens of different States," etc. Or, if a still further and later authority be desired, we have it in the language of Chief-Justice Taney, who says, in the Dred Scott case:
Judge Cabell, also from the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, briefly mentions it in the case of Murray vs. McCarty, 2 Munford, 398. He states: "While the Constitution of the United States wisely grants citizens of each State the privileges of a citizen of any other State, it also clearly acknowledges the difference between being a citizen of the United States and a citizen of an individual State, as well as the differences among citizens of different States," etc. If further authority is needed, we can refer to Chief Justice Taney’s comments in the Dred Scott case:
In discussing this question we must not confound the rights of citizenship, which a[Pg 723] State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States.... But if he rank as a citizen of the State to which he belongs, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, then, whenever he goes into another State, the Constitution clothes him as to the rights of person, with all the privileges and immunities which belong to citizens of the State. And if persons of the African race are citizens of a State, and of the United States, they would be entitled to all of these privileges and immunities in every State, and the State could not restrict them; for they would hold these privileges and immunities under the paramount authority of the Federal Government, and its courts would be bound to maintain and enforce them, the Constitution and laws of the State to the contrary notwithstanding. And if the States could limit or restrict them, or place the party in an inferior grade, this clause of the Constitution would be unmeaning, and could have no operation, and would give no rights to the citizen when in another State. He would have none but what the State itself chose to allow him. This is evidently not the construction or meaning of the clause in question. It guarantees rights to the citizen, and the State can not withhold them. (Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 19 Howard's Rep., pp. 405 and 422.)
In discussing this issue, we should not confuse the rights of citizenship that a State can grant within its own borders with the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. Just because someone has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State does not mean they are automatically a citizen of the United States. However, if they are recognized as a citizen of the State they belong to under the Constitution of the United States, then whenever they enter another State, the Constitution protects their personal rights, granting them all the privileges and immunities that citizens of that State enjoy. If individuals of African descent are citizens of a State and of the United States, they would have access to all these privileges and immunities in every State, and the State could not restrict them; they would hold these privileges and immunities under the supreme authority of the Federal Government, and its courts would be obligated to uphold and enforce them, regardless of any conflicting State laws. If the States could limit or restrict these rights or place individuals in a subordinate position, this clause of the Constitution would be meaningless, have no effect, and would not provide any rights to citizens when they were in another State. They would only have the rights that the State allowed. Clearly, this is not the interpretation or intention of the clause in question. It guarantees rights to citizens, and the State cannot withhold them. (Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 19 Howard's Rep., pp. 405 and 422.)
Now, substitute in the above, for "persons of the African race," women, who are "citizens of the State and of the United States," and you have the key to the whole position. We will now consider the clauses of the Constitution before recited, somewhat in detail:
Now, replace "persons of the African race" in the above with women who are "citizens of the State and of the United States," and you have the key to the entire situation. We will now look at the clauses of the Constitution mentioned earlier in a bit more detail:
As to "bills of attainder," "due process of law," etc. "No State shall pass any bill of attainder," etc. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties. In these cases the legislative body, in addition to its legitimate functions, exercises the powers and office of judge; it assumes, in the language of the text-book, judicial magistracy; it pronounces upon the guilt of the party, without any of the forms or safeguards of trial; it determines the sufficiency of the proofs produced, whether conformable to the rules of evidence or otherwise, and it fixes the degree of punishment in accordance with its own notions of the enormity of the offense. These bills are generally directed against the individuals by name, but they may be directed against a whole class.
As for "bills of attainder," "due process of law," etc., "No State shall pass any bill of attainder," etc. A bill of attainder is a legislative act that punishes someone without a judicial trial. If the punishment is less than death, it's called a bill of pains and penalties. According to the Constitution, bills of attainder also include bills of pains and penalties. In these cases, the legislative body, in addition to its legitimate functions, takes on the powers and responsibilities of a judge; it assumes, in the words of the textbook, judicial authority; it declares the guilt of the individual without any of the processes or protections of a trial; it decides whether the evidence presented is sufficient, whether it follows the rules of evidence or not, and it determines the level of punishment based on its own understanding of the severity of the offense. These bills usually target specific individuals by name, but they can also apply to an entire class.
The theory upon which our political institutions rest, is, that all men have certain inalienable rights—that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that, in the pursuit of happiness, all avocations, all honors, all positions are alike open to every one, and that, in the protection of these rights, all are equal before the law. Any deprivation or suspension of any of these rights, for past conduct, is punishment, and can be in no otherwise defined.
The theory behind our political institutions is that all people have certain inalienable rights—among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the pursuit of happiness, all careers, honors, and positions are available to everyone, and in the protection of these rights, everyone is equal under the law. Any deprivation or suspension of these rights due to past actions is considered punishment and cannot be defined in any other way.
Punishment not being therefore restricted, as contended by counsel, to the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, but also embracing deprivation or suspension of political or civil rights, and the disabilities prescribed by the provisions of the Missouri Constitution being in effect punishment, we proceed to consider whether there is any inhibition in the Constitution of the United States against their enforcement.—(Cummings vs. The State of Missouri, 4 Wallace, 351-323, and ex parte Garland—same volume.)
Punishment isn't limited, as argued by counsel, to the loss of life, liberty, or property; it also includes the loss or suspension of political or civil rights. The restrictions set by the Missouri Constitution can be considered punishment. We will now examine whether the United States Constitution has any restrictions against enforcing these provisions.—(Cummings vs. The State of Missouri, 4 Wallace, 351-323, and ex parte Garland—same volume.)
We are aware that the Supreme Court of Missouri, in the case of Blair[Pg 724] vs. Ridgley, hold a different view, but we submit that the cases differ in a most material point, to wit: In the Blair case he was merely required to take the oath taken by all voters; and, by refusing to do so, he virtually disfranchised himself. In this case, however, the disfranchisement of the plaintiff is arbitrary and insurmountable; and we further submit, that the arguments in this case present it in a different, and, we think, a broader view than was taken in the Blair case. But to show that we are not unsupported by authority in this matter, we will now quote from a New York case, very similar to the Blair case, where the elector was required, but refused to take the oath, etc.
We know that the Supreme Court of Missouri, in the case of Blair[Pg 724] vs. Ridgley, has a different opinion, but we argue that the cases differ in a significant way. In the Blair case, he was simply required to take the same oath as all voters; by refusing, he effectively disenfranchised himself. In this case, however, the plaintiff's disenfranchisement is arbitrary and impossible to overcome. We also argue that the issues in this case present it in a different, and we believe, broader perspective than in the Blair case. To demonstrate that we are not without support on this matter, we will now quote from a New York case that is very similar to the Blair case, where the voter was required but refused to take the oath, etc.
Miller, J.: This case involves the constitutional validity of that portion of the act to provide for a convention to revise and amend the Constitution of this State, which excludes from the privilege of voting all who refuse to take the test oath prescribed by the act in question.
Miller, J: This case is about the constitutional validity of the part of the act that establishes a convention to revise and amend the Constitution of this State, which denies voting rights to anyone who refuses to take the test oath required by the act in question.
I think that the oath in question was unconstitutional and invalid, for the reasons which I will proceed to state. The first subdivision of the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States provides, that "no State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or laws impairing the obligations of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." The provision of the act which is to be considered declares, that no person shall vote at the election for delegates to said convention who will not, if duly challenged, take and subscribe an oath that he has not done certain acts mentioned therein, and inflicts the penalty of political disfranchisement without any preliminary examination or trial, for a refusal to take said oath.
I believe that the oath in question was unconstitutional and invalid for the reasons I will outline. The first subdivision of the tenth section of the first article of the U.S. Constitution states that "no State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or laws impairing the obligations of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." The provision of the act we need to consider declares that no person shall vote in the election for delegates to that convention unless they take and sign an oath stating that they have not done certain acts mentioned in it, and it imposes the penalty of political disenfranchisement without any preliminary examination or trial for refusing to take this oath.
By this enactment the citizen is deprived, upon declining to conform to its mandate, of a right guaranteed to him by the Constitution and laws of the land, and one of the most inestimable and invaluable privileges of a free government. There can be no doubt, I think, that to deprive a citizen of the privileges of exercising the elective franchise, for any conduct of which he has previously been guilty, is to inflict a punishment for the act done.
By this law, a citizen loses a right guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the land if they choose not to comply with its requirements, taking away one of the most priceless privileges of a free government. I believe there is no doubt that taking away a citizen's right to vote because of any past actions is essentially punishing them for what they did.
It imposes upon him a severe penalty, which interferes with his privileges as a citizen, affects his respectability and standing in the community, degrades him in the estimation of his fellow-men, and reduces him below the level of those who constitute the great body of the people of which the Government is composed. It moreover inflicts a penalty which, by the laws of this State, is a part of the punishment inflicted for a felony, and which follows conviction for such a crime. It is one of the peculiar characteristics of our free institutions, that every citizen is permitted to enjoy certain rights and privileges, which place him upon an equality with his neighbors. Any law which takes away or abridges these rights, or suspends their exercise, is not only an infringement upon their enjoyment, but an actual punishment. That such is the practical effect of the test oath required by the act in question, can admit of no doubt, in my judgment. It arbitrarily and summarily, and without any of the forms of law, punishes for an offense created by the law itself. In the formation of our National Constitution, its framers designed to prevent and guard against the exercise of the power of the Legislature, by usurping judicial functions, and for the punishment of alleged offenses in advance of trial, for offenses unknown to the law, and by bill of attainder and ex post facto enactments, etc.—(Green vs. Shumway, 36 Howard's Practice Rep., pp. 7, 8.)
It imposes a harsh penalty on him, interfering with his rights as a citizen, impacting his reputation and standing in the community, degrading him in the eyes of others, and placing him below the majority of people who make up the Government. It also imposes a penalty that, according to the laws of this State, is part of the punishment for a felony, following a conviction for such a crime. One of the unique aspects of our free institutions is that every citizen is allowed certain rights and privileges that put him on equal footing with his neighbors. Any law that takes away or limits these rights, or suspends their exercise, is not just an infringement on their enjoyment but an actual punishment. There is no doubt, in my view, that this is the practical effect of the test oath required by the act in question. It arbitrarily and summarily punishes for an offense created by the law itself, without following any legal procedures. When the National Constitution was created, its framers intended to prevent the Legislature from abusing its power by taking on judicial functions and punishing alleged offenses before a trial, for offenses not recognized by the law, and through bills of attainder and ex post facto enactments, etc.—(Green vs. Shumway, 36 Howard's Practice Rep., pp. 7, 8.)
On the same subject, we will next quote from a decision by the Supreme Court of Nevada:
On the same topic, we will now quote from a ruling by the Supreme Court of Nevada:
Lewis, C. J.—The form of the law by which an individual is deprived of a constitutional right is immaterial. The test of its constitutionality is, whether it operates to deprive any person of a right guaranteed or given to him by the Constitution. If it does, it is a nullity, whatever may be its form. Surely a law which deprives a person of a right, by requiring him to take an oath which he can not take, is no less objectionable than one depriving him of such right in direct terms.
Lewis, C. J.—The way the law is structured to take away someone's constitutional right doesn't matter. The real question is whether it causes anyone to lose a right that's guaranteed to them by the Constitution. If it does, it's invalid, no matter how it’s presented. Clearly, a law that takes away a person's right by forcing them to take an oath they can't genuinely make is just as unacceptable as a law that directly states they are losing that right.
To make the enjoyment of a right depend upon an impossible condition, or upon the[Pg 725] doing of that which can not legally be done, is equivalent to an absolute denial of the right under any condition. The effect, and not the language of the law, in such case, must determine its constitutionality. It would not be doubted for a moment that a law expressly denying the elective franchise to any person upon whom the Constitution confers it would be unconstitutional. Why, then, is a law less objectionable which, although not expressly and directly, yet no less certainly denies the right, etc.—(Davies vs. McKeeby, 5 Nevada Rep. 7,371.)
To make the enjoyment of a right depend on an impossible condition, or on doing something that can't legally be done, is the same as completely denying that right under any circumstances. The effect, not just the wording of the law, must determine whether it's constitutional. No one would question that a law explicitly denying the right to vote to anyone whom the Constitution grants that right would be unconstitutional. So, why is a law less objectionable that, although not explicitly stated, nonetheless certainly denies the right, etc.—(Davies vs. McKeeby, 5 Nevada Rep. 7,371.)
We quote next from a Tennessee case:
We next quote from a Tennessee case:
The elective franchise is a right which the law protects and enforces as jealously as it does property in chattels or lands. It matters not by what name it is designated—the right to vote, the elective franchise, or the privilege of the elective franchise—the person who, under the Constitution and laws of the State is entitled to it, has a property in it, which the law maintains and vindicates as vigorously as it does any right of any kind which men may have and enjoy.
The right to vote is protected by law just as fiercely as property rights for personal belongings or real estate. It doesn't matter what you call it—the right to vote, the electoral franchise, or the privilege of voting—anyone who is entitled to it under the Constitution and state laws has ownership of that right. The law defends and upholds it just as strongly as it does any other rights that people may hold and enjoy.
The rules of law which guard against deprivation or injury, the rights of persons in corporeal properties, are alike and equally applicable to the elective franchise, and alike and equally guard persons invested with it against deprivation of or injury to it. Persons invested with it can not be deprived of it otherwise than by "due process of law." See
The laws that protect against loss or harm to people's physical properties apply just as much to voting rights, and they equally protect those with voting rights from being deprived of them or harmed in any way. Those who hold these rights cannot be taken away from them except through "due process of law." See
The State vs. Staten, 6 Caldwell's Rep., p. 243. See also Rison vs. Farr, 25 Ark. Rep., p. 173; Winehamer vs. People, 13 N. Y., 378; State vs. Symonds, 57 Maine, 150, 511; Huber vs. Riley, 53 Penn., 112; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations.
The State vs. Staten, 6 Caldwell's Rep., p. 243. See also Rison vs. Farr, 25 Ark. Rep., p. 173; Winehamer vs. People, 13 N. Y., 378; State vs. Symonds, 57 Maine, 150, 511; Huber vs. Riley, 53 Penn., 112; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations.
We conclude this list of references with Mr. Webster's celebrated definition in the Dartmouth College case (4 Wheaton, 581):
We end this list of references with Mr. Webster's famous definition in the Dartmouth College case (4 Wheaton, 581):
By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is, that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not, therefore, to be considered the law of the land. If this were so, acts of attainder, bills of pains and penalties, acts of confiscation, acts reversing judgments, and acts directly transferring one man's estate to another, legislative judgments, decrees and forfeiture, in all possible forms, would be the law of the land.
By the law of the land, what is meant is the general law; a law that listens before it judges, that investigates, and gives a verdict only after a trial. This means that every citizen should have their life, liberty, property, and rights protected by the general rules that govern society. Not everything that looks like a law is actually the law of the land. If it were, then acts like attainder, bills of punishment, confiscation acts, acts that overturn judgments, and acts that transfer one person's property to another, along with all types of legislative judgments, decrees, and forfeitures, would all be considered the law of the land.
Such a strange construction would render constitutional provisions of the highest importance completely inoperative and void. It would tend directly to establish the union of all powers in the Legislature. There would be no general permanent law for courts to administer, or for men to live under. The administration of justice would be an empty form—an idle ceremony. Judges would sit to execute legislative judgments and decrees; not to declare the law, or to administer the justice of the country.
Such a strange setup would make crucial constitutional provisions completely useless and invalid. It would directly lead to the consolidation of all powers in the Legislature. There wouldn’t be any general, stable laws for courts to apply or for people to live by. The administration of justice would become meaningless—just a pointless procedure. Judges would only be there to carry out legislative rulings and orders, not to interpret the law or provide justice in the country.
That the elective franchise is a privilege of citizenship, we have the authority of Judge Washington, for he says:
That the right to vote is a privilege of citizenship, we have the authority of Judge Washington, for he says:
What are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental; which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What those fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate.
What are the rights and protections of citizens in the different states? We have no doubt in limiting these terms to those rights and protections that are essential; that rightfully belong to the citizens of all free governments; and that have always been enjoyed by the citizens of the various states that make up this Union, since they became free, independent, and sovereign. Identifying what those essential principles are might be more time-consuming than challenging.
They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole; the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to[Pg 726] claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of every kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or imposition than are paid by the citizens of the other State, may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental; to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or Constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised (Corfield vs. Corryell, 4 Wash. C.C., 380). Cited and approved in Dunham vs. Lamphere, 3 Gray, 276 (Mass.); Bennett vs. Boggs, Baldwin Rep., 72.
They can, however, be grouped under the following broad categories: protection by the government, the right to enjoy life and freedom, the right to acquire and own property of any kind, and the right to seek and achieve happiness and safety, while still being subject to reasonable limitations that the government may impose for the overall good; the right of a citizen from one state to travel through or live in another state for trade, farming, professional work, or other reasons; to[Pg 726] claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; to file and pursue all types of legal actions in the state courts; to own, hold, and sell both real and personal property; and to be exempt from higher taxes or charges than those paid by citizens of the other state, which can be noted as some of the specific privileges and rights of citizens clearly included in the general description of fundamental privileges; also included is the right to vote, as outlined and established by the laws or Constitution of the state where it is to be exercised (Corfield vs. Corryell, 4 Wash. C.C., 380). Cited and approved in Dunham vs. Lamphere, 3 Gray, 276 (Mass.); Bennett vs. Boggs, Baldwin Rep., 72.
A proper construction of Art. 1, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of the United States will further demonstrate the proposition we are endeavoring to uphold. That section is as follows:
A proper interpretation of Art. 1, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of the United States will further support the argument we are trying to prove. That section is as follows:
Article 1, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.
Article 1, Section 2. The House of Representatives will be made up of members selected every two years by the people of the various States; and the voters in each State will have the same qualifications as those for voters in the largest branch of the State Legislature.
This section consists of two clauses, but in neither is there a word as to the sex of the elector. He, or she, must be one of the people, or "citizens," as they are designated in the Constitution, that is all.—(Story's Comms. § 579.)
This section has two clauses, but neither mentions the gender of the voter. They must be one of the people, or "citizens," as referred to in the Constitution, and that's all.—(Story's Comms. § 579.)
The "people" are to elect. This clause fixes the class of voters; the other clause is in subordination to that, and merely provides, that as touching qualifications, there shall be one and the same standard for the Federal and for the State elector. Both are mentioned and neither is or can be excluded by the other.
The "people" are to vote. This section defines who can vote; the other section is linked to this and simply states that there will be one consistent standard for both Federal and State voters. Both are mentioned, and neither can be excluded by the other.
The right to vote is very different from the qualification necessary in a voter. A person may have the right to vote, and yet not possess the necessary qualifications for exercising it. In this case, the right to vote is derived from the Federal Constitution, which designates the class of persons who may exercise it, and provides that the Federal elector shall conform to the regulations of the State, so far as time, place, and manner of exercising it are concerned. But it is clear that under this authority the State has no right to lay down an arbitrary and impossible rule. As before stated by the Chief-Justice of Nevada: "To make the enjoyment of a right depend upon an impossible condition, is equivalent to an absolute denial of it under any condition."
The right to vote is quite different from the qualifications required to be a voter. A person may have the right to vote but might not meet the necessary qualifications to actually cast their vote. In this case, the right to vote comes from the Federal Constitution, which outlines who can exercise this right and states that federal voters must follow state regulations regarding the timing, location, and manner of voting. However, it's clear that under this authority, the state cannot impose an arbitrary and impossible condition. As the Chief Justice of Nevada previously stated, "Making the enjoyment of a right dependent on an impossible condition is the same as completely denying it under any circumstances."
In conclusion, we will consider, as briefly as possible, the points made by the Supreme Court of Missouri. We quote from the opinion:
In conclusion, we will briefly consider the points made by the Supreme Court of Missouri. We quote from the opinion:
The question presented then is, whether there is a conflict between the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Missouri on this subject. That the different States of the Union had a right, previous to the adoption of what is known as the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to limit the right to vote at election by their constitutions and laws to the male sex, I think can not at this day be questioned.
The question now is whether there's a conflict between the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Missouri on this issue. It's undeniable that before the adoption of what we now call the XIV. Amendment to the United States Constitution, the various States in the Union had the right to restrict voting rights to males through their constitutions and laws.
Undoubtedly the practice in the different States, as we have before said, is against the claim made by the plaintiff, although, as we shall show, in the early days of the Republic this practice was by no means universal. But when the Court states that the right of the States to do this can not be questioned, it assumes the very point in controversy, and it fails to notice the distinction between "the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union." (Chief-Justice Taney in Scott vs. Sandford, 19 Howard, 405.)[Pg 727]
Without a doubt, the practice in different states, as we’ve mentioned earlier, goes against the claim made by the plaintiff. However, as we will demonstrate, this practice was by no means universal in the early days of the Republic. But when the Court states that the right of the states to do this cannot be questioned, it assumes the very point in dispute and overlooks the distinction between "the rights of citizenship that a state may grant within its own borders and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union." (Chief-Justice Taney in Scott vs. Sandford, 19 Howard, 405.)[Pg 727]
"The difference," says Judge Cooley (Story on Constitution, section 1937), "is in a high degree important." And while it may be true that the voter himself rarely, if ever, thinks of any difference between his vote for State and for Federal officers, yet, in law, there is a wide distinction.
"The difference," says Judge Cooley (Story on Constitution, section 1937), "is in a high degree important." And while it may be true that the voter himself rarely, if ever, thinks of any difference between his vote for State and for Federal officers, yet, in law, there is a wide distinction.
In the one case he exercises the franchise under one jurisdiction or sovereignty, and in the other under a totally different one. In voting for Federal officers he exercises the freeman's right to take part in the government of his own creation, and he does this in contemplation of law, in his character or capacity of a citizen of the United States, and his right so to vote legally depends upon such status or character. Clearly, then, the right of a citizen of the United States to vote for Federal officers can only be exercised under the authority or sovereignty of the United States, not under some other authority or sovereignty, and consequently the citizen of the United States could not justly have been deprived of such right by the State, even before the adoption of the XIV. Amendment.
In one situation, he votes under one jurisdiction or authority, and in another, under a completely different one. When voting for federal officials, he is exercising the right of a free person to be involved in the government he helped create, and he does this in accordance with the law, as a citizen of the United States. His legal right to vote depends on this status as a citizen. Therefore, the right for a citizen of the United States to vote for federal officials can only be exercised under the authority of the United States, not under any other authority. As a result, a citizen of the United States couldn't justly be deprived of this right by the state, even before the adoption of the XIV Amendment.
But whatever doubt there may have been as to this, we hold that the adoption of the XIV. Amendment put an end to it and placed the matter beyond controversy. The history of that Amendment shows that it was designed as a limitation on the powers of the States, in many important particulars, and its language is clear and unmistakable. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States." Of course all the citizens of the United States are by this protected in the enjoyment of their privileges and immunities. Among the privileges, that of voting is the highest and greatest. To an American citizen there can be none greater or more highly to be prized; and the preservation of this privilege to the citizens of the United States respectively is, by this Amendment, placed under the immediate supervision and care of the Government of the United States, who are thus charged with its fulfillment and guaranty.
But any doubts about this have been resolved by the adoption of the XIV Amendment, which has clarified the issue. The history of that Amendment clearly shows that it was intended to limit the powers of the States in several significant ways, and its wording is direct and unmistakable. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States." This protects all citizens of the United States in enjoying their privileges and immunities. Among these privileges, the right to vote is the most important and valued. For an American citizen, there is nothing greater or more cherished; and this Amendment places the protection of this right in the hands of the United States Government, making them responsible for its enforcement and guarantee.
By ratifying this Amendment the several States have relinquished and quit-claimed, so to speak, to the United States, all claim or right, on their part, to "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States." The State of Missouri, therefore, is estopped from longer claiming this right to limit the franchise to "males," as a State prerogative; and the Supreme Court of Missouri should have so declared, and its failure to do so is error; because, by retaining that word in the State Constitution and laws, not this plaintiff only, but large numbers of other citizens of the United States are "abridged" in the exercise of their "privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States," by being deprived of their right or privilege to vote for United States officers, as claimed by the plaintiff in her petition. Not only this, but we say further, that the ratification of this amendment was, in intendment of law, a solemn agreement, on the part of the States, that all existing legislation inconsistent therewith should be repealed, or considered as repealed, and that none of like character should take place in the future. The State of Missouri has acted upon this idea in part, and its subsequent legislation, on the subject of the ballot, has been as follows: The ratification of the XV. Amendment (which we do not consider as having any direct bearing on the point now being considered, inasmuch as this Amendment[Pg 728] is merely prohibitory—not conferring any right, but treating the ballot in the hands of the negro as an existing fact, and forbidding his deprivation thereof). Next, amending the State Constitution and registration law, by simply omitting the word "white" from the clause "white male citizens."
By ratifying this Amendment, the various States have given up and quit-claimed, so to speak, to the United States, any claim or right they had to "make or enforce any law that would restrict the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States." Therefore, the State of Missouri is prevented from continuing to claim this right to limit voting to "males" as a State authority; the Supreme Court of Missouri should have declared this, and its failure to do so is a mistake. By keeping that word in the State Constitution and laws, not just this plaintiff, but many other citizens of the United States are "restricted" in exercising their "privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States" by being denied their right to vote for United States officials, as claimed by the plaintiff in her petition. Furthermore, we assert that the ratification of this amendment was, in legal terms, a formal agreement by the States that all existing legislation inconsistent with it should be repealed, or considered repealed, and that no similar laws should be enacted in the future. The State of Missouri has partly acted on this idea, and its subsequent legislation regarding voting has been as follows: The ratification of the XV. Amendment (which we don’t believe has any direct relevance to the current issue, since this Amendment[Pg 728] is purely prohibitory—not granting any rights, but acknowledging the existence of the ballot in the hands of black citizens and prohibiting their deprivation of it). Next, amending the State Constitution and registration law by simply removing the word "white" from the clause "white male citizens."
This constitutes the entire legislation of the State of Missouri on this subject since the adoption of the XIV. Amendment, and this omission of the word "white" was designed to make the State Constitution conform to the Amendment, so far as the negro was concerned, leaving the women citizens of the United States still under the ban of "involuntary servitude," in plain violation of the Amendment.
This is the complete legislation of the State of Missouri on this topic since the adoption of the XIV Amendment. The removal of the word "white" was intended to align the State Constitution with the Amendment concerning Black individuals, while still keeping women citizens of the United States under the restriction of "involuntary servitude," clearly violating the Amendment.
So that, while the negro votes to-day in Missouri, there is not a syllable of affirmative legislation by the State conferring the right upon him. Whence, then, does he derive it? There is but one reply. The XIV. Amendment conferred upon the negro race in this country citizenship of the United States, and the ballot followed as an incident to that condition. Or, to use the more forcible language of this Court, in the Slaughter-house cases (16 Wall., 71), "the negro having, by the XIV. Amendment, been declared a citizen of the United States, is thus made a voter in every State of the Union." If this be true of the negro citizen of the United States, it is equally true of the woman citizen. And we invoke the interposition of of this Court to effect, by its decree, that which the Supreme Court of Missouri should have done, and declare that this objectionable word must be omitted, or considered as omitted from the Constitution and registration law of said State.
So, while Black people can vote today in Missouri, there isn’t any official law from the State granting them that right. So where does their right come from? There’s only one answer. The XIV Amendment gave Black people in this country U.S. citizenship, and the right to vote came along with that. Or, to put it in stronger terms from this Court, in the Slaughter-house cases (16 Wall., 71), "because the XIV Amendment declared Black people to be citizens of the United States, they are thus made voters in every State of the Union." If this is true for Black citizens of the United States, it’s equally true for women citizens. We ask this Court to intervene and do what the Supreme Court of Missouri should have done, and declare that this objectionable word must be removed, or considered as removed, from the Constitution and registration laws of the State.
It can not be pretended that the Constitution of the United States makes, or permits to be made, any distinction between its citizens in their rights and privileges; that the negro has a right which is denied to the woman. The discrimination, therefore, made and continued by the State of Missouri, of which we complain, is an unjustifiable act of arbitrary power, not of right, and can be designated by no other term.
It cannot be ignored that the Constitution of the United States makes no distinction between its citizens regarding their rights and privileges; that a Black person has a right that is denied to a woman. The discrimination being imposed and maintained by the State of Missouri, which we are protesting, is an unjustifiable act of arbitrary power, not of right, and can be described in no other way.
We proceed with our quotation from the opinion:
We continue with our quote from the opinion:
In this changed state of affairs, it was thought by those who originated and adopted this Amendment, that it was absolutely necessary that these emancipated people should have the elective franchise, in order to enable them to protect themselves against unfriendly legislation, in which they could take no part; that unless these people had the right to vote, and thus protect themselves against oppression, their freedom from slavery would be a mockery, and their condition but little improved. It was to remedy this that the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution was adopted. It was to compel the former slave States to give these freedmen the right of suffrage, and to give them all of the rights of other citizens of the respective States, and thus make them equal with other citizens before the law.
In this changed situation, those who created and supported this Amendment believed it was essential for these freed individuals to have the right to vote, so they could protect themselves against hostile laws that they couldn't influence. Without the right to vote, their freedom from slavery would mean nothing, and their situation would hardly be better. This is why the XIV Amendment to the Constitution was adopted. It aimed to compel the former slave states to grant these freedmen the right to vote and all the rights of other citizens in those states, ensuring they would be treated equally under the law.
It would be impossible for us to give any better reason for woman's need of the ballot than the court has here given for that of the negro, except that woman's condition is even more helpless than his—"unless these people had the right to vote, and thus protect themselves against oppression, their freedom from slavery would be a mockery." How an American judge, with the claim of an American citizen before him, for the protection, which, as he truly says, this ballot alone can give, could see its lawfulness and justice in the one case, and not in the other, passes our comprehension.
It would be impossible for us to provide any better reason for a woman's need for the vote than the court has given for that of the Black community, except that a woman's situation is even more vulnerable than his—"if these people did not have the right to vote, and thus protect themselves from oppression, their freedom from slavery would be a joke." How an American judge, faced with the request of an American citizen for the protection that, as he rightly states, only this vote can provide, could view its legality and fairness in one case but not in the other is beyond our understanding.
It was only intended to give the freedmen the same rights that were secured to all other classes of citizens in the State, and that if the other male inhabitants of the State over the age of twenty-one years enjoyed the right of suffrage, so should the males among the freedmen over the age of twenty-one years enjoy the same right; it was not intended that females, or persons under the age of twenty-one years, should have the right of suffrage conferred on them.
It was meant to give freedmen the same rights that were granted to all other citizens in the state. If other male residents of the state over the age of twenty-one had the right to vote, then the freedmen who were males and over twenty-one should have the same right. It was not intended for women or anyone under the age of twenty-one to be given the right to vote.
In reply to this, we might content ourselves with saying that it is mere assertion, and can hardly be dignified as argument; but we answer, that if the XIV. Amendment does not secure the ballot to woman, neither does it to the negro; for it does not in terms confer the ballot upon any one. As we have already shown, it is the altered condition of citizenship that secures to the negro this right; but this plaintiff might well reply, I was born to that condition, and yet am denied its privileges.
In response to this, we could simply say that it's just an assertion and hardly qualifies as an argument. However, we maintain that if the XIV Amendment doesn't guarantee women the right to vote, it also doesn't guarantee that right to Black people, since it doesn't explicitly grant voting rights to anyone. As we've already demonstrated, it’s the changed status of citizenship that gives Black individuals this right; but the plaintiff might rightly argue, I was born into that status and am still denied its benefits.
We quote again, and finally, from the opinion:
We quote once more, and finally, from the opinion:
This is not only shown by the history of the times when the Amendment was adopted, and the circumstances which produced it, but by reference to the second section of said Amendment, it will be seen that the right to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants by a State is clearly recognized. If "the right to vote, etc., is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age," etc., is the language used. This clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right on the part of the States, to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants.
This is demonstrated not only by the history of the time when the Amendment was adopted and the circumstances that led to it, but also by looking at the second section of that Amendment. It makes it clear that a State has the right to limit voting rights to male residents. The language states that if "the right to vote, etc., is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age," etc., it acknowledges that right and seems to anticipate that States would exercise the right to restrict voting to male residents.
We doubt if an instance can be found of a more complete misconception of the meaning and intention of the law. So far from its being a recognition of the right of the States to restrict the right to suffrage of males, it has an exactly opposite meaning. It was intended as a punishment on the States if they did this thing. It is no more a justification or authorization of the act than is the law punishing larceny an authority for stealing! Its object was to punish the States as such, which, but for this provision, could not have been done by diminishing their representation accordingly; and it was designed as a still further security for the rights of the colored population. But, even if it could be held to recognize a right on the part of the State to disfranchise any one, it would only extend to "males," not to females. They, as "citizens of the United States," are embraced in, and protected by, the broad language of the Amendment; a right that is fundamental, can not be taken away by implication. But more than this, the XIV. Amendment was an addition to the organic law of a great nation, intended to enlarge the area of human freedom, and secure more firmly individual rights. It is absurd to impute to the law-makers a design at the same time to restrict those rights.
We doubt there's any example of a more complete misunderstanding of the meaning and intent of the law. Far from recognizing the right of states to limit the voting rights of males, it actually means the opposite. It was meant as a punishment for states that did this. It’s not a justification or approval of the act, just like the law against theft doesn’t authorize stealing! Its purpose was to penalize the states for that reason, which otherwise could not have happened by reducing their representation; and it was designed to further protect the rights of the colored population. But even if it could be interpreted as recognizing a state’s right to disenfranchise anyone, it would only apply to "males," not females. They, as "citizens of the United States," are included in and protected by the broad language of the Amendment; a fundamental right cannot be taken away by implication. Furthermore, the XIV Amendment was an addition to the foundational law of a great nation, intended to expand human freedom and strengthen individual rights. It’s ridiculous to accuse the lawmakers of having the intention to restrict those rights at the same time.
Although the point is not alluded to by the Supreme Court of Missouri, yet, as we desire to meet every possible objection, we think this a proper place to notice an argument sometimes put forward, based upon the XV. Amendment. It is of the nature of what is termed in law a negative pregnant, or, the familiar maxim of "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another." As this Amendment says, that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, it is claimed by some that it may be abridged on other grounds. But, aside from the well-known history of this Amendment, as shown by the debates in Congress, of which this court will take notice when necessary, and which[Pg 730] show that the sole object and purpose of this Amendment was to still further protect the negro race, the IX. Amendment to the Constitution effectually puts an end to the application of this principle by declaring that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. And Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentary says, § 1905:
Although the Supreme Court of Missouri doesn't mention this point, we want to address every possible objection, so we think this is the right time to respond to an argument sometimes made regarding the XV Amendment. This argument falls under what’s known in law as a negative pregnant, or the common saying that "mentioning one thing implies the exclusion of another." Since this Amendment states that the right of citizens of the United States to vote cannot be denied or restricted by the United States or by any State due to race, color, or previous condition of servitude, some argue that voting rights can be limited on other grounds. However, aside from the well-documented history of this Amendment, as evidenced by the Congressional debates, which this court will consider when necessary, and which[Pg 730] show that the primary goal of this Amendment was to further protect the African American community, the IX Amendment to the Constitution effectively ends the application of this argument by stating that just because certain rights are listed in the Constitution, it doesn't mean others retained by the people are denied or overlooked. And Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentary states, § 1905:
This clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse or ingenious misapplication of the well-known maxim, that an affirmative in particular cases implies a negative in all others; and, e converso, that a negative in particular cases implies an affirmative in all others. The maxim, rightly understood, is perfectly sound and safe; but it has often been forced from its natural meaning into the support of the most dangerous political heresies. The Amendment was undoubtedly suggested by the reasoning of the Federalist on the subject of a general bill of rights and trial by jury. Federalist No. 83-84.
This clause was clearly added to prevent any twisted or clever misuse of the well-known principle that saying yes in specific cases implies no in all others; and, conversely, that saying no in specific cases implies yes in all others. This principle, when understood correctly, is entirely valid and secure; however, it has frequently been distorted from its proper meaning to back the most harmful political beliefs. The Amendment was clearly inspired by the arguments made by the Federalist regarding a general bill of rights and the right to a jury trial. Federalist No. 83-84.
We ask the court to consider what it is to be disfranchised; not this plaintiff only, but an entire class of people, utterly deprived of all voice in the government under which they live! We say it is to her, and to them, a Despotism, and not a Republic. What matters it that the tyranny be of many instead of one? Society shudders at the thought of putting a fraudulent ballot into the ballot-box! What is the difference between putting a fraudulent ballot in, and keeping a lawful ballot out? Her disfranchised condition is a badge of servitude. [Mr. Justice Bradley in the Grant parish case.] Take one illustration, evidenced by a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri, in Clark vs. The National Bank of the State of Missouri, 47 Mo. Rep., 1. We use our own words, but we state it correctly; that a married woman can not, by the law of Missouri, own a dollar's worth of personal property, except by the consent of another! it makes no difference that that other is her husband. This, it is true, is a State law, a matter exclusively of State legislation; but we mention it to show how utterly helpless and powerless her condition is without the ballot.
We ask the court to think about what it means to be disenfranchised; not just for this plaintiff, but for an entire group of people who have no say in the government they live under! We argue that this situation is a form of tyranny, not a Republic. What difference does it make if the oppression comes from many rather than one? Society is horrified at the thought of putting a fake ballot in the ballot box! What’s the difference between submitting a fraudulent ballot and excluding a legitimate one? Her lack of voting rights is a mark of servitude. [Mr. Justice Bradley in the Grant parish case.] Let’s look at one example, highlighted by a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Missouri, in Clark vs. The National Bank of the State of Missouri, 47 Mo. Rep., 1. We put it in our own words, but it's accurate to say that a married woman cannot, under Missouri law, own a dollar's worth of personal property without someone else's permission! It doesn’t matter that this person is her husband. This is indeed a State law, strictly a matter of State legislation; but we mention it to illustrate just how powerless her situation is without the right to vote.
Either we must give up the principles announced in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and are formed by the people to protect their rights, not to withhold them; or we must acknowledge the truth contended for by the plaintiff, that citizenship carries with it every incident to every citizen alike. It can not be disputed, that upon this principle of absolute political equality, our Government is founded. So thought the Hon. Luther Martin, of Maryland, one of the most distinguished lawyers of his day, and a member of the convention that framed our Constitution. We quote his own words. (Elliott's Debates, Vol. 4.)
Either we have to let go of the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence, that governments get their fair powers from the consent of the people; and are created by the people to protect their rights, not deny them; or we need to accept the truth argued by the plaintiff, that citizenship includes every right afforded to every citizen equally. It cannot be denied that our Government is based on this principle of complete political equality. The Hon. Luther Martin from Maryland, one of the top lawyers of his time and a member of the convention that created our Constitution, believed the same. Here are his exact words. (Elliott's Debates, Vol. 4.)
This, sir, is the substance of the arguments, if arguments they may be called, which were used in favor of inequality of suffrage. Those who advocated the equality of suffrage, took the matter up on the original principles of government; they urged that all men considered in a state of nature, before any government is formed, are equally free and independent, no one having any right or authority to exercise power over another, and this, without any regard to difference in personal strength, understanding, or wealth. That when such individuals enter into government, they have each a right to an equal voice in its first formation, and afterward have each a right to an equal vote in every matter which relates to their government; that if it could be done conveniently, they have a right to exercise it in person; when it can not be done in person but for convenience, representatives are appointed to act for them; every person has a right to an equal vote in choosing that representative who is entrusted to do for the whole, that which the[Pg 731] whole, if they could assemble, might do in person, and in the transacting of which each would have an equal voice. That if we were to admit, because a man was more wise, more strong, or more wealthy, he should be entitled to more votes than another, it would be inconsistent with the freedom and liberty of that other, and would reduce him to slavery. Suppose, for instance, ten individuals in a state of nature about to enter into government, nine of whom are equally wise, equally strong, and equally wealthy, the tenth is ten times as wise, ten times as strong, or ten times as rich; if for this reason he is to have ten votes for each vote of either of the others, the nine might as well have no vote at all; since, though the whole nine might assent to a measure, yet the vote of the tenth would countervail and set aside all their votes.
This, sir, is the core of the arguments, if we can call them that, made in favor of unequal voting rights. Those who supported equal voting emphasized the fundamental principles of government; they argued that all people, when considered in a natural state before any government is established, are equally free and independent, with no one having the right or authority to dominate another, regardless of differences in personal strength, intelligence, or wealth. When these individuals engage in forming a government, they all have the right to an equal voice in its initial creation and, subsequently, an equal vote on every matter related to their government. If it were practical, they have the right to vote in person; when that's not possible for convenience's sake, representatives are chosen to act on their behalf. Everyone has the right to an equal vote in selecting that representative who is tasked with doing for the whole what each person could do individually if they could gather together, and in which each would have an equal say. If we were to allow someone who is wiser, stronger, or wealthier to have more votes than others, it would contradict the freedom and liberty of those others and reduce them to a state of subjugation. For instance, imagine ten people in a natural state preparing to establish a government, nine of whom are equally wise, equally strong, and equally wealthy, while the tenth is ten times wiser, stronger, or richer; if this person receives ten votes for each vote of the others, then the nine might as well have no vote at all, since even if they all agreed on a measure, the tenth person's vote would override and nullify all of their votes.
If this tenth approved of what they wished to adopt, it would be well, but if he disapproved, he could prevent it, and in the same manner he could carry into execution any measure he wished, contrary to the opinion of all the others, he having ten votes, and the others all together but nine. It is evident that on these principles the nine would have no will or discretion of their own, but must be totally dependent on the will and discretion of the tenth; to him they would be as absolutely slaves as any negro is to his master; if he did not attempt to carry into execution any measure injurious to the other nine, it could only be said that they had a good master; they would not be the less slaves, because they would be totally dependent on the will of another, and not on their own will. They might not feel their chains, but they would notwithstanding wear them, and whenever their master pleased he might draw them so tight as to gall them to the bone. Hence it was urged the inequality of representation, or giving to one man more votes than another on account of his wealth, etc., was altogether inconsistent with the principles of liberty, and in the same proportion as it should be adopted in favor of one or more, in that proportion are the others enslaved.
If this tenth person agreed with what they wanted to decide, it would be great, but if he disagreed, he could block it. Likewise, he could implement any measure he wanted, even if everyone else opposed it, since he had ten votes while the others had only nine combined. It's clear that under these rules, the nine would have no will or choice of their own and would be completely dependent on the will and choice of the tenth; they would be as much slaves to him as any enslaved person is to their master. If he didn’t try to carry out any action that harmed the other nine, it could simply be said that they had a good master; they would still be slaves because they would completely rely on the will of another, rather than their own. They might not feel their chains, but they would still be wearing them, and whenever their master wanted, he could tighten them enough to cause real pain. Therefore, it was argued that the inequality in representation, or giving one person more votes than another due to their wealth, was completely inconsistent with the principles of liberty, and as it was applied to favor one or more individuals, it proportionately enslaved the others.
These are the words, not lightly uttered, nor to be by us lightly considered, of one of the framers of the Constitution; and in complete accord with this principle of entire equality of individual right, see how those men who had fought through the War of Independence did their work. Upon what broad and comprehensive foundations it is laid. Examine the Constitution, the work of their hands. Do we find any recognition of inequality of rights? Not a syllable. On the contrary, every safeguard is thrown around them; "no State shall pass any bill of attainder," or "grant any title of nobility." So, too, when it comes to the practical recognition of these rights at the ballot-box, all are included. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States," not by a part—not by the "males"—but simply by "the people of the several States." The same "people" who ordain and establish that Constitution as the supreme law of the land, they are to do the voting, they are to elect. There is not one word as to sex. The elector, male or female, must be one of the people or citizens, that is all. But when these electors come to exercise this right or privilege, then the matter of qualification arises, the age of the elector, the time, place, and manner of the exercise of the right, are to be considered, and the convention, instead of laying down a uniform rule or standard for all the States, which would have produced change and confusion, thought it best to leave this feature of it as it already stood in the several States. But the right itself is secured to the people of the United States, and in its very nature can not be derived from any other authority.
These are the words, not said lightly, nor to be taken lightly by us, from one of the framers of the Constitution; and in complete alignment with this principle of complete equality of individual rights, look at how those who fought through the War of Independence did their work. On what broad and solid foundations it is built. Take a look at the Constitution, their handiwork. Do we find any acknowledgment of unequal rights? Not a word. On the contrary, every protection is put in place; "no State shall pass any bill of attainder," or "grant any title of nobility." Similarly, when it comes to recognizing these rights at the ballot box, everyone is included. "The House of Representatives shall be made up of members elected every two years by the people of the several States," not by a select group—not just by "males"—but simply by "the people of the several States." The same "people" who ordain and establish that Constitution as the highest law of the land, they are the ones who will vote, they are the ones who will elect. There’s not a single word about sex. The elector, male or female, just needs to be one of the people or citizens, that’s all. But when these electors come to exercise this right or privilege, then the issue of qualifications comes up; the age of the elector, the time, place, and manner of exercising the right, must be taken into account, and the convention, instead of establishing a uniform rule or standard for all the States, which could have caused change and confusion, decided it was best to leave this aspect as it already was in the various States. But the right itself is guaranteed to the people of the United States and, by its very nature, cannot come from any other authority.
We deem it proper, in this connection, to refer to the well-known fact that women voted in one of the States (New Jersey) down to the year 1807, when they were unjustly deprived of the right, by an act of the Legislature of that State. We say unjustly, because no Legislature can deprive a citizen[Pg 732] of a constitutional right, and the matter has slumbered ever since. The Constitution of New Jersey, adopted in 1776, used the term "inhabitants" in describing electors, and under this Constitution women were recognized as voters, as well as men. In conformity with this constitutional provision the statute law was so worded as to read "he or she," in speaking of electors thus affording a contemporaneous and legislative attestation of the truth of our statement. This law of 1776 could not, of course, be the source of authority to any one for voting under a sovereignty not then in existence, not created until 1789, thirteen years afterward. Therefore, when the elector, male or female, in New Jersey, voted for Federal officers in 1789, it was done by virtue of his or her status of citizenship, under the new and paramount sovereignty, and not under the law of 1776; and so it has continued ever since, the elector voting for United States officers by virtue of his citizenship of the United States, and for State officers as a citizen of the State. We believe, then, we are justified in the statement that white women in New Jersey voted, under State authority, for the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. That they next voted, under like authority, for the ratification of the newly framed Constitution of the United States; and then, that Constitution having been adopted, as newly-created citizens of the newly-created sovereignty, the white women of New Jersey voted at the five succeeding Presidential elections—for Washington, for Adams, and for Jefferson. The contest in 1800 was bitter beyond all precedent, and we are told that all the women of the State entitled to vote did so. We refer to the Constitution and laws of New Jersey; to a work entitled The Historical Magazine, published in Boston in 1857, Vol. I., p. 361; to the National Intelligencer, Washington, October 3, 1857; to Notes and Queries, Vol. VIII., p. 171, August, 1853.
We think it's important to mention the well-known fact that women voted in New Jersey until 1807, when they were unfairly stripped of that right by a law passed by the state's Legislature. We say unfairly because no Legislature can take away a citizen[Pg 732]'s constitutional rights, and this issue has been unresolved ever since. The New Jersey Constitution, adopted in 1776, referred to "inhabitants" when discussing who could vote, which included women along with men. In line with this constitutional provision, the statute was worded to say "he or she" when referring to voters, providing a contemporary legal acknowledgment of our claim. This law from 1776, of course, couldn't authorize anyone to vote under a government that didn't exist until 1789, thirteen years later. So, when voters, regardless of gender, in New Jersey cast their ballots for Federal officials in 1789, it was based on their citizenship under the new government, not the law from 1776. This practice continued, with voters electing United States officials based on their U.S. citizenship and state officials as citizens of New Jersey. Therefore, we believe we can confidently state that white women in New Jersey voted, under state authority, for members of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. They also voted, with similar authority, for the ratification of the newly created U.S. Constitution; and after the Constitution was adopted, as newly minted citizens of the new government, white women in New Jersey voted in the next five Presidential elections—for Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. The election in 1800 was particularly contentious, and we’ve heard that all eligible women in the state voted. We reference the Constitution and laws of New Jersey; a work called The Historical Magazine, published in Boston in 1857, Vol. I., p. 361; the National Intelligencer, Washington, October 3, 1857; and Notes and Queries, Vol. VIII., p. 171, August, 1853.
But apart from these considerations, which we deem amply sufficient to sustain our position, an examination into the nature and character of the right itself will further show that it is one of which the citizen can not justly be deprived, save for cause.
But aside from these points, which we believe are more than enough to support our stance, looking into the essence and nature of the right itself will further demonstrate that it is something a citizen cannot justly be denied, except for a valid reason.
The first amendment to the Constitution declares that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press, thus incorporating into the organic law of this country absolute freedom of thought or opinion. We presume it will not be doubted that the States are equally bound with Congress by this prohibition, not only because, as Chief-Justice Taney says, "the Constitution of the United States, and every article and clause in it, is a part of the law of every State in the Union, and is the paramount law" (Prigg vs. The Comm., 16 Peters R., 628), but because, in the very nature of things, freedom of speech or of thought can not be divided. It is a personal attribute, and once secured is forever secured. To vote is but one form or method of expressing this freedom of speech. Speech is a declaration of thought. A vote is the expression of the will, preference, or choice. Suffrage is one definition of the word, while the verb is defined, to choose by suffrage, to elect, to express or signify the mind, will, or preference, either viva voce, or by ballot. We claim then that the right to vote, or express one's wish at the polls, is embraced in the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment, and every citizen is entitled to the protection it affords. It is the merest mockery to say to this plaintiff, you may write, print, publish,[Pg 733] or speak your thoughts upon every occasion, except at the polls. There your lips shall be sealed. It is impossible that this can be American law!
The first amendment to the Constitution states that Congress cannot make any law limiting freedom of speech or the press, thereby establishing absolute freedom of thought or opinion as a core principle of our country. It's clear that the States are just as restricted by this prohibition as Congress is, not only because, as Chief Justice Taney noted, "the Constitution of the United States, and every article and clause in it, is a part of the law of every State in the Union, and is the supreme law" (Prigg vs. The Comm., 16 Peters R., 628), but also because, fundamentally, freedom of speech and thought cannot be separated. It is a personal right that, once established, is permanently secured. Voting is just one way to express this freedom of speech. Speech represents our thoughts. A vote is a way of expressing our will, preferences, or choices. Suffrage is one interpretation of this concept, while the action of voting is defined as choosing by suffrage, electing, or expressing one's mind or will, either viva voce or by ballot. Therefore, we argue that the right to vote, or to express one's choices at the polls, is included in the spirit, if not the exact wording, of the First Amendment, and every citizen deserves the protection it provides. It's absurd to tell this plaintiff that they can write, print, publish,[Pg 733], or voice their thoughts at any time except at the polls, where they must remain silent. That cannot be the law in America!
Again, it is the opinion of some that suffrage is somehow lodged in the government, whence it is dispensed, or conferred upon the citizen, thus completely reversing the actual fact. Suffrage is never conferred by government upon the citizen. He holds it by a higher title. In this country government is the source of power, not of rights. These are vested in the individual—are personal and inalienable. Society can only acquire the authority to regulate these rights, or declare them forfeited, for cause. The time, place, and manner of their exercise are under governmental control, but their origin and source are in the individual himself.
Once again, some people believe that voting rights are given out by the government to citizens, which completely turns the truth on its head. Voting rights are never granted by the government to the citizen. Instead, citizens possess them through a higher claim. In this country, the government is the source of power, not rights. Rights are held by the individual—they are personal and cannot be taken away. Society can only gain the authority to regulate these rights or declare them lost for a valid reason. While the government can control the timing, location, and method of exercising these rights, their origin and source lie within the individual.
I shall, therefore, says a writer on government, assume it as an incontrovertible position, as a first principle, that the right of private opinion, which is, in fact, no other than the right of private judgment upon any subject presented to the mind, is a sacred right, with which society can, on no pretense, authoritatively interfere, without a violation of the first principles of the law of nature. (Chipman on Government, chap. 5.)
I will, therefore, say a writer on government, assume it as an undeniable point, as a fundamental principle, that the right to hold personal opinions, which is essentially the same as the right to use personal judgment on any topic brought to one’s mind, is a sacred right that society cannot, under any circumstances, officially interfere with, without violating the fundamental principles of natural law. (Chipman on Government, chap. 5.)
Other liberties, says Erskine, are held under governments, but the liberty of opinion keeps governments themselves in due subjection to their duties. (Speech in defense of Thomas Paine.)
Other freedoms, says Erskine, are granted by governments, but the freedom of opinion keeps governments themselves properly accountable to their responsibilities. (Speech in defense of Thomas Paine.)
But this clause of the Missouri law further violates the XIII. Amendment, which declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States, except for crime, etc. This Amendment is a copy of the 6th clause of the famous Ordinance of 1787, which secured freedom for the Northwest Territory, and has now become the organic law for the entire Union. This Ordinance was drawn by the Hon. Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts.[178]
But this part of the Missouri law also goes against the XIII Amendment, which states that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude can exist in the United States, except as punishment for a crime, etc. This Amendment is based on the 6th clause of the well-known Ordinance of 1787, which guaranteed freedom for the Northwest Territory, and has now become the foundational law for the entire Union. This Ordinance was written by the Hon. Nathan Dane of Massachusetts.[178]
We say that this Missouri law violates this amendment, inasmuch as it places the plaintiff in a disfranchised condition, which is none other than a condition of servitude—of "involuntary servitude," because, although a citizen in the fullest acceptation of the term—a member of this body politic—one of the "people"—she has never consented to this law; has never been permitted to express either consent or dissent, nor given any opportunity to express her opinion thereon, in the manner pointed out by law, while at the same time she is taxed, and her property taken to pay the very men who sat in judgment upon and condemned her!
We argue that this Missouri law violates this amendment because it puts the plaintiff in a disenfranchised position, which is essentially a form of servitude—specifically "involuntary servitude." Even though she is a citizen in every sense of the word—a member of this political community—one of the "people"—she has never agreed to this law; she has never been allowed to express either her approval or disapproval, nor given a chance to share her opinion about it in the way the law requires. Meanwhile, she is being taxed, and her property is taken to pay the very people who judged and condemned her!
Finally—Such is the nature of this privilege—so individual—so purely personal is its character, that its indefinite extension detracts not in the slightest degree from those who already enjoy it, and by an affirmation of the plaintiff's claim all womanhood would be elevated into that condition of self-respect that perfect freedom alone can give.
Finally—This privilege is so individual and so inherently personal that its unlimited extension doesn't take anything away from those who already possess it. By affirming the plaintiff's claim, all women would be raised to a level of self-respect that only true freedom can provide.
Resume—(Minor vs. Happersett, 21 Wallace Rep., p. 164.)
1st. As a citizen of the United States, the plaintiff is entitled to any and all the "privileges and immunities" that belong to such position however defined; and as are held, exercised, and enjoyed by other citizens of the United States.
1st. As a citizen of the United States, the plaintiff is entitled to all the "privileges and immunities" associated with that status, however defined, and that other citizens of the United States hold, exercise, and enjoy.
2d. The elective franchise is a "privilege" of citizenship, in the highest sense of the word. It is the privilege preservative of all rights and privileges;[Pg 734] and especially of the right of the citizen to participate in his or her government.
2d. The right to vote is a "privilege" of citizenship, in the truest sense of the word. It is the privilege that protects all rights and privileges;[Pg 734] and especially the right of the citizen to take part in their government.
3d. The denial or abridgment of this privilege, if it exist at all, must be sought only in the fundamental charter of government—the Constitution of the United States. If not found there, no inferior power or jurisdiction can legally claim the right to exercise it.
3d. The denial or limitation of this privilege, if it exists at all, must be found solely in the foundational document of government—the Constitution of the United States. If it isn’t there, no lower authority or jurisdiction can legally claim the right to enforce it.
4th. But the Constitution of the United States, so far from recognizing or permitting any denial or abridgment of the privileges of its citizens, expressly declares that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
4th. But the Constitution of the United States, far from acknowledging or allowing any denial or restriction of the rights of its citizens, explicitly states that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
5th. It follows that the provisions of the Missouri Constitution and registry law before recited, are in conflict with and must yield to the paramount authority of the Constitution of the United States.
5th. It follows that the rules of the Missouri Constitution and the registration law mentioned earlier are in conflict with and must give way to the supreme authority of the Constitution of the United States.
A few words more and we have done. The plaintiff has sought, by this action, for the establishment of a great principle of fundamental right, applicable not only to herself, but to the class to which she belongs; for the principles here laid down (as in the Dred Scott case) extend far beyond the limits of the particular suit, and embrace the rights of millions of others, who are thus represented through her. She has a right, therefore, to be heard for her cause; and in making this plea, she seeks only to give expression to those principles upon which, as upon a rock, our Government is founded.
A few more words and we’re done. The plaintiff has brought this action to establish an important principle of fundamental rights, applicable not just to her, but to her entire class; the principles outlined here (as in the Dred Scott case) go well beyond this specific case and encompass the rights of millions of others who are represented through her. Therefore, she has the right to be heard for her cause; and in making this plea, she seeks only to express those principles upon which our Government is built, like a solid foundation.
It is impossible that that can be a Republican government in which one half the citizens thereof are forever disfranchised. A citizen disfranchised is a citizen attainted; and this, too, in face of the fact, that you look in vain in the great charter of government, the Constitution of the United States, for any warrant or authority for such discrimination. To that instrument she appeals for protection.
It’s impossible to have a Republican government where half the citizens are always denied the right to vote. A citizen who can’t vote is effectively a citizen excluded from the community; and this is true despite the fact that you will search in vain through the Constitution of the United States, the main document of our government, for any justification for such discrimination. She appeals to that document for protection.
Supreme Court of the United States. No. 182.—October Term, 1874. Virginia L. Minor and Francis Minor, her husband, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. Reese Happersett. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.
Supreme Court of the United States. No. 182.—October Term, 1874. Virginia L. Minor and her husband, Francis Minor, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. Reese Happersett. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. (March 29. 1875.)
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the court's opinion. (March 29, 1875.)
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the XIV. Amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the Constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might perhaps decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion, we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and, in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.
The question in this case is whether, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, a woman who is a citizen of the United States and the State of Missouri can vote in that State, despite the Constitution and laws of the State that limit the right to vote to men only. We could possibly decide the case on different grounds, but this question is clearly presented. The opinion shows that it was the only issue decided in the lower court, and it's the only one that has been discussed here. The case was clearly brought to this court specifically to have that question answered, and considering the importance of having it resolved as much as possible by this decision, we’ve decided to set aside all other considerations and move forward with addressing it.
It is contended that the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the State of Missouri, which confine the right of suffrage and registration[Pg 735] therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State can not by its laws or constitution abridge.
It is argued that the rules in the Constitution and laws of the State of Missouri, which limit the right to vote and register[Pg 735] to men, violate the Constitution of the United States and are therefore invalid. The claim is that a woman, whether born or naturalized in the United States and under its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States and of the state where she lives. She has the right to vote as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, and the state cannot restrict that right through its laws or constitution.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and, by the XIV. Amendment, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" But, in our opinion, it did not need this Amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There can not be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance, and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
There’s no doubt that women can be citizens. They are individuals, and according to the XIV Amendment, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are explicitly recognized as "citizens of the United States and of the State where they live." However, we believe that this Amendment wasn’t necessary to establish that status. Before it was adopted, the Constitution of the United States didn’t specifically outline who should be citizens of the United States or the individual States, yet there were still citizens without such a provision. A nation cannot exist without its people. The very concept of a political community, like a nation, implies a group of individuals working together for their common good. Each of those individuals becomes a member of the nation formed by this group. They owe allegiance to it and are entitled to its protection. In this context, allegiance and protection are reciprocal responsibilities. One serves as a reward for the other; allegiance in exchange for protection and protection in exchange for allegiance.
For convenience, it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterward adopted in the articles of confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense, it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
For convenience, it has become necessary to assign a name to this membership. The goal is to identify, through a title, the individual and their relationship to the nation. For this reason, terms like "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, with the choice between them sometimes depending on the type of government. However, "citizen" is now more commonly used, and since it is considered better suited to describe someone living under a republican government, it was adopted by almost all of the States when they separated from Great Britain. It was later included in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States. When used in this context, it is understood to represent the idea of belonging to a nation, and nothing more.
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the Amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterward admitted to membership. Looking at the Constitution itself, we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States" (Preamble, 1 Stat., 10), and then, going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth (Dec. of Ind., 1 Stat., 1), and that had by articles of confederation and perpetual union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of[Pg 736] religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever (Art. Confed., sec. 3, 1 Stat. 4).
To figure out who were citizens of the United States before the Amendment was adopted, we need to identify the individuals who initially came together to create the nation and those who were later accepted as members. By examining the Constitution itself, we see that it was established by "the people of the United States" (Preamble, 1 Stat., 10). Looking back even further, these people were from the various States that had previously dissolved their political ties with Great Britain and claimed a separate and equal status among the powers of the world (Dec. of Ind., 1 Stat., 1). They formed a firm league of friendship with each other through articles of confederation and perpetual union, collectively known as "the United States of America," to ensure their common defense, protect their liberties, and promote their mutual well-being, committing to support each other against any force or attacks made upon them or any of them, for reasons related to religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other excuse (Art. Confed., sec. 3, 1 Stat. 4).
Whoever then was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen—a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Whoever was a resident of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted automatically became a citizen—a member of the nation formed by its adoption. He was one of the individuals coming together to create the nation and, as a result, one of its original citizens. There has never been any doubt about this. Conflicts have emerged regarding whether certain individuals or groups were considered part of the people at that time, but there has never been any question about their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways—first by birth and second by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides (Art. 2, Sec. 1) that "no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and (Art. 1, Sec. 8) that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
Additions can always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways—first by birth and second by naturalization. This is clear from the Constitution itself, which states (Art. 2, Sec. 1) that "no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and (Art. 1, Sec. 8) that Congress has the power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Therefore, new citizens can either be born or they can become citizens through naturalization.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves upon their birth citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider, that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive when used in this connection as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
The Constitution doesn't explicitly state who can be natural-born citizens. To find that out, we need to look elsewhere. Under common law, which the framers of the Constitution knew well, it was widely accepted that all children born in a country to parents who were citizens automatically became citizens themselves at birth. These individuals were natives or natural-born citizens, as opposed to aliens or foreigners. Some legal sources go further and consider children born within the country's borders as citizens, regardless of their parents' citizenship. There have been some questions about this group, but never about the first one. For our current purposes, it's enough to state that all children born to citizen parents within the jurisdiction are also citizens. The phrase "all children" is just as inclusive in this context as "all persons," and if women are included in the latter, they must be included in the former as well. Their inclusion in the latter isn't disputed. In fact, the plaintiffs' entire argument is based on that premise.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress as early as 1790 provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens (1 Stat. 103). These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also (10 Stat. 604).[Pg 737]
Under the authority to create a uniform system of naturalization, Congress first established in 1790 that "any alien, being a free white person," could become a citizen of the United States. It also stated that the children of these newly naturalized individuals, living in the United States and under twenty-one years old at the time of naturalization, would also be recognized as citizens. Furthermore, children of U.S. citizens born outside the country would be considered natural-born citizens (1 Stat. 103). These rules have essentially been maintained in all subsequent naturalization laws. In 1855, however, the last rule was expanded to include all individuals born outside the United States whose fathers were citizens at the time of their birth (10 Stat. 604).[Pg 737]
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien, who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law, died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath (2 Stat., 293); and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen (10 Stat., 604). From this it is apparent, that, from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject, alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization; and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
As early as 1804, Congress enacted a law stating that if any alien who had declared their intention to become a citizen as required by law died before being officially naturalized, their widow and children would be recognized as citizens of the United States, entitled to all rights and privileges upon taking the necessary oath (2 Stat., 293). In 1855, it was additionally specified that any woman who could legally be naturalized under the existing laws, whether married or marrying a U.S. citizen, would be considered a citizen (10 Stat., 604). This shows that from the start of legislation on this topic, alien women and alien minors could become citizens through naturalization; it’s clear that it would not have been assumed this was possible if it hadn’t been believed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
But if more is necessary to show that women have always been considered as citizens the same as men, abundant proof is to be found in the legislative and judicial history of the country. Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held, that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist, the case must be dismissed. Notwithstanding this, the records of the courts are full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of women, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection was made on that account. Certainly none can be found in which it has been held that women could not sue or be sued in the courts of the United States. Again, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in many of the States (and in some probably now) aliens could not inherit or transmit inheritance. There are a multitude of cases to be found in which the question has been presented whether a woman was or was not an alien, and as such capable or incapable of inheritance, but in no one has it been insisted that she was not a citizen because she was a woman. On the contrary, her right to citizenship has been in all cases assumed. The only question has been whether, in the particular ease under consideration, she had availed herself of the right.
But if more is needed to show that women have always been regarded as citizens just like men, there's plenty of evidence in the legislative and judicial history of the country. According to the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States covers disputes between citizens of different States. It has consistently been ruled that the citizenship required for the U.S. courts to have jurisdiction in a case must be clearly established in the records. The existence of citizenship as a fact can be contested and examined. If it is determined not to exist, the case must be dismissed. Despite this, court records are filled with cases where jurisdiction is based on women's citizenship, and we believe no case can be found that raised an objection on that basis. Certainly, there are no cases where it has been ruled that women cannot sue or be sued in U.S. courts. Additionally, at the time the Constitution was adopted, many States (and possibly some still do) did not allow aliens to inherit or pass on inheritance. There are numerous cases where it was questioned whether a woman was or was not an alien, and thus able or unable to inherit, but in none has it been argued that she was not a citizen because she was a woman. On the contrary, her right to citizenship has always been taken for granted. The only question has been whether, in the specific situation being considered, she had exercised that right.
In the legislative department of the Government similar proof will be found. Thus, in the pre-emption laws (5 Stat., 455, sec. 10), a widow, "being a citizen of the United States," is allowed to make settlement on the public lands and purchase upon the terms specified, and women, "being citizens of the United States," are permitted to avail themselves of the benefit of the homestead law (12 Stat., 392).
In the legislative branch of the government, similar evidence can be found. For example, in the pre-emption laws (5 Stat., 455, sec. 10), a widow, "being a citizen of the United States," is allowed to settle on public lands and purchase under the specified conditions, and women, "being citizens of the United States," are allowed to take advantage of the homestead law (12 Stat., 392).
Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more can not be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The XIV. Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the Amendment. She has always[Pg 738] been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her; that she had before its adoption.
Other proof of a similar nature could be found, but certainly, more isn't necessary to establish that sex has never been one of the factors of citizenship in the United States. In this regard, men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws apply to both equally. The XIV Amendment didn't impact the citizenship of women any more than it did for men. Therefore, regarding this specific point, Mrs. Minor's rights do not depend on the Amendment. She has always[Pg 738] been a citizen from birth and is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from limiting any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not grant her citizenship; she had that before it was adopted.
If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the Constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters (p. 170, Wallace).
If the right to vote is one of the essential privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the Constitution and laws of Missouri that limit this right to men violate the Constitution of the United States as amended, and are therefore invalid. The key question is, then, whether all citizens are automatically voters (p. 170, Wallace).
The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them.
The Constitution doesn't define the rights and protections of citizens. To find that definition, we need to look elsewhere. Here, we don't need to figure out what they are, but only if the right to vote is definitely one of them.
It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the States of its own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by State voters. The members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people of the States, and the electors in each State must have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature (art. 1, sec. 2, Const.) Senators are to be chosen by the Legislatures of the States, and, necessarily, the members of the Legislature required to make the choice are elected by the voters of the State (art. 1, sec. 3). Each State must appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, the electors to elect the President and Vice-President (art. 2, sec. 2). The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are to be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators (art. 1, sec. 4). It is not necessary to inquire whether this power of supervision thus given to Congress is sufficient to authorize any interference with the State laws prescribing the qualifications of voters, for no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of the State in this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts.
It definitely isn’t stated outright. The United States doesn’t have its own voters in the states it created. All elected officials of the United States are chosen directly or indirectly by state voters. Members of the House of Representatives are selected by the people of the states, and the electors in each state must meet the qualifications required for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature (art. 1, sec. 2, Const.). Senators are chosen by the state legislatures, and the members of the legislature who make that choice are elected by the state’s voters (art. 1, sec. 3). Each state must appoint, in a manner directed by its legislature, the electors to elect the President and Vice President (art. 2, sec. 2). The times, places, and method of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are set by each state's legislature; however, Congress can change these regulations by law at any time, except for where Senators are chosen (art. 1, sec. 4). It’s not necessary to determine whether this supervisory power given to Congress allows for interference with state laws about voter qualifications, as no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of the state in this regard is definitely supreme until Congress decides to act.
The Amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the Constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen.
The Amendment didn't add any new rights or protections for citizens. It just provided an extra guarantee for the ones they already had. It didn't directly create new voters. It may have indirectly increased the number of citizens eligible to vote according to the Constitution and state laws, but it achieves this effect, if at all, through the states and their laws, not directly affecting the citizen.
It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was co-extensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed.[Pg 739]
It is clear, we believe, that the Constitution did not include the right to vote as part of the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they were defined when it was adopted. This raises the question of whether the right to vote was equal to citizenship in the States at that time. If it was, then it can be strongly argued that voting was one of the rights that came with citizenship, and every citizen must be protected in exercising that right. However, if it wasn’t, then the opposite can reasonably be assumed.[Pg 739]
When the Constitution of the United States was adopted, all the several States, with the exception of Rhode Island, had constitutions of their own. Rhode Island continued to act under its charter from the Crown. Upon an examination of those constitutions, we find that in no State were all citizens permitted to vote. Each State determined for itself who should have that power.
When the Constitution of the United States was adopted, all the states, except for Rhode Island, had their own constitutions. Rhode Island continued to operate under its charter from the Crown. Looking at those constitutions, we see that no state allowed all citizens to vote. Each state decided for itself who should have that right.
Thus, in New Hampshire, "every male inhabitant of each town and parish, with town privileges and places unincorporated in the State, of twenty-one years of age and upwards, excepting paupers and persons excused from paying taxes at their own request," were its voters; in Massachusetts, "every male inhabitant of twenty-one years of age and upwards, having a freehold estate within the Commonwealth of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds"; in Rhode Island, "such as are admitted free of the company and society" of the colony; in Connecticut, such persons as had "maturity in years, quiet and peaceful behavior, a civil conversation, and forty shillings freehold or forty pounds personal estate," if so certified by the selectmen; in New York, "every male inhabitant of full age, who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of the State for six months immediately preceding the day of election, ... if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds within the country, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to the State"; in New Jersey, all inhabitants ... of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided in the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election"; in Pennsylvania, "every freeman at the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State two years next before the election, and within that time paid a State or county tax which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election"; in Delaware and Virginia, "as exercised by law at present"; in Maryland, "all freeman above twenty-one years of age, having a freehold of fifty acres of land in the county in which they offer to vote and residing therein, and all freemen having property in the State above the value of thirty pounds current money, and having resided in the county in which they offer to vote one whole year next preceding the election"; in North Carolina, for Senators, "all freemen of the age of twenty-one years, who have been inhabitants of any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of election, and possessed of a freehold within the same county of fifty acres of land for six months next before and at the day of election," and for members of the House of Commons, "all freemen of the age of twenty-one years, who have been inhabitants in any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes"; in South Carolina, "every free white man of the age of twenty-one years, being a citizen of the State, and having resided therein two years previous to the day of election, and who hath a freehold of fifty acres of land, or a town lot of which he hath been legally seized and possessed at least six months before such election, or (not having such freehold or town lot), hath been a resident within the election district in which he offers to give his vote six months before said election, and hath paid a tax the preceding year of three shillings sterling toward the support of the Government"; and, in Georgia, such "citizens and inhabitants of the State as shall have attained to the age of twenty-one years, and shall have paid tax for the year next preceding the election, and shall have resided six months within the county."
Thus, in New Hampshire, "every male resident of each town and parish, with town privileges and places not incorporated in the State, who is twenty-one years old or older, except for those receiving aid and individuals who requested to be excused from paying taxes," could vote; in Massachusetts, "every male resident who is twenty-one years or older and owns a freehold estate within the Commonwealth that generates an annual income of three pounds, or any estate valued at sixty pounds"; in Rhode Island, "those who are admitted as free members of the colony"; in Connecticut, those who had "maturity, good behavior, a civil demeanor, and a freehold valued at forty shillings or personal property worth forty pounds," provided they had certification from the selectmen; in New York, "every male resident of legal age who has personally lived in one of the counties of the State for six months leading up to the election day... if during that time he has been a freeholder with property worth twenty pounds or rented a place valued at forty shillings per year, and has been assessed and paid taxes to the State"; in New Jersey, all residents of legal age who are worth fifty pounds in clear estate and have lived in the county where they intend to vote for the previous twelve months; in Pennsylvania, "every freeman at the age of twenty-one who has lived in the State for the two years prior to the election and has paid a State or county tax assessed at least six months before the election"; in Delaware and Virginia, "as currently exercised by law"; in Maryland, "all freemen over twenty-one years old, who own a freehold of fifty acres of land in the county where they intend to vote and have lived there, and all freemen with property in the State valued over thirty pounds, who have resided in the county for a full year before the election"; in North Carolina, for Senators, "all freemen aged twenty-one who have lived in any one county in the State for twelve months before the election and possess a freehold of fifty acres in that county for six months before and on the election day," and for members of the House of Commons, "all freemen aged twenty-one who have lived in any one county in the State for twelve months before any election, and who have paid public taxes"; in South Carolina, "every free white man aged twenty-one, who is a citizen of the State and has lived there for two years before the election, and who has a freehold of fifty acres or a town lot that he has legally owned for at least six months before the election, or, if he does not have such freehold or town lot, has been a resident of the election district where he plans to vote for six months prior to the election, and has paid a tax of three shillings sterling in the previous year towards the support of the Government"; and, in Georgia, "those citizens and residents of the State who have reached the age of twenty-one, who have paid taxes for the year prior to the election, and who have lived for six months in the county."
In this condition of the law in respect to suffrage in the several States, it can not for a moment be doubted that, if it had been intended to make all citizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication. So important a change in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared.
In the situation of the law regarding voting in the various States, there is no doubt that if it had been meant for all citizens of the United States to be voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to assumption. Such a significant change in the status of citizenship, if it had been intended, would have been clearly stated.
But if further proof is necessary to show that no such change was intended, it can easily be found both in and out of the Constitution. By[Pg 740] article 4, section 2, it is provided that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." If suffrage is necessarily a part of citizenship, then the citizens of each State must be entitled to vote in the several States precisely as their citizens are. This is more than asserting that they may change their residence and become citizens of the State and thus be voters. It goes to the extent of insisting that, while retaining their original citizenship, they may vote in any State. This, we think, has never been claimed. And again, by the very terms of the Amendment we have been considering (the XIV).
But if more evidence is needed to demonstrate that no such change was intended, it can easily be found both within and outside the Constitution. According to [Pg 740] Article 4, Section 2, it states that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." If voting rights are inherently part of citizenship, then citizens of each State must be entitled to vote in the various States just like their own citizens do. This goes beyond just saying that they can change their residence and become citizens of that State, thus becoming voters. It insists that, while keeping their original citizenship, they can vote in any State. This, we believe, has never been claimed. Additionally, according to the exact wording of the Amendment we have been discussing (the XIV).
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the Members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in the Rebellion or other crimes, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
"Representatives will be distributed among the various States based on their populations, counting all people in each State, excluding non-taxed Native Americans. However, if the right to vote in any election for choosing electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, State Executive and Judicial officers, or Members of the State Legislature is denied to any male residents of that State who are twenty-one years old and citizens of the United States, or if their voting rights are limited in any way, except due to involvement in a Rebellion or other crimes, the basis for representation will be reduced according to the ratio of those male citizens to the total number of male citizens aged twenty-one and older in that State."
Why this, if it was not in the power of the Legislature to deny the right of suffrage to some male inhabitants? And if suffrage was necessarily one of the absolute rights of citizenship, why confine the operation of the limitation to male inhabitants? Women and children are, as we have seen, "persons." They are counted in the enumeration upon which the apportionment is to be made; but if they were necessarily voters because of their citizenship unless clearly excluded, why inflict the penalty for the exclusion of males alone? Clearly, no such form of words would have been selected to express the idea here indicated if suffrage was the absolute right of all citizens.
Why is this the case, if the Legislature couldn't deny the right to vote to some male residents? And if voting is one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, why limit this restriction to just men? Women and children are, as we’ve established, "persons." They are included in the count used for apportionment; but if they were automatically voters due to their citizenship unless explicitly excluded, why impose penalties for excluding only males? Clearly, no phrasing like this would have been used to convey this idea if the right to vote was considered an absolute right for all citizens.
And still again, after the adoption of the XIV. Amendment, it was deemed necessary to adopt a XV., as follows: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The XIV. Amendment had already provided that no State should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If suffrage was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race, etc.? Nothing is more evident than that the greater must include the less; and if all were already protected, why go through with the form of amending the Constitution to protect a part?
And still, after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, it was considered necessary to adopt a 15th, which states: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or limited by the United States or by any State, based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The 14th Amendment already provided that no State should make or enforce any law that would limit the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If voting was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to stop it from being denied based on race, etc.? It is clear that the greater must include the lesser; if everyone was already protected, why go through the process of amending the Constitution to protect just a part?
It is true that the United States guarantees to every State a republican form of government (art. 4, sec. 4). It is also true that no State can pass a bill of attainder (art. 1, section 10), and that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (Amendment V). All these several provisions of the Constitution must be construed in connection with the other parts of the instrument, and in the light of the surrounding circumstances.
It’s true that the United States promises every State a republican form of government (art. 4, sec. 4). It’s also true that no State can pass a bill of attainder (art. 1, section 10), and that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (Amendment V). All these various provisions of the Constitution should be interpreted in relation to the other sections of the document and considering the surrounding circumstances.
The guaranty is of a republican form of government. No particular[Pg 741] government is designated as republican, neither is the exact form to be guaranteed, in any manner especially designated. Here, as in other parts of the instrument, we are compelled to resort elsewhere to ascertain what was intended. The guaranty necessarily implies a duty on the part of the States themselves to provide such a government. All the States had governments when the Constitution was adopted. In all, the people participated to some extent through their representatives elected in the manner specially provided. These governments the Constitution did not change. They were accepted precisely as they were, and it is therefore to be presumed that they were such as it was the duty of the States to provide. Thus, we have unmistakable evidence of what was republican in form, within the meaning of that term as employed in the Constitution. As has been seen, all the citizens of the States were not invested with the right of suffrage. In all, save perhaps New Jersey, this right was only bestowed upon men, and not upon all of them. Under these circumstances, it is certainly now too late to contend that a Government is not republican within the meaning of this guaranty in the Constitution because women are not made voters.
The guarantee is for a republican form of government. No specific[Pg 741] government is defined as republican, and there’s no specific structure to be guaranteed in any particular way. Here, as in other sections of the document, we have to look elsewhere to understand what was meant. The guarantee clearly implies an obligation on the part of the States to provide such a government. All the States had governments when the Constitution was adopted. In each case, the people participated in some way through their representatives, who were elected as specified. The Constitution did not change these governments. They were accepted just as they were, so it can be assumed that they were the type of government the States were meant to provide. Therefore, we have clear evidence of what was considered republican in form, according to the way that term is used in the Constitution. As noted, not all citizens of the States had the right to vote. In all cases, except maybe New Jersey, this right was granted only to men, and not to all of them. Given these circumstances, it is certainly too late to argue that a government is not republican under this guarantee in the Constitution just because women do not have the right to vote.
The same maybe said of the other provisions just quoted. Women were excluded from suffrage in nearly all the States by the express provision of their constitutions and laws. If that had been equivalent to a bill of attainder, certainly its abrogation would not have been left to implication. Nothing less than express language would have been employed to effect so radical a change. So also of the Amendment which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; adopted as it was as early as 1791. If suffrage was intended to be included within its obligations, language better adapted to express that intent would most certainly have been employed. The right of suffrage, when granted, will be protected. He who has it can only be deprived of it by due process of law; but, in order to claim protection, he must first show that he has the right. But we have already sufficiently considered the proof found upon the inside of the Constitution. That upon the outside is equally effective.
The same can be said for the other provisions just mentioned. Women were excluded from voting in almost all the states by the explicit terms of their constitutions and laws. If that had been similar to a bill of attainder, its repeal would not have been left to assumption. Nothing less than clear language would have been used to make such a significant change. The same goes for the Amendment that states no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; it was adopted as early as 1791. If voting rights were meant to be included in its protections, language more suited to express that intent would definitely have been used. When the right to vote is granted, it will be protected. A person who has that right can only lose it through due process of law; however, to seek protection, they must first prove that they have the right. But we have already discussed the evidence found within the Constitution. The evidence found outside of it is equally compelling.
The Constitution was submitted to the States for adoption in 1787, and was ratified by nine States in 1788, and, finally, by the thirteen original States in 1790. "Vermont was the first new State admitted to the Union, and it came in under a Constitution which conferred the right of suffrage only upon men of the full age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State for the space of one whole year next before the election, and who were of quiet and peaceable behavior. This was in 1791. The next year (1792) Kentucky followed, with a Constitution confining the right of suffrage to free male citizens of the age of twenty-one years, who had resided in the State two years, or, in the county in which they offered to vote, one year next before the election. Then followed Tennessee in 1796, with voters of freemen of the age of twenty-one years and upward, possessing a freehold in the county wherein they may vote, and being inhabitants of the State or freemen being inhabitants of any one county in the State six months immediately preceding the day of election. But we need not particularize further. No new State has ever been admitted[Pg 742] to the Union which has conferred the right of suffrage upon women, and this has never been considered a valid objection to her admission. On the contrary, as is claimed in the argument, the right of suffrage was withdrawn from women as early as 1807 in the State of New Jersey, without any attempt to obtain the interference of the United States to prevent it. Since then the governments of the insurgent States have been reorganized under a requirement that, before their Representatives could be admitted to seats in Congress, they must have adopted new Constitutions, republican in form. In no one of these Constitutions was suffrage conferred upon women, and yet the States have all been restored to their original position as States in the Union.
The Constitution was presented to the States for approval in 1787 and ratified by nine States in 1788, and eventually by all thirteen original States in 1790. "Vermont was the first new State to join the Union, and it did so under a Constitution that granted voting rights only to men aged twenty-one and older, who had lived in the State for a full year before the election, and who displayed good behavior. This was in 1791. The following year (1792), Kentucky came next, with a Constitution that limited voting rights to free male citizens aged twenty-one, who had lived in the State for two years, or in the county where they planned to vote for one year prior to the election. Tennessee followed in 1796, allowing voters who were freemen aged twenty-one and older, who owned property in the county where they could vote, and who had been residents of the State or freemen living in any county in the State for the six months leading up to the election day. But we don’t need to go into more details. No new State has ever been admitted to the Union that granted voting rights to women, and this has never been seen as a valid reason for denying their admission. On the contrary, as pointed out in the argument, the right to vote was taken away from women as early as 1807 in New Jersey, without any attempt to get the interference of the United States to stop it. Since then, the governments of the rebellious States have been reorganized with the requirement that, before their Representatives could take their seats in Congress, they had to adopt new Constitutions that were republican in style. None of these Constitutions granted voting rights to women, and yet all these States have been restored to their original status as States in the Union.
Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the Constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.
Besides this, citizenship has not always been required before someone can vote. For instance, in Missouri, individuals born outside the U.S. who have announced their intention to become citizens can vote under certain conditions. This same rule is also included in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.
Certainly if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For near ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. If uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be.
Certainly, if the courts can consider any issue settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years, people have believed that the Constitution, when it granted citizenship, did not automatically give the right to vote. If consistent practice over a long period can determine the interpretation of such an important document as the Constitution of the United States undoubtedly is, it has certainly been established here. Our role is to decide what the law is, not to state what it should be.
We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong it ought to be changed, but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end, if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold.
We have given this case the careful consideration it deserves. If the law is wrong, it should be changed, but that's not our decision to make. The arguments presented to us regarding this view of the situation might be enough to motivate those who do have the power to make changes, but they shouldn't sway our judgment in deciding the current rights of the parties involved in the litigation before us. We can't consider arguments about a woman's need for the right to vote. We can only act based on her rights as they currently exist. It's not our role to focus on the hardships of denying those rights. Our responsibility ends if we find that a state has the authority to withhold them.
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the Constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we affirm the judgment of the court below.
Being in complete agreement that the Constitution of the United States does not grant the right to vote to anyone, and that the Constitutions and laws of the individual States which assign that important responsibility solely to men are not automatically invalid, we support the decision made by the lower court.
Soon after the decision on Mrs. Minor's case, Mrs. Gage, in a convention at Washington, ably reviewed Judge Waite's opinion, showing that the United States has eight classes of voters. She said:
Soon after the decision on Mrs. Minor's case, Mrs. Gage, at a convention in Washington, effectively discussed Judge Waite's opinion, demonstrating that the United States has eight categories of voters. She said:
Chief justice Waite, in rendering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Minor vs. Happersett case, which was an appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, on the question of woman's right to vote under the provisions of the XIV. Amendment, decided against this right. The court maintained that the United States Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage on any person, and that the matter is regulated[Pg 743] by State Constitutions, and that when provision is made in them extending the right of suffrage to men only, such provisions are binding. It also declared that the United States had no voters in the States of its own creation. But this assertion was false upon the very face of it.
Chief Justice Waite, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Minor vs. Happersett case, which was an appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri regarding the question of a woman's right to vote under the XIV Amendment, ruled against this right. The court argued that the United States Constitution does not grant the right to vote to anyone, and that this issue is governed by State Constitutions. It stated that when these constitutions only allow men to vote, such provisions are enforceable. It also declared that the United States had no voters in the States it created. However, this claim was obviously false.
1st. Every enfranchised male slave had the ballot secured him under United States law—a law which annulled all State provisions against color. At the time of ratification of the last amendments, the State of New York possessed a property qualification of $250. The moment these amendments were ratified, that law became dead on the statute book. The New York Legislature did not repeal it. The United States repealed this property prohibition, by creating a class of United States voters out of colored men. So here is one class of United States voters, and a clear mistake on the part of Chief-Justice Waite and the Supreme Court. But the United States has often exercised its power over the ballot more directly than through constitutional amendments; for,
1st. Every freed male slave had the right to vote guaranteed by U.S. law—a law that eliminated all state restrictions based on race. At the time the last amendments were ratified, New York had a property requirement of $250. Once these amendments were ratified, that law became ineffective. The New York Legislature didn't repeal it. The U.S. government overturned this property restriction by establishing a group of U.S. voters that included men of color. So here we have one group of U.S. voters and a clear error made by Chief Justice Waite and the Supreme Court. However, the U.S. has often acted directly to influence voting rights beyond just constitutional amendments; for,
2d. Every Southern man disfranchised because of having taken part in the war, and who has since been granted amnesty, has again been made a voter through United States law; all such men then became United States voters. Here is a second class of United States voters, and a second mistake of Chief Justice Waite and the Supreme Court. It may be answered that the revolted States were in the condition of Territories at the time of this disfranchisement, and therefore under direct control of the National Government. Admitting this, we still know that general amnesty was granted after reconstruction; after State forms of government had again been organized, the nation exercised its power over the ballot by restoring thousands of men to their political rights—to citizenship. And from the general law of amnesty for the rank and file, the leaders in the rebellion were again and again, by special Acts of Congress, re-endowed with the ballot. No amendment was submitted or expected. The authority of Congress thus to restore to these men the use of the ballot was unquestioned.
2d. Every Southern man who lost his right to vote because he participated in the war, and who has since been granted amnesty, has regained his voting rights under U.S. law; all these men then became U.S. voters. This represents a second category of U.S. voters and a second error by Chief Justice Waite and the Supreme Court. It could be argued that the rebellious states were like Territories at the time of this disenfranchisement, and thus under the direct control of the National Government. Even accepting this, we know that general amnesty was granted after reconstruction; after state governments were reestablished, the nation exercised its authority over voting by restoring thousands of men to their political rights—to citizenship. And from the general amnesty law for the common soldiers, the leaders of the rebellion were repeatedly restored to their voting rights through special Acts of Congress. No amendment was put forth or anticipated. The authority of Congress to restore these men's voting rights was unquestioned.
3d. The naturalized foreigner secures his right to vote under United States law, and can not vote unless he first becomes an United States citizen, or announces his intention of so becoming. In Missouri, Nebraska, and some other States, the declaration of such intention permits him to vote. This is a State regulation, but the fact of his United States citizenship must in some form first exist. In the naturalized man is a third class of United States voters. With one and the same hand he at the same moment picks up his naturalization papers and his ballot. It matters not what the State law may be, the foreigner secures his vote under United States law. And here is a third class of United States voters and a third mistake of Chief-Justice Waite and the Supreme Court.
3d. A naturalized foreigner can vote under U.S. law, but they must first become a U.S. citizen or declare their intention to do so. In states like Missouri, Nebraska, and others, this declaration allows them to vote. Although this is regulated by the state, they must have some form of U.S. citizenship first. Naturalized individuals form a third group of U.S. voters. With one hand, they hold their naturalization papers and with the other, their ballot. Regardless of state laws, a foreigner can cast their vote under U.S. law. This creates a third group of U.S. voters and highlights a third mistake made by Chief Justice Waite and the Supreme Court.
4th. The Thirty-ninth or Fortieth Congress took a step farther than this, passing a law that all foreigners who had served in, and been honorably discharged from the army, should possess the right to vote, even though they had not previously filed intention of naturalization, thus again proving that Congress itself, without an amendment to the Constitution, or the authorization of States, possessed power over the ballot. If it has this power of securing the use of the ballot to foreigners who have never intimated a desire to become citizens, it surely can enfranchise its own native-born citizens irrespective[Pg 744] of sex. The denial of the ballot to all women by the Supreme Court, in the person of Virginia L. Minor, under the pretense that the United States possesses no voters in the States of its own creation is thus shown to be a false assumption. But this is not all.
4th. The Thirty-ninth or Fortieth Congress went a step further by passing a law that allowed all foreigners who had served in the army and been honorably discharged to have the right to vote, even if they hadn't previously declared their intention to become citizens. This clearly demonstrated that Congress itself had the power over voting rights without needing a constitutional amendment or state approval. If it can grant the right to vote to foreigners who have never shown an interest in becoming citizens, it can certainly give voting rights to its own native-born citizens regardless of sex. The Supreme Court's denial of the ballot to all women, represented by Virginia L. Minor, based on the flawed idea that the United States has no voters in the states it created, is clearly proven to be incorrect. But that's not all.
5th and 6th. And oldest of all these classes of United States voters are those men who vote for members of the House of Representatives, and for Presidential Electors in the several States.
5th and 6th. The oldest groups of voters in the United States are those men who vote for members of the House of Representatives and for Presidential Electors in the different States.
National Constitution.—Article 1, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.
National Constitution.—Article 1, Section 2. The House of Representatives will be made up of members elected every two years by the people of each State, and the voters in each State must meet the qualifications required to vote for the largest branch of the State Legislature.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2. Each State shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress.... Clause 3. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2. Each State will appoint electors in a way that its Legislature decides, equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives the State has in Congress.... Clause 3. Congress can decide when to choose the electors and the day they will cast their votes; that day will be the same across the United States.
The United States by these articles guarantees: 1st. To every person who has a right under State action to vote for the most numerous branch of his State Legislature, the United States right to vote at a peaceable election for members of Congress. 2d. The United States directs the appointment of Presidential Electors, and declares that Congress may not only determine the time of choosing such electors, but shall also fix the day upon which such votes shall be given. The United States secures the right, merely leaving the States to prescribe the qualifications of voters. This is all, with one exception that woman asks; she demands that her right shall be recognized and secured by the United States, which shall then prohibit the States from prescribing qualifications not within the reach of all citizens.
The United States, through these articles, guarantees: 1st. To everyone who has the right under State action to vote for the largest branch of their State Legislature, the right to vote in a peaceful election for members of Congress. 2nd. The United States oversees the selection of Presidential Electors and states that Congress can not only decide when to choose these electors but must also set the day for casting those votes. The United States ensures this right, leaving it to the States to determine voter qualifications. This is all, with one exception that women request; they demand that their right be recognized and protected by the United States, which should then prevent the States from setting qualifications that are not accessible to all citizens.
A 7th class of United States voters are those men who having been deprived of citizenship through civil offenses against the power and majesty of the United States are afterward pardoned, or "restored to citizenship."
A 7th group of United States voters consists of men who have lost their citizenship due to civil offenses against the authority and dignity of the United States but are later pardoned or "restored to citizenship."
Still an 8th class over whom the United States exercises its authority are deserters from the army—military criminals. An act of Congress of March 3, 1865, imposed forfeiture of citizenship and its rights, as an additional penalty for the crime of desertion. In accordance with this act, the President issued a proclamation the eleventh of that same month, declaring that all deserters who failed to report themselves to a Provost Marshal within sixty days thereafter should be deemed to have forfeited their rights of citizenship, and should be declared forever incapable of holding any office of interest or profit under the United States. This act was passed previous to the submission of the XIV. Amendment.
Still in 8th class over whom the United States has authority are deserters from the army—military criminals. An act of Congress on March 3, 1865, established loss of citizenship and its rights as an additional penalty for the crime of desertion. Following this act, the President issued a proclamation on the eleventh of that same month, declaring that all deserters who did not report to a Provost Marshal within sixty days would be considered to have forfeited their citizenship rights and would be permanently barred from holding any office of interest or profit under the United States. This act was enacted before the submission of the XIV Amendment.
Thus at the time of Chief-Justice Waite's decision asserting National want of power over the ballot, and declaring the United States possessed no voters of its own creation in the States (where else would it have them?), the country already possessed eight classes of voters, or persons whose right to the ballot was in some form under the control or sanction of the United States. The black man, the amnestied man, the naturalized man, the foreigner honorably discharged from the Union army, voters for the lower House of Congress, voters for Presidential electors, pardoned civil and military criminals. Further research may bring still other classes to light.
Thus, at the time of Chief Justice Waite's decision stating that the federal government lacked authority over the ballot and declaring that the United States had no voters of its own creation in the states (where else would it find them?), the country already had eight categories of voters, or individuals whose right to vote was somehow controlled or approved by the United States. These included black men, amnesty recipients, naturalized citizens, foreigners honorably discharged from the Union army, voters for the House of Representatives, voters for presidential electors, and pardoned civil and military offenders. Further research may reveal even more categories.
Thus when woman claims that her right to the use of the ballot shall be secured[Pg 745] by the United States, she has eight distinguished precedents in favor of her demand for National protection. No more inconsistent assertion was ever made than that the United States possesses no control over the suffrage. While by Circuit Court decisions, Supreme Court decisions, and decisions of courts of lesser degree, theoretically denying its control over the suffrage, the United States in many ways besides those mentioned, practically acknowledges its possession of this right. In the case of Miss Anthony and the fourteen other women of Rochester, N. Y., who voted in 1872, the great State of New York took no action at all in the matter; it was the General Government which thrust itself forward and took up the question. If the United States has no control over the suffrage then Miss Anthony's trial was a clear interference of the United States with the rights of States. And so great was this interference, it is believed the judge appointed to try her case left Washington with his verdict in his pocket already written.
So when a woman says that her right to vote should be secured[Pg 745] by the United States, she has eight strong precedents supporting her demand for national protection. There's no more contradictory claim than saying the United States has no authority over voting rights. While Circuit Court rulings, Supreme Court decisions, and judgments from lower courts may theoretically deny its authority over voting, the United States, in many ways beyond those mentioned, practically acknowledges its possession of this right. In the case of Miss Anthony and the fourteen other women from Rochester, N.Y., who voted in 1872, the great State of New York didn’t take any action; it was the federal government that stepped in and addressed the issue. If the United States has no authority over voting rights, then Miss Anthony’s trial was a clear interference by the federal government with the rights of the states. It’s believed that the judge assigned to her case left Washington with his verdict already written in his pocket.
Let none of my audience forget the various great trials of woman's right to vote under the XIV. Amendment, especially that of Mrs. Virginia L. Minor, who prosecuted the Inspector of Election in St. Louis for refusing to receive her vote, and whose case, coming finally for adjudication to the Supreme Court of the United States, decision was rendered against her on the plea that the ballot was under control of the respective States, and that the United States has no voters in the States of its own creation; which I have shown to be an ignorant, imbecile, and false plea. Neither let them forget that of Susan B. Anthony, decided against her on the ground that she was a woman at the time she voted. If States have the sole control of the suffrage, there was interference in the rights of the State of New York by her trial; and if United States citizens of any class have a right to be protected in the use of the ballot, then the United States very flagrantly and tyrannously interfered in Miss Anthony's individual right as a citizen of the United States.
Let none of my audience forget the significant struggles for women's right to vote under the 14th Amendment, particularly the case of Mrs. Virginia L. Minor, who sued the Election Inspector in St. Louis for refusing to accept her vote. Her case eventually went to the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled against her, claiming that the ballot was controlled by individual States, and that the United States doesn’t have voters in the States it created; a stance I have shown to be ignorant, incompetent, and false. Let’s also remember Susan B. Anthony, whose case was decided against her just because she was a woman when she voted. If States have exclusive control over voting rights, then her trial was an interference with the rights of New York State; and if citizens of the United States of any background have a right to be protected in their use of the ballot, then the United States clearly and unjustly interfered in Miss Anthony's individual rights as a citizen of the United States.
In the near future these trials of women under the XIV. Amendment will be looked upon as the great State trials of the world; trials on which a republic, founded upon the acknowledged rights of all persons to self-government, through its courts decided against the right of one half of its citizens on the ground that sex was a barrier and a crime.
In the near future, these trials of women under the XIV Amendment will be seen as the major State trials of the world; trials where a republic, built on the recognized rights of all individuals to self-govern, through its courts ruled against the rights of half of its citizens based on the belief that sex was a barrier and a crime.
Then let us look at the territory of Wyoming. Much has of late been said in regard to women not making use of the ballot there. I care little about that statement one way or the other, as long as her right to vote is not interfered with. It will be time to require all women to vote when we have such a law for men; until then let each voter refrain from voting at his or her own option; it is not the vital question. But there is a point connected with woman's voting in Wyoming that is well worthy of our consideration. That is, the interference of the United States with the concomitants of this right. For a time the women of Wyoming sat upon juries, and the fact was heralded over the country that thieves, gamblers, murderers fled the territory rather than fall into the hands of these women jurors. The first conviction for a murder in that territory, not committed in self-defense, came from a mixed jury.
Then let’s take a look at the territory of Wyoming. Recently, there’s been a lot of talk about women not using the ballot there. Personally, I don’t care much about that either way, as long as their right to vote isn’t messed with. It will only be time to require all women to vote when we have a law mandating the same for men; until then, each voter should be free to choose whether to cast their ballot or not; it’s not the main issue. However, there’s a point regarding women’s voting in Wyoming that deserves our attention. That is, the interference from the United States with the aspects tied to this right. For a while, women in Wyoming served on juries, and it was widely reported that thieves, gamblers, and murderers avoided the territory rather than face these women jurors. The first murder conviction in that territory, which wasn’t committed in self-defense, came from a mixed jury.
But of late we have ceased hearing of women jurors. And why? Because that sacred right has been interfered with by the United States. The[Pg 746] Marshal of the Territory, an officer appointed by the United States Government, has absolutely refused to place the names of women on the jury lists. Consequently the women of Wyoming are denied the exercise of this right by United States power. Whether the Marshal has been ordered by the National Government to omit the names of women, we do not know, and it does not signify. The duty of the United States is none the less clear; the Territories are in an especial way the wards of the nation, and should be protected in all territorial rights. The Territory of Wyoming having secured to women the exercise of their right to vote, it is the duty of the General Government to protect them in the exercise of all concomitant rights, of which the jury is one.
But lately, we haven’t heard about women jurors. And why is that? Because that important right has been disrupted by the United States. The[Pg 746] Marshal of the Territory, an official appointed by the U.S. Government, has completely refused to include women’s names on the jury lists. As a result, the women of Wyoming are being denied this right by the power of the United States. Whether the Marshal has been instructed by the National Government to leave out the names of women is unclear, and it doesn’t matter. The responsibility of the United States is still very clear; the Territories are especially the wards of the nation and should be safeguarded in all territorial rights. Since Wyoming has granted women the right to vote, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure they can exercise all related rights, of which serving on a jury is one.
This deprivation of jury rights in Wyoming is not only an United States interference with woman's political rights, but also an interference with her industrial rights. It is a well-known fact that some women earned their first independent dollar by sitting in the jury box. And whatever interferes with woman's industrial rights helps to send her down to those depths where want of bread has forced so many women: into the gutters of shame. This is a question of morality as well as of industrial and political rights. Every infringement of a person's political rights, touches a hundred other rights adversely. Let me show you one good that has come to woman through her ballot in Wyoming. The payment of men and women teachers has been equalized by direct statute, for political power always benefits the parties holding it.
This loss of jury rights in Wyoming isn’t just an interference with women's political rights but also affects their industrial rights. It’s well known that some women earned their first independent dollar by serving on a jury. Any interference with women’s industrial rights pushes them into situations where the struggle for basic needs has led many women to despair. This is an issue of morality as well as industrial and political rights. Every violation of a person's political rights negatively impacts many other rights. Let me point out one benefit that has come to women through their voting rights in Wyoming: the pay for male and female teachers has been made equal by law, because political power always benefits those who possess it.
Let us look at a few other ways in which the United States has touched the rights of women where protection has been secured her by legislation outside of itself. One instance that has come to my knowledge since I have been in your city, is in the case of pensions for colored women. The United States not only secured the ballot to the black male citizen outside of State authority, but it has touched the family relation with its powerful hand. It has assumed that the woman with whom a colored soldier was living at the time of his death was his wife, notwithstanding he may have lived for many years in recognized married relations with another woman, and become the father of children by her during this period. In one case coming under the cognizance of our Washington lawyer, Mrs. Lockwood, a pension was, by United States authority, thus granted to a woman living with such colored soldier at the time of his death, although she had no other claim upon it. This soldier, during the period of slavery, had been married in his master's house to another woman by a regularly ordained clergyman, and by that wife had become the father of five or six children. This woman was his lawful widow, according to State and church law. These children were his lawful children, according to State and church law, but the United States stepped in, and made this married woman an outcast, and left her children in the world with the brand of illegitimacy. The women of the Territories of Wyoming and Utah are not secure in their political rights, because the women of the Nation have none. Scarcely a session of Congress but some politician introduces a bill to disfranchise the women of these Territories.
Let’s examine a few other ways in which the United States has influenced women's rights where protection has been secured through legislation outside its own framework. One example that I’ve learned about since arriving in your city is regarding pensions for Black women. The United States not only granted voting rights to Black men outside of state regulation, but it has also intervened in family matters in significant ways. It has taken the position that a woman living with a Black soldier at the time of his death is considered his wife, even if he had lived for many years in a recognized marriage with another woman and had fathered children with her during that time. In one case that our Washington lawyer, Mrs. Lockwood, handled, a pension was granted by U.S. authorities to a woman who was with such a soldier when he died, despite her having no other claim to it. This soldier, during the period of slavery, had been married in his master's residence to another woman by a duly ordained minister, and by that wife, he fathered five or six children. According to state and church law, this woman was his legitimate widow, and their children were his legitimate offspring. However, the United States intervened, effectively deeming this married woman an outcast and leaving her children branded as illegitimate. The women in the territories of Wyoming and Utah lack solid political rights because the women of the nation have none. Hardly a session of Congress goes by without some politician introducing a bill to disenfranchise the women in these territories.
In regard to the religious aspects of this Utah question. I care for it only so far as it touches woman's political rights, although I do know that woman's[Pg 747] political wrongs and her religious wrongs have been very closely intermingled in the past. I recall a Papal Bull of Urban II., in the 12th century, which compelled priests to discard their wives, making of thousands of women in England, wives who were not wed; of children, offspring who had no recognized fathers. We of the National Woman Suffrage Association have nothing to do with the religious rights of women in Utah, except in so far as they intermingle with and touch woman's political rights. But the Utah question, which now comes up again, is not simply a religious question. The Government is continuously striving to destroy the political rights of the women of this Territory. Its Governor is a United States officer, and in his last report to the Secretary of the Interior, he so far transcended the duties of his office as to suggest the disfranchisement of Utah women. Almost every session of Congress sees some bill of similar import introduced.
Regarding the religious aspects of the Utah issue, I only care about it as it relates to women's political rights. However, I acknowledge that women's political and religious issues have been deeply intertwined historically. I remember a Papal Bull from Urban II in the 12th century that forced priests to abandon their wives, leaving thousands of women in England married in name only and many children without recognized fathers. We at the National Woman Suffrage Association do not concern ourselves with the religious rights of women in Utah, except where they intersect with women's political rights. However, the Utah issue that has resurfaced is not merely a religious one. The government is continuously trying to undermine the political rights of women in this territory. The Governor, a U.S. official, overstepped his authority in his last report to the Secretary of the Interior by suggesting that Utah women be disenfranchised. Almost every session of Congress introduces a bill of a similar nature.
The General Government did not confer this right, did not secure even the exercise of it. The territorial Legislature, the same as in Wyoming, secured to women the exercise of the right of suffrage; the United States, according to its own theory, has no authority to interfere with this right, because, according to that theory, it has nothing at all to do with the suffrage question. Yet it proposes to disfranchise those women as a punishment for their religious belief; it proposes to make social outcasts of them, as it has already done with the wives of some of its black soldier voters.
The General Government did not grant this right, nor did it ensure its exercise. The local Legislature, just like in Wyoming, granted women the right to vote; according to its own principles, the United States has no power to interfere with this right because, based on that theory, it has nothing to do with the voting issue. Yet, it plans to disenfranchise these women as a punishment for their religious beliefs; it aims to make them social outcasts, just as it has already done with the wives of some of its Black soldier voters.
Looking back through history we find no act of the Romish Church more vile than that which compelled its priests to disown their wives and legitimate children—none which so utterly demoralized society, and destroyed its tens of thousands of women. And although, as a body of reformers, I again say we do not touch religion except where it, and politics together, infringe upon the rights of women, I do not hesitate to say for myself individually, that I have no faith in any form of religion, be it what it may, Christian, Mohammedan, Buddhist, that receives revelation only through some man; or farther than that, I will say, I have no faith in any form of religion that does not place man and woman on an exact equality of religious rights. Two forms of religion of the present day which have risen through woman, or as revelations to her, namely the Shaker and the Spiritual, do give us equality of religious rights, for man and woman. But I call your attention to the inconsistency of United States laws, and their especial injustice to women by interference with those rights secured them by State or Territorial laws, as in case of the colored soldier's wife; as in case the assumption that the United States had a right to prohibit the exercise of the suffrage by a woman in New York, although New York itself did not interfere; as in case of the virtual prohibition by the United States of jury rights to the women of Wyoming; as in case of the presumptuous suggestion of the Governor of Utah that its women should be disfranchised; as in case of such bills so often introduced in Congress.
Looking back through history, we find no act by the Catholic Church more despicable than the one that forced its priests to abandon their wives and legitimate children—none that so completely demoralized society and harmed countless women. And although, as a group of reformers, I want to emphasize that we only address religion when it and politics together violate women's rights, I personally have to say that I have no faith in any religion, whether it’s Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist, that claims revelation only through a man. Furthermore, I will say I have no faith in any religion that doesn’t place men and women on equal footing regarding religious rights. Two modern religions that emerged through women, or as revelations to them, namely the Shaker and Spiritual movements, do offer equality of religious rights for men and women. However, I want to highlight the inconsistency of U.S. laws and their particular unfairness to women by undermining the rights granted to them by state or territorial laws, as seen in cases like the colored soldier's wife; the assumption that the U.S. had the authority to prevent a woman in New York from voting, even though New York itself did not intervene; the effective denial of jury rights to women in Wyoming by the United States; the arrogant suggestion by the Governor of Utah that women should be disenfranchised; and the frequent introduction of such bills in Congress.
I know something of the opinion of the women of the Nation, and I know they intend to be recognized as citizens secured in the exercise of all the powers and rights of citizens. If this security has not come under the XIV. Amendment, it must come under a XVI., for woman intends to possess "equal personal rights and equal political privileges with all other citizens."[Pg 748] She asks for nothing outside the power of the United States, she asks for nothing outside the duty of the United States to secure. Politicians may as well look this fact squarely in the face and become wise after the wisdom of the world, for in just so far as they ignore and forget the women of the country, in just so far will they themselves be ignored and forgotten by future generations.
I understand what the women of the Nation think, and I know they want to be acknowledged as citizens fully entitled to all the rights and powers that come with citizenship. If this recognition hasn't come under the XIV Amendment, it needs to come under a XVI, because women intend to have "equal personal rights and equal political privileges with all other citizens."[Pg 748] They are not asking for anything beyond what the United States can provide; they are asking for what the United States is obligated to ensure. Politicians should face this reality and learn from the wisdom of the world, because as long as they overlook and disregard the women of this country, they too will be overlooked and forgotten by future generations.
The following review of this important case is from the January number, 1876, of the Central Law Journal, St. Louis, Missouri:
The following review of this important case is from the January 1876 issue of the Central Law Journal, St. Louis, Missouri:
WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN ITS LEGAL ASPECT—A REVIEW OF THE CASE OF MINOR vs. HAPPERSETT, 21 WALLACE, U. S. REPORTS.
As a rule, respect should undoubtedly be paid to judicial decisions. When the court of last resort has considered and passed upon a question of law, especially if it be one involving a consideration of constitutional power, as well as of private right, it is eminently proper that its conclusion should not be disturbed, unless for reasons of the gravest import. But cases present themselves at times, in which criticism is not only justified, but is demanded; and it is only through its aid that the ultimate truth of any question can be reached and its principles be correctly established. Nor can courts of justice take exception to such criticism, since the reports abound with evidences of the fact that there is no judicial immunity from error; and we believe that if the glamour of supposed legal impeccability, that shrouds the judiciary in the eyes of many, could be removed, a public service would be accomplished. In the case under consideration an important question of constitutional law was involved, the construction of which affected not only the plaintiff therein, but the entire class of persons to which she belonged, while the decision extends it still further, and makes it applicable to every citizen of the United States. Thus, while the particular case may be ended, the entire community has an interest in the conclusion announced. It is not our purpose to consider the subject of suffrage as an abstract right; with this aspect of it we have nothing to do in this article. We shall treat it solely as a legal right. Under a government of law, indeed, there are, properly speaking, no abstract rights. All rights, of person or of property, are legal rights, and it shall be our purpose to show that the right of Federal suffrage is recognized in the Constitution of the United States, and certainly no one will deny its practical exercise during nearly ninety years. An inspection of the Opinion will show that the whole matter was summed up in the question, whether suffrage is a right or privilege appertaining to citizenship of the United States, for if it be, then the plaintiff's suit was rightly brought. The opinion, which was delivered by the Chief Justice, states the matter as follows:
As a general rule, we should definitely respect judicial decisions. When the highest court has examined and ruled on a legal question, especially one involving constitutional power and private rights, it's quite appropriate that its decision shouldn't be overturned unless there are very serious reasons. However, there are times when criticism is not only justified but necessary; it's through this criticism that we can uncover the ultimate truth of any issue and correctly establish its principles. Courts can't object to such criticism since there are plenty of examples showing that there's no absolute immunity from mistakes in the judiciary. We believe that if we could strip away the illusion of legal perfection that many have about judges, it would serve the public well. In this case, an important question of constitutional law was at stake, affecting not just the plaintiff but an entire group of people she represented, and the ruling extends even further, impacting every citizen of the United States. So while this specific case might be resolved, the whole community has a stake in the conclusion reached. Our goal isn't to discuss suffrage as an abstract right; we're not addressing that angle in this article. Instead, we will focus solely on it as a legal right. In a government based on law, there are no truly abstract rights. All rights, whether personal or property-related, are legal rights. We intend to demonstrate that the right to vote in federal elections is recognized in the Constitution of the United States, and surely no one can deny its practical use for almost ninety years. A look at the Opinion will reveal that the entire issue boils down to whether voting is a right or a privilege tied to U.S. citizenship, because if it is, then the plaintiff's lawsuit was rightly filed. The opinion, delivered by the Chief Justice, summarizes it as follows:
It is contended that the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the State of Missouri, which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage, as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State can not by its laws or Constitution abridge.
It’s argued that the laws and Constitution of Missouri, which limit the right to vote and register to men, violate the United States Constitution and are therefore invalid. The reasoning is that a woman, whether born or naturalized in the United States and under its jurisdiction, is a citizen of both the United States and the state where she lives. As such, she has the right to vote as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the state cannot restrict through its laws or Constitution.
And on page 170:
And on page 170:
If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the Constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is therefore presented, whether all citizens are necessarily voters. The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them. It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the State, of its own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by State voters.
If the right to vote is one of the essential rights of a citizen of the United States, then the Constitution and laws of Missouri that limit it to men violate the U.S. Constitution, as amended, and are therefore invalid. The main question is whether all citizens must be voters. The Constitution doesn’t specify the rights and protections of citizens. To find that definition, we need to look elsewhere. In this case, we don’t have to determine what those rights are, but simply whether voting is necessarily one of them. It is definitely not explicitly stated anywhere. The United States has no voters within the State created by it. All elected officials of the United States are chosen directly or indirectly by state voters.
We had supposed that if there was any question that now, at least, might be regarded as finally settled, both by the late appeal to arms, and by the Constitutional Amendments, it was that of the subordination of State to National authority, over any and all subjects in which the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States are involved. If the amendments do not cover this ground, then they are worse than useless. And yet this decision is a blow at all that constitutes us a Nation. To declare that the United States has no voters—that its officers are all elected by State voters, is to completely reverse the order of things, and subordinate the citizens of the United States to State authority. It will be observed that this decision goes far beyond the ground hitherto and ordinarily claimed by the advocates of what are called "States' Rights."
We thought that if there was any issue that could now be considered finally settled, both by the recent conflict and by the Constitutional Amendments, it was the subordination of State authority to National authority in all matters concerning the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States. If the amendments don’t address this issue, then they are worse than useless. Yet this decision undermines everything that makes us a Nation. To say that the United States has no voters and that its officials are all chosen by State voters completely reverses the situation and puts the citizens of the United States under State authority. It's clear that this decision extends far beyond what the advocates of "States' Rights" have previously claimed.
It has usually been supposed that the States possessed the authority to regulate the exercise of the franchise by the Federal voter, but never before was the right itself denied as appurtenant to Federal citizenship. But now the franchise itself is declared to be non-existent—Federal officers are elected by State voters. The subject itself is wholly withdrawn from Federal supervision and control. Even the amendments can not confer authority over a matter that has no existence. If, then, the United States has no voters in the States, it can properly have nothing to do with the subject of elections. If the citizen of the United States has no right to vote except as a citizen of a State, his Federal citizenship is, of course, subordinated to his State citizenship. It logically follows that much of the recent legislation on this subject by Congress is destitute of authority. If members of the House of Representatives are elected by State voters, as here declared, there is no reason why the States may not, at their pleasure, recall their representatives, or refuse to elect them, as in 1860 the Southern States claimed it to be their right to do; and if a sufficient number can be united in such a movement, the Federal Government will be completely at their mercy. It may also well be doubted how far the Southern States are bound by legislation in which they had no part. Notwithstanding the provision of the XIV. Amendment, that neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; it (as held by the Supreme Court in two cases in 13th Wallace, Chief Justice Chase dissenting), contracts for the sale or hire of slaves effected before emancipation are valid, upon the ground that to take away the remedy for their enforcement would be to impair their obligation, how much less can the owner of a slave be deprived of his property, which forms the subject-matter of that contract, without compensation? If his contract can not be impaired, surely the thing to which that contract relates can not be taken from him,[Pg 750] except upon compensation. Chief Justice Chase was of the opinion that the above quoted provision of the XIV. Amendment could be sustained only upon the ground that the XIII. Amendment wiped out everything, contracts as well as slavery. Yet the Court held all such contracts to be valid. And see, in this connection, the case of Wilkinson vs. Leland, 2d Peters, 657. It is idle to say that these suppositions are visionary. What has happened once, may occur again. It can hardly be questioned that if in 1860 the seceding States could have pointed to a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States such as this, the whole face of affairs might have been different, and the "erring sisters" permitted to "go in peace"! The "lost cause" may not be "lost," after all.
It has usually been assumed that the States had the authority to regulate the voting rights of Federal voters, but it had never been denied that this right was a part of Federal citizenship. Now, however, the right to vote is declared to be non-existent—Federal officials are elected by State voters. This issue is completely removed from Federal oversight and control. Even the amendments cannot grant authority over something that doesn't exist. Therefore, if the United States has no voters in the States, it rightfully has nothing to do with elections. If a citizen of the United States can only vote as a citizen of a State, then their Federal citizenship is, of course, subordinate to their State citizenship. This logically leads to the conclusion that much of the recent legislation from Congress on this topic lacks authority. If members of the House of Representatives are elected by State voters, as stated here, there’s no reason why the States can’t recall their representatives or choose not to elect them, just as the Southern States claimed their right to do in 1860; and if enough people join in such a movement, the Federal Government will be completely at their mercy. It’s also worth questioning how binding legislation is on the Southern States if they had no involvement in it. Despite the provision of the XIV Amendment stating that neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, the Supreme Court (in two cases cited in 13th Wallace, with Chief Justice Chase dissenting) held that contracts for selling or hiring slaves made before emancipation are valid, based on the rationale that removing the enforcement remedy would undermine their obligation. How much less can a slave owner be deprived of their property, which is the subject of that contract, without compensation? If their contract cannot be impaired, then surely the property that the contract concerns cannot be taken from them, except with compensation. Chief Justice Chase believed that the provision of the XIV Amendment could only be upheld on the basis that the XIII Amendment abolished everything, including contracts and slavery. Yet the Court upheld all such contracts. Also, see the case of Wilkinson vs. Leland, 2d Peters, 657. It is pointless to say that these ideas are far-fetched. What has happened before can happen again. It’s hard to doubt that if the seceding States in 1860 could have pointed to a decision from the Supreme Court like this, everything might have turned out differently, and the “erring sisters” might have been allowed to “go in peace”! The “lost cause” may not be “lost” after all.[Pg 750]
But to resume: The Court tells us in its opinion in this case, that "there can not be a Nation without a people," but it seems there may be a Nation without voters! Now the people of the United States may not have a very profound knowledge of their institutions, but their intelligence certainly rises to the level of comprehending that a republican government can not be established or maintained without voters. It would be a manifest absurdity to say that in a government created by the people, they are not voters. Inasmuch, then, as it is admitted by the Court, if the right of suffrage be a privilege of the citizen of the United States, that the State Constitution and laws confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States and, consequently, void; as contended for by the plaintiff in this case, we have really only to examine this single point: Does the Constitution of the United States recognize the right of suffrage as belonging to its citizens?
But to get back to the point: The Court states in its opinion on this case that "there cannot be a Nation without a people," but it seems there can be a Nation without voters! Now, the people of the United States may not have an incredibly deep understanding of their institutions, but their intelligence certainly reaches a level where they can understand that a republican government cannot be created or sustained without voters. It would be obviously ridiculous to claim that in a government formed by the people, they are not voters. Therefore, since it is acknowledged by the Court that if the right to vote is a privilege of the citizens of the United States, then the State Constitution and laws that limit it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States and are, as a result, invalid; as argued by the plaintiff in this case, we really only need to examine this one point: Does the Constitution of the United States recognize the right to vote as belonging to its citizens?
Future generations will look with astonishment at the fact that such a question could be asked seriously. Not only was the subject debated in the convention that framed the instrument, but one of its ablest members, Alexander Hamilton, in the fifty-second number of the Federalist, says:
Future generations will be amazed that such a question could be taken seriously. Not only was this topic debated at the convention that created the instrument, but one of its most skilled members, Alexander Hamilton, stated in the fifty-second issue of the Federalist:
The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason, that it would have rendered too dependent on the State Governments that branch of the Federal Government which ought to be dependent on the people alone. To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay within their option. It must be satisfactory to every State; because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States; because, being fixed by the State Constitutions, it is not alterable by the State Governments, and it can not be feared that the people of the States will alter this part of their constitutions in such a manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by the Federal Constitution.
The right to vote is rightly seen as a key component of a republican government. Therefore, it was essential for the convention to define and establish this right in the Constitution. Leaving it open for Congress to regulate occasionally would have been inappropriate for the reasons just mentioned. Handing it over to the states’ legislative discretion would have been inappropriate for the same reason, plus it would have made that part of the Federal Government too dependent on the State Governments, rather than the people. Reducing the different qualifications in various states to a single uniform rule would likely have disappointed some states and been challenging for the convention. The solution put forth by the convention seems to be the best option available. It should satisfy every state because it aligns with the standards already set or that may be established by the states themselves. It will be secure for the United States since, being defined by state constitutions, it cannot be changed by the state governments, and there’s little risk that the people of the states will modify this part of their constitutions in a way that undermines the rights granted by the Federal Constitution.
Again, in the XV. Amendment, suffrage is recognized as an existing right of Federal citizenship. It is not created by that Amendment. It was already existing. The language is:
Again, in the XV. Amendment, the right to vote is acknowledged as a fundamental right of federal citizenship. It is not established by this Amendment; it was already in place. The wording is:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The right of U.S. citizens to vote cannot be denied or limited by the United States or any state because of race, color, or former status as a slave.
A right must exist before it can be denied. There can be no denial of a thing that has no existence. If it should be said the XV. Amendment relates only to the negro, we reply that this would be no answer, even if true, which may be doubted; but the point we are now discussing is the statement of the Court that the United States has no voters in the States of its own creation, or in other words, that Federal suffrage does not exist; we have shown that this a mistake, it being recognized in the Constitution; and as the argument of the Court was based on its non-existence it consequently falls to the ground. This really disposes of the case, but we will notice other points. The Court says:
A right has to exist before it can be denied. You can't deny something that doesn't exist. If someone claims that the XV. Amendment only applies to Black people, we would say that even if that were true, it wouldn’t be a valid point, which is debatable; but the issue we're discussing is the Court's statement that the United States has no voters in the States it created, or in other words, that Federal voting rights don't exist. We've shown that this is incorrect, as it's acknowledged in the Constitution; and since the Court's argument was based on its non-existence, it ultimately fails. This essentially settles the case, but we will address other issues. The Court states:
After the adoption of the XIV. Amendment, it was deemed necessary to have a XV: ... The XIV. Amendment had already provided that no State should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If suffrage was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race, etc.? Nothing is more evident than that the greater must include the less, and if all were already protected, why go through with the form of amending the Constitution to protect a part?
After the adoption of the 14th Amendment, it was considered necessary to have a 15th Amendment. The 14th Amendment had already stated that no state should create or enforce any law that would limit the privileges or rights of U.S. citizens. If voting was one of these privileges, why amend the Constitution to prevent it from being denied based on race and so on? It’s clear that if the broader rights are protected, then the smaller ones must be included too. If everything was already safeguarded, why bother with the process of amending the Constitution to protect just a specific part?
It is sometimes perilous in argument to ask questions—we will answer the Court in its own words. In the Slaughter-house cases, the Court then said:
It can be risky in a debate to ask questions—we will respond to the Court using its own words. In the Slaughter-house cases, the Court stated:
A few years' experience satisfied the thoughtful men who had been the authors of the other two amendments, that, notwithstanding the restraints of those articles on the States, and the laws passed under the additional powers granted to Congress, these were inadequate for the protection of life, liberty, and property, without which freedom to the slave was no boon. They were in all those States denied the right of suffrage. The laws were administered by the white man alone. It was urged that a race of men distinctively marked as was the negro, living in the midst of another and dominant race, could never be fully secured in their person and their property without the right of suffrage. Hence the XV. Amendment, which declares that the right of a citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The negro having, by the XIV. Amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the United States, is thus made a voter in every State of the Union. (16 Wallace, 71.)
A few years of experience convinced the thoughtful individuals who created the other two amendments that, despite the limitations those articles placed on the States and the laws established under the extra powers given to Congress, these were not enough to protect life, liberty, and property, without which freedom for the enslaved was meaningless. In all those States, they were denied the right to vote. The laws were enforced solely by white individuals. It was argued that a group of people distinctly identified as the Black community, living in the midst of a dominant race, could never be fully protected in their person and property without the right to vote. Hence the XV. Amendment, which states that the right of a citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or restricted by any State because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Black community, having been declared citizens of the United States by the XIV. Amendment, is thus granted the right to vote in every State of the Union. (16 Wallace, 71.)
For the present argument, it is immaterial whether this result is effected by the XIV., or XV. Amendment, or both. The point is, that the Supreme Court here declares the negro to be a voter in every State of the Union, by virtue of one or both amendments. He is made a voter (a Federal voter) by the law of the United States, and not by the State law. Being made a citizen of the United States, he is thus made a voter in every State of the Union. This is the very gist of the matter. The whole principle is summed up in these few words. The franchise is an incident of the status, or condition of citizenship. Freedom alone was not enough. The XIII. Amendment made the negro free, but citizenship was additionally necessary before he became a voter. As soon as that was achieved, in that moment the franchise followed; to be enjoyed, in the same manner as by other citizens. If ever a suitor was entitled to rely with confidence upon judicial utterances of great principles of law, Mrs. Minor was thus entitled, in her case. She was a citizen of the United States by birth; admitted to be possessed of every qualification but that of sex. Her counsel appeared before this court and quoted its very language above given, and asked the court to be consistent with its own teachings. But no. There was no great and powerful[Pg 752] party to back her demand, as in the case of the negro. She was merely a private individual, and the court contented itself with saying that the right of suffrage when granted would be protected! To which it may be replied, if women ever vote, they will protect themselves; but, if their right should subsequently be denied by the State, the Supreme Court, according to its own rulings in this case, could give no protection, since it declares the right to be wholly within the control of each State. But why should the court require the women citizens of the United States to produce a special grant of the right, when it required nothing of the kind from the negro? Are there two laws in this country, one for the negro, and another for woman? Does the Constitution of the United States recognize or permit class distinctions to be made between its citizens? Yet by this decision, the negro is placed above the woman. He is her superior. His position is above her. For our own part, we decline to accept any such construction of that instrument, knowing that the time will ultimately come when some claim similar to that of Mrs. Minor will meet with proper recognition. To make its inconsistency still greater, the court in this case declares that "allegiance and protection are reciprocal obligations. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection," yet in this case that protection is denied. While the negro, then, is thus declared to be a voter, by reason of his citizenship, in every State of the Union, there is no law either of the State or of the Nation, which in terms or by words confers the ballot upon him. The XV. Amendment does not confer it, but treats it as a right already existing, and forbids its deprivation. Likewise the State law assumes its existence, and makes no change, except to conform to the new condition of the negro's citizenship. There is no change in the State laws, except the omission of a word—the word "white"—from the clause "white male citizens," in the State Constitution. But who ever heard of a right being conferred by omission? And yet this change of a single word by the State was an acknowledgment by it of the supremacy of Federal law touching this subject; and was designed to make the State law conform to the Federal law, which declares (XIV. Amendment) that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This conformity extends, however, only so far as to embrace the negro citizen of the United States, leaving the far larger class of women citizens of the United States still under ban of disfranchisement, in plain violation of the amendment. Under these circumstances, in the case under consideration, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to interpose its authority, and effect by its decree that which the State should have done, and declare that the word "male" must be dropped, as well as the word "white."
For this argument, it doesn't matter whether this outcome is caused by the XIV or XV Amendment, or both. The key point is that the Supreme Court declares that Black individuals are voters in every State in the Union, thanks to one or both amendments. They are made voters (federal voters) under U.S. law, not state law. By becoming U.S. citizens, they automatically become voters in every State of the Union. This is the essence of the issue. The whole principle can be summed up in a few words. The right to vote is a part of citizenship status. Freedom alone wasn’t enough. The XIII Amendment freed Black individuals, but citizenship was also necessary before they became voters. Once that was achieved, the right to vote naturally followed, to be enjoyed just like other citizens. If anyone had a right to confidently rely on judicial pronouncements of fundamental legal principles, it was Mrs. Minor in her case. She was a U.S. citizen by birth and met every qualification except for being female. Her legal team presented this court with its own words and urged it to be consistent with its own principles. But the court did not comply. There was no strong political group supporting her demand, as there was for Black individuals. She was just a private person, and the court simply stated that if the right to vote were granted, it would be protected! To that, one could argue that if women ever vote, they will protect themselves; however, if their right is later denied by the State, the Supreme Court, based on its own rulings in this case, would provide no protection since it claims that the right is entirely within each State's control. But why should the court expect women citizens of the United States to prove their right when it didn’t ask the same of Black citizens? Is there a double standard in this country, one for Black individuals and another for women? Does the U.S. Constitution recognize or allow for class distinctions among its citizens? Yet with this ruling, Black individuals are placed above women. He is considered superior to her. His status is higher than hers. For our part, we refuse to accept such an interpretation of that document, believing that the time will eventually come when cases like Mrs. Minor’s will receive proper acknowledgment. To make the court's inconsistency even more apparent, it states in this case that "allegiance and protection are reciprocal obligations. The concept of a political community, like a nation, involves a group of people working together for their common good. Each person in the group becomes a member of the nation formed by that association. They owe it allegiance and are entitled to its protection," yet in this case, that protection is denied. While Black individuals are declared voters because of their citizenship in every State of the Union, there is no law, either State or National, that explicitly gives them the right to vote. The XV Amendment does not grant it but acknowledges it as an existing right and prohibits its removal. Likewise, State law assumes that the right exists and makes no changes except to reflect the new status of Black citizenship. The only change in State laws is the removal of the word "white" from the phrase "white male citizens" in the State Constitution. But who has ever heard of a right being granted simply by removing a word? Yet, this change of a single word was the State’s acknowledgment of the supremacy of Federal law on this topic and was meant to align State law with Federal law, which declares in the XIV Amendment that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." However, this alignment only applies to Black U.S. citizens, leaving the much larger group of women U.S. citizens still facing disenfranchisement, clearly violating the amendment. Given these circumstances, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to assert its authority and to declare that the word "male" should also be removed, just like the word "white."
Had this been done, the State law in its entirety would have conformed to the paramount law of the United States, while as it is, it conforms only in part. We are told that slavery was abolished in Massachusetts, not by an enactment expressly adopted for the purpose, but by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1781, that its existence was inconsistent with[Pg 753] the declaration in the Bill of Rights that "all men are born free and equal." (Bradford's History of Mass., 11, 227; Draper's Civil War, 1, 318; Story on Const., 11, p. 634, note.) So far, however, from interfering, as it was its plain duty to have done, to protect this class of United States citizens, the court has gone further than perhaps it intended, and possibly destroyed the rights of another class, for the decision, by declaring that the United States has no voters, virtually renders the XV. Amendment of no effect. There is nothing upon which it can operate. There being no voters, there is of course no "right to vote," to be "protected." So that every citizen of the United States is left completely at the mercy of the State.
Had this been done, the state law would have fully aligned with the supreme law of the United States, but as it stands now, it only partially does. We're told that slavery was abolished in Massachusetts, not through a specific law intended for that purpose, but by a Supreme Court decision in 1781, which determined that its existence was inconsistent with[Pg 753] the declaration in the Bill of Rights stating that "all men are born free and equal." (Bradford's History of Mass., 11, 227; Draper's Civil War, 1, 318; Story on Const., 11, p. 634, note.) However, instead of intervening, as it should have to protect this group of United States citizens, the court may have overstepped its intentions and possibly undermined the rights of another group, because the decision, by stating that the United States has no voters, effectively nullifies the XV Amendment. There is nothing for it to act upon. With no voters, there is, of course, no "right to vote" to be "protected." Therefore, every citizen of the United States is completely at the mercy of the state.
We will now consider that clause of the Constitution of the United States in which, as Hamilton said, the right of suffrage is defined and established for the citizens of the United States; which, nevertheless, has most strangely been regarded as conferring upon the States authority to disfranchise them. Article 1, sec. 2. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature." The section, it will be seen, consists of two clauses, but there is not a word as to the sex of the elector. He or she must be one of the people, or citizens—that is all. The "People" elect. They vote in their respective States, of course; or, to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "when they act, they act in their States." (4 Wheaton, 403.) This first clause, then, fixes the class of persons to whom belong this right of suffrage—Federal suffrage—not State suffrage. It would be absurd in the Federal Constitution to undertake to deal with State suffrage, and it attempts nothing of the kind. The right of Federal suffrage, then, attaches or belongs to this class. The subsequent clause is subordinate to this, and relates not to the right, but to the exercise of it by the voter. In other words, it prescribes the qualifications of the elector, as to how he shall exercise the right; the time, place, and manner of voting, and the age at which the right shall be enjoyed. As to all these matters, which are included in the subject of "qualifications," instead of laying down a uniform rule, to be applicable all over the Union, the convention thought it best to adopt the regulations on this subject already in force in the several States. When the Federal elector, therefore, comes to vote for United States officers, he finds that he must simply conform to the regulations laid down by the State for State voters. But this confers upon the State no authority over the Federal elector's right of suffrage; far less does it give the State authority to deprive the Federal elector of this right, under pretense of laying down for its own citizens an arbitrary and impossible condition. In the nature of things, a republican government could not part with this right of suffrage. As Hamilton says, such right is justly regarded as a fundamental article in such government. To part with it, would be to part with its chiefest attribute of sovereignty, and nothing of the kind was done, or intended.
We will now look at the part of the Constitution of the United States that, as Hamilton noted, defines and establishes the right to vote for U.S. citizens; which, oddly enough, has been interpreted as giving the states the power to take that right away. Article 1, sec. 2. "The House of Representatives shall be made up of members chosen every two years by the people of the various States; and the voters in each State must meet the qualifications required for voters of the largest branch of the State Legislature." This section clearly has two parts, but there is not a word about the sex of the voter. He or she must be one of the people or citizens—that's all. The "People" vote. They cast their ballots in their respective States, naturally; or, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "when they act, they act in their States." (4 Wheaton, 403.) So this first clause defines who has the right to vote—Federal suffrage—not State suffrage. It would be absurd for the Federal Constitution to try to regulate State suffrage, and it doesn’t do that at all. The right of Federal suffrage, therefore, belongs to this group. The second clause is less important and talks not about the right itself, but about how the voter exercises that right. In other words, it sets out the voter qualifications, including the times, places, and methods of voting, and the age at which the right can be exercised. On all these matters, which fall under the subject of "qualifications," instead of implementing a uniform rule applicable across the country, the convention decided it was best to stick with the regulations already established in the various States. So, when a Federal voter goes to vote for U.S. officials, they simply follow the regulations that the State has set for State voters. However, this does not give the State any authority over the Federal voter's right to vote; even less does it allow the State to take away that right under the guise of imposing arbitrary and impossible conditions on its own citizens. By nature, a republican government cannot relinquish the right to vote. As Hamilton said, this right is rightly seen as a fundamental principle of government. To give it up would mean giving up the most important aspect of sovereignty, and nothing like that was ever done or intended.
Except so far, then, as this decision makes it so, there is not a particle of authority vested in the States to deny this right of Federal suffrage to[Pg 754] the citizen of the United States. The regulation of the exercise of the franchise is within their control, as above stated, but the right itself is not theirs to give or to withhold. The right to vote for Federal officers is wholly distinct from the right to vote for State officers; but the fact of these two rights being blended in one and the same person, and being usually exercised at the same time, has given rise to the whole difficulty. In consequence of the fact of the election being conducted by State officers, the State providing all the machinery for voting, etc., we have become accustomed, from long habit, to associate in our minds the one franchise with the other, and thus confound rights that are wholly separate and distinct.
Except for this decision, there is no authority held by the States to deny the right of Federal voting to[Pg 754] any citizen of the United States. While they have control over how the voting process is managed, as mentioned earlier, they do not have the power to grant or revoke the right itself. The right to vote for Federal officials is completely separate from the right to vote for State officials; however, because these two rights exist in the same person and are typically exercised at the same time, it has led to confusion. Given that State officials conduct the elections and provide all the necessary voting resources, we have grown accustomed over time to linking these two rights in our minds, which causes us to mix up rights that are actually distinct and separate.
We notice, in conclusion, the remark of the court touching the non-assertion heretofore of this right by any one of the class now claiming to be entitled to it, and the intimation, or insinuation, that if the right really existed, it would have been claimed before, etc. It is true that Mrs. Minor's case is of "first impression," in the Supreme Court of the United States; but we fail to see that this fact has anything to do with the principle involved, or that there can be any such thing as a "limitation" of rights that are fundamental. If the right exists, and has a constitutional recognition, the time of its assertion has nothing to do with it. Only weak minds will be influenced by a fallacy like this. Because the women of a former day did not see and feel the necessity of making this claim, is no reason why those who do now see and feel that necessity should have that claim denied. "Time has no more connection with, nor influence upon principle, than principle has upon time. The wrong which began a thousand years ago, is as much a wrong as if it began to-day; and the right which originates to-day, is as much a right as if it had the sanction of a thousand years. Time, with respect to principles, is an eternal now. It has no operation upon them, it changes nothing of their nature and qualities." (Paine's Political Works, vol. 2, p. 328—Dissertation on Government.)
We notice, in conclusion, the court's comment regarding the lack of previous claims to this right by anyone in the class currently asserting entitlement, suggesting that if the right truly existed, it would have been claimed before, etc. It is true that Mrs. Minor's case is a "first impression" in the Supreme Court of the United States; however, we don't believe this fact is relevant to the principle at stake, nor can there be any such thing as a "limitation" on fundamental rights. If the right exists and has constitutional recognition, the timing of its assertion is irrelevant. Only weak minds would be swayed by such a fallacy. Just because women in the past didn’t realize the need to make this claim doesn’t mean those who see and feel that necessity now should be denied that claim. "Time has no more connection with, nor influence upon principle, than principle has upon time. The wrong that began a thousand years ago is just as much a wrong as if it started today; and the right that originates today is just as much a right as if it had the backing of a thousand years. Time, regarding principles, is an eternal now. It has no effect on them and changes nothing about their nature and qualities." (Paine's Political Works, vol. 2, p. 328—Dissertation on Government.)
We are fully conscious that the subject upon which we have written is by no means exhausted; the point, especially in reference to bills of attainder, being wholly untouched. But the limits of a single article will not admit of a full discussion of the subject. Indeed, a treatise upon suffrage is one of the wants of the profession. We leave it, however, to the candid judgment of our readers, if we have not fully demonstrated the right of Federal suffrage to be a necessary privilege of a citizen of the United States, and, according to the court's own admission, such being the case, the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought.
We are fully aware that the topic we've discussed is by no means comprehensive; in particular, the issue of bills of attainder has not been addressed at all. However, the constraints of a single article don't allow for a thorough exploration of the subject. In fact, a detailed work on voting rights is a clear need in our field. We trust that our readers will judge fairly whether we've adequately shown that federal voting rights are an essential privilege for citizens of the United States, and as the court itself acknowledged, this means the plaintiff was entitled to the requested relief.
Thus closed woman's struggle for National protection of her civil and political rights under the XIV. Amendment. In the case of Myra Bradwell, which was commenced in September, 1869, two years before the others, Chief-Justice Chase, one of the best and wisest Judges that ever honored the American bench, dissented from the opinion of the Supreme Court: that the fact of United States citizenship did not secure to woman the right to practice law, and[Pg 755] that a married woman rested under a special disability in regard to her civil rights, thus sustaining the action of Illinois in refusing to admit Mrs. Bradwell to the bar of that State.
Thus ended the woman's fight for national protection of her civil and political rights under the XIV Amendment. In the case of Myra Bradwell, which started in September 1869, two years before the others, Chief Justice Chase, one of the best and wisest judges to ever serve on the American bench, disagreed with the Supreme Court's opinion: that being a U.S. citizen did not guarantee a woman the right to practice law, and that a married woman faced a specific disadvantage regarding her civil rights, thus supporting Illinois's decision to not allow Mrs. Bradwell to join the state bar.
The decision in the case of Mrs. Minor, that the political rights of women were wholly under the control of their respective States was still more emphatic and discouraging. Had Judge Chase lived, we have every reason to believe that in this case too, he would have dissented, and that his opinion would have had great weight in the general discussion. Although defeated at every point, woman's claim as a citizen of the United States to the Federal franchise is placed upon record in the highest court of the Nation, and there it will remain forever. As Milton so grandly says in Paradise Lost:
The ruling in Mrs. Minor's case, stating that women's political rights were completely controlled by their individual States, was even more definitive and disheartening. If Judge Chase had lived, we strongly believe he would have disagreed in this case as well, and his opinion would have carried significant influence in the broader conversation. Even though women faced defeat at every turn, their claim as citizens of the United States to the Federal vote is documented in the highest court in the country, and it will stay there forever. As Milton so beautifully expresses in Paradise Lost:
All is not lost: th' unconquerable will
And courage never to submit or yield!
FOOTNOTES:
WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN THE COURTS.—SHAKESPEARE REVIVED.
WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN THE COURTS.—SHAKESPEARE REVIVED.
In the case of Hamlet vs. Rex, Shakespeare's reports, occurs the following:
In the case of Hamlet vs. Rex, Shakespeare's reports, the following happens:
Scene—Churchyard.—Enter two clowns with spades.
Scene—Churchyard.—Enter two clowns with spades.
First Clown. Is she to be buried in Christian burial that wilfully seeks her own salvation?
First Clown. Is she going to get a Christian burial if she actively chooses her own salvation?
Second Clown. I tell thee, she is; therefore make her grave straight. The crowner hath set on her and finds it Christian burial.
Second Clown. I'm telling you, she is; so make her grave straight. The coroner has examined her and has determined it's a Christian burial.
First Clown. How can that be, unless she drowned herself in her own defense?
First Clown. How is that possible, unless she drowned herself while trying to protect herself?
Second Clown. Why,'tis found so.
Second Clown. Why,'tis found so.
First Clown. It must be so, se offendendo; it can not be else. For here lies the point. If I drown myself wittingly, it argues an act; and an act has three branches—it is to act, to do, and to perform. Argal, she drowned herself wittingly.
First Clown. It has to be like that, se offendendo; it can't be any other way. Because here’s the point. If I intentionally drown myself, it indicates an action; and an action has three parts—it’s to act, to do, and to perform. Therefore, she intentionally drowned herself.
Second Clown. Nay, but hear you good man, deliver.
Second Clown. No, but listen, good man, go ahead.
First Clown. Give me leave. Here lies the water. Good. Here stands the man. Good. If the man goes to this water and drowns himself, it is nil he, will he, he goes. Mark you that. But if the water come to him and drown him, he drowns not himself. Argal, he that is not guilty of his own death shortens not his own life.
First Clown. Let me explain. First, there's the water. Good. Next, there's the man. Good. If the man goes to this water and drowns himself, that's on him. You got that? But if the water comes to him and drowns him, he didn’t drown himself. So, whoever isn’t responsible for their own death isn’t really cutting their own life short.
Second Clown. But is this law?
Second Clown. But is this law?
First Clown. Ay, marry is't, crowner quest law.
First Clown. Yeah, it’s the law of the coroner’s inquest.
It hardly needed any better authority than the above to convince simple-minded people of the truth of the observation made by Blackstone that "law is the perfection of human reason." But if law is great, those who expound it are greater.
It hardly needed any better authority than the above to convince straightforward people of the truth of Blackstone's observation that "law is the perfection of human reason." But if law is great, those who explain it are even greater.
The woman suffrage trial came on. The judges endeavored to follow the arguments as far as possible, and to religiously earn their salaries by the attention given, if no more. The arguments were finally finished, and the women of the country waited expectantly to hear their legal status defined.
The woman suffrage trial began. The judges tried to keep up with the arguments as best they could, making an effort to justify their pay with the attention they showed, even if that was all. The arguments eventually concluded, and the women across the country eagerly awaited to hear how their legal status would be defined.
It took just one week for the united judicial wisdom of this District to consider this case in all its bearings, and then the decision came. It was about as follows:
It took just one week for the combined legal expertise of this District to look at this case from every angle, and then the ruling was made. It went something like this:
Scene—District Court-room.—Enter Judges with law books.
Scene—District Court-room.—Judges enter with law books.
First Judge. Women are voters but they can't vote. Voting is a privilege and not a natural right, and must be conferred; it has clearly been conferred by the supreme law of the land, therefore women can not vote. A little voting is a good thing, but too much voting is injurious to public interests, as is instanced in our large cities. If women vote, there would be more voting than at present, consequently women are not entitled to vote. The Constitution gives women the right to vote. The organic law of the district does not. The latter, of course, is void where it conflicts with the former, therefore can not women vote. Congress has clearly recognized woman's right to the ballot, wily or nily. But the ballot must come to the woman, not she to the ballot, or else the law is violated. Congress must go further, and point out to women how the ballot must come to her, or else will she not be given Christian reception at the polls who willfully seek to vote thereat. Therefore can not women vote.
First Judge. Women are voters, but they can't vote. Voting is a privilege, not a natural right, and it must be granted; it has clearly been granted by the highest law of the land, so women cannot vote. A little voting is good, but too much voting is bad for public interests, as seen in our big cities. If women vote, there would be more voting than there is now, so women are not entitled to vote. The Constitution gives women the right to vote, but the local law does not. The local law is null where it conflicts with the Constitution, so women cannot vote. Congress has clearly acknowledged women's right to the ballot, willingly or not. But the ballot must come to the woman; she shouldn't have to go to the ballot, or else the law is broken. Congress needs to go further and specify how the ballot must reach women, or else women who deliberately try to vote won’t be welcomed at the polls. Therefore, women cannot vote.
Second Judge. Women are men, but men are not women. The former include the latter, but the latter won't be included. That is to say, the law regards men as women but not males as females. It is not every right which can be exercised, as society will not admit of it. The law, which is above society, says women shall vote, but society has not acceded, and hence this court can not interfere. Therefore, I concur that women can not vote.
Second Judge. Women are men, but men are not women. Women include men, but men won't include women. In other words, the law treats men as equivalent to women, but not males as equivalent to females. Not every right can be exercised since society doesn't allow it. The law, which stands above society, states that women should be able to vote, but society hasn’t accepted this, and therefore this court cannot intervene. So, I agree that women cannot vote.
Third Judge. I do not know but that the better way would have been for Congress to have done otherwise than it did. Why it did as it did is a question. But it did. It might have done more, or less, or both. It might have done otherwise. In either case it would have done so. And then it would have been. But as it is, it is perhaps as well as if it should have been. Therefore can not women vote.
Third Judge. I’m not sure if Congress made the best choice. Why it chose to act as it did is a good question. But it did. It could have done more, less, or something different altogether. In any case, it would have made a decision. And then it would have been that way. But as things stand, maybe it's just as well as it could have been. So, women still cannot vote.
Plaintiffs' Attorneys. But is this law?
Plaintiffs' Attorneys. But is this law?
The Three Judges. Verily is't the law of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
The Three Judges. Indeed, this is the law of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
This parody was written by J. W. Knowlton, son-in-law of Mr. Riddle.
This parody was written by J. W. Knowlton, who is Mr. Riddle's son-in-law.
[168] Whereas, Complaint has this day been made by —— on oath before me, William C. Storrs, commissioner, charging that Susan B. Anthony, on or about the fifth day of November, 1872, at the city of Rochester, N. Y., at an election held in the eighth ward of the city of Rochester aforesaid, for a representative in the Congress of the United States, did then and there vote for representative in Congress in the United States, without having a lawful right to vote and in violation of Section 19 of an act of Congress approved May 31, 1870, entitled "An act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union and for other purposes."
[168] Whereas, A complaint has been made today by —— under oath before me, William C. Storrs, commissioner, stating that Susan B. Anthony, on or around November 5, 1872, in the city of Rochester, N.Y., during an election held in the eighth ward of that city, voted for a representative in the United States Congress without having the legal right to do so, violating Section 19 of a congressional act approved on May 31, 1870, titled "An act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union and for other purposes."
[169] The following ladies voted: Mrs. Hannah Anthony Mosher, Mrs. Mary S. Hebard, Mrs. Nancy M. Chapman, Mrs. Jane M. Cogswell, Mrs Martha N. French, Mrs. Margaret Leyden, Mrs. Lottie Bolles Anthony, Mrs. Hannah Chatfield, Mrs. Susan M. Hough, Mrs. Sarah Truesdale, Mrs. Mary Pulver, Mrs. Rhoda De Garmo, Mrs. Guelma Anthony McLean, Miss Mary S. Anthony, Miss Ellen T. Baker. The following ladies registered but were not allowed to vote: Mrs. Amy Post, Mrs. Mary Fish Curtis, Mrs. Dr. Dutton, Mrs. Charlotte Wilbur Griffing, Mrs. Dr. Wheeler, Mrs. Allen, Mrs. Lathrop.
[169] The following women voted: Mrs. Hannah Anthony Mosher, Mrs. Mary S. Hebard, Mrs. Nancy M. Chapman, Mrs. Jane M. Cogswell, Mrs. Martha N. French, Mrs. Margaret Leyden, Mrs. Lottie Bolles Anthony, Mrs. Hannah Chatfield, Mrs. Susan M. Hough, Mrs. Sarah Truesdale, Mrs. Mary Pulver, Mrs. Rhoda De Garmo, Mrs. Guelma Anthony McLean, Miss Mary S. Anthony, Miss Ellen T. Baker. The following women registered but were not allowed to vote: Mrs. Amy Post, Mrs. Mary Fish Curtis, Mrs. Dr. Dutton, Mrs. Charlotte Wilbur Griffing, Mrs. Dr. Wheeler, Mrs. Allen, Mrs. Lathrop.
[171] Indictment against Susan B. Anthony—District Court of the United States of America, in and for the Northern District of New York.—At a stated session of the District Court of the United States of America, held in and for the Northern District of New York, at the City Hall, in the city of Albany, in the said Northern District of New York, on the third Tuesday of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, before the Honorable Nathan K. Hall, Judge of the said Court, assigned to keep the peace of the said United States of America, in and for the said District, and also to hear and determine divers Felonies, Misdemeanors and other offenses against the said United States of America, in the said District committed. Brace Millerd, James D. Wasson, Peter H. Bradt, James McGinty, Henry A. Davis, Loring W. Osborn, Thomas Whitbeck, John Mullen, Samuel G. Harris, Ralph Davis, Matthew Fanning, Abram Kimmey, Derrick B. Van Schoonhoven, Wilhelmus Van Natten, James Kenney, Adam Winne, James Goold, Samuel S. Fowler, Peter D. R. Johnson, Patrick Carroll, good and lawful men of the said District, then and there sworn and charged to inquire for the said United States of America, and the body of said District, do, upon their oaths, present, that Susan B. Anthony now or late of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, with force and arms, etc., to wit: at and in the first election district of the eighth ward of the city of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, in said Northern District of New York, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, heretofore, to wit: on the fifth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, at an election duly held at and in the first election district of the said eighth ward of the city of Rochester, in said county and in said Northern District of New York, which said election was for Representatives in the Congress of the United States, to wit: a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the State of New York at large, and a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New York, said first election district of said eighth ward of said city of Rochester, being then and there a part of said twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New York, did knowingly, wrongfully, and unlawfully vote for a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the State of New York at large, and for a Representative in the Congress of the United States for said twenty-ninth Congressional District, without a lawful right to vote in said election district (the said Susan B. Anthony being then and there a person of the female sex), as she, the said Susan B. Anthony then and there well knew, contrary to the form of the statute of the United States of America in such case made and provided, and against the peace of the United States of America and their dignity.
[171] Indictment against Susan B. Anthony—District Court of the United States of America, in and for the Northern District of New York.—At a regular session of the District Court of the United States of America, held in the Northern District of New York, at the City Hall in Albany, on the third Tuesday of January, 1873, before the Honorable Nathan K. Hall, Judge of this Court, assigned to maintain peace for the United States of America in this District, and also to hear and decide various felonies, misdemeanors, and other offenses against the United States committed in this District. Brace Millerd, James D. Wasson, Peter H. Bradt, James McGinty, Henry A. Davis, Loring W. Osborn, Thomas Whitbeck, John Mullen, Samuel G. Harris, Ralph Davis, Matthew Fanning, Abram Kimmey, Derrick B. Van Schoonhoven, Wilhelmus Van Natten, James Kenney, Adam Winne, James Goold, Samuel S. Fowler, Peter D. R. Johnson, Patrick Carroll, good and lawful men of this District, sworn and charged to inquire for the United States of America, do, upon their oaths, present that Susan B. Anthony now or recently of Rochester, in Monroe County, with force and arms, etc., to wit: at the first election district of the eighth ward of the city of Rochester, in Monroe County, in this Northern District of New York, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, on the fifth day of November, 1872, at an election duly held in the first election district of the eighth ward of the city of Rochester, for Representatives in the Congress of the United States, namely: a Representative in Congress for the State of New York at large, and a Representative in Congress for the twenty-ninth Congressional District of New York, the first election district of the eighth ward of the city of Rochester being then part of the twenty-ninth Congressional District of New York, did knowingly, wrongfully, and unlawfully vote for a Representative in Congress for the State of New York at large, and for a Representative in Congress for the twenty-ninth Congressional District, without a lawful right to vote in this election district (Susan B. Anthony being at that time a female), as she well knew, contrary to the law of the United States in such cases, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.
Second Count—And the jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do further present that said Susan B. Anthony, now or late of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, with force and arms, etc., to wit: at and in the first election district of the eighth ward of the city of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, in said Northern District of New York, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, heretofore, to wit: on the fifth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, at an election duly held at and in the first election district of the said eighth ward, of said city of Rochester, in said county, and in said Northern District of New York, which said election was for Representatives in the Congress of the United States, to wit: a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the State of New York at large, and a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New York, said first election district of said eighth ward, of said city of Rochester, being then and there a part of said twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New York, did knowingly, wrongfully and unlawfully vote for a candidate for Representative in the Congress of the United States for the State of New York at large, and for Representative in the Congress of the United States for said twenty-ninth Congressional District, without having a lawful right to vote in said election district (the said Susan B. Anthony being then and there a person of the female sex), as she, the said Susan B. Anthony then and there well knew, contrary to the form of the statute of the United States of America in such case made and provided, and against the peace of the United States of America and their dignity.
Second Count—The jurors, on their oaths, further state that Susan B. Anthony, who is now or was recently from Rochester in Monroe County, with force and arms, did, on November 5, 1872, during an election held in the first election district of the eighth ward of the city of Rochester, in Monroe County and within the Northern District of New York, which was for representatives in the United States Congress, knowingly, wrongfully, and unlawfully voted for a candidate for a representative at-large for New York and for a representative for the twenty-ninth Congressional District of New York. At that time, the first election district of the eighth ward was part of the twenty-ninth Congressional District of New York. Susan B. Anthony did this without having the legal right to vote in that election district (as she was then a female), which she well knew was contrary to U.S. law and against the peace and dignity of the United States.
Richard Crowley,
Attorney of the United States for the Northern District of New York.
Richard Crowley,
Attorney for the United States in the Northern District of New York.
(Endorsed). Jan. 24, 1873.
Pleads not guilty.
(Endorsed). Jan. 24, 1873.
Pleads not guilty.
Richard Crowley,
U. S. Attorney.
Richard Crowley,
U. S. Attorney.
[176] To the same effect see former decisions in Massachusetts: Coffin vs. Coffin, 4 Mass., 25; Com. vs. Knapp, 10 Pic., 496; and see also State vs. Snow, 18 Maine, 346; Doss vs. Com., 1 Grattan, 557; Peo. vs. McFall, 1 Wheeler Crim. Rec., 108, note; Holder vs. The State, 5 Georgia, 443; State vs. Allen, 1 McCord, 525; State vs. Jones, 5 Alabama, 666; Armstrong vs. The State, 4 Blackford, 247; Patterson vs. The State, 2 English, 59.
[176] To the same effect, see earlier decisions in Massachusetts: Coffin vs. Coffin, 4 Mass., 25; Com. vs. Knapp, 10 Pic., 496; and also State vs. Snow, 18 Maine, 346; Doss vs. Com., 1 Grattan, 557; Peo. vs. McFall, 1 Wheeler Crim. Rec., 108, note; Holder vs. The State, 5 Georgia, 443; State vs. Allen, 1 McCord, 525; State vs. Jones, 5 Alabama, 666; Armstrong vs. The State, 4 Blackford, 247; Patterson vs. The State, 2 English, 59.
[178] More recent investigation shows that this clause was originated by Mr. Jefferson in 1784. See The Nation for May 4, 1882, and authorities there referred to. See Bancroft's "History of the United States." Vol. II, p. 115.
[178] Recent research indicates that this clause was originally proposed by Mr. Jefferson in 1784. Refer to The Nation from May 4, 1882, and the sources mentioned there. Also, see Bancroft's "History of the United States," Vol. II, p. 115.
CHAPTER XXVI.
AMERICAN WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.
Circular Letter—Cleveland Convention—Association Completed—Henry Ward Beecher, President—Convention in Steinway Hall, New York—George William Curtis Speaks—The First Annual Meeting held in Cleveland—Mrs. Tracy Cutler, President—Mass meeting in Steinway Hall, New York, 1871—State Action Recommended—Moses Coit Tyler Speaks—Mass Meetings in 1871 in Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Pittsburgh—Memorial to Congress—Letters from William Lloyd Garrison and others—Hon. G. F. Hoar Advocates Woman Suffrage—Anniversary celebrated at St. Louis—Dr. Stone, of Michigan—Thomas Wentworth Higginson, President, 1872—Convention in Cooper Institute, New York—Two Hundred Young Women march in. Meeting in Plymouth Church—Letters from Louise May Alcott and Elizabeth Stuart Phelps—The Annual Meeting in Detroit—Julia Ward Howe, President—Letter from James T. Field—Mary F. Eastman Addresses the Convention. Bishop Gilbert Haven President for 1875—Convention Steinway Hall, New York—Hon. Charles Bradlaugh Speaks—Centennial Celebration, July 3d—Petition to Congress for a XVI. Amendment—Conventions in Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Washington, and Louisville.
Circular Letter—Cleveland Convention—Association Completed—Henry Ward Beecher, President—Convention at Steinway Hall, New York—George William Curtis Speaks—The First Annual Meeting held in Cleveland—Mrs. Tracy Cutler, President—Mass meeting at Steinway Hall, New York, 1871—State Action Recommended—Moses Coit Tyler Speaks—Mass Meetings in 1871 in Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Pittsburgh—Memorial to Congress—Letters from William Lloyd Garrison and others—Hon. G. F. Hoar Advocates Woman Suffrage—Anniversary celebrated in St. Louis—Dr. Stone, of Michigan—Thomas Wentworth Higginson, President, 1872—Convention at Cooper Institute, New York—Two Hundred Young Women march in. Meeting at Plymouth Church—Letters from Louisa May Alcott and Elizabeth Stuart Phelps—The Annual Meeting in Detroit—Julia Ward Howe, President—Letter from James T. Field—Mary F. Eastman Addresses the Convention. Bishop Gilbert Haven, President for 1875—Convention at Steinway Hall, New York—Hon. Charles Bradlaugh Speaks—Centennial Celebration, July 3rd—Petition to Congress for a XVI Amendment—Conventions in Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Washington, and Louisville.
It was during the summer of 1869 that the initiative steps in the formation of the American Woman Suffrage Association[179] were taken, and the following letter circulated:
It was in the summer of 1869 that the first steps were taken to form the American Woman Suffrage Association[179] and the following letter was circulated:
Boston, August 5, 1869.
Boston, August 5, 1869.
Many friends of the cause of woman suffrage desire that its interests may be promoted by the assembling and action of a convention devised on a truly National and representative basis for the organization of an American Woman Suffrage Association.
Many supporters of women's suffrage want to see its interests advanced by gathering and mobilizing a convention designed on a genuinely national and representative level for the formation of an American Woman Suffrage Association.
Without depreciating the value of Associations already existing, it is yet deemed that an organization at once more comprehensive and more widely representative than any of these is urgently called for. In this view, the Executive Committee of the New England Woman Suffrage Association has appointed the undersigned a Committee of Correspondence to confer by letter with the friends of woman suffrage throughout the country on the subject of the proposed convention.
Without undermining the importance of the existing Associations, it is believed that a more comprehensive and broadly representative organization is urgently needed. With this in mind, the Executive Committee of the New England Woman Suffrage Association has appointed the undersigned as a Committee of Correspondence to communicate by letter with supporters of woman suffrage across the country regarding the proposed convention.
We ask to hear from you in reply, at your earliest convenience. Our present plan is that the authority of the convention shall be vested in delegates,[Pg 757] to be chosen and accredited by the Woman Suffrage Associations existing, or about to be formed, in the several States of the Union. The number of delegates to be sent by each Association and the precise time of the meeting of the convention can be determined as soon as we shall have received such answers to our present application as shall assure us of an active and generous co-operation in the measure proposed, on the part of the addressed.
We look forward to hearing back from you as soon as you can. Our current plan is to give the authority of the convention to delegates,[Pg 757] who will be chosen and accredited by the existing or soon-to-be-formed Woman Suffrage Associations in the various States of the Union. The number of delegates each Association will send and the exact date of the convention will be decided once we receive responses to our current request that ensure active and generous support for the proposed initiative from those we addressed.
Lucy Stone, Caroline M. Severance, T. W. Higginson, Julia Ward Howe, Geo. H. Vibbert.
Soon after, the following call was issued:
Soon after, the following call was made:
The undersigned, being convinced of the necessity for an American Woman Suffrage Association, which shall embody the deliberate action of the State organizations, and shall carry with it their united weight, do hereby respectfully invite such organizations to be represented in a Delegate Convention, to be held at Cleveland, Ohio, November 24th and 25th, a.d., 1869.
The undersigned, believing in the need for an American Woman Suffrage Association that reflects the considered actions of the state organizations and carries their collective strength, hereby respectfully invite those organizations to participate in a Delegate Convention to be held in Cleveland, Ohio, on November 24th and 25th, a.d., 1869.
The proposed basis of this Convention is as follows:
The proposed foundation of this Convention is as follows:
The delegates appointed by existing State organizations shall be admitted, provided their number does not exceed, in each case, that of the Congressional delegation of the State. Should it fall short of that number, additional delegates may be admitted from local organizations, or from no organization whatever, provided the applicants be actual residents of the States they represent. But no votes shall be counted in the Convention except of those actually admitted as delegates. (Signed)
The delegates chosen by the current State organizations will be allowed to attend, as long as their number does not exceed the Congressional delegation from their State. If their number is less than that, more delegates can be admitted from local organizations or even from no organization at all, as long as the applicants are actual residents of the States they represent. However, only the votes of those who are officially admitted as delegates will be counted in the Convention. (Signed)
John Neal, Maine; Nathaniel White, Armenia S. White, William T. Savage, New Hampshire; James Hutchinson, Jr., Vermont; William Lloyd Garrison, Lydia Maria Child, David Lee Child, George F. Hoar, Julia Ward Howe, Gilbert Haven, Caroline M. Severance, James Freeman Clarke, Abby Kelly Foster, Stephen S. Foster, Frank B. Sanborn, Phebe A. Hanaford, Massachusetts; Elizabeth B. Chase, T. W. Higginson, Rowland G. Hazard, Rhode Island; H. M. Rogers, Seth Rogers, Marianna Stanton, Connecticut; George William Curtis, Lydia Mott, Henry Ward Beecher, Frances D. Gage, Samuel J. May, Celia Burleigh, W. H. Burleigh, Aaron M. Powell, Anna C. Field, Gerrit Smith, E. S. Bunker, New York; Lucy Stone, Henry B. Blackwell, John Gage, Portia Gage, Antoinette B. Blackwell, A. J. Davis, Mary F. Davis, New Jersey; Mary Grew, Pennsylvania; Thomas Garret, Fielder Israel, Delaware; Hannah M. Tracy Cutler, A. J. Boyer, Margaret V. Longley, J. J. Belleville, Miriam M. Cole, S. Bolton, Ohio; Amanda Way, George W. Julian, Laura Giddings Julian, Lizzie M. Boynton, Indiana; Mary A. Livermore, C. B. Waite, Myra Bradwell, James B. Bradwell, Sharon Tyndale, J. P. Weston, Robert Collyer, Joseph Haven, Illinois; Moses Coit Tyler, James A. B. Stone, Mrs. H. L. Stone, Michigan; Lilie Peckham, Augusta J. Chapin, Wisconsin; Amelia Bloomer, Iowa; Mrs. S. B. Stearns, Minnesota; Charles Robinson, Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols, John Ekin, D.D., J. P. Root, Kansas; Mrs. W. T. Hazard, Isaac H. Sturgeon, Mrs. Beverly Allen, James E. Yeatman, Mary E. Beede, J. C. Orrick, Mrs. George D. Hall, Missouri; Guy W. Wines, Charles J. Woodbury, Tennessee; Mary Atkins Lynch, Louisiana; Elizabeth C. Wright, Texas; Grace Greenwood, Dist. Columbia; A. K. Safford, Arizona; J. A. Brewster, California: Hon. G. C. Jones, Dowagiac, Hon. William S. Farmer, Eau Claire, Hon. T. W. Ferry, of Grand Haven; Hon. S. H. Blackman, Paw Paw, Rev. J. Straub, Lansing, and S. H. Brigham, editor of the Lansing Republican, Michigan; Mrs. Austin Adams, and Edna T. Snell, of Dubuque, Miss Mattie E. Griffiths, Prof. and Mrs. Belle Mansfield, Mt. Pleasant, T. M. Mills, Ed. Des Moines State Register, Ex-Gov. and Mrs. B. F. Gue, and Hon. Mr. and Mrs. Pomeroy, Ft. Dodge, Iowa; Mrs. J. C. Burbank, Mrs. Smith (State[Pg 758] Librarian), Rev. J. Marvin, and Capt. Russell Blakely, of St. Paul, Mrs. Elliott, of Minneapolis, Mr. and Mrs. A. Knight, of St. Peter, Minnesota; Rev. H. Eddy, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Mrs. E. O. G. Willard, of Chicago, Illinois.
John Neal, Maine; Nathaniel White, Armenia S. White, William T. Savage, New Hampshire; James Hutchinson, Jr., Vermont; William Lloyd Garrison, Lydia Maria Child, David Lee Child, George F. Hoar, Julia Ward Howe, Gilbert Haven, Caroline M. Severance, James Freeman Clarke, Abby Kelly Foster, Stephen S. Foster, Frank B. Sanborn, Phebe A. Hanaford, Massachusetts; Elizabeth B. Chase, T. W. Higginson, Rowland G. Hazard, Rhode Island; H. M. Rogers, Seth Rogers, Marianna Stanton, Connecticut; George William Curtis, Lydia Mott, Henry Ward Beecher, Frances D. Gage, Samuel J. May, Celia Burleigh, W. H. Burleigh, Aaron M. Powell, Anna C. Field, Gerrit Smith, E. S. Bunker, New York; Lucy Stone, Henry B. Blackwell, John Gage, Portia Gage, Antoinette B. Blackwell, A. J. Davis, Mary F. Davis, New Jersey; Mary Grew, Pennsylvania; Thomas Garret, Fielder Israel, Delaware; Hannah M. Tracy Cutler, A. J. Boyer, Margaret V. Longley, J. J. Belleville, Miriam M. Cole, S. Bolton, Ohio; Amanda Way, George W. Julian, Laura Giddings Julian, Lizzie M. Boynton, Indiana; Mary A. Livermore, C. B. Waite, Myra Bradwell, James B. Bradwell, Sharon Tyndale, J. P. Weston, Robert Collyer, Joseph Haven, Illinois; Moses Coit Tyler, James A. B. Stone, Mrs. H. L. Stone, Michigan; Lilie Peckham, Augusta J. Chapin, Wisconsin; Amelia Bloomer, Iowa; Mrs. S. B. Stearns, Minnesota; Charles Robinson, Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols, John Ekin, D.D., J. P. Root, Kansas; Mrs. W. T. Hazard, Isaac H. Sturgeon, Mrs. Beverly Allen, James E. Yeatman, Mary E. Beede, J. C. Orrick, Mrs. George D. Hall, Missouri; Guy W. Wines, Charles J. Woodbury, Tennessee; Mary Atkins Lynch, Louisiana; Elizabeth C. Wright, Texas; Grace Greenwood, Dist. Columbia; A. K. Safford, Arizona; J. A. Brewster, California: Hon. G. C. Jones, Dowagiac, Hon. William S. Farmer, Eau Claire, Hon. T. W. Ferry, of Grand Haven; Hon. S. H. Blackman, Paw Paw, Rev. J. Straub, Lansing, and S. H. Brigham, editor of the Lansing Republican, Michigan; Mrs. Austin Adams, and Edna T. Snell, of Dubuque, Miss Mattie E. Griffiths, Prof. and Mrs. Belle Mansfield, Mt. Pleasant, T. M. Mills, Ed. Des Moines State Register, Ex-Gov. and Mrs. B. F. Gue, and Hon. Mr. and Mrs. Pomeroy, Ft. Dodge, Iowa; Mrs. J. C. Burbank, Mrs. Smith (State[Pg 758] Librarian), Rev. J. Marvin, and Capt. Russell Blakely, of St. Paul, Mrs. Elliott, of Minneapolis, Mr. and Mrs. A. Knight, of St. Peter, Minnesota; Rev. H. Eddy, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Mrs. E. O. G. Willard, of Chicago, Illinois.
The first American Woman Suffrage Convention assembled at Case Hall, Cleveland, O., on Wednesday morning, November 24th. The attendance from the city was very large; the vast hall being well filled, both floor and balcony. The Convention was called to order by Mrs. Lucy Stone. Twenty-one States were represented—eighteen by regularly accredited delegates; thus making it truly National. Great harmony pervaded all the deliberations of the Committees and the discussions of the Convention.
The first American Woman Suffrage Convention took place at Case Hall in Cleveland, Ohio, on Wednesday morning, November 24th. There was a big turnout from the city, and the large hall was packed, both on the floor and in the balcony. Mrs. Lucy Stone called the Convention to order. Twenty-one states were represented—eighteen with officially recognized delegates—making it genuinely national. There was a great sense of harmony throughout the committee discussions and the Convention debates.
On motion of F. B. Sanborn, of Massachusetts, Judge J. B. Bradwell, of Chicago, was chosen temporary Chairman, and on motion of Mrs. Lucy Stone, Mrs. Mary F. Davis, of New Jersey, was elected temporary Secretary. Upon taking the chair, Judge Bradwell returned his thanks for the honor conferred upon him. It was unnecessary for him to speak at length in regard to the object of the meeting; it had been stated in the call read by Mrs. Stone. He said they were met for the formation of an American Woman Suffrage Association, which shall be represented in every State of this great Nation; and not only every State, but every city, town, and county from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada. On motion of Mr. Sanborn a Committee on Credentials[180] was appointed by the President. All State delegations were requested to report their names to the Committee, and also to fill any vacancies which might exist, if persons were present from their respective States.
On the motion of F. B. Sanborn from Massachusetts, Judge J. B. Bradwell from Chicago was selected as the temporary Chair. Following this, on the motion of Mrs. Lucy Stone, Mrs. Mary F. Davis from New Jersey was appointed as the temporary Secretary. When he took the chair, Judge Bradwell expressed his gratitude for the honor. He noted it wasn't necessary to elaborate on the purpose of the meeting, as it had already been outlined in the call read by Mrs. Stone. He stated that they had come together to form an American Woman Suffrage Association that would be represented in every state of this great nation; and not just every state, but in every city, town, and county from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada. On Mr. Sanborn's motion, a Committee on Credentials[180] was appointed by the Chair. All state delegations were asked to report their names to the Committee and to fill any vacancies that might exist, if there were individuals present from their respective states.
Pending the report of the Committee on Credentials, Mrs. Lucy Stone presented letters from several persons[181] who had been unable to attend the Convention, but desired to give expression to their sympathy with its object. In a few preliminary remarks she expressed the pleasure she felt at the sight of such a large and intelligent audience at the first session of the Convention, which many had supposed would be but merely a business meeting. It was an evidence of the increasing interest which is being felt upon the subject of woman suffrage. She alluded to the Convention held in this city sixteen years ago, and was glad to see several familiar faces which were present on that occasion. Mrs. H. M. Tracy Cutler, of Cleveland, delivered an eloquent appeal for women.
Pending the report from the Committee on Credentials, Mrs. Lucy Stone shared letters from several people[181] who couldn't make it to the Convention but wanted to express their support for its purpose. In a few opening remarks, she mentioned how happy she was to see such a large and engaged audience at the first session of the Convention, which many thought would just be a regular business meeting. This showed the growing interest in the topic of women's suffrage. She referenced the Convention held in this city sixteen years ago and was pleased to see several familiar faces from that time. Mrs. H. M. Tracy Cutler from Cleveland gave a powerful speech advocating for women.
Judge Bradwell said that under the laws in some States the right of woman to a certain degree of citizenship is acknowledged. Foreign-born women may be naturalized, and even without the consent of their husbands. In all probability Vermont will soon confer upon woman the right of suffrage. In that State the women considerably outnumber the men, and if[Pg 759] some of them should move to the West, they might say, "We voted and were citizens in Vermont, and, under the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, we claim the right to vote here."
Judge Bradwell stated that in some states, the law recognizes women's rights to a certain level of citizenship. Foreign-born women can become naturalized citizens, even without their husbands' consent. It's likely that Vermont will soon grant women the right to vote. In that state, there are significantly more women than men, and if[Pg 759] some of them decide to move West, they might say, "We voted and were citizens in Vermont, and under the XIV Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, we claim the right to vote here."
Mrs. C. G. Ames, of California, alluded to a case which occurred in San Francisco. A woman was informed that she might be protected through the courtesy of the consul, but that she had no claim to protection as a citizen of the Government.
Mrs. C. G. Ames from California mentioned a case that happened in San Francisco. A woman was told that she could be protected thanks to the consul's courtesy, but she had no right to protection as a citizen of the government.
The Committee on Credentials presented the names of delegates[182] who were already present as entitled to seats in the Convention. Other names were added as they were reported to the Convention during the session.
The Committee on Credentials presented the names of delegates[182] who were already there and entitled to seats in the Convention. Other names were added as they were reported to the Convention during the session.
There were also in attendance persons from Virginia, Mississippi, and Nebraska, who conferred with the Chairman of the Committee on credentials with reference to their admission to the body of delegates. They were all bona fide residents in the States they represented, but they seemed so undecided in reference to the question of woman suffrage, finding it hardly possible to tell whether they were for it or against it, that it was thought not best for them to propose themselves as self-constituted delegates. Near the close of the Convention, those from Nebraska and Virginia sought the Chairman of the Committee to say that if another convention were to be held, they could heartily and conscientiously take seats as delegates; for if they had any doubts as to the justice and utility of woman suffrage in the[Pg 760] outset, they had been wholly removed by the arguments to which they had listened. Twenty-one States were thus represented in the Convention, making it truly National.
There were also people from Virginia, Mississippi, and Nebraska who spoke with the Chairman of the Committee on Credentials about their admission to the group of delegates. They were all legitimate residents of the states they represented, but they seemed quite unsure about the issue of women's suffrage, making it hard to tell whether they supported it or not. Because of this uncertainty, it was decided that it wouldn’t be best for them to claim the role of self-appointed delegates. Near the end of the Convention, the delegates from Nebraska and Virginia approached the Chairman of the Committee to express that if another convention were held, they would genuinely and wholeheartedly be willing to take seats as delegates; for any doubts they had about the fairness and value of women's suffrage at the beginning had been completely resolved by the arguments they had heard. Twenty-one states were represented at the Convention, making it truly national.
On motion of Mr. Blackwell, the President was authorized to appoint a committee,[183] consisting of one from each State on the permanent organization of the Convention. Pending the announcement of the committee, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, of Boston, delivered an address to the Convention, replete with the noblest wisdom and the soundest morality. Her utterance was both prophetic and hortatory. She cautioned women not to do injustice to others, while seeking justice for themselves; advised them that they must prepare for the new responsibilities they coveted; and that they would better learn to command, by learning well how to serve. She closed her grand and inspiring address with this sentence: "Oh! of all the names given to us to warn off the demon and invoke the angel, let us hold fast to this word—service!"
On motion of Mr. Blackwell, the President was authorized to appoint a committee,[183] made up of one member from each State to work on the permanent organization of the Convention. While waiting for the committee to be announced, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe from Boston addressed the Convention, filled with the highest wisdom and best morals. Her words were both prophetic and encouraging. She warned women not to do injustice to others while seeking justice for themselves; advised them to prepare for the new responsibilities they desired; and said they would learn to lead better by first knowing how to serve. She closed her powerful and inspiring speech with this statement: "Oh! of all the names given to us to ward off the demon and call on the angel, let us hold on to this word—service!"
The Convention reassembled at two o'clock, the hall being filled in every part. Before proceeding to business, the President invited to seats upon the platform, Stephen S. Foster, Miss Susan B. Anthony, Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Andrew Jackson Davis, Mrs. Leland, of Wisconsin; Mr. and Mrs. John Gage, of Vineland, New Jersey, all of whom he designated as faithful veteran laborers in the good cause. He also invited all officers of Woman Suffrage Associations, members of the press and the clergy without distinction of sex or color.
The convention reconvened at two o'clock, and the hall was packed. Before getting started, the President invited Stephen S. Foster, Miss Susan B. Anthony, Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Andrew Jackson Davis, Mrs. Leland from Wisconsin, and Mr. and Mrs. John Gage from Vineland, New Jersey to take seats on the platform. He recognized them as dedicated veteran advocates for the cause. He also welcomed all officers of Woman Suffrage Associations, members of the press, and clergy, regardless of gender or race.
The proceedings were opened with an impressive prayer by Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, of New Jersey. The Committee on Permanent Organization reported the list of officers[184] of the Convention, which was adopted. The announcement of the name of T. W. Higginson as President was received with loud applause. On taking the Chair, he spoke substantially as follows:
The meeting began with a powerful prayer by Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell from New Jersey. The Committee on Permanent Organization presented the list of officers[184] for the Convention, which was approved. The mention of T. W. Higginson's name as President was met with enthusiastic applause. When he took the Chair, he spoke roughly as follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen and Fellow Citizens: I feel truly grateful to the members of this Convention for the honor they have done me by choosing me for this responsible position. I take it not as a personal compliment to myself,[Pg 761] but as a graceful act of courtesy on the part of the West, which is so largely represented, to the East, which is but slightly represented—perhaps our California friends would rather hear us say from the great central Keystone States of the Nation, to the little border States on the Atlantic coast. It is eminently fit and proper that this Convention should select for its place of meeting the great State of Ohio, which takes the lead in the woman suffrage movement, as well as in other good things. It was the first to organize a State Woman Suffrage Association, and the first in which a committee of the Legislature recommended extending to woman the right of suffrage. It is befitting, then, that this Convention should desire Ohio as the stepping stone from which an American Suffrage Association shall rise into existence.
Ladies and Gentlemen and Fellow Citizens: I’m really grateful to the members of this Convention for the honor of being chosen for this important role. I don’t see it as a personal compliment to me,[Pg 761] but rather as a kind gesture from the West, which is well-represented here, to the East, which has less representation—our friends from California might prefer if we said from the great central Keystone States of the Nation to the small border States on the Atlantic coast. It makes perfect sense for this Convention to choose Ohio as its meeting place, as it leads the way in the woman suffrage movement and other positive initiatives. Ohio was the first to establish a State Woman Suffrage Association and the first where a committee in the Legislature recommended granting women the right to vote. So, it’s fitting that this Convention should choose Ohio as the foundation from which an American Suffrage Association will emerge.
My own State is but a small one. At the commencement of the war it was hardly thought worth while to attempt to raise troops in Rhode Island, for if they should be able to muster a regiment it would be necessary to go out of the State to find room to drill. But regiments were raised and they stood side by side with those of Ohio during the great struggle, and your record is theirs. Rhode Island, too, stands shoulder to shoulder with Ohio in the cause of woman suffrage. The call for this Convention was signed by the representatives of twenty-five States; that for, the Woman's Rights Convention, in 1850, was signed by those of but six, yet Ohio and Rhode Island were two of that number. I do not blush at the smallness of my State, but I rejoice in its prominence in this movement. I am glad to claim her as the only State which stands as a unit in the Senate of the United States in favor of giving the ballot to woman. Messrs. Sprague and Anthony, the Senators from that State, agree upon this point, although if they ever agreed upon any other matter, I never heard of it.
My state is pretty small. At the start of the war, it didn't seem worth trying to recruit troops in Rhode Island, since even if they managed to form a regiment, they would have to leave the state to find a place to train. But regiments were formed, and they fought alongside those from Ohio during the major conflict, so your history is also theirs. Rhode Island stands together with Ohio in the fight for women's voting rights. The call for this convention was signed by representatives from twenty-five states; the one for the Women's Rights Convention in 1850 had the support of only six, and Ohio and Rhode Island were among them. I don’t feel ashamed about my state's small size; instead, I take pride in its strong role in this movement. I’m proud to say it’s the only state that stands united in the U.S. Senate for granting women the right to vote. Senators Sprague and Anthony from my state agree on this issue, even though I’ve never heard of them agreeing on anything else.
Fellow-delegates and citizens, we have come together as supporters of a grand reformatory movement, and there is but one plain course for us to pursue. Some years ago I attended a meeting of progressive Friends, in Pennsylvania. The subject of Woman's Rights came up for discussion, and opinions were expressed pro and con, when suddenly there came striding up the aisle an awkward boy, half-witted and about half-drunk. He stepped to the platform, flung his cap to the floor, and said that he wanted to give his testimony. "I don't know much about this subject or any other, but my mother was a woman!" The boys in the galleries laughed, and the Quakers, sitting with their hats on their heads, looking as solemn as if the funeral of the whole human race was being held and they were the chief mourners, did not relax a muscle of their faces, but thought I to myself, "That overgrown boy, drunk or sober, has solved the whole question." Women may doubt and hesitate, uncertain whether they want to vote or not, but men have only one position to take—to withdraw their opposition, and leave it to the women to decide for themselves.
Fellow delegates and citizens, we’ve come together as supporters of an important reform movement, and there’s only one clear path for us to take. Several years ago, I attended a meeting of progressive Friends in Pennsylvania. The topic of Women’s Rights came up for discussion, and opinions were shared for and against, when suddenly, an awkward boy, seemingly half-witted and somewhat drunk, strode up the aisle. He stepped onto the platform, threw his cap to the floor, and declared that he wanted to share his thoughts. “I don’t know much about this topic or any other, but my mother was a woman!” The boys in the gallery laughed, and the Quakers, sitting with their hats on, looked as serious as if they were at a funeral for all of humanity and they were the main mourners. They didn’t change expression, but I thought to myself, “That oversized boy, whether drunk or sober, has figured out the whole issue.” Women might doubt and hesitate, uncertain about whether they want to vote, but men need to take one stance—to stop their opposition and let women decide for themselves.
Many intelligent and respectable ladies fear a conspiracy against their freedom—imagining that at times of elections detachments of police would seize and rudely drag the weak, fainting sisters to the polls against their will. They seem to regard the matter in the same light as a boy who went to the theatre night after night, but invariably went to sleep. Upon being asked what he went for, he replied: "Why I've got to go because I've a[Pg 762] season ticket." And so some women seem to think that the right of suffrage will be like the boy's season ticket, and they must vote whether they will or not. When we can not drive men to the polls, when there is no law to compel them to serve or save their country at the ballot-box, if they stay away from selfishness or indifference, it is not likely that we will be more successful with the women. No compulsion is intended. We will lay before woman the great responsibility that rests upon her, her sacred duty as a wife and mother, we will open up to her a career of the highest usefulness in the world, in which she may more perfectly than ever before fulfill the destiny for which she is created, and then she may individually accept the ballot or not, according to the dictates of her own conscience. All men can do is to take down the barriers and say to her: "Vote, if you please." It is to give more dignity and sacredness to woman; to enlarge and not limit her field of usefulness; but not to take her out of her appropriate sphere. It says to the wife: "Do all you can to save your sons and husbands at home, strew around them its most hallowed influences; but if you fail there, you have another chance at the ballot-box to abolish, by your votes, the liquor-sellers that are dragging them down to ruin."
Many intelligent and respectable women are worried about a conspiracy against their freedom—fearing that during elections, police will forcibly take and drag them to the polls against their will. They seem to view this like a boy who goes to the theater every night but always falls asleep. When asked why he goes, he replies, "I have to go because I have a[Pg 762] season ticket." Similarly, some women think that having the right to vote is like that boy's season ticket, making it mandatory for them to vote whether they want to or not. If we can't force men to the polls, and there's no law to make them serve or protect their country at the ballot box, if they stay away out of selfishness or indifference, it's unlikely we will have better luck with women. No coercion is intended. We will present women with the significant responsibility they hold, their sacred duty as wives and mothers, and we will open up a path for them to contribute meaningfully in the world, allowing them to fulfill their true purpose more than ever before. Then, they can choose to accept the ballot or not, based on their own conscience. All men can do is remove barriers and tell women: "Vote, if you want." This aims to give women more dignity and importance; to expand, not restrict, their contributions; but not to take them out of their rightful roles. It tells wives: "Do everything you can to protect your sons and husbands at home, surround them with the most positive influences; but if you can't succeed there, you have another opportunity at the ballot box to use your votes to eliminate the liquor sellers that are leading them to ruin."
I would earnestly recommend to this Convention the importance of efficient and perfect organization, and not only in this body, but throughout the country. In the judgment of those who called this meeting, the great movement for woman suffrage is too far advanced to be further prosecuted only by local and accidental organizations. In most of the States, State Associations are of but recent origin, and in many they do not exist at all. The efforts hitherto made were all well and useful in their way, but not enough to meet the demands of the present. It is the aim to establish this Association on a national representative basis, embracing all the States in the Union. We seek this because we need it. The enterprise is too vast to be left to hasty or accidental organizations only. We want something solid and permanent. The Congress of the United States rests upon a narrower basis than does the organization at which we aim. That represents but half the people of the country while this is for all. It is eminently needful that we give the greatest care and deliberations to the work. We must have the counsel of various minds, laying aside local differences. We are of different habits and opinions, and do not think alike on all subjects. Upon many questions we "agree to differ," but on this great question we are, and must be, all united. Efficient organization will be a powerful aid in helping forward the grandest reform that was ever launched upon the human race. With this understanding I accept the position of President of this Convention, losing my own individuality as one of its members. In conclusion, I ask your patience with my short-comings and your co-operation in conducting its proceedings.
I would strongly recommend to this Convention the importance of efficient and effective organization, not just within this group, but across the whole country. Those who called this meeting believe that the movement for women's suffrage has progressed too far to rely solely on local and random organizations. In many States, State Associations are relatively new, and in some, they don’t exist at all. The efforts made so far have been good and helpful in their own ways, but they aren't enough to meet today’s demands. The goal is to establish this Association on a national, representative basis that includes all the States in the Union. We pursue this because it’s necessary. The task is too large to be left to quick or random organizations alone. We want something solid and lasting. The Congress of the United States is built on a narrower foundation than the organization we aspire to create. It represents only half the people in the country, while this aims to include everyone. It's crucial that we pay the utmost attention and thoughtfulness to our work. We need input from a variety of perspectives, setting aside local differences. We have different habits and opinions, and don’t always think the same way about everything. On many issues, we can "agree to disagree," but on this important issue, we are, and must be, united. Effective organization will be a powerful tool in advancing the greatest reform that has ever been introduced to humanity. With this understanding, I accept the role of President of this Convention, sacrificing my individuality as one of its members. In closing, I ask for your patience with my shortcomings and your cooperation in managing its proceedings.
Mrs. Cutler read a courteous communication from H. S. Stevens Esq., kindly offering to furnish carriages free to those members of the Convention who may wish to see the city, during their stay. Col. Higginson said that in the early days of woman suffrage, he had seen a rivalry among livery stable keepers to furnish carriages to take persons engaged in the movement out of town, and he regarded this offer as in singular contrast to that. On motion of Mrs. Lucy Stone, the Committee on Permanent Organization of the[Pg 763] Convention was also charged with the duty of preparing a basis of organization, constitution, and by-laws for a National Woman Suffrage Association, and to report a list of officers for the same. The President invited all local Woman Suffrage organizations to make themselves known through their members present, and to participate in the deliberations of the Convention. The following resolution, offered by Mrs. Lucy Stone, was adopted.
Mrs. Cutler read a polite message from H. S. Stevens, Esq., who generously offered to provide free carriages to any members of the Convention who wanted to explore the city during their stay. Col. Higginson mentioned that in the early days of woman suffrage, he had witnessed competition among livery stable owners to provide carriages to transport people involved in the movement out of town, and he saw this offer as a striking contrast to that. On Mrs. Lucy Stone's motion, the Committee on Permanent Organization of the[Pg 763] Convention was also tasked with creating a foundation for organization, constitution, and by-laws for a National Woman Suffrage Association, and to propose a list of officers for it. The President encouraged all local Woman Suffrage organizations to introduce themselves through their present members and to engage in the Convention's discussions. The following resolution, proposed by Mrs. Lucy Stone, was adopted.
Resolved, That the members of the Associated Press, now in session in this city, be invited to attend this Convention and take part in its proceedings, and that Mr. Boyer, Mr. F. B. Sanborn, and Mrs. Cole, of Dayton, be a Committee to convey the invitation to that body.
Resolved, That the members of the Associated Press, currently in session in this city, be invited to attend this Convention and participate in its activities, and that Mr. Boyer, Mr. F. B. Sanborn, and Mrs. Cole, from Dayton, serve as a Committee to deliver the invitation to that group.
A telegram was received from Grace Greenwood, as follows:
A telegram came from Grace Greenwood, which said:
To T. W. Higginson, President of the Woman's Suffrage Convention:
To T. W. Higginson, President of the Woman's Suffrage Convention:
Kept at home by illness. God speed the cause.
Kept at home by illness. May the cause succeed.
Grace Greenwood.
Grace Greenwood.
Brief speeches were made by Rev. Mrs. Hanaford, of Massachusetts; Mary F. Davis and Lucy Stone, of New Jersey; and Giles B. Stebbins, of Michigan, who introduced the following resolution, which was unanimously carried:
Brief speeches were given by Rev. Mrs. Hanaford from Massachusetts; Mary F. Davis and Lucy Stone from New Jersey; and Giles B. Stebbins from Michigan, who introduced the following resolution, which was approved unanimously:
Resolved, That the National Labor Congress, representing five hundred thousand of the workingmen of our country, at its late session at Philadelphia, by recognizing the equal membership and rights of men and women, of white and colored alike, showed a spirit of broad and impartial justice worthy of all commendation, and we hail its action as a proof of the power of truth over prejudice and oppression, which must be of signal benefit to its members, in helping that self-respect, intelligence, and moral culture by which the fair claims of labor are to be gained and the weaker truly ennobled and elevated.
Resolved, That the National Labor Congress, representing five hundred thousand working men and women in our country, at its recent meeting in Philadelphia, by acknowledging the equal membership and rights of all individuals—regardless of gender or race—demonstrated a spirit of broad and impartial justice that deserves high praise. We regard this action as evidence of the power of truth over prejudice and injustice, which will greatly benefit its members by fostering self-respect, intelligence, and moral development, ultimately leading to the rightful recognition of labor's fair claims and the true upliftment of those who are disadvantaged.
Mr. H. B. Blackwell presented the following:
Mr. H. B. Blackwell presented the following:
Constitution of the American Woman Suffrage Association.
Preamble: The undersigned, friends of woman suffrage, assembled in delegate Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, November 24th and 25th, 1869, in response to a call widely signed and after a public notice duly given, believing that a truly representative National organization is needed for the orderly and efficient prosecution of the suffrage movement in America, which shall embody the deliberate action of State and local organizations, and shall carry with it their united weight, do hereby form the American Woman Suffrage Association.
Preamble: We, the undersigned, supporters of women's right to vote, gathered in a delegate Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on November 24th and 25th, 1869, in response to a widely signed call and after proper public notice. We believe that a genuinely representative national organization is essential for the organized and effective advancement of the suffrage movement in America. This organization will reflect the considered actions of state and local groups and will carry their combined influence. Therefore, we hereby establish the American Woman Suffrage Association.
ARTICLE I.
Name: This Association shall be known as the American Woman Suffrage Association.
Name: This organization will be called the American Woman Suffrage Association.
ARTICLE II.
Object: Its object shall be to concentrate the efforts of all the advocates of woman, suffrage in the United States for National purposes only, viz:
Object: The goal is to unite the efforts of all supporters of women's suffrage in the United States for national purposes only, namely:
Sec. 1. To form auxiliary State Associations in every State where none such now exist, and to co-operate with those already existing, which shall declare themselves auxiliary before the first day of March next, the authority of the auxiliary Societies being recognized in their respective localities, and their plan being promoted by every means in our power.
Sec. 1. To create auxiliary State Associations in every state where none currently exist, and to collaborate with those that are already established, which declare themselves auxiliary before the first day of March. The authority of the auxiliary Societies will be acknowledged in their local areas, and we will promote their plan by any means available to us.
Sec. 2. To hold an annual meeting of delegates for the transaction of business and the election of officers for the ensuing year; also, one or more national conventions for the advocacy of woman suffrage.
Sec. 2. To hold an annual meeting of delegates to conduct business and elect officers for the upcoming year; also, to hold one or more national conventions to promote women's voting rights.
Sec. 3. To publish tracts, documents, and other matter for the supply of State and local societies and individuals at actual cost.
Sec. 3. To publish pamphlets, documents, and other materials for the benefit of state and local organizations and individuals at actual cost.
Sec. 4. To prepare and circulate petitions to State Legislatures, to Congress, or to constitutional conventions in behalf of the legal and political equality of woman; to[Pg 764] employ lecturers and agents, and to take any measures the Executive Committee may think fit, to forward the objects of the Association.
Sec. 4. To prepare and share petitions with State Legislatures, Congress, or constitutional conventions for the legal and political equality of women; to [Pg 764] hire speakers and representatives, and to take any actions the Executive Committee considers appropriate to promote the goals of the Association.
ARTICLE III.—ORGANIZATION.
Sec. 1. The officers of this Association shall be a President, eight Vice-Presidents at Large, Chairman of the Executive Committee, Foreign Corresponding Secretary, two Recording Secretaries, and a Treasurer, all of whom shall be ex-officio members of the Executive Committee from each State and Territory, and from the District of Columbia, as hereinafter provided.
Sec. 1. The officers of this Association will include a President, eight Vice-Presidents at Large, a Chairman of the Executive Committee, a Foreign Corresponding Secretary, two Recording Secretaries, and a Treasurer. All of these officers will be ex-officio members of the Executive Committee representing each State and Territory, as well as the District of Columbia, as outlined below.
Sec. 2. Every President of an auxiliary State society shall be ex-officio a vice-president of this Association.
Sec. 2. Every President of an auxiliary State society shall be ex-officio a vice-president of this Association.
Sec. 3. Every chairman of the Executive Committee of an auxiliary State society shall be ex-officio a member of the Executive Committee of this Association.
Sec. 3. Every chairperson of the Executive Committee of an auxiliary State society shall be a member of the Executive Committee of this Association by default.
Sec. 4. In cases where no auxiliary State society exists, a suitable person may be selected by the annual meeting, by the Executive Committee, as Vice-President or member of the Executive Committee, to serve only until the organization of said State Association.
Sec. 4. If there isn’t a local State society available, the annual meeting or the Executive Committee can choose a suitable person to act as Vice-President or a member of the Executive Committee, and they will serve only until the State Association is formed.
Sec. 5. The Executive Committee may fill all vacancies that may occur prior to the next annual meeting.
Sec. 5. The Executive Committee can fill any vacancies that arise before the next annual meeting.
Sec. 6. All officers shall be elected annually at any annual meeting of delegates, on the basis of the Congressional representation of the respective States and Territories, except as above provided.
Sec. 6. All officers will be elected every year at the annual meeting of delegates, based on the Congressional representation of the respective States and Territories, except as stated above.
Sec. 7. No distinction on account of sex shall ever be made in the membership or in the selection of officers of this Society; but the general principle shall be that one half of the officers shall, as nearly as convenient, be men, and one half women.
Sec. 7. There will be no distinction based on gender in the membership or in the selection of officers of this Society; the general principle will be that about half of the officers will be men and about half will be women.
Sec. 8. No money shall be paid by the Treasurer except under such restrictions as the Executive Committee may provide.
Sec. 8. The Treasurer can only make payments with restrictions set by the Executive Committee.
Sec. 9. Five members of the Executive Committee, when convened by the Chairman, after fifteen days written notice previously mailed to each of its members, shall constitute a quorum. But no action thus taken shall be final, until such proceedings shall have been ratified in writing by at least fifteen members of the Committee.
Sec. 9. Five members of the Executive Committee, when called together by the Chairman, after sending a written notice to each member at least fifteen days in advance, shall make up a quorum. However, no actions taken will be final until at least fifteen members of the Committee have approved them in writing.
Sec. 10. The Chairman shall convene a meeting whenever requested to do so by five members of the Executive Committee.
Sec. 10. The Chairman will hold a meeting whenever five members of the Executive Committee request it.
ARTICLE IV.
This Association shall have a branch office in every State in connection with the office of the auxiliary State Society therein, and shall have a central office at such place as the Executive Committee may determine.
This Association will have a branch office in every state, connected to the office of the local State Society there, and will have a central office at a location determined by the Executive Committee.
ARTICLE V.
This Constitution may be amended at any annual meeting, by a vote of three-fifths of the delegates present therein.
This Constitution can be changed at any annual meeting with a vote of three-fifths of the delegates present.
ARTICLE VI.
Any person may become a member of the American Woman Suffrage Association by signing the Constitution and paying the sum of $1 annually, or life members by paying the sum of $10, which membership shall entitle the individual to attend the business meetings of delegates and participate in their deliberations.
Any person can join the American Woman Suffrage Association by signing the Constitution and paying $1 each year, or they can become a life member by paying $10. This membership allows individuals to attend delegate meetings and take part in the discussions.
ARTICLE VII.
Honorary members may be appointed by the annual meeting or by the Executive Committee, in consideration of services rendered.
Honorary members can be appointed either by the annual meeting or by the Executive Committee, based on the services provided.
The officers of the Association were then appointed:
The officers of the Association were then chosen:
President—Henry Ward Beecher.
President—Henry Ward Beecher.
Vice Presidents at Large—T. W. Higginson, Mary A. Livermore, William Lloyd Garrison, Mrs. W. T. Hazard, George W. Curtis, Celia M. Burleigh, George W. Julian, Margaret V. Longley.
Vice Presidents at Large—T. W. Higginson, Mary A. Livermore, William Lloyd Garrison, Mrs. W. T. Hazard, George W. Curtis, Celia M. Burleigh, George W. Julian, Margaret V. Longley.
Chairman of Executive Committee—Lucy Stone.
Chairman of Executive Committee—Lucy Stone.
Foreign Corresponding Secretary—Julia Ward Howe.[Pg 765]
Foreign Corresponding Secretary—Julia Ward Howe.[Pg 765]
Corresponding Secretary—Myra Bradwell.
Corresponding Secretary—Myra Bradwell.
Recording Secretaries—Henry B. Blackwell, Amanda Way.
Recording Secretaries—Henry B. Blackwell, Amanda Way.
Treasurer—Frank B. Sanborn.
Treasurer—Frank B. Sanborn.
Vice-Presidents—Maine, Rev. Amory Battles; New Hampshire, Armenia S. White; Vermont, Hon. C. W. Willard; Massachusetts, Caroline M. Severance; Rhode Island, Rowland G. Hazard; Connecticut, Seth Rogers; New York, Oliver Johnson; New Jersey, Antoinette Brown Blackwell; Pennsylvania, Robert Purvis; Delaware, Mrs. Hanson Robinson; Ohio, Dr. H. M. Tracy Cutler; Indiana, Lizzie M. Boynton; Illinois, C. B. Waite; Wisconsin, Rev. H. Eddy; Michigan, Moses Coit Tyler; Minnesota, Mrs. A. Knight; Kansas, Hon. Charles Robinson; Iowa, Amelia Bloomer; Missouri, Hon. Isaac H. Sturgeon; Tennessee, Hon. Guy W. Wines; Florida, Alfred Purdie; Oregon, Mrs. General Rufus Saxton; California, Rev. Charles G. Ames; Virginia, Hon. J. C. Underwood; Washington Territory, Hon. Rufus Leighton; Arizona, Hon. A. K. P. Safford.
Vice-Presidents—Maine, Rev. Amory Battles; New Hampshire, Armenia S. White; Vermont, Hon. C. W. Willard; Massachusetts, Caroline M. Severance; Rhode Island, Rowland G. Hazard; Connecticut, Seth Rogers; New York, Oliver Johnson; New Jersey, Antoinette Brown Blackwell; Pennsylvania, Robert Purvis; Delaware, Mrs. Hanson Robinson; Ohio, Dr. H. M. Tracy Cutler; Indiana, Lizzie M. Boynton; Illinois, C. B. Waite; Wisconsin, Rev. H. Eddy; Michigan, Moses Coit Tyler; Minnesota, Mrs. A. Knight; Kansas, Hon. Charles Robinson; Iowa, Amelia Bloomer; Missouri, Hon. Isaac H. Sturgeon; Tennessee, Hon. Guy W. Wines; Florida, Alfred Purdie; Oregon, Mrs. General Rufus Saxton; California, Rev. Charles G. Ames; Virginia, Hon. J. C. Underwood; Washington Territory, Hon. Rufus Leighton; Arizona, Hon. A. K. P. Safford.
Executive Committee—Maine, Mrs. Oliver Dennett; New Hampshire, Hon. Nathaniel White; Vermont, Mrs. James Hutchinson, Jr.; Massachusetts, Rev. Rowland Connor; Rhode Island, Elizabeth B. Chace; Connecticut, Rev. Olympia Brown; New York, Mrs. Theodore Tilton; New Jersey, Mary F. Davis; Pennsylvania, Mary Grew; Delaware, Dr. John Cameron; Ohio, Andrew J. Boyer; Indiana, Rev. Charles Marshall; Illinois, Hon. J. B. Bradwell; Wisconsin, Lilie Peckham; Michigan, Lucinda H. Stone; Minnesota, Abby J. Spaulding; Kansas, Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols; Iowa, Belle Mansfield; Missouri, Mrs. Francis Minor; Tennessee, Rev. Charles J. Woodbury; Florida, Mrs. Dr. Hawkes; California, Mrs. Mary E. Ames; Virginia, Hon. A. M. Fretz; District of Columbia, Grace Greenwood.
Executive Committee—Maine, Mrs. Oliver Dennett; New Hampshire, Hon. Nathaniel White; Vermont, Mrs. James Hutchinson, Jr.; Massachusetts, Rev. Rowland Connor; Rhode Island, Elizabeth B. Chace; Connecticut, Rev. Olympia Brown; New York, Mrs. Theodore Tilton; New Jersey, Mary F. Davis; Pennsylvania, Mary Grew; Delaware, Dr. John Cameron; Ohio, Andrew J. Boyer; Indiana, Rev. Charles Marshall; Illinois, Hon. J. B. Bradwell; Wisconsin, Lilie Peckham; Michigan, Lucinda H. Stone; Minnesota, Abby J. Spaulding; Kansas, Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols; Iowa, Belle Mansfield; Missouri, Mrs. Francis Minor; Tennessee, Rev. Charles J. Woodbury; Florida, Mrs. Dr. Hawkes; California, Mrs. Mary E. Ames; Virginia, Hon. A. M. Fretz; District of Columbia, Grace Greenwood.
The addresses of the evening were made by Judge Bradwell and Mary A. Livermore, of Illinois; Miriam M. Cole, of Ohio; Lilie Peckham, of Wisconsin; Frank B. Sanborn, editor of the Springfield, Mass., Republican; and Dr. Lees, of Leeds, England. At the Thursday morning session the attendance was large, and the interest in the Convention seemed to be increasing. The forenoon was devoted to a consideration of the basis of the National organization, its constitution and by-laws. The discussions[185] were earnest, temperate, in excellent spirit, every woman keeping within the five minutes' rule, and speaking to the point—a circumstance commented on pleasantly by the President. The articles of the Constitution and By-Laws were discussed seriatim, and adopted, and then the Constitution, as a whole, was adopted. A letter was presented by Mrs. Lucy Stone, from the proprietor of the Birch House, Water Street, offering to entertain a few delegates—free. She also read the following:
The speakers for the evening were Judge Bradwell and Mary A. Livermore from Illinois; Miriam M. Cole from Ohio; Lilie Peckham from Wisconsin; Frank B. Sanborn, editor of the Springfield, Mass., Republican; and Dr. Lees from Leeds, England. At the Thursday morning session, there was a large turnout, and interest in the Convention seemed to be growing. The morning was dedicated to discussing the foundation of the National organization, its constitution and by-laws. The discussions[185] were serious, respectful, and conducted in a great spirit, with every woman adhering to the five-minute speaking rule and staying on topic—a fact that the President noted with pleasure. The articles of the Constitution and By-Laws were discussed seriatim and approved, and then the Constitution as a whole was adopted. Mrs. Lucy Stone presented a letter from the owner of the Birch House on Water Street, offering to host a few delegates—free of charge. She also read the following:
Cleveland, November 25, 1869.
Cleveland, November 25, 1869.
To the Delegates of the Woman's National Convention:—The Faculty of the Homeopathic College hereby extend their most cordial invitation to your honorable body to visit the College. Conveyances for the same will be in readiness at any time desired. In this College, now in its twentieth annual session, woman, with the exception of one winter, has always been equal with man in privilege and honor, and here she shall always share an equal privilege and honor, so long as she is willing to conform to the same standard of culture.
To the Delegates of the Woman's National Convention:—The Faculty of the Homeopathic College warmly invites you to visit the College. Transportation will be ready whenever you need it. In this College, now in its twentieth year, women, except for one winter, have always had the same rights and respect as men, and will continue to have equal rights and respect as long as they are willing to meet the same standards of education.
Yours, most respectfully,
Yours, most respectfully,
T. P. Wilson, Dean.
H. V. Biggar, Registrar.T. P. Wilson, Dean.
H. V. Biggar, Registrar.Judge Bradwell offered the following, which was adopted:
Judge Bradwell provided the following, which was accepted:
Resolved, That we urgently request all State and National Associations, formed for the[Pg 766] purpose of aiding in giving suffrage to woman, to become auxiliary to, or co-operate with the American Woman's Suffrage Association, believing that by concert of action on the part of all Societies and Associations formed in the nation for this purpose, suffrage will sooner be extended to woman.
Resolved, That we urgently ask all State and National Associations created to support women's suffrage to join or collaborate with the American Woman's Suffrage Association, as we believe that by working together, all the Societies and Associations established across the nation for this cause can help extend suffrage to women more quickly.
Able addresses were made during the afternoon by Rev. Charles Marshall, pastor of one of the Presbyterian churches of Indianapolis; Lizzie Boynton and Mrs. Swank, of Indiana; Lucy Stone, of New Jersey; Ex-Gov. Root, of Kansas; Mary E. Ames, of California; and Addie Ballou, of Minnesota. Rebecca Rickoff, of Cleveland, recited an original poem, "The Convict's Mother," with marked effect. During the entire session the hall was filled to its utmost limit. The Convention met for the closing session at an early hour. The hall was densely filled in every part, the man at the ticket-office having been literally inundated with "quarters." Mrs. Dr. Cutler occupied the chair. Mrs. Stone announced that she would go through the audience to get names of members of the Association, which any one could become on payment of a dollar.
Able addresses were given in the afternoon by Rev. Charles Marshall, pastor of one of the Presbyterian churches in Indianapolis; Lizzie Boynton and Mrs. Swank from Indiana; Lucy Stone from New Jersey; Ex-Gov. Root from Kansas; Mary E. Ames from California; and Addie Ballou from Minnesota. Rebecca Rickoff from Cleveland recited an original poem, "The Convict's Mother," to great effect. The hall was packed to its fullest capacity throughout the entire session. The Convention convened for the final session early in the day. The hall was filled in every corner, with the ticket office overwhelmed by a flood of "quarters." Mrs. Dr. Cutler presided over the chair. Mrs. Stone announced that she would move through the audience to collect names of Association members, which anyone could join by paying a dollar.
Brief speeches were made by Mr. Bellville and Mr. Lamphear, of Ohio; Mr. Henry Blackwell, of New Jersey; and Rev. Rowland Connor, of Massachusetts, and then Mrs. Julia Ward Howe delivered a second address of remarkable power and unparalleled beauty. She spoke the day before as the prophet of the Convention—this evening, she spoke as its historian. Her address was faultless, peerless, perfect, and though read from a manuscript, moved the large audience deeply. Next followed Mrs. Celia Burleigh, of New York, a woman of rare grace and culture, with an address packed with thought and wisdom, uttered in the choicest language. Mrs. Caroline M. Severance, of Boston, succeeded her with another speech of like polish and impressiveness, and then the great congregation rose, and closed the interesting meetings of the two days with the singing of the grand old doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow," after which the Convention adjourned sine die.
Brief speeches were made by Mr. Bellville and Mr. Lamphear from Ohio; Mr. Henry Blackwell from New Jersey; and Rev. Rowland Connor from Massachusetts. Then, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe delivered a second address that was incredibly powerful and beautifully crafted. She had spoken the day before as the prophet of the Convention—tonight, she spoke as its historian. Her address was flawless, unmatched, and perfect. Even though she read from a manuscript, it moved the large audience deeply. Next, Mrs. Celia Burleigh from New York, a woman of exceptional grace and culture, delivered a speech filled with thought and wisdom, expressed in elegant language. Mrs. Caroline M. Severance from Boston followed with another polished and impressive speech. Then, the large crowd rose and closed the engaging two-day meetings by singing the classic doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow," after which the Convention adjourned sine die.
A Mass Convention for the advocacy of Woman Suffrage, under the auspices of the American Woman Suffrage Association, was held at Steinway Hall, New York City, May 11th and 12th, 1870. Upon each of those days three sessions were held, and at each session the attendance was numerous and enthusiastic. The Convention was presided over by Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. Upon the platform were seated many earnest, active supporters, and advocates of the cause.[186]
A mass convention advocating for women's suffrage, organized by the American Woman Suffrage Association, took place at Steinway Hall in New York City on May 11th and 12th, 1870. Each day featured three sessions, and attendance at each session was large and enthusiastic. The convention was chaired by Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. Many dedicated and active supporters and advocates of the cause were present on the platform.[186]
The address of Rev. Henry Ward Beecher was as follows: Ladies and Gentlemen:—It is but a little while ago that the question whether a woman might, with modesty and propriety, appear upon the public platform to speak her sentiments upon moral and philanthropic questions, agitated the whole community. Although I do not regard myself as excessively conservative,[Pg 767] I remember very well when the appointment of women, by the Anti-Slavery Society of New England, to act on committees with men, grievously shocked my prejudices; and I said to myself, "Well, where will this matter end?" I remember very well that when many persons, whose names are now quite familiar to the people, first began to speak on the anti-slavery question, I felt that if the diffidence and modesty and delicacy of woman had not been sacrificed, it had, at any rate, been put in peril; and that, although a few might survive, the perilous example would pervert and destroy the imitators and followers.
The address of Rev. Henry Ward Beecher was as follows: Ladies and Gentlemen:—It wasn't long ago that the question of whether a woman could, with modesty and grace, speak on a public platform about moral and humanitarian issues stirred the entire community. While I don’t see myself as overly conservative,[Pg 767] I clearly remember when the decision by the Anti-Slavery Society of New England to allow women to serve on committees alongside men really challenged my biases; I thought to myself, "Where is this going to lead?" I recall that when many people, whose names are now well-known, first began to address the issue of slavery, I believed that while the modesty and delicacy of women hadn’t been completely lost, it was definitely at risk; and that, although a few might remain unaffected, this risky example would corrupt and harm the imitators and followers.
It was in the year 1856 that I first made a profession of my faith in Woman's Rights. During the Fremont campaign I had so far had my eyes opened and my understanding enlightened, as to see that if it is right for the people of Great Britain to put a politician at the head of their government, and she a woman—if, in all the civilized nations of the world, it is deemed both seemly and proper for women to be in public meetings and take part therein, provided they are duchesses or the ladies of lords—if it is right, in other words, for aristocracy to give to their women the right of public speech, then it is right, also, for democracy to give their women the right of public speech. Does any one question whether Lucy Stone may speak? or Mrs. Livermore? or Mrs. Stanton? There is not a city or town in the nation that does not hail their coming; and there are no persons so refined, and no persons so conservative as not to listen to them; and there are none that listen who do not always admit that women may speak. God does not give such gifts for nothing.
It was in 1856 that I first publicly declared my belief in Women's Rights. During the Fremont campaign, I had my eyes opened and my understanding expanded to realize that if it’s acceptable for the people of Great Britain to have a woman as their political leader—if in all the civilized nations, it is considered appropriate for women to attend public meetings and participate, as long as they are duchesses or the wives of lords—then it is also right for a democracy to grant women the right to speak publicly. Does anyone doubt that Lucy Stone can speak? Or Mrs. Livermore? Or Mrs. Stanton? There isn't a city or town in the nation that doesn't welcome their presence; and there are no individuals so refined or conservative that they won’t listen to them; and those who do listen always agree that women should be allowed to speak. God does not give such gifts for no reason.
We are in a community that is constantly growing, expanding, developing. We do not believe that human nature has reached its limits. There are new combinations, new developments, taking place. Nor do we believe that men have reached the ultimatum of their practical efficiency, any more than women have. It is in the order of things, that having met, tried, and settled this question—the right of woman to public speech—we should meet the next question, the right of women to act. She has a right to think,—has she a right to practice? May she vote, or sit upon committees in matters pertaining to local or National interests? It is this question which is under discussion now. It seems wild and wandering to many, but not more wild and wandering than fifteen years ago, to the great majority of our citizens, seemed the question of woman's right to public speech. I venture to say that within the fifteen years next coming it will seem strange to the great mass of the people that it should have been considered of doubtful propriety for woman to exercise the privilege, or, I should rather say, the duty of suffrage.
We are in a community that is constantly growing, expanding, and developing. We don’t think that human nature has reached its limits. New combinations and developments are happening all the time. We also don’t believe that men have hit the peak of their practical efficiency, just like women haven’t. It’s only natural that after addressing the question of a woman's right to public speaking, we should tackle the next issue: the right of women to take action. Does she have the right to think—does she have the right to practice? Can she vote or serve on committees regarding local or national interests? This is the question being discussed now. It seems outrageous to many, but it's not more outrageous than the question of a woman’s right to public speaking seemed to the vast majority of citizens fifteen years ago. I dare say that in the next fifteen years, it will seem strange to most people that it was ever considered inappropriate for women to exercise the privilege, or rather, the duty, of voting.
And so within the last few years this question has risen up, to the suppression, I may say, of everything else; for everything else is conceded. I don't know what advanced step may be next proposed. If I did, I should propose it to-day—for this reason, that I notice that each advance becomes the acceptance of the disputed question immediately in its rear. When the doctrine of physiognomy—Lavater's doctrine—was first propounded, men laughed it to scorn, and contemned the idea that there could be anything true or noble in it, until phrenology came and asserted that the brain's proportional parts could be known, and that the mind could be outwardly ascertained,[Pg 768] and then men said: "Oh, this phrenology is a humbug! Physiognomy is rational; we can see how a man can judge that way; there is something in physiognomy." So they swallowed physiognomy in order to be strong enough to combat phrenology. Animal magnetism, I believe, came up next; and the people ridiculed it as they had ridiculed those that had gone before. They now thought that there might be some sense in physiognomy and phrenology, but animal magnetism was preposterous. Then came mesmerism. "Why," people said, "this is nothing in the world but animal magnetism, in which, of course, there is some reason." Then came spiritualism. "Oh," people said, "that is nothing but mesmerism." So they admitted each anterior heresy for the sake of refuting the new one. And now, may a woman be an artist? May she sing in public? May she speak in public? "Well," said people, "she can sing, if she has the gift; there is no harm in that; but this delivering an oration, this is not woman's sphere." Then if we say, "Shall a woman vote?" they say, "Oh! vote! vote! Let her speak if she wants to speak; but as for voting, that will never do!"
And so in recent years, this question has become a dominant issue, overshadowing everything else; because everything else has been accepted. I’m not sure what the next advancement will be. If I did, I would bring it up today—because I’ve noticed that each step forward leads to the acceptance of the disputed issue right behind it. When Lavater’s theory of physiognomy was first introduced, people ridiculed it and dismissed the notion that there could be anything true or valuable in it, until phrenology emerged and claimed that the proportions of the brain could be understood and that the mind could be known from outward appearances,[Pg 768] and then people said, "Oh, phrenology is nonsense! Physiognomy makes sense; we can see how someone might make such judgments; there is definitely something to physiognomy." So they accepted physiognomy to strengthen their argument against phrenology. Then animal magnetism came along, and people laughed at it just as they had with everything before. They started to think there might be some validity to physiognomy and phrenology, but animal magnetism was absurd. Next came mesmerism. “Well,” people said, “this is just animal magnetism, which has some logic to it.” Then spiritualism appeared. “Oh,” people said, “that’s just mesmerism.” So they acknowledged each earlier mistake just to disprove the new one. And now, can a woman be an artist? Can she sing in public? Can she speak publicly? "Well," people said, "she can sing if she has the talent; there’s nothing wrong with that, but making a speech is not a woman’s role." Then if we ask, "Should a woman vote?" they say, "Oh! vote! vote! Let her speak if she wants, but voting? That just won’t happen!"
Therefore, as I have said, if I could but see the next point ahead, I would immediately proclaim it, because then people would say, "Let women vote if they want to vote, but that is as far as we can go." I rejoice in your presence this morning. I, for one, need not assert that I am from my whole heart and conviction thoroughly of opinion that the nature of woman, the purity and sweetness of the family, the integrity and strength of the State, will all be advantaged when woman shall be, like man, a participator in public affairs.
Therefore, as I mentioned, if I could just see what the next step is, I would announce it right away, because then people would say, "Let women vote if they want to vote, but that's as far as we can go." I’m glad to be here with you this morning. I truly believe from the bottom of my heart that the nature of women, the purity and warmth of the family, and the integrity and strength of the State will all benefit when women, like men, have a role in public affairs.
Rev. James Freeman Clarke said—Ladies and gentlemen:—This is a very serious question, whichever way we look at it. I do not suppose that, if the women of the country were to be admitted to-day to vote, the consequences would appear to-day, or for some time to come, because women everywhere would vote very much as those around them are in the habit of voting. Young men growing up generally vote as their fathers and brothers are in the habit of voting—those with whom they are in the habit of communication; so it would be with women. They would probably, for some time to come, vote very much as their husbands, fathers, and brothers do now. The ultimate result, however, is of the greatest consequence; and nobody can tell exactly what it will be. I, for one, believe that it will be very beneficial, and it is for that reason that I am here to-day.
Rev. James Freeman Clarke said—Ladies and gentlemen:—This is a very serious question, no matter how we look at it. I don't think that if women in the country were allowed to vote today, we would see the results immediately, or even for a while, because women everywhere would likely vote the same way as those around them do. Young men usually vote like their fathers and brothers do—people they communicate with regularly; women would probably do the same for a while, voting similarly to their husbands, fathers, and brothers. However, the ultimate outcome is incredibly important, and no one can predict exactly what it will be. Personally, I believe that it will be very beneficial, and that’s why I’m here today.
I believe, in the first place, that women ought to vote, because it seems to me that this is in the direction of all human progress, and in the direction of civilization. Civilization, thus far, has constantly occupied itself in bringing woman up to, and putting her by the side of man. In the barbarous stage of society, woman is the slave and tool of man; in the Asiatic age she is the plaything and ornament with which man amuses himself; but in Christendom there is a tendency to place woman side by side with man in everything, and just as far as it has been done we find the benefit of it. Woman ought to be made the companion of man in his great work of government. The reason why people think politics is a low and vulgar pursuit is that woman has never been in politics. Where man goes alone he is easily corrupted. Soldiers in the army are degraded, despite the patriotic nobleness of their[Pg 769] motive, by the absence of woman, and men are degraded at the polls, as well as everywhere else, through not having women by their side.
I believe that women should definitely have the right to vote because this is a step toward human progress and civilization. So far, civilization has focused on elevating women and putting them alongside men. In primitive societies, women are treated as the property and tools of men; in ancient times, they functioned as mere playthings and decorations for men's amusement. However, in modern Christian societies, there’s a move toward placing women on equal footing with men in all aspects of life, and wherever this has happened, we see the positive effects of it. Women should be partners with men in the important work of governance. The reason people view politics as a low and base activity is that women have been excluded from it. When men act alone, they can easily become corrupted. Soldiers in the army, despite their noble patriotic motives, suffer from the absence of women, and men are diminished at the polls and everywhere else when women are not by their side.
I believe in this movement, not only because it is in the direction of all modern civilization, but because it is in accordance with the idea of American government, and the policy of American institutions. A State is saved by being faithful to its own idea, or lost by faithlessness to that idea. Now the American idea is faith in the people. We know perfectly well there are evils connected with republicanism, as there are with everything; but we have chosen the good of a republic with this great, broad basis of universal suffrage. People say, "Well, but there is no natural right to vote." We knew that very well before, because there is no voting in a state of nature. Voting is a social contrivance. Because it is not a natural right, is it any less unjust to deprive a large part of the people of it? There are no roads in a state of nature. For that reason, shall we say to a woman, "You shall not walk in the road?" Wherever the male and female qualities go together, we are better for it, and therefore it is our business to put them together in the government. Put away all the absurd restrictions on woman, and let her do what God intended her to do. Let us trust nature and God, and give to woman the opportunity to do whatever she is able to accomplish.
I believe in this movement, not just because it aligns with modern civilization, but also because it matches the principles of American government and the policies of American institutions. A state thrives by staying true to its core values or fails by betraying them. The American ideal is a belief in the people. We fully recognize that there are problems associated with republicanism, just like with everything else; however, we have opted for the benefits of a republic built on universal suffrage. People argue, "Well, there is no natural right to vote." We were aware of that before, as there is no voting in a state of nature. Voting is a social arrangement. Just because it isn’t a natural right, does that make it any less wrong to deny a large segment of the population that right? There are no roads in a state of nature. Should we then tell a woman, "You can't walk on the road?" Wherever male and female qualities come together, we benefit from it; thus, it's our responsibility to unite them in government. Let’s remove all the ridiculous restrictions on women and allow them to do what they were meant to do. Let’s have faith in nature and God, and give women the chance to achieve whatever they are capable of.
I have another reason for woman suffrage, and that is, that nothing can be said against it. Our good friend, Dr. Bushnell, has written a book in which he says that if woman is allowed to vote she must be allowed to govern; and, being a subject nature, she can not govern. In other words, as she is a subject nature, let her stay at home and govern her household all the time! People say she ought to influence gently and quietly, and not to govern by force. Now if there is anything which means influence and not force, except indirectly and secondarily, it is the ballot-box! We had an administration two years ago which had all the force of the country at command, and the people went to the ballot-box and destroyed it so completely that we have almost forgotten we ever had so bad a Government as that of Andrew Johnson.
I have another reason for supporting women's suffrage, and that is that nothing can be argued against it. Our good friend, Dr. Bushnell, has written a book stating that if women are allowed to vote, they must also be allowed to govern; and since they are considered a subordinate nature, they cannot govern. In other words, since they are seen as subordinate, they should just stay at home and manage their households all the time! People say they should influence things gently and quietly, instead of ruling by force. But if there's anything that represents influence without force—except in an indirect and secondary way—it’s the ballot box! A couple of years ago, we had an administration that had all the force of the country at its disposal, yet the people went to the ballot box and completely dismantled it, to the point where we’ve almost forgotten how bad the government was under Andrew Johnson.
All the strength and bravery and determination of this world are not so much confined to the male sex as some ornaments of that sex would have us believe. We want the women—the wives and sisters and mothers of the land, to help save our men from political corruption. It is what God has ordained, and the time is coming when it shall be effected.
All the strength, bravery, and determination in the world aren't just limited to men, despite what some men might want us to think. We need the women—the wives, sisters, and mothers of the nation—to help save our men from political corruption. It's what God has planned, and the time is coming when it will happen.
Mrs. M. M. Cole read the following letter:
Mrs. M. M. Cole read this letter:
Vineland, N. J., May 10, 1870.
Vineland, NJ, May 10, 1870.
My Dear Friends: I once had a neighbor who was for years entirely crippled with rheumatism, and she, when asked, "How are you to-day?" invariably answered, "Better, I thank you, to-day than I was yesterday. Hope I shall be right smart to-morrow." So, friends, I could say, unasked, I am better this year than I was last, and I hope to keep on in this line until 1876, and be able then to stand with you once more upon the platform of equal rights, and shout "Hallelujahs" over the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment; over the crowning of my labors of twenty-five years, during which time I have not failed to ask for the right of suffrage for all citizens of this Republic, of sane mind and adult years, without regard to race, color, or sex.
My Dear Friends: I once had a neighbor who spent years completely disabled by rheumatism, and when she was asked, "How are you today?" she always replied, "I'm better today than I was yesterday. I hope I'll be feeling even better tomorrow." So, friends, I can say without being asked, I am better this year than I was last year, and I hope to continue in this direction until 1876, when I can once again stand with you on the platform of equal rights and shout "Hallelujahs" over the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment; celebrating the culmination of my twenty-five years of work, during which I have consistently advocated for the right to vote for all citizens of this Republic, who are of sound mind and adult age, regardless of race, color, or gender.
"The good time coming is almost here."
"The good times ahead are almost here."
Yours in faith,
Yours in faith,
Frances D. Gage.
Frances D. Gage.
The President read a letter just received from Mr. Tilton:
The President read a letter he had just received from Mr. Tilton:
New York, May 11, 1870.
New York, May 11, 1870.
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, President of the American Woman Suffrage Association: Honored Sir: I am commissioned by the unanimous voice of the Union Woman Suffrage Society, now assembled in Apollo Hall, to present to yourself, and through you to the Association over which you are presiding in Steinway Hall, our friendly salutations, our hearty good will, and our sincere wishes for mutual co-operation in the cause of woman's enfranchisement.
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, President of the American Woman Suffrage Association: Dear Sir: I am writing on behalf of the Union Woman Suffrage Society, which is currently gathered in Apollo Hall, to extend our warm greetings, our genuine goodwill, and our sincere hopes for mutual collaboration in the mission of women's voting rights.
Theodore Tilton,
President of the Union Woman Suffrage Society.Theodore Tilton,
President of the Union Women's Suffrage Society.Fraternally yours,
Fraternally yours,
At his own desire the President was unanimously requested to make reply on the behalf of the American Woman Suffrage Association. Mr. Beecher remarked, "If there are two general associations for the same purpose, it is because we mean, in this great work, to do twice as much labor as one society could possibly do."
At his own request, the President was unanimously asked to respond on behalf of the American Woman Suffrage Association. Mr. Beecher said, "If there are two major organizations with the same goal, it's because we intend to accomplish twice as much as one group could ever achieve."
Rev. Oscar Clute said: Every favored movement of civilization has been simply a recognition of the rights and privileges that inhere in humanity. Take for instance the idea of the divine right of kings—which has been so thoroughly scouted by our republicanism. The abandonment of that idea upon the part of our fathers was a great stride in the path of civilization. And at this time in almost all parts of the world something is being done toward giving the masses a clearer idea of those rights which inhere in them.
Rev. Oscar Clute said: Every significant movement in civilization has just been a recognition of the rights and privileges that belong to all humans. For example, consider the concept of the divine right of kings—which has been completely rejected by our republicanism. Letting go of that idea by our forefathers was a major step forward in civilization. Right now, in nearly every part of the world, efforts are being made to help the masses better understand the rights that are inherent to them.
In our own country, the object of the woman suffrage reformers is, not to overturn anything already established that is good and pure and noble, but to extend to women those rights which inhere in them as human beings. It is not claimed for women that they shall have any advantage over men, but simply that they shall have the right to labor and receive their earnings. That they shall have such facilities of education as men enjoy. Give woman equal opportunities. Her sphere is, undoubtedly, to engage in such labor, to get such culture, and do such good work as she finds ready to her hands, and to help on in the cause of humanity. The ballot is the key that opens to woman all the avenues of labor and of culture. If all the avenues of education and labor were open to women, we should find them growing up with higher and nobler ambition than the girls of to-day. The laws at present in force are detrimental to the interests of women not only in regard to property, but to marriage itself. Some provision is necessary by which women themselves can bring their efforts to bear upon these laws, and the ballot is the only effective measure for the purpose.
In our country, the goal of the women’s suffrage reformers is not to destroy anything that is already good, pure, and noble, but to grant women the rights that are inherent to them as human beings. It’s not argued that women should have any advantage over men, but simply that they should have the right to work and earn their wages. They should have access to the same educational opportunities that men do. Women deserve equal chances. Their role is clearly to engage in work, seek knowledge, and contribute positively to society, supporting the cause of humanity. The vote is the key that opens all doors of work and education for women. If all educational and job opportunities were available to women, we would see them growing up with higher and more noble ambitions than today's girls. Current laws are harmful to women's interests, not just regarding property, but in marriage as well. We need a way for women to influence these laws, and the vote is the only effective means to do so.
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe said: My dear friends—Sometimes, when I begin to speak at conventions for the advocacy of woman suffrage, I feel self-dismayed in thinking that I ought to educate my audience all over from beginning to end. But this would require so much time that no one convention would ever get through with it; so I content myself with saying, as simply and as strongly as I can, what happens to be in my mind. That particular thought which is now uppermost is the great pleasure of our meeting to-day. We come together here, trusting to see in your kind faces the reflection of our great hope; and to find in your ears the echo of that great promise which some of us expected to hear a long while ago, and which all of us now see growing and strengthening until its harmony seems to us to fill the world.[Pg 771]
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe said: My dear friends—Sometimes, when I start speaking at conventions to support women's right to vote, I feel overwhelmed thinking that I need to educate my audience from scratch. But that would take so much time that no single convention could finish it; so I settle for expressing, as clearly and passionately as I can, what’s on my mind. The main thought I have right now is the great joy of our meeting today. We gather here, hoping to see in your kind faces the reflection of our shared hope; and to find in your ears the echo of that great promise that some of us expected to hear long ago, and which we all now see growing and strengthening until its harmony seems to fill the world.[Pg 771]
We don't come together here to ignore oppositions, but to reconcile them. Oppositions are divinely appointed. I do believe that their distance can not be increased with safety to the economy of the world. But love is the tropical equator. His fiery currents are able to quicken and vivify the whole globe. They circulate equally at the arctic and antarctic extremities. The work that we are doing in common is not unfavorably affected by oppositions. The poles are God's anointed and stand firm; but opposition has quickened the currents of love until it has melted the social ice at the extremities for us, and even the snows which very prematurely, I do assure you, begin to fall upon the heads of some of us. I have been speaking and writing on this subject for a year and a half, and I find the subject always getting outside of my efforts much more rapidly than my efforts are able to get outside of it. At every new meeting I find the speech of the last meeting much too small. Whether the question grows or the speech shrinks I do not know, but I am inclined to think the former. I never knew any member of my nursery to require so much letting out, expanding, as this question. From all of this I am inclined to think that we have set our hands to a great work, to a long and hard labor, to a reform of human society; to a reduplication of human power and well-being.....
We don’t come together here to ignore conflicts, but to resolve them. Conflicts are divinely ordained. I truly believe that their distance cannot increase without negatively impacting the balance of the world. But love is the central point. Its powerful currents can invigorate and enliven the entire globe. They flow equally at both the North and South Poles. The work we’re doing together isn’t negatively affected by conflicts. The poles are God’s chosen and remain steadfast; but opposition has stirred the currents of love, melting the social barriers at the extremes for us, and even the snow that, I assure you, has started to fall too early on some of us. I’ve been speaking and writing about this topic for a year and a half, and I find that the subject always seems to grow beyond my efforts faster than I can keep up. At every new meeting, I find the previous meeting’s speech feels too limited. Whether the topic expands or the speech becomes smaller, I don’t know, but I’m inclined to think it’s the former. I’ve never known any topic to require so much expansion as this one. From all this, I’m led to believe we are engaged in a significant undertaking, a long and challenging labor, a reform of human society; a rejuvenation of human strength and well-being...
Mrs. Sara J. Lippincott, more widely known as "Grace Greenwood," stated that she had believed in woman suffrage since she was old enough to believe in anything that was right and to denounce anything that was wrong. She was not counted among the extremists. Indeed, she claimed the right only for three classes of persons, namely, single women who have property of their own, married women, and all such other women as may desire it. I am willing that a property qualification should be exacted. Require, if you will, that each woman voter shall possess a gold watch, and keep it wound and up to time—a clothes wringer and a sewing machine; that she shall be able to concoct a pudding, sew on a button, and, at a pinch, keep a boarding-house and support a husband respectably....
Mrs. Sara J. Lippincott, better known as "Grace Greenwood," said she had believed in women's right to vote since she was old enough to recognize what was right and to reject what was wrong. She didn’t consider herself an extremist. In fact, she only supported the right for three groups of individuals: single women who own property, married women, and any other women who want it. I agree that a property requirement should be enforced. If you want, require that every woman voter should own a gold watch and keep it wound and accurate—a clothes wringer and a sewing machine; that she should be able to make a pudding, sew on a button, and, when necessary, run a boarding house and support a husband decently....
The President read the reply which he had prepared to the letter of Mr. Tilton as follows:
The President read the response he had prepared to Mr. Tilton's letter as follows:
New York, May 11, 1870.
New York, May 11, 1870.
To Theodore Tilton, President of the Woman Suffrage Society Meeting in Apollo Hall: Dear Sir: Your letter of congratulation was received with great pleasure by the mass Convention assembled in Steinway Hall, under the auspices of the American Woman Suffrage Association, and I am instructed by their unanimous vote to express their gratification, and to reciprocate your sentiments of cordial good-will. In this great work upon which you have entered—the enfranchisement of woman—we have a common aim and interest, and we shall rejoice at any success which is achieved by your zeal and fidelity.
To Theodore Tilton, President of the Woman Suffrage Society Meeting in Apollo Hall: Dear Sir: We were very pleased to receive your letter of congratulations at the mass convention held in Steinway Hall, organized by the American Woman Suffrage Association. I’ve been instructed by their unanimous vote to convey their appreciation and to return your warm wishes. In this important endeavor you’ve undertaken—the enfranchisement of women—we share a common goal and interest, and we will celebrate any success that you achieve through your passion and dedication.
Henry Ward Beecher.
Henry Ward Beecher.
I am, very truly, yours,
I am, very truly, yours,
Mrs. Mary F. Davis, of New Jersey, read a report from the executive committee of the New Jersey Woman Suffrage Association.
Mrs. Mary F. Davis, from New Jersey, read a report from the executive committee of the New Jersey Woman Suffrage Association.
Col. T. W. Higginson spoke as follows: Mr. President, Ladies and gentlemen—I was thinking during the brilliant speech of Mrs. Lippincott, what an awful reflection the existence of that woman was upon the Government of the country in which we live—that she should reside in sight of the Capitol of Washington and never get nearer the interior of that building than the reporter's desk. Fancy a House of Representatives in which she should have an opportunity of talking to her fellow-delegates as she has talked to[Pg 772] us this afternoon. Fancy the life, the new interest, the animation that will come into those desolate debates in Congress whenever she sets her foot as Senator or Representative within those halls, and the rest of the women come after her. If she was there, she might perhaps be met by the old objection, that, whatever her words may be, she did not have the physical force to sustain them. The composition of our delegates in both houses of Congress is not, as a general rule, so formidable as to lead one to suppose that they were particularly sent there for their muscle. Bring before you the array of the men whom you send to represent the nation. See how absurd it is to suppose that they were chosen for anything but their intellect. Hear this lady talk, and when you compare what you have heard with the debates in Congress, it does not seem to me that even intellect was the main consideration.
Col. T. W. Higginson said: Mr. President, Ladies, and gentlemen—I was reflecting during Mrs. Lippincott's brilliant speech on what a terrible indictment it is of the government in our country that a woman like her can live so close to the Capitol in Washington yet never get closer to that building's interior than the reporter's desk. Imagine a House of Representatives where she could talk to her fellow delegates as she spoke to [Pg 772] us this afternoon. Consider the life, the new energy, the excitement that would enrich those dull debates in Congress once she steps into those halls as a Senator or Representative, paving the way for other women to follow. If she were there, she might face the old argument that, no matter what she says, she lacks the physical strength to back it up. The makeup of our representatives in both houses of Congress is generally not so imposing as to suggest they were sent there for their physical prowess. Look at the lineup of the men we send to represent the nation. It seems ridiculous to think they were chosen for anything other than their intellect. Listen to this lady speak, and when you contrast what you’ve heard with the debates in Congress, it seems to me that even intellect isn’t the primary factor.
I believe that no man ever made use of that hackneyed argument, that women couldn't vote because they couldn't discharge military duty, unless there was in that man something that needed the teaching of womanhood to make him do his military duty, and do it well. I never heard that argument made that I do not suspect that there is something amiss in that man's lungs, or his liver, or at any rate his brain. The military duties of the nation have nothing to do with the elective franchise. Every soldier who comes back from military service finds the way to the polls blocked up by dozens of men who, at the time of the draft, suddenly developed lamenesses, either of limbs, or of excuses; men who wanted to see if there wasn't some wound or trouble by which they could be relieved from the obvious necessity. You recollect the man that Mr. Clarke spoke to you of this morning, who, at the sacking of Lawrence, hid himself in the cellar, while his wife guided with a lantern the border ruffians who were in search of him. She relied apparently upon the ingenuity of the husband to hide himself effectively—a reliance in which she was not disappointed. Not having found him, they decided to set fire to the house, and then she asked permission to bring out her household furniture and save it from the flames. To finish up she dragged out a great roll of carpet. Had anybody sat down on that roll of carpet they would have heard the ready scream of her brave but suffering husband. If that man was like multitudes of men, if he were a man like Horace Greeley in his opinions, the moment the carpet was unrolled, the carpet knight would step out, and his first remark to his wife would probably be, "My dear, you can now return to the kitchen. I will do the voting, because I have the physical strength to stand by the Government."
I believe that no guy ever used that tired argument that women shouldn't vote because they couldn't serve in the military, unless there was something in that guy that needed the lesson of womanhood to get him to fulfill his military duty and do it well. Every time I hear that argument, I suspect there's something wrong with that guy's lungs, or his liver, or at least his brain. The military duties of the nation have nothing to do with the right to vote. Every soldier who comes back from serving finds the way to the polls blocked by dozens of men who, when it was time for the draft, suddenly developed some kind of limp—either in their legs or in their excuses; men who wanted to see if there was some injury or issue that could keep them from the clear necessity. You remember the guy that Mr. Clarke mentioned to you this morning, who, during the sacking of Lawrence, hid in the cellar while his wife used a lantern to guide the border ruffians who were looking for him. She clearly relied on her husband's cleverness to hide himself well—a reliance that wasn't misplaced. Not finding him, they decided to set fire to the house, and then she asked for permission to bring out her furniture and save it from the flames. To finish off, she dragged out a huge roll of carpet. If anyone had sat on that roll of carpet, they would have heard the muffled scream of her brave but suffering husband. If that guy were like many men, if he were a guy like Horace Greeley in his views, the moment the carpet was unrolled, the carpet knight would step out, and his first words to his wife would probably be, "My dear, you can go back to the kitchen now. I’ll handle the voting because I have the physical strength to support the Government."
Woman, in time of war, has her mission, as man has his. It is idle to talk about her "sphere"—as her sphere is generally interpreted. Even in the most disastrous war, the mission of woman is plainly to be discerned in deeds of self-denial and self-sacrifice. Women have worked themselves literally to death through the toils and exposures of war. Of all the semblances of argument that can be brought against the right of woman to the suffrage—of all the figments of the brain that men devise, there is nothing idler than to object to this right on the ground that suffrage and bearing arms should go together. In times of war the women of our country did aid and comfort and bless our suffering armies, and hundreds of returned soldiers owe their restoration to health and life to the ministering labors and[Pg 773] devotedness of some woman. Such men will not use the argument that woman should not have the suffrage because she can not bear arms.
Woman, during wartime, has her purpose, just as man does. It’s pointless to discuss her "sphere"—as it’s usually understood. Even in the most tragic wars, the role of women is clearly seen in their acts of selflessness and sacrifice. Women have literally worked themselves to exhaustion through the demands and hardships of war. Of all the arguments against women's right to vote—of all the ideas men come up with—nothing is more ridiculous than claiming this right shouldn’t exist because voting and military service should go hand in hand. In times of war, the women in our country provided support and comfort to our struggling soldiers, and many returning soldiers credit their recovery and survival to the caring efforts and dedication of some woman. Those men won't argue that women shouldn't have the right to vote simply because they can't serve in the military.
The ballot of woman is needed to render our civilization more complete and harmonious. I knew a lady who rode with the first party of ladies over the mountains into a mining town of California. The whole population turned out to see the novel spectacle. What did they say when the women came among them? Did they say, "Go away from here; this is no place for women; you will unsex yourself?" Oh, no! The first sound heard from that silent and expectant throng of miners was a rough voice calling out, "Three cheers for the ladies who have come to make us better!" It is this coming of the new influence—not a purer influence merely, for doubtless a great part of what is called the purity of woman is but the purity of ignorance, that rough contact with the world would seem to endanger—it is not merely the greater purity, but it is because she is the other part of the human race; it is because without her we have fathers in the State, but no mothers; it is because without her in our legislative halls, we have laws that take from the mother the right to every child she bears; it is because without her in our courts, lawyers use foul words that shame the purity of woman. Until woman takes a place with man in the legislation of the world, and in the administration of justice, she will suffer, and man through her will suffer; also, it is not because woman is so far above man that we claim her rights in this matter. It is because she is the other half of man and society is imperfect, and will remain so until she takes her proper place in the labors of the world. If a pair of scissors be broken in two, and you have it riveted together, it is not because you concede angelic superiority to either half, but simply because it takes two halves to make a whole.
The vote of women is needed to make our society more complete and harmonious. I knew a woman who traveled with the first group of ladies over the mountains to a mining town in California. The entire population came out to witness this unusual sight. What did they say when the women arrived? Did they shout, "Get out of here; this isn't a place for women; you'll lose your femininity?" Oh no! The first thing heard from that silent, expectant crowd of miners was a rough voice calling out, "Three cheers for the ladies who have come to improve us!" It’s this arrival of new influence—not just a purer influence, because much of what is referred to as the purity of women is likely just the purity of ignorance, which that rough interaction with the world seems to threaten—it’s not merely about greater purity, but because she is the other half of the human race; it's because without her we have fathers in the State but no mothers; it's because without her in our legislative bodies, we have laws that take away from mothers the rights to their own children; it’s because without her in our courts, lawyers use foul language that tarnishes the dignity of women. Until women take their place alongside men in shaping laws and administering justice, they will suffer, and men through them will suffer too; and it’s not because women are somehow superior to men that we advocate for their rights in this matter. It’s because she is the other half of man and society is incomplete, and will remain so until she takes her rightful place in the work of the world. If a pair of scissors is broken in two and you join them back together, it’s not because you believe one side is superior to the other, but simply because it takes both halves to create a whole.
Mrs. Cutler was the first speaker of the evening session. Ladies and Gentlemen:—When the cloud of slavery agitation arose—a cloud at first no bigger than a man's hand, but which at length became a great tempest, overshadowing all the land, and when the thunders rolled, and the lightnings flashed, and when we felt that almost the doom of our nation had come, then we women read, as one of our number has so grandly expressed it—we read by the light of a hundred thousand lamps, the judgment of the Almighty against the institution of slavery. That institution was wrong because it took away human rights. But what were the rights? The right to live was not among them—for the slave lived. The right to bread was not among them—for he was fed and clothed. The rights that were taken away were the rights inherent in all human beings to the results of their own labor, to the freedom of the body and the mind. And when the country once became aroused to the full significance of this slavery question, the heart of every mother in the land throbbed in sympathy with the enslaved. At last War said to us, "These people have not been remembered in their bonds, and our sons and brothers are now called from us, and we must offer them upon the altar of sacrifice!" And, wondering, we read anew the Declaration of Independence, and swore fealty to its precepts, now to be written with a pen of iron dipped in the hearts' blood of our sons. It is past, and all men are free and equal in America.
Mrs. Cutler was the first speaker of the evening session. Ladies and Gentlemen:—When the issue of slavery first started to bubble up—a concern that seemed small at first, just like a cloud the size of a man's hand, but eventually grew into a massive storm that loomed over the entire nation, and when the thunder rumbled, and the lightning flashed, and we felt that the fate of our country was at stake, we women understood, as one of our own has so eloquently put it—we understood through the light of a hundred thousand lamps, the judgment of the Almighty against slavery. That system was fundamentally wrong because it stripped away human rights. But what were those rights? The right to life wasn’t one of them—because slaves lived. The right to food wasn’t one of them—because they were fed and clothed. The rights that were taken away were the ones inherent to all human beings—those to the fruits of their own labor, and to freedom of body and mind. And when the nation fully recognized the importance of the slavery issue, the heart of every mother in the land beat in solidarity with the enslaved. Finally, War told us, "These people have been forgotten in their chains, and our sons and brothers are now being taken from us, and we must sacrifice them!" And, in astonishment, we revisited the Declaration of Independence, pledging allegiance to its principles, now to be written with a pen of iron dipped in the blood of our sons. It is in the past, and all men are free and equal in America.
But there is one thing yet to be done in order that our country may come fully within the provisions of the well-nigh inspired expression of our forefathers,[Pg 774] "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." The women of America pay taxes for the support of the Government, and their consent should be had in matters affecting their welfare and their lives. We have been making our work known for years, but it has been to no purpose, and we have come to the conclusion that the only way to remedy the evil is to get the ballot.... There is nothing to be asked for now but the ballot. I shall never ask for anything less than that while I live.
But there’s still one thing that needs to be done to ensure our country fully embraces the nearly inspired words of our forefathers, [Pg 774] "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." The women of America pay taxes to support the Government, and their consent should be sought on matters that affect their well-being and their lives. We’ve been making our case for years, but it has been in vain, and we’ve concluded that the only way to fix this issue is to secure the right to vote.... There’s nothing to ask for now but the vote. I will never settle for anything less than that for the rest of my life.
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, the President, then addressed the Convention. Ladies and Gentlemen:—We expect that every great movement in the community will, from various reasons, meet with ridicule and depreciation, as well as plain, honest resistance. Nor are we indisposed to take our share in the merriment that is made. We are, however, indisposed to have it said that this is a complaining movement on the part of women. For, although there may be occasions of single outbursts of this kind, this movement has no such parentage, and it is progressing under no such motives. It has long been in the hearts of many that women should be raised to an equality in civil affairs with men, but that great discussion which aroused and instructed the conscience of the nation, and, above all, that issue of war which brought men down to the very foundations of their belief, has been fruitful in raising a multitude of questions which are advancing now and which are to be consummated. Among these is the question, "Are women equal with men?" You might as well ask, "Are all men equal to each other?" For you adjudicate no questions in this country on the ground of superiority or inferiority of classes among men. It makes no difference, therefore, in regard to this question, whether women be superior or inferior. The question is simply this: have they not, before the law, the same rights that men have, and ought they not to have, in the administration of public interests, precisely the same power that men have? Now, in arguing this question—in urging it upon the community, I find a fear first, lest woman's nature should deteriorate. Kings were always afraid that if their nobles got power it would make them dissolute and reckless and grasping, and the nobles were always afraid of the burgher class, that if they should get political honor, it would only puff them up and make them unmanageable, and the burgher class, when they have obtained their political privileges, were afraid to extend a share in these privileges to the yeomanry, the peasantry. You never saw one upper class who held a prerogative that could ever be made to see any reason why the inferior class should have a share of it. It is the universal law of the superior class to keep the privileges to themselves, and the privileges have usually had to be wrested from them.
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, the President, then spoke to the Convention. Ladies and Gentlemen:—We know that every major movement in society will, for various reasons, face ridicule and criticism, as well as straightforward, honest pushback. We are, however, not opposed to joining in the laughter that comes with this. What we do not accept is the idea that this is simply a complaint from women. While there may be moments of frustration, this movement has deeper roots and is driven by different motives. Many have long believed that women should have equal standing in civil matters with men. The significant discussions that have awakened and informed the nation’s conscience, along with the war that forced people to rethink their beliefs, have sparked many questions that are now being addressed and will be resolved. One of these questions is, "Are women equal to men?" You might as well ask, "Are all men equal to each other?" In this country, we don't determine questions based on class superiority or inferiority. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether women are considered superior or inferior. The real question is whether they have the same rights under the law as men do, and whether they should have the same influence in public affairs as men do. As I discuss this issue—putting it forward to the community—I encounter a fear that women’s nature might worsen. Kings have always feared that if nobles gained power, they would become irresponsible, reckless, and greedy. Nobles have likewise feared the merchant class, believing that if they gained political influence, it would only inflate their egos and make them uncontrollable. And the merchant class, once they acquired political rights, hesitated to share those rights with the common people and the laboring class. You will never find an upper class admitting any reason for sharing their privileges with those they see as inferior. The natural tendency of the superior class is to keep those privileges for themselves, and usually, those privileges have had to be fought for.
In the first place, what has been the effect upon woman of enlarging the sphere of her influence? There can be no question that from generation to generation since the introduction of Christianity the sphere of woman has been enlarging. She has been growing up in the scale of power; has she been going down in the scale of moral character? You know as well as I do that they are better, and that, instead of deteriorating their character, it has improved them and augmented the volume of their being, and they are women still.
First of all, what has been the impact on women of expanding their influence? There's no doubt that from generation to generation, since Christianity arrived, women's roles have been growing. They have been gaining more power; have they been losing their moral character? You know just as well as I do that they are better, and instead of degrading their character, it has improved them and increased their presence, and they are still women.
But it is said that "in politics it is different." In what way is it different? Do you hesitate to say, "Jane, on your way to school please take these letters[Pg 775] and drop them into the letter-box at the corner," and your daughter does it. There is much more trouble in doing that than to drop a ballot in the ballot-box. Nobody thinks anything of it, although there are men there, too. Is a woman demeaned by dropping her ballot into the box? Does the act injure her? "Oh, no; it is not the act—it is the scenes that she would have to meet. Go to the polls, and see what voting means." Yes; go and see what bachelor voting means. It is exactly the thing that we want to improve. Did you ever see a crowd of men, the rudest in the world, who, when a lady walked among them, did not open spontaneously and let her pass through as if she was an angel? It is asked sometimes, "Would you like to have your wife or daughter go to the polls and vote?" Yes—on my arm; yes. I venture to say that there is not a precinct in the city where well-bred ladies will not only be allowed to vote themselves, but would carry peace in the exercise of the right to others. "Would you have a woman participate in the scenes preliminary to an election?" I will tell you that the moment that women begin to vote there will be no scenes "preliminary" in which women may not appear. It is this very jointure of the family influence that we look to as a part of the influence that should bring reformation into our politics; for if our politics are to be masculine forever I despair of the republic. No! whatever thing on God's earth a woman's conscience tells her to do, she can do it, though she stood in the gates of hell, and be every particle a woman just as much. Is there anything in this world that has so great a reputation for lawlessness as a camp? And yet, when our armies went into this conflict, how many hundreds of women went, not as companions, but to minister to the boys. They went down into the camps, and through the whole war consorted with the rudest of men, and not one single syllable did they ever hear from the lips of those men that a pure ear should not hear. They ate the soldiers' fare—they performed the most menial services; but it was love that inspired and sustained them in their toils. And will any man say that after these four years had passed, and these ministers of mercy came back again, that because they had been mixed up with this rabble crew, they were the less women? Were they not the more women? These are sisters of charity—these are heroines without a record in any human literature. Have they been injured by mixing with the rude affairs of war in camps and among soldiers? When women take upon themselves such necessary duties they take vulgarity from vulgarity, and coarseness becomes refined, for it is the heart of woman that brings life among men, and restores Paradise.
But it's often said that "politics is different." How is it different? Do you hesitate to say, "Jane, on your way to school, please take these letters[Pg 775] and drop them in the mailbox at the corner," and your daughter does it? It’s much more complicated to do that than to drop a ballot in the ballot box. Nobody thinks twice about it, even though there are men around. Does a woman lose respect by dropping her ballot into the box? Does the act harm her? "Oh, no; it’s not the act—it's the situation she might face. Go to the polls and see what voting really involves." Yes, go and see what it means for men to vote. That’s exactly what we want to change. Have you ever seen a crowd of men, the rudest in the world, who, when a lady walks among them, don’t automatically part to let her through as if she were an angel? It’s sometimes asked, "Would you want your wife or daughter to go to the polls and vote?" Yes—on my arm; absolutely. I would bet that there isn’t a single voting district in the city where well-mannered ladies wouldn’t just be allowed to vote themselves but would also bring a sense of peace with them. "Would you want a woman to be part of the pre-election chaos?" Let me tell you, once women start voting, there won't be any scene "preliminary" to elections from which women won’t be present. It's exactly the family influence we hope will help reform our politics; because if our politics are to remain a man's world forever, I fear for the republic. No! Whatever a woman's conscience tells her is right, she can do it, even if she stands in the gates of hell, and still be every bit as much a woman. Is there anything in this world that has a worse reputation for lawlessness than a camp? And yet, when our armies went into battle, how many hundreds of women went, not as companions, but to take care of the soldiers? They entered the camps and spent the entire war among the roughest of men, and never once did they hear anything from those men that a decent person shouldn’t hear. They ate the same rations as the soldiers—they did the most menial tasks; but it was love that inspired and sustained them in their work. And will any man say that after these four years, when these ministers of mercy returned, they were any less women just because they had associated with this rowdy crew? Were they not more women? These are sisters of charity—these are heroines without any record in human literature. Were they harmed by mingling with the rough realities of war and soldiers? When women take on such necessary roles, they uplift the vulgarity from vulgarity, and coarseness is made refined, for it is the heart of a woman that brings life among men and restores Paradise.
But it is said that it would do women no good to have the vote, because they would vote as their husbands would. Well, I am very glad to hear that you are all so happily mated. I have a pretty large flock, and my observation has been that there was not such perfect unanimity. The tidings brought to me are that there are women who have minds of their own, and I don't think a woman would make up her mind to vote with her husband unless she conscientiously believed that he voted the right way. It is said again that it would introduce division into the family, and that a division about politics is the most bitter thing in the world. No; there is one thing in which a difference is more bitter than politics. What? Religion. There is no such diverging influence in this world as a difference in religion. Yet[Pg 776] when I look into these matters I find that families all through the community are divided on the subject of religion. I have known scores and scores of families in which there were Baptists and persons of other denominations, and they found no trouble in getting along. You will always find where husband and wife can not agree, they will peaceably differ. There is no danger of their ever disturbing the family relations by that.
But people say that women having the vote wouldn't help, because they would just vote like their husbands. Well, I'm really glad to hear that you all have such perfect partnerships. I have a rather large group I'm familiar with, and my observation has been that there's not that kind of perfect agreement. I've heard that there are women who think for themselves, and I don’t believe a woman would decide to vote alongside her husband unless she genuinely thought he was voting the right way. It’s also said that this would cause divisions in the family, and that political disagreements are the most bitter. However, there's one thing that creates even more bitterness than politics. What could that be? Religion. There’s no comparison in this world to the divide caused by religious differences. Yet[Pg 776] when I consider these matters, I see that families across the community are split on religious issues. I've known countless families with Baptists and people from other denominations, and they've managed to get along just fine. You will always see that when husbands and wives don’t agree, they can still respectfully differ. There’s no risk of them disrupting family relations because of that.
We are still holding, it seems, the old barbaric notion of the inferiority of woman. Every higher class preaches, preaches, preaches—about the inferiority of everything and everybody below it. All the world believes that the nation in which the man is born is the highest nation in the world. Why, we believe that we Americans are the biggest people in the world, the Englishman believes the English people to be the highest in the world. There is not the least doubt in the mind of a Frenchman that he was God Almighty's first favorite, and so on, nation by nation. So it is with classes. So, also, it seems to be with man. All the men in the world join hands together and agree that whatever may be the classification as between man and man, all men are infinitely superior to woman. Now I hold that in some things woman is inferior to man, and in some things greatly superior to man, and that in the general average she is fully his equal. A woman is God's chief engineer in the home. She ought to have a clear eye and a deep heart and a wide understanding. You can't make a woman too broad, too strong, too high, too deep in all generous enthusiasm for the purposes of the family, for it takes strong women to bring up strong men and strong women. In regard to this matter I wonder that people should attempt to separate so much by guess. Hear people say, "What will be the effect?" As if this thing was not already demonstrated—as if history was not already a picture of what the result will be. Will you be good enough to tell me which woman you think to-day is the superior? There is the problem: the Asiatic woman is the woman we hear tell about; just look at her—a do-nothing, a know-nothing woman! The European woman is the woman that has been cultured. Which is the superior to-day? which commands most respect?
We still seem to hold onto the old, barbaric idea that women are inferior. Every higher class constantly talks about the inferiority of everyone and everything below it. The world believes that the nation a man is born in is the best one. We Americans think we are the greatest people in the world, while the English believe their nation is the top one. A Frenchman has no doubt that he is God Almighty's first favorite, and so on, with each nation believing the same. The same goes for social classes. It seems that men everywhere come together and agree that, regardless of how men are ranked among themselves, all men are far superior to women. I believe that while women may be inferior to men in some areas, they can be greatly superior in others, and overall, on average, they are fully equal. Women are the main managers in the home, and they should have clear vision, deep feelings, and broad understanding. You can’t make a woman too well-rounded, too strong, too elevated, or too passionate about family goals because raising strong men and women takes strong women. It puzzles me that people try to separate them so much by guesswork. People often ask, "What will be the effect?" as if this hasn’t already been demonstrated—history is a record of what the results will be. Can you tell me which woman you think is superior today? There’s the issue: the Asiatic woman is the one we often hear about; just look at her—a do-nothing, know-nothing figure! The European woman is the one who has been educated. Which one is superior today? Which one commands more respect?
Delicacy in woman is sentiment, not appearance, not enamel, not languishing airs. But it is asked, why make this disturbance? Why not let a woman, if it is desired that she should be a student, inquire of her husband? Suppose she hasn't got one. Young gentlemen that are so fond of talking about the matter say, let the women stay at home and take care of their families. Let me ask you if you will agree to give every woman a family that hasn't got one? If you will not, then hold your tongue. But even taking the question in the way they put it, how would these young men like their fathers to say, "Tom, Bill, you are both Republicans. You have gone away from my notions; I am a good, stanch, old-fashioned Democrat; and my advice to you, boys, is that you stay at home and read, and think these matters over, and I will go and vote for you,"—how would the boys like that? Everybody is willing to be above everybody else, and this thing of one man assuming that he is the superior of another, and asking that other to knuckle down to him, is not popular. You don't like it. And women don't like it any better than you do—and they ought not to like it, either. Women can have all the benefit of holding an opinion, but they shall not have the power of expressing it. They go through all the labor[Pg 777] and trouble of loading, but can't fire off. Now, I affirm, that it is wrong to give women the responsibilities of public life without giving them the safety of public life, too.
Delicacy in women is about feeling, not looks, not charm, not weak attitudes. But the question is raised, why create a fuss? Why not let a woman, if she wants to be a student, ask her husband? What if she doesn’t have one? Young men who love to discuss this issue say women should stay home and care for their families. Let me ask you: will you ensure every woman without a family gets one? If you won’t, then keep quiet. But even considering the question the way they frame it, how would these young men feel if their fathers said, “Tom, Bill, you’re both Republicans. You’ve strayed from my beliefs; I’m a loyal, old-fashioned Democrat; and my advice to you is to stay home and read, think these things through, and I’ll go vote for you”—how would the boys react? Everyone wants to feel superior to someone else, and this idea of one man thinking he’s better than another and expecting that person to submit is not well received. You don’t like it. And women don’t like it any more than you do—and they should not accept it, either. Women can have opinions, but they shouldn’t have the ability to express them. They go through all the effort of preparing, but can’t take action. Now, I assert that it’s wrong to place the responsibilities of public life on women without also giving them the protections of public life.
But what practical use will the ballot be to women? Tell me what practical use the ballot will be to men; then I will tell you of what use it will be to women. A man that denies the right of woman to the ballot must deny it to any body and all bodies. I affirm another thing. I affirm that the ballot is a natural right. To say that voting is an artificial thing is merely an evasion. If there is any such thing as natural rights in the world, it is the right of every person to have a voice in the government that he shall live under, and in the electing of the magistrate who shall make the laws by which he is to be governed. But they say women don't want to vote. Well, I didn't want to learn my letters, but I had to, and, on the whole, I am not sorry for it. If men say women don't want the ballot, my reply is, they need it, at any rate. In behalf of the poor and needy, I plead for suffrage. They are the persons who are in just that place where the hail of misfortune plays pitilessly upon them. I plead for suffrage for women, not because the rich and refined need it—they have already more than their heart could wish—but for the great sisterhood of common women.
But what practical use will voting be for women? Tell me what practical use voting will be for men; then I will explain its use for women. A man who denies women the right to vote must deny it to anyone and everyone. I assert another point. I assert that voting is a natural right. To say that voting is an artificial thing is just an evasion. If there are any natural rights in the world, it's the right of every person to have a voice in the government they live under and to elect the officials who make the laws by which they are governed. But they say women don't want to vote. Well, I didn't want to learn to read, but I had to, and overall, I don't regret it. If men say women don't want the vote, my response is that they need it, regardless. I advocate for suffrage on behalf of the poor and needy. They are the ones who are in the exact situation where the storms of misfortune hit them hard. I advocate for women’s suffrage, not because the wealthy and refined need it—they already have more than they could ever want—but for the vast sisterhood of ordinary women.
But, it is said, is it not subverting the order of the Bible; is it not subverting those sound Christian maxims in respect to the subordination of woman to man? Well, if you think it is, let the husband vote first and the wife vote after; that settles that point. I have looked through the Ten Commandments, and although I find a great many things that you shall not do, I don't find anywhere it says that you shall not vote; and I don't think that there is a place in the Bible where it says that a woman shall not vote; nor, since it pleased God to make thousands and thousands of women that are superior to men, I don't believe that he ever wrote a line to say that a woman who was superior should be inferior. My friends, the true rendering of Scripture is this: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, soul, and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself. In the kingdom of love there is neither high nor low. Love knows no distinctions. It is all equal in the kingdom of God; and wherever the human family are supremely possessed by that one supreme, beneficent feeling of love, there never can arise these disturbing elements.
But, it is said, isn’t it undermining the order of the Bible? Isn’t it undermining those solid Christian principles regarding the subordination of women to men? Well, if you think so, let the husband vote first and the wife vote afterward; that settles that issue. I have looked through the Ten Commandments, and while I find many things that you shouldn’t do, I don’t see anywhere it says that you can’t vote; and I don’t think there’s a place in the Bible that says a woman can’t vote; nor, since it pleased God to create thousands and thousands of women who are superior to men, do I believe He ever wrote a line saying that a woman who is superior should be inferior. My friends, the true interpretation of Scripture is this: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself. In the kingdom of love, there is no high or low. Love knows no boundaries. It’s all equal in the kingdom of God; and wherever humanity is fully consumed by that one supreme, benevolent feeling of love, there can never be these disruptive elements.
Mrs. Livermore said: Ladies and Gentlemen—Mr. Beecher very pertinently said that women are allowed to know, but not to say; they may make all the preparations necessary to intelligent voting, but that they shall not vote. That is exactly what is doing a vast deal of mischief the world over. If they are not allowed to vote, and express their opinions upon the laws by which they are to be governed, and if they are not to have opened to them all proper fields of labor, they will turn their attention to dressmaking, and to millinery, and to all the other hot-beds of our fast modern life. It is doing great harm; and that is one reason I earnestly plead in their behalf for the ballot. Men say women shall not have the ballot. They must petition and beg for it. Have not petitions been already made? Have not 200,000 names been sent in to Congress already? Then they say you must "organize;" and when that is done, and they find the country rocked as by a traveling[Pg 778] volcano, they then say, "All women do not want to vote; all the women in the country should ask for it, and beg for it, and petition for it."
Mrs. Livermore said: Ladies and Gentlemen—Mr. Beecher very pointedly mentioned that women are allowed to know, but not to say; they can make all the necessary preparations for informed voting, but they aren’t allowed to vote. This is causing a lot of damage around the world. If they can’t vote and express their opinions on the laws that govern them, and if they aren’t given access to all suitable job opportunities, they’ll focus on dressmaking, millinery, and all the other hotbeds of our rapid modern life. This is very harmful; and that’s one reason I passionately advocate for their right to vote. Men say women shouldn’t have the ballot. They have to petition and beg for it. Haven’t petitions already been made? Haven’t 200,000 names been submitted to Congress already? Then they say you must "organize;" and when that’s accomplished, and they notice the country shaking like it’s hit by a traveling[Pg 778] volcano, they then claim, "Not all women want to vote; all the women in the country should ask for it, and beg for it, and petition for it."
Let me relate an incident that occurred in Boston at the office of Chief Justice Chapman, four or five weeks ago. A man, a guardian, came there with a writ of habeas corpus, which placed in his charge two children in no wise related to him, and he asked that he might have the control of the children, in opposition to the claim of their mother, who desired to keep them. The facts were briefly these: the woman had been happily married; her husband died and left her a widow with two young children. By the laws of the State of Massachusetts at that time, she was not allowed to be their guardian, nor the guardian of any body else's children. So the Judge of Probate appointed a guardian for the children, who magnanimously allowed them to remain in their mother's care. After two or three years she committed the unpardonable crime of marrying again, a thing that no man was ever guilty of. The marriage was perfectly acceptable to her former husband's relatives, but the guardian was so displeased with it, that he got out a writ of habeas corpus, and demanded of Chief Justice Chapman that the children be remanded to his custody. We are apt to boast of Massachusetts and its laws, but here was a case in which the Chief Justice, after hearing the case, actually remanded these children to the possession of that man. The court-room was crowded; the excitement was intense; the poor mother sank down in a deadly faint. I say such laws are an outrage upon womanhood, and they arise simply and solely from a deep contempt for womanhood. This contempt is palpable throughout all the entire code of laws.
Let me share an incident that happened in Boston at Chief Justice Chapman's office about four or five weeks ago. A man, who was a guardian, came in with a writ of habeas corpus, which placed two children in his care who were not related to him at all, and he requested to have control over the children, despite their mother wanting to keep them. Here’s a quick summary of the situation: the woman had been happily married; her husband passed away, leaving her a widow with two young children. According to Massachusetts law at that time, she couldn't be their guardian or the guardian of anyone else's children. So, the Probate Judge appointed a guardian for the kids, who generously allowed them to stay with their mother. After a couple of years, she committed the unforgivable act of marrying again, something no man would ever be judged for. While her new marriage was perfectly acceptable to her late husband's family, the guardian was so unhappy about it that he obtained a writ of habeas corpus and demanded Chief Justice Chapman return the children to him. We often praise Massachusetts and its laws, but here was a situation where the Chief Justice, after hearing the case, actually returned these children to that man. The courtroom was packed; the tension was high; the poor mother collapsed in a faint. I believe such laws are a disgrace to womanhood, and they stem purely from a deep-seated contempt for women. This contempt is evident throughout the entire legal system.
Another argument that is frequently made against the extension of the suffrage to woman is this: "If women go to the polls it is going to take them away from their homes and families." These arguments are urged with as much pertinacity as if the polls were open three hundred and sixty-five days in the year, and twenty-four hours each day, and that all that people did was to lie around the polls and vote, and vote, and vote, and vote.
Another argument that often comes up against granting women the right to vote is this: "If women vote, it will take them away from their homes and families." These claims are pushed as if the polls were open every single day of the year, twenty-four hours a day, and that all people do is hang out at the polls and just keep voting.
Another statement is, that it is because women have been kept out of politics that they are pure and good. Well, now, it is a poor rule that won't work both ways, and if disfranchisement has made such angels of women, suppose you try it a little on men. I have a firm belief that the men need, infinitely more than the women do, the influence that woman will bring with her to the ballot; not because woman is better, but because she is the other half of humanity. It reminds me of the account of the battle of Gettysburg, given by a colonel of a Western regiment. His regiment was placed among the reserves, on an eminence, where they could see the battle as it went on. "There we stood," said the colonel; "our brave men trying to serve their country; able to do it, and anxious to do it. Yet we were kept the whole of the first day watching the fight go on. On the second day another regiment, which had been much associated with ours, was called into action. We saw them marching, their guns aslant, as if there was no battle being carried on, or deeds of death and destruction—and all the while, as they marched, the grape, and the canister, and the shot, and the shell, tore their ranks terribly; and men fell dead in all directions; and still those who yet remained carried their guns in the same position, and kept time, and closed up, and closed up, until my agitation became so unendurable that I forgot all[Pg 779] else, and cried out, 'Oh, God! why don't they call the reserves into action? We could help them.'"
Another statement is that women are pure and good because they've been kept out of politics. Well, a rule that doesn't apply both ways isn't a good one. If keeping women from voting has made them angels, why not try it on men for a change? I strongly believe that men need the influence that women bring to the ballot much more than women do; not because women are better, but because they represent half of humanity. It reminds me of what a colonel from a Western regiment said about the Battle of Gettysburg. His regiment was held in reserve on a hill where they could see the battle unfold. "There we stood," the colonel said, "our brave men eager to serve their country, capable and willing. Yet we spent the entire first day just watching the fight. On the second day, another regiment that had worked closely with us was called into action. We watched them march, their guns held at an angle, as if there was no battle happening, no death and destruction around them. All the while, as they marched, grape, canister, shot, and shell tore through their ranks. Men fell dead in all directions, but those who remained still carried their guns the same way, kept in step, and closed ranks until my agitation became so unbearable that I forgot everything else and shouted, 'Oh, God! Why don't they call the reserves into action? We could help them.'"
Gentlemen, very few of us are very young women. We have forty, fifty, some of us seventy years of life behind us. We have stood on this eminence where you in your mistaken kindness and gallantry placed us, and we have been all this time looking down upon the battle-field of life where you have been engaged, single-handed and alone. Those of us who have had half a century have seen the ranks of men who started out in life with us shortened one half as they have gone. Here is a husband, there a brother or a father, men as dear to us as drops of our own heart's blood. We have seen them steadily sacrificed by means more appalling than those of Gettysburg, men literally slaughtered by licentiousness and drunkenness, and all the while we have looked on and been able to do nothing, and our agony has become so great that we exclaim, "Oh, God! why don't these brothers of ours call us, the reserves, into action? We could help them."
Gentlemen, very few of us are young women. We have lived forty, fifty, or even seventy years. We have stood on this platform where you, in your misguided kindness and chivalry, placed us, and we have been watching the battlefield of life where you have been fighting, single-handed and alone. Those of us with half a century behind us have seen the number of men who started this journey with us cut in half as they moved on. Here is a husband, there a brother or a father, men as dear to us as our own heartbeat. We have seen them steadily sacrificed by means more horrifying than those at Gettysburg, men literally destroyed by debauchery and alcoholism, and all the while we have watched helplessly, our pain growing so intense that we cry out, "Oh, God! Why don’t these brothers of ours call us, the reserves, into action? We could help them."
When I look back to the days of our great war, I remember that women sprang up every day all over the country—women of whom it was not before believed there was any patriotic blood in their veins. We all came together by one common instinct—saying, "What shall we do?" I could tell you of women who have died from exposure and suffering in the war. Hundreds of the very best women of the Northwest went down voluntarily as nurses, and in other capacities, and assisted suffering and dying men, until they themselves were almost at death's door. "When women do military duty, they shall vote!" We did do military duty. We did not cease our labors till all the soldiers had come home, wearied with their services. We have earned recognition at the hands of this government, and we ought to have it. Knowing, then, the qualities of woman and her courage and bravery under trials, I can never cease to demand that she shall have just as large a sphere as man has. All we want is, that you shall leave us free to act.
When I think back to the days of our great war, I remember how women emerged every day across the country—women who many never believed had any patriotic spirit in them. We all united by a common instinct—asking, "What can we do?" I could tell you about women who died from exposure and suffering during the war. Hundreds of the best women from the Northwest willingly stepped up as nurses and in other roles, helping suffering and dying men, until they themselves were close to death. "When women take on military duty, they should be allowed to vote!" We did take on military duty. We didn’t stop our work until all the soldiers had returned home, exhausted from their service. We have earned recognition from this government, and we deserve it. Knowing the qualities of women and their courage and bravery in difficult times, I will always advocate for them to have as much opportunity as men do. All we ask is to be given the freedom to act.
Mrs. Livermore then spoke of the attempts of men to define the sphere of women. Let the sphere of woman be tested by the aspiration and ability of their own minds, and let it be limited only by what we are able to do. Don't fear that women will not marry and make good wives if allowed legal equality with men. They even now make as good wives as men do husbands. Trust God. This talk of woman getting out of her sphere is sheer lack of faith in God. He has given us our natures. The gentlest woman is transformed into a tigress when you go between her and her baby. There's no sense, therefore, in the fear that the paltry lures of politicians will draw women from the home circle. There is no necessity to enact laws to keep women women. Woman's sphere is that which she can fill, whether it be sea-captain, merchant, school-teacher, or wife and mother.
Mrs. Livermore then talked about men's attempts to define women's roles. Let a woman’s role be determined by her own aspirations and abilities, and let it be limited only by what she can achieve. Don’t worry that women won’t marry and be good wives if they have legal equality with men. They already make just as good wives as men do husbands. Trust in God. The idea that women stepping outside their roles shows a lack of faith in God. He has created us with our own natures. The gentlest woman can become a fierce protector when her child is threatened. So there’s no reason to fear that the trivial temptations from politicians will pull women away from their families. There's no need for laws to keep women in their place. A woman's role is whatever she can fulfill, whether that's as a sea captain, a merchant, a school teacher, or a wife and mother.
Only two millions of women are among the producers of the country—five millions are wives and mothers, and eight millions are rusting out in idleness and frivolity. Take eight millions of men from the world of commerce and productive work; the deficit will be immediately felt. Add to the producers of the world eight millions of skilled women, and the quickening would be felt everywhere. Mrs. Livermore also urged the admission of women to political life from considerations drawn from the increase of the foreign element. East and West is a huge, ignorant, semi-barbarous[Pg 780] mass, brought hither from European and Asiatic shores, needing the enlightenment and the quickening that would come from the addition of educated women to the polls.
Only two million women are among the producers in the country—five million are wives and mothers, while eight million are wasting away in idleness and trivial pursuits. If we took eight million men away from commerce and productive work, the impact would be felt right away. If we added eight million skilled women to the workforce, the positive effects would be seen everywhere. Mrs. Livermore also advocated for women's involvement in politics due to the growing foreign population. The East and West represent a large, ignorant, semi-barbaric[Pg 780] group that has come here from Europe and Asia, needing the enlightenment and energy that educated women could bring to the voting process.
The Thursday morning session was called to order by the President, Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. Mr. Henry B. Blackwell, the Secretary, read, on behalf of the Business Committee, the resolutions.[187]
The Thursday morning session was started by the President, Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. Mr. Henry B. Blackwell, the Secretary, read the resolutions on behalf of the Business Committee.[187]
Mr. Blackwell moved their acceptance, and, in support of his motion, said: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: We have so often heard of the great step that was taken in the war of the Revolution—when our connection with Great Britain was severed—that I fear we have lost sight of the fact that there have been two great revolutions since that day—revolutions which, to my mind, are immeasurably more important than the first. For, when the war of the Revolution ended, a republic in the present sense of the term did not exist in these United States. In almost every State there was a property qualification for voting. It was a government like the government of Great Britain to-day—like the government of other countries—it was an aristocracy of wealth, the privilege of voting being based upon a property qualification. But hardly had the guns of the Revolution ceased action, before the Democratic party of that day, under the lead of Mr. Jefferson, demanded suffrage for poor men as a natural right. The Federal party opposed the change. The Democratic party were a unit in its favor. They advocated suffrage for poor men on the same ground that the Republicans have advocated it more recently for the negro—on the same ground upon which Mr. Beecher advocated it last night for women—as a natural right. They said, "All men have equal natural rights to life, liberty, and[Pg 781] property; if so, they have a natural right of self-defense in the enjoyment of these rights. Now, in a state of nature, self-defense takes the form of individual violence—of the pistol or the club; but in a state of civilization men appeal to the law, and government is nothing but an organized system of self-defense for the benefit of the individual citizen." The old Democratic party said, "Poor men have rights of life, liberty, and property, poor men have a natural right of self-defense; therefore, in a state of society they have a right to the ballot which is the organized weapon of self-defense for the individual citizen." What was the result? The Democratic party swept the Union on that platform. They obtained a majority in the government of the States and in the Federal Government. For more than a generation they ruled this country as the poor man's party. That result followed inevitably from their principles, because parties, like individuals, are sure to obtain their deserts in the long run. When any party appeals to that fine sense of justice which is in the heart of every human being, sooner or later its success is certain. The Democratic party obtained the control of the Government for two generations because it appealed to that sense of justice? But what was the result to the country? America became known all over the world as the country of the poor man. In America alone the masses had the ballot. That was what brought from the shores of Europe this great influx of foreign labor which has felled our forests, and fenced our prairies, and built up the waste places of our continent. There are to-day in Russia hundreds of thousands of acres of land as good as any in the world, which have never been cultivated, and yet Europeans, by thousands, turn their backs on Russia, coming to America and going far into the interior to make their homes, not because our land is better, or our climate more genial, but because our Government is established upon the basis of equal rights for every human being. The child of the poor man becomes educated, he acquires property, he becomes a member of the commonwealth, he does his own thinking, and, thank God, his own voting, too.
Mr. Blackwell proposed their acceptance, and, in support of his motion, said: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: We have often heard about the significant step taken during the Revolutionary War—when we cut ties with Great Britain—but I worry we've lost sight of the fact that two major revolutions have occurred since then—revolutions that, in my view, are far more important than the first. When the Revolutionary War ended, a republic, as we understand it today, didn't exist in these United States. In nearly every state, there was a property requirement for voting. It was a government similar to that of Great Britain today—like the governments of other countries—it was an aristocracy of wealth, with voting rights based on property ownership. However, hardly had the sounds of battle from the Revolution faded, when the Democratic party of that time, led by Mr. Jefferson, demanded voting rights for poor men as a natural right. The Federal party opposed this change. The Democratic party was united in its support. They advocated suffrage for poor men on the same basis that Republicans have recently pushed for it for Black people—on the same grounds that Mr. Beecher supported it last night for women—as a natural right. They argued, "All men have equal natural rights to life, liberty, and[Pg 781] property; therefore, they have a natural right to defend themselves in enjoying these rights. In a natural state, self-defense takes the form of personal violence—like using a pistol or a club; but in a civilized society, people appeal to the law, and government is simply an organized system of self-defense for the benefit of each individual citizen." The old Democratic party asserted, "Poor men have rights to life, liberty, and property; poor men have a natural right to self-defense; therefore, in society, they have the right to vote, which is the organized means of self-defense for the individual citizen." What was the result? The Democratic party won the election across the nation based on that platform. They gained a majority in both state and federal governments. For over a generation, they led this country as the party of the poor. This result was inevitable based on their principles because parties, like individuals, will ultimately receive what they deserve. When any party appeals to that deep sense of justice found in every human heart, its success is bound to happen eventually. The Democratic party controlled the government for two generations because it resonated with that sense of justice. But what was the outcome for the country? America became recognized worldwide as the land of the poor man. Only in America did the masses have the power to vote. That was what attracted a significant influx of foreign labor from European shores, which has cleared our forests, enclosed our prairies, and developed the desolate areas of our continent. Today, in Russia, there are hundreds of thousands of acres of land as fertile as any in the world that remain uncultivated, yet thousands of Europeans turn away from Russia, choosing instead to come to America and venture deep into the interior to establish their homes—not because our land is superior or our climate better, but because our government is founded on the principle of equal rights for every human being. The child of a poor man receives an education, acquires property, becomes a part of the community, thinks for themselves, and, thank goodness, votes for themselves too.
But the Democratic party has lost power. To-day the Republicans control three-fourths of the States of this Union. There was a reason for these reverses. Before the abolition of slavery, a certain race was denied the advantages of the Democratic principle. It was a "white man's government." In the course of time the inevitable collision came. Slavery was abolished, and the Republican party attempted a new application of the Jeffersonian principle. It demanded suffrage for the negro and the Chinese. The principles of justice again prevailed. The sentiment of liberty came to the support of the Republican party; manhood suffrage is forever fixed in the Constitution of the country, and to-day every man, whether learned or ignorant, rich or poor, white, yellow, or black, whether he can read the English language or not, is by the Constitution of the United States forever made a voter. Now, ladies and gentlemen, every argument through which an extension of the suffrage has been already accomplished, applies with still greater force in the case of women. The extension of the suffrage to woman, will be the last crowning step in political progress, the final application of the principles of Christianity and human brotherhood to the political structure.
But the Democratic Party has lost power. Today, the Republicans control three-fourths of the states in this country. There was a reason for these setbacks. Before the abolition of slavery, a certain race was denied the benefits of the Democratic principle. It was a "white man's government." Over time, the inevitable conflict arose. Slavery was abolished, and the Republican Party tried to apply the Jeffersonian principle in a new way. It called for voting rights for Black people and the Chinese. The principles of justice prevailed once more. The sentiment of liberty supported the Republican Party; manhood suffrage is now permanently established in the Constitution of the country, and today, every man, whether educated or uneducated, rich or poor, white, yellow, or black, whether he can read English or not, is by the Constitution of the United States forever granted the right to vote. Now, ladies and gentlemen, every argument that has already led to the expansion of voting rights applies even more strongly to women. Granting women the right to vote will be the final crowning achievement in political progress, the ultimate application of the principles of Christianity and human brotherhood to the political system.
We do not advocate a new principle. We only desire to make a wider[Pg 782] application of our admitted American principles. That application is sure to be made. I do not know what party is going to accomplish it, but this widening of the political basis is as certain as the rising of the sun or the flowing of the tide. Woe be to the party that works against it! I know not whether the Republicans or the Democrats, or the good men of both parties, or an altogether new party, will take it up; but this I do know, that the political party which takes up woman suffrage, and unfolds its banner to the breeze, holds in its hand the key to political success on this continent.
We’re not pushing for a new principle. We just want to broaden the application of the American principles we already accept. That application will definitely happen. I’m not sure which party will make it happen, but this expansion of the political foundation is as certain as the sun rising or the tide coming in. Woe to the party that stands against it! I don’t know if it will be the Republicans, the Democrats, the good people from both parties, or an entirely new party that will take it on; but I do know that the political party that champions woman suffrage and raises its banner will hold the key to political success in this country.
I appeal to every man and woman in this audience to go to work for the great object we have at heart. Let Republicans go to their primary meetings, and offer woman suffrage resolutions there. Let Democrats go and do likewise. Let every woman take tracts bearing on the subject and give her influence and labor to the work. Let us all stand up as faithful representatives of a great idea. Sooner or later, we shall see a noble reform party in this country—I care not what its name—which will sweep away forever the dens of immorality and drunkenness by which we are surrounded, which will build up a Christian commonwealth—and rule over it—not because it is powerful in numbers, but because it is based upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence, of universal justice and of impartial liberty.
I urge everyone in this audience to start working towards the important goal we share. Republicans should go to their primary meetings and propose resolutions for women's suffrage. Democrats should do the same. Every woman should take pamphlets on the topic and contribute her influence and effort to the cause. Let's all stand together as dedicated advocates of a significant idea. Eventually, we'll see a strong reform party in this country—I don't care what it’s called—that will eliminate the places of immorality and drunkenness that surround us, and will create a Christian community that governs—not just because it has the numbers, but because it is founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, universal justice, and fair liberty.
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher said: I heartily concur with every word spoken by Mr. Blackwell, and while on this point I wish to call your attention to an argument used as against woman suffrage, by men who perhaps might otherwise be with us. They argue that universal suffrage is itself not a good but an evil, and that to add to the evil is not to correct it. "It is bad," say they, "that every white man shall vote," and it had to be pledged, for political reasons, to give the ballot to 800,000 ignorant blacks; but two bad things are not to be made right by now extending the vote to women, a great majority of whom are in the lower walks of life, and are not supposed to be competent to inform themselves. This is a most plausible argument to those who are under the unconscious influence of Pharisaism, to those who think that wisdom lives and dies with them. It is a strong argument, too; I don't know that you can put any stronger; but I am bold to make the statement that, low and bad as human nature may be in some of its phases, there is nothing in this world that is so safe to trust or to believe in. And though governments may grow, and gain experience here and there with perpetually shifting dynasties and times, yet after all it is human nature that keeps governments up and gives to the world its laws. The great underlying force is genuine human nature with all its mistakes. We have recently had a great illustration of this. I wish to call your attention to one fact. If there was anything in this world that the mass of the Northern people were unprepared for it was to take up arms for the purpose of going to war with the South. Yet when the time came, and it was flashed over the country that an attack was made at the life of the Government, take notice that while the South grew weaker and weaker in furnishing material for the army, the North grew stronger and stronger, and had only got to its full strength at the close of the war. Now during that time, by the votes of the people, with a great party to back up the opposition, with all the old predilections in favor of the South, and the natural unwillingness of men to burden themselves with taxation, this country, in which there was substantially a universal manhood[Pg 783] suffrage, voted to burden itself until three thousand millions of debt was rolled up. There is an instance of what men will do with universal suffrage. Yes, and that among the common people; for the large copperhead element was to be found among capitalists, not among the masses. "Well, but," it may be said, "sober second thought will come; wait until the people come to pay the debt, when currency depreciates and greenbacks become scarce!" Now as they had gone to the war for a sentiment, a patriotic sentiment, not because they had received material damage or expected any pecuniary damage from the South, but purely from the glorious sentiment of a united country, as they fought through four years of the war backed up by votes at home, so when the question came up, "Will you sustain the honor of the Government? Will you pay the debt that has been incurred?" look at the answer. Never did trap of dishonesty, so concealed in its interior structure, present so tempting a bit of cheese to humanity. Yet when the question came, after full discussion and trial in all the States of the North successively, by majorities that no man will choose now to gainsay or resist, by overwhelming majorities, they said, "The debt shall be paid, every penny of it!" The North so voted. It was the common people that voted it; men that live on wages. By that experiment two things were shown; one that when the whole people are appealed to, they do stand up to the interests of the States better than educated classes do; and the other, that when it comes to the question of sentiment or National integrity, the common people are to be trusted; and it is not the day, in the face of the magnificent disclosures of that trying time, to say that it is unsafe to trust the welfare of a country in the hands of such people. I say there is no man that comes to years of discretion who is not fit for the responsibilities of citizenship. Women will also improve when we welcome them to the open air of liberty.
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher said: I fully agree with everything Mr. Blackwell said, and I want to draw your attention to an argument against women's voting that some men, who might otherwise support us, make. They claim that universal suffrage isn’t good but harmful, and that adding to this harm doesn’t fix the problem. "It’s bad," they say, "that every white man can vote," and it was politically needed to give the ballot to 800,000 uneducated Black individuals; but they argue that two wrongs don’t make a right by extending the vote to women, most of whom are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and are believed to be incapable of educating themselves. This argument sounds convincing to those influenced by a mindset of superiority, who think that wisdom is exclusive to them. It’s a powerful argument; I don’t believe you can present a stronger one. Yet, I boldly state that, for all its flaws, human nature is the most reliable thing to trust or believe in. Even as governments evolve and experience changes with shifting powers and eras, it is ultimately human nature that upholds governments and lays down the laws of the world. The foundational force is authentic human nature, flaws and all. We have recently seen a clear example of this. I want to highlight one fact. If there’s anything the vast majority of Northerners were unprepared for, it was to take up arms and go to war against the South. But when the time came, and news spread that the government was under attack, notice that while the South grew weaker in providing troops, the North grew stronger and only reached its peak power by the end of the war. During that time, with the voters backing a significant opposition party and strong loyalties to the South, and the natural reluctance of people to accept higher taxes, this nation—with essentially universal male suffrage—decided to take on a debt of three billion dollars. This shows what people can do with universal suffrage. Yes, even among ordinary citizens; the largest opposition was found among wealthy capitalists, not the general populace. "But," some might say, "sober second thoughts will prevail; just wait until people have to pay the debt, when the currency decreases and paper money becomes limited!" The truth is, they went to war driven by a sentiment, a patriotic feeling, not due to direct material loss or financial expectations from the South, but purely out of the inspiring sentiment of a united nation. Throughout the four years of fighting, supported by votes from home, when the question arose, "Will you uphold the honor of the government? Will you pay the debt we’ve accrued?" look at the answer. Never has a deception so cleverly concealed presented such an inviting trap to humanity. Yet, when the issue was debated thoroughly across all Northern states, with majorities that no one would dare challenge today, they declared, "The debt will be paid, every penny of it!" The North voted for this. It was the ordinary people who made that decision; men who work for wages. This experience demonstrated two things: first, when the entire populace is asked, they advocate for state interests more effectively than educated elites; second, when it comes to matters of sentiment or national integrity, we can trust the common people. Given the remarkable examples from that difficult time, it’s incorrect to claim that we cannot trust the well-being of a nation in the hands of such individuals. I assert that anyone of mature age is capable of handling the responsibilities of citizenship. Women will also thrive when we welcome them into the freedom of public life.
The sum of all these remarks is simply this, "Amen" to Brother Blackwell.
The overall message of all these comments is just this: "Amen" to Brother Blackwell.
Lucy Stone came forward and reminded the audience that a bill is now before Congress which provides that the employees in the Government departments at Washington and in both Houses of Congress shall be equally paid irrespective of sex, and that petitions should be sent to Congress advocating the passage of the bill; that blanks for the purpose would be found in the hall, and she hoped the friends of the cause would sign them. She read a letter from Mr. Giles B. Stebbins regretting his inability to be present, and expressing confidence in the ultimate triumphant success of the cause.
Lucy Stone stepped up and reminded the audience that there's currently a bill in Congress that states employees in the government departments in Washington and both Houses of Congress should receive equal pay regardless of gender. She urged everyone to send petitions to Congress supporting the passage of this bill, mentioning that forms for this purpose would be available in the hall, and she hoped that supporters of the cause would sign them. She read a letter from Mr. Giles B. Stebbins, who expressed his regret for not being able to attend and shared his confidence in the eventual success of the cause.
Mr. Powell, of the Anti-Slavery Standard, was introduced: Ladies and gentlemen—My first feeling this morning was one of congratulation in view of the encouraging auspices under which we meet here to advocate the enfranchisement of women. I regard this movement to-day as just entering upon its earliest efficient practical work. The era of curiosity and novelty is past. There is no longer in the public mind that feeling which has hitherto manifested itself in connection with the discussion of the proposition that women should vote. We have now to contend with the more difficult and solid portion of the problem. The right of woman to speak has been argued and settled; the right of woman to the ballot has been quite generally admitted—indeed, almost universally so—as it must be by any one who[Pg 784] observes carefully the arguments used to justify the extension of the ballot to men. By the ratification of the XV. Amendment the question has been finally settled in regard to all men, excepting perhaps the Indians and Chinese, who may, however, be interpreted by and by as having citizenship under this amendment. Logically and inevitably, therefore, we come at this time to the consideration of Mr. Julian's XVI. Amendment, as something which, if we were not arguing for it, somebody else would be. It is the logical sequence of what has gone before in the way of the experiment of republican government in this country. There is no one—either American or foreign-born—who has observed the workings of our institutions and the progress of our country, who will say that we must stand still. We must either go forward in our work of extending suffrage until we finally reach universal suffrage, or go back to a one-man power. The victims of the slave power are to-day standing erect in the possession of equal citizenship on the basis of absolute legal equality with the white men of the country. Therefore, with slavery abolished, with our free-school system, with newspapers scattered all over like snow-flakes throughout the country, with free thought and free education, there is not such a thing probable or possible as our going backward to the system of one-man power. The question now to be decided is the enfranchisement of women. And this question is at last fairly before the world—not in newspapers alone, but in State Legislatures, and even in Congress. Propositions are pending in Washington for the enfranchisement of the women of the District of Columbia, and for the enfranchisement by Congressional authority of the women of the Territories. There is also a Constitutional amendment proposed, which, if successful, will abolish all political proscription on account of sex everywhere throughout the country. My advice would be to concentrate directly our chief energy on the larger part of the problem. I believe in State action. I think it would be well to go to Albany and to the Massachusetts Legislature and to the Ohio Legislature, and to the Legislatures of all the States, and to urge that the States take the initiative and enfranchise their women. But I do not expect that any one State, whatever may be the political opinion of that State, will go much in advance of the nation at large. It seems to me that no political party existing in any one State can establish the precedent of woman's enfranchisement much in advance of the National Government. I think it therefore the part of wisdom to concentrate directly upon the National Legislature. I believe that one object of this Convention to-day should be to concentrate its voice in an emphatic resolution, asking that Mr. Julian's amendment be not allowed to slumber into the hot weather of July, and then be passed over entirely. I think we should make the voice of this Association felt as a power for immediate effective work in the direction I have indicated; and, if we speak earnestly, we shall be felt and heard. Let us concentrate first upon the XVI. Amendment and the proposition to enfranchise the women of the District of Columbia. I hold that that District should be the first battle-ground for the women of America to a national precedent, as it was in the prior struggle for the abolition of slavery. The District is immediately under the supervision of your Representatives and mine, and members of Congress are to be held personally responsible for the government which prevails there. Let us then demand of Congress—demand,[Pg 785] I say, because that is the language of earnest reform—that it give us forthwith, before the adjournment of the present session, a law of equal suffrage for the women of the District of Columbia. In the light of the recent action of the British Parliament, is this asking too much? Should not we Americans be up to the level of a test vote on this question—which has never yet been reached either in the Senate or House of Representatives?
Mr. Powell, of the Anti-Slavery Standard, was introduced: Ladies and gentlemen—This morning, my first feeling was one of congratulations because of the positive signs under which we're gathered here to support women's enfranchisement. I see this movement today as just beginning its first real practical efforts. The time of curiosity and novelty has passed. There's no longer that feeling in the public mind that has previously surrounded the discussion about whether women should have the right to vote. We now have to tackle the more challenging and substantial part of the issue. The right of women to speak has been argued and accepted; the right of women to vote has been widely recognized—almost universally accepted—by anyone who[Pg 784] carefully considers the arguments for extending the vote to men. With the ratification of the XV. Amendment, the question has been settled for all men, except perhaps for the Indians and Chinese, who may eventually be considered citizens under this amendment. Logically and inevitably, we now turn to Mr. Julian's XVI. Amendment, as something that, if we weren't advocating, someone else would be. It is the logical continuation of what has preceded in the experiment of republican government in this country. No one—whether American or foreign-born—who has observed how our institutions work and how our country is progressing would argue that we should remain stagnant. We must either move forward in expanding suffrage until we achieve universal suffrage, or we risk reverting to a one-man rule. Today, the victims of the system of slavery now stand tall as full citizens with absolute legal equality to the white men of this country. Therefore, with slavery abolished, our free school system in place, newspapers spreading throughout the country like snowflakes, and with free thought and education thriving, the idea of returning to a one-man rule is neither probable nor possible. The question we face now is the enfranchisement of women. This question is now clearly presented to the world—not just in newspapers, but in State Legislatures and even in Congress. There are proposals in Washington for the voting rights of women in the District of Columbia, and for Congress to grant voting rights to women in the Territories. There is also a proposed Constitutional amendment that, if successful, would eliminate all political discrimination based on sex across the country. My advice would be to focus our main efforts on the bigger part of the problem. I believe in state action. I think it would be wise to approach Albany, the Massachusetts Legislature, the Ohio Legislature, and the Legislatures of all the States to advocate for them to take the lead in enfranchising their women. However, I don't expect any one State, regardless of its political leanings, to advance much beyond the national trend. It seems to me that no political party in any one State can set a precedent for women's enfranchisement that is much ahead of the National Government. Therefore, I think it is wise to concentrate directly on the National Legislature. One goal of this Convention today should be to unify our voices in a strong resolution, urging that Mr. Julian's amendment not be allowed to fade away into the heat of July, only to be completely overlooked. We should make sure the voice of this Association is felt as a force for immediate, effective action in the direction I’ve mentioned; and when we speak with sincerity, we will be heard. Let’s focus first on the XVI. Amendment and the proposal to enfranchise the women of the District of Columbia. I believe that the District should be the first battleground for the women of America to set a national precedent, just as it was in the previous struggle for the abolition of slavery. The District is directly under the oversight of your Representatives and mine, and members of Congress should be held personally accountable for the governance in that area. So let us demand from Congress—demand,[Pg 785] I say, because that reflects the language of serious reform—that they immediately provide us, before this session adjourns, with a law granting equal suffrage for the women of the District of Columbia. Given the recent actions of the British Parliament, is this too much to ask? Shouldn't we Americans rise to the occasion and put this question to a test vote—which has never been done in either the Senate or the House of Representatives?
The President introduced Grace Greenwood, who said: "I rise to a personal explanation," as we say in Washington. When Colonel Higginson yesterday overwhelmed me with his compliment, by the proposition that I should belong to the Congress of the United States, I wanted to say—had I not been so overwhelmed—in order to set myself "right before the country," that there had been no previous understanding between Colonel Higginson and myself; and that as I didn't want to encourage any false hopes, and in fact didn't want to go, I should decline the nomination. I prefer the position he referred to—absolutely prefer my place in the reporters' gallery. I know that a white reporter is as good as a colored Senator, if he or she behaves himself or herself. I like to look down upon that scene of legislation and feel that I am out of it; though sometimes I feel like echoing Coldstream's opinion in looking into Vesuvius, "There is nothing in it." I like to sit in the gallery of the House and watch our few true men. When women sit there, there will be justice done to them; and, while I have the honor of reporting for the Tribune, there will be justice done to women when any question concerning her interests comes up in Washington. And here I would like to refer, as others who have spoken have already referred, to the work to be done in the Church. I think that many of our earnest, eloquent, high-minded, religious women should make for the pulpit. I have always felt that there was great point in the doctrine of the orthodox Church on the birth of Christ. We have a greater share in Him than men can have, as He received His humanity—His sweet, tender, suffering humanity—wholly from woman. And yet we have been made to keep silence in the house of our Father even on such festivals as Christmas and Thanksgiving. How would it seem if on these occasions the sons only were allowed to thank our heavenly Father for His care and love, and the daughters were allowed to sit quiet? But woman's piety, you know, is a very good thing for home consumption, and is supposed to consist in her quietly sitting at home and praying for her husband and sons. Goodness knows, she always has enough to pray for! There is an anecdote told of a loving son who once spoke of the inestimable blessing of a fine mother. He was a preacher in Illinois, and he said to his congregation, "Oh, my friends, I have such a mother. I remember when I was a little lad, standing by my mother's side on a Sabbath afternoon, as she sat with her Bible open before her, how she turned from the blessed Word to lay her hand upon my sunny head, and pray that I might grow up to be a minister of the Gospel and a great man; and, brethren and sisters, I stand before you to-day a living example of the efficacy of that prayer." While Mrs. Livermore was speaking so gloriously last night out of her mother's heart, of mothers robbed by the law of their little ones, what mother's heart didn't stir within her? My little one—she is about my height now—but I never have been able to get rid of the sweet weight of that baby head on my breast! My arms always have[Pg 786] the feel of the baby in them yet; and I can not express to you the horror—the almost rage—with which I hear every story of such outrages on the maternal heart. It was this feature of mother-robbery in the system of slavery that always enraged me most against it. It was just at that point that the system dipped deepest into hell. Though slavery is gone, however, there are many evils yet remaining in the laws which should be remedied, and not the least of them is that which gives the father the entire control of the children instead of the mother. Some fathers, however, are quite willing to relinquish that control. I remember a colored woman in Washington, in whose kitchen I once happened to be for a moment, and, seeing several dark olive branches around, I said to her, "Are these your children?" She said, "Yes." "How many have you?" She said, "Seven, and all to support." I said to her, "Have you no husband?" "Oh, yes," she said, "I have a husband; I was married by a Methodist minister down South." "Well," said I, "why don't he support the children?" "Oh," she said, "he's done gone away." "Why has he left you?" "Oh, he was a very bright man," she said (meaning that he was light in color), "and he thought that I was too black." "But," I said, "didn't he know how black you were before he married you?" "That is just what old Missus said—she said, 'Why, you know'd she was black when you married her,' and he said, 'Yes, but den she didn't have so many relations about her.'" "What relations?" "Children!" Her children, of course, and his, too. "He doesn't want so many of my relations about, so he's done gone off." When a man doesn't want to go, the children are his "property"; when he wants to desert his wife, they are her "relations." I would be willing to have the strictest morality enjoined as a qualification for the ballot. But, as it is a poor rule that would not work both ways, if that test were applied to the male voters, what a frightful disfranchisement would take place. The Democratic party would be well-nigh annihilated, and the Republican party would be in a fit state to condole with it. I think, however, that all these things will adjust themselves when they come. All bugbears seem much more terrible at a distance than when they are close enough to be grappled with.
The President introduced Grace Greenwood, who said: "I’m here to offer a personal explanation," as we say in Washington. When Colonel Higginson overwhelmed me with his compliment yesterday by suggesting I should join the Congress of the United States, I wanted to clarify—if I hadn’t been so taken aback—that there had been no prior agreement between Colonel Higginson and me; and that since I didn’t want to encourage any false hopes and, in fact, didn’t want to go, I would decline the nomination. I’d much rather keep my spot in the reporters' gallery. I know that a white reporter is just as good as a Black Senator if they behave themselves. I enjoy looking down on that scene of legislation and feeling like an outsider; though sometimes I feel like echoing Coldstream's sentiment when looking into Vesuvius, "There is nothing in it." I like sitting in the gallery of the House and observing our few true representatives. When women are up there, they’ll get the justice they deserve; and while I have the honor of reporting for the Tribune, women will receive justice whenever an issue concerning them comes up in Washington. Here, I’d like to point out, as others have already done, the work that needs to be done in the Church. I believe many of our earnest, eloquent, and high-minded religious women should take to the pulpit. I have always felt the orthodox Church's doctrine regarding Christ's birth holds great significance. We have a deeper connection to Him than men do, as He received His humanity—His sweet, tender, suffering humanity—entirely from a woman. Yet, we’ve been silenced in the house of our Father, even on occasions like Christmas and Thanksgiving. How would it look if only the sons were allowed to thank our heavenly Father for His care and love while the daughters sat quietly? But women’s piety is seen as something valuable only at home, thought to consist of quietly sitting at home and praying for their husbands and sons. Goodness knows, they always have plenty to pray for! There’s a story about a loving son who once spoke about the invaluable blessing of having a wonderful mother. He was a preacher in Illinois, and he told his congregation, "Oh, my friends, I have such a mother. I remember standing by my mother’s side on a Sunday afternoon, with her Bible open before her. She turned from the blessed Word to lay her hand on my sunny head, praying that I might grow up to be a minister of the Gospel and a great man; and, brothers and sisters, I stand before you today as a living example of the power of that prayer." While Mrs. Livermore was speaking so movingly last night from her mother's heart about mothers robbed of their children by the law, what mother’s heart wouldn’t stir? My little one—she’s about my height now—but I still can’t shake the sweet weight of that baby head on my chest! My arms always feel like they’re cradling a baby, and I can’t describe the horror—the almost rage—I feel when I hear stories of such cruelty towards a mother's heart. It was this aspect of mother-robbery in the system of slavery that always infuriated me the most. That’s where the system plunged deepest into hell. Although slavery is gone, many problems still exist in the laws that need fixing, and one of the worst is the one that gives the father total control over the children instead of the mother. Some fathers, however, are willing to give up that control. I recall a Black woman in Washington, where I once briefly visited her kitchen, and noticing several dark-skinned children around, I asked her, "Are these your kids?" She replied, "Yes." "How many do you have?" She said, "Seven, and all to support." I asked her, "Do you have a husband?" "Oh, yes," she said, "I have a husband; I got married by a Methodist minister down South." "Well," I said, "why doesn’t he support the kids?" "Oh," she said, "he's gone." "Why did he leave you?" "Oh, he was very light-skinned," she said (meaning he was light in color), "and he thought I was too dark." "But didn’t he know how dark you were before marrying you?" "That’s exactly what old Missus said—she said, 'You knew she was dark when you married her,' and he said, 'Yeah, but she didn’t have that many relatives around her.'" "What relatives?" "Children!" Her children, of course, as well as his. "He doesn't want so many of my relatives around, so he’s left." When a man feels like sticking around, the children are his "property"; when he wants to abandon his wife, they become her "relatives." I would be willing to have strict morality applied as a qualification for voting. But, since it’s a poor rule that doesn’t apply both ways, if that standard were imposed on male voters, the resulting voter suppression would be horrific. The Democratic Party would almost be wiped out, and the Republican Party would be in a position to sympathize with it. I believe, however, that all these issues will sort themselves out when the time comes. All fears seem much more daunting from a distance than when you are close enough to address them.
Mr. Oliver Johnson was then introduced. He said that the true germ of the present woman suffrage agitation was to be found in the foundation of the Anti-slavery Society. At the time that Society was founded, the question arose as to whether women were persons, in the sense in which that word was used in the constitution of that Society. The question gave rise to much discussion, and it was finally decided by a majority of the members that the word "person" did include women; and it was therefore determined that, in the Society, women should have all the rights that men had. And when thirty years ago the anniversary of the Society was held, it became the duty of the presiding officer on that occasion to appoint a business committee, and, in announcing the names of that committee, he included that of Abby Kelly—more lately known as that of Abby Kelly Foster—a Quaker woman of excellent character, and a devoted friend of the anti-slavery cause. The announcement of her name was the signal for much tumult, and the withdrawal for the time being of not less than one hundred and fifty clergymen, who, led by an eminent citizen, left that meeting and went down into the basement of the church and formed a new anti-slavery[Pg 787] society, solely because a woman was permitted to serve on a committee. Mr. Johnson said that he had always had a profound belief in the triumph of the anti-slavery cause. So also did he believe in the success of the woman suffrage movement.
Mr. Oliver Johnson was then introduced. He said that the real root of the current women’s suffrage movement can be traced back to the founding of the Anti-slavery Society. When that Society was established, a debate arose over whether women were considered persons in the way the word was used in the Society's constitution. This sparked a lot of discussion, and it was ultimately decided by a majority vote that the term "person" did include women; thus, it was determined that women should have all the same rights as men within the Society. When the anniversary of the Society was celebrated thirty years ago, the presiding officer was responsible for appointing a business committee, and as he announced the names, he included that of Abby Kelly—better known later as Abby Kelly Foster—a Quaker woman of great character and a dedicated advocate for the anti-slavery cause. The announcement of her name led to significant uproar and caused the immediate departure of at least one hundred and fifty clergymen, who, led by a prominent citizen, left that meeting and went down to the church basement to form a new anti-slavery society, solely because a woman was allowed to serve on a committee. Mr. Johnson expressed his longstanding belief in the triumph of the anti-slavery cause. He also believed in the success of the women’s suffrage movement.
Mrs. Hazlett, of Michigan, was the next speaker. God, she said, says to America to-day, take now the next step in the path of national progress; then come and take thy place as the highest nation of the earth. Will America obey heaven's voice, or does republicanism exist only in name? Men of America! let the stars and stripes wave over a land true to its principles. It is not because we want to usurp power that we want the ballot. We want justice, for the sake of liberty. But, above all, gentlemen, we hold the welfare of this country our birthright as well as yours. We wish the vote because it is our right and our duty to have it. We have duties in life, in society, in the church—duties to ourselves and to our families which can not be discharged without the ballot.
Mrs. Hazlett from Michigan was the next speaker. God, she said, is telling America today to take the next step in our journey towards national progress; then come and take your place as the greatest nation on earth. Will America heed heaven's call, or does republicanism exist only in name? Men of America! let the stars and stripes fly over a land that stays true to its principles. We don’t want the ballot to seize power; we want justice for the sake of liberty. But, above all, gentlemen, we consider the well-being of this country our birthright as much as yours. We want the vote because it's our right and our responsibility to have it. We have responsibilities in life, in society, in the church—responsibilities to ourselves and to our families that cannot be fulfilled without the ballot.
When the Convention re-assembled, Mrs. Celia Burleigh, in the absence of the President, took the chair.
When the Convention got back together, Mrs. Celia Burleigh, in the absence of the President, took the lead.
Miss Catherine E. Beecher, who was now introduced, requested the Secretary, Mr. Blackwell, to read a paper which she had written, containing her objections to woman suffrage, to which objections Mrs. Cutler, of Ohio, would reply. Mr. Blackwell read the following:
Miss Catherine E. Beecher, who was now introduced, asked the Secretary, Mr. Blackwell, to read a paper she had written outlining her objections to women's suffrage, to which Mrs. Cutler, of Ohio, would respond. Mr. Blackwell read the following:
I will first state to what I am not opposed. And, first, I am not opposed to women speaking in public to any who are willing to hear, nor do I object to women's preaching, sanctioned as it is by a prophetic apostle—as one of the millennial results. It is true that no women were appointed among the first twelve, or the seventy disciples sent out by the Lord, nor were women appointed to be apostles or bishops or elders. But they were not forbidden to teach or preach, except in places where it violated a custom that made a woman appear as one of a base and degraded class if she thus violated custom.
I will first clarify what I’m not against. First, I’m not against women speaking in public to anyone who wants to listen, nor do I have a problem with women preaching, as it’s supported by a prophetic apostle—as one of the outcomes of the millennial age. It’s true that no women were chosen among the first twelve or the seventy disciples sent out by the Lord, nor were women appointed as apostles, bishops, or elders. However, they were not prohibited from teaching or preaching, except in situations where doing so would have gone against a custom that made a woman seem like she belonged to a low and degraded class if she broke that custom.
Nor am I opposed to a woman earning her own independence in any lawful calling, and wish many more were open to her which are now closed.
Nor do I have a problem with a woman earning her own independence in any legitimate profession, and I hope many more options become available to her that are currently not.
Nor am I opposed to the agitation and organization of women, as women, to set forth the wrongs suffered by great multitudes of our sex, which are multiform and most humiliating. Nor am I opposed to women's undertaking to govern both boys and men—they always have done it, and always will. The most absolute and cruel tyrants I have ever known were selfish, obstinate, unreasonable women to whom were chained men of delicacy, honor, and piety, whose only alternatives were helpless submission, or ceaseless and disgraceful broils.
Nor do I have a problem with women organizing and advocating for themselves to highlight the numerous and humiliating wrongs faced by many women. I'm also not against women taking charge of boys and men—they've always done it and will continue to do so. The cruelest and most unreasonable tyrants I've ever encountered were selfish, stubborn women who controlled men of honor and kindness, leaving them with no choice but to submit helplessly or engage in endless, shameful conflicts.
Nor am I opposed to the claim that women have equal rights with men. I rather claim that they have the sacred, superior rights that God and good men accord to the weak and defenseless, by which they have the easiest work, the most safe and comfortable places, and the largest share of all the most agreeable and desirable enjoyments of this life. My main objection to the woman suffrage organizations is mainly this, that a wrong mode is employed to gain a right object.
Nor do I disagree with the idea that women have equal rights with men. In fact, I believe they have the special, superior rights that God and good people grant to those who are vulnerable and defenseless, which grants them the least demanding tasks, the safest and most comfortable situations, and the greatest share of all the most enjoyable and desirable experiences in life. My main issue with the women's suffrage organizations is that they are using the wrong methods to pursue a just cause.
The "right object" sought is to remedy the wrongs and relieve the sufferings of great multitudes of our sex. The "wrong mode" is that which aims to enforce by law instead of by love. It is one which assumes that man is the author and abetter of all these wrongs, and that he must be restrained and regulated by constitutions and laws, as the chief and most trustworthy method.
The "right object" we're looking for is to fix the injustices and ease the pain of countless women. The "wrong mode" is the approach that tries to impose change through laws rather than love. It assumes that men are the source and enforcers of these injustices, and that they need to be controlled and regulated by constitutions and laws as the main and most reliable way to achieve this.
In opposition to this, I hold that the fault is as much, or more, with women than with men, inasmuch as that we have all the power we need to remedy all wrongs and sufferings complained of, and yet we do not use it for that end. It is my deep conviction that all reasonable and conscientious men of our age, and especially of our country, are not only willing, but anxious to provide for the best good of our sex, and that they will[Pg 788] gladly bestow all that is just, reasonable, and kind, whenever we unite in asking in the proper spirit and manner. It is because we do not ask, or "because we ask amiss," that we do not receive all we need both from God and men. Let me illustrate my meaning by a brief narrative of my own experience. To begin with my earliest: I can not remember a time when I did not find a father's heart so tender that it was always easier for him to give anything I asked than to deny me. Of my seven brothers, I know not one who would not take as much or more care of my interests than I should myself. The brother who presides is here because it is so hard for him to say "No" to any woman seeking his aid.
In contrast to this, I believe that the fault lies as much, if not more, with women than with men, since we have all the power needed to address the wrongs and suffering we complain about, but we don’t use it for that purpose. I firmly believe that all reasonable and conscientious men of our time, especially in our country, are not just willing but eager to support the best interests of our gender, and they will[Pg 788] gladly give all that is fair, reasonable, and kind whenever we come together to ask in the right spirit and way. It is because we do not ask, or "because we ask incorrectly," that we do not receive everything we need from both God and men. Let me illustrate my point with a short story from my own experience. To start with my earliest memory: I can't recall a time when I didn't find my father's heart so gentle that it was always easier for him to give me whatever I asked for rather than deny me. Of my seven brothers, I know of none who wouldn’t care for my interests as much, if not more, than I would myself. The brother who leads is here because it is so difficult for him to say "No" to any woman who seeks his help.
It is half a century this very spring since I began to work for the education and relief of my sex, and I have succeeded so largely by first convincing intelligent and benevolent women that what I aimed at was right and desirable, and then securing their influence with their fathers, brothers, and husbands; and always with success. American women have only to unite in asking for whatever is just and reasonable, in a proper spirit and manner, in order to secure all that they need.
It’s been 50 years this spring since I started working for the education and support of women, and I’ve made significant progress by first persuading smart and kind women that my goals are right and worthwhile, then getting them to influence their fathers, brothers, and husbands; and I’ve always succeeded. American women just need to come together and ask for what is fair and reasonable, in a respectful and appropriate way, to get everything they need.
Here, then, I urge my greatest objections to the plan of female suffrage; for my countrywomen are seeking it only as an instrument for redressing wrongs and relieving wants by laws and civil influences. Now, I ask, why not take a shorter course, and ask to have the men do for us what we might do for ourselves if we had the ballot? Suppose we point out to our State Legislatures and to Congress the evils that it is supposed the ballot would remedy, and draw up petitions for these remedial measures, would not these petitions be granted much sooner and with far less irritation and conflict than must ensue before we gain the ballot? And in such petitions thousands of women would unite who now deem that female suffrage would prove a curse rather than a benefit.
Here, I want to express my main concerns about the idea of women's suffrage. My fellow women are pursuing it mainly as a way to fix injustices and meet needs through laws and social changes. So, I ask, why not take a simpler approach and have the men help us with things we could handle ourselves if we had the vote? If we highlight to our State Legislatures and Congress the issues the vote is believed to address and create petitions for these solutions, wouldn’t those petitions be approved much more quickly and with far less frustration and conflict than what we’d go through to actually get the vote? In these petitions, thousands of women would join together who currently think that women's suffrage would be more of a curse than a benefit.
And here I will close with my final objection to woman suffrage, and that is that it will prove a measure of injustice and oppression to the women who oppose it. Most of such women believe that the greatest cause of the evils suffered by our sex is that the true profession of woman, in many of its most important departments, is not respected; that women are not trained either to the science or the practice of domestic duties as they need to be, and that, as the consequence, the chief labors of the family state pass to ignorant foreigners, and by cultivated women are avoided as disgraceful.
And here I’ll wrap up with my final argument against women’s suffrage, which is that it will lead to injustice and oppression for the women who oppose it. Most of these women believe that the main reason for the issues faced by our gender is that the true role of women, in many of its key areas, is not valued; that women aren’t being trained in the science or the practice of domestic responsibilities as they should be, and as a result, the primary responsibilities of family life fall to uninformed outsiders, while educated women see these tasks as beneath them.
They believe the true remedy is to make woman's work honorable and remunerative, and that the suffrage agitation does not tend to this, but rather to drain off the higher classes of cultivated women from those more important duties to take charge of political and civil affairs that are more suitable for men.
They believe the real solution is to make women’s work respected and well-paid, and that the fight for suffrage doesn’t contribute to this goal. Instead, it pulls educated women from their more important responsibilities to manage political and civil matters that are better suited for men.
Now if women are all made voters, it will be their duty to vote, and also to qualify themselves for this duty. But already women have more than they can do well in all that appropriately belongs to women, and to add the civil and political duties of men would be deemed a measure of injustice and oppression.
Now that women can vote, it will be their responsibility to participate in elections and to prepare themselves for that responsibility. However, women already have more than enough on their plates with everything that is expected of them, and adding the civil and political responsibilities of men would be seen as unfair and oppressive.
Mrs. H. M. T. Cutler, of Ohio, then rose to reply. She said: I account myself happy to be allowed to stand here to reply to the objections of my friend, Miss Beecher. There is one point where I feel that her argument is not as strong as most of her arguments are. We enjoy things of privilege, if privileges are granted; but we enjoy things of right, because they are right—not otherwise. All that she says of good men, and of what good men will do for women, only goes to show what everybody has already known, that she had for a father one of the first Christian gentlemen in the United States or in the world; and for brothers seven men of princely virtue, and highest and noblest Christian attainments. If the world was made up of all such people, there would be no need of laws. Miss Beecher may well speak for such men as they, and they may well speak for such women as she. If I make a petition for something, and that petition does not clearly express a right that is due me, but instead, asks for something that may be withheld without moral guilt, that is a privilege; but when I come and demand[Pg 789] that which is a right, the condition is altogether changed. I claim the right because it is God-given. We have in the advanced age of Christianity, those who do not believe in the use of physical force on any account whatever. They are non-resistants; but it will not be said that the vicious can be controlled by moral suasion. Society is not yet sufficiently Christianized for men not to demand of each other guarantees for the safety of each other's rights. Shall we who are in some sense the weaker sex have no guarantee for our rights?
Mrs. H. M. T. Cutler, from Ohio, then stood up to respond. She said: I consider myself fortunate to be here to address the objections from my friend, Miss Beecher. There’s one area where I feel her argument isn’t as strong as her usual points. We enjoy privileges when they are granted, but we enjoy rights simply because they are right—not for any other reason. Everything she says about good men and what they will do for women just highlights what everyone already knows: she had one of the finest Christian gentlemen as a father and seven brothers of exceptional virtue and high Christian ideals. If the world were made up entirely of such individuals, there would be no need for laws. Miss Beecher can certainly speak for such men, and they can speak well for women like her. If I petition for something, and that petition doesn’t clearly state a right owed to me but instead asks for something that can be withheld without moral wrongdoing, that’s just a privilege; but when I come to demand[Pg 789] what is a right, the situation changes completely. I assert my right because it is God-given. In our modern age of Christianity, we have those who believe in absolute non-resistance and reject any use of physical force. However, it can’t be said that the immoral can be controlled solely by moral persuasion. Society isn’t yet sufficiently Christianized for people to not demand guarantees for each other’s rights. Should we, who are in some ways the weaker sex, have no guarantee for our rights?
Miss Beecher makes the point that men will give, if we ask them properly. The first asking of American women was not for themselves—not for their own account. They forgot themselves in their anxiety for poor oppressed slaves. They didn't know what they had lost through long ages, from not having exerted their own powers, and established their own responsibilities. But when they came to do that, they then asked themselves, "Where are our good right hands?" I sent petitions to Congress again and again, which I had gathered from my neighbors, in regard to the abolishment of slavery in the District of Columbia and in the territories; and I have sent numbers of them in regard to this question of woman suffrage. I sent many of them to Horace Greeley, and he sent me back word, "The only good that these things will do in Congress is to help the janitor to light the fires. They do good to the people perhaps, but they do no good otherwise." We might have petitioned until the crack of doom, before Congress would have broken the chain. Why should we not demand our right to the vote, when we reflect that one vote, cast in the State of Indiana, was the means of electing a man whose vote in Congress turned the scale, and enacted the "Fugitive Slave Law"—that law which put the collar upon every bondsman's neck, and branded him the property of every Southern master.
Miss Beecher points out that men will give if we ask them the right way. The first requests from American women weren’t for themselves—not for their own benefit. They were so concerned about the poor oppressed slaves that they overlooked their own needs. They didn’t realize what they had lost over the years by not using their own strengths and taking on their own responsibilities. But when they finally decided to do that, they then asked themselves, "Where are our capable hands?" I sent petitions to Congress over and over again, which I collected from my neighbors, regarding the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and in the territories; and I have sent many regarding the issue of women's suffrage. I sent several of them to Horace Greeley, and he replied, "The only thing these petitions will do in Congress is help the janitor light the fires. They may be helpful to the people, but they don't do any good otherwise." We could have petitioned until the end of time, and Congress still wouldn’t have broken the chains. Why shouldn’t we demand our right to vote, when we consider that one vote, cast in the State of Indiana, was what elected a man whose vote in Congress made the difference and enacted the "Fugitive Slave Law"—the law that placed a collar around every bondsman’s neck, marking him as the property of every Southern master.
I admit the great responsibility of the ballot, and if we are true women, we shall assume it with a full appreciation of that responsibility, and a determination to do our whole duty in its exercise. The argument that many women do not desire the ballot reminds me of an old colored woman whom I met soon after the war. I said to her, "Some people say they think your people are really almost sorry that they have been made free; that they were more comfortable as slaves." She said, "Is it possible that any person thinks like that? Can it be that any colored person feels like that?" I said, "I have heard people say so." "Then," said she, "if anybody feels like that they deserve to be slaves—doubly slaves—slaves in this world and slaves in the next." The woman that is not willing to assume the responsibility of casting a vote upon a question that may decide whether in her individual neighborhood or precinct there shall be grog-shops and houses of prostitution open, and there shall be no proper care of the poor and needy and infirm—I say that if there is any woman who is not willing to assume such responsibilities, it seems to me that she must feel that it is a judgment on her, should her own husband or son or the daughter of her heart, or all of them, become sufferers in consequence of the evil that she might have stayed had she been willing to uphold the exercise of that right.
I recognize the significant responsibility that comes with voting, and if we are truly committed women, we should take it on with a complete understanding of that responsibility and a determination to fully fulfill our duty when exercising it. The argument that many women don’t want the right to vote reminds me of an elderly woman I met shortly after the war. I said to her, "Some people believe that your community is almost regretful about gaining their freedom; that they were more comfortable as slaves." She replied, "Is it possible that anyone thinks that way? Can any Black person feel that way?" I said, "I've heard people say so." "Then," she said, "if anyone feels that way, they deserve to be enslaved—twice over—slaves in this life and slaves in the next." Any woman who isn’t willing to take on the responsibility of voting on issues that could determine whether there are bars and brothels in her own neighborhood, or whether the poor, needy, and sick are properly cared for—I believe that if any woman is not willing to take on such responsibilities, it seems to me she must feel it would be a judgment against her if her husband or son, or the daughter she loves, were to suffer because of the harm she could have prevented by choosing to exercise her right to vote.
We ask only for the same right that is accorded to the poorest man landing on our shores. Is the giving of the ballot to a foreigner who comes among us a burden so great that he should not have it imposed upon him?[Pg 790] And shall an American woman shrink from her duty when there is so much power in her hands for good? I know that a great many women have not been educated up to a condition that would teach them fully how to act. Like the slave, they have had too much thinking and acting done for them, until now they feel incompetent to discharge these duties for themselves. Our great duty, then, which we who know better should consider imposed upon us, is that of educating women up to the proper standard. Shall we be beggars for that which is, of right, ours? Shall there not be one law for the brothers and the daughters throughout this entire country? As Mr. Beecher has well said, women have borne their full share of martyrdom; and it strikes me that it is now about time for her redemption from the evils of her position. If she has to suffer from the evils of a defective or vicious system of laws, put in her hands the power to protect herself, to mitigate the sufferings of her sex, to preserve and defend the right and to suppress the wrong.
We only ask for the same right that is given to the poorest person arriving on our shores. Is granting the vote to a foreigner who joins us such a heavy burden that it shouldn't be placed upon them?[Pg 790] And should an American woman shy away from her responsibility when she has so much potential for good? I know many women haven't been educated to understand how to act fully. Like enslaved individuals, they have had too much thinking and acting done for them, so now they feel incapable of taking on these responsibilities themselves. Our important duty, then, for those of us who understand better, is to educate women to meet the appropriate standards. Should we beg for what is rightfully ours? Shouldn't there be one law for brothers and sisters across this entire country? As Mr. Beecher wisely stated, women have experienced their fair share of suffering; it seems to me that it's time for her to be freed from the negative aspects of her situation. If she has to endure the drawbacks of a flawed or corrupt legal system, then give her the power to protect herself, alleviate the suffering of her gender, uphold and defend her rights, and put an end to the injustices.
Mrs. Miriam M. Cole spoke at some length. The spirit of '76, she said, influenced Mrs. John Adams to write to her husband to inquire if it were generous in American men to keep their wives in thraldom, when they were emancipating the whole earth. Had the spirit of that letter animated the wife of Mr. Lincoln when his emancipation proclamation was issued, how pertinently could she have made the same inquiry! The laws regarding women were written down so plain that those may run who read, and they who read had better run.
Mrs. Miriam M. Cole spoke at length. She mentioned that the spirit of '76 inspired Mrs. John Adams to write to her husband to ask if it was fair for American men to keep their wives in bondage while they were freeing the whole world. If that same spirit had motivated Mr. Lincoln's wife when his emancipation proclamation was issued, she could have made the same point just as effectively! The laws about women are written so clearly that anyone who reads them should take action, and those who do read them should definitely take action.
Mrs. Celia Burleigh said: Several references have been made to the work of women in the church. I am glad to be able to introduce to you now the pastor of one of the most popular churches of New Haven, and whose church, I am happy to say, is crowded every Sunday—Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford.
Mrs. Celia Burleigh said: There have been several mentions of women's contributions to the church. I'm pleased to introduce you now to the pastor of one of the most well-liked churches in New Haven, whose church, I'm happy to report, is packed every Sunday—Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford.
Mrs. Hanaford said: Speaking with Horace Greeley a few weeks ago, he replied to my query why he was not in favor of woman suffrage, by saying that he did not think women would gain the opportunity of suffrage or improve the opportunity if they had it, until they should come to consider suffrage a duty, and he declared that he had never known any one to advocate woman suffrage on the ground of duty.
Mrs. Hanaford said: When I spoke to Horace Greeley a few weeks ago, he responded to my question about why he opposed women's suffrage by saying that he didn't believe women would be able to obtain the right to vote or make the most of it unless they saw voting as a responsibility. He stated that he had never encountered anyone who supported women's suffrage on the basis of duty.
I was amazed at his assertion in the face of all the speeches and lectures which such women as Lucretia Mott and her conscientious co-laborers had made and delivered during the last twenty years. The very next night, I heard Anna Dickinson in the largest hall in New Haven, and before nearly 3,000 people, urge the women present to consider their duty to this vast Republic in which we dwell, and whose starry banner is as dear to women as to men. The keynote of her bugle-call to the rescue was the idea of duty, and that is the idea which inspires the women on this platform to-day, while thousands of hearts throughout our Union respond, with the same sentiment, to their appeals from the platform, the pulpit, and the press.
I was amazed by his statement despite all the speeches and lectures given by women like Lucretia Mott and her dedicated allies over the past twenty years. The very next night, I listened to Anna Dickinson in the biggest hall in New Haven, where nearly 3,000 people gathered. She encouraged the women there to think about their responsibility to this great nation we live in, and whose star-spangled banner is just as precious to women as it is to men. The main message of her rallying cry was the idea of duty, which is the same idea that motivates the women on this stage today, while countless hearts across our nation respond to their calls from the platform, the pulpit, and the media.
Leading reformers of the world are telling us in clarion notes, and in thunder tones, with the voice of warning or of appeal, that woman owes service to the State, and that it is her duty to strive earnestly that she may have that ballot in her own hand which shall be at once her educator and protector, her sceptre and her sword. But I have heard the Master's voice, speaking through Lucy Stone and her co-workers, and speaking in my own[Pg 791] soul also, declaring that I, in common with every other woman in this grand Republic, have a duty to the State that must not be ignored. In the home, and in the church, most women acknowledge they have duties—but as to the State they hesitate. Oh, if they would but "gather into the stillness," as the Friends say, and listen reverently to the voice within, I think they would often hear the solemn utterance, "These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Every woman who has tried to do her whole duty in the family, tried faithfully to make home a foretaste of heaven, with its abounding peace and love, tried with a mother's prayers, a mother's tears, a mother's unselfish, self-denying love, to train her darlings for the skies—every such woman deserves the gratitude of humanity, and that sweetest of rewards to a mother's heart, viz; that "her children shall rise up, and call her blessed;" while every woman who superadds to this unselfish devotion to home and children, a lifelong fidelity to the church in which she was reared, or has adopted; every woman who has worshiped devoutly at the shrine her own soul has accepted, following meekly in the footsteps of Him who went about doing good—every such woman deserves the wreath of immortal amaranths which angel hands are weaving for her brow—but more than all, she who crowns her home work and her religious endeavors with a service to the State, which of necessity touches the great questions of reform, and aids in the settling of vast problems wherein the weal or woe of a nation is concerned—that woman, from the centre of her individual responsibility, reaches out to the circumference of her individual influence, and desires to receive from the lips of the dear Lord himself, the "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord"—the joy of a completed mission. The recording angel will write such a woman's name with that of Abou Ben Adhem, who loved his fellows, and in serving humanity served God.
Leading reformers around the world are telling us clearly, in loud tones, with messages of warning or appeal, that women owe service to the State, and that it’s their duty to work hard to have the right to vote in their hands, which will serve both as their teacher and protector, their staff and their weapon. But I have heard the Master’s voice, speaking through Lucy Stone and her colleagues, and speaking within my own[Pg 791] soul as well, declaring that I, like every other woman in this great nation, have a duty to the State that cannot be overlooked. In the home and in the church, most women recognize their roles—but when it comes to the State, they hesitate. Oh, if only they would "gather into the stillness," as the Friends say, and listen respectfully to the inner voice, I believe they would often hear the serious reminder, "These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Every woman who has tried her best to fulfill her responsibilities within the family, who has worked to make her home a glimpse of heaven, filled with peace and love, who has prayed, cried, and selflessly loved her children, deserves the gratitude of humanity, and that sweetest reward for a mother’s heart, which is that "her children shall rise up, and call her blessed;" while every woman who adds to this selfless devotion to home and children, a lifelong commitment to the church she was raised in or has chosen; every woman who has faithfully worshiped at her own soul's shrine, following the path of the one who went around doing good—every such woman deserves the crown of timeless honor woven by angelic hands for her head—but more than all, she who combines her work at home and her religious efforts with service to the State, which inherently addresses significant reform issues and helps solve major problems affecting the well-being or suffering of a nation—that woman, from the core of her personal responsibility, extends out to the limits of her individual influence, and seeks to hear from the lips of the dear Lord himself, the words "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord"—the joy of a fulfilled mission. The recording angel will write such a woman’s name alongside Abou Ben Adhem, who loved his fellow human beings, and in serving humanity, served God.
The single point which I wish to present to the women before me at this hour and in these brief remarks is this, then; that it is your solemn, sacred duty, as you love God and the truth, and human welfare, to seek the ballot, and, having obtained it, to use it in purifying our statute-books and making them read more like the oracles of God—the eleven Commandments, and the Golden Rule.
The main point I want to emphasize to all the women here today is this: it is your serious and sacred responsibility, as you care about God, truth, and the well-being of humanity, to pursue the right to vote, and once you have it, to use it to clean up our laws and make them align more closely with the principles of the Eleven Commandments and the Golden Rule.
Mrs. Mary F. Davis, of New Jersey, observed that in a court room of New York, a lawyer—she understood—recently stated that according to law the husband of a woman has such control over her as to "own" her; that man was made for God and woman for man! She asked if those present accepted that law [A voice, No!] Do you, said she, own your own persons, according to the law of God, or do you not? Our brothers tell us that women would be contaminated by going into the court rooms and sitting on juries; that women must be kept from these places because it would impair their delicacy. Well, if women were wholly excluded from our court rooms the case would be different. But when in the mornings we take up the daily papers, how frequently do we read of some poor young creature who has been arrested and taken to the court room, to be tried by a jury of men; and carried perhaps from there to a place of imprisonment, with no pitying woman's eye or heart or hand to give her a ray of comfort. And these poor, forlorn creatures shall be deprived of our sympathy and left to perish because[Pg 792] we are too "delicate" to come to their assistance! These may be daughters of good people, and may once have been good and pure as any. They might be your daughters or mine. Brothers, they might be your sisters or your daughters! Oh! change the laws that bear so hard on women. Give us such laws as will allow your wives and mothers—those in whom you have confidence and whom you love—to come, with a mother's heart, and help rescue these deserted and fallen and miserable ones.
Mrs. Mary F. Davis, from New Jersey, noted that in a New York courtroom, a lawyer recently claimed that, according to the law, a husband has such control over his wife that he can "own" her; that man was created for God and woman for man! She asked if those present accepted that law [A voice, No!] Do you, she asked, own your own bodies according to God's law, or not? Our brothers argue that women would be tainted by entering courtrooms and serving on juries; that women must be kept away from such places to protect their delicacy. Well, if women were completely excluded from our courtrooms, it would be a different situation. But every morning, when we read the daily newspapers, how often do we see some poor young woman who has been arrested and taken to court, judged by a jury of men; and then possibly sent off to prison, with no compassionate woman’s touch or heart to offer her comfort? And these unfortunate women will be deprived of our sympathy and left to suffer because[Pg 792] we are too "delicate" to help them! These could be daughters of good families and may once have been as decent and pure as anyone. They could be your daughters or mine. Brothers, they could be your sisters or your daughters! Oh! Change the laws that are so harsh on women. Give us laws that will allow your wives and mothers—those you trust and cherish—to come, with a mother's heart, and help rescue these abandoned, fallen, and miserable women.
Lucy Stone here read a letter of regret from William Lloyd Garrison, in which he stated that he was ill and confined to his bed, and therefore unable to be present. She read, also, a letter from Mrs. Haskell, of California, expressing earnest and hearty sympathy in all that is done at the East for woman suffrage, and the assurance that on the Pacific slope the good work is becoming daily stronger and more hopeful.
Lucy Stone read a letter of regret from William Lloyd Garrison, who explained that he was sick and stuck in bed, so he couldn't be there. She also read a letter from Mrs. Haskell in California, sharing her genuine and strong support for everything being done in the East for women's suffrage, along with the assurance that on the West Coast, the good work is getting stronger and more hopeful every day.
Mrs. Tappan gave an interesting account of some of the Indian tribes in Mexico and California, who, she thought, had in one sense a higher idea of the capacity of woman than their more civilized brethren. The Navajos, on one occasion, when a United States Commission composed of General Sherman, General Terry, and other officers of the army, went to them to treat with them on behalf of the Government, refused to enter the officer's quarters for the purpose of discussion or decision of their difficulties, unless their squaws were permitted to participate in the deliberations, and the officers were obliged to allow the women to come in.
Mrs. Tappan shared an intriguing account of some of the Native American tribes in Mexico and California. She believed that, in some ways, they had a more advanced view of women's capabilities than their more "civilized" counterparts. The Navajos, for instance, when a United States Commission including General Sherman, General Terry, and other military officers approached them to negotiate on behalf of the Government, refused to enter the officers' quarters for discussions about their issues unless their women were allowed to take part in the talks, and the officers had no choice but to let the women join in.
The evening session of the convention was called to order by Lucy Stone. Steinway Hall was filled with an earnest and interested assembly, numbering about a thousand persons.
The evening session of the convention was called to order by Lucy Stone. Steinway Hall was packed with a serious and engaged crowd, around a thousand people.
Mrs. Churchill, of Providence, R. I., was the first speaker. She spoke at some length, and asserted the undoubted right of women to the suffrage. She referred to the fear which men entertained, or pretended to entertain, of women neglecting every other duty attaching to them simply because they should get suffrage. Men do not find voting so exceedingly incompatible with the other duties of life that they should have such fear of woman suffrage. Women are not asking for bon-bons in this matter. They are demanding that which belongs to them. They are not children, nor idiots, and they ought to have the same right of action as is accorded to sane men.
Mrs. Churchill, from Providence, R.I., was the first speaker. She spoke at length and asserted women's undeniable right to vote. She mentioned the fear that men had, or claimed to have, about women neglecting their other responsibilities just because they would gain the right to vote. Men don’t seem to think that voting is so completely incompatible with their other life duties that they should be afraid of women voting. Women aren’t asking for bon-bons in this situation. They are demanding what is rightfully theirs. They are not children or fools, and they deserve the same rights of action that are given to rational men.
The address of Mrs. Julia Ward Howe was as follows: This mighty edifice of the ideal society has many mansions, whose doors open one after the other in the ruins of the ages. When Providence has removed the mysterious seal from one of these doors those who know the signs of the times gladly enter. And soon the halt and the lame and the blind hear of the new refuge, the new benefaction, and make haste to crowd its halls and parlors. America itself was at first such a refuge. The derided Puritans rode there nobly across the highway of the ocean. By and by it leaked out that civil and religious liberty had made a good thing of it, and then the Old World began to sneak over into the spacious domain of the New. And now it comes with such a tide that we can scarcely build cities and railroads fast enough for its accommodation. America is to the nations a house of God—a divinely appointed city of refuge. Poorly have we administered that house of God, because we ourselves were undivine. But we have improved[Pg 793] a little—we have learned some lessons—we have opened some doors. And every lesson that we have learned has shown us more and more of the grand but terrible labor which lies before us. What one should be, and know, and intend, in order to come up to the standard of an American, that is something which as yet puts most of us to the blush, not for being so much, but so little children of the New World; for this may the Old World deride us.
The address of Mrs. Julia Ward Howe was as follows: This grand structure of the ideal society has many rooms, with doors that open one after another through the ruins of history. When fate has lifted the mysterious seal from one of these doors, those who understand the signs of the times eagerly enter. Soon, those who are disabled, in need, or lost hear about this new refuge and its benefits and rush to fill its halls and living spaces. America itself was initially such a refuge. The ridiculed Puritans bravely sailed across the ocean to get there. Eventually, it became known that civil and religious freedom had created a wonderful opportunity, and then the Old World started to sneak into the expansive territory of the New. Now, the influx is so great that we can barely build cities and railroads quickly enough to accommodate it. America is a house of God for the nations—a divinely appointed city of refuge. We have managed that house of God poorly, because we ourselves have not been divine. However, we have improved[Pg 793] a bit—we have learned some lessons—we have opened some doors. And with every lesson we've learned, we see more of the grand but daunting task that lies ahead of us. What one should be, know, and intend to be worthy of being called an American is something that still makes most of us feel ashamed, not for being so much, but for being such little representatives of the New World; and for this, the Old World may mock us.
I can not see this New World as it ought to be, in my remotest vision, without many changes in what it is. Looking towards this great aim of building a Christian state, I see the position of woman as wrong and harmful. Wrong to herself since she is pushed one remove further from the divine than man—she, born of the same humanity and divinity with himself. Wrong to society since she, with special gifts and powers for its aid and advancement, is forcibly restrained to the functions which man deigns to allow her; her attitude to law, labor and life being determined by him through the old principle of barbarism, the predominance of physical force.
I can’t envision this New World as it should be, in my wildest dreams, without many changes to what it currently is. Looking towards the big goal of creating a Christian state, I see the position of women as wrong and damaging. It’s wrong for women themselves because they are pushed further away from the divine than men—both are born from the same humanity and divinity. It’s also wrong for society because women, who have unique gifts and abilities to help and advance it, are forcibly limited to the roles that men permit them; their relationship with law, work, and life is dictated by men through the outdated principle of barbarism, which values physical strength above all.
Which shall I treat first, the wrong done to the individual or that done to society? I will start with the individual. And from the start I will say that the very instinct of secondariness, so often postulated as a reason for the social subjection of women, is, on the part of those who urge it, either an invention or an error. The instinct, as I understand it, is all the other way. The little girl does not know in herself any inferiority to the boy. He can perhaps beat her, but while he may consider this a mark of superiority, she is too wise to accept it as such. In their lessons she flies where he walks. She cries for his floggings oftener than he can laugh at her failures. She needs less machinery than he to arrive at the same mental and moral results. Nature has given him a mental hammer, but it has given her a mental needle, and she has embroidered the rainbow before he has forged the thunder. How does he overtake her swift steps? How tame and bind her fiery soul?
Which should I address first, the wrong done to the individual or to society? I'll start with the individual. From the outset, let me say that the belief in the inherent inferiority of women, often used to justify their social subordination, is either a fabrication or a misconception by those who promote it. In my view, the instinct is entirely the opposite. A little girl doesn’t perceive any inferiority compared to a boy. He might be able to physically overpower her, but while he may see this as a sign of superiority, she is too perceptive to accept it as such. In their studies, she excels while he simply follows. She cries over the punishments he receives far more than he laughs at her mistakes. She requires less effort than he does to achieve the same mental and moral outcomes. Nature has equipped him with a mental hammer, while she has a mental needle, and she has woven a rainbow before he has even forged thunder. How does he catch up to her swift pace? How does he tame and constrain her fiery spirit?
Now I confess that he has an accomplice greater than himself. The girl, coming upon the full consciousness of womanhood, comes also upon that of its opposite. The primal divine unity of the race makes itself felt in her dreamy bosom. She is but half of the ideal—the perfect human being—the other half is not yet hers; she must seek diligently till she find it. Do not laugh. The pilgrimage of Psyche is performed by every maiden soul; but love, the supreme god, in the little child is not always found. So far, so good. The woman often finds a mate; sometimes has quite a selection of mates offered her. If she finds the complement of her incomplete being, what more can she want? What wrong is done her? This simply. If her single life was incomplete, that of her partner without her was no less so. The need of marriage was equal with both. Nay, but for the aid of vices to which the male part of society give system and culture, the need of marriage on his part will be more imperative than on hers. Its natural burdens fall with fivefold force on her. She must bear the children. She must give the flower of her life to services full of weariness and of anguish. Now, however the matter may stand between man and woman, the State's need of marriage is imperative. And as the State commands marriage, and as the woman contracts marriage as an obligation to the State, the State is bound by every sacred obligation of justice to render the contract an equal[Pg 794] one. And here comes up again the barbaric element—the predominance of physical force. "Shall this softer, gentler, more fragile creature be the equal of the ruder, stouter man?" "Yes," says your Christianity, "She is a divine institution, as you are; she desires the same culture, the same respect, the same authority." "No," says your barbarism, "I can oppress her, and I will. We won't call it oppression, if you please. We'll call it protection. I'll keep her money, and her children, and her body, and her soul. I'll keep them all for her. She can ask me for what she wants. I shall always know whether it is best for her to have it or no."
Now I admit that he has a bigger accomplice. The girl, becoming fully aware of womanhood, also becomes aware of its opposite. The basic divine unity of the human race resonates in her dreamy heart. She’s only half of the ideal—the complete human being—the other half isn't hers yet; she has to search hard until she finds it. Don’t laugh. The journey of Psyche is experienced by every young woman; but love, the supreme god, isn’t always found in the little child. So far, so good. The woman often finds a partner; sometimes she has quite a few options to choose from. If she finds the missing piece of her incomplete self, what more could she want? What wrong is done to her? This, simply. If her single life was incomplete, so was her partner's without her. The need for marriage is equal for both. Indeed, due to the vices that the male part of society institutionalizes and nurtures, the need for marriage on his side is even stronger than hers. The natural burdens weigh five times more on her. She must bear children. She must dedicate the best part of her life to work that is full of exhaustion and hardship. Now, regardless of the dynamics between men and women, the State's need for marriage is crucial. And as the State demands marriage, and as the woman enters into marriage as an obligation to the State, the State has a sacred obligation of justice to make the contract an equal one. And here comes back the primitive element—the dominance of physical strength. "Should this softer, gentler, more delicate being be equal to the stronger, rougher man?" "Yes," says your Christianity, "She is a divine institution, just like you; she seeks the same growth, the same respect, the same authority." "No," says your barbarism, "I can oppress her, and I will. We won't call it oppression, if you don’t mind. We’ll call it protection. I’ll control her money, her children, her body, and her spirit. I’ll keep them all for her. She can ask me for what she needs. I will always know if it's best for her to have it or not."
Now, here it is true physical ascendency of the man which renders the assumption of this position possible. Great as this power is, he has taken pains to increase it by an immense array of aids and appliances. He has kept the woman ignorant of all the technologies of the world. Fatal renewal of the Hebrew myth, he has eaten of the tree of knowledge, has kept the fruit for himself. Society can not be governed without law and logic. The use of these the man has monopolized, encouraging in the woman the natural gifts and accomplishments which give him most delight—dress and dance, and the sweet voice and graceful manner, and, above all the ready acquiescence in his sovereign pleasure. But let her ask him for the methods by which she may analyze his actions and his intuitions, and he says, "No." No college door shall open for her, no nursery of law, medicine or theology. Philosophy, the science of sciences—which Dictrina taught to Socrates, who teaches it to the world to-day—that would give her the key to all the rest. She may get it, if she can.
Now, it's the man’s physical dominance that makes this situation possible. As powerful as this is, he has worked hard to enhance it with a huge range of tools and resources. He has kept the woman in the dark about all the technologies of the world. It's a tragic repeat of the Hebrew myth; he has taken from the tree of knowledge and kept the fruit for himself. Society can’t function without laws and logic. The man has monopolized these, fostering in the woman those natural talents and abilities that please him the most—fashion and dance, a sweet voice, graceful demeanor, and, above all, her willingness to comply with his every wish. But if she asks him how to understand his actions and instincts, he tells her, "No." No school will admit her, no field of law, medicine, or theology will welcome her. Philosophy, the highest field of knowledge—which Dictrina taught to Socrates, who then shared it with the world today—would give her access to everything else. She might acquire it, if she can.
We have brought our theoretical woman up to the period of marriage and maternity. Here the intensity of personal feeling and interest monopolize her. Her nursery is full of pains and pleasures, but its delights predominate, and though she will need more than ever the help of outside culture and sympathy, she is yet tied by her affections even more than by her duties to a centre of feeling too intense to generate a wide circle. Here, too, the enforced inequality of institutions pursues her. The children, born at such cost of suffering, are not hers in the eye of the law. The right to them which nature puts primarily in the mother, society has long vested almost absolutely in the father. In case of any difference between them he will say, "I am the father—my will must be obeyed." And what he will say in private the law will say in public. Mrs. Stone records a piteous case in which an unborn child was willed by its dying father to relatives in a foreign country in which the widowed mother suffered the pains of childbirth, that other hearts than hers might be gladdened by her dearly-bought treasure. This young woman was described as in a maze of bewilderment at the presence on the statute-book of a law so miraculously wicked. We all hope that in such laws there comes a great deal of dead letter, but the dead letter itself stinks and is corrupt. The book of justice should be purged of such unhallowed corpses.
We have brought our theoretical woman to the point of marriage and motherhood. At this stage, her personal feelings and interests dominate her life. Her nursery is filled with both challenges and joys, but the joys outweigh the challenges. Although she will need outside support and understanding more than ever, her emotional ties weigh her down even more than her responsibilities, keeping her focused on a feeling that is too intense to expand into a broader social circle. Here, too, the unequal nature of societal institutions continues to affect her. The children she bears, at such a high cost of pain, are not legally recognized as hers. The rights that nature grants primarily to mothers have long been almost entirely given to fathers by society. In any disagreement, he will assert, "I am the father—my wishes must be followed." What he claims in private, the law supports in public. Mrs. Stone recounts a heartbreaking case where a dying father willed his unborn child to relatives in a foreign country, leaving the grieving mother to face childbirth so that others could enjoy the blessing of her hard-earned child. This young woman was depicted as being utterly confused by the existence of such an outrageously unjust law. While we all hope much of such legislation is ignored, the very existence of these laws is disturbing and corrupt. The justice system should be cleansed of such unholy remnants.
In the nursery the mother is called upon to set forward the same injustice which presided over her own education. "Preaching down a daughter's heart," the beautiful phrase of Tennyson, becomes the duty of every woman who finds in her daughter saliency of intellect and individuality of will. Mediocrity is the standard! "Seek not, my child, to go beyond it. Thou[Pg 795] hast thy little allotments. The French must be thy classics, the house accounts thy mathematics. Patchwork, cooking, and sweeping thy mechanics; dress and embroidery thy fine arts. See how small the spheres. Do not venture outside of it, nor teach thy daughters, when thou shalt have such to do so."
In the nursery, the mother is expected to pass on the same injustice that shaped her own upbringing. "Preaching down a daughter's heart," as Tennyson beautifully put it, becomes the responsibility of every woman who sees intelligence and individuality in her daughter. Mediocrity is the goal! "Don't strive, my child, to go beyond it. You have your little limits. French must be your literature, household accounts your math. Patchwork, cooking, and cleaning are your practical skills; fashion and embroidery are your arts. Just look at how small these areas are. Don't step outside of them, nor teach your daughters, when you have them, to do so."
And so we women, from generation to generation, are drilled to be the apes of an artificial standard, made for us and imposed upon us by an outsider; a being who, in this attitude, becomes our natural enemy.
And so we women, from one generation to the next, are trained to mimic an artificial standard created for us and forced upon us by someone else; a person who, in this mindset, becomes our natural enemy.
Mrs. Lucy Stone said: There have always been good and able men ready to second us, and to say their best words for our cause. Among the first of these is Mr. George William Curtis, whom I have now the pleasure to introduce.
Mrs. Lucy Stone said: There have always been capable men ready to support us and speak out for our cause. One of the first of these is Mr. George William Curtis, whom I’m pleased to introduce now.
Ladies and Gentlemen:—It is pleasant to see this large assembly, and this generous spirit, for it is by precisely such meetings as this that public opinion is first awakened, and public action is at last secured. Our question is essentially an American question. It is a demand for equal rights, and will therefore be heard. Whenever a free and intelligent people asks any question involving human rights or liberty or development, it will ask louder and louder until it is answered. The conscience of this nation sits in the way like a sphinx, proposing its riddle of true democracy. Presidents and parties, conventions, caucuses, and candidates, failing to guess it, are remorselessly consumed. Forty years ago that conscience asked, "Do men have fair play in this country?" A burst of contemptuous laughter was the reply. Louder and louder grew that question, until it was one great thunderburst, absorbing all other questions; and then the country saw that its very life was bound up in the answer; and, springing to its feet, alive in every nerve, with one hand it snapped the slave's chain, and with the other welded the Union into a Nation—the pledge of equal liberty.
Ladies and Gentlemen:—It’s great to see such a large crowd and this generous spirit because it’s exactly these kinds of gatherings that spark public opinion and ultimately drive public action. Our issue is fundamentally an American issue. It’s a call for equal rights, and as such, it will be heard. Whenever a free and intelligent population poses a question about human rights, liberty, or progress, it will keep asking more insistently until it receives an answer. The conscience of this nation stands like a sphinx, presenting its riddle of true democracy. Presidents, political parties, conventions, caucuses, and candidates, unable to solve it, are relentlessly consumed. Forty years ago, that conscience asked, "Do men have a fair chance in this country?" The response was a burst of scornful laughter. That question grew louder and louder until it turned into a great thunderclap that overshadowed all other questions; and then the country realized that its very existence depended on the answer. Rising to the occasion, fully alive and energized, one hand broke the chains of slavery while the other forged the Union into a Nation—the promise of equal liberty.
That same conscience sits in the way to-day. It asks another question, "Do women have fair play in this country?" As before, a sneer or a smile of derision may ripple from one end of the land to the other; but that question will swell louder and louder, until it is answered by the ballot in the hands of every citizen, and by the perfect vindication of the fundamental principle, that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." By its very nature, however, the progress of this reform will differ from every other political movement. Behind every demand for the enlargement of the suffrage, hitherto there was always a threat. It involved possible anarchy and blood. But this reform hides no menace. It lies wholly in the sphere of reason. It is a demand for justice, as the best political policy; an appeal for equality of rights among citizens as the best security of the common welfare. It is a plea for the introduction of all the mental and moral forces of society into the work of government. It is an assertion that in the regulation of society, no class and no interest can be safely spared from a direct responsibility. It encounters, indeed, the most ancient traditions, the most subtle sophistry of men's passions and prejudices. But there was never any great wrong righted that was not intrenched in sophistry—that did not plead an immemorial antiquity, and what it called the universal consent and "instinct" of mankind.
That same conscience stands in the way today. It asks another question: "Do women have a fair chance in this country?" As before, a sneer or a mocking smile might ripple from one end of the nation to the other; but that question will grow louder and louder until it's answered by the ballot in the hands of every citizen, and by the clear endorsement of the fundamental principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." By its nature, however, the progress of this reform will be different from every other political movement. Behind each demand for expanding the vote, there has always been a threat. It involved potential chaos and violence. But this reform poses no threat. It exists entirely within the realm of reason. It’s a demand for justice as the best political policy; an appeal for equal rights among citizens as the best guarantee of the common good. It’s a plea to bring all the mental and moral energies of society into the work of government. It asserts that in the regulation of society, no class or interest can be safely excluded from direct responsibility. It does face the oldest traditions and the most subtle arguments of men's passions and biases. But there has never been a great injustice corrected that wasn’t rooted in complicated arguments—that didn’t rely on what it claimed was ancient history, and what it called the universal consent and "instinct" of humanity.
I say that the movement is a plea for justice, and I assert that the equal[Pg 796] rights of women, not as citizens, but as human beings, have never been acknowledged. There is no audacity so insolent, no tyranny so wanton, no inhumanity so revolting, as the spirit which says to any human being, or to any class of human beings, "You shall be developed just as far as we choose, and as fast as we choose, and your mental and moral life shall be subject to our pleasure!"
I believe that the movement is a call for justice, and I claim that the equal[Pg 796] rights of women, not just as citizens, but as human beings, have never been recognized. There's no arrogance so bold, no oppression so reckless, no cruelty so shocking, as the attitude that tells any person, or any group of people, "You will develop only as much as we allow, and at the pace we decide, while your mental and moral growth will depend on our whims!"
Edward Lear, the artist, traveling in Greece, says that "he was one day jogging along with an Albanian peasant, who said to him, 'Women are really better than donkeys for carrying burdens, but not so good as mules.'" This was the honest opinion of barbarism—the honest feeling of Greece to-day.
Edward Lear, the artist, traveling in Greece, says that "one day he was walking along with an Albanian peasant, who told him, 'Women are actually better than donkeys for carrying loads, but not as good as mules.'" This reflects the straightforward opinion of a rough culture—the sincere sentiment of Greece today.
You say that the peasant was uncivilized. Very well. Go back to the age of Pericles; it is the high noon of Greek civilization. It is Athens—"the eye of Greece—the mother of art." There stands the great orator—himself incarnate Greece—speaking the oration over the Peloponnesian dead. "The greatest glory of woman," he said, "is to be the least talked of among men;" so said Pericles, when he lived. Had Pericles lived to-day he would have agreed that to be talked of among men as Miss Martineau and Florence Nightingale are, as Mrs. Somerville and Maria Mitchell are, is as great a glory as to be the mother of the Gracchi. Women in Greece, the mothers of Greece, were an inferior and degraded class. And Grote sums up their whole condition when he says, "Every thing which concerned their lives, their happiness, or their rights, was determined for them by male relatives, and they seem to have been destitute of all mental culture and refinement."
You say the peasant was uncivilized. Fine. Think back to the time of Pericles; it was the peak of Greek civilization. It’s Athens—"the eye of Greece—the mother of art." There stands the great orator—himself a representation of Greece—giving the speech over the Peloponnesian dead. "The greatest glory of woman," he said, "is to be the least talked about among men;" so Pericles stated in his time. If Pericles were alive today, he would agree that being talked about among men like Miss Martineau and Florence Nightingale, as well as Mrs. Somerville and Maria Mitchell, is as great a glory as being the mother of the Gracchi. Women in Greece, the mothers of Greece, were an inferior and degraded class. Grote sums up their entire situation when he says, "Everything that affected their lives, their happiness, or their rights, was decided for them by male relatives, and they appeared to lack all mental cultivation and refinement."
These were the old Greeks. Will you have Rome? The chief monument of Roman civilization is its law—which underlies our own; and Buckle quotes the great commentator on that law as saying that it was the distinction of the Roman law that it treated women not as persons, but as things. Or go to the most ancient civilization; to China, which was old when Greece and Rome were young. The famous French Jesuit missionary, Abbé Huc, mentions one of the most tragical facts recorded—that there is in China a class of women who hold that if they are only true to certain bonds during this life, they shall, as a reward, change their form after death and return to earth as men. This distinguished traveler also says that he was one day talking with a certain Master Ting, a very shrewd Chinaman, whom he was endeavoring to convert. "But," said Ting, "what is the special object of your preaching Christianity?" "Why, to convert you, and save your soul," said the Abbé. "Well, then, why do you try to convert the women?" asked Master Ting. "To save their souls," said the missionary. "But women have no souls," said Master Ting; "you can't expect to make Christians of women,"—and he was so delighted with the idea that he went out shouting, "Hi! hi! now I shall go home and tell my wife she has a soul, and I guess she will laugh as loudly as I do!"
These were the old Greeks. Will you have Rome? The main legacy of Roman civilization is its law—which forms the basis of our own; and Buckle quotes the great commentator on that law, who claimed that a key feature of Roman law was that it treated women not as individuals, but as property. Or look at the most ancient civilization; to China, which was old when Greece and Rome were still developing. The famous French Jesuit missionary, Abbé Huc, mentions one of the most tragic facts recorded—that there is in China a group of women who believe that if they remain true to certain bonds during their lives, they will, as a reward, transform after death and return to earth as men. This distinguished traveler also recounts that he was once talking with a certain Master Ting, a very shrewd Chinese man, whom he was trying to convert. "But," said Ting, "what is the main goal of your preaching Christianity?" "Why, to convert you and save your soul," said the Abbé. "Well, then, why do you try to convert the women?" asked Master Ting. "To save their souls," said the missionary. "But women have no souls," replied Master Ting; "you can't expect to make Christians of women,"—and he was so amused by the idea that he went out shouting, "Hi! hi! now I shall go home and tell my wife she has a soul, and I guess she will laugh just as much as I do!"
Such were the three old civilizations. Do you think we can disembarrass ourselves of history? Our civilization grows upon roots that spring from the remotest past; and our life, proud as we are of it, is bound up with that of Greece and Rome. Do you think the spirit of our society is wholly different? Let us see. It was my good fortune, only a few weeks ago, to be invited to address the students of Vassar College at Poughkeepsie; which[Pg 797] you will remember is devoted exclusively to the higher education of women. As I stood in those ample halls, and thought of that studious household, of the observatory and its occupants, it seemed to me that, like the German naturalist, who, wandering in the valley of the Amazon, came suddenly upon the Victoria Regia, so there, in the valley of the Hudson, I had come upon one of the finest flowers of our civilization. But in the midst of my enthusiasm I was told by the President that this was the first fully endowed college for women in the world; and from that moment I was alarmed. From behind every door, every tree, I expected to see good Master Ting springing out with his "Hi! hi! you laugh at us Chinese barbarians; you call yourselves in America the head of civilization; you claim that the glory of your civilization is your estimate of women; you sneer at us Chinese for belittling women's souls and squeezing their feet. Who belittle their capacities? Who squeeze their minds?" We must confess it. The old theory of the subservience of women still taints our civilization.
Such were the three ancient civilizations. Do you think we can free ourselves from history? Our civilization grows from roots that reach back to the distant past, and our lives, as proud as we are of them, are linked with those of Greece and Rome. Do you believe the spirit of our society is completely different? Let's take a look. Just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of being invited to speak to the students of Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, which[Pg 797] you will recall is dedicated solely to the higher education of women. As I stood in those expansive halls and thought about that scholarly community, the observatory and its occupants, it felt to me that, like the German naturalist who stumbled upon the Victoria Regia while wandering in the Amazon valley, I had discovered one of the finest achievements of our civilization in the Hudson Valley. But in the middle of my excitement, the President informed me that this was the first fully funded college for women in the world; and from that moment, I felt uneasy. From behind every door, behind every tree, I expected to see good Master Ting leap out, saying, "Hi! hi! You laugh at us Chinese barbarians; you call yourselves the pinnacle of civilization in America; you claim that the greatness of your civilization lies in how you view women; you mock us for diminishing women's souls and binding their feet. Who diminishes their abilities? Who limits their minds?" We must admit it. The old notion of women's subservience still casts a shadow over our civilization.
You open your morning paper and read that on the previous evening there was a meeting of intelligent and experienced women, with some that were not so, which is true of all general meetings of men and women; and these persons demanded the same liberty of choice, and an equal opportunity with all other members of society. But the report of the meeting is received with a shout of derisive laughter that echoes through the press and through private conversation. Gulliver did not take the Lilliputians on his hands and look at them with more utter contempt than the political class of this country, to which the men in this hall belong, take up these women and look at them with infinite, amused disdain. But in the very next column of the same morning paper we find another report, describing a public dinner, at which men only were present. And we read that after the great orators had made their great speeches, in the course of which they complimented woman so prettily, to the delight of the few privileged ladies who stood behind the screens, or looked over the balcony, or peeped in through the cracks of the windows and doors; and when the great orators had retired with the President, amid universal applause, the first Vice-President took the head of the table and punch was brought in. And well toward morning, when the "army" and "navy" and the "press" and the "Common Council" had been toasted and drank, with three times three, and Richard Swiveller, Esq., had sung his celebrated song, "Queen of my soul!" the last regular toast was proposed—"Woman—heaven's last, best gift to man," which was received with tumultuous enthusiasm, the whole company rising and cheering, the band playing "Will ye come to Kelvin Grove, bonnie lassie, O?" and in response to a unanimous call, some gallant and chivalric editor replied in a strain of pathetic and humorous eloquence, during which many of the company were observed to shed tears or laugh, or embrace their neighbors; after which those of the company who were able rose from the table, and hallooing, "We won't go home till morning!" they hiccoughed their way home. This report is not read with great derision or laughter. It is not felt that by this performance women have been insulted and degraded.
You open your morning newspaper and read that the night before, there was a gathering of smart and experienced women, along with some who were not as knowledgeable, which is typical of all general meetings of both men and women. These individuals demanded the same freedom of choice and equal opportunities as everyone else in society. But the report about the meeting gets met with a burst of mocking laughter that echoes through the media and private conversations. Gulliver didn't look at the Lilliputians with more disdain than the political class of this country, to which the men in this hall belong, look at these women with endless, amused contempt. Yet, in the very next column of the same morning paper, there's another report describing a dinner attended only by men. We read that after the distinguished speakers delivered their grand speeches, during which they praised women so nicely to the delight of the few privileged ladies hiding behind screens or peeking over the balcony or through the cracks of windows and doors; and when the distinguished speakers left with the President, amid widespread applause, the first Vice-President took the lead at the table and punch was served. And well into the morning, after toasting the "army," "navy," "press," and the "Common Council" with hearty cheers, and Richard Swiveller, Esq. performed his famous song, "Queen of my soul!", the final toast was suggested—"Woman—heaven's last, best gift to man," which was met with wild enthusiasm, the entire crowd rising and cheering, the band playing "Will ye come to Kelvin Grove, bonnie lassie, O?" In response to a unanimous request, a brave and chivalrous editor replied with a mix of touching and humorous eloquence, during which many in the audience were seen shedding tears or laughing, or hugging their neighbors; after this, those who could stand up from the table, shouting, "We won't go home till morning!" as they drunkenly made their way home. This report doesn't receive the same derision or laughter. It’s not seen as an insult or degradation to women.
Here, at this moment, in this audience, I have no doubt there is many a man who is exclaiming with fervor—"Home, the heaven-appointed sphere of woman."[Pg 798] Very well. I don't deny it, but how do you know it? How can you know it? There is but one law by which any sphere can be determined, and that is perfect liberty of development. I look into history and the society around me, and I see that the position of women which is most agreeable upon the whole to men is that which they call the "heaven-appointed sphere" of woman. It may or may not be so; all that I can see thus far is that men choose to have it so. A gentleman remarks that it is a beautiful ordinance of Providence that pear-trees should grow like vines. And when I say, "Is it so?" he takes me into his garden, and shows me a poor, tortured pear-tree, trained upon a trellis. Then I see that it is the beautiful design of Providence that pear-trees should grow like vines, precisely as Providence ordains that Chinese women shall have small feet; and that the powdered sugar we buy at the grocer's shall be half ground rice. These philosophers might as wisely inform us that Providence ordains Christian saints to be chops and steaks; and then point us to St. Lawrence upon his gridiron.
Right here, right now, I’m sure there are many men in this audience passionately declaring, "Home is the divinely chosen place for women." [Pg 798] That's fine, I won’t argue with that, but how do you really know it? How can you possibly know it? There’s only one rule that can define any role, and that’s complete freedom for growth. I look at history and the world around me, and I see that the position of women that seems most pleasing to men is what they refer to as the "divinely chosen place" for women. It may or may not be true; all I can observe so far is that men prefer it that way. A gentleman claims it’s a wonderful law of nature that pear trees should grow like vines. And when I ask, "Is that really true?" he takes me to his garden and shows me a poor, tortured pear tree, forced to grow on a trellis. Then I realize that it's nature's beautiful design that pear trees should resemble vines, just as it’s dictated that Chinese women should have small feet, and that the powdered sugar we buy at the store is really half ground rice. These philosophers might as well tell us that it’s divine law that Christian saints are meant to be served as chops and steaks, and then point to St. Lawrence on his grill.
Has nature ordained that the lark shall rise fluttering and singing to the sun in the spring? But how should we ever know it, if he were prisoned in a cage with wires of gold never so delicate, or tied with a silken string however slight and soft? Is it the nature of flowers to open to the south wind? How could we know it but that, unconstrained by art, their winking eyes respond to that soft breath? In like manner, what determines the sphere of any morally responsible being, but perfect liberty of choice and liberty of development? Take those away, and you have taken away the possibility of determining the sphere. How do I know my sphere as a man, but by repelling everything that would arbitrarily restrict my choice? How can you know yours as women, but by obedience to the same law?
Has nature decided that the lark will rise, fluttering and singing to the sun in the spring? But how would we ever know, if it were caged in a golden cage, no matter how delicate, or tied with a silken string, however thin and soft? Is it the nature of flowers to open toward the south wind? How could we know, except that, free from constraining art, their blinking petals respond to that gentle breeze? Similarly, what defines the sphere of any morally responsible being, but the absolute freedom of choice and growth? Take those away, and you’ve removed the possibility of defining that sphere. How do I know my role as a man, except by rejecting everything that would arbitrarily limit my choices? How can you know yours as women, except by adhering to the same principle?
It is not the business of either sex to theorize about the sphere of the other. It is the duty of each to secure the liberty of both. Give women, for instance, every opportunity of education that men have. If there are some branches of knowledge improper for them to acquire—some which are in their nature unwomanly—they will know it a thousandfold better than men. And if, having opened the college, there be some woman in whom the love of learning extinguishes all other love, then the heaven-appointed sphere of that woman is not the nursery. It may be the laboratory, the library, the observatory; it may be the platform or the Senate. And if it be either of these, shall we say that education has unsphered and unsexed her? On the contrary, it has enabled that woman to ascertain so far exactly what God meant her to do.
It’s not up to either gender to theorize about the role of the other. Each has the responsibility to ensure the freedom of both. Give women, for example, the same educational opportunities that men have. If there are areas of knowledge that aren’t suitable for them—some that are inherently unfeminine—they’ll understand that far better than men. And if, after opening the college, there’s a woman who is so passionate about learning that it overshadows everything else, then that woman’s rightful place is not just at home. It could be in the lab, the library, the observatory; it could be on the stage or in the Senate. If that’s the case, should we say that education has taken away her womanhood or place in society? No, it has actually allowed her to discover what she is truly meant to do.
The woman's rights movement is the simple claim, that the same opportunity and liberty that a man has in civilized society shall be extended to the woman who stands at his side—equal or unequal in special powers, but an equal member of society. She must prove her power as he proves his.
The women's rights movement is the straightforward demand that the same opportunities and freedoms a man has in modern society should also be given to the woman beside him—whether she is equal or different in specific abilities, but equally part of society. She must demonstrate her strength just as he does.
And so when Joan of Arc follows God and leads the army; when the Maid of Saragossa loads and fires the cannon; when Mrs. Stowe makes her pen the heaven-appealing tongue of an outraged race; when Grace Darling and Ida Lewis, pulling their boats through the pitiless waves, save fellow-creatures from drowning; when Mrs. Patten, the captain's wife, at sea—her husband lying helplessly ill in his cabin—puts everybody aside, and herself steers the ship to port, do you ask me whether these are not exceptional[Pg 799] women? I am a man and you are women; but Florence Nightingale, demanding supplies for the sick soldiers in the Crimea, and when they are delayed by red tape, ordering a file of soldiers to break down the doors and bring them, which they do—for the brave love bravery—seems to me quite as womanly as the loveliest girl in the land, dancing at the gayest ball in a dress of which the embroidery is the pinched lines of starvation in another girl's face. Jenny Lind enchanting the heart of a nation; Anna Dickinson pleading for the equal liberty of her sex; Lucretia Mott, publicly bearing her testimony against the sin of slavery, are doing what God, by His great gifts of eloquence and song, appointed them to do. And whatever generous and noble duty, either in a private or a public sphere, God gives any woman the will and the power to do, that, and that only, for her, is feminine.
And so when Joan of Arc follows God and leads the army; when the Maid of Saragossa loads and fires the cannon; when Mrs. Stowe makes her pen the voice of an outraged race; when Grace Darling and Ida Lewis, pulling their boats through the merciless waves, save others from drowning; when Mrs. Patten, the captain's wife, at sea—her husband lying helplessly ill in his cabin—puts everyone aside and steers the ship to safety herself, do you ask me if these are not exceptional women? I am a man and you are women; but Florence Nightingale, demanding supplies for the sick soldiers in the Crimea, and when they are delayed by bureaucracy, ordering a group of soldiers to break down the doors and bring them, which they do—for the courageous inspire courage—seems to me just as womanly as the prettiest girl in the land dancing at the liveliest ball in a dress that reflects the pinched lines of starvation in another girl's face. Jenny Lind enchanting the heart of a nation; Anna Dickinson advocating for the equal rights of her gender; Lucretia Mott, publicly speaking out against the sin of slavery, are doing what God, with His great gifts of eloquence and song, called them to do. And whatever generous and noble duty, whether in a private or public sphere, God gives any woman the will and the power to do, that, and only that, for her, is feminine.
But have women, then, no sphere as women? Undoubtedly they have, as men have a sphere as men. If a woman is a mother, God gives her certain affections, and cares springing from them, which we may be very sure she will not forget, and to which, just in the degree that she is a true woman, she will be fondly faithful. We need not think that it is necessary to fence her in, nor to suppose that she would try to evade these duties and responsibilities, if perfect liberty were given her. As Sydney Smith said of education, we need not fear that if girls study Greek and mathematics, mothers will desert their infants for quadratic equations, or verbs in mi.
But do women not have their own unique roles? Of course they do, just like men have theirs. If a woman is a mother, she naturally has certain feelings and responsibilities that she will always hold dear, and to the extent that she embraces her identity as a woman, she will be devoted to them. We don't need to confine her or assume she would shy away from these duties if she was given complete freedom. Just like Sydney Smith said about education, we shouldn't worry that if girls study Greek and math, mothers will abandon their babies for quadratic equations or verb conjugations in mi.
But the sphere of the family is not the sole sphere either of men or women. They are not only parents, they are human beings, with genius, talents, aspirations, ambition. They are also members of the State, and from the very equality of the parental function which perpetuates the State, they are equally interested in its welfare.
But the family isn't the only area where men and women exist. They're not just parents; they're individuals with intelligence, talents, dreams, and ambitions. They're also citizens, and because their equal roles as parents help sustain the State, they care equally about its well-being.
Is it said that she influences the man now? Very well; do you object to that? And if not, is there any reason why she should not do directly what she does indirectly? If it is proper that her opinion should influence a man's vote, is there any good reason why it should not be independently expressed? Or is it said that she is represented by men? Excuse me; I belong to a country which said, with James Otis in the forum, and with George Washington in the field, that there is no such thing as virtual representation. The guarantee of equal opportunity in modern society is the ballot. It may be a clumsy contrivance, but it is the best we have yet found. In our system a man without a vote is but half a man. So long as women are forbidden political equality, the laws and feelings of society will be unjust to them.
Is it said that she influences the man now? Well, do you have a problem with that? And if not, is there any reason why she shouldn't do directly what she does indirectly? If it's acceptable for her opinion to influence a man's vote, is there any good reason why it can't be expressed independently? Or is it said that she is represented by men? Excuse me; I come from a country that asserted, with James Otis in the forum and George Washington in the field, that there's no such thing as virtual representation. The guarantee of equal opportunity in modern society is the ballot. It might be a clumsy system, but it's the best we've come up with so far. In our system, a man without a vote is only half a man. As long as women are denied political equality, the laws and attitudes of society will be unjust to them.
I have no more superstitious notions about the ballot than about any other method of social improvement and progress. But all experience shows that my neighbor's ballot is no protection for me. We see that voters may be bribed, dazzled, coerced; and, where there is practically universal suffrage among men, we often see, indeed, corruption, waste, and bad laws. But we nowhere see that those who once have the ballot are willing to relinquish it, and many of those who most warmly oppose the voting of women also most earnestly advocate the unconditional restoration of political rights to the guiltiest of the late rebel leaders, because they know that to deprive them of the ballot places them at a terrible disadvantage. If then it is what I may call an American political instinct, that any class of[Pg 800] men which monopolizes the political power will be unjust to other classes of men, how much truer is it that one sex as a class will be unjust to the other.
I don't have any superstitious beliefs about voting any more than I do about other ways to improve society and make progress. However, all evidence shows that my neighbor's vote doesn't protect me. We see that voters can be bribed, misled, or pressured; and where there is nearly universal male suffrage, we often witness corruption, waste, and poor laws. Yet, we never see those who have the vote willingly give it up, and many of those who passionately oppose women's voting also strongly support giving political rights back to the most guilty of the former rebel leaders, knowing that taking away their vote puts them at a serious disadvantage. If it's an American political instinct that any group of men holding all the political power will be unfair to other groups of men, how much truer is it that one sex as a group will be unfair to the other?
I know, as every man knows, many a woman of the noblest character, of the highest intelligence, of the purest purpose, the owner of property, the mother of children, devoted to her family and to all her duties, and for that reason profoundly interested in public affairs. And when this woman says to me, "You are one of the governing class. Your Government is founded upon the principle of expressed consent of all as the best security of all. I have as much stake in it as you—perhaps more than you, because I am a parent—and wish more than many of my neighbors to express my opinion and assert my influence by a ballot. I am a better judge than you or any man can be of my own responsibilities and powers. I am willing to bear my equal share of every burden of the Government in such manner as we shall all equally decide to be best. By what right, then, except that of mere force, do you deny me a voice in the laws which I am forced to obey?" What shall I say? What can I say? Shall I tell her that she is "owned" by some living man, or is some dead man's "relict," as the old phrase was? Shall I tell her that she ought to be ashamed of herself for wishing to be unsexed; that God has given her the nursery, the ball-room, the opera, and that, if these fail, He has graciously provided the kitchen, the wash-tub, and the needle? Or shall I tell her that she is a lute, a moonbeam, a rosebud; and touch my guitar, and weave flowers in her hair, and sing:
I know, as everyone knows, many women of noble character, high intelligence, and pure intentions, who own property, are mothers, are devoted to their families, and take their responsibilities seriously, making them deeply interested in public matters. When this woman tells me, "You're part of the ruling class. Your government is based on the idea of everyone’s consent as the best way to protect us all. I have just as much at stake as you—maybe even more, since I'm a parent—and I want to express my opinion and make my voice heard through my vote. I know my own responsibilities and capabilities better than you or any man does. I'm ready to share in the government's burdens in a way we can all decide together is fair. So, by what right, other than brute force, do you deny me a say in the laws I have to follow?" What can I say? What should I say? Should I tell her that she is "owned" by some living man, or just a widow of some dead man, as they used to say? Should I shame her for wanting to be treated equally, claiming that God has given her the home, the social events, and the arts, and if those aren’t available, He’s kindly provided the kitchen, the laundry, and sewing? Or should I say she is like a lute, a moonbeam, a rosebud; and pick up my guitar, weave flowers in her hair, and sing:
"Gay without toil and lovely without art,
They spring to cheer the sense and glad the heart;
Nor blush, my fair, to own you copy these,
Your best, your sweetest empire is to please"?
No, no. At least, I will not insult her. I can say nothing. I hang my head before that woman, as when in foreign lands I was asked, "You are an American. That is the nation that forever boasts of the equal liberty of all its citizens, and is the only great nation in the world that traffics in human flesh!"
No, no. At least, I won't insult her. I can’t say anything. I hang my head in front of that woman, like when I was asked in foreign countries, "You’re an American. That’s the country that always boasts about the equal rights of all its citizens and is the only great nation in the world that deals in human trafficking!"
The very moment women passed out of the degradation of the Greek household and the contempt of the Roman law, they began their long and slow ascent through prejudice, sophistry, and passion to their perfect equality of choice and opportunity as human beings; and the assertion that when a majority of women ask for equal political rights they will be granted, is a confession that there is no conclusive reason against their sharing them. And if that be so, how can their admission rightfully depend upon the majority? Why should the woman who does not care to vote prevent the voting of her neighbor who does? Why should a hundred fools who are content to be dolls and do what Mrs. Grundy expects, prejudice the choice of a single one who wishes to be a woman and do what her conscience requires? You tell me that the great mass of women are uninterested, indifferent, and, upon the whole, hostile to the movement. You say what of course you can not know, but even if it were so, what then? There are some of the noblest and best of women, both in this country and in England, who are not indifferent. They are the women who have thought for themselves upon the subject. The others (the great multitude) are those who have not thought[Pg 801] at all; who have acquiesced in the old order, and who have accepted the prejudices of men. Shall their unthinking acquiescence or the intelligent wish of their thoughtful sisters decide the question?
The moment women broke free from the oppression of the Greek household and the disdain of Roman law, they started their long and gradual journey through bias, manipulation, and emotion towards true equality in choice and opportunity as human beings. The claim that when a majority of women demand equal political rights they will be granted is an admission that there is no valid reason to deny them. If that's the case, how can their acceptance justifiably depend on the majority? Why should a woman who doesn't want to vote block her neighbor who does? Why should a hundred people satisfied to be passive and conform to societal expectations dictate the choices of even one woman who wants to embrace her identity and follow her conscience? You say that most women are uninterested, indifferent, and generally opposed to the movement. You’re speaking from a perspective you can't fully understand, but even if that's true, so what? There are many of the most admirable and virtuous women in both this country and England who are deeply engaged. They are the ones who have critically thought about the issue. The others (the vast majority) have not thought at all; they have simply accepted the old ways and the biases of men. Should their mindless acceptance or the informed desire of their aware sisters determine the outcome?
We can be patient. Our fathers won their independence of England by the logic of English ideas. We will persuade America by the eloquence of American principles. In one of the fierce Western battles among the mountains, General Thomas was watching a body of his troops painfully pushing their way up a steep hill against a withering fire. Victory seemed impossible, and the General—even he a rock of valor and patriotism—exclaimed, "They can't do it; they'll never reach the top!" His chief-of-staff, watching the struggle with equal earnestness, placed his hand on his commander's arm and said softly, "Time, time, General; give them time;" and presently the moist eyes of the brave leader saw his soldiers victorious upon the summit. They were American soldiers. So are we. They were fighting our American battle. So are we. They were climbing a precipice. So are we. The great heart of their General gave them time and they conquered. The great heart of our country will give us time and we shall triumph.
We can be patient. Our fathers won their independence from England through the reasoning of English ideas. We will convince America with the power of American principles. During one of the intense battles in the mountains, General Thomas was watching a group of his troops struggling to climb a steep hill while facing heavy fire. Victory seemed impossible, and the General—even he, a pillar of courage and patriotism—exclaimed, "They can't do it; they'll never reach the top!" His chief of staff, observing the effort with equal seriousness, placed his hand on his commander's arm and said softly, "Time, time, General; give them time;" and soon the tearful eyes of the brave leader saw his soldiers victorious at the summit. They were American soldiers. So are we. They were fighting our American battle. So are we. They were climbing a cliff. So are we. The great heart of their General gave them time and they succeeded. The great heart of our country will give us time and we will prevail.
Mrs. Lucy Stone then introduced Hon. George W. Julian, member of Congress from Indiana. "His name," she said, "will always be held in grateful remembrance by good women as the author of the XVI. Amendment."
Mrs. Lucy Stone then introduced Hon. George W. Julian, a member of Congress from Indiana. "His name," she said, "will always be remembered with gratitude by good women as the author of the XVI. Amendment."
Mr. Julian said that, as a thorough-going radical in politics and a sincere believer in democracy as a principle, he could not see how he was to argue the question of woman suffrage, even if he had the time. Woman's rights, to his mind, rested upon precisely the same grounds upon which men's rights rest; and to argue the question of woman's rights is to argue the question of human rights. Subscribing as he did to the great primal truth of the sacredness of human rights, the same logic which held him to that compelled him—it is inexorable logic—to stand by the legitimate results to which it leads. The issue was between aristocracy and privilege on one side, and democracy and equality of inherent right on the other. Speaking of the XVI. Amendment, he said: "Believing as I do in democracy in the large and proper and full sense of the term, and being unwilling to write myself down a hypocrite or liar by refusing to women equal participation in rights which I insist upon for myself as a citizen of the United States, I thought it was my duty to introduce into the Congress of the United States a XVI. Amendment to the Constitution proposing to give to one half of our citizens who are to-day disfranchised a voice in the system of laws and government by which the other half of the citizens now govern them. Should it succeed, you will have a true and real democracy in this land; a Government emphatically of the people, for the people, and by the people.
Mr. Julian stated that, as a committed radical in politics and a genuine believer in democracy, he couldn’t see how he could even discuss the issue of women’s suffrage, even if he had the time. He believed that women's rights were based on the same principles as men’s rights; to debate women’s rights is to debate human rights. Since he subscribed to the fundamental truth of the importance of human rights, the same logic that held him to that truth compelled him—it is an unyielding logic—to support the legitimate outcomes it leads to. The issue was between aristocracy and privilege on one side, and democracy and equality of inherent rights on the other. Regarding the XVI. Amendment, he said: "Since I believe in democracy in its truest and fullest sense, and I refuse to label myself a hypocrite or liar by denying women equal rights that I demand for myself as a citizen of the United States, I thought it was my duty to propose a XVI. Amendment to the Constitution in Congress, aimed at giving the half of our citizens who are currently disenfranchised a voice in the laws and government under which the other half governs them. If it succeeds, you will witness a true and genuine democracy in this nation; a government that is distinctly of the people, for the people, and by the people."
Mrs. Celia Burleigh was then introduced, and said: Ladies and gentlemen, I am not generally in favor of compromises, but I come before you to-night to propose a compromise. I had written a speech for the occasion, and—a—I assure you it was a very good speech. As I am compassionate, however, if you will take my word for it that it is a very good speech I will not inflict it upon you.
Mrs. Celia Burleigh was then introduced and said: Ladies and gentlemen, I usually don’t support compromises, but I’m here tonight to suggest one. I had prepared a speech for this occasion, and—believe me, it was a really good speech. However, out of kindness, if you’ll trust me that it’s a really good speech, I won’t put you through it.
These remarks brought such thunders of applause, that in response to the[Pg 802] manifest desire of the audience, Mrs. Burleigh again came forward, and delivered a highly interesting and eloquent address upon the general subject of woman's improvement, under the epigrammatic title of "Woman's Right to be a Woman." An extract or two will show the spirit with which she treats the question.
These comments received such thunderous applause that, in response to the[Pg 802] clear desire of the audience, Mrs. Burleigh stepped up again and gave a very engaging and powerful speech on the overall topic of women's progress, titled "A Woman's Right to Be a Woman." A few excerpts will highlight the approach she takes to the issue.
"I appeal to every true man before me if he has not looked into the faces of well-dressed men so sensual and brutal in their expression, that he would sooner a hundredfold see a sister or daughter laid in her grave than entrusted to the guardianship of such a man. Will you not give to every woman the power to maintain the integrity of her womanhood—the ownership of herself? What means the right of the drunkard's wife to be a woman? It means the power to protect herself from his drunken hate and his more frightful drunken love. It means that she be armed with a vote to repress the horrid traffic that has made her husband a brute, or, failing to save him, that she escape with untarnished honor from his polluting arms. What signifies the right to be a woman to her who must endure the daily contact of a social villain, if it be not to have all human virtue as her ally when she snaps the tie that binds her to him, and vindicates the Divine validity of marriage by breaking the fetters of the fatal sham? What is involved in the right of the Magdalen to be a woman redeemed and disenthralled from the bondage of sin? What but the entire reconstruction of society with purity for a law and charity for the executive; with more of the divine mother in man, more of manly courage and self-respecting dignity in woman; in both more reverence for humanity and a more abiding faith in the indestructible possibilities of good in every human soul."
"I call on every true man here to reflect if he has not seen the faces of well-dressed men, so sensual and brutal in their expression, that he would rather see his sister or daughter laid to rest than entrusted to the care of such a man. Will you not give every woman the power to protect her womanhood—the right to own herself? What does it mean for a drunkard’s wife to be considered a woman? It means she has the ability to safeguard herself from his drunken rage and his even more terrifying drunken affection. It means she should have the right to vote to help end the awful trade that has turned her husband into a monster, or if she cannot save him, to escape with her honor intact from his corrupting grasp. What does the right to be a woman mean to someone who must endure the constant presence of a social villain, if not having all human virtues as her support when she breaks free from him and upholds the sacred truth of marriage by tearing apart the chains of this deadly illusion? What does it mean for the Magdalen to have the right to be a woman redeemed from the bondage of sin? It means a complete overhaul of society where purity is the law and kindness is the guiding principle; where there’s more divine femininity in men, and more manly courage and self-respect in women; where both show greater respect for humanity and a lasting belief in the unbreakable potential for good in every human soul."
The Convention then adjourned sine die.
The Convention then adjourned sine die.
The First Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association was held in Cleveland, Ohio, Nov. 22 and 23, 1870.
The First Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association took place in Cleveland, Ohio, on November 22 and 23, 1870.
Col. T. W. Higginson, first Vice-President, called the meeting to order, and addressed the audience substantially as follows:
Col. T. W. Higginson, the first Vice-President, called the meeting to order and spoke to the audience mostly as follows:
REMARKS OF COLONEL HIGGINSON.
Ladies and Gentlemen: I heartily congratulate you that you are again called together in this goodly city of Cleveland.
Ladies and Gentlemen: I sincerely congratulate you on coming together again in this wonderful city of Cleveland.
We stand to-day at the cradle of the Association, a child one year old, to celebrate its first birthday. There is nothing in the record of the past year that we have to blush for, or that we have to undo. If our work has been limited in its success, it has been because we have been limited in means. If we have not transformed the entire world it has been because the world has not poured its money into our coffers. But the great fact remains, as much as if we had accomplished a work ten times as large, that we have a great central organization, to which ten States have given a cordial and hearty support. Congress at Washington is but a small body. The amount it annually does and spends is nothing to that done and spent by the State governments. It is the keystone of our great national arch, the string upon which all State governments are strung. And so this Association is the keystone upon which all the auxiliary State organizations depend.
We stand today at the beginning of the Association, a one-year-old entity, to celebrate its first birthday. There’s nothing in the record of the past year that we need to be ashamed of or that we need to undo. If our efforts have had limited success, it’s because we’ve had limited resources. If we haven’t changed the entire world, it’s because the world hasn’t contributed enough to our cause. But the important fact remains, just as if we had achieved something ten times greater, that we have a significant central organization, which ten States have shown strong and enthusiastic support for. Congress in Washington is just a small group. What it accomplishes and spends annually is nothing compared to what State governments do and spend. It is the keystone of our great national structure, the string on which all State governments are connected. Likewise, this Association is the keystone upon which all the auxiliary State organizations rely.
We meet here to-day, in a delegate meeting, for full and free discussion; none are proscribed, none prescribed. If there is anything new to be done,[Pg 803] now is the time to do it; if anything wrong was done last year, now is the time to rectify it. This is the great, golden opportunity of this Association. It is especial cause for rejoicing that it is organized for a specific purpose, to secure the ballot to women, everything else being held for the time in abeyance. Early in the movement in behalf of women the broad platform of "woman's rights" was adopted. This was all proper and right then, but the progress of reform has developed the fact that suffrage for woman is the great key that will unlock to her the doors of social and political equality. This should be the first point of concentrated attack. Suffrage is not the only object, but it is the first, to be attained. When we gave our Association that name we escaped a vast deal of discussion and argument, for its object can not be misunderstood. But after that is gained there will be worlds yet to conquer. If the conservatives think that because it is called the Woman Suffrage Association it has no further object, they are greatly mistaken. Its purpose and aim are to equalize the sexes in all the relations of life; to reduce the inequalities that now exist in matters of education, in social life and in the professions—to make them equal in all respects, before the law, society, and the world. With this burden upon our shoulders we can not carry all the other ills of the world in addition, we must take one thing at a time. Suffrage for woman gained, and all else will speedily follow.
We’re here today for a delegate meeting to have an open and honest discussion; no one is excluded, and no one is restricted. If there’s anything new to tackle, now is the time to do it; if anything went wrong last year, now is the time to fix it. This is a crucial opportunity for this Association. It’s especially encouraging that it’s organized for a specific purpose: securing the ballot for women, while everything else is on hold for now. Early in the movement for women’s rights, we adopted a broad platform of “women’s rights.” That was appropriate and right at the time, but the progress of reform has shown that suffrage for women is the key to unlocking social and political equality for them. This should be our primary focus. Suffrage isn’t the only goal, but it is the first one we need to achieve. By naming our Association as we did, we avoided a lot of misunderstandings and arguments because its purpose is clear. However, once we achieve that goal, there will still be many challenges ahead. If conservatives think that because we’re called the Woman Suffrage Association we have no further goals, they’re very mistaken. Our aim is to equalize the sexes in all aspects of life; to reduce the inequalities that currently exist in education, social life, and professions—to make them equal in every way, under the law, in society, and in the world. With this responsibility on our shoulders, we cannot take on all the other issues of the world at once; we must focus on one thing at a time. Once we secure suffrage for women, everything else will quickly follow.
H. B. Blackwell, Chairman of the Committee on Credentials, presented the report of delegates present.[188]
H. B. Blackwell, Chair of the Committee on Credentials, shared the report of the present delegates.[188]
On motion of Mrs. Dr. Ferguson, seconded by Judge Bradwell, each delegation was authorized to cast the full vote of the State it represents. The number of votes to which each State was entitled was declared to be that of its Congressional representation.
On a motion from Mrs. Dr. Ferguson, seconded by Judge Bradwell, each delegation was allowed to cast the full vote of their respective State. The number of votes each State was entitled to was confirmed to be based on its Congressional representation.
Mrs. Lucy Stone, Chairman of the Executive Committee, read the
Mrs. Lucy Stone, Chair of the Executive Committee, read the
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
Annual Report of the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the American Woman Suffrage Association:
Annual Report of the Chair of the Executive Committee of the American Woman Suffrage Association:
The American Woman Suffrage Association was formed in this city one year ago under the most favorable auspices. Its one great object is to secure the ballot for woman. Through the power this will give, she may take her true place, free to use every gift and[Pg 804] faculty she possesses, subject only to the law of benevolence. This organization has been vastly influential in securing public sympathy and respect for our ideas. The very names of its officers gave confidence, and through their confidence the cause has received large accessions of strength. We have already nine auxiliary State societies. Each of these has held conventions. Some have employed lecturers, some have organized county and local societies. All have circulated tracts and petitions. Ohio, Indiana, and Massachusetts have been especially abundant in labor. Ohio has thirty-one local societies, Indiana twenty-five, and Massachusetts five. These States have had a force of excellent speakers in the field, who, with rare self-forgetting, have worked as only those can who work with whole-hearted faith for immortal principles.
The American Woman Suffrage Association was established in this city a year ago under very promising circumstances. Its main goal is to secure the right to vote for women. With this power, women can take their rightful place and freely use all their talents and abilities, guided only by the principle of kindness. This organization has been extremely influential in gaining public support and respect for our ideas. The names of its officers instilled confidence, and this trust has strengthened the movement significantly. We already have nine local State societies. Each of these has held conventions. Some have hired speakers, while others have set up county and local groups. All of them have distributed pamphlets and petitions. Ohio, Indiana, and Massachusetts have particularly excelled in their efforts. Ohio has thirty-one local societies, Indiana twenty-five, and Massachusetts five. These states have had a strong lineup of outstanding speakers who, with remarkable selflessness, have worked tirelessly, driven by their deep commitment to enduring values.
Under the auspices of this Association, a canvass was made in the State of Vermont. The sole reason which induced the Executive Committee to undertake this special work was that the Council of Censors had submitted a proposition that "henceforth women may vote, and with no other restrictions than are prescribed for men." A Vermont State Woman Suffrage Association was organized, auxiliary to the American Society.
Under the guidance of this Association, a survey was conducted in the State of Vermont. The only reason the Executive Committee decided to take on this task was that the Council of Censors had proposed that "from now on, women may vote, and with no other restrictions than those placed on men." A Vermont State Woman Suffrage Association was formed, serving as an extension of the American Society.
The speech of Mr. Curtis at our May mass meeting, so admirable in style and substance we have published in a tract entitled "Fair Play for Women." Thousands of copies have been sent to all parts of the United States. It is doing its silent work by quiet firesides, where hard-working men and women, who can never attend a convention, can find time to read. We have published seven tracts, which had previously been sold at $5.00 a hundred, at the actual cost of $2.00 per hundred, and keep them constantly for sale at these low prices. They have been scattered broadcast, and the good seed thus sown will bear fruit in due season.
The speech by Mr. Curtis at our May mass meeting, which is impressive in both style and content, is published in a pamphlet called "Fair Play for Women." Thousands of copies have been distributed across the United States. It's quietly making an impact in homes where hardworking men and women, who can’t attend a convention, find the time to read. We’ve published seven pamphlets, which were previously sold for $5.00 per hundred, now available at the actual cost of $2.00 per hundred, and we keep them in stock at these low prices. They have been widely distributed, and the good seeds planted will bear fruit in due time.
There has been steady progress in our ideas during the whole year. The Woman's Journal, established last January, and since consolidated with the Woman's Advocate, of Ohio, is constantly increasing its circulation, more than a thousand new subscribers having been added within a single month.
There has been steady progress in our ideas throughout the entire year. The Woman's Journal, which was launched last January and has since merged with the Woman's Advocate from Ohio, is consistently growing its circulation, with over a thousand new subscribers added in just one month.
One of the most significant signs of progress is found in the recent action of the Republican party in Massachusetts. Their State Convention unanimously admitted Mary A. Livermore and Lucy Stone, who were regularly accredited delegates from the towns of Melrose and West Brookfield. A resolution in favor of making woman suffrage part of the platform was reported by the Committee on Resolutions. A change of only 29 votes out of 331 would have made woman suffrage this year a part of the Republican platform of Massachusetts. Thus women have been admitted to represent men in a political State Convention. The next step will be that women will represent themselves.
One of the most important signs of progress is seen in the recent actions of the Republican party in Massachusetts. Their State Convention unanimously welcomed Mary A. Livermore and Lucy Stone, who were officially recognized delegates from the towns of Melrose and West Brookfield. A resolution to include women's suffrage in the party platform was brought forward by the Committee on Resolutions. If there had been a change of just 29 votes out of 331, women's suffrage would have been part of the Republican platform in Massachusetts this year. This shows that women have been allowed to represent men in a political State Convention. The next step will be for women to represent themselves.
With all these cheering indications, we have only to keep our question of woman's right to the ballot clear and unmixed with other issues, and the growing public sympathy will soon carry our cause to a successful issue.
With all these encouraging signs, we just need to keep our focus on the question of women's right to vote clear and separate from other issues, and the increasing public support will soon lead our cause to a successful outcome.
Judge Bradwell, of Chicago, presented the following letter to the Chair, which was read to the Association:
Judge Bradwell from Chicago submitted the following letter to the Chair, which was read to the Association:
To the American Woman Suffrage Association;
To the American Woman Suffrage Association;
Friends and Co-Workers: We, the undersigned, a committee appointed by the Union Woman Suffrage Society in New York, May, 1870, to confer with you on the subject of merging the two organizations into one, respectfully announce:
Friends and Co-Workers: We, the undersigned, a committee chosen by the Union Woman Suffrage Society in New York, May 1870, to discuss the possibility of merging the two organizations into one, respectfully announce:
1st. That in our judgment no difference exists between the objects and methods of the two societies, nor any good reason for keeping them apart.
1st. In our opinion, there’s no difference between the aims and methods of the two societies, nor any valid reason to separate them.
2d. That the society we represent has invested us with full power to arrange with you a union of both under a single constitution and executive.
2d. That the organization we represent has given us full authority to establish a union of both under one constitution and executive.
3d. That we ask you to appoint a committee of equal number and authority with our own, to consummate if possible this happy result.
3d. We ask you to appoint a committee with the same number of members and authority as ours, to help bring this positive outcome to completion if possible.
Yours, in the common cause of woman's enfranchisement,
Yours, in the shared effort for women's rights,
Laura Curtis Bullard, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Gerrit Smith, Samuel J. May, Sarah Pugh, Charlotte E. Wilbour, Frederick Douglass, Josephine S. Griffing, Mattie Griffith Brown, Theodore Tilton, ex officio. James W. Stillman, Judge Bradwell made a few remarks on the subject of the letter, advocating the union of the two organizations, and proposing the following resolution:
Judge Bradwell shared a few thoughts about the letter, supporting the merger of the two groups, and suggested the following resolution:
Whereas, In Article II. of the Constitution of the American Woman Suffrage Association it is stated, "Its object shall be to concentrate the efforts of all the advocates of woman suffrage in the United States," and whereas the Union Woman Suffrage Association, of which Theodore Tilton is President, has appointed a committee of eleven persons with full power to agree upon a basis for the union of the two national associations, now, therefore, be it
Whereas, in Article II of the Constitution of the American Woman Suffrage Association, it states, "Its purpose is to focus the efforts of all supporters of woman suffrage in the United States," and whereas the Union Woman Suffrage Association, led by President Theodore Tilton, has formed a committee of eleven people with full authority to establish a foundation for uniting the two national associations, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the convention for the purpose of carrying out the object of said association, as expressed in said Article II., and concentrating the efforts of all the friends of woman suffrage throughout the Union for national purposes, do hereby appoint.... who, with the eleven persons heretofore appointed by said Woman Suffrage Society, shall compose a joint committee with full power to form a union of the American Woman Suffrage Association and the Union Woman Suffrage Society under one constitution and one set of officers. It is further provided, after notice to all, that a majority of said joint committee shall have power to act.
Resolved, That the convention, aimed at achieving the goals of the association as outlined in Article II, and uniting the efforts of all supporters of women's suffrage across the nation for national objectives, hereby appoints... who, along with the eleven individuals previously appointed by the Woman Suffrage Society, will form a joint committee with full authority to establish a union between the American Woman Suffrage Association and the Union Woman Suffrage Society under a single constitution and set of officers. It is also specified that, after notifying everyone, a majority of this joint committee will have the power to make decisions.
The above was referred to the Committee on Resolutions.
The above was sent to the Committee on Resolutions.
At the afternoon session Vice-President Higginson invited the Vice-Presidents of the associations of different States to seats upon the platform.
At the afternoon session, Vice-President Higginson invited the Vice-Presidents of the state associations to take seats on the platform.
Mrs. Lucy Stone was introduced, and gave an interesting account of the course pursued by her and Mrs. Livermore in a Massachusetts convention. Here the two ladies were received as delegates, took their places among the regular delegates of the convention, and voted with them. After that they urged their lady friends to attend the ward meetings. The women of Massachusetts, she said, paid taxes on $100,000,000 of property, the women of Boston on $40,000,000. She thought it good policy to work inside the parties.
Mrs. Lucy Stone was introduced and shared an engaging account of what she and Mrs. Livermore did at a convention in Massachusetts. The two women were welcomed as delegates, took their seats among the regular delegates of the convention, and voted alongside them. After that, they encouraged their female friends to join the local meetings. She mentioned that the women of Massachusetts paid taxes on $100 million worth of property, while the women of Boston contributed on $40 million. She believed it was a smart strategy to work within the political parties.
Mrs. Dr. Ferguson, of Indiana, thought it necessary to begin by sowing the seeds of the doctrine. Meetings had been held in different parts of the State. One was held on the sidewalk, was well attended, and was followed by a large meeting. Soon after, conventions were held, and though many women were afraid to take hold of the subject, others advocated it with full force. We have organized fourteen local societies. Some of these are sending out their lecturers.
Mrs. Dr. Ferguson from Indiana felt it was important to start spreading the word about the doctrine. Meetings had taken place in various locations throughout the state. One occurred on the sidewalk, drew a good crowd, and was followed by a large gathering. Shortly after, conventions were organized, and although many women were hesitant to engage with the topic, others passionately supported it. We have set up fourteen local societies, some of which are sending out their speakers.
Col. T. W. Higginson reported that the Rhode Island Society was endeavoring to obtain the appointment of women as superintendents of reform institutions. We should have matrons in all the prisons where women are confined. I would therefore urge upon all women in their respective cities to labor in this direction. Men will vote for placing women upon all these boards.
Col. T. W. Higginson reported that the Rhode Island Society was trying to get women appointed as superintendents of reform institutions. We need to have matrons in all the prisons where women are held. Therefore, I urge all women in their cities to work towards this goal. Men will support putting women on all these boards.
Judge Bradwell, of Chicago, made a short report on the condition of the suffrage party in his State.
Judge Bradwell from Chicago gave a brief update on the status of the suffrage party in his state.
Dr. Child, of Pennsylvania, said: The suggestions of our President are very important. Woman should have a position by the side of man in all public institutions. I am happy to say that in the city of Philadelphia, founded by William Penn, and to a considerable extent still under the influence of Friends, women do participate largely in our benevolent institutions and prisons. Our State organization was formed on the 22d of December last, and is auxiliary to the American Association. Our principal labor has been to increase the circulation of the Woman's Journal and circulate tracts.[Pg 806]
Dr. Child, from Pennsylvania, stated: The suggestions from our President are very significant. Women should have a role alongside men in all public institutions. I'm pleased to mention that in Philadelphia, founded by William Penn and still significantly influenced by the Friends, women actively participate in our charitable institutions and prisons. Our state organization was established on December 22nd of last year and is associated with the American Association. Our main effort has been to boost the circulation of the Woman's Journal and distribute pamphlets.[Pg 806]
Rev. Oscar Clute, of New Jersey, thought that his State had done more for the cause of woman suffrage than many others. Mary F. Davis and others had resided there.
Rev. Oscar Clute, from New Jersey, believed that his state had contributed more to the movement for women's suffrage than many others. Mary F. Davis and others had lived there.
Mrs. M. V. Longley reported that in Ohio desirable progress was manifested, and that if the coming year was as successful as the past the cause would progress well. Societies, some thirty-two in number, had been organized, and everywhere the work went on well.
Mrs. M. V. Longley reported that in Ohio, there was noticeable progress, and that if the coming year was as successful as the last, the cause would continue to thrive. About thirty-two societies had been established, and the work was progressing well everywhere.
Mr. Henry B. Blackwell made a report for New Hampshire, where he was assured by Mrs. White and Pipher, now present, that the cause had never been so strong before.
Mr. Henry B. Blackwell reported for New Hampshire, where he was told by Mrs. White and Pipher, who are now present, that the cause has never been stronger than it is now.
Owing to the exceedingly inclement weather, the attendance upon the evening session of the Convention was light.
Due to the extremely bad weather, attendance at the evening session of the Convention was low.
All the States represented having reported except Missouri, Mrs. Hazard, one of the delegates from that State, spoke briefly, showing that the movement is making satisfactory advance.
All the states represented have reported except Missouri. Mrs. Hazard, one of the delegates from that state, spoke briefly, indicating that the movement is progressing well.
Judge Whitehead, New Jersey, regarded the woman suffrage question as the most important topic before the American people. The only question to be asked in connection with this movement is, is it right, is it just?—not, is it expedient? With regard to the legal and constitutional conditions of this question, he said that he believed that women had a right to vote without any change in the organic law of the Nation. The speaker proceeded to discuss this question at some length, with the purpose of demonstrating that in virtue of the principle and practice of the Government of the United States in securing the ballot to men, the right to vote equally belonged to women. The speaker continued at length in advocacy of the ballot for woman as a necessity for securing her rights and remedying her wrongs.
Judge Whitehead, New Jersey, viewed the issue of women's suffrage as the most crucial topic for Americans. The only question to consider regarding this movement is whether it is right and just—not whether it is convenient. In terms of the legal and constitutional aspects of this issue, he stated that he believed women had the right to vote without any amendments to the fundamental laws of the Nation. The speaker went on to elaborate on this issue, aiming to show that based on the principles and practices of the Government of the United States granting the right to vote to men, women equally deserve that right. The speaker continued passionately advocating for women's suffrage as essential for securing their rights and fixing their injustices.
The President, with some prefatory remarks, introduced Miss Rice, of Antioch College. Miss Rice announced as the theme of her address, "Woman's Work," and said that the work proper for woman is whatever she has the ability and opportunity to do. Miss Rice embraced in the discussion of her topic, considerations as to the duty of parents in rearing and teaching their children, demanding that the same principle under which boys were reared should be applied to girls, and the duty of society, which must recognize the necessity of women being instructed and taught in all that man has access to. She deprecated as one of the worst evils of our civilization that men and women were being all the time more widely separated. They must be brought nearer together.
The President, after making some introductory comments, introduced Miss Rice from Antioch College. Miss Rice stated that her speech would focus on "Woman's Work," emphasizing that the work suitable for women is whatever they have the skills and chances to do. In her discussion, Miss Rice addressed the responsibilities of parents in raising and educating their children, insisting that the same principles used for raising boys should also apply to girls. She highlighted the responsibility of society to acknowledge the importance of educating women in everything that men have access to. She criticized the growing separation between men and women as one of the greatest issues of our time, stating that they need to come closer together.
Mrs. M. M. Cole said: That we are still so far from enfranchisement is mainly the fault of women themselves. Home talks, not Mrs. Caudle's fault-finding lectures, will do more toward convincing men of the righteousness of their demand, than all the public harangues to which they can listen. Comparatively speaking, there are few men who do not listen and heed the counsels of a good wife, few who will not yield a willing or reluctant assent to her requests. For every exception, there may be found a wife who has never given evidence of candid, far-reaching thought; and when a man is in possession of such a one, he is not to be censured for wishing to keep the reins in his own hand.
Mrs. M. M. Cole said: The reason we are still so far from gaining the right to vote is mostly due to women themselves. Conversations at home, not Mrs. Caudle's nagging lectures, will do more to convince men of the fairness of their demands than all the public speeches they can hear. Overall, there are few men who don’t listen to and value the advice of a good wife, and few who will not agree—either willingly or reluctantly—to her requests. For every exception, there may be a wife who has never shown evidence of thoughtful, broad-minded consideration; when a man has such a wife, he shouldn’t be blamed for wanting to take control.
When all women ask for the ballot, they shall have it, say many politicians. In all probability, the wives of these men have never asked it—indeed,[Pg 807] they may have refused outright to use it, if granted. And so, blind to the interests of all, deaf to the entreaties of many, they refuse the request, making, in fact, their wives the arbiter of all women. That is not statesmanship, but partisanship, and a partisan is not one likely to comprehend a question in its broadest meaning. Husbands and wives who are not as far apart as the poles, are apt to think alike on all questions except religion and temperance, perhaps I ought to add finance. Social problems they solve by the same rule, public officers they weigh in the same balance, party measures criticise and pronounce wise or unwise with the same verdict. I know of a few advocates of woman suffrage whose husbands, fathers, brothers, or some one dearer, do not directly or indirectly aid them. So far from alienating the married pair, so far from creating domestic disturbance, the discussion of this question has called into activity faculties men never dreamed woman possessed. She has shown more fixedness of purpose, sagacity, and sound judgment, than have ever been attributed to her. Excepting the religion of Christ, which first broke the chains binding woman to a mere animal existence, and sent gleams of love and hope through the darkness in which she groped, there has been nothing which has given such an impetus to her life as the present one, set in motion by her demand for freedom. Never before in the history of the human race, have women stood so high in the estimation of men as they stand to-day.
When all women demand the right to vote, they should have it, say many politicians. Likely, the wives of these men have never asked for it—indeed, they might have outright refused to use it if it were offered. Thus, ignorant of the interests of all and deaf to the pleas of many, they deny the request, making their wives the judges of all women. This isn't leadership, it's partisanship, and a partisan person isn’t likely to understand a question in its fullest context. Husbands and wives who aren't worlds apart often think similarly on all issues except for maybe religion, temperance, and possibly finances. They tackle social issues with the same approach, evaluate public officials with the same criteria, and judge party policies with the same conclusions. I know a few supporters of women's suffrage whose husbands, fathers, brothers, or someone even closer, do not help them in any way. Far from causing rifts in marriage, far from creating domestic conflict, discussing this issue has activated abilities men never thought women had. Women have demonstrated more determination, insight, and sound judgment than has ever been credited to them. Aside from Christ's teachings, which first freed women from mere animal existence and brought in beams of love and hope through the darkness they navigated, nothing has propelled their lives as much as this current movement fueled by their desire for freedom. Never before in human history have women been held in such high regard by men as they are today.
There is but one answer to give to woman-worshipers, and that is, Take away all responsibility from me, shield me from the terrors of war, intemperance and licentiousness, and be my vicarious sacrifice in the world to come, and I'll be the thing you would have me—the echo—the reflection—the soulless divinity.
There’s only one response for those who idolize women, and that is, Remove all responsibility from me, protect me from the fears of war, addiction, and immorality, and be my stand-in sacrifice in the afterlife, and I’ll become whatever you want me to be—the echo—the reflection—the soulless divinity.
Is this an extreme view? What! can there be an extreme view, when one is considering individual freedom? Set bounds to the political, social, or religious liberty of a man, and what figures of speech would he employ? The advocates of the XV. Amendment put words into our mouths, and they must answer for them if they seem too extravagant. There is nothing under the sun that will so arouse man or woman as the fact that another, as needy, as finite as himself, sets stakes in the path of his progress, and says, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther." It is this assumption of men, most grievous to be borne, that has compelled woman to ask that the stakes be removed, and she be permitted to go where she wills to go.
Is this an extreme opinion? What! Can there be an extreme opinion when we're talking about personal freedom? Place limits on someone's political, social, or religious liberty, and what kind of language would they use? The supporters of the XV Amendment put words in our mouths, and they have to take responsibility for those words if they sound too outrageous. There’s nothing that stirs a person, whether man or woman, more than knowing that another individual, just as needy and limited, is placing obstacles in their way and saying, "You can only go this far and no further." It is this unbearable assumption that has driven women to demand the removal of those obstacles so they can go where they choose.
Mrs. Hannah B. Clarke spoke as follows: When I am satisfied that a majority of the women of this country desire the ballot, I shall be in favor of granting the same, says the man of to-day of average ability and culture. Oh! my friend, we shall not allow you to take out a patent for magnanimity on the strength of that confession. When all the women, or even the majority of the women, shall unite in one solemn, earnest appeal for a voice in the framing of the laws which they are compelled to obey, the turf will be green over that political statesmanship which supposes that a question of right, of principle, is a question of majorities. While I do not believe that the fewness of the women in any community who really desire the ballot furnishes any man good ground for throwing his influence in the opposite scale, I do believe that the most serious hindrance to the immediate success of our cause is the opposition of women themselves.[Pg 808]
Mrs. Hannah B. Clarke said: When I'm convinced that a majority of the women in this country want the right to vote, I'll support it, says the average man today. Oh! my friend, we won’t let you claim credit for generosity based on that statement. When all women, or even just most women, come together in a serious, sincere plea for a say in the laws they have to follow, that kind of political thinking—where the question of rights and principles is viewed as just a matter of majority opinion—will be buried. While I don’t think the small number of women in any community who truly want the vote is enough reason for any man to oppose it, I do believe that the biggest obstacle to our cause right now is the opposition from women themselves.[Pg 808]
It is one of the saddest, the most discouraging, features of any reform to find its worst foes are they of its own household. But the woman movement is not unique in this particular. Other reforms have presented the self-same characteristic. He who is familiar with the history of labor-saving machinery in this country knows that its introduction was fought inch by inch by that very class whose condition it was especially designed to ameliorate. If the Jews were the first to crucify instead of receive their Messiah, we know that the bad precedent which they established has not been lost upon succeeding generations. My friends, every reform begets a vast amount of ignorant opposition before which its advocates must simply possess their souls in patience.
It’s one of the saddest and most discouraging aspects of any reform to see that its biggest enemies often come from within. However, the women’s movement isn’t alone in this regard; other reforms have faced the same issue. Anyone familiar with the history of labor-saving technology in this country knows that its introduction was resisted step by step by the very group it was meant to help. Just as the Jews were the first to crucify rather than embrace their Messiah, this unfortunate example has not been forgotten by later generations. Friends, every reform encounters a significant amount of ignorant opposition, and its supporters must simply remain patient in the face of it.
This opposition among women shows itself in two distinct ways. The first kind manifests itself in holding meetings, framing petitions, and soliciting signatures, asking Congress to withhold the right of suffrage from the women of the land. I make no quarrel with that kind of opposition, nay, more, I entertain for it a certain kind of regard, for two reasons: First, because any decision that is candid and the result of reflection, entitles the holder to respect, but secondly and mainly, because it is no opposition at all. These persons are our friends, doing just what we are, no more and no less. For, mind you, it is not the mere dropping of the ballot once or twice a year on the part of woman to which public opinion is such a dead set. It is that which follows the ballot, that which the ballot involves. It is the office holding, the introduction of woman into public life, this stepping outside of what has always been considered her particular sphere. And so these women, who are memorializing Legislatures to deny their sisters the ballot, are doing our work, in that they are breaking the crust of that bitter prejudice which says that a woman's business is to keep house and tend babies, utterly regardless of the fact that every community contains scores of women who have neither houses to keep, nor babies to tend; doing our work in their own way, to be sure, in a way that reflects little credit on their good sense, but we shall not be particular about that if they are not. My verdict for such women is, let them alone. We shall be the losers if they ever find out their mistake.
This opposition among women shows up in two clear ways. The first way is by holding meetings, creating petitions, and gathering signatures to ask Congress to deny women the right to vote. I have no issue with that kind of opposition; in fact, I have a certain respect for it for two reasons: First, because any decision that is honest and thought-out deserves respect, but mainly because it isn’t really opposition at all. These people are our friends, doing exactly what we are, no more and no less. Remember, it’s not just the act of casting a ballot once or twice a year that public opinion is against. It’s everything that comes after the ballot, everything that the ballot represents. It’s the holding of office, the involvement of women in public life, stepping outside what has traditionally been seen as their role. So, these women, who are petitioning lawmakers to deny their sisters the vote, are actually helping our cause by challenging the strong prejudice that claims a woman's place is in the home taking care of children, completely ignoring the fact that many women in the community don’t have homes to manage or babies to care for. They’re doing our work in their own way, even if it doesn’t reflect well on their common sense, but we won’t be picky if they aren’t. My verdict for such women is to leave them be. We’ll be at a loss if they ever realize their mistake.
But that kind of opposition which we dread the most, which takes the courage out of the most courageous, and the heart out of the most earnest, is the opposition of utter insensibility, of stolid indifference, which the mass of women exhibit, not only to this question, but to any question that does not touch their immediate personal interests. If I had a cause, of whatever kind, to advocate on its merits alone, one argument to make that appealed to a reasonable intellect, a discriminating judgment, I should want an audience not of women. It is a sad, a humiliating fact that the great mass of women are not thinkers.
But the type of opposition we fear the most, which drains the courage from even the bravest and dims the passion of the most sincere, is the complete apathy and indifference that most women show, not just to this issue, but to any topic that doesn't directly affect their personal interests. If I had a cause, regardless of its nature, to promote based solely on its merits, and one argument to make that would appeal to a rational mind and a discerning judgment, I would prefer an audience other than women. It's a sad and humiliating reality that the majority of women are not thinkers.
At the morning session Colonel Higginson read a letter from Henry Ward Beecher.
At the morning session, Colonel Higginson read a letter from Henry Ward Beecher.
Brooklyn, N. Y., Nov. 18, 1870.
Brooklyn, NY, Nov. 18, 1870.
Mrs. Lucy Stone:—My Dear Madam—You were kind enough to ask me to allow my name to be used again in connection with the presidency of the American Woman Suffrage Association. But, after reflection, I am persuaded that it will be better to put in nomination some one who can give more time to the affairs of the society than I can[Pg 809] and who can at least attend its meetings, which I find it impossible to do. But, while I detach myself from the mere machinery of the society, I do not withdraw from the cause, nor abate my hopes of its success and my conviction of the justice of its aims. On the contrary, with every year I feel increasing confidence that the ultimate forms of civilized society will surely include women in its political management. I am not so sanguine of the nearness of the day when a woman's vote must be calculated by political assemblies as many are, but little by little the cause will gain and ultimately the result is certain. I wish you an enthusiastic meeting, a harmonious adjustment of all affairs, and a prosperous future.
Mrs. Lucy Stone:—My Dear Madam—Thank you for suggesting that I let my name be considered again for the presidency of the American Woman Suffrage Association. However, after thinking it over, I've concluded that it would be better to nominate someone who can dedicate more time to the organization's affairs than I can[Pg 809] and who can at least make it to the meetings, which I find impossible. But even though I'm stepping back from the day-to-day operations of the society, I'm not withdrawing from the cause, nor do I lessen my hopes for its success or my belief in its just aims. On the contrary, with each passing year, I feel more confident that the future of civilized society will certainly include women in its political leadership. I might not share the same optimism as others about how soon women’s votes will be counted by political bodies, but gradually the cause will advance and ultimately the outcome is inevitable. I wish you a passionate meeting, a smooth resolution of all matters, and a successful future.
Henry Ward Beecher.
Henry Ward Beecher.
I am very truly yours,
I am very truly yours,
The Committee on Resolutions[189] reported later. The first four resolutions were unanimously adopted, the fifth, after full discussion, was rejected by a vote of 112 1-3 to 47 2-3.
The Committee on Resolutions[189] reported later. The first four resolutions were accepted unanimously, while the fifth was rejected after a thorough discussion, with a vote tally of 112 1-3 to 47 2-3.
Mr. Henry B. Blackwell offered the following resolution:
Mr. Henry B. Blackwell put forward the following resolution:
Resolved, That the American Woman Suffrage Association heartily invites the cooperation of all individuals and all State societies who feel the need of a truly National Association on a delegated basis, which shall avoid side issues, and devote itself to the main question of suffrage. Adopted unanimously.
Resolved, That the American Woman Suffrage Association warmly welcomes the collaboration of all individuals and State organizations who recognize the need for a genuinely National Association based on delegation, which will steer clear of side issues and focus solely on the central issue of suffrage. Adopted unanimously.
The American Woman Suffrage Association held its semi-annual meeting in Steinway Hall, New York, May 10, 1871. A large audience had already gathered when the Convention was called to order, which was constantly increased during the morning session, until between 800 and 1,000 persons were in attendance. In the absence of the President of the Association, Mrs. H. M. Tracy Cutler, Mrs. M. A. Livermore was called to the chair. She read the following letter from Mrs. Cutler:
The American Woman Suffrage Association held its semi-annual meeting at Steinway Hall in New York on May 10, 1871. A large crowd had already gathered when the convention started, which continued to grow during the morning session, reaching between 800 and 1,000 attendees. With the absence of the Association's President, Mrs. H. M. Tracy Cutler, Mrs. M. A. Livermore took the chair. She read the following letter from Mrs. Cutler:
To the American Woman Suffrage Association, Steinway Hall New York:
To the American Woman Suffrage Association, Steinway Hall New York:
With much self-denial on my part, I remain far from your semi-annual gathering. But in heart I am with you, partaking in your deliberations, and recounting the advances since our meeting one year ago. Mrs. Dr. Patten, wife of the editor of the Advance, who believes and does far better than he would make us believe through his paper, is president of a society for sending women as missionaries to India for the express purpose of educating Brahman women. They will deny any belief in the woman suffrage movement, but they are teaching women the alphabet, and that is the first step toward the fullest possession of self, which will yet claim and vindicate all human rights. Among the most significant signs of the influence of this agitation, is the change in the laws of the different[Pg 810] States in regard to the rights of women. Conversing with a member of the committee charged with the revision of the laws of California, he said to me: "The most important part of my work is the revisions of the statutes concerning marriage and divorce and the rights of property and of guardianship for married women."
With a lot of self-denial on my part, I’m staying away from your semi-annual gathering. But in spirit, I’m with you, participating in your discussions and reflecting on the progress since our meeting a year ago. Mrs. Dr. Patten, who is the wife of the editor of the Advance and believes and does much more than he lets on through his paper, is the president of a society that sends women as missionaries to India specifically to educate Brahman women. They may deny any belief in the woman suffrage movement, but they are teaching women the alphabet, which is the first step toward achieving full self-possession and ultimately claiming all human rights. One of the most significant signs of the impact of this movement is the change in the laws across various [Pg 810] States regarding women’s rights. When I talked to a member of the committee responsible for revising the laws in California, he told me: "The most important part of my work is revising the statutes related to marriage and divorce, as well as the property and guardianship rights of married women."
The action of Congress shows us clearly, that as soon as there is sufficient pressure from without, it will give a light by which to read the XIV. and XV. Amendments, or it will inspire the passage of a XVI., so that our cause will be won. Knowing that your deliberations will be wise, and that the inspiring spirit will be purity and harmony, I shall the less regret that I am compelled to be absent in person, though present in spirit.
The actions taken by Congress clearly show that when there's enough external pressure, they will provide a way to interpret the XIV and XV Amendments, or they will encourage the creation of a XVI, ensuring that our cause will prevail. Knowing that your discussions will be thoughtful and guided by a spirit of integrity and unity, I will regret my absence less, even though I am there in spirit.
H. M. T. Cutler.
H. M. T. Cutler.
The Rev. Dr. Edward Eggleston, of the Independent, said: One can not show one's interest in the cause better than by speaking in this opening moment of the Convention. I think every individual in the country should have a voice in the making of the laws. Here is a large and increasing class of women in the country who need the suffrage, and men feel that they need women in politics. A great many people never think of the effect of suffrage on woman without a shudder. I am not one who believes that women are adapted to every kind of work to which a man is. I do not believe that a woman's mind is just like a man's, but the most shameful proscription of all is that which prevents women from doing the work for which they are adapted. It is not necessary for a woman to be a man in order to vote. We want a woman's vote to be a woman's vote, and not a man's vote. It is a singular old heresy that to be able to vote you must be able to be a soldier. The purpose of the ballot-box is not to be bolstered by bullets. It is intended that public sentiment shall make law; and I think women can make public sentiment faster than men. I would back a New England sewing society against any town meeting. If women can not make war, they can at least do something to stop war. There is nothing in the world so absurd as regarding womanhood as some delicate flower that should be shut up in some glass jar for fear it may be injured by contact with the air. The ballot opens the door for every true and needed reform for women, because the ballot is the great educating power. A true, right-feeling woman does not want to be dependent, and the ballot will educate them to independence, because it brings duties and responsibilities to them.
The Rev. Dr. Edward Eggleston, of the Independent, said: You can’t demonstrate your interest in the cause better than by speaking in this opening moment of the Convention. I believe everyone in the country should have a say in making the laws. There’s a large and growing group of women in the country who need the right to vote, and men feel they need women involved in politics. Many people never consider the impact of voting rights on women without feeling uneasy. I’m not someone who believes women can do every kind of work that men can. I don’t think a woman’s mind is just like a man’s, but the most disgraceful denial of all is preventing women from doing the work they are suited for. It’s not necessary for a woman to be a man to vote. We want a woman’s vote to reflect a woman’s perspective, not a man’s. It’s a strange old belief that to be able to vote, you must be able to fight. The purpose of the ballot box isn’t to be supported by military force. It’s meant for public opinion to shape the law; and I believe women can influence public sentiment more quickly than men. I would back a New England sewing society against any town hall meeting. If women can’t go to war, they can at least do something to prevent it. Nothing is more ridiculous than viewing womanhood as a delicate flower that should be kept in a glass jar out of fear of being harmed by the world. The ballot opens the way for every true and necessary reform for women because it's a powerful tool for education. A truly good woman doesn’t want to be dependent, and the ballot will teach them independence by bringing responsibilities and duties to them.
Mrs. Lucy Stone then addressed the Convention as follows: The ideas which underlie the question of woman suffrage have reached the last stage of discussion before their final acceptance. They have grown up first through the period of indifference, then that of scorn, and then that of moral agitation; and now they are ushered into politics. In nearly every Northern and Western State, such discussions have been had, and action has been taken upon the subject in some form. Even in South Carolina it has voted itself, with the Governor of the State for its ally. Under the XIV. and XV. Amendments, several women in Washington attempted to vote, but were refused. They are now trying the question in the United States Courts. In Congress 55 votes were cast in our favor at the last session. Politicians know perfectly well that our success is a foregone conclusion. No coming event ever cast its shadow before it more clearly than does this—that women will vote. It is only a question of time, say all. It is important for us, then, to-day, to suggest such measures as shall win us sympathy, co-operation, and success; and for the first time give to the world an example of true republicanism—a government of the people, by the people, and for the people—man and woman.
Mrs. Lucy Stone then spoke to the Convention as follows: The ideas that underpin the issue of women's suffrage have reached the final stage of discussion before they are fully accepted. They have evolved from a time of indifference, to one of scorn, and then to a period of moral agitation; and now they are being introduced into politics. In nearly every Northern and Western State, these discussions have taken place, and some form of action has been initiated on the subject. Even in South Carolina, it has received support with the Governor of the State backing it. Under the XIV and XV Amendments, several women in Washington tried to vote but were denied. They are now pursuing this issue in the United States Courts. In Congress, 55 votes were cast in our favor during the last session. Politicians are fully aware that our success is inevitable. No upcoming event has ever been clearer than the fact that women will vote. It’s just a matter of time, everyone says. Therefore, it is important for us today to propose measures that will earn us sympathy, cooperation, and success; and finally provide the world with an example of true republicanism—a government of the people, by the people, and for the people—both men and women.
If neither of the existing parties takes up our cause, then the best men from both will form a new party, which will win for itself sympathy, support, power, and supremacy, because it gave itself to the service of those who needed justice. I care for any party only as it serves principles, and secures great National needs. But the Republican party made itself a power by doing justice to the negro. When the war was over and the reconstruction of the South became necessary, the Republican party was in the full tide of power, and had its choice of methods and means. It was the golden hour that statesmanship should have seized to reconstruct the Government on the basis of the consent of the governed, without distinction of sex, race, or color.
If neither of the current parties supports our cause, then the best people from both will create a new party that will earn sympathy, support, power, and dominance because it dedicated itself to helping those who needed justice. I care about any party only when it upholds principles and addresses significant national needs. However, the Republican Party gained power by doing right by the Black community. When the war ended and the reconstruction of the South became necessary, the Republican Party was in a strong position and had a variety of methods and options available. This was the perfect opportunity for statesmanship to rebuild the government based on the consent of the governed, without regard to gender, race, or color.
Mr. Blackwell addressed the Convention as follows:
Mr. Blackwell addressed the Convention as follows:
He enumerated the different methods which have been proposed in order to secure the suffrage for women, as follows: By a XVI. Amendment to the Constitution, as suggested by the Hon. George W. Julian; by an Act of Congress enfranchising women in the District of Columbia, as advised by Hon. Henry Wilson; by Amendments to the various State Constitutions, and by litigation for a broader construction of the XIV. and XV. Amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Blackwell said that all these methods are worth trying, but thought there was a swifter and easier method, viz: to induce the State Legislatures to direct that the votes of all adult native and naturalized citizens shall be received and counted in the Presidential election of 1872. This can be done, in Mr. Blackwell's opinion, under the first section of the second article of the Constitution, which says:
He listed the different methods that have been suggested to secure voting rights for women, as follows: by a 16th Amendment to the Constitution, as proposed by Hon. George W. Julian; by a Congressional Act granting women the right to vote in the District of Columbia, as recommended by Hon. Henry Wilson; by Amendments to various State Constitutions; and by legal action for a broader interpretation of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Blackwell stated that all these methods are worth pursuing but believed there was a quicker and simpler way: to persuade State Legislatures to mandate that the votes of all adult native and naturalized citizens must be counted in the Presidential election of 1872. In Mr. Blackwell's view, this can be accomplished under the first section of the second article of the Constitution, which states:
Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number[Pg 812] of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
Each State will appoint, in the way the Legislature decides, a number[Pg 812] of electors equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives the State is entitled to in Congress.
The great underlying mass of ignorance is always conservative. Hence the difficulty of making constitutional amendments, and the importance of employing an easier method. Let every man or woman who believes in woman suffrage organize within their respective States and endeavor to obtain such an act from their respective Legislatures next winter, and let it be understood that the votes of the woman suffrage party, both men and women, will be cast as a unit within each State for the party which does this great act of political justice.
The vast majority of ignorance tends to be conservative. This is why making constitutional amendments is so challenging, highlighting the need for a simpler approach. Everyone who supports women's voting rights should come together in their states and work to get this legislation passed in their state legislatures next winter. It should be made clear that the votes from the women's suffrage movement, including both men and women, will be united in each state for the political party that accomplishes this important act of justice.
Giles B. Stebbins said: It has been stated that women don't want the ballot. Well, suppose they don't. That is the very strongest argument why they should be taught that they do. Fred. Douglass said, "Show me a contented slave, and I will show you a depraved man." We want duties and responsibilities shared equally by all, that man may be more manly and woman more womanly.
Giles B. Stebbins said: It’s been said that women don’t want the vote. Well, let’s say they don’t. That’s the strongest reason why they should be taught that they do. Fred Douglass said, "Show me a contented slave, and I will show you a depraved man." We want responsibilities and duties shared equally by everyone, so that men can be more manly and women can be more womanly.
Mrs. Elizabeth K. Churchill, of Providence, said: Can there be an aristocracy meaner and more tyrannical than that of sex, by which a wise, cultured, intelligent woman is made the inferior (for that is what the denial of the ballot implies), the inferior of a base, brutal, degraded man? The divine right of kings is an exploded notion; it is time for the divine right of sex to follow it. The chief value of the ballot is the educational power. He who feels an interest in men and measures will soon feel a responsibility. Everybody knows that women are no better than men. They are no angels floating in an ethereal atmosphere. It is the fashion sometimes to call them "angels," but I observe they are no longer angels when they get aged. I don't know a more unpleasant rôle to play than that of an aged angel. If it is said that woman can't know enough to vote, I can only reply that God made them to match men. But no standard of education was ever fixed for the ballot; and if there had been one, it never could exclude woman, any more than it could negroes.
Mrs. Elizabeth K. Churchill, of Providence, said: Can there be a more contemptible and tyrannical aristocracy than that of gender, which relegates a wise, cultured, and intelligent woman to an inferior position (as the denial of the vote implies) below a base, brutal, and degraded man? The divine right of kings is an outdated concept; it's time for the divine right of gender to be discarded as well. The primary value of the vote lies in its educational power. Those who engage with issues and people will soon feel a sense of responsibility. Everyone knows that women are no better than men. They are not angels floating in some ethereal realm. It's trendy to refer to them as "angels," but I notice they’re not considered angels when they grow old. I can't think of a more unpleasant role to play than that of an elderly angel. If it's said that women lack the knowledge to vote, I can only respond that God created them to be equal to men. However, no educational standard was ever established for voting; even if there had been one, it could never exclude women, just as it could not exclude Black people.
Mrs. Livermore left the chair for a short time to read a note from a lady inquiring whether, if she thought the woman suffrage movement was condemned in the New Testament, she would abandon the movement. I think she said, that it is not the proper way to put the question. If the question were put to me, If I thought the woman's reform contrary to Christianity, would I throw it overboard? I should answer, Yes, unhesitatingly; I should desire, for one, to stop it; I should renounce it forever. What is it that the woman's reform asks for woman? We ask for the ballot, and we ask it simply because it is the symbol of equality. There is no other recognized symbol of equality in this country. We ask for the ballot that we may be equal to men before the law. The very moment we obtain it the work of this association is done, and it must get out of the way. Then new associations must be formed to take the new work that will come before us, for when the ballot is given to woman then the great work will begin. Then comes the tug of war. For the obtaining of the ballot by woman is but stepping up the first round of the ladder, whose topmost round takes hold of perfection.
Mrs. Livermore stepped away from her seat for a moment to read a note from a lady asking if she would give up the woman suffrage movement if she believed it was condemned in the New Testament. I think she mentioned that it’s not the right way to frame the question. If someone asked me whether I would abandon the women's reform if I thought it was against Christianity, I would confidently say yes; I would want to put an end to it and renounce it forever. What does the women's reform ask for? We ask for the vote, and we want it simply because it symbolizes equality. There's no other recognized symbol of equality in this country. We ask for the vote so we can be equal to men in the eyes of the law. The moment we achieve this, the work of this association is finished, and it must step aside. New organizations will need to be established to tackle the new challenges that will arise because once women get the vote, that’s when the real work begins. Then comes the real struggle. Gaining the vote is just the first step on the ladder, and the top step leads to true equality.
Oliver Johnson moved that the resolutions reported in the morning be[Pg 813] voted on. The motion was carried, and the resolutions having been separately read, passed unanimously with little discussion till the last two were reached.
Oliver Johnson suggested that the resolutions presented in the morning be[Pg 813] voted on. The motion was approved, and the resolutions were read individually, passing unanimously with minimal discussion until the last two were addressed.
Mr. Kilgore, of Philadelphia, objected to the seventh resolution, and said, if you don't want to cover this purpose with doubt and uncertainty, which is always an evidence of weakness, claim your right to vote under the XIV. and XV. Amendments to the Constitution.
Mr. Kilgore, from Philadelphia, opposed the seventh resolution and stated that if you want to avoid casting doubt and uncertainty on this issue, which is always a sign of weakness, you should assert your right to vote under the XIV and XV Amendments to the Constitution.
Mrs. Lucy Stone replied that we all believed we had a right to vote under the original Constitution, as well as under these amendments, but since there was great doubt whether woman suffrage should be reached through these, she thought it best to seek also for a XVI. Amendment.
Mrs. Lucy Stone replied that we all believed we had the right to vote under the original Constitution, as well as under these amendments, but since there was a lot of uncertainty about whether women's suffrage should be addressed through these, she thought it would be better to also pursue a XVI. Amendment.
Oliver Johnson said he didn't want to be included in Mrs. Blackwell's remark that the Constitution gives women the ballot. He thought it not wise to agitate this question. The right to vote under the Constitution can be reached only under a decision of the courts, and while waiting for that you are diverting the public mind from the true point at issue. Slavery had been put down in such a way that it can never be reconstructed; but if it had been put aside by a decision of the Supreme Court, a triumph of the Democratic party might change the character of the Supreme Court and reinstate it. He thought it wise to have the resolutions as they were, so that persons of all shades of opinions may vote for them.
Oliver Johnson expressed that he didn’t want to be part of Mrs. Blackwell's claim that the Constitution gives women the right to vote. He believed it wasn't smart to stir up this issue. The right to vote under the Constitution can only be settled through a court decision, and while waiting for that, you're distracting the public from the real issue at hand. Slavery had been abolished in a way that it can never be reinstated; but if it had been removed by a Supreme Court decision, a win for the Democratic Party could change the composition of the Supreme Court and bring it back. He thought it was better to keep the resolutions as they are, so that people with various opinions can support them.
Dr. Mary Walker said that the fact of women attempting to vote in Washington had done more for woman suffrage than all the Conventions ever held. We want a declaratory law, she said, passed by the Congress of the United States, giving women the right to vote. This was the only way to save an immense amount of labor in the different States.
Dr. Mary Walker stated that women trying to vote in Washington has done more for women's suffrage than all the conventions ever held. "We want a law passed by the U.S. Congress that grants women the right to vote," she said. "This is the only way to eliminate a huge amount of effort across different states."
David Plumb, of New York, advocated the seventh resolution. We need a XVI. Amendment to settle woman suffrage on a firm basis. After considerable debate the resolution was unanimously adopted.
David Plumb, from New York, supported the seventh resolution. We need a XVI. Amendment to establish women's right to vote on solid groundwork. After a lot of discussion, the resolution was adopted unanimously.
The eighth resolution was then discussed, to which Mr. Kilgore also objected, offering a motion that all the resolution coming after the words "special social theories," be stricken out. He was opposed, especially, to the introduction of the words "free love." What was meant by them?
The eighth resolution was then discussed, which Mr. Kilgore also opposed, proposing a motion to remove everything following the phrase "special social theories." He was particularly against the inclusion of the term "free love." What did that even mean?
Mr. Blackwell said the Convention meant by the use of that phrase exactly what the New York Tribune of that morning meant, in its statement that the woman suffrage movement was one for free love.
Mr. Blackwell said the Convention meant by that phrase exactly what the New York Tribune meant that morning when it stated that the woman suffrage movement was about free love.
The President said this great movement was not responsible for the freaks and follies of individuals. The resolutions simply denied that this association indorsed free love, which certain papers charged them with. After considerable discussion, the resolution was adopted by the strong, decided and united voices of nearly a thousand people, voting in the affirmative. At the evening session of the Convention the great hall was filled completely, not a seat on the lower floor being unoccupied, and all the desirable seats in the gallery being taken.
The President stated that this significant movement was not to blame for the weird behaviors and mistakes of individuals. The resolutions clearly refuted the claim that this association supported free love, as certain papers accused them of. After extensive discussion, the resolution was passed by the strong, clear, and unified voices of nearly a thousand people voting in favor. During the evening session of the Convention, the grand hall was completely packed, with not a single seat on the lower floor unoccupied, and all the prime seats in the gallery filled.
Moses Coit Tyler, Professor in the Michigan State University at Ann Arbor, was the first speaker: The seaboard is the natural seat of liberty. Coming to you from the inland, where the salt breath of the Atlantic is exchanged for the sweet vapors of the lakes, I say to you, look well to your laurels! What are you seaboard people doing to vindicate your honor?[Pg 814] We, in the interior, have at least one National university which opens its gates to the sex which has the misfortune to be that of Mrs. Livermore, Mrs. Howe, and others. One of the keenest and brightest minds of the law in the West animates the head of a woman. In my own State of Michigan, at least two women have succeeded in getting their votes into the ballot-box. These are strifes in which good people may engage, and of the trophies won in such a contest every modest man may boast. This deep, national, resolute demand for a great right withheld, means that woman is really a person, and not merely a lovely shadow. If you can convince the majority of American men, and what is more, the majority of American women, that woman is a person, you will have the ballot to-morrow. We call woman an angel, and it is very easy to do that, because the Constitution of the United States don't take any account of angels. If all citizens who are masculine have the right to vote, it is not because they are males, but because they are persons who are members of the Nation. Therefore women should likewise be given this right because they are also members of the nation, and it is the right of every member to vote. But, after all, we men are rather bashful, you know, and the business is new to us. We have a sort of "Barkis is willin'" feeling, and don't want to be the first to speak. We are like the rustic young man who escorted a young lady home for the first time. Says she, as they reached the garden-gate: "Now, Jake, don't tell any one you beau'd me home." "No," he replied, "I am as much ashamed of it as you be!" [Laughter.] Now, it would have been much better if the young lady had said something more exhilarating, more encouraging. So we are new to the business of escorting women to the ballot, and they must come forward, and, overcoming their natural timidity, meet us half way and speak for themselves.
Moses Coit Tyler, a professor at Michigan State University in Ann Arbor, was the first speaker: The coast is the natural home of freedom. Coming to you from the interior, where the salty air of the Atlantic gives way to the sweet mists of the lakes, I say to you, pay attention to your achievements! What are you people on the coast doing to defend your reputation?[Pg 814] We in the interior have at least one national university that welcomes the gender faced by Mrs. Livermore, Mrs. Howe, and others. One of the sharpest minds in law out West is led by a woman. In my home state of Michigan, at least two women have successfully cast their votes. These are struggles in which good people can participate, and any modest man can take pride in the victories won in such contests. This strong, national, determined demand for a crucial right that has been denied indicates that women are genuinely individuals, not just charming figures. If you can persuade most American men, and even more importantly, most American women, that women are individuals, you will have the right to vote tomorrow. We often call women angels, and it’s easy to do that because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t recognize angels. If all male citizens have the right to vote, it's not because they're male, but because they're individuals who belong to the nation. Therefore, women should also be granted this right because they are members of the nation, and every member has the right to vote. But, after all, we men can be a bit shy, you know, and this is a new situation for us. We have a sort of “Barkis is willin’” attitude and don’t want to be the first to speak up. We’re like the bashful young man who walked a young lady home for the first time. As they reached the garden gate, she said, "Now, Jake, don’t tell anyone you walked me home." He replied, "No, I’m just as embarrassed about it as you are!" [Laughter.] Now, it would have been much better if the young lady had said something more uplifting, more encouraging. So, we are new to the business of bringing women to the ballot, and they need to step forward and, overcoming their natural shyness, meet us halfway and speak for themselves.
Mary Grew, of Philadelphia, was the next speaker: When I am asked to give arguments for the cause of woman suffrage, it seems like the old times when we were asked to give arguments for the freedom of the slave. It is enough for me to know that the charter of our Nation states that "taxation without representation is tyranny," and that "all just government is founded on the consent of the governed." No woman wrote those words. They were written by men. I stood recently at a woman suffrage meeting in Boston, and I heard a gentleman say, "I am willing, on certain conditions, that women shall vote. When women shall suppress intemperance, I am willing they shall have the ballot." I don't know how he was going to ascertain whether they would suppress it or not. I know that men who have held the ballot all their lives have not suppressed it; and I don't think there is any one here who would say that women would suppress it. What is woman going to do with the ballot? I don't know; I don't care; and it is of no consequence. Their right to the ballot does not rest on the way in which they vote. This, however, must be admitted, and that is, that there are women in this country who will vote much more wisely than some men in New York and Philadelphia. You, my brothers, claim the right to vote because you are taxed, because you are one of the governed; and you know if an attempt was made to touch your right to vote, you would sacrifice everything to defend it. What would money be worth to you without it? You call it the symbol of your citizenship; and without it you would be slaves—not[Pg 815] free. Listen, then, when a woman tells you that her freedom is but nominal without it. And when you ask what women are going to do with it, ask yourselves what you want it for and what you are going to do with it. There never was a class of people able to take care of the rights of another class....
Mary Grew, from Philadelphia, was the next speaker: When I'm asked to provide reasons for women's right to vote, it reminds me of the old days when we had to argue for the freedom of slaves. It’s enough for me to know that our Nation's founding document states that "taxation without representation is tyranny," and that "all just government is based on the consent of the governed." No woman wrote those words; they were written by men. I recently attended a women’s suffrage meeting in Boston, and I heard a man say, "I'm willing, under certain conditions, for women to vote. When women can eliminate alcoholism, then I’m okay with them having the ballot." I don't know how he planned to determine if they could do that. I know that men who have had the right to vote their whole lives haven’t eliminated it, and I doubt anyone here believes that women would manage to do so. What will women do with the ballot? I don’t know; I don’t care; and it doesn’t matter. Their right to vote doesn’t depend on how they would use it. However, it must be acknowledged that there are women in this country who would vote much more wisely than some men in New York and Philadelphia. You, my brothers, claim your right to vote because you’re taxed and because you're part of the governed; and you know that if anyone tried to take away your right to vote, you would risk everything to protect it. What would money mean to you without it? You call it a symbol of your citizenship, and without it, you'd be slaves—not[Pg 815] free. So listen when a woman tells you that her freedom is only a facade without that right. And when you wonder what women would do with the vote, consider what you want it for and how you plan to use it. No class of people has ever been able to safeguard the rights of another class...
Mrs. Lucy Stone next addressed the meeting briefly: If you have a man, said she, who is a fool or a felon, you put him over the line alongside of your mother. Every man of you before he sleeps should go on his knees to his mother, and beg her pardon, and you should tell her you are ashamed of yourselves.
Mrs. Lucy Stone then spoke to the meeting for a moment: If you have a man, she said, who is foolish or criminal, you should place him next to your mother. Every one of you should kneel to your mother before bed, ask for her forgiveness, and tell her how ashamed you are of yourselves.
The Rev. Washington Gladden, one of the editors of the Independent, rose to answer Mrs. Grew's question—why the Tribune does not inquire about these ignorant men who are abusing the franchise? He could inform her. It is because they can not afford to. They are all politicians there. They want votes. They can not afford to tell the truth about these ignorant and vicious voters. He proceeded to give a sad picture of the political world at present and to show how little conscience, culture, or common honesty finds its way to the ballot-box. He didn't think the ballot had done anything for the education of the ignorant foreigner who had come to this country; he doubted whether it would do anything for the education of woman. He didn't wish to be classed with the opposers to woman suffrage, and yet he didn't see his way clear to espouse it as others on the platform did. He believed in impartial suffrage—impartial for men and women, but not universal. He would have men and women fitted for the suffrage before they exercised it.
The Rev. Washington Gladden, one of the editors of the Independent, stood up to answer Mrs. Grew's question—why the Tribune doesn’t ask about these uninformed people who are misusing the right to vote. He could explain. It’s because they can’t afford to. They’re all politicians. They want votes. They can’t afford to speak the truth about these ignorant and harmful voters. He went on to paint a grim picture of the current political landscape and to highlight how little conscience, culture, or basic honesty makes its way to the ballot box. He didn’t believe the ballot had done anything to educate the uninformed immigrants who had come to this country; he was skeptical it would do anything for the education of women either. He didn’t want to be grouped with those against women’s suffrage, yet he didn’t see a clear path to support it like others on the platform did. He believed in fair suffrage—fair for both men and women, but not universal. He thought men and women should be prepared for voting before they were allowed to do so.
Grace Greenwood gave a sketch of society in Washington.
Grace Greenwood provided an overview of the social scene in Washington.
Mrs. Livermore, referring to Mr. Gladden's remarks, said there was nothing so painful to her as the lack of faith in republicanism among cultivated American gentlemen. Political atheism seemed to be rife among them. What wonder that political corruption exists to such an extent, when the clergymen, the doctors, professors of colleges, members of churches, the educated and cultivated, refuse to exercise the rights of citizenship by going to the polls to vote—when intelligence and morality are to so great a degree eliminated from public affairs? At a late Presidential election in Massachusetts it was ascertained that but 54 per cent. of the legal voters actually went to the polls. Among the 46 per cent. who staid away were the clergymen, the physicians, and the professional men. There was a fearful political apathy among the educated classes in reference to the discharge of their political duties. If educated and good men, as a body, would interest themselves in the primary meetings and the caucuses, politics would be improved, even before women got the suffrage.
Mrs. Livermore, commenting on Mr. Gladden's remarks, said nothing upset her more than the lack of faith in republicanism among educated American gentlemen. Political apathy seemed to be widespread among them. It's no surprise that political corruption is so prevalent when clergymen, doctors, college professors, church members, and other educated people refuse to participate in elections by voting—when intelligence and morality are largely absent from public life. During a recent Presidential election in Massachusetts, it was found that only 54 percent of eligible voters actually cast their ballots. Among the 46 percent who stayed home were clergymen, physicians, and other professionals. There was a shocking political apathy among the educated classes regarding their civic duties. If educated and upstanding individuals as a whole would engage in local meetings and caucuses, politics would improve, even before women gained the right to vote.
It was proposed that the Convention should adjourn by singing the doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow." The great audience rose and joined as with one voice in singing the grand centuries-old doxology, and then adjourned, many urging that the Convention should hold over another day.
It was suggested that the Convention should wrap up by singing the doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow." The large audience stood up and united their voices to sing the magnificent, centuries-old doxology, and then they adjourned, with many advocating that the Convention should extend for another day.
In the autumn of 1871 the American Woman Suffrage Association held conventions at Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh. The annual meeting in Philadelphia was held in National Hall, and presided over[Pg 816] by Mrs. Tracy Cutler, who made the opening address. The number of the delegates to this Convention was sixty-two, representing fourteen States.
In the fall of 1871, the American Woman Suffrage Association held conventions in Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh. The annual meeting in Philadelphia took place in National Hall and was led by Mrs. Tracy Cutler, who delivered the opening address. There were sixty-two delegates at this convention, representing fourteen states.[Pg 816]
Mrs. Lucy Stone, Chairman of the Executive Committee, read her report, in which, among other things, she said—Petitions from each of our auxiliary State societies, asking for the ballot, were sent to their respective State Legislatures, and a hearing granted whenever it was asked. This is a great gain upon some previous years, when, as once in Rhode Island, our petitions were referred to "a committee on burial grounds."
Mrs. Lucy Stone, Chair of the Executive Committee, presented her report, in which she mentioned that petitions from each of our state auxiliary societies requesting the right to vote were submitted to their state legislatures, and a hearing was granted whenever requested. This marks a significant improvement compared to previous years, when, as was the case in Rhode Island, our petitions were sent to "a committee on burial grounds."
The following letter was read from William Lloyd Garrison:
The following letter was read from William Lloyd Garrison:
Boston, November 18, 1871.
Boston, November 18, 1871.
Dear Mr. Blackwell—Lest some persons might be disappointed at my non-attendance, I regretted to see myself positively announced among the speakers at the annual meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association, to be held at Philadelphia next week. I certainly desired and hoped to be present, even to the last moment; but circumstances oblige me to remain at home, and I can do no more (and assuredly no less) than to send a word of cheer by letter. Though I was careful not to commit myself as to my personal presence at the meeting, I am willing to be everywhere known as committed to the cause of Woman Suffrage, with all my understanding, heart, and soul. I regard its claims to be as reasonable, just, and valid as any ever presented in behalf of any portion of the human race, suffering from the exercise of usurped powers. Until it can be shown that women have not, by nature and destiny, the same common rights and interests as men—have not as much at stake in all matters pertaining to an impartial administration of government as men—are not held to the same allegiance as men—and are not made amenable to the same penal laws, even to the extent of being hanged, as men—their right to the ballot, and to an equal participation in all municipal, judicial, and legislative proceedings can not be sensibly denied. The mere statement of the case is its strongest argument, furnishing as it does a self-evident proposition. It is a disgrace to our democratic professions that there is yet a portion—ay, one half of our population, legally discrowned and outraged on account of a natural and necessary distinction of sex, which alters nothing in regard to moral obligations and duties, or to political rights and privileges, in the courts of justice and common sense.
Dear Mr. Blackwell—To avoid disappointing some people because I won't be there, I was sorry to see my name announced among the speakers at the annual meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association in Philadelphia next week. I truly wanted to attend and hoped right up until the last moment that I could, but circumstances require me to stay home. All I can do is send a word of encouragement through this letter. Even though I made sure not to promise my personal attendance at the meeting, I want everyone to know that I wholeheartedly support the cause of Woman Suffrage with all my understanding, heart, and soul. I believe its claims are as reasonable, just, and legitimate as any made on behalf of any part of humanity suffering from the misuse of power. Until it can be shown that women do not, by nature and destiny, share the same fundamental rights and interests as men—do not have as much to lose in matters that require fair governance—are not held to the same responsibilities as men—and are not subject to the same legal penalties, even facing death like men—their right to vote and to equally participate in all local, judicial, and legislative matters cannot be sensibly denied. Simply stating the case is its strongest argument, as it presents a self-evident truth. It is a shame to our democratic values that there is still a part—yes, half—of our population that is legally disenfranchised and mistreated due to a natural and necessary distinction of sex, which does not change moral obligations and duties or political rights and privileges in the courts of justice and common sense.
It is amazing to see what insulting flings are made, what ridiculous things are uttered, in derogation of the claim of women to an equal voice in making and administering the laws of the land, in quarters where we had a right to look for perfect courtesy, fair treatment, and an intelligent understanding; to say nothing of the nonsense and ribaldry proceeding from haunts of vice and "lewd fellows of the baser sort." But what great reformatory movement was ever treated any better at the outset? Still, it requires a large stock of patience to be calm under such trying provocations; and the consideration that, after all, they are indispensable to the success of the righteous object sought, can alone impart serenity.
It’s incredible to see the insults being thrown around, the ridiculous things said to undermine women's right to an equal voice in creating and enforcing the laws of the land, especially from places where we would expect perfect courtesy, fair treatment, and a thoughtful understanding; not to mention the nonsense and crude comments coming from the seedy underbelly and "sleazy characters." But which major reform movement was treated any better in the beginning? Still, it takes a lot of patience to stay calm under such frustrating provocations; and the realization that, in the end, they are crucial to the success of the just cause can provide a sense of peace.
What is the question? Not whether many or few women are demanding political enfranchisement; not whether the marriage institution, as now regulated, is right or wrong; not whether this woman, or that, advocates "free love," so called, or anything else; not whether a wife will continue to be true to her marriage vows, or a mother faithful to her maternal instincts; not whether the cradle will be rocked, the pot boiled, and household affairs dutifully looked after; not whether women are better or worse than men; not whether they will vote wisely or foolishly, if allowed the ballot. These and a thousand similarly absurd issues are but mockeries. The one question to be settled is, shall the principles and doctrines of the Declaration of Independence be reduced to practice, so that taxation and representation shall go hand in hand, and the grand truth be made practically, as well as theoretically valid, that all are equally endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?
What’s the real question? It’s not about how many or how few women are pushing for the right to vote; it’s not about whether the way marriage is currently set up is right or wrong; it’s not about whether this woman or that one supports so-called "free love" or anything else; it’s not about whether a wife will stay true to her marriage vows or a mother will be loyal to her maternal instincts; it’s not about whether the cradle will be rocked, the pot boiled, and household duties responsibly managed; it’s not about whether women are better or worse than men; it’s not about whether they will vote wisely or foolishly if they are allowed to vote. These and a thousand other equally ridiculous issues are just distractions. The only question that needs to be addressed is: shall the principles and ideals of the Declaration of Independence be put into practice, so that taxation and representation go together, and the great truth be made valid in practice as well as in theory, that all are equally endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that all governments get their fair power from the consent of the governed?
Wm. Lloyd Garrison.
Wm. Lloyd Garrison.
Yours for equal rights,
Yours for equal rights,
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe referred to the organization of the association and the necessity for it. We had felt that existing associations had failed to represent the methods and convictions which belonged to our way of thinking. No right of a free society is more valuable than the right of free association, in virtue of which those who are able and willing to work can choose their own fellow-workers and adopt the center of activity which best corresponds with their feeling and with their homes. The experience of two years has confirmed our opinion of the propriety of the measures then adopted. We made no attempt to cajole or allure those who did not belong to us.
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe talked about the organization of the association and why it was necessary. We felt that the existing associations were not truly representing the methods and beliefs that matched our way of thinking. No right in a free society is more important than the right to freely associate, allowing those who are able and willing to work to choose their own colleagues and select the focus of their activities that aligns best with their values and homes. Our experience over the past two years has confirmed our belief in the appropriateness of the actions we took back then. We made no effort to persuade or attract those who were not part of our group.
I am sure that as our work in common has gone on we have grown in good-will. We are fighting our battle still, but do not see our victory yet. We are not opposing men and women, but the enemies of men and women—ignorance, prejudice, and injustice. Many people bring into a new movement the whole intensity and unreason of their personal desires and discontents, and the train of progress must carry all this luggage along with it. Woman suffrage means equality in and out of marriage.
I’m sure that as we’ve worked together, we’ve built goodwill. We’re still fighting our battle, but we don’t see victory yet. We aren’t going against individuals, but against the true enemies of humanity—ignorance, prejudice, and injustice. Many people bring all their personal desires and frustrations into a new movement, and the path to progress has to carry all this baggage along with it. Women’s suffrage means equality both in marriage and outside of it.
Mrs. Howe referred to the fact that women had been educated not to depend upon themselves, and drew a graphic picture of their condition should the tide of prosperity ebb from under them. Remember, too, I pray you, that power to do ill can not be denied without including the power to do good. The question as to whether men, in case that women should vote, would be less polite to women, was touched upon. The speaker said, "that if ladies wish to retain this deference, they certainly pay a dear price for it." The speaker was opposed to arguing that the right of woman suffrage was guaranteed in the XIV. and XV. Amendments. I go further back and find the spirit of all liberality in every liberal clause, and the spirit of all freedom.
Mrs. Howe pointed out that women had been raised not to rely on themselves and painted a vivid picture of their situation if the wave of prosperity were to recede. Please remember that the ability to do harm cannot be denied without also acknowledging the ability to do good. There was a discussion about whether men would be less courteous to women if they were allowed to vote. The speaker commented, "If women want to keep that respect, they certainly pay a high price for it." The speaker disagreed with the idea that women's right to vote was guaranteed by the XIV and XV Amendments. I look even further back and see the spirit of all generosity in every liberal clause, and the essence of all freedom.
Robert Dale Owen followed, and said woman suffrage was the only means of rectifying the injustice of the laws. His attention was first called to the value of suffrage when he endeavored to get a modification of the property laws for married women in 1836. As a member of the Indiana Legislature, he tried three successive years in vain to obtain for wives a right to their own earnings. He was fifteen years in effecting it. When the law was passed securing married women in their earnings, one of his fellow-members solemnly warned him that homes would be broken up and family happiness ruined, and that for all this unmeasured misery he would hereafter be held responsible. But the law still stood upon the statute book of Indiana, and homes were not destroyed.
Robert Dale Owen followed and stated that women's suffrage was the only way to correct the injustice of the laws. He first realized the importance of suffrage when he tried to change the property laws for married women in 1836. As a member of the Indiana Legislature, he unsuccessfully attempted for three consecutive years to secure a right for wives to their own earnings. It took him fifteen years to achieve this. When the law was finally passed to protect married women's earnings, one of his fellow members warned him that it would lead to broken homes and destroyed family happiness, and that he would be held responsible for all the resulting misery. Yet, the law remained in the Indiana statute book, and homes were not destroyed.
The Rev. Mrs. Celia Burleigh was the next speaker. She pictured, in a witty, epigrammatic manner, the progress of freedom in womankind. The picture drawn was of an Asiatic seraglio, where the spirit of revolution crept in, and the ladies commenced their incendiarism by walking abroad, and then followed up the direful unsexing of themselves by gradually removing the inviolable veil first from one eye and then the other—and last[Pg 818] and most horrible of all—from the nose. But it made her none the less lovely.
The Rev. Mrs. Celia Burleigh was the next speaker. She described, in a clever and witty way, the advancement of freedom among women. She painted a picture of an Asian harem, where the spirit of revolution snuck in, and the women began their rebellious acts by going out in public, and then followed up the shocking act of unsexing themselves by gradually removing their sacred veils, first from one eye and then the other—and finally[Pg 818], the most shocking of all—from their noses. But she remained just as beautiful.
Mr. Edward M. Davis then spoke briefly, and was followed by Mrs. Lucretia Mott, who gave some interesting reminiscences of the contempt for women manifested by the World's Convention in 1840, from which women delegates were excluded, and of which William Lloyd Garrison, in consequence, refused to become a member.
Mr. Edward M. Davis then spoke briefly, followed by Mrs. Lucretia Mott, who shared some intriguing memories of the disrespect shown to women at the World's Convention in 1840, where women delegates were excluded, leading William Lloyd Garrison to refuse membership.
The President, Mrs. Cutler, said: It seems clear to me that the XIV. and XV. Amendments recognize our rights. The XIV. Amendment was passed in the interest of a special class, but we must not forget that the passage of a general law for a particular class also guarantees whatever rights can be found to come under that same general idea. [Applause.] First, we have the definition of citizenship, which applies to us fairly and squarely under the phrase all "persons." Then comes the right to vote. Some say it is not a right but a privilege. I maintain the contrary. I say it is an inalienable right. You can not maintain a republican form of government and deny to half the population its right to vote. This may not be settled to-day or to-morrow, but the truth, like a mighty rock, stands there impregnable against all assault. We do not need to be in too much haste. Let the matter be sifted thoroughly. I do not object, therefore, to the phraseology of the resolution.
The President, Mrs. Cutler, said: It seems obvious to me that the XIV and XV Amendments acknowledge our rights. The XIV Amendment was created for a specific group, but we must remember that enacting a law for a particular class also secures any rights that fall under that same general concept. [Applause.] First, we have the definition of citizenship, which applies to us clearly under the term "all persons." Next is the right to vote. Some claim it’s not a right but a privilege. I argue the opposite. I declare it is an inalienable right. You cannot uphold a republican government and deny half the population their right to vote. This may not be resolved today or tomorrow, but the truth, like a strong rock, stands firm against any attack. We don’t need to rush. Let’s allow for a thorough examination of the issue. Therefore, I have no objections to the wording of the resolution.
Mr. Charles Burleigh said: I have never yet been able to see that the right of voting is secured legally to women under any instrument which is recognized as having the force of law. A republican form of government does not mean universal suffrage. We know that the framers of the Constitution never dreamed that the idea of a republic would include even all the males of the country. If this is not a correct idea I answer that when you make an affirmation you must accept that affirmation as the makers of it understood it. I hold we have no right to go to any use of legal quibbling in the matter. If we stand on simple right, let us stand there; if on constitutional authority, we have no right to warp that authority. So with the question of citizenship. It does not imply a voice in the government, by any means, to be a citizen.
Mr. Charles Burleigh said: I have never been able to see that women's right to vote is legally secured under any document recognized as having the force of law. A republican form of government doesn’t guarantee universal suffrage. We know that the framers of the Constitution never imagined that the concept of a republic would include even all the men in the country. If this isn't the right idea, I argue that when you make a statement, you must accept that statement as the makers understood it. I believe we have no right to use legal tricks in this matter. If we stand on simple rights, let’s stand there; if on constitutional authority, we have no right to distort that authority. The same goes for the issue of citizenship. Being a citizen does not necessarily mean having a say in the government.
Mr. Blackwell, on behalf of the Business Committee, offered some resolutions.[192]
Mr. Blackwell, representing the Business Committee, proposed some resolutions.[192]
Dr. H. T. Child spoke upon the second resolution. As a peace man and as a temperance man he was in favor of the resolution.
Dr. H. T. Child addressed the second resolution. As a supporter of peace and temperance, he was in favor of the resolution.
Colonel Higginson said: If the resolution that has just been read commits this body to the peace, temperance, or any other movement, I would[Pg 819] oppose it. Every great moral movement must stand by itself. Napoleon said that the next worse thing to a bad general was two good generals. I do not oppose it as an intemperate man, nor as a war man, for I served too long in the army not to wish for peace. I simply want my wife to vote, and how she votes can be dictated by her conscience. I don't believe in hitching the woman question to anything. Emerson said if you want to succeed you must hitch your wagon to a star, but two stars will only cause confusion.
Colonel Higginson said: If the resolution that was just read commits this group to peace, temperance, or any other movement, I would[Pg 819] oppose it. Every major moral movement needs to stand on its own. Napoleon said that the only thing worse than a bad general is two good generals. I’m not opposing it as an overly emotional man, nor as someone who supports war, since I served in the army long enough to want peace. I just want my wife to be able to vote, and how she votes should come from her own conscience. I don't think we should tie the women's rights issue to anything else. Emerson said if you want to succeed, you should hitch your wagon to a star, but two stars will only lead to confusion.
Mr. Edward M. Davis opposed the temperance, etc., resolutions. We had better not, he said, pass anything but suffrage on this platform.
Mr. Edward M. Davis opposed the resolutions on temperance and other issues. We should stick to just suffrage on this platform, he said.
Mrs. Gough said the resolution did not indorse the peace and temperance movements. It simply opens up a channel of education. Woman needs the growth and development coming from the exercise of higher powers than she now possesses. The resolutions were then unanimously adopted.
Mrs. Gough said the resolution didn't support the peace and temperance movements. It merely creates a pathway for education. Women need the growth and development that comes from using higher abilities than they currently have. The resolutions were then unanimously approved.
At the afternoon session the officers for the next year were elected. The presidency was accorded to Mrs. Lucy Stone. The speakers at this meeting were Dr. Stone, of Michigan; Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake, of New York; John Cameron, of Delaware; John Ritchie, of Kansas; Mrs. Margaret V. Longley, Mrs. M. W. Coggins, Miss Matilda Hindman, Mrs. Cutler, Miss Mary Grew, Mrs. Lucas, sister of John Bright, and others.
At the afternoon session, the officers for the next year were elected. Mrs. Lucy Stone was selected as president. The speakers at this meeting included Dr. Stone from Michigan; Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake from New York; John Cameron from Delaware; John Ritchie from Kansas; Mrs. Margaret V. Longley, Mrs. M. W. Coggins, Miss Matilda Hindman, Mrs. Cutler, Miss Mary Grew, Mrs. Lucas, who is John Bright's sister, and others.
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, at the evening session offered resolutions of thanks for the hospitality extended to the members of the Association by the citizens of Philadelphia, and also for the able and impartial manner in which the proceedings of the Association had been reported by the press of the city. In a brief address, Mrs. Howe then summed up the proceedings of the Association, saying that she had never attended a convention where such entire harmony had prevailed, and where such an amount of good work had been accomplished. Every one, she was sure, would go away happy and contented.
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, during the evening session, expressed gratitude for the warm welcome the citizens of Philadelphia had shown to the members of the Association. She also thanked the local media for their fair and thorough coverage of the Association's activities. In a short speech, Mrs. Howe summarized the Association's proceedings, noting that she had never attended a convention where there was such complete harmony and where so much good work had been done. She was confident that everyone would leave feeling happy and satisfied.
The President, Mrs. Cutler, then made the valedictory address, complimenting the audience for the attention they had shown and the interest they had manifested in the proceedings. She alluded to the fight for freedom in the days gone by—a fight in which nearly all present had taken a part, and prophesied that as they had won that fight they would win the fight in which they were now engaged. In conclusion she said that in the name of justice, in the name of humanity, in the name of love, she demanded that the rights which woman desired should be accorded to her. The Convention then adjourned.
The President, Mrs. Cutler, then gave the closing speech, praising the audience for their attention and interest in the events. She referenced the struggle for freedom in the past—a struggle in which almost everyone present had played a part—and predicted that just as they had won that battle, they would also succeed in the current fight they were facing. In conclusion, she stated that on behalf of justice, humanity, and love, she demanded that women be granted the rights they sought. The Convention then adjourned.
The following extract is from an editorial in the Woman's Journal:
The following extract is from an editorial in the Woman's Journal:
The Convention of the American Woman Suffrage Association in Washington [1871] was in every sense a success.
The Convention of the American Woman Suffrage Association in Washington [1871] was a success in every way.
It made a calm, deliberate statement of the reasons that make the exercise of suffrage woman's right and duty. It made a strong and earnest appeal to the intellect and conscience of the country in behalf of equal rights for all. The speakers were selected beforehand, and came prepared to do justice to their subject. Accordingly the proceedings were orderly, harmonious, and effective, and the influence exerted was serious and impressive. The resolution adopted at the annual meeting in Philadelphia, a fortnight before, affirming that woman suffrage, which means equality in the home, means also greater purity, constancy, and permanence in marriage, was reaffirmed.
It made a calm, thoughtful statement about why exercising the right to vote is both a woman's right and duty. It made a strong and sincere appeal to the intellect and conscience of the nation for equal rights for everyone. The speakers were chosen in advance and came ready to represent their topic well. As a result, the proceedings were organized, harmonious, and impactful, and the influence exerted was significant and impressive. The resolution adopted at the annual meeting in Philadelphia two weeks earlier, confirming that women's suffrage, which signifies equality in the household, also leads to greater purity, commitment, and stability in marriage, was reaffirmed.
Hon. Geo. F. Hoar made an admirable argument in behalf of suffrage at the closing[Pg 820] session. A large number of Senators and Representatives attended the meetings. Many of these, among others Senators Morton and Wilson, assured us of their hearty sympathy with our movement. The most kindly and genial hospitality was extended to the speakers by the citizens of Washington, and nothing occurred to mar the pleasure or diminish the influence of the meetings, which were very largely attended, the audiences averaging one thousand.
Hon. Geo. F. Hoar made a compelling argument for suffrage at the closing[Pg 820] session. A significant number of Senators and Representatives showed up for the meetings. Many of them, including Senators Morton and Wilson, expressed their strong support for our movement. The citizens of Washington offered warm and generous hospitality to the speakers, and nothing happened to disrupt the enjoyment or lessen the impact of the meetings, which were well attended, with the audiences averaging around one thousand.
We have just reason to complain of the spirit of the Washington press, as manifested in their reports of the Convention. The sole exception was the Daily Chronicle, which was fair and friendly. The other reports amounted to little more than a burlesque, and the editorial comments consisted chiefly of denunciation and ridicule. The N.Y. Tribune, finding nothing to ridicule in our proceedings, suppressed all mention of the Convention, not publishing even the brief notices of the Associated Press. Having charged woman suffrage with hostility to marriage, the Tribune has carefully refrained from informing its readers that the American Woman Suffrage Association, representing thirteen organized State societies, has held for the first time a Convention in Washington, solely to urge the claim of woman to legal and political equality. We wait to see whether the Tribune will be equally reticent, hereafter. But neither the silence nor the misrepresentations of our opponents will check the steady growth and progress of the woman suffrage movement.
We have good reason to complain about the attitude of the Washington press, as shown in their reports on the Convention. The only exception was the Daily Chronicle, which was fair and supportive. The other reports were little more than a mockery, and the editorial comments were mostly filled with criticism and mockery. The N.Y. Tribune, finding nothing to mock in our proceedings, ignored all mention of the Convention, even leaving out brief notices from the Associated Press. After accusing woman suffrage of being against marriage, the Tribune has deliberately avoided informing its readers that the American Woman Suffrage Association, which represents thirteen organized State societies, held its first Convention in Washington solely to advocate for women's legal and political equality. We are waiting to see if the Tribune will remain equally quiet in the future. But neither the silence nor the misrepresentations of our opponents will stop the steady growth and progress of the woman suffrage movement.
H. B. B.
H. B. B.
The following is a short extract from the able address of Hon. G. F. Hoar, Representative from Massachusetts, who said:
The following is a short excerpt from the capable speech of Hon. G. F. Hoar, Representative from Massachusetts, who said:
He would prefer the subject left to the leaders on the platform and only be a follower in the ranks, but on command of those having the matter in hand he had come to show his colors. As he understood the subject, it was to assure the American people that it was right to admit women to participate in the affairs of government. They were using the best minds and brains to draw out the arguments on this subject, and some of our wisest fellow-citizens have been unable to see any favorable argument for granting this privilege. He then proceeded to give the ideas entertained by citizens of the different foreign countries as to what was the object of the republic, and said that this country was made up of the aggregate personal worth of the people. There could not be in a State a man having the right to compel another to be subject to him without being unjust. Therefore it is said that all men are created equal. Is it right and safe that the women of this country should have a voice in its administration? The only way to find out would be by having the understanding of those persons who are to accomplish it and carry it into effect. If there was anything in which woman excelled man it was her penetration and correct judgment of persons at first sight. It by no means follows that because woman has the right to vote, that entitles her to hold office. That right is vested in the judgment of our fellow-citizens, who, if they regard us as worthy and capable, will elect us to the offices.
He would rather the topic be left to the leaders on the platform and just be a follower in the ranks, but when called upon by those in charge, he came forward to express his views. As he understood the issue, it was to assure the American people that it was right to allow women to take part in government. They were utilizing the best minds to articulate the arguments on this topic, and some of our most knowledgeable fellow citizens have been unable to find any valid arguments for granting this privilege. He then went on to share the perspectives of citizens from various foreign countries regarding the purpose of the republic, stating that this country is made up of the collective personal worth of its people. No man in a state should have the right to force another to be subservient to him without it being unjust. That's why it's said that all men are created equal. Is it right and safe for the women of this country to have a say in its governance? The only way to determine this would be to consult with those who will put it into action. If there’s one area where women excel beyond men, it’s their intuition and accurate judgment of people at first glance. However, just because women have the right to vote doesn’t mean they are entitled to hold office. That right depends on the judgment of our fellow citizens who, if they see us as deserving and capable, will elect us to those positions.
Upon the Convention held in Baltimore, the following editorial appeared in the Woman's Journal:
Upon the Convention held in Baltimore, the following editorial appeared in the Woman's Journal:
In no one State of the Union has there been a more rapid advance in public sentiment, during the last ten years, upon all public questions, than in the State of Maryland. In 1861 a woman suffrage meeting in Baltimore would have been a failure. In 1871 the Convention of the American Woman Suffrage Association has proved the very reverse. Two evening sessions and two intermediate day sessions were well attended. The speakers were Lucy Stone, Margaret W. Campbell, Elizabeth K. Churchill, and Henry B. Blackwell.
In no state in the Union has public opinion changed more rapidly in the last ten years than in Maryland. In 1861, a women's suffrage meeting in Baltimore would have been a failure. By 1871, the Convention of the American Woman Suffrage Association showed just the opposite. Two evening sessions and two day sessions in between were well attended. The speakers included Lucy Stone, Margaret W. Campbell, Elizabeth K. Churchill, and Henry B. Blackwell.
Notwithstanding the disappointment felt by the audience at the unexpected absence of Mrs. Julia Ward Howe and Rev. James Freeman Clarke, great interest was manifested, and the newspapers of the city gave the meetings candid and respectful notices. We were more than gratified by the unusual fairness and courtesy displayed by the press of Baltimore. Indeed, to this and especially to the generous aid of that admirable paper, the Baltimore American, are largely due the success of our meetings. We feel all the more bound to notice this frank and generous treatment of a new and unpopular movement[Pg 821] by the press of Maryland because we have felt it our duty to condemn the striking contrast exhibited in other quarters. In Baltimore competent reporters made a conscientious abstract of the speeches they professed to report. When this is done in New York and Washington, the woman suffrage cause will have less difficulty in enlisting public attention.
Despite the disappointment of the audience at the unexpected absence of Mrs. Julia Ward Howe and Rev. James Freeman Clarke, there was a lot of interest shown, and the city's newspapers gave the meetings honest and respectful coverage. We were more than pleased with the unusual fairness and courtesy displayed by the press in Baltimore. In fact, much of the success of our meetings can be attributed to this, especially the generous support of that excellent publication, the Baltimore American. We feel even more compelled to highlight this straightforward and generous treatment of a new and unpopular movement[Pg 821] by the press in Maryland because we have felt it necessary to criticize the stark contrast seen in other areas. In Baltimore, skilled reporters provided a conscientious summary of the speeches they claimed to cover. When this happens in New York and Washington, the woman suffrage cause will have an easier time attracting public attention.
We were also exceedingly gratified to find that the laws of Maryland for wives, mothers, and widows, though still far from equitable, are greatly in advance of those of Massachusetts and of most Northern States. We are promised by one of the most eminent lawyers of Baltimore a full statement of the legal status of married women in Maryland. We shall publish it in the Woman's Journal, as an evidence that equity and liberality are not bounded by "Mason and Dixon" or any other geographical line.
We were also very pleased to discover that the laws of Maryland regarding wives, mothers, and widows, while still not completely fair, are much better than those in Massachusetts and most Northern States. One of the most respected lawyers in Baltimore has promised us a complete overview of the legal status of married women in Maryland. We will publish it in the Woman's Journal to show that fairness and open-mindedness are not limited by "Mason and Dixon" or any other geographical boundary.
H. B. B.
H. B. B.
A mass convention of the American Woman Suffrage Association at Apollo Hall, New York, on the 9th of May, 1872, was an interesting and successful meeting. Mrs. Lucy Stone presided, and made the opening address. Rev. James Freeman Clarke, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Mary F. Eastman, Rev. Edward Eggleston, Helen M. Jenkins, Henry B. Blackwell, Amanda Deyo, and others addressed the Convention.
A large gathering of the American Woman Suffrage Association took place at Apollo Hall in New York on May 9, 1872, and it was an engaging and successful event. Mrs. Lucy Stone chaired the meeting and delivered the opening speech. Rev. James Freeman Clarke, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Mary F. Eastman, Rev. Edward Eggleston, Helen M. Jenkins, Henry B. Blackwell, Amanda Deyo, and others spoke at the convention.
Some disappointment was felt at the unavoidable absence of Mr. Garrison, Mrs. Bowles, and Mrs. Livermore, the two former being detained by severe indisposition. In consequence of an error of dates on the part of the proprietors of Steinway Hall, the meeting was held at an unusual place; nevertheless, the number of persons in attendance at the three sessions averaged seven hundred, and was composed, for the most part, of substantial, reliable friends of the movement. The notices of the Press were brief, but respectful. The Convention declined to take any separate political action, arraigned the so-called "Liberal Republicans" for their illiberal exclusion of women, and appealed to the approaching National Conventions at Philadelphia and Baltimore for a recognition of the rightful claims of woman to legal and political equality.
Some disappointment was felt at the unavoidable absence of Mr. Garrison, Mrs. Bowles, and Mrs. Livermore, as the first two were held back by serious illness. Due to a mix-up with the dates by the owners of Steinway Hall, the meeting was held in an unusual location; however, the average attendance across the three sessions was about seven hundred, mostly consisting of reliable supporters of the movement. The press coverage was brief but respectful. The Convention chose not to take any separate political actions, criticized the so-called "Liberal Republicans" for their unfair exclusion of women, and appealed to the upcoming National Conventions in Philadelphia and Baltimore to acknowledge the legitimate claims of women for legal and political equality.
The American Woman Suffrage Association held in 1872 its fourth annual meeting, and celebrated its third anniversary at St. Louis.
The American Woman Suffrage Association held its fourth annual meeting and celebrated its third anniversary in St. Louis in 1872.
Dr. Stone, of Michigan, said: Friends of the cause of universal suffrage—We live in an era of common sense. Sir William Hamilton, who was a great philosopher, and who investigated all the systems of philosophy from Aristotle down to Descartes and Kant, who went to the lowest depths of philosophy, dived deep for pearls, sometimes bringing up also mud and clams, declared after all his survey of the various schools of philosophy, that the great regulating power of the human mind was common sense; that of all the faculties, that which controlled all others was common sense. That was the basis of his system of philosophy. Now it is just as appropriate as friends of social and political reform, that we should rely upon common sense, as it was for this great philosopher, and it is this on which we purpose to rely. Wherever there is a battle to be fought, they who make the best use and most continued exercise of common sense are sure to win. This is not only true in moral contests, in the strife of mind with mind, but it is true in those material contests such as we have recently had. It was true in the great contest between Germany and France. It was this the crusaders lacked, and the reason why they spent so many ages in doing nothing was that they did not exercise their common sense. When the Jews, by their follies, by their obduracy, had destroyed themselves, and the Almighty wished to[Pg 822] bring them to their senses, he said, "Come, let us reason together." For he knew if they would exercise their common sense they would no longer be rebellious as they had been. And it is true at the present time. I think if we can succeed in inducing those who differ from us to reason—I mean to exercise that regulating power which the common mind as well as the philosophic mind possesses, if they would exercise their common sense, the battle would be fought and the victory would be won. Sometimes circumstances unexpectedly bring men to their senses in these matters. We know there has been a great deal of discussion on the subject of slavery, and we needed a Dred Scott decision to bring men to their senses. When they contemplated that in all its bearings and ultimate results, common sense said: It can never be endured; we have had enough of this going on. Let us come directly to the point. Is a negro a man? Is he a rational, accountable man or not? If a beast has rights we are bound to respect, and if a man for abusing it may be thrown into the penitentiary, is it possible that he who is made in the image of God is without rights? Does not common sense teach that we have some rights, and if our laws contradict such a decision as this it is time we have better laws, and such as common sense will approve. We want some one to rise in the cause of suffrage to cut the Gordian knot that binds the community, that binds churches, that binds good men everywhere, as well as those who are willing to be mistaken. A single word from Gen. Butler, who, whatever may have been charged against him, is not lacking in common sense, the single word "contraband," wrought a revolution in the midst of our rebellion, and to that we owe to a great extent our success in the war. We want such a gleam of light to burst upon the minds of the community, upon the great American people who are interested in the subject. The field is ours for the next four years, and we will strive to impress the doctrines of common sense upon all men and all women everywhere, until the atmosphere shall be full of it and all shall take it in by absorption.
Dr. Stone, from Michigan, said: Friends of the universal suffrage movement—We are living in a time of common sense. Sir William Hamilton, who was a renowned philosopher and explored various philosophical systems from Aristotle to Descartes and Kant, dived deep into philosophy, bringing back valuable insights, but also some confusion. He concluded that the main guiding force of the human mind was common sense, and that it was the faculty that governed all others. This was the foundation of his philosophical beliefs. Similarly, as advocates for social and political reform, we should rely on common sense just as he did, and that’s what we plan to do. In any conflict, those who effectively use and consistently apply common sense are the ones who will prevail. This applies not just to moral dilemmas or intellectual debates, but also to tangible conflicts, like those we've seen recently. It was evident in the significant struggle between Germany and France. The Crusaders lacked this, which is why they wasted so much time achieving little—they failed to apply common sense. When the Jews, through their mistakes and stubbornness, brought destruction upon themselves, God sought to help them find clarity by saying, "Come, let us reason together." He understood that if they used their common sense, they would stop their rebellion. The same holds true today. If we can encourage those who disagree with us to engage in reasoning—using that regulating ability that both the average person and philosophical thinkers possess—if they apply their common sense, the conflict will be addressed and we will achieve victory. Sometimes unexpected events prompt people to recognize the truth in these matters. There has been extensive debate about slavery, and we needed the Dred Scott decision to bring people to their senses. When they considered all its implications and outcomes, common sense told them: This cannot continue; we’ve had enough. Let's get straight to the issue. Is a black person a man? Is he a rational, accountable human being or not? If an animal has rights that we must respect, and if mistreating it can lead a person to prison, how can a being made in the image of God have no rights? Doesn’t common sense indicate that we have certain rights, and if our laws contradict a decision like this, it’s time for better laws—laws that align with common sense. We need someone to step up for suffrage to untangle the issues that confuse society, that tie up churches, that restrain good people everywhere, as well as those who are open to being wrong. A single word from Gen. Butler, who, despite any criticisms, possesses common sense, the word "contraband," sparked a revolution during our rebellion, and it largely contributed to our success in the war. We need a similar moment of clarity to enlighten the minds of the community and the American people who care about this issue. The next four years belong to us, and we will work to instill the principles of common sense in everyone until it saturates the atmosphere and is universally embraced.
Mrs. Longley, of Cincinnati, said—Ladies and Gentlemen: In a country where "No taxation without representation" is a watchword, and where it is held that "all just governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed," it should be unnecessary to plead for the recognition of the right of half its people to participate in making the laws by which they are taxed and governed. The justice of woman's claim to the ballot is so self-evident, and so entirely in accord with the spirit of our institutions and the fundamental principles upon which they are based, that I often feel as though it were offering an insult to American men to undertake to argue the question. But, every election day reminds us that these fundamental principles which our forefathers fought to establish are outraged. "We, the people," they said, yet nearly a century finds half the people ignored, half the people taxed without being represented, and governed without their consent. I know it is held that the expression "the people" in the Constitution does not include women, and should not be interpreted literally; but it appears to me that if we engage in this method of interpretation of constitutions and laws we shall soon get things mixed. If the expression does not include women in the sense of voters it does not include them in the sense of tax-payers, nor in the sense of criminals, nor does it even include them as being entitled to[Pg 823] the enjoyment of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"—as the Declaration of Independence declares "a people" to be entitled to these.
Mrs. Longley, of Cincinnati, said—Ladies and Gentlemen: In a country where "No taxation without representation" is a key principle, and where it is believed that "all just governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed," it should be clear that half the population has the right to participate in creating the laws by which they are taxed and governed. The fairness of women's right to vote is so obvious and completely aligned with the spirit of our institutions and the foundational principles they are built on that I often feel as if arguing this point is an insult to American men. Yet, every election day reminds us that these vital principles, which our forefathers fought for, are being violated. "We, the people," they proclaimed, yet nearly a century has passed with half the people being disregarded, half the people taxed without representation, and governed without their consent. I know it’s commonly believed that the term "the people" in the Constitution does not include women and shouldn’t be taken literally, but it seems to me that if we start interpreting constitutions and laws this way, we will quickly lose our clarity. If "the people" does not include women as voters, then it cannot include them as taxpayers, nor as criminals, nor as deserving of[Pg 823] the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"—as the Declaration of Independence states that "a people" are entitled to these.
Surely it will not be said that the rights of half the people of the United States were ignored by the men who framed the Constitution of the United States. It was evidently the object of the Constitution to secure equal rights to all. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the great principle of human equality, and the rights of women can not be delegated to or represented by their husbands. Women who believe that they are responsible to God only, are not willing to be circumscribed by men.
Surely no one would claim that the rights of half the population of the United States were overlooked by the men who created the Constitution. It was clearly the purpose of the Constitution to guarantee equal rights for everyone. The Constitution of the United States acknowledges the fundamental principle of human equality, and women's rights cannot be handed over to or represented by their husbands. Women who believe they are accountable only to God are not willing to be limited by men.
Mrs. Hannah M. Tracy Cutler said that this was a progressive, a growing, and a glorious country. All people came here and found protection under its generous shelter, more or less. We had been digging away at this suffrage question until, in her opinion, we are getting pretty near the foundation of government. We are pulling up the old ideas and throwing them out of the way and making room for the grand tree of liberty to grow. That tree has already grown to considerable size, and flourished more or less under the generous protection of our institutions—less a good deal, the negro said a few years ago, though now he begins to realize that it is more.
Mrs. Hannah M. Tracy Cutler said that this is a forward-thinking, evolving, and amazing country. Everyone comes here and finds some level of safety under its welcoming embrace. We’ve been working on the suffrage issue for a while now, and in her view, we’re getting pretty close to the core of government. We’re uprooting outdated ideas and clearing the way for the grand tree of liberty to thrive. That tree has already grown quite large and has somewhat prospered with the support of our institutions—though significantly less, as the Black community noted a few years ago, it’s starting to become more apparent now.
We women are quite well protected. Sometimes we are protected a great deal more than we want to be. [Several ladies in the audience, "That's so!" and laughter.] The American men are the best men under the sun. Each one of them is a prince of the blood royal. That's a reasonably good compliment. Now, gentlemen, turn round and say to the women of America, "You are each and every one of you a princess by divine right, and we will give you even the half of our kingdom." That is all we ask. But they say, "Show us the precedent. The thing never has been done before. The women have been ignored in government from the earliest days until now," etc. Why, gentlemen, away back in the remote ages of history—so far that the memory of man runneth not distinctly thereto—we find that women not only lived and gave men to the world, but that they lived and gave laws to the world.
We women are pretty well protected. Sometimes we're protected a lot more than we want to be. [Several ladies in the audience, "That's so!" and laughter.] The American men are the best men you'll find anywhere. Each one of them is like royalty. That's a pretty good compliment. Now, gentlemen, turn around and say to the women of America, "Every single one of you is a princess by divine right, and we’ll share half of our kingdom with you." That’s all we ask. But they say, "Show us the example. This has never been done before. Women have been left out of government from the earliest days until now," etc. Well, gentlemen, way back in the distant past—so far back that no one clearly remembers—we see that women not only lived and brought men into the world, but they also created laws for it.
Mrs. Stone, the President, said she would like to speak to the delegates and friends, because she knew those who were here had been working in this cause for years. They are short of time, but all give it that deep, earnest baptism of work for the principles that underlie republican institutions. They would work until that end is achieved, or until death relieved them from their labor. She felt cheered on seeing the progress they had made. It was about twenty years since the speaker came to this city to deliver a course of lectures for woman's rights. They called it woman's rights in those days. They did not use the word suffrage at all; and, as she stood there now, her mind ran back over a score of years. When she counted the gains they had made, it seemed as if she had been in some fairy palace, and by charms the old wrongs had dropped away and new good had sprung up. They had fought for woman's rights, and had taken hold of the hands of little girls growing out of girlhood into womanhood—girls who must stand on their own feet and earn a living for themselves. When there was no father's hand or brother's arm to help, what could woman do? She looked out into the great thoroughfares of industry open to all men, and almost all were shut against her. Woman was a teacher at a dollar a day, and had[Pg 824] to board round. She was a seamstress with still smaller pay, or she was a housekeeper at her own house or somebody's else, where, so far as material gains were concerned, the results were small. Other industries were shut to her. The world is as full of women as men. They have to eat, drink, and be clothed, and, until other opportunities are obtained, their supplies are infinitely smaller than those offered to men. Why should women, whose supple fingers can set type—why should not they be type-setters? The printers joined together in bands and swore by all the gods they knew that women should not be printers. They joined together in a body and printed in a book that they would not work for any man who employed women as printers. They thought it would degrade the labor of man. The reformers asked for what was honest, good, and true, and found a response in the business interest of men, and the way was opened for women printers. Instead of brothers talking of supporting their sisters and making themselves poor they now worked side by side. A paper which they would have here for subscription—the Woman's Journal—came from an office where all the printers, with two exceptions, were girls; and the man who managed the office said it was an advantage, because the girls are always sober and never go on a spree. He could always be sure of having the paper out at the right time. The steady, honest, little women printers are always there. They asked why the women could not go into the stores and sell shoes, cloth, and dry goods, and why should not men build cities and sail ships and do what larger muscles fit them for? and they quoted the words of King Solomon, who spoke of a good wife sending out ships and dealing in merchandise. Women entered stores and became not only clerks but merchants, and some of the best stores she knew to-day were owned by women, who do not look to the time when they are to go to the workhouse or some worse place even, but were laying by some means to give them comfortable maintenance in their old age. Fathers who had daughters looked forward with more courage, because there were more avenues for woman's industry and better pay to reward it.
Mrs. Stone, the President, said she wanted to talk to the delegates and friends because she recognized that those present had been dedicated to this cause for years. They were short on time, but everyone contributed their passionate, serious effort for the principles that support republican institutions. They would continue to work until that goal was achieved or until death freed them from their labor. She felt encouraged by the progress they had made. It had been about twenty years since she came to this city to give a series of lectures on women's rights. Back then, it was called women's rights; the term suffrage wasn’t even mentioned. Standing there now, her thoughts drifted back over those twenty years. When she counted their achievements, it felt like entering a fairy tale where the old injustices simply vanished and new good things sprang forth. They fought for women's rights and supported young girls transitioning into adulthood—girls who had to stand on their own feet and earn a living for themselves. When there was no father’s support or brother’s assistance, what could a woman do? She looked out at the vast job opportunities available to men, most of which were closed off to her. Women could work as teachers earning a dollar a day, but had to find places to board. They became seamstresses earning even less or housekeepers in their own homes or others’, where the compensation was minimal. Other professions were closed to them. The world is as crowded with women as it is with men. They need food, clothing, and shelter, but until more opportunities opened up, their options were far more limited than those available to men. Why shouldn’t women, with their nimble fingers able to set type, be type-setters? The printers banded together and vowed that women should not become printers. They united and published a declaration stating they would not work for any man employing women in those roles because they believed it would demean men’s labor. The reformers sought honesty, goodness, and truth, and found a response in men’s business interests, paving the way for women printers. Instead of brothers discussing supporting their sisters and risking their financial well-being, they now worked side by side. A publication they would be offering for subscription—the Woman's Journal—came from an office where all but two of the printers were women. The manager said it was beneficial because the women were always responsible and never went out partying. He could rely on the paper being published on time. The diligent, honest women printers were always present. They questioned why women couldn't work in stores selling shoes, fabric, and dry goods, and why men should only build cities and sail ships, as those tasks fit their physical strength. They cited King Solomon, who spoke of a good wife sending out ships and engaging in trade. Women began to enter stores as both clerks and business owners, and some of the best shops she knew today were owned by women who planned for their futures rather than waiting for the day they might end up in a poorhouse or worse, and who were saving to ensure a comfortable old age. Fathers with daughters looked ahead with more optimism since there were more job opportunities for women and improved pay to reward their efforts.
When Chicago was burned, the telegraphic dispatches most promptly forwarded and accurately worded were sent by women, and a generous public appreciated the fact. In medical matters they said, "Here is a department—here is a field for which women are peculiarly adapted, and to which they would be welcomed in the hour of peril." They were laughed at and called "she doctors" by those who thought women would be scared by their vulgarity; and some young doctors threw stones and mud, literally, and tried to prevent women being physicians. But gentlemen who had wives and daughters looked in the faces of those half-bearded boys mocking at women wishing to study medicine, and asked, "Are these the fellows who wish to come to our homes and practice?" And when those boys knew they would not be welcome to those houses, they smoothed down their anger, went back to their studies, and have behaved better ever since. The speaker mentioned the case of a sister of the Fowlers who kept a horse and carriage, and a man to drive. She has a large practice, with $15,000 a year. They next asked that there should be women lawyers. She believed the day was not far off when women would as worthily fill that as any other profession. What they asked was, that woman should have a wider sphere of activity.[Pg 825]
When Chicago burned, the fastest and most accurately written telegrams came from women, and the public recognized this. In healthcare, people said, "This is a field where women are especially suited and would be welcomed in times of crisis." They were mocked and called "she doctors" by those who thought women would be put off by their rudeness; some young male doctors even threw rocks and mud, literally, trying to stop women from becoming physicians. But men with wives and daughters looked at those young men making fun of women wanting to study medicine and asked, "Are these really the ones who want to come into our homes and practice?" When those boys realized they wouldn’t be welcome in those houses, they calmed down, returned to their studies, and have behaved better since. The speaker mentioned a sister of the Fowlers who owned a horse and carriage, along with a driver. She has a large practice, earning $15,000 a year. They also requested that there should be women lawyers. She believed the day was coming soon when women would competently fill that role just like any other profession. What they wanted was for women to have a broader range of opportunities.[Pg 825]
The speaker next alluded to the fact that the captain of a ship going to California had fallen sick and died. The captain's wife, who had been on many voyages, asked the sailors over the dead body of her husband to be as loyal to her as they had been to him, and every man swore fealty to the woman, whom they knew to be worthy of command. When she brought the ship safe to port, the grateful underwriters made up a purse for the woman who had saved the ship.
The speaker then mentioned that the captain of a ship heading to California had gotten sick and passed away. The captain's wife, who had gone on many voyages, asked the sailors over her husband's lifeless body to be as loyal to her as they had been to him, and each man pledged his loyalty to her, knowing she deserved to lead. When she successfully brought the ship into port, the thankful underwriters gathered a fund for the woman who had saved the ship.
After relating a similar anecdote in relation to a ship that sailed from China, the speaker narrated the progress made by women in being admitted to the Christian ministry. When they had so many rights, they were sure they could earn their own bread; and they must have the right to vote in this Government, where they were taxed, and where their sons could be sent to fight in war. In a republican government they were entitled to vote; and now the Republican party—the great Republican party that had swept the country by such a magnificent vote—had made the cause its own and could carry them on to triumph; giving them the suffrage as it had given it to the negroes. The Convention at Philadelphia listened respectfully to their claim, and the Republican party of the State of Massachusetts had put it in their platform. In the last campaign the suffragists won five hundred thousand votes of men who were bound to vote for them by and by, and they were sure to win. She believed the final hour of victory could not be far away.
After sharing a similar story about a ship that sailed from China, the speaker discussed the progress women have made in gaining admission to the Christian ministry. With so many rights, they were confident they could support themselves; and they deserved the right to vote in this government, where they were taxed and where their sons could be sent to fight in wars. In a republic, they had the right to vote; and now the Republican party—the great Republican party that had swept the nation with an incredible vote—had embraced their cause and could lead them to victory, granting them suffrage just as it had to Black men. The Convention in Philadelphia listened respectfully to their demands, and the Republican party of Massachusetts had included it in their platform. In the last campaign, the suffragists earned five hundred thousand votes from men who would eventually vote for them, so they were confident of their success. She believed that the moment of victory was drawing near.
Mrs. Howe, chairman of the Executive Committee, gave a long and deeply interesting report. Mr. Blackwell read the following letters:
Mrs. Howe, chair of the Executive Committee, delivered a lengthy and very engaging report. Mr. Blackwell read the following letters:
Mrs. Lucy Stone:—Dear Madam—I should be glad to meet with you at St. Louis and to add my testimony to that of the noble band, who, after so long a conflict for another step in the advance of humanity, seem on the eve of seeing their wishes fulfilled. I have never been sanguine as to the near and rapid accomplishment of the admission of women to the right and duty of suffrage, but I have never doubted of its ultimate accomplishment, because I believe that every movement, founded in justice and wisdom, will at length prevail. The cause of woman suffrage never seemed to me more worthy of the consideration of thoughtful men than now. What it has suffered, all causes that strike at deep principles must expect to suffer in their early history. And it has been relieved of its hindrances sooner than might have been expected. The action of political conventions, State and National, has been significant. If the articles on suffrage are vague as to principle, they are striking as the record of the conclusions of observant politicians in respect to the currents and tendencies of the public mind. They felt the need of saying something, and if they did it reluctantly, it is all the more significant. While then I can not be with you personally, I am with you in sympathy, and in the firm faith of the justice of your cause and of its final victory.
Mrs. Lucy Stone:—Dear Madam—I would be happy to meet you in St. Louis and to support the remarkable group of individuals who, after such a long struggle for progress in humanity, seem on the verge of achieving their goals. I've never been overly optimistic about the quick and immediate success of women being granted the right to vote, but I've always believed it will eventually happen because I think that any movement rooted in justice and wisdom will ultimately succeed. The case for women's suffrage has never seemed more deserving of serious attention from thoughtful individuals than it does now. What it has endured, all causes that challenge fundamental principles should expect to endure in their early stages. Yet it has overcome its obstacles sooner than expected. The actions of political conventions, both State and National, have been noteworthy. If their statements regarding suffrage lack clarity in principle, they are telling as records of the conclusions drawn by observant politicians about public sentiments and trends. They recognized the need to address the issue, and even if they did so with reluctance, that only adds to its significance. So while I can't be with you in person, I stand with you in spirit, firmly believing in the righteousness of your cause and its inevitable success.
Henry Ward Beecher.
Henry Ward Beecher.
Very truly yours,
Very truly yours,
Brooklyn, November 9, 1872.
Brooklyn, November 9, 1872.
My Dear Mrs. Howe and Lucy Stone:—I am sorry that I must decline your kind invitation to attend the annual meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association at St. Louis. I am too old (approaching seventy-six) and infirm to make long journeys. Let woman be of good cheer. She will not have to wait for the ballot much longer. The arguments are unanswerable and will soon be crowned with success. Allow me to send you the enclosed twenty-five dollars toward defraying the expenses of the meeting. With great regard,
My Dear Mrs. Howe and Lucy Stone:—I'm sorry that I have to decline your kind invitation to attend the annual meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association in St. Louis. I'm too old (almost seventy-six) and not well enough to make long trips. Women should stay positive. They won't have to wait for the vote much longer. The arguments are solid and will soon lead to success. Please allow me to send you the enclosed twenty-five dollars to help with the expenses of the meeting. With great respect,
Gerrit Smith.
Gerrit Smith.
Your friend,
Your friend,
Peterboro, N. Y., November 15, 1872.
Peterboro, N. Y., November 15, 1872.
Dear Lucy:—I am glad to hear that the American Woman Suffrage Association is to meet at St. Louis this month. The more women are brought to think on this subject,[Pg 826] the more they will be convinced that their spiritual growth has been stinted by customs and opinions which have no real foundation in nature and truth; and the frank, free West is more courageous than the East in carrying its convictions promptly into practice. I rejoiced in the recent political action of women in Massachusetts and elsewhere—first, because it was salutary for women themselves as all things are which promote the activity of their minds on important subjects; and, secondly, because the promptness and earnestness with which they almost universally took the right side has greatly helped to convince those who needed convincing that women are competent to examine into affairs of National interest and to form rational conclusions therefrom.
Dear Lucy:—I’m happy to hear that the American Woman Suffrage Association is meeting in St. Louis this month. The more women think about this topic,[Pg 826] the more they will realize that their personal growth has been limited by customs and beliefs that lack any real basis in nature and truth; and the open-minded West is more willing than the East to put its beliefs into action quickly. I was thrilled by the recent political involvement of women in Massachusetts and other places—first, because it’s beneficial for women themselves, as anything that encourages them to engage with important issues is valuable; and, second, because the quickness and seriousness with which they almost all joined the right side have really helped persuade those who needed it that women are capable of understanding national issues and forming logical conclusions about them.
Although I feel grateful to the Republican party for treating our claims with more respectful consideration than any other party has done, yet my principal reason for earnestly desiring its continuance in power is, that it is essentially the party of progress. It owes its existence to progress, and its vitality has been preserved by its practical support of progressive ideas. It embodies a very large portion of the culture, the conscientiousness, and the enlightened good sense of the nation, and its elements are so harmonized as to produce a safe medium between old fogyism and radical rashness. It is natural for such a party to respect our claims, because they have become accustomed to respect what is founded on principles of justice. It was the learning of that lesson which originally made them a powerful party, and they can not be false to ideas of true progress without committing suicide. Of course, with changing events, party names will change; but I hope women will carefully notice what principles underlie these changes, and will conscientiously give their influence to whatever party proves itself most friendly to the largest freedom regulated by wise and equal laws.
Although I appreciate the Republican Party for handling our claims with more respect than any other party, the main reason I want it to stay in power is that it represents progress. Its existence is rooted in progress, and its survival relies on its support for progressive ideas. It reflects a significant part of the culture, integrity, and informed reasoning of the nation, and its members are balanced enough to navigate between outdated thinking and reckless radicalism. It's natural for such a party to honor our claims since they recognize the importance of justice. Understanding this principle is what initially made them a strong political force, and they cannot abandon true progress without doing harm to themselves. Of course, as circumstances change, party names will evolve; but I hope women will pay close attention to the principles that drive these changes and will responsibly support whichever party shows itself most committed to ensuring the greatest freedom within fair and equal laws.
With a cordial greeting to our sisters of the West and to our brothers also, I wish you God-speed on your mission of enfranchisement to half the human race.
With a warm greeting to our sisters of the West and our brothers as well, I wish you good luck on your mission to liberate half of humanity.
L. Maria Child.
L. Maria Child.
Wayland,November 12, 1872.
Wayland,November 12, 1872.
Miss Eastman was announced. As she stepped to the front she was received with applause. She gave an able address, answering the questions, "What is to be gained and what is to be lost, by giving women the ballot?" She confined her attention to the latter question principally, by reviewing the condition of women in the past, and their condition in foreign countries. She answered the charge that women are unfit to use the ballot. There was quite an array of facts in her discourse, and extreme beauty in her language, though the latter covered at times exquisite sarcasm that was relished by all. She made a decided impression upon the audience, and concluded amid demonstrations of applause.
Miss Eastman was introduced. As she moved to the front, she was met with applause. She delivered a strong speech, addressing the questions, "What do we gain and what do we lose by giving women the vote?" She mainly focused on the latter question, reviewing women's situations in the past and in other countries. She countered the argument that women aren't fit to vote. Her talk was filled with compelling facts and beautiful language, which sometimes featured sharp sarcasm that everyone appreciated. She made a strong impression on the audience and concluded to loud applause.
Lucy Stone made the closing speech, and said that after the golden words to which we had been listening, silence was most fitting; what she had to say, therefore, would be brief and without preliminary. The distinctions which are made on account of sex are so utterly without reason, that a mere statement of them ought to be sufficient to secure their immediate correction.
Lucy Stone gave the final speech and mentioned that after the inspiring words we had just heard, silence would be most appropriate; therefore, what she had to say would be short and to the point. The distinctions made based on gender are completely irrational, and simply stating them should be enough to demand their immediate correction.
For example, here are twins, a baby boy and girl; they rock in the same[Pg 828] cradle; the same breast blesses their baby lips; the same hand guides their first tottering steps. A little later they play the same plays, recite the same lessons and hold the same rank as scholars. They ask admission to Harvard college. The boy is received, and the girl refused. Can any one tell me a good reason why? At twenty-one their father gives them each a house. They both pay taxes on this real estate, but the young man has a voice, both in the amount of tax and its use, all of which is denied to the young woman. Can any one tell a good reason why?
For instance, here are twins, a baby boy and girl; they rock in the same [Pg 828] cradle; the same breast nourishes their baby lips; the same hand helps them take their first wobbly steps. Later on, they play the same games, recite the same lessons, and hold the same status as students. They apply to Harvard College. The boy gets accepted, while the girl is turned away. Can anyone give a good reason why? When they turn twenty-one, their father gives them each a house. They both pay taxes on this property, but the young man has a say in the tax amount and how it's used, which is all denied to the young woman. Can anyone explain a good reason why?
They assume the marriage relation. The young husband can sell his house, give a good title, convey his stocks, will his property according to his pleasure, have the guardianship and control of his children. The young wife can not sell her house, or give a valid title; can not convey her stocks, or make a will of her property with the same freedom that the husband can, has no equal right to the control and guardianship of her children. Can any one tell a good reason why?
They enter into marriage. The young husband can sell his house, give a valid title, transfer his stocks, and will his property however he wants. He has guardianship and control over his children. The young wife, however, cannot sell her house or provide a valid title; she can't transfer her stocks or make a will for her property with the same freedom as her husband. She doesn't have equal rights to control and guardianship of her children. Is there anyone who can explain why?
The man becomes a widower, but the house, the land, the furniture, and the children are all undisturbed. The woman becomes a widow. The property is divided in fractions, the contents of the cupboards and closets counted, valued, divided, and the widow's thirds (commonly known as the widow's incumbrance), are left to this woman. Can any one give a good reason why there should be such a difference between the rights of the widow and the widower? or why woman as a student, a wife, a mother, a widow, and a citizen, should be held at such a disadvantage?
The man becomes a widower, but the house, the land, the furniture, and the children remain untouched. The woman becomes a widow. The property is split into portions, the items in the cupboards and closets are counted, valued, divided, and the widow's share (often referred to as the widow's burden) is given to this woman. Can anyone explain why there is such a difference between the rights of a widow and a widower? Or why a woman, whether as a student, a wife, a mother, a widow, or a citizen, should face such disadvantages?
The mere statement of the case shows the injustice, and the wrong which needs to be righted. There is only one way to remove this, and that is for woman to use her right to the ballot, and through it, protect herself. Oh, men of St. Louis! will you not use the power you hold, and the opportunity to make the application of our theory of government sure as far as in you lies, to each man's mother, sister, and daughter?
The simple explanation of the situation reveals the injustice and the wrong that needs to be corrected. The only way to fix this is for women to use their right to vote and protect themselves through it. Oh, men of St. Louis! Won’t you utilize the power you have and the chance to ensure that our government works for every man's mother, sister, and daughter as much as you can?
On motion of Mr. Blackwell, it was
On Mr. Blackwell's motion, it was
Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are extended to the citizens of St. Louis for the kind hospitality they have extended to the delegates of this Convention. Also to the representatives of the press for the candid and respectful reports which have appeared in the daily papers of the city.
Resolved, That the gratitude of this Convention goes out to the citizens of St. Louis for their generous hospitality towards the delegates of this Convention. Additionally, we thank the representatives of the press for the honest and respectful coverage that has appeared in the city's daily papers.
The American Woman Suffrage Association held an introductory anniversary meeting Monday, October 13, 1873, in the large hall of the Cooper Institute. A fine audience attended, the hall being nearly filled. Fully two-thirds of this audience were men. Colonel T. W. Higginson, the President of the Association, said:
The American Woman Suffrage Association held an introductory anniversary meeting on Monday, October 13, 1873, in the large hall of the Cooper Institute. A great crowd attended, with the hall nearly filled. About two-thirds of this audience were men. Colonel T. W. Higginson, the President of the Association, said:
This is my last service as President of this association. Unlike other bodies, it only has a man for that office every other year, and this is the end of the other year. We meet here as a family, men and women, each ready to do his or her share of the talk. We stand here to speak neither for one nor the other, but for that great movement which is to sweep through the land and arouse one sex to its rights and the other to its duties. Not to arouse man against woman, but in favor of the civilization which is to come. It is more than twenty years since the Woman Suffrage Association came up in an organized form. We entered into this movement with no ideas of immediate success. We had behind us only a few years of agitation after[Pg 829] long centuries of prejudice and distrust. Look through the long record of the great reforms of the world, and what a series of delays and discouragements you find! It is a history of defeats before victories. Men sometimes come to us with sympathy because we have been defeated in this Legislature or that convention. Sympathy! We thank heaven that it had got there to be defeated; that we are strong enough to be in a minority! Defeat is victory afterward. We have been defeated again and again, and again, and each time we find ourselves growing stronger.
This is my final term as President of this association. Unlike other organizations, we only have a man in that position every other year, and this marks the end of the other year. We gather here as a family, both men and women, each prepared to contribute to the conversation. We're here to represent not just one side or the other, but the larger movement aimed at empowering one gender with its rights and the other with its responsibilities. Our goal is not to pit men against women, but to support the future civilization that lies ahead. It has been more than twenty years since the Woman Suffrage Association was formed in an organized way. We entered this movement without any illusions of quick success. We had just a few years of activism behind us after [Pg 829] long centuries filled with prejudice and mistrust. If you look at the long history of significant reforms in the world, you'll see a pattern of delays and setbacks. It’s a story of defeats before triumphs. Sometimes, people come to us feeling sympathetic because we've faced setbacks in this legislature or that convention. Sympathy! We are grateful that we've even made it this far to face defeat; it shows we are strong enough to be in the minority! Defeat leads to victory in the end. We have been defeated time and again, and with each setback, we find ourselves getting stronger.
Miss Mary F. Eastman, in an able address, stated the progress of the movement in different States, and insisted on the right of women to the exercise of the franchise, as a consequence of the Declaration of Independence. The elective franchise was the greatest blessing enjoyed by a free people, and the inability of any class to exercise it indicated a description of servitude. She said that the person was trying to erase God's finger mark upon the human soul who would prevent anybody, man or woman, from following natural bent and ability in any avocation. In the founding of Harvard and other early colleges, some provision was made for the education of Indians, but none for women. Already at Yale and West Point colored men have a fair chance, not yet the women. Miss Eastman thought that suffrage was the highway to all other reforms.
Miss Mary F. Eastman, in a strong speech, discussed the progress of the movement in different states and argued for women's right to vote as a fundamental outcome of the Declaration of Independence. The right to vote was the greatest privilege enjoyed by a free society, and when any group was denied this right, it indicated a form of oppression. She stated that anyone trying to erase God’s mark on the human soul was preventing people, whether man or woman, from pursuing their natural talents and abilities in any field. In the establishment of Harvard and other early colleges, some provisions were made for the education of Native Americans, but none for women. Already at Yale and West Point, men of color have a fair chance, but not yet women. Miss Eastman believed that the right to vote was the key to all other reforms.
Mrs. Lucy Stone said: Mr. President, Fellow-workers, Ladies, and Gentlemen:—Our cause is half won when we find that people are willing to hear it, as you seem to be willing to hear it now. One of the best things we can have in meetings like this is to create a discontent that women are not permitted to enjoy all their rights. To-night while we are here, there are gathered in Plymouth Church, women who are laying plans to take part in the celebration of the Centennial, in 1876. At this point in the speaker's remarks, some confusion arose from the entry into the hall of about 200 young women.
Mrs. Lucy Stone said: Mr. President, Fellow workers, Ladies, and Gentlemen:—We’ve already made progress when we see that people are open to hearing our message, as you all seem to be right now. One of the best things we can do in meetings like this is to spark a sense of discontent about the fact that women are not allowed to enjoy all their rights. Tonight, while we’re here, there are women at Plymouth Church making plans to participate in the Centennial celebration in 1876. At this point in the speaker's remarks, some confusion arose when about 200 young women entered the hall.
Mr. Dennis Griffin rose and said these women were not the Cooper Institute class; they were parasol-makers who had been forced out of employment by their employers, and they had come, not as women suffragists but as women suffering, to ask of the audience their sympathetic support, and if when the lady had finished her speech the audience would permit the President of this Association of working women to speak from the platform, she would explain their grievances.
Mr. Dennis Griffin stood up and said these women were not from the Cooper Institute; they were parasol-makers who had lost their jobs due to their employers, and they had come, not as women fighting for the vote but as women in need, to ask the audience for their understanding and support. He added that if the lady finished her speech, the President of this Association of working women would speak from the platform to explain their issues.
Mrs. Stone then proceeded, saying that if one thing was surer than another, it was that woman suffrage would help every suffering sewing woman. It had been said that the ballot was worth fifty cents a day to a man; and, if so, it was worth just as much to a woman. All over the Union, as this night in Plymouth Church, women were preparing to take part in the coming Centennial to celebrate the Fourth of July, 1876. When she heard this she asked herself what part women had in such a celebration? Just as men were oppressed previous to 1776, so were women oppressed to-day. I say that women should resolve to take no part in it. Let them shut their doors and darken their windows on that day, and let a few of the most matronly women dress themselves in black and stand at the corners of the streets where the largest procession is to pass, bearing banners inscribed, "We are governed without our consent; we are taxed without representation." The[Pg 830] Declaration of Independence belonged to men. Let them have their masculine celebration and masculine glory all to themselves, and let the women, wherever they can get a church, go there and hold solemn service and toll the bell. "It will give us a chance for moral protest," she continued, "such as we shall never have again, for before another hundred years it must surely be that the growth of public sentiment will sweep away all distinctions based solely on sex."
Mrs. Stone then went on to say that if there’s one thing that’s certain, it’s that women’s right to vote would benefit every struggling seamstress. It was said that the vote was worth fifty cents a day to a man; if that’s true, it’s worth just as much to a woman. Across the country, just like on this night at Plymouth Church, women were getting ready to participate in the upcoming Centennial to celebrate the Fourth of July, 1876. When she heard this, she wondered what role women would have in such a celebration. Just like men were oppressed before 1776, women are still oppressed today. I believe women should decide not to participate. Let them close their doors and darken their windows that day, and let a few of the most dignified women dress in black and stand at the busiest street corners where the largest parade will pass, holding banners that read, "We are governed without our consent; we are taxed without representation." The[Pg 830] Declaration of Independence belongs to men. Let them enjoy their masculine celebration and glory, while women, wherever they can find a church, gather there to hold a solemn service and ring the bell. "This will give us a chance for moral protest," she added, "such as we won't have again, because before another hundred years, public sentiment will surely eliminate all distinctions based solely on gender."
At the close of Mrs. Stone's remarks, the Chairman invited the representative of the parasol-makers to state her case, introducing her as Miss Leonard, of New York, President of the parasol-makers.
At the end of Mrs. Stone's remarks, the Chairman invited the representative of the parasol-makers to share her case, introducing her as Miss Leonard from New York, President of the parasol-makers.
Miss Leonard advanced to the front of the platform, and appeared to be much embarrassed at fronting so large an audience. The hearty applause with which she was greeted assuring her of a kindly reception, she became a little more at ease, and in a low tone of voice spoke as follows:
Miss Leonard stepped up to the front of the stage and seemed quite nervous about facing such a big crowd. The warm applause welcoming her helped her feel more comfortable, and in a soft voice, she said:
My Worthy Friends, Ladies and Gentlemen: I was not prepared to meet an audience like this. In consequence of being oppressed by our employers we were obliged to leave their employ, because we can not earn our bread. Consequently we held a meeting up stairs to-night, and knowing that you were here we thought we would let you know that there are hundreds of women suffering, not for the ballot but for bread. I have never wanted the ballot. I believe it belongs to the men who have it; but I come to ask you in the name of humanity if there can be any society organized that will repress the unscrupulous employers and let the public know they are oppressing the poor girls. Men are strong; they can get together and ask what they want; they can organize in large bodies, but the working women are the most oppressed race in the United States. I am thankful to you, gentlemen and ladies (I should have put the ladies first), for giving me your attention. I don't intend to detain you long, because your meeting is here for a different purpose, but I hope you will give me your sympathies. I can not make you an eloquent speech, for I, as a working woman, have had to labor eighteen hours a day for my bread, and therefore have had no time to educate myself as an orator.
My Dear Friends, Ladies and Gentlemen: I wasn't prepared to speak to an audience like this. Because we’ve been exploited by our employers, we had to leave our jobs since we can't earn a living. So, we held a meeting upstairs tonight, and knowing you are here, we wanted to let you know that there are hundreds of women suffering, not for the right to vote, but for food. I've never wanted the right to vote; I believe it belongs to the men who have it. But I’m here to ask you, in the name of humanity, if it’s possible to organize a society that will hold unscrupulous employers accountable and make the public aware of how they’re mistreating poor girls. Men are strong; they can come together and voice their demands; they can organize in large groups, but working women are the most oppressed group in the United States. I appreciate your attention, gentlemen and ladies (I should have mentioned the ladies first). I don’t plan to keep you long because your meeting has a different agenda, but I hope you'll offer me your support. I can’t give you a powerful speech, as I’ve spent eighteen hours a day working for my survival, leaving me no time to educate myself as a speaker.
Henry B. Blackwell said: This audience is composed mostly of men. I have a word to say to men especially. Why is it that labor is oppressed and that working women and working men are in some respects worse off than ever before? I answer; because our Government is Republican only in name. It is not even representative of men. The primary meetings which nominate the candidates and control the policy of parties are neglected by the voters. Not one man in fifty attends them. They are controlled in every locality by rings of trading politicians.
Henry B. Blackwell said: This audience is mostly men. I have something to say specifically to men. Why is it that workers are struggling, and that working women and men are, in some ways, worse off than ever? I’ll tell you why; because our government is Republican only in name. It doesn’t even truly represent men. The local meetings that nominate candidates and dictate party policies are ignored by voters. Only about one man in fifty shows up to these meetings. They’re run in each area by groups of self-serving politicians.
Now there is only one remedy for this. You must somehow contrive to interest the mass of the people in public business. You must reform the primary meetings by securing an attendance of the intelligent classes of the community. There is only one way to do this. The same way you have already adopted in the churches, in charitable associations, in society, everywhere except in politics, you must enlist the sympathy and co-operation of women. Then the men who now stay away will go with their wives and sisters. The reason the better class of men neglect to attend the primaries is this—civilized and refined men spend their evenings in the society of women; they go with them to church meetings, to concerts, to lectures. They do not break off these engagements to go down to some liquor saloon, or other unattractive locality, there, amid the fumes of tobacco and whisky, to find everything already cut and dried beforehand. They try it once or[Pg 831] twice and then retire for life disgusted. We ask suffrage for women because they are different from men. Not better nor wiser on the whole, but better and wiser in certain respects. They are more temperate, more chaste, more economical. Their presence will appeal to the self-respect of men. Thus both will be improved, and politics will be redeemed and purified.
Now there’s only one solution for this. You have to find a way to engage the general public in politics. You need to improve the primary meetings by getting the educated members of the community to attend. There’s only one way to do this: just like you've done in churches, charitable organizations, social events, and everywhere else except politics, you must gain the support and involvement of women. Then the men who currently stay away will come with their wives and sisters. The reason that more respectable men avoid the primaries is that civilized and refined men prefer to spend their evenings in the company of women—they attend church meetings, concerts, lectures with them. They don’t abandon these plans to head to a bar or some other unappealing place, where everything is already decided for them amid the smell of tobacco and whiskey. They try it once or twice and then retreat in disgust for good. We advocate for women’s suffrage because they are different from men. Not necessarily better or wiser overall, but better and wiser in certain ways. They tend to be more temperate, more pure, and more economical. Their presence will encourage the self-respect of men. In this way, both will benefit, and politics will be reformed and improved.
The second session of this Convention was held in Brooklyn, in Plymouth Church. At this meeting the Chairman of the Executive Committee, Mrs. Lucy Stone read her annual report, and then the delegates from the different States gave accounts of the cause in all parts of the Union, as carried on by means of the State societies. At the opening of the afternoon session Col. Higginson read the following letters:
The second session of this Convention took place in Brooklyn, at Plymouth Church. During this meeting, the Chair of the Executive Committee, Mrs. Lucy Stone, presented her annual report. Then, delegates from various states shared updates on the cause from all corners of the country, as organized by state societies. At the start of the afternoon session, Col. Higginson read the following letters:
Andover, Mass., Sept. 29, 1873.
Andover, Mass., Sept. 29, 1873.
My Dear Mrs. Stone:—My regret at not being able to attend the meetings of the American Suffrage Association this year, is not consoled by the pleasure of expressing, by letter, my warmest sympathy with their objects; but, if we can not do the thing we would, we must do the next best thing to it.
My Dear Mrs. Stone:—I regret not being able to attend the meetings of the American Suffrage Association this year. Writing this letter to express my heartfelt support for their goals doesn’t quite make up for it, but if we can’t do what we want, we have to do the next best thing.
To say that I believe in womanhood suffrage with my whole head and heart, is very imperfectly to express the eagerness with which I hope for it, and the confidence with which I expect it. It will come, as other right things come, because it is right. But those forces which "make for righteousness" make haste slowly. Do we not often trip up ourselves in our pilgrimage toward truth, by attributing our own sense of hunger and hurry and heat to the fullness and leisure and calm in which the object of our passionate search moves forward to meet us? There is something very significant to the student of progress, in the history of the forerunners of revolutions. Their eager confidence in their own immediate success, their pathetic bewilderment at the mystery of their apparent failures, are rich with suggestion to any one who means work for an unpopular cause. No reform marches evenly to its consummation. If it does not meet apparent overthrow, it must step at times with the uneasiness of what George Eliot would call its "growing pains." But growing pains are not death-throes. In the name of growth and decay let us be exact in our diagnosis!
To say that I wholeheartedly believe in women's suffrage is a poor way to express how eagerly I hope for it and how confidently I expect it. It will happen, just like other just things do, because it's the right thing to do. But those forces that "push for righteousness" move slowly. Don't we often trip ourselves up on our journey toward truth by projecting our feelings of urgency and impatience onto the calm and steady progress of the goal we passionately seek? There's something significant for those studying progress in the history of revolutionaries. Their eager belief in immediate success, along with their confusion over their apparent failures, offers valuable lessons for anyone working for an unpopular cause. No reform advances smoothly to its conclusion. If it doesn't face outright defeat, it will sometimes move forward with the awkwardness of what George Eliot called "growing pains." But growing pains are not signs of death. In the name of growth and decay, let’s be precise in our understanding!
I have fallen into this train of thought, because there seems to have been a concerted and deliberate attempt, this past year, on the part of certain of those opposed to the thorough elevation of women, to assert that our influence is distinctly losing ground. Irresponsible assertion is the last refuge of the force whose arguments have fallen off in the fray, and "unconscious annihilation" is as yet a very agreeable condition. It might be replied, in the language of the hymn-book:
I’ve been thinking about this because it looks like there’s been a focused and intentional effort over the past year by some people against fully elevating women to claim that our influence is clearly diminishing. Reckless claims are the last resort of those whose arguments have lost their strength in the debate, and “unconscious annihilation” is still quite a comfortable state. One might respond, in the words of a hymn:
"If this be death,
'Tis sweet to die!"
Perhaps to the onlookers this has not been one of our fast years. No one actually engaged in the struggle to improve the condition of women can for an instant doubt that it has been a strong one. A silent, sure awakening of women to their own needs is taking place on every hand; and it is becoming evident that until the masses of women are thus awakened, the movement to enfranchise them must not anticipate any very vivid successes. Let us be content if our strength runs for a time to the making of muscle, not to the trial of speed.
Perhaps to the observers, this hasn't seemed like one of our quick years. No one truly involved in the fight to improve women's rights can doubt that it has been a powerful one. A quiet, steady awakening among women to their own needs is happening all around; and it's becoming clear that until a large number of women are awakened, the movement to secure their voting rights shouldn't expect any major successes. Let’s be satisfied if our strength is focused for a while on building foundation, rather than racing ahead.
Elizabeth Stuart Phelps.
Elizabeth Stuart Phelps.
I am, Madam, very sincerely,
I am, Madam, very sincerely,
Concord, Oct. 1, 1873.
Concord, Oct. 1, 1873.
Dear Mrs. Stone:—I am so busy just now proving "woman's right to labor," that I have no time to help prove "woman's right to vote."
Dear Mrs. Stone:—I am so busy right now proving "a woman's right to work," that I have no time to help prove "a woman's right to vote."
When I read your note aloud to the family, asking "What shall I say to Mrs. Stone?" a voice from the transcendental mist which usually surrounds my honored father instantly replied, "Tell her you are ready to follow her as leader, sure that you could not have a better one." My brave old mother, with the ardor of many unquenchable Mays shining in her face, cried out, "Tell her I am seventy three, but I mean to go to the polls before I die, even if my three daughters have to carry me." And two little men, already mustered[Pg 832] in, added the cheering words, "Go ahead, Aunt Weedy, we will let you vote as much as ever you like."
When I read your note aloud to the family, asking "What should I say to Mrs. Stone?" a voice from the usual haze around my respected father immediately responded, "Tell her you’re ready to follow her as a leader, confident that she’s the best one you could have." My brave old mother, with the passion of many unquenchable Mays brightening her face, exclaimed, "Tell her I’m seventy-three, but I plan to vote before I die, even if my three daughters have to carry me." And two little boys, already enlisted[Pg 832], added the encouraging words, "Go for it, Aunt Weedy, we’ll let you vote as much as you want."
Such being the temper of the small Convention of which I am now president, I can not hesitate to say that though I may not be with you in body, I shall be in spirit, and am as ever, hopefully and heartily yours,
Such is the mood of the small Convention that I'm currently leading. I can confidently say that even if I can't be with you in person, I will be there in spirit, and I am, as always, hopefully and wholeheartedly yours,
Louisa May Alcott.
Louisa May Alcott.
Letters from William Lloyd Garrison and Lydia Maria Child were also read, expressing deep sympathy and hope for the cause.
Letters from William Lloyd Garrison and Lydia Maria Child were also read, expressing heartfelt support and optimism for the cause.
Mr. Blackwell, as Chairman of the Business Committee, reported the resolutions, of which the last was:
Mr. Blackwell, as Chair of the Business Committee, reported the resolutions, and the last one was:
6. Resolved, That the woman suffrage movement, like every other reform of the age, laments the loss and honors the memory of its most powerful advocate, John Stuart Mill.
6. Resolved, That the women's suffrage movement, like every other reform of the era, mourns the loss and honors the memory of its most influential advocate, John Stuart Mill.
Matilda J. Hindman, of Pittsburgh, made an address explaining the origin of the movement for woman suffrage, asserting its verity and necessity. She gave many reasons for woman's needing the ballot.
Matilda J. Hindman, from Pittsburgh, gave a speech outlining the beginnings of the women's suffrage movement, asserting its truth and importance. She provided numerous reasons for why women need the right to vote.
Mrs. Lucy Stone gave instances of oppressive laws with reference to statutes relative to widows which are in force in some New England States, and which bear very hard upon women because they can not vote.
Mrs. Lucy Stone provided examples of unfair laws regarding statutes related to widows that are in effect in some New England states, which negatively impact women because they cannot vote.
Mrs. Abba G. Woolson, of Massachusetts, author of "Woman in American Society," gave an exceedingly interesting description of her tour through Wyoming, her hour and a half conversation in the cars with Gov. Campbell, whose testimony was positive in favor of all the new privileges given to women, by which Wyoming has distinguished herself. Mrs. Woolson came home happy to have for the first time set her foot on Republican soil; "for," said she, "no State in the Union is a republic, but it is to me an absolute monarchy."
Mrs. Abba G. Woolson from Massachusetts, author of "Woman in American Society," shared a fascinating account of her trip through Wyoming, including her hour-and-a-half conversation on the train with Gov. Campbell. He strongly supported all the new rights granted to women, which have made Wyoming stand out. Mrs. Woolson returned home excited to have finally stepped onto Republican soil; "because," she said, "no state in the Union truly operates as a republic to me, but it feels like an absolute monarchy."
Rev. Celia Burleigh, demonstrated that this Government is not a republic, but an aristocracy so long as the suffrage is denied to woman.
Rev. Celia Burleigh showed that this government is not a republic, but an aristocracy as long as women are denied the right to vote.
Mrs. Mary A. Livermore found much encouragement for the cause in various signs of the times. She would have women act as if they already bore the responsibilities of voters; would have them put off frivolity and every other cause of offense to opponents, and put on a soberness of spirit and a gracious gravity of mien as behooved those in whose hearts a great work lay. She exhorted them to remember that they were not arrayed against men as foes, but that they were working with fathers, brothers, husbands and sons for the best interests of the whole race.
Mrs. Mary A. Livermore found a lot of encouragement for the cause in various signs of the times. She wanted women to act as if they already had the responsibilities of voters; she encouraged them to set aside trivial pursuits and anything else that could offend their opponents, adopting a serious attitude and a dignified appearance that suited those who had a significant mission ahead of them. She urged them to remember that they were not standing against men as enemies, but that they were collaborating with fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons for the greater good of everyone.
An audience of at least 1,200 persons was present at the closing session.
An audience of at least 1,200 people was present at the closing session.
The following letter from Miriam M. Cole was read:
The following letter from Miriam M. Cole was read:
Otterbein University, Westerville, O., Oct. 4, 1873.
Otterbein University, Westerville, OH, Oct. 4, 1873.
Dear Mr. Blackwell—Much as I wish to be with you the 13th and 14th, I can not. My work in the University can not be given to another, and I have no right to leave it undone. I hope your meeting will be profitable and successful. It is said, "Interest in woman suffrage is dying out." This is not true, so far as I know. There is more sober, candid talk on the subject in private circles, here in Ohio, than ever before. Our students in the University are asking questions, with a desire for intelligent answers, and at home, in Sydney, before I left, many experienced politicians confessed it to be the one thing needful. I am sure it is gaining ground among our quiet, sensible people. The stir may not be so demonstrative in cities as formerly, but through the country there is a general awakening. If we can only have patience to wait, we shall not be disappointed. Right, sooner or later, will come into its kingdom. Women are no longer children to be frightened by imaginary bears, neither will they be satisfied with playthings, who ask for[Pg 833] better. The distance between men and women is lessening every year. Colleges are bringing them on to the same plane, and the agitation of this question of woman's right to a voice in the government, has given and is giving men new ideas respecting the strength of woman's intellect and her determination to be more than a doll in this busy world.
Dear Mr. Blackwell—As much as I wish I could join you on the 13th and 14th, I can't. My responsibilities at the University cannot be assigned to someone else, and I have no right to leave them unfinished. I hope your meeting goes well and achieves great results. It's been said that "interest in women's suffrage is fading." I don't believe that's true, at least not from what I've seen. There's more serious and open discussion about it in private circles here in Ohio than ever before. Our students at the University are eager for thoughtful answers to their questions, and back home in Sydney, before I left, many seasoned politicians admitted that it's the one urgent issue we face. I'm confident it's gaining traction among our balanced, sensible people. The enthusiasm may not be as loud in cities as it used to be, but across the countryside, there's a widespread awakening. If we can just be patient, we won't be let down. Justice will eventually prevail. Women are no longer children to be scared by imaginary threats; they won't settle for trivial things when they seek something better. The gap between men and women is narrowing every year. Colleges are leveling the playing field, and the push for women's right to have a voice in government is changing men's perceptions of women's intelligence and their determination not to be mere dolls in this active world.
Whether we are made voting citizens or not, let no man beguile himself with the thought that the old order of things will be restored. They who step into light and freedom will not retrace their steps. This end is equality, civil, religious and political—there is no stopping-place this side of that. My best wishes are with you and yours.
Whether we become voting citizens or not, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the old way of things will come back. Those who move into light and freedom won’t go back. The ultimate goal is equality—civil, religious, and political—there’s no turning back until we achieve that. My best wishes are with you and your family.
Miriam M. Cole.
Miriam M. Cole.
Miss Huldah B. Loud, of East Abington, Mass., was the first speaker: Scorned by the Democrats and fawned upon by the Republicans, who profess but to betray, under these circumstances we come again to the fight. We believe in liberty in the highest degree, such liberty as our fathers fought for, and this struggle will go on until that liberty is gained; liberty is the pursuit of life, health, and happiness. We look in vain for honesty in political life. We turn in disgust from the meaningless platitudes of the Republican Convention at Worcester, from the incidental admission of a plank in the platform which means nothing.
Miss Huldah B. Loud, from East Abington, Mass., was the first speaker: Disregarded by the Democrats and praised by the Republicans, who claim to support us but actually betray us, we find ourselves back in this struggle. We believe in freedom to the fullest, the same freedom our ancestors fought for, and this fight will continue until we achieve that freedom; freedom is about pursuing life, health, and happiness. We look in vain for integrity in politics. We turn away in disgust from the empty slogans of the Republican Convention in Worcester, particularly from the vague inclusion of a plank in the platform that means nothing.
If we would be recognized as a power by political parties, every suffragist should withhold his ballot, and thus politicians would be brought to their senses. If we labor for anything, if we mean anything, we mean woman suffrage, and let us not give a moral or material support, politically, to the man who is not in harmony with the principle of free suffrage in its broadest significance.
If we want to be seen as a force by political parties, every suffragist should hold back their vote, which would make politicians take notice. If we’re working for anything, it’s for women’s suffrage, so let’s not give any moral or financial support, politically, to those who don’t align with the idea of free suffrage in the broadest sense.
We are called unwomanly for our advocacy of this priceless boon to women. We are willing that our womanly character should stand by the side of those who oppose this movement. Do you call Lucy Stone, the woman reformer of the world, with her eloquence, her soft voice, her matchless, unwearied work for all that is good, with her motherly appearance, do you call such a woman unwomanly? Or Margaret Fuller, or Julia Ward Howe, do you call these women unwomanly? Then let us take our place by them, cast in our lot with them and be called unwomanly. It is said, and it is sadly true, that many women do not want the ballot; and it is no less sadly true that many of our most bitter opponents are our sister women. But if they do not want the ballot, if you deprive me of the right you do me a grievous wrong. It is said that if we were given the privilege of the ballot, we would not use it. Is it any reason if I do not choose to avail myself of my rights that I should be deprived of them? Why do you consult women if this right shall be given them? You did not consult the slave in regard to his freedom, but you said he was wanted for the salvation of the country, and you took him and forced freedom upon him.
We are called unfeminine for advocating this invaluable gift to women. We are ready to stand alongside those who oppose this movement. Do you really consider Lucy Stone, the renowned woman reformer, with her powerful speeches, gentle voice, and tireless efforts for all that is good, with her nurturing presence, unwomanly? Or Margaret Fuller, or Julia Ward Howe, would you call these women unwomanly? Then let us join them, align ourselves with them, and accept being called unwomanly. It's often said, and sadly it's true, that many women don’t want the right to vote; and it is equally unfortunate that many of our fiercest opponents are fellow women. But if they don’t want the ballot, depriving me of the right is a serious injustice. It's claimed that if we were given the vote, we wouldn’t use it. Is it fair to deny me my rights simply because I might choose not to exercise them? Why do you ask women if this right will be granted to them? You didn’t consult the enslaved person about their freedom; you declared they were essential for the country’s salvation and imposed freedom on them.
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe and Mrs. Mary A. Livermore spoke alike with great force and earnestness upon the moral and religious phases of the movement.
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe and Mrs. Mary A. Livermore expressed their views with strong conviction and seriousness about the moral and religious aspects of the movement.
Mrs. Frances Watkins Harper, of Philadelphia, made the closing speech. She showed that much as white women need the ballot, colored women need it more. Although the women of her race are no longer sold on the auction block, they are subjected to the legal authority of ignorant and often degraded men. She rejoiced in the progress already made, but[Pg 834] pleaded for equal rights and equal education for the colored women of the land.
Mrs. Frances Watkins Harper from Philadelphia delivered the final speech. She pointed out that while white women need the right to vote, women of color need it even more. Although her race is no longer sold at auctions, they are still under the legal control of ignorant and often disrespectful men. She celebrated the progress that has been made, but [Pg 834] called for equal rights and equal education for women of color in the country.
The President said—Ladies and gentlemen, the letters have been read, the reports accepted, the resolutions adopted, the officers[195] for the ensuing year chosen, and there being no further business before the Convention, it is moved and seconded that we adjourn sine die.
The President said—Ladies and gentlemen, the letters have been read, the reports accepted, the resolutions adopted, the officers[195] for the upcoming year chosen, and since there is no further business before the Convention, it is moved and seconded that we adjourn sine die.
The Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association assembled at the Opera House in Detroit, Tuesday morning, Oct. 13, 1874.
The Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association took place at the Opera House in Detroit on Tuesday morning, October 13, 1874.
Col. W. M. Ferry, of Grand Haven, Chairman of the State Executive Committee of the Michigan Suffrage Association, called the meeting to order, and made a brief address of welcome. He spoke of the pleasure the Convention afforded many of the advocates of woman suffrage in this city who have the cause deeply at heart. He then alluded to the authoress of the well-known hymn, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, and introduced her as the President of the American Woman Suffrage Association.
Col. W. M. Ferry, from Grand Haven, the Chairman of the State Executive Committee of the Michigan Suffrage Association, called the meeting to order and gave a short welcome speech. He talked about how much joy the Convention brought to many advocates of woman suffrage in this city who are deeply passionate about the cause. He then mentioned the author of the famous hymn, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, and introduced her as the President of the American Woman Suffrage Association.
The Rev. Mrs. Gillette, of Rochester, Mich., opened the meeting with prayer.
The Rev. Mrs. Gillette from Rochester, Mich., started the meeting with a prayer.
The President, Mrs. Howe, then delivered the Annual Address:
The President, Mrs. Howe, then gave the Annual Address:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the American Woman Suffrage Convention:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the American Woman Suffrage Convention:
It is my office on the present occasion to welcome you to this scene of our happy and harmonious meeting. In this great country many families do not gather their members together oftener than once in a year. When they accomplish this they ordain a festival, and call it Thanksgiving Day. This Association is in some sense a family, whose members are widely scattered. East, West, North and South claim and contain us. But when the sacred call for our Annual Meeting is issued, distances are forgotten, business and pleasures are interrupted. Like the wave of a magician's wand, the touch of a common sympathy summons us and keeps us in sight. Our first feeling, I suppose, is one of great pleasure at looking each other in the face again. This is our Suffrage Thanksgiving, and we hope to keep it right cordially. Welcome, dear friends, faithful sisters and brothers. Welcome, one and all. In this world of death we still live. In this world of doubt we still believe in even-handed justice, and in pure law. So, with one breath, we give God thanks for our continued life and faith, and wish each other and our great cause Godspeed.
It’s my honor today to welcome you to this gathering of our joyful and united meeting. In this vast country, many families don’t come together more often than once a year. When they do manage to reunite, they host a celebration and call it Thanksgiving Day. This Association is, in a way, a family, with members spread out far and wide. East, West, North, and South all include us. But when the important call for our Annual Meeting goes out, we forget the distances between us, and we set aside our work and leisure. Like the wave of a magician’s wand, the spirit of shared purpose brings us together and keeps us connected. Our first feeling, I believe, is one of great joy at seeing each other’s faces again. This is our Suffrage Thanksgiving, and we hope to embrace it warmly. Welcome, dear friends, loyal sisters and brothers. Welcome, everyone. In this world of death, we still live. In this world of doubt, we still believe in fair justice and true law. So, with one voice, we thank God for our ongoing life and faith, and we wish each other and our great cause success.
But we are met for something more than a mere expression of feeling, however cordial and timely that might be. We meet here to take counsel for the spiritual welfare to which each one of us stands pledged. How goes the good fight? Let each department of our little army tell. What victories have been achieved, what defeats suffered with patience? How shall we improve the one? What shall we learn from the other? Oh! let us feel that these rare moments of our meeting are precious. Here we must compare notes and learn what has been done. Here, too, we must briefly survey what is yet to do and how it is to be done. May no moment in this too brief season be wasted! May we all speak and act in view of great necessities and of high hopes. We may take for our text the words: "Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." But we must also acknowledge that the end is not yet.
But we're here for something more than just sharing feelings, no matter how warm and timely they are. We're gathered to discuss the spiritual well-being that each of us is committed to. How's the good fight going? Let's hear from each part of our little group. What victories have we celebrated, and what defeats have we handled with patience? How can we build on the victories? What lessons can we take from the defeats? Oh! let's recognize that these special moments together are valuable. Here, we need to share what we've accomplished. We also need to take a quick look at what still needs to be done and how we can tackle it. May we not waste a single moment in this too short time! May we all speak and act with the urgency of great needs and high hopes. We could use for our inspiration the words: "Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." But we must also admit that the end isn't here yet.
Every year that sees us banded together in pursuit of our present object sees a wonderful growth in its prominence and recognized importance. Opposition has grown with our efforts. People at first said, "Nobody will resist you." This was when people thought we were in fun. But when it appeared that we were in sad and bitter earnest, opposition was not wanting. Wherever we came to plead the cause of human freedom, the enemies of human freedom met and withstood us. All the professions have befriended—all, too,[Pg 835] have opposed us. We have stood before powers and dignitaries to maintain what we believe; and while we have asked that the right of suffrage be recognized in the persons of women, women learned and unlearned have stood up to ask that our petition should not be granted. We need not say that for one woman who has done this, hundreds and thousands have risen up to bless the woman suffrage cause and its champions. And for every doctor, lawyer and priest who has shrieked forth or set forth our presumptive disabilities, a tenfold number of men in all of these callings have arisen to do battle for the right, and to tell us on the authority of their special knowledge and experience, that the reform we ask for is congenial to nature and founded on right. Goldwin Smith, a man knowing naught of woman, airs his irrational views in the English Fortnightly, and Frances Power Cobbe and Prof. Cairnes, and a host of others, unravel the net of his flimsy statements. Drs. Clarke and Maudsley dogmatize from their male view of the female constitution; and from men and women throughout the country an indignant protest rises up. Men and women say alike: "It is not education that demoralizes and diseases our women. It is want of education, want of object, want of right knowledge of ends and methods." And how shall we acquire this unless we are taught? And how shall we be taught unless provision is made for us? And how shall provision be made for us unless we make it ourselves by voting for it?
Every year that we come together to pursue our current goal sees a fantastic increase in its visibility and recognized significance. Opposition has intensified alongside our efforts. At first, people said, "No one will oppose you." This was when they thought we were just joking. But once it became clear that we were serious and sincere, opposition emerged. Wherever we went to advocate for human freedom, the opponents of human freedom stood in our way. All professions have supported us—yet, unfortunately, some have also opposed us. We have presented our beliefs to powers and dignitaries, asking for the right to vote to be recognized for women. Yet, both educated and uneducated women have stood up to contest our petition. We need to acknowledge that for every woman who has done this, hundreds and thousands have risen to support the cause of women's suffrage and its advocates. For every doctor, lawyer, and priest who has loudly proclaimed our supposed shortcomings, an even larger number of men in these professions have come forward to fight for our rights, asserting, based on their expertise and experiences, that the reform we seek aligns with nature and is grounded in justice. Goldwin Smith, who knows nothing about women, shares his irrational views in the English Fortnightly, while Frances Power Cobbe, Prof. Cairnes, and many others dismantle his weak arguments. Drs. Clarke and Maudsley speak authoritatively from their male perspectives on female nature, and a wave of indignation rises from both men and women across the country. Both men and women assert: "It’s not education that demoralizes and harms our women. It’s the lack of education, lack of purpose, lack of proper understanding of goals and methods." And how can we gain this understanding unless we are taught? And how can we be taught unless arrangements are made for us? And how can those arrangements be made for us unless we create them ourselves by voting for them?
Some mention is due to the place in which we meet. We are in the State of Michigan, a State in which the question of impartial suffrage has been carefully canvassed and presented during the past year. Within a short distance from us is the University of Michigan, liberal to men and to women, whose scholarly claims and merits its Professors and its President openly and earnestly attest. We claim that institution as our potent ally. It furnishes the remedy to all that we complain of. Equal education for the sexes is the true preparation for equality in civil and social ordinances. Even at this distance we breathe something of that pure air in which the woman grows to her full intellectual stature, untrammeled by artificial limitation of object and of method. We boast our own Boston, its culture and its conscience, but while Harvard persistently closes its doors to women, we blush too for New England, and sorrowfully wish it better enlightenment and better behavior.
Some recognition is warranted for the location of our gathering. We are in the State of Michigan, where the issue of fair voting rights has been thoroughly discussed and examined over the past year. Not far from us is the University of Michigan, which is welcoming to both men and women, and whose academic achievements and qualifications its professors and president passionately endorse. We consider that institution a powerful supporter of our cause. It provides the solution to all the issues we raise. Equal education for both genders is the true foundation for achieving equality in civil and social rules. Even from here, we catch a glimpse of that untainted atmosphere in which women can reach their full intellectual potential, free from artificial constraints on their goals and methods. We take pride in our own Boston, with its culture and moral compass, but while Harvard continues to shut its doors to women, we feel a sense of shame for New England and earnestly hope for its greater awareness and better conduct.
Having spoken of the East and the West, let me say how welcome to us of the East are occasions which make us better acquainted with our fellow-workers and believers of the West. The late Mr. Seward once said that slavery was sectional and freedom National. This was true in a larger sense than that in which he said it. All that is slavish tends to keep up sectional prejudice and isolation. All that is liberal tends to sympathy and union. East and West are the two hands of this mighty country—let the harmony of the present occasion show that they have but one heart between them. Are not all our chief possessions held in common? We gave you Sumner and you gave us Lincoln. We fought together the war of our late enfranchisement, and when God shall give us impartial suffrage as an established fact, it will be hard to discriminate between our work and yours. But the two hands will then be clasped, and the one heart uplifted with a throb of thankfulness that shall make our whole Nation one, and that forever. For the present moment, while we workers for woman suffrage can make no boast as to the final adoption of our method, we can yet rejoice in the results which already crown our work. Christ, in the very infancy of his mission, looked abroad and saw the fields already white with the harvest.
Having talked about the East and the West, I want to express how much we in the East appreciate opportunities that help us connect more with our fellow workers and believers in the West. The late Mr. Seward once said that slavery is regional and freedom is national. This is true in a broader sense than he intended. Everything that is oppressive tends to maintain regional biases and separation. Everything that is progressive encourages understanding and unity. The East and West are like the two hands of this great country—let the unity we experience today show that they share the same heart. Don't all our greatest assets belong to us all? We gave you Sumner, and you gave us Lincoln. We fought together in the recent struggle for freedom, and when God grants us equal voting rights as a reality, it will be hard to distinguish between our efforts and yours. But at that point, the two hands will be joined, and the single heart will be filled with gratitude that makes our entire nation one, forever. For now, while we, as advocates for women's suffrage, can't claim victory regarding the ultimate acceptance of our approach, we can still take pride in the achievements we’ve already made. Christ, in the early days of his mission, looked around and saw fields already ready for harvest.
The different agencies employed by this and kindred associations have plowed and furrowed the land far and near. They have dropped everywhere the seed of a true word, of a right feeling. How small a thing may this dropping of a seed seem to a careless observer! Yet it is the very life of the world which the patient farmer sows and reaps. So, our laborious meetings and small measures; our speeches, soon forgotten; our writings, soon dismissed; our petitions to Legislatures, never entertained; all these seem small things to do. The world says: "Why do you not labor to build up fortunes and reputations for yourselves if you will labor? Why do you waste your time and efforts on this ungrateful soil?" But we may reply that we have the joy of Christ in our hearts. In every furrow, some seed springs up; from every effort, some sympathy, some conviction results. When we look about us and see the number of suffrage associations formed in the different States, we too can say that the fields are white already to harvest.[Pg 836]
The various organizations used by this and similar associations have cultivated the land far and wide. They have scattered the seeds of truth and right feelings everywhere. It might seem small to a careless observer to drop a seed like this! Yet, it’s the very essence of life that the diligent farmer plants and harvests. Similarly, our hard-working meetings and small actions; our speeches, which are soon forgotten; our writings, quickly overlooked; our petitions to legislatures, never considered; all of these things may seem trivial. The world asks, “Why not work to build fortunes and reputations for yourselves if you’re going to put in the effort? Why waste your time and energy on this ungrateful ground?” But we can answer that we carry the joy of Christ in our hearts. In every furrow, some seed grows; from every effort, some empathy, some understanding emerges. When we look around and see the number of suffrage associations established in different states, we can also say that the fields are already ripe for harvest.[Pg 836]
White already. Yet centuries of martyrdom lay between the sowing of Christ and the harvest which we reap to-day. All of those centuries brought and took away faithful souls who continued the work, who gathered and reaped and sowed again. And we, too, know not what years of patient endeavor may yet be in store for us before we see the end of our suffrage work. We know not whether most of us shall not taste of death before we do see it, passing away on the borders of the promised land, with its fair regions still unknown to us. And yet we see the end as by faith. By faith we can prophesy of what shall come. The new state, in which for the first time ideal justice shall be crowned and recognized; the new church, in which there shall be neither male nor female; but the new creature that shall represent on either side free and perfect humanity. Like a bride coming down from Heaven, like a resurrection coming out of the earth, it shall appear and abide. And we, whether we shall see it as living souls or as quickening spirits, shall rejoice in it.
White already. Yet centuries of sacrifice lie between the beginning of Christ and the harvest we enjoy today. All those years brought and took away faithful souls who continued the work, who gathered and reaped and sowed again. And we, too, do not know what years of patient effort might still be ahead of us before we see the end of our struggle for suffrage. We do not know whether most of us will pass away before we see it, leaving this world on the borders of the promised land, with its beautiful regions still unknown to us. Yet we see the outcome by faith. By faith, we can envision what is to come. The new state, where for the first time ideal justice will be acknowledged and celebrated; the new church, where there will be neither male nor female; but a new being that will represent on either side free and perfect humanity. Like a bride coming down from Heaven, like a resurrection rising out of the earth, it will appear and remain. And we, whether we witness it as living souls or as awakening spirits, will rejoice in it.
Miss Eastman read the following letter:
Miss Eastman read the following letter:
Laramie City, W. T., Sept. 22, 1874.
Laramie City, W. T., Sept. 22, 1874.
Mrs. Lucy Stone, Chairman of the Executive Committee:—Your favor of the 12th inst. is received. I wish I could be with you at your meeting in Detroit next month, but I am so crowded with engagements here that I do not think I can get away. We have just had another election, and at no time have we had so full a vote. Our women have taken a lively interest, and have voted quite as universally as the men. Their influence has been felt more than ever and generally on the side of the best men. Several candidates have been defeated on account of their want of good characters, who expected success on party grounds. It is the general sentiment with us now that it will not do to nominate men for whom the women will not vote. Is not this a great step in advance? When candidates for office must come with a character that will stand the criticism of the women or be sure of defeat, we shall have a higher tone of political morals.
Mrs. Lucy Stone, Head of the Executive Committee:—I received your letter from the 12th. I wish I could join you at your meeting in Detroit next month, but my schedule here is so packed that I don’t think I can make it. We just had another election, and we had a record turnout. Our women have shown a strong interest and voted just as much as the men. Their influence has been more significant than ever and generally favors the best candidates. Several candidates with poor character who relied solely on party support have lost. The general sentiment among us now is that we won’t nominate men who the women won't support. Isn’t that a significant advancement? When candidates for office need to have a character that can withstand scrutiny from women, they’re more likely to promote better political ethics.
I hear it urged abroad that woman suffrage is not popular in Wyoming, but I hear nothing of the kind here. All parties now favor it. Those who once opposed it oppose it no longer, while its friends are more and more attached to it, as they see its practical benefits and feel its capacity for good. No one that I hear of wishes it abolished, and no one would dare propose its repeal. The women are beginning to feel their power and influence, and are growing up to a wider and stronger exertion of it. I think I can see a conscious appreciation of this in a higher dignity and a better self-respect among them. They talk and think of graver subjects and of responsibilities which ennoble them. A woman will not consent to be a butterfly when she can of her own choice become an eagle! Let her enjoy the ambitions of life; let her be able to secure its honors, its riches, its high places, and she will not consent to be its toy or its simple ornament.
I hear people saying that women's suffrage isn't popular in Wyoming, but I don't hear that at all here. All parties support it now. Those who used to be against it have changed their minds, and its supporters are becoming more committed as they see the real benefits and positive impact it brings. No one I know wants it to be taken away, and no one would dare suggest reversing it. Women are starting to recognize their power and influence and are stepping up to use it more effectively. I can see them gaining a sense of dignity and self-respect. They discuss and contemplate serious issues and responsibilities that uplift them. A woman won't settle for being a pretty face when she can choose to be a powerful force! Let her chase her ambitions; let her achieve success, wealth, and prestigious positions, and she will refuse to be just a plaything or a mere decoration.
J. W. Kingman.
J. W. Kingman.
Very respectfully,
Very respectfully,
Miss Eastman said that this letter presented just the evidence on the result and experience of woman suffrage that was wanted. She said that women were very inconsiderate and indifferent to this question. Women, until they are brought to think upon the matter, generally say they do not want to vote. She spoke of the laws of some States which allow the taking away from a mother of her children, by a person who had been appointed as their guardian, in place of her dead husband, and of the laws severe in other respects which States have made in relation to women. She wished all persons had the question put to them conscientiously whether woman had all the power she wanted. We do want, she said, every legitimate power, and we shall never be content with a tithe less than we can command.
Miss Eastman stated that this letter provided exactly the evidence needed regarding the outcome and experience of women's suffrage. She pointed out that women often neglect and are indifferent to this issue. Typically, women will say they don’t want to vote until they actually reflect on the matter. She mentioned the laws in some states that permit a guardian, appointed after a mother’s husband dies, to take her children away from her, as well as harsher laws in other areas that affect women. She wished everyone would thoughtfully consider whether women have all the power they need. "We do want," she said, "every legitimate power, and we will never be satisfied with anything less than what we can achieve."
Gen. A. C. Voris, of Ohio, read letters from the following persons, regretting their inability to attend the Convention: Bishop Gilbert Haven, D.D., of the Methodist Episcopal Church; from Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, Judge[Pg 837] Wm. H. West, of Ohio; Hon. C. W. Willard, of Vermont; Hon. G. W. Julian, of Indiana; Hon. D. H. Chamberlain, of South Carolina; William Lloyd Garrison, George William Curtis, the Smith sisters, Richard Fiske, Jr.
Gen. A. C. Voris from Ohio read letters from the following people, expressing their regret for not being able to attend the Convention: Bishop Gilbert Haven, D.D., from the Methodist Episcopal Church; Elizabeth Stuart Phelps; Judge[Pg 837] Wm. H. West from Ohio; Hon. C. W. Willard from Vermont; Hon. G. W. Julian from Indiana; Hon. D. H. Chamberlain from South Carolina; William Lloyd Garrison; George William Curtis; the Smith sisters; and Richard Fiske, Jr.
Rev. Mrs. Gillette, of Rochester, Mich., said every woman as well as every man should speak for what she believes to be necessary for her own well-being and for the well-being of the community. Charles Sumner once said that a woman's reason was the reason of the heart. She would give a few womanly reasons why she wanted the voters of Michigan to give the ballot to women. The want of the ballot prevents woman from possessing knowledge and power. If a woman performs the most menial services for the sake of her children, to eke out for them a subsistence, she does not do it because the law demands it, but because there is no other way open to her to obtain a livelihood. She did not ask for the ballot because the laws of the State are barbarous. She did not believe that men can make laws that will answer to the needs of women. Only when men and women together make laws can they be just and equal, and for that reason there should be both men and women in the Legislature.
Rev. Mrs. Gillette, from Rochester, Mich., stated that every woman, just like every man, should advocate for what she believes is essential for her own well-being and for the community's welfare. Charles Sumner once remarked that a woman's reasoning comes from the heart. She offered a few heartfelt reasons why she wanted the voters of Michigan to grant women the right to vote. The absence of the ballot stops women from gaining knowledge and power. When a woman takes on the most basic jobs to support her children and provide for their needs, she doesn’t do it because the law demands it, but because there’s no other option for her to earn a living. She didn’t seek the vote because the state’s laws are outdated. She didn’t think men could create laws that truly address women’s needs. Only when men and women work together to create laws can they be fair and equal, which is why both men and women should be in the Legislature.
Mrs. Blackwell read some additional resolutions[196] to those that had been adopted at an earlier stage of the Convention.
Mrs. Blackwell read some additional resolutions[196] to those that had been adopted earlier in the Convention.
At the first evening session Mrs. Lucy Stone presiding, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, of Boston, was the first speaker. In opening she spoke of the silent weary work, of the results of which the afternoon's reports told, and showed that the equal suffragists' labor is not comprised in facing pleasant audiences and listening to the applause which so many say is the one thing for which the women in this movement work. Her entire speech was in a tone that could not fail to convince all, that she, at least, works for something higher.
At the first evening session with Mrs. Lucy Stone in charge, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe from Boston was the first speaker. She began by discussing the quiet, exhausting work that the afternoon's reports highlighted, illustrating that the efforts of those advocating for equal suffrage are not limited to addressing friendly crowds and soaking up the applause that many believe is the sole motivation for women involved in this movement. Her entire speech conveyed a tone that made it clear she is driven by a higher purpose.
Mrs. Stone said that in every time of need, wherever the womanly workers for woman go, they find men to whom their gratitude flows as the rivers flow to the sea—they are the men who stand up to speak in woman's name in behalf of woman's rights. As one of these men she introduced Gen. Voris, of Ohio, the champion of equal suffrage in the Ohio Constitutional Convention. The[Pg 838] speech of Gen. Voris was a close, logical argument. It reviewed the entire question of suffrage, and bristled with points. He was so frequently interrupted by applause that he was obliged to ask the audience to withhold their tokens of approbation till he got through, but it was to little purpose, for enthusiastic suffragists couldn't help letting their hands tell their ears how good the General's hard hits at the anti-suffragists made them feel, and the applause would still break out once in a while.
Mrs. Stone said that in every moment of need, wherever women working for women's rights go, they find men to whom their gratitude flows like rivers to the sea—these are the men who stand up to speak on behalf of women and their rights. She introduced Gen. Voris from Ohio, a strong advocate for equal suffrage in the Ohio Constitutional Convention. The[Pg 838] speech by Gen. Voris was a tightly argued, logical presentation. It covered the entire issue of suffrage and was full of strong points. He was interrupted so often by applause that he had to ask the audience to hold their applause until he finished, but it was mostly ineffective, as enthusiastic suffragists couldn’t help but show their approval with their applause whenever the General made strong points against the anti-suffragists, and cheers would still break out intermittently.
Mrs. Mary A. Livermore was next introduced. She was greeted with applause, and commenced by an allusion to the Scandinavian origin of our race, and their characteristic bravery, vigor, and love of freedom. The Scandinavians were distinguished from other races by their regard for their wives. With them the woman stood nearer to heaven than the man. She was in some sense a priest, a law-giver, and a physician, and she was worthy of the position. Is it strange that with such foremothers we should love liberty? Something of this spirit has always marked the race. And now women ask for the right of suffrage, not because they are abused, but because they are half of humanity—the other half of man. They want simply equality, not superiority. She spoke of laws in the statute-books which do absolute injustice to men, and asked whether if the men could not legislate better than that for themselves, it was not a little ridiculous for them to assume to legislate for themselves and the women too? Mrs. Livermore spoke of some of the injustice of the law to women. The law is not for you, gentlemen, who are a law to yourselves, and who care for your wives so that they forget the injustice of the law. They are for the poor and down-trodden women, the wives of drunkards and wife-beaters. Make them what they should be. But the main claim of women to the ballot is that it is the symbol of equality. Women can never be made men. There is no danger of woman losing her womanhood. In fact we do not dream yet what womanhood can be. Women are now obsequious. Many who want to vote, in awe of husbands, fathers, sons, the pulpit, the press, ruled by men, do not say so. They have been taught through all the centuries that patience is the highest attribute of woman. She spoke of the division of masculine and feminine attributes. They complement each other, and together make the perfect whole. The assertion that women are slaves is nonsense. The great reason for woman suffrage is that it will aid a higher and grander civilization.
Mrs. Mary A. Livermore was introduced next. She received applause and started by referencing the Scandinavian roots of our race, highlighting their bravery, energy, and love for freedom. The Scandinavians were unique among other races for how much they valued their wives. In their culture, women were seen as closer to heaven than men. They were, in a way, priests, lawmakers, and healers, deserving of that respect. Is it surprising that, with such ancestors, we cherish liberty? This spirit has always been part of our heritage. Now, women are asking for the right to vote, not due to mistreatment, but because they represent half of humanity—the other half of men. They seek equality, not dominance. She mentioned laws that unjustly affect men and questioned whether it wasn’t a bit ridiculous for men, who struggle to legislate fairly for themselves, to assume they could do so for women as well. Mrs. Livermore pointed out some of the legal injustices faced by women. The law isn’t designed for you gentlemen, who are your own authorities and who take care of your wives so well that they overlook the injustice of the law. It’s for the poor and oppressed women, the wives of alcoholics and abusers. Make them what they should be. But the primary reason women deserve the right to vote is that it symbolizes equality. Women will never become men, nor should they. There’s no fear of women losing their femininity. In fact, we haven’t yet imagined the full potential of womanhood. Currently, women are often submissive. Many who want to vote remain silent out of respect for their husbands, fathers, sons, the church, and the media—all ruled by men. For centuries, they’ve been taught that patience is the greatest virtue of womanhood. She discussed the differences between masculine and feminine traits, explaining how they complement each other and together create a perfect whole. The claim that women are slaves is absurd. The main argument for women’s suffrage is that it will contribute to a more advanced and remarkable civilization.
The following letter was read:
The following letter was read:
Boston, 148 Charles Street, October 10, 1874.
Boston, 148 Charles Street, October 10, 1874.
H. B. Blackwell, Esq.: My dear sir—I am sorry my first letter never reached you, for I said in that just what I wanted to express of my own convictions touching suffrage for women. My opinion will go for very little, but whenever an opportunity occurs I wish to say just this if nothing more. It is my firm conviction that all who oppose so just a cause as woman suffrage know not what they do; and, if they are not dead within five years, will repent their opposition in deep and mortifying self-reproach.
H. B. Blackwell, Esq.: My dear sir—I'm sorry that my first letter didn't reach you, because I expressed exactly what I feel about women's right to vote. My opinion may not carry much weight, but whenever I get the chance, I want to say this, even if it's all. I truly believe that anyone who opposes such a fair cause as women's suffrage has no idea what they're doing; and if they aren't dead within five years, they'll regret their opposition with deep and painful remorse.
"The seed of the thistle," says Tyndall, "always produces the thistle," and our opponents will have a prickly time of it with their own consciences, when the day dawns in righteousness over the American ballot-box. God prosper the struggle and give you heart and hope, for your triumph is sure as sunrise, and will win that final mastery which heaven unfailingly accords to everlasting truth. Cordially yours,
"The seed of the thistle," says Tyndall, "always produces the thistle," and our opponents will have a tough time with their own consciences when the day of justice arrives for the American ballot box. May God bless the struggle and give you courage and hope, for your victory is as certain as the sunrise, and it will achieve that ultimate victory which heaven always grants to eternal truth. Sincerely yours,
James T. Fields.
James T. Fields.
Afterward addresses were made by Mr. Blackwell, Mrs. Elizabeth R. Churchill, Mrs. Samm, Miss M. Adele Hazlett, and Gen. Voris.
Afterward, speeches were given by Mr. Blackwell, Mrs. Elizabeth R. Churchill, Mrs. Samm, Miss M. Adele Hazlett, and General Voris.
Mrs. Margaret W. Campbell, of Chicago, said she came before the audience to speak upon the most important question of the day, important to one half, and through them to the other half of the community. This movement is no crusade of women against men, but an honest effort of both men and women to make one sex equal in all respects with the other. When our forefathers attempted to secure their own liberty they adopted the principle that all men are created free and equal, and are endowed with certain inalienable rights. Notwithstanding this, the Government allowed the maintenance of slavery for over three-quarters of a century. Rights are God-given. If any man can tell where a man gets his right to vote, he will find that woman obtained hers in the same place. The ballot, she claimed, was a means of educating the class who exercise the power of such ballot.
Mrs. Margaret W. Campbell, from Chicago, said she came before the audience to discuss the most important issue of our time, which matters to one half of the community and, through them, to the other half. This movement is not a battle of women against men, but a genuine effort by both men and women to ensure that one sex is equal in every way to the other. When our forefathers fought for their freedom, they adopted the principle that all people are created free and equal and are granted certain inalienable rights. Despite this, the Government allowed slavery to continue for over seventy-five years. Rights are given by God. If anyone can explain where a man gets his right to vote, they'll find that women get theirs from the same place. The ballot, she argued, was a way to educate the class that holds the power of that ballot.
Mrs. Margaret V. Longley, of Ohio, said this question of woman suffrage was one that was claiming the attention of the best minds of Europe and America. Women think they have as good a right to the ballot as men, and this right they want to exercise. Lunatics and idiots are deprived of the ballot because they do not know how to use it. Criminals are denied it because they are outcasts of society and have proved themselves unworthy of it. Women are deprived of it because of their womanhood. The sexes, she said, were never made to be antagonistic. Experience proves that what is of interest to women is of interest to men. There is no branch of business or of industry in which concession is granted to women on account of their sex. Nobody will pay more to a woman for any work than they will to men for the same work, and in the making of a suit of clothes it is seen that they pay a man more than double the amount they will to a woman for the same work.
Mrs. Margaret V. Longley, from Ohio, stated that the issue of women's suffrage was garnering the attention of the best minds in Europe and America. Women believe they have just as much right to vote as men do, and they want to exercise that right. Those deemed insane or incompetent are denied the vote because they don't know how to use it. Criminals are excluded because they are outcasts of society and have shown themselves to be unworthy of it. Women are denied this right solely because they are women. She said that the sexes were never meant to be in conflict. Experience shows that what matters to women also matters to men. There is no area of business or industry where women receive concessions simply because of their gender. No one pays women more for any job than they do men for the same job, and when it comes to tailoring a suit, it's clear that men are paid more than double what women earn for the same work.
Prof. Estabrook said that he was a recent convert to this movement. He had read the Bible, Bushnell, and Fairchild, and some others, and was convinced that women ought not to vote. When the question was submitted to the people by the Legislature, he commenced to read the Bible and Bushnell and others again. He found that Bushnell proved too much, and that the objections urged against women voting were equally good against nine-tenths of the men. The question of propriety—whether women should go to the polls—was another question which he considered. He did not now see why it was improper for woman to go where her husband or her son must go; and if the polls are not good places, decent men ought not to go there. He had all his life debated the question whether the University should be opened to ladies, and his first vote, cast as a Regent of the University, was in favor of the admission of women to the University. He was then opposed to their entering the medical department. But they next applied for admission to the law department, and he voted for that, and then, when they applied for admission to the medical department, he had to vote for that. He had never found out what right a man possesses to the ballot that a woman[Pg 840] has not; and if anybody could convince him that the right of woman to vote did not come from the same source as man's right came from, he would be glad to have it done.
Prof. Estabrook mentioned that he recently joined this movement. He had read the Bible, Bushnell, Fairchild, and a few others, and he was convinced that women shouldn't vote. When the Legislature brought the question to the public, he began to reread the Bible, Bushnell, and others again. He realized that Bushnell overreached, and the arguments against women voting were just as valid against most men. He also thought about whether it was appropriate for women to go to the polls. He couldn’t see why it was wrong for a woman to go where her husband or son had to go; if the polls are bad places, then decent men shouldn't go there either. Throughout his life, he debated whether the University should be open to women, and his first vote as a Regent of the University was in favor of allowing women to enroll. Initially, he opposed them entering the medical program. However, when they applied to the law department, he supported their admission, and when they sought entry into the medical program again, he had to vote in favor of that too. He never understood what right a man has to vote that a woman[Pg 840] doesn’t have; if someone could show him that a woman's right to vote doesn’t come from the same source as a man's right, he'd be happy to see it.
Miss Mary F. Eastman said it was a hard thing to stand and demand a right to which we were all born. It has been said by Dr. Chapin that woman's obligations compel her to demand her rights. There is a great cry going up from humanity, and only woman's nature can answer it. As she recently stood at the corner of the five streets which make the Five Points of New York, and looked at the crowd of miserable people about her, she was aghast. But she took courage when she learned that the mission-house and the long block of tenement houses on one side of the street were built by women, who daily feed 400 poor children, and that this was done by women, who took up the work after the Methodist Church had made a vain effort to do something to ameliorate the condition of those poor starving creatures.
Miss Mary F. Eastman said it was difficult to stand up and demand a right that we are all born with. Dr. Chapin has stated that women have an obligation to fight for their rights. There’s a significant outcry from humanity, and only women can respond to it. Recently, as she stood at the intersection of the five streets that form the Five Points of New York, she looked at the crowd of struggling people around her and was shocked. However, she found hope when she discovered that the mission house and the long row of tenement buildings on one side of the street were built by women, who daily feed 400 poor children. This was all accomplished by women who took on the task after the Methodist Church had made an unsuccessful attempt to improve the situation of those starving people.
On motion of Mr. H. B. Blackwell a vote of thanks was tendered to the citizens of Detroit, to the Detroit Suffrage Association and to the press of the city for favors and courtesies shown to the Association and its members during its meeting in this city, and for the full and fair reports of the Convention. The Association then adjourned.
On the suggestion of Mr. H. B. Blackwell, the group expressed gratitude to the citizens of Detroit, the Detroit Suffrage Association, and the local press for their kindness and support shown to the Association and its members during their meeting in the city, as well as for the comprehensive and honest coverage of the Convention. The Association then adjourned.
The seventh Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association was held at New York, in 1875. There was a large audience,[198] not less than 1,000 persons were present.
The seventh Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association took place in New York in 1875. There was a large audience,[198] with at least 1,000 people in attendance.
Bishop Gilbert Haven, President of the Society, took the chair, and called upon Rev. Dr. Thompson, of Brooklyn, to open the meeting with prayer. After which Mr. Haven said: In appearing before you to-night as the official head, for a very few hours, of the society which holds its annual meeting here, I deem it proper to burden you before you get at the richness of the feast that will follow, with a few thoughts that are in my own mind connected with this reform. The inevitable effect of every true idea is that it shakes off everything that hinders it and rises far superior to all associations. Woman suffrage has reached that development, and the public of America and England are beginning to appreciate it. Now, what is this idea? It is simply this—that the right of suffrage has no limitation with the male portion of the human race; that it belongs alike to the whole human family. I am a Democrat, a Jeffersonian Democrat, and I believe in the right of every man to have a voice in public affairs. It is a right that belongs to the very system of our government. Monarchical governments recognize the nation as belonging to a family; but the democratic system recognizes a government by the people and for the people,[Pg 841] and, if this be the government, every person in the nation has a right to participate in its administration. There is no partiality possible in such a conception of the system of government under which we live.
Bishop Gilbert Haven, President of the Society, took the chair and asked Rev. Dr. Thompson from Brooklyn to start the meeting with a prayer. After that, Mr. Haven said: As I stand before you tonight as the official head, even if just for a few hours, of the society holding its annual meeting here, I think it's important to share a few thoughts related to this reform before you enjoy the rich discussions that will follow. The inevitable result of every true idea is that it discards everything that obstructs it and rises far above all distractions. Woman suffrage has reached that stage, and the public in America and England is starting to recognize its importance. So, what is this idea? It's simply this—that the right to vote is not limited to men; it belongs to all of humanity. I am a Democrat, a Jeffersonian Democrat, and I believe in the right of every person to have a voice in public matters. This right is fundamental to our government system. Monarchies view the nation as belonging to a family, but a democratic system recognizes a government by the people and for the people,[Pg 841] meaning that everyone in the nation has a right to participate in its governance. There is no bias possible in such an understanding of our government.
Charles Sumner said that "equality of rights is the first of rights," and this will reveal itself in every department of citizenship. Our Government requires the expression of the views of the whole people upon every national question; it is a human right belonging to the political status of every individual, the woman as well as the man. The history of Christianity has been a history of the gradual enlarging of the sphere of woman; and this meeting to-night is one of the effects of Christianity. We stand now at the beginning of a new century; the last has been one of great development, and yet the very root fact of our national being lies in the first line of the Declaration. When we declared ourselves to be a Nation, we declared equality for all men, and we never meant by that, equality simply for all males. Jefferson never had that narrow view of human nature. He knew it meant all the people of America. Every one had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the woman as well as the man.
Charles Sumner stated that "equality of rights is the first of rights," and this will be evident in every aspect of citizenship. Our Government needs to hear the opinions of all people on every national issue; it is a fundamental human right tied to the political status of every individual, including women as well as men. The history of Christianity has been about gradually expanding the role of women, and this meeting tonight is one of the outcomes of that influence. We are now at the start of a new century; the last one saw significant progress, yet the core principle of our national identity is found in the first line of the Declaration. When we proclaimed ourselves a Nation, we declared equality for all people, and we never meant that equality was just for men. Jefferson never had such a limited perspective on human nature. He understood it included everyone in America. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, including women as well as men.
It is said women can not rule. Not rule! look through history. Where are Cleopatra and Semiramis, and Zenobia and Catharine, and Elizabeth and Victoria? Not rule? Did not Joan of Arc save France when the king had fled, and the armies were scattered, and English soldiers did their will in all that land? So Elizabeth picked up a prostrate nation, lowest of the low, despised of emperor, king, and Pope, and made it the sovereign power of Europe. So Victoria held back Palmerston and Russell and Gladstone and Derby, who would have plunged England into war with us, and left us free to subdue our enemy. Had not a woman ruled England we should have had a harder task than we did by far. Christianity has lifted woman to a level with man. It has given her liberty of movement, of faith, of life. It also demands her political deliberation. May this beginning of our second Centennial see the perfection of our political system, in this admission of woman to all the rights and duties of citizenship. It has worked well in Wyoming. It will everywhere. Let it come.
It’s often said that women cannot lead. Cannot lead! Just look through history. Where are Cleopatra, Semiramis, Zenobia, Catherine, Elizabeth, and Victoria? Can we really say they didn’t lead? Didn’t Joan of Arc save France when the king had fled, the armies were scattered, and English soldiers were doing as they pleased across the land? Elizabeth took a broken nation, hated by emperors, kings, and the Pope, and transformed it into a major power in Europe. Victoria kept Palmerston, Russell, Gladstone, and Derby from dragging England into war with us, allowing us to defeat our enemy. If a woman hadn’t ruled England, our task would have been much tougher. Christianity has raised women to be equals with men. It has given them freedom of movement, belief, and life. It also requires their political involvement. May this start of our second Centennial see the improvement of our political system by including women in all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. It’s been successful in Wyoming. It will succeed everywhere. Bring it on.
Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, of Somerville, N. J., said: A few days ago, in one of the New York dailies, I saw the announcement that one subject which now occupies the minds of the American people can never be settled till it is settled right. Knowing that this Convention was just at hand, I mentally exclaimed, "It is certainly woman suffrage!" But no! it was the question of the National currency. Well, the currency question did suggest great moral issues, and it was vital enough in character to justify the editorial claim. I believe it never can be settled till it is settled right. But what is the currency problem to a direct question of human rights, involving the highest moral and civil interests not only of all the women in the country, but of all the men likewise? This suffrage question never can be settled till it is settled right. So surely as the law of justice must yet prevail, it will continue to vex and trouble the whole nation continually.
Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, from Somerville, N.J., said: A few days ago, I saw in one of the New York newspapers an announcement stating that one topic currently on the minds of the American people cannot be resolved until it's done correctly. Knowing that this Convention was approaching, I thought, "It must be about women's suffrage!" But no! It was about the national currency issue. Well, the currency issue does raise significant moral questions, and it's serious enough to back up that editorial claim. I believe it can never be resolved until it's done right. But what does the currency issue mean compared to the direct question of human rights, which affects the highest moral and civil interests of not just all the women in the country, but all the men as well? This suffrage issue will never be settled until it is settled correctly. Just as the law of justice must ultimately prevail, it will keep causing unrest and trouble in the entire nation continually.
Because the sexes are so unlike in their natures and in all their relations to the State, there is imperative need of representation for both. Women in beleaguered cities have again and again stood heroically side by side with men, suffering danger and privation without a murmur, ready to endure[Pg 842] hunger and every form of personal discomfort rather than surrender to the enemy. What women have done in the past they would willingly do again in the future in like circumstances. They are everywhere as patriotic as men, and as willing to make sacrifices for their country.
Because men and women are so different in their nature and their roles in society, it’s essential that both have representation. Women in besieged cities have repeatedly shown bravery alongside men, enduring danger and hardship without complaint, prepared to face hunger and any form of personal discomfort rather than give in to the enemy. What women have accomplished in the past, they would gladly do again in similar situations. They are just as patriotic as men and just as willing to make sacrifices for their country.
But their relations to the government in war are of necessity widely unlike. If men as good citizens are bound to peril their lives and to endure hardships to aid the country in its hour of need, yet women peril their lives and devote their time and energy in giving to the country all its citizens, whether for peace or war. And if the liberties of the nation were in real peril, they would freely devote their all for its salvation. In any just warfare it is fitting that the young men should first march to battle, and if all these were swept away, then the old men and the old women might fitly go out together side by side, and, last of all, the young mothers, leaving their little children to the very aged and to the sick, should be and would be ready in their turn to go also, if need be, even to the battle-field rather than suffer the overthrow of a righteous government. But woman's relations to war are intrinsically unlike man's. Her natural attitude toward law and order and toward all public interests must always differ from his. Women would never be the producers of wealth to the same extent with men. The time devoted by the one class to earning money would be given by the other to rearing children. Yes, this question touches too many vital interests ever to be settled till it is settled right. We mean to live, to keep well and strong, and to continue to trouble the whole country until it is settled and settled to stay. There can be no rest from agitation till this is done.
But their relationships with the government during wartime are completely different. If good citizens are expected to risk their lives and endure hardships to help the country in its time of need, women also risk their lives and dedicate their time and energy to giving the country all its citizens, whether in peace or war. If the nation's freedoms were truly at risk, they would willingly give everything for its survival. In any just war, it makes sense for young men to be the first to fight, and if they were all taken, then older men and women could suitably go out together, and finally, young mothers, leaving their little children with the elderly and sick, would also be prepared to go if necessary, even to the battlefield rather than witness the downfall of a righteous government. However, women's relationship to war is fundamentally different from men's. Her natural stance towards law, order, and all public interests will always differ from his. Women won’t generate wealth to the same degree as men. The time one group spends earning money would be spent by the other group on raising children. Yes, this issue affects too many vital interests to ever be resolved until it's resolved correctly. We intend to live, to stay healthy and strong, and to keep pushing the whole country until it's settled for good. There can be no rest from agitation until this is accomplished.
Lucy Stone spoke particularly of the need of using the opportunity the Centennial gives, to show that, if it was wrong for George III. to govern the colonies a hundred years ago without their consent, it is just as wrong now to govern women without their consent; that if taxation without representation was tyranny then it is tyranny now, and no less tyranny because it is done to women than if it were done to men; that the usurpation of the rights of women is as high-handed a crime as was the usurpation of the rights of the colonists by the British Parliament, and will be so regarded a hundred years hence. She claimed that this occasion ought to be used to show men that the deeds of their ancestors, of which they are so proud, are worthy of their own imitation; she urged women to refrain from joining in the Centennial, and to show no more respect for the power which governs them without their consent, than did their brave ancestors a century ago.
Lucy Stone emphasized the importance of seizing the opportunity presented by the Centennial to illustrate that, just as it was wrong for George III to rule the colonies a hundred years ago without their consent, it is equally wrong now to govern women without their consent. She stated that if taxation without representation was tyranny back then, it remains tyranny today, and it is no less tyrannical when it affects women than when it affects men. She argued that the infringement of women's rights is as blatant a crime as the British Parliament's encroachment on the rights of the colonists and will be viewed that way a hundred years from now. She asserted that this event should be used to show men that the actions of their forefathers, which they take pride in, are worthy of their own emulation. She urged women to abstain from participating in the Centennial and to show as little respect for the authority that governs them without their consent as their courageous ancestors did a century ago.
The President said—I understand there is among the audience the famous Democrat of England, Charles Bradlaugh, and I will call upon him to say a few words.
The President said—I know we have the well-known Democrat from England, Charles Bradlaugh, in the audience, and I invite him to share a few words.
Mr. Bradlaugh at once came forward from the rear of the hall, where he had been sitting, and mounting the platform, said: I only came forward in obedience to a call which it would be impertinence to refuse here to-night. I came to be a listener and with no sort of intention of making any speech at all, and the only right I should have upon this platform is, that for the last twenty-five years of my short life I have pleaded for those rights which you plead for to-night. The woman question is no American question, no national question; it is a question for the whole world, and the[Pg 843] best men of every country and of every age have held one view upon it, and the worst men have naturally held the other view. It is not a question of mere taxation; it is a question of thorough humanity; a question not of mere geographical limitation, not of America, not of England, not of France, not of Italy, not of Spain; but, were it a question in any of these countries, a woman would stand up to show you that woman can do woman's work of making man truer and purer; and there is no age of the world in which you can not find some woman who has shone out in the darkness of night to show you that, though other stars were obscured, she could still shine; and whenever woman suffrage is debated, my voice is at their service, for the grander woman is made, the purer will man be.
Mr. Bradlaugh immediately stepped forward from the back of the hall, where he had been sitting, and went up to the platform, saying: I only came up because it would be rude to refuse the invitation to speak here tonight. I came as a listener and had no intention of giving a speech, and the only reason I should be on this platform is that for the last twenty-five years of my short life, I have advocated for the rights you’re standing up for tonight. The issue of women’s rights isn’t just an American issue, or a national issue; it’s a global issue, and the[Pg 843] best people from every country and every era have shared one perspective on it, while the worst have naturally held the opposite view. This isn’t just about taxation; it’s about fundamental humanity. It’s not limited to geography—not just America, not just England, not just France, not just Italy, not just Spain; but if it were an issue in any of these countries, a woman would stand up to demonstrate that women can do the vital work of making men more honest and virtuous. And there’s no period in history without a woman who has stood out in the darkness to show that, despite the obscured stars, she could still shine. Whenever the topic of women’s suffrage comes up, my voice is available to support it, for the more empowered women become, the better men will be.
At the next session the report of the Executive Committee was made by the Chairman, Mrs. Lucy Stone. After which letters were read from Lydia Maria Child, Mrs. H. M. Tracy Cutler, Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, Hon. H. A. Voris, and Miss Lavinia Goodell. The Committee on Resolutions[199] reported a long list of stirring appeals to those who have the real interests of humanity at heart. Their adoption was urged in an able speech by Mr.[Pg 844] Blackwell. The following session was principally devoted to the hearing of the reports from the auxiliary societies. The delegates, 159 in number, represented twelve States.
At the next meeting, the Executive Committee's report was presented by the Chairwoman, Mrs. Lucy Stone. After that, letters were read from Lydia Maria Child, Mrs. H. M. Tracy Cutler, Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, Hon. H. A. Voris, and Miss Lavinia Goodell. The Committee on Resolutions[199] presented a long list of passionate appeals to those who genuinely care about humanity’s interests. Their adoption was encouraged in a strong speech by Mr.[Pg 844] Blackwell. The next session mainly focused on hearing reports from the auxiliary societies. The delegates numbered 159 and represented twelve states.
Rev. Charles G. Ames, of Pennsylvania, in reply to Mrs. Stone, said he thought it both impolitic and unreasonable to come into collision with the awakening spirit of the country in the matter of the Centennial. The American Revolution did great things for us all, woman included; and although it did not give her a political status, yet it established organic principles which make woman suffrage possible, logical and ultimately certain. No event has yet brought suffrage to woman; shall she therefore regard all history up to date as a failure, as if there were nothing in it worth celebrating? Rather may we rejoice that all the past is a series of steps leading up to the present; and still we mount! Woman suffrage is present in the institutions of our country as a germ; it is growing. In not affirming it the fathers did no conscious or intentional wrong; and only a few cultivated women of the Revolutionary period, like Mrs. Adams and a lady friend of Richard Henry Lee, felt the inconsistency of affirming the equality of all human beings and then ignoring half of them. But in days of war and slavery, Mr. Seward said, "Liberty is in the Union"; so we may say, Suffrage is in the Union. The negroes who fought for the Union, while it was only a white man's Union, were winning their own enfranchisement; the women who celebrate American Independence are doing honor to principles which will some day bring justice to all the inhabitants of the land.
Rev. Charles G. Ames, from Pennsylvania, in response to Mrs. Stone, said he believed it was both unwise and unfair to clash with the growing spirit of the country regarding the Centennial. The American Revolution achieved great things for all of us, including women; and while it didn't grant her a political status, it laid down fundamental principles that make women's suffrage possible, logical, and ultimately inevitable. No event has yet secured suffrage for women; should she then consider all history up to now a failure, as if there were nothing in it worth celebrating? Instead, we should celebrate that all the past has been a series of steps leading us to the present; and we continue to advance! Women's suffrage exists in our country's institutions as a seed; it is growing. In not affirming it, the Founding Fathers did no conscious or intentional harm; and only a few educated women from the Revolutionary era, like Mrs. Adams and a friend of Richard Henry Lee, recognized the inconsistency of proclaiming the equality of all human beings while ignoring half of them. However, in times of war and slavery, Mr. Seward said, "Liberty is in the Union"; so we can say, Suffrage is in the Union. The Black men who fought for the Union, while it was primarily a white man's Union, were earning their own freedom; the women who honor American Independence are honoring principles that will eventually bring justice to everyone living in this land.
The discussions on this subject of suffrage have disclosed to the American people their own low estimate of the ballot, as a coarse and uncertain instrument for procuring only coarse and doubtful benefits. They ought to thank us for bringing to light this dangerous skepticism, and for compelling attention to those deeper principles of justice and equality which alone can work the timely cure. To refuse to follow those principles when their new application becomes obvious, is to give up the Republic.
The conversations about suffrage have revealed to Americans their own negative view of the ballot, seeing it as a rough and unreliable tool that only leads to unclear and questionable advantages. They should be grateful to us for highlighting this concerning skepticism and for drawing attention to the fundamental principles of justice and equality that are essential for a necessary solution. Ignoring these principles when their new relevance is clear means giving up on the Republic.
Yet there has been a relative decline of politics. The "powers that be," or the ruling forces of the country are not seated alone at Washington and the State capitals; new and mightier lawgivers have arisen. Civilization has come to include and employ other than political agents for the maintenance of order and the promotion of welfare. The power of opinion as generated by education, literature, religion, business or social life, and as announced through the press, and propagated in the widening circles of personal influence—this rules the rulers and masters the country. Thus, within the nation and fostered by its freedom, there has grown up a grander republic of thought and sentiment, which has also blossomed into many a fair institution. Of this more glorious republic, woman is a welcome and unquestioned citizen. Her opportunities for self-help and for helping others, her share in the common burdens and her dividend of the common benefits, must be far larger, in our country and now, than in any other land or time. All this, the thoughtful friends of suffrage will gladly admit.
Yet there has been a relative decline in politics. The "powers that be," or the ruling forces of the country, are not solely located in Washington and the State capitals; new and stronger lawmakers have emerged. Society now includes and relies on more than just political agents for maintaining order and promoting welfare. The power of opinion, shaped by education, literature, religion, business, or social life, and expressed through the press and spreading through personal connections—this influences those in power and governs the country. Thus, within the nation and supported by its freedom, a greater republic of thought and sentiment has developed, which has also led to the creation of many beneficial institutions. In this more glorious republic, women are welcomed and recognized as citizens. Their chances for self-improvement and helping others, their share in common responsibilities, and their share of common benefits must be significantly greater, in our country and now, than in any other place or time. All this, the thoughtful supporters of suffrage will readily acknowledge.
But does this concession belittle the importance of woman's political rights? Exactly not! A part in the government becomes important to any class in proportion as they become large stockholders in common affairs and as they become aware of their own interests and their own powers. The[Pg 845] ballot is of little value to an unawakened, unaspiring people; their masters will look after matters. But American women are not unawakened or unaspiring. To many of them, life has grown painful, because their advancing ideal is dishonored by a sense of violated justice. Along with large freedom has come developed faculty, awakened desire, conscious power and public spirit. Precisely because their actual freedom is so large and sweet, they are galled by every rusty link of the old political chain. Not the mere handling of a ballot do they crave, but the position of unchallenged and unqualified equality, and the removal of the old brand of inferiority, which weakens alike their self-respect and their hold on the respect of others.
But does this concession undermine the importance of women's political rights? Absolutely not! A role in government becomes significant for any group as they become major stakeholders in shared issues and recognize their own interests and power. The[Pg 845] ballot has little value for a complacent, uninspired people; their leaders will take care of things. But American women are neither complacent nor uninspired. For many of them, life has become difficult, as their growing ideals are disrespected by a sense of injustice. Along with greater freedom has come enhanced ability, awakened desire, conscious power, and community spirit. Precisely because their current freedom is so expansive and fulfilling, they are troubled by every rusty link of the old political chain. They don't just desire to cast a ballot; they want true and unchallenged equality and the removal of the old stigma of inferiority, which diminishes both their self-respect and their ability to gain respect from others.
At present, the position of woman in the State is false, contradictory and uncomfortable. She has ceased to be a nobody; but she is not yet conceded to be a somebody. As she has gained many rights which were once denied, the old theory which made her a slave is overthrown; as she has not gained the absolute and chartered right of self-government, the new theory of her equality is not yet established. Of that equality suffrage is the symbol, as in this country it is now the symbol for men. She demands to be the custodian of her own affairs, and not to hold them by sufferance. She demands to be equal behind the law and in the law, as well as before the law.
Right now, the role of women in society is flawed, contradictory, and uncomfortable. She has stopped being invisible; however, she hasn't fully been recognized as important. While she has gained many rights that were previously denied, the old idea that kept her oppressed is gone; yet, since she hasn't obtained the complete and guaranteed right to govern herself, the new idea of her equality isn’t fully established. Voting rights are the symbol of that equality, just as they are for men in this country now. She insists on managing her own affairs rather than relying on others to allow her to do so. She insists on being treated equally under the law, in the law, and before the law.
The Committee on Nominations reported the list of officers[200] for the ensuing year.
The Nominations Committee shared the list of officers[200] for the upcoming year.
Miss Eastman said: There are many questions of profound interest occupying the minds of the community, and people come together to unravel if possible the complications of business and human obligations; questions of railroads, of tariffs, of the protection of dumb animals, and, most important of all, of the delicate relations of society to the unfortunate classes, and of equity between man and man. All these need the consideration which is made possible by the accumulated wisdom of centuries and the insight which eighteen hundred years' study of Christian principles have developed. But I shall never get over a sense of anachronism, of being out of time, in arguing at this late day a claim for so fundamental a thing as human freedom. I rub my eyes to make sure that I have not been in a Rip Van Winkle slumber for a few centuries, and am not coming before a nineteenth century audience with an untimely protest against a wrong long since abolished, and of which children only hear nowadays in their study of history, or when their parents draw a picture of the sad old times when an injustice prevailed against one half the people, and these the mothers, wives, and daughters. But no! we have none of us been permitted to betake ourselves to a mount of delight and to rest in enchanted slumber while the great wrongs righted themselves. We are here on the hither side of the conflict and must put our puny human strength into the work. Though this is the nineteenth century after Christ, we are here—in the most civilized, or perhaps I should better say, the least uncivilized country on the face of the globe—to urge the right of one half the human race to the same personal freedom and voice in the control of its own and the general interests as are possessed by the other half.[Pg 846]
Miss Eastman said: There are many important questions on the minds of our community, and people are coming together to try to untangle the complexities of business and human responsibilities; issues about railroads, tariffs, the protection of animals, and, most crucially, the fragile relationship between society and the underprivileged, as well as fairness between individuals. All of these require thoughtful consideration, which can be informed by the wisdom accumulated over centuries and the understanding developed through eighteen hundred years of studying Christian principles. But I can’t shake this feeling of being out of place, of being in the wrong era, when arguing for such a basic thing as human freedom at this late date. I blink to make sure I haven’t been in a lengthy slumber, as if I’ve just woken up to address a nineteenth-century audience with a protest against a wrong that has long been resolved, something children only learn about in history class or hear their parents describe as the unfortunate past when injustice affected half the population, specifically women and mothers. But no! None of us have been allowed to escape to a paradise and rest while these significant wrongs corrected themselves. We are here, on this side of the struggle, and must put our limited human strength into action. Even though this is the nineteenth century after Christ, we are here—in what is arguably the most civilized, or perhaps I should say, the least uncivilized country in the world—to advocate for the right of half the human race to enjoy the same personal freedom and voice in managing their own interests and those of society as the other half does.[Pg 846]
Mrs. Frances Watkins Harper was the last speaker. She said that she had often known women who wished they had been born men, but had known only one man who wished he had been born a woman, and that was during the war when he was in danger of being drafted into the army. He then not only expressed the wish that he had been born a girl, but even went further, and longed to be a girl-baby at that. Mrs. Harper gave a touching description of the disabilities to which women, and especially colored women, are subjected, and looked forward to their enfranchisement as the dawn of a better era alike for men and for women. At the conclusion of Mrs. Harper's address the Convention adjourned sine die.
Mrs. Frances Watkins Harper was the last speaker. She mentioned that she had often met women who wished they had been born men, but she had only known one man who wished he had been born a woman, and that was during the war when he was at risk of being drafted into the army. He not only wished he had been born a girl, but even went so far as to long to be a baby girl. Mrs. Harper gave a heartfelt description of the challenges that women, especially women of color, face and looked forward to their empowerment as the beginning of a better time for both men and women. At the end of Mrs. Harper's speech, the Convention adjourned sine die.
The anniversary of the recognition of the equal political rights of women by the Constitutional Convention of New Jersey, July 2, 1776, celebrated in 1876 by the American Woman Suffrage Association, was as bright and beautiful as the fact it commemorated. Notwithstanding the heat of the weather and the varied attractions of the Exhibition and the great procession, an intelligent audience assembled at Philadelphia in Horticultural Hall. It contained many representatives of Pennsylvania, but was mainly composed of several hundred friends of woman suffrage from all parts of the country. The meeting was called to order by Henry B. Blackwell, Secretary of the Society, who read the call and introduced Mrs. Lucy Stone as Chairman of the meeting. Mrs. Stone prefaced her address by a historical statement of the interesting facts of woman's enfranchisement and disfranchisement in New Jersey.[201]
The anniversary of the acknowledgment of women's equal political rights by the Constitutional Convention of New Jersey on July 2, 1776, was celebrated in 1876 by the American Woman Suffrage Association. The event was as vibrant and significant as the occasion it marked. Despite the heat and the various attractions of the Exhibition and the large parade, a thoughtful audience gathered in Horticultural Hall in Philadelphia. It included many representatives from Pennsylvania but was primarily made up of several hundred supporters of woman suffrage from across the country. The meeting was called to order by Henry B. Blackwell, the Secretary of the Society, who read the announcement and introduced Mrs. Lucy Stone as the Chair of the meeting. Mrs. Stone began her speech with a historical overview of the compelling facts surrounding women's enfranchisement and disenfranchisement in New Jersey.[201]
The Hutchinson family sang with thrilling power and sweetness "The Prophecy of Woman's Future."
The Hutchinson family sang with amazing energy and sweetness, "The Prophecy of Woman's Future."
Mr. Blackwell said: The Philadelphia newspapers are discussing the question whether the second or the fourth day of July is the real anniversary of American Independence. I give my vote for the second of July for a reason which has not been generally named. On this day the men of New Jersey, for the first time in the world's history, organized a State upon the principles of absolute justice. For the first time, they established equal political rights for men and women. This was a greater event than the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration only announced the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," but the men of New Jersey applied the principle alike to women and negroes. By as much as practice is worth more than theory and life more than raiment, by so much is the event we celebrate more glorious than any other in the annals of the Revolution. It was the prophecy and the guarantee of our national future.
Mr. Blackwell said: The Philadelphia newspapers are debating whether July 2nd or July 4th is the true anniversary of American Independence. I vote for July 2nd for a reason that hasn't been widely recognized. On this day, the people of New Jersey, for the first time in history, created a State based on the principles of absolute justice. For the first time, they established equal political rights for both men and women. This was a bigger event than the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration merely stated that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," but the men of New Jersey applied this principle to both women and Black people. As much as practical action is worth more than theory and living life is worth more than basic needs, the event we celebrate is far more significant than any other in the history of the Revolution. It was a prophecy and a promise for our national future.
Some people say that we celebrate a failure, because thirty-one years later the franchise was taken away from the women of New Jersey. But the generation which enacted woman suffrage did not repeal it. New Jersey was first settled by the Puritans and Quakers—educated and intelligent, full of the spirit of liberty. Soon after the State was organized, this population was overwhelmed by an ignorant immigration from Continental Europe. Slavery became a power. Free schools did not exist. Another body of[Pg 847] men supplanted the intelligent founders of the State and lowered its institutions to meet the lower level of character and purpose.
Some people say that we’re celebrating a failure because, thirty-one years later, the franchise was taken away from the women of New Jersey. But the generation that secured women's suffrage didn’t revoke it. New Jersey was initially settled by Puritans and Quakers—educated, intelligent people filled with the spirit of liberty. Soon after the state was established, this population was overwhelmed by an uneducated wave of immigrants from Continental Europe. Slavery became a powerful force. Free schools didn’t exist. Another group of[Pg 847] men replaced the knowledgeable founders of the state, lowering its institutions to match a lesser level of character and purpose.
Another lesson we should never forget is, that the women of New Jersey lost the franchise because they voted against extending this right to others. The women were generally Federalists. They were said to have given the electoral votes of the State to John Adams against Thomas Jefferson in 1800. The Democratic party was bent upon enfranchising the poor white men who were excluded by a property-qualification. The women, then as now conservative in character, opposed this extension of suffrage. In 1807, when the Democrats got possession of the State Government, they put out the women and colored men and introduced the poor white men. With this warning before us, let us rejoice that American women have taken so warm an interest in the emancipation and enfranchisement of the slaves—that every colored delegate whom I met at the National Republican Conventions of 1872 and 1876 recognized the women as their friends, and were ready to help put a woman suffrage plank into the platform.
Another lesson we should always remember is that the women of New Jersey lost the right to vote because they opposed extending this right to others. The women were mostly Federalists. It's believed they cast the state’s electoral votes for John Adams instead of Thomas Jefferson in 1800. The Democratic Party aimed to give the vote to poor white men who were excluded due to property requirements. The women, being conservative in nature then as they are now, resisted this expansion of voting rights. In 1807, when the Democrats took control of the state government, they excluded women and people of color and included poor white men instead. With this reminder in mind, let’s celebrate that American women have shown such strong support for the emancipation and enfranchisement of enslaved individuals—that every Black delegate I encountered at the National Republican Conventions of 1872 and 1876 recognized women as their allies and were eager to include a women’s suffrage plank in the platform.
Also, let me congratulate you that the Prohibitionists and Republicans have each adopted our principle of equal rights for women in their party creeds, and that in the nomination of Rutherford B. Hayes, a woman suffragist, we have a man whose first public reputation was won as the champion of a wronged and friendless woman.
Also, let me congratulate you that the Prohibitionists and Republicans have both embraced our principle of equal rights for women in their party platforms, and that in the nomination of Rutherford B. Hayes, a supporter of women's suffrage, we have a man whose first public recognition came as the champion of a wronged and vulnerable woman.
The Hutchinsons gave a spirited song. Mr. Raper, of England, was then called, and gave an interesting sketch of the progress of woman suffrage in England. The afternoon meeting was opened by a song, "One Hundred Years Hence," by the Hutchinsons.
The Hutchinsons performed an energetic song. Mr. Raper, from England, was then invited to share an engaging overview of the advancement of women's voting rights in England. The afternoon meeting began with a song, "One Hundred Years Hence," by the Hutchinsons.
Charles G. Ames said: This meeting stands for something good and necessary—better than anything we can say. The advocates of impartial suffrage are the most consistent friends of the principles upon which our institutions are founded, because they alone propose to apply them. All others shrink from this application. They distrust human nature. They are afraid to move for fear of what may follow. They are like the Frenchman, who, being a little drunk, had dropped his hat and apostrophized it thus: "If I try to pick you up, I shall myself fall down. If I fall down, you can not pick me up. Therefore I will go on without you." But woman's enfranchisement will open every college door and every avenue of employment. Every woman will be cared for, as every man is now cared for. A government without justice is tyranny, piracy, and despotism. A society without justice would be a hell. The lower elements of appetite and passion exist in society. They must be overcome by the higher elements of justice. With justice will come heavenliness, purity, and peace. Thus, in opening the proceedings of this afternoon, we represent in 1876 the principles of 1776—the principles which will triumph more clearly and gloriously in 1976.
Charles G. Ames said: This meeting stands for something good and necessary—better than anything we can express. The supporters of fair voting are the most consistent friends of the principles our institutions are based on because they’re the only ones who actually want to apply them. Everyone else hesitates to do so. They don't trust human nature. They're afraid to take action because they're worried about what might happen next. They remind me of a Frenchman who, after having a bit too much to drink, lost his hat and said, "If I try to pick you up, I'll fall down myself. If I fall down, you can't pick me up. So I'll just go on without you." But giving women the right to vote will open every college door and every job opportunity. Every woman will receive the same care that every man gets today. A government without justice is tyranny, piracy, and despotism. A society without justice would be hell. The baser elements of desire and passion exist in society. They must be overcome by the higher elements of justice. With justice, we’ll achieve goodness, purity, and peace. So, as we begin this afternoon's proceedings, we represent in 1876 the principles of 1776—the principles that will triumph even more clearly and gloriously in 1976.
Mrs. Howe said: Heaven gives each of us two human hands. One is meant to receive the gifts of Providence, and one is meant to give largely of what we receive to others. Ignorant, selfish human beings too often hold out but the one hand. They receive, and are satisfied with that; but they do not give. They seem to say to divine Providence, "What is yours is mine, and what is mine is my own." Nevertheless, in the order of this same[Pg 848] Providence, what we give is as important to our happiness as what we receive. The rich man who has done nothing to enrich the community in which he lives, has really profited very little by the wealth he has amassed and inherited. Himself commanding the means of refinement and luxury, he lives surrounded by poverty, barbarism, and crime; and these, from the beginning of his career to the end, poison the very sources of his life. As much worse is it with those who receive liberty and do not give it, as liberty is better than money. "Give me liberty or give me death!" says Patrick Henry. He receives it. Does he give it to his slave? No. To his wife? Still less. What does he have of it, then? Only one half—the selfish half of possession, not the joyous and generous side of sympathy and participation.
Mrs. Howe said: Heaven gives each of us two human hands. One is meant to receive the gifts of Providence, and one is meant to generously share what we receive with others. Ignorant, selfish people too often extend only one hand. They take and are satisfied with that, but they don’t give. They seem to say to divine Providence, "What is yours is mine, and what is mine is my own." However, in the same order of this[Pg 848] Providence, what we give is just as important to our happiness as what we receive. The wealthy person who has done nothing to contribute to the community around them has truly gained very little from the wealth they have gathered and inherited. Even with all the means for comfort and luxury, they live surrounded by poverty, ignorance, and crime; these issues, from the start of their life to the end, poison the very sources of their existence. It’s even worse for those who gain freedom but do not share it, as freedom is more valuable than money. "Give me liberty or give me death!" says Patrick Henry. He receives it. Does he give it to his slave? No. To his wife? Even less. So what does he really have? Only one half—the selfish half of ownership, not the joyful and generous aspect of empathy and sharing.
These Jerseyites, it seems, were wiser than any in their day and generation. They saw the anomaly, the contradiction between a free manhood and an enslaved womanhood. They saw it taking effect at the sacred hearth, beside the tender cradle. And they saw their way out of it. What they received and valued as the greatest of God's gifts, they gave to their women, rational, human creatures like themselves, bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh, only made to exemplify that peaceable and loving side of human nature whose beauty has been always felt, and whose triumph is written among the eternal prophecies which time only fulfills. Honor then, to-day, to those truly brave and generous men who, with their own hands unbound, were not afraid to unbind the hands of their wives and mothers! Honor, too, to the women who were intelligent enough to appreciate the gift, and wise and brave enough to use it. No scandal accompanied its exercise. There was no talk in that time of the women deserting their household fires, their tender children, to fulfill their duty to the State. In that State, in those women, culminated the success and significance of the American Revolution. Remember the other States did not think so, neither did the men or the women who planned the International Exhibition of to-day think so. But it was so, none the less. And we to-day must light our torches at that very topmost flame of freedom, or they will smoke instead of burning.
These people from New Jersey were, it seems, wiser than anyone else of their time. They recognized the contradiction between being free men while women remained enslaved. They saw this impact happening at home, next to the loving cradle. And they found a way to change it. What they saw as the greatest gift from God, they shared with their women—rational, human beings just like themselves, made from their own substance, meant to show that peaceful and loving side of human nature whose beauty has always been acknowledged, and whose success is written among the timeless prophecies that time only fulfills. So, let's honor today those truly brave and generous men who, with their own hands freed others, were not afraid to set their wives and mothers free! Let's also honor the women who were smart enough to understand the gift, and courageous enough to embrace it. There was no scandal in exercising this freedom. No one in that time suggested that women abandon their homes and children to serve the State. In that State and through those women, the triumph and significance of the American Revolution reached its peak. Remember, the other States didn't see it that way, nor did the men or women who organized the International Exhibition today. But it was true, nonetheless. And today we must light our torches at that ultimate flame of freedom, or they will smoke instead of shining brightly.
Mrs. Antoinette L. Brown Blackwell said she came as a representative from New Jersey, her adopted State, whose unique suffrage endowment, one hundred years ago, we are here to celebrate. The ebb and flow which is the law of all progress, has temporarily deprived our women of the franchise. But it will be restored in the near future. "I have neighbors, whose mothers and grandmothers voted, and who are beginning to recall the fact with pride and satisfaction." Ex-Governor Bullock, of Massachusetts, has well said that "Historically, woman, in America, is now at the acme of her power." But at our next Centennial, men and women will stand together, acknowledged peers, at the acme of human achievement.
Mrs. Antoinette L. Brown Blackwell said she came as a representative from New Jersey, her adopted state, to celebrate its unique suffrage legacy from one hundred years ago. The natural ups and downs of progress have temporarily taken away our women’s right to vote, but it will be restored soon. "I have neighbors whose mothers and grandmothers voted, and they are starting to remember that with pride and satisfaction." Ex-Governor Bullock of Massachusetts has rightly pointed out that "Historically, women in America are now at the peak of their power." But by our next Centennial, men and women will stand together as recognized equals at the peak of human achievement.
Mrs. Elizabeth K. Churchill said: The right of suffrage is always either inherited or earned. The women of America have earned their right by their work in the Revolution and in the Civil War. The inertia of women themselves is the greatest obstacle of our movement. But, in order to perform the duties which fall upon them in humane and charitable work, women need that their rights should be guaranteed by the franchise.[Pg 849]
Mrs. Elizabeth K. Churchill said: The right to vote is always either inherited or earned. The women of America have earned their right through their contributions during the Revolution and the Civil War. The greatest barrier to our movement is the apathy of women themselves. However, to take on the responsibilities that come with humanitarian and charitable work, women need their rights to be secured through the vote.[Pg 849]
Miss Hindman urged the importance of suffragists working inside the churches. Here is where the sympathies of society center. We have eight million professed Christians, church-members; three-fourths of these are women. Miss Hindman gave very encouraging accounts of success in enlisting the pastors and women of the churches in the suffrage work, also of the growth of woman suffrage sentiment among the temperance women of the West.
Miss Hindman emphasized how important it is for suffragists to engage with churches. This is where society's support is focused. We have eight million self-identified Christians who are church members; three-quarters of them are women. Miss Hindman shared very positive stories about successfully involving pastors and church women in the suffrage movement, as well as the increasing support for women's suffrage among temperance women in the West.
The Hutchinsons sang "The Star Spangled Banner," the audience joining in the chorus.
The Hutchinsons sang "The Star-Spangled Banner," and the audience joined in on the chorus.
Mrs. Stone uttered her dissent for the words and spirit of the song so long as women are without political rights. In conclusion she offered the following resolutions:
Mrs. Stone expressed her disagreement with the words and message of the song as long as women lack political rights. In conclusion, she presented the following resolutions:
1. Resolved, That on this Centennial Anniversary of American Freedom, we re-affirm the principle that "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed"—and that "Taxation without representation is tyranny." Yet women are governed without consent, and taxed without representation.
1. Resolved, That on this 100th Anniversary of American Freedom, we re-affirm the principle that "Governments get their rightful powers from the approval of the people"—and that "Taxation without representation is tyranny." Yet women are governed without consent, and taxed without representation.
2. Resolved, That we celebrate the establishment of woman suffrage in New Jersey, a hundred years ago, as the prophecy and forerunner of the American future. We point with pride to the existence of woman suffrage in Wyoming and Utah, and we declare that as the first century of Independence has achieved equal rights and impartial suffrage for men, so the next century will achieve equal rights for all American citizens irrespective of sex.
2. Resolved, That we celebrate the establishment of women's suffrage in New Jersey, a hundred years ago, as a sign and early indicator of America's future. We proudly highlight the existence of women's suffrage in Wyoming and Utah, and we declare that just as the first century of Independence has achieved equal rights and fair voting for men, so the next century will secure equal rights for all American citizens regardless of gender.
The resolutions were unanimously adopted, and the meeting adjourned.
The resolutions were all approved, and the meeting was ended.
The Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association commenced on October 2, 1876, at Handel and Haydn Hall, Philadelphia. Mrs. Mary A. Livermore presided and made the opening address.
The Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association started on October 2, 1876, at Handel and Haydn Hall in Philadelphia. Mrs. Mary A. Livermore led the meeting and gave the opening speech.
The Committee on Credentials made a partial report, showing one hundred and three delegates present, representing twenty-three States and Territories. Two other States reported themselves at the close of the morning meeting, making in all twenty-five States and Territories[202] represented. Brief addresses were made by Mrs. Howe and Mrs. Frances W. Harper. Letters were read from William Lloyd Garrison, and J. W. Kingman, of Wyoming. The Chairman of the Committee on Resolutions reported the following, which were accepted for separate consideration:
The Committee on Credentials gave a partial report, indicating that one hundred and three delegates were present, representing twenty-three States and Territories. Two more States followed up by the end of the morning meeting, bringing the total to twenty-five States and Territories[202] represented. Brief speeches were delivered by Mrs. Howe and Mrs. Frances W. Harper. Letters were read from William Lloyd Garrison and J. W. Kingman from Wyoming. The Chairman of the Committee on Resolutions reported the following, which were accepted for separate consideration:
The American Woman Suffrage Association affirms: That woman's right to vote already exists in theory under a government based upon the consent of the governed; that her right to vote implies her right to take part in the nomination of her representatives in the primary meetings of the parties, and that this right can be granted at any time, by the State Convention of any party, without any change of constitution or laws.
The American Woman Suffrage Association states: That a woman's right to vote already exists in theory under a government that relies on the consent of the governed; that her right to vote means she should be able to participate in nominating her representatives at party primary meetings, and that this right can be granted at any time by the State Convention of any party, without needing any changes to the constitution or laws.
We therefore recommend the suffragists of each State to address a memorial to every political convention, asking for the adoption of a resolution. "That hereafter, women who are identified in principle with the party, and who possess the qualifications of age and residence required of male voters, are invited to take part in its primary meetings, with an equal voice and vote in the nomination of candidates and the transaction of business."[Pg 850]
We encourage the suffragists in each state to send a petition to every political convention, asking for a resolution to be adopted. "From now on, women who align with the principles of the party and meet the age and residency requirements expected of male voters are invited to participate in its primary meetings, with equal voice and vote in candidate nominations and business transactions."[Pg 850]
Resolved, That we congratulate the National Prohibitory Reform party upon its adoption of woman suffrage in its platform, and upon the similar action recently taken by that party in several States; also upon the admission of women to the Prohibitory caucuses of Massachusetts by the unanimous invitation of its State Convention, and upon the subsequent nomination of the same candidates by the woman suffragists of that State.
Resolved, That we congratulate the National Prohibitory Reform Party on including women's suffrage in its platform and on the similar actions recently taken by that party in several states; also, we commend the admission of women to the Prohibitory caucuses of Massachusetts by the unanimous invitation of its State Convention, and the subsequent nomination of the same candidates by the women suffragists of that state.
Resolved, That we rejoice at the beneficent results of woman suffrage in Wyoming, and at its successful establishment in the Granges, in the Good Templar Lodges, and in other co-operative organizations.
Resolved, That we celebrate the positive outcomes of women's voting rights in Wyoming, and its successful implementation in the Granges, in the Good Templar Lodges, and in other cooperative organizations.
Whereas, The Constitution of Colorado provides that the question of extending suffrage to women shall be submitted to the voters; therefore,
Whereas, the Constitution of Colorado states that the issue of granting voting rights to women will be put to the voters; therefore,
Resolved, That the American Woman Suffrage Association will extend to the Association of Colorado all the aid possible to secure the desired result.
Resolved, That the American Woman Suffrage Association will provide the Association of Colorado with all possible support to achieve the desired outcome.
Rev. B. F. Bowles, of Philadelphia, was opposed to the adoption, of the first resolution on the ground that the attempt to obtain for women a voice and vote in the party caucuses was unwise and impracticable. Until women were voters no such right should be demanded. To do so was to begin at the wrong end. A caucus was and ought to be a conference of voters.
Rev. B. F. Bowles from Philadelphia opposed the adoption of the first resolution, arguing that trying to get women a voice and vote in party caucuses was unwise and unrealistic. He believed that until women were voters, that right shouldn’t be demanded. He thought this approach was starting from the wrong place. A caucus was and should be a meeting of voters.
Dr. John Cameron, of Delaware, doubted the propriety of the action recommended in the first resolution. Mr. Blackwell spoke briefly in its support.
Dr. John Cameron from Delaware was uncertain about the appropriateness of the action suggested in the first resolution. Mr. Blackwell spoke briefly in favor of it.
Mrs. Smith, of Pittsburgh, stated that as a member of the Prohibition party of Pennsylvania, she had repeatedly taken part in the caucuses, and that the same was true elsewhere. By general consent the further discussion was postponed. Dr. Cameron, of Delaware, at the evening session, said that on a more careful consideration he was convinced that the action proposed was right, and he should vote in its favor.
Mrs. Smith, from Pittsburgh, said that as a member of the Prohibition party in Pennsylvania, she had participated in the caucuses multiple times, and the same applied in other places. By common agreement, further discussion was postponed. Dr. Cameron, from Delaware, in the evening session, mentioned that after giving it more thought, he was convinced that the proposed action was correct, and he intended to vote in favor.
Mrs. Abigail Scott Duniway supported it by a story of the mice who planned to bell the cat.
Mrs. Abigail Scott Duniway backed it up with a story about the mice who decided to put a bell on the cat.
Mr. Blackwell spoke at length in favor of making a concerted effort to secure the admission of women to the nominating caucuses, and predicted the success of any party which should adopt that measure, and all the resolutions were then adopted.
Mr. Blackwell spoke extensively about the importance of working together to ensure that women could participate in the nominating caucuses and predicted that any party implementing this change would succeed. As a result, all the resolutions were adopted.
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe spoke of the determination which exists in the present age for investigating everything to its utmost extent, but questioned, however, whether this system of investigation was not carried too far, when woman suffrage was refused on the ground that it was not known what women would do with it when they had it. She said that John Bright was opposed to woman suffrage, but he did not show any reason why it was not a good object.
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe talked about the strong desire in today's world to thoroughly investigate everything, but she wondered if this approach was being taken too far when woman suffrage was denied simply because it was unclear what women would do with it once they had it. She mentioned that John Bright was against woman suffrage, but he didn't provide any reasons for why it wouldn't be a beneficial goal.
It was said that his opposition arose from the fact that he had married a woman who was opposed to woman's rights, and if this were the case, it was an additional reason why women should work among their own sex in promotion of this object. One important feature of the British Parliament is, that if the men of the country are dissatisfied with its action, they have the power to put the Government out of office, but the women of the country had only to sit passively by if they are not satisfied with the administration. Freedom with its concomitants does not promote despotism in either sex. The ignorant women of to-day, left in their ignorance, will continue to bring forth slavery, and to educate their children as the tools of despotism. It was said that inequality of property is complained of among women, but[Pg 851] that it exists just as much among men. But what is complained of among women is not inequality of property, but absence of representation.
It was said that his opposition came from the fact that he married a woman who was against women's rights, and if that were true, it added another reason why women should work together to promote this cause. One important aspect of the British Parliament is that if the men of the country are unhappy with its actions, they have the power to remove the Government from office, but the women of the country can only sit idly by if they're not satisfied with the administration. Freedom, along with its accompanying aspects, does not lead to oppression in either gender. The uneducated women of today, left in their ignorance, will continue to perpetuate slavery and raise their children as tools of oppression. It was mentioned that women complain about property inequality, but that it is just as prevalent among men. However, what women really complain about is not property inequality but the lack of representation.
Addresses were made by Rev. John Snyder, of St. Louis; Lucy Stone; Mrs. Duniway, of Oregon, and Mrs. Livermore; after which the audience rose and united in singing the doxology, and the meeting adjourned.
Addresses were given by Rev. John Snyder from St. Louis; Lucy Stone; Mrs. Duniway from Oregon; and Mrs. Livermore. Afterward, the audience stood and joined together in singing the doxology, and the meeting was adjourned.
In November, 1877, the American Woman Suffrage Association issued the following:
In November 1877, the American Woman Suffrage Association released the following:
To Woman Suffragists.—We mail to every subscriber of the Woman's Journal a blank petition to Congress for a XVI. Amendment. Also, in the same envelope, a woman suffrage petition to your own State Legislature—Please offer both petitions together for signature. Thus, with the same amount of labor, both objects will be accomplished.
To Woman Suffragists.—We're sending every subscriber of the Woman's Journal a blank petition to Congress for a XVI. Amendment. Also, in the same envelope, there's a woman suffrage petition for your State Legislature—Please present both petitions together for signatures. This way, with the same effort, both goals will be achieved.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
Lucy Stone,
Chairman Ex. Com., Am. Woman Suffrage Assoc.Lucy Stone,
Chair, Executive Committee, American Woman Suffrage AssociationBoston, Nov. 24, 1877.
Boston, Nov. 24, 1877.
Later appeared in the Woman's Journal a paragraph to the effect:
Later, a paragraph appeared in the Woman's Journal stating:
Every subscriber has received from us, by mail, two forms of petitions; the one addressed to the State Legislature, the other to Congress. We consider State action the more important, but signatures to both petitions can be obtained at the same time.
Every subscriber has received two petition forms from us by mail: one addressed to the State Legislature and the other to Congress. We believe that action at the State level is more important, but signatures for both petitions can be collected at the same time.
These petitions should be circulated at once, and sent back to No. 4 Park St., Boston, by the middle of January. We hope for more signers than ever before. Friends of woman suffrage, circulate the petitions!
These petitions should be shared right away and returned to No. 4 Park St., Boston, by mid-January. We’re hoping for more signers than ever before. Supporters of women’s suffrage, spread the petitions!
The result was a petition, sent by the Executive Committee of the American Woman Suffrage Association into Congress, enrolling 6,000 names.
The result was a petition sent by the Executive Committee of the American Woman Suffrage Association to Congress, listing 6,000 names.
The Ninth Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association assembled in Masonic Hall at Indianapolis, in 1878. There was a full attendance of delegates. The evening before the convention an informal reception was held at the residence of Mr. and Mrs. M. H. McKay. Among those who called in the course of the evening to pay their respects, may be named: Judge Martindale, Mr. and Mrs. George W. Julian, Mr. and Mrs. Addison Harris, Mrs. Henry Bowan, Governor and Mrs. Baker, Professor and Mrs. Benton, Professor Brown, and Professor Bell.
The Ninth Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association took place at Masonic Hall in Indianapolis in 1878. All delegates were present. The night before the convention, there was an informal reception at the home of Mr. and Mrs. M. H. McKay. Among the guests who dropped by to pay their respects that evening were: Judge Martindale, Mr. and Mrs. George W. Julian, Mr. and Mrs. Addison Harris, Mrs. Henry Bowan, Governor and Mrs. Baker, Professor and Mrs. Benton, Professor Brown, and Professor Bell.
The convention was called to order by Mrs. Dr. Thomas, of Richmond, President of the State Suffrage Association. The services of the day were formally opened with prayer by Dr. J. H. Bayliss, of Roberts Park Church. The resolutions[203] were presented by the Business Committee.
The convention was brought to order by Mrs. Dr. Thomas from Richmond, who is the President of the State Suffrage Association. The day's events officially started with a prayer led by Dr. J. H. Bayliss from Roberts Park Church. The resolutions[203] were presented by the Business Committee.
Mrs. I. C. Fales, of Brooklyn: What is needed is an amelioration of the nature and conditions of man by a powerful moral influence brought to bear upon all classes and conditions so that the conscience and the intellect may both be quickened to perceive and redress the wrongs, with their consequent sufferings, which inhere in the social structure. The moral sentiment must go into harness and be thoroughly trained in order to do its[Pg 852] work effectually. The corruptions of to-day are the legitimate results of the want of woman's influence in the formation of public opinion. That influence is comparatively ineffectual because it is narrowed to the small sphere of domestic life. No one can suppose that an opinion unsupported by authority can have weight enough to grapple with evils which have their root in the lawless part of man's uneducated, undeveloped nature. The most that such a sentiment can do is to enlarge itself by discussion, and every other available method, until it is strong enough to incorporate itself into legislative enactments, from whence it may shape and modify daily life.
Mrs. I. C. Fales, of Brooklyn: What we need is an improvement in the nature and conditions of humanity through a strong moral influence applied to all social classes so that both conscience and intellect can be awakened to recognize and fix the injustices, along with the resulting suffering, that exist within our social structures. The moral sentiment needs to be harnessed and properly trained to be effective in its[Pg 852] work. The problems we face today are directly related to the lack of women's influence in shaping public opinion. This influence is relatively weak because it's mostly confined to the limited scope of home life. No one can expect that an opinion without authoritative backing will hold enough weight to tackle issues rooted in the chaotic aspects of humanity's uneducated and underdeveloped nature. The best such a sentiment can achieve is to grow through discussion and all other available methods until it gains enough strength to become part of legislative actions, from which it can influence and modify everyday life.
While much can be done in molding and directing public opinion, the consummating force of legislation must be brought into play. If woman possessed the elective franchise, her influence would be greatly strengthened by her political power. The desire of reform would naturally express itself in the selection of candidates who would embody those ideas. Legislators chosen by men and women together, would represent a higher level of thought, and would tend to legislate more directly in favor of reform than if chosen by men alone, for woman represents the moral principle, even as man the intellectual, and knowing that the tone of legislation rarely, if ever, rises higher than the moral level of the people by whom the legislators are chosen, we insist upon the absolute necessity of that principle being allowed to officially express itself. Maudsley justly remarks "that great as is the intellect, the moral nature is greater still;" that "the impulses of evolution which move the world come not from the intellect, but from the heart."
While a lot can be done to shape and guide public opinion, the ultimate power of legislation needs to be activated. If women had the right to vote, their influence would significantly increase through their political power. The push for reform would naturally show in the choice of candidates who reflect those ideas. Legislators chosen by both men and women together would bring a higher level of thought and would be more likely to legislate in favor of reform than if they were chosen by men alone. Women embody moral principles, just as men embody intellectual aspects, and since the quality of legislation rarely, if ever, rises above the moral standards of the people who elect their legislators, we emphasize the critical need for that principle to be officially represented. Maudsley rightly points out that "great as is the intellect, the moral nature is greater still;" and that "the impulses of evolution which move the world come not from the intellect, but from the heart."
Long and cordial letters were read from William Lloyd Garrison and Mrs. Frances D. Gage. At the first evening session addresses were made by Mr. Blackwell, Mrs. Stone, and Mrs. Campbell, of Maine. The reports from the different State societies were listened to the next morning. After the report from Massachusetts had been given by Mr. Blackwell, Miss Lelia Patridge, of Pennsylvania, spoke as follows: To one advocating this matter of equal suffrage, one of the noticeable things is the monotony of the objections brought against it, although each one is brought forward as if just evolved from the inner consciousness of the objector and never thought of before. One of these most commonly heard is that women do not want to vote. Suppose they do not, gentlemen; that is no excuse for you, for it is a matter out of their jurisdiction—a thing which you control, and as they have no power, they have no responsibility, and you can not shift it thus from your shoulders. But they do want it; the best, most intelligent, thoughtful women—those of whom we are proud—do want it, and it is only those who are either ignorant or selfish who say, "I have all the rights I want." This sounds hard, but it is true. Because a woman is so shut in, protected and happy that she does not feel the need of the ballot for herself, it is sadly selfish for her to fail to consider that all women are not so fortunate. But if she could once experience the great gain which woman suffrage would be to all the great questions of morals and reform which have seemed to belong particularly to those who are wives, mothers and sisters, she would hesitate no longer, but hasten to join that grand army of noble women who are pleading for equal political rights. There is hardly a large-brained, large-hearted woman either in this[Pg 853] country or England who is not a pronounced suffragist. How can women who are indifferent upon this subject, so keep back the coming of right and justice to their sex, when such women as Lucy Stone and others are giving their lives to the cause? She is no more a woman than we. Some men say, with the one in Colorado: "Now, I'm agin suffrage. I believe that the Almighty made one spear for wimmin and one spear for men, and I b'l'eve that the wimmin orter keep to her'n, and the men ort to keep to his'n;" and I agree. But who shall decide as to "spears?" Are the men alone to say?
Long and friendly letters were read from William Lloyd Garrison and Mrs. Frances D. Gage. At the first evening session, there were speeches by Mr. Blackwell, Mrs. Stone, and Mrs. Campbell from Maine. The reports from various State societies were discussed the next morning. After Mr. Blackwell presented the report from Massachusetts, Miss Lelia Patridge from Pennsylvania spoke as follows: For those advocating for equal suffrage, one striking thing is the repetitive objections raised against it, even though each one is presented as if it were a new revelation from the objector's mind. One of the most common objections is that women don’t want to vote. Let's say they don’t, gentlemen; that's no excuse for you because it's outside their control—it's something you manage. Since they have no power, they bear no responsibility, and you can't just shift that off your shoulders. But they do want it; the best, most intelligent, thoughtful women—those we take pride in—do want it, and it’s only those who are either uninformed or selfish who say, "I have all the rights I need." This may sound harsh, but it’s true. Just because a woman feels so sheltered, protected, and content that she doesn't feel the need for the vote for herself, it's incredibly selfish for her not to consider that not all women are that fortunate. But if she could once experience the immense benefits that women's suffrage would bring to all the major moral and reform issues that seem to concern primarily wives, mothers, and sisters, she would no longer hesitate but would quickly join the noble women advocating for equal political rights. There’s hardly a large-minded, big-hearted woman in this [Pg 853] country or England who isn't a strong supporter of suffrage. How can women who are indifferent to this issue hold back the advancement of rights and justice for their gender, when women like Lucy Stone and others are dedicating their lives to the cause? She is no less a woman than we are. Some men say, like the one in Colorado: "Now, I'm against suffrage. I believe that the Almighty made one role for women and one role for men, and I believe that women should stick to theirs and men should stick to theirs;" and I agree. But who gets to decide about these "roles?" Are men the only ones allowed to say?
At the afternoon session Lucy Stone presented to the audience Prof. R. T. Brown, who has never failed to lift his voice in favor of the recognition of woman's equal right to a collegiate education, and who received the public thanks of many ladies of this city recently, as a testimonial of their appreciation of the step taken by him in resigning his chair in the Medical College Faculty, because women were to be henceforth debarred entrance thereto.
At the afternoon session, Lucy Stone introduced Prof. R. T. Brown, who has always spoken out for women's equal right to a college education. Recently, he received public thanks from many women in this city as a sign of their appreciation for his decision to resign from his position in the Medical College Faculty, because women were no longer allowed to enter.
Dr. Brown said: I have been engaged in this work for forty years. When I began, I stood absolutely alone. I worked ten years and made only one proselyte, and that was my wife. All mathematicians know that if they can establish one or two points in a curve, they can project that curve to its completion. In this way we have established several points in our great work of suffrage, and now we can see how to complete it. The work must go on. Truth is immortal and will prevail. From the boasted civilization of ancient Greece and Rome, which was nothing but an aristocracy, we trace the gradual development of woman up to the present time. During all that time the right of suffrage has been extended, and now we have a male oligarchy. And we call this a republic! This is not a popular government, as it has been called. Only one half its citizens have a voice in its management. Now, we are trying to make this a strictly popular government, and, to do this, the right of suffrage must be extended to woman. The great object of all government is the higher development of its citizens. The government can not be an entire success until women have the same rights as men.
Dr. Brown said: I've been doing this work for forty years. When I started, I was completely alone. I worked for ten years and had only one supporter, and that was my wife. All mathematicians understand that if they can establish one or two points on a curve, they can project that curve to its completion. Similarly, we've established several points in our major effort for suffrage, and now we can see how to finish it. The work must continue. Truth is eternal and will prevail. From the so-called civilization of ancient Greece and Rome, which was really just an aristocracy, we can trace the gradual progress of women up to now. Throughout that time, the right to vote has been expanded, and now we have a male oligarchy. And we call this a republic! This is not a popular government, as it's often described. Only half of its citizens have a say in its operations. Now, we are working to make this a truly popular government, and for that, the right to vote must be extended to women. The main goal of any government is the better development of its citizens. The government cannot fully succeed until women have the same rights as men.
Mrs. Dr. Mary F. Thomas, of Indiana, said: In behalf of the woman doctors of the State, I will say that Prof. Brown has stood up for their advancement for the last twenty-five years. A few years ago the women of Indiana petitioned for a local-option temperance law. To-day I believe that they demand a prohibitory law, and nothing short of that will satisfy them. I am in favor of woman suffrage. To secure to us this right we must work for it. What women can do when they try, was shown by the women's exhibit at the late State Fair. Public sentiment is increasing on our side, and we intend to show our power at the next Legislature.
Mrs. Dr. Mary F. Thomas, from Indiana, said: On behalf of the women doctors in the State, I want to point out that Prof. Brown has supported their progress for the last twenty-five years. A few years ago, the women of Indiana requested a local-option temperance law. Today, I believe they are demanding a prohibitory law, and nothing less will meet their expectations. I support women's suffrage. To achieve this right, we need to fight for it. The women's exhibit at the recent State Fair demonstrated what women can accomplish when they put their minds to it. Public opinion is shifting in our favor, and we plan to show our strength in the next Legislature.
Mrs. H. M. Tracy Cutler said: Many of us have grown old in this work, and yet some people say, "Why do you still work in a hopeless cause?" The cause is not hopeless. Great reforms develop slowly, but truth will prevail, and the work that we have been doing for thirty years has paid as well as any work that has ever been done for humanity. The only hope of a nation's salvation from miserable demagogy lies in woman suffrage. With the advancement in education and civilization, I say to myself—the glory of the Lord is shining on women. With the advance[Pg 854] in womanhood there will be an advance in manhood, and this will be one of the grand results of equal suffrage.
Mrs. H. M. Tracy Cutler said: Many of us have grown old in this work, and yet some people ask, "Why do you still work on a lost cause?" The cause is not lost. Major reforms take time, but the truth will win out, and the work we've been doing for thirty years has yielded as much benefit as any other effort for humanity. The only hope for a nation’s rescue from corrupt politics rests in women’s right to vote. With progress in education and society, I tell myself—the light of the Lord is shining on women. As womanhood progresses, manhood will also improve, and this will be one of the great outcomes of equal suffrage.
A long argument was then made by Hon. George W. Julian. After the Convention was called to order at the evening session, the Committee on Nominations[204] reported.
A lengthy argument was then presented by Hon. George W. Julian. After the Convention was called to order during the evening session, the Committee on Nominations[204] reported.
Miss Mary F. Eastman, of Massachusetts, spoke as follows: It has been said that the greatest study of mankind is man. I do not know but we shall all believe, before we get through the three days' session of this congress, that the greatest study of womankind is woman! Indeed, from being a good deal overlooked in various ways, she has come to be almost the topic of the age, and strangely enough is she considered. According to the standpoint of the observer, woman is a riddle to be solved, a conundrum to be guessed, a puzzle to be interpreted, a mystery to be explained, a problem to be studied, a paradox to be reconciled. She is a toy or a drudge, a mistress or a servant, a queen or a slave, as circumstances may decide. She is at once an irresponsible being, who must accept the destiny which comes to her with as little power of resistance as the thistle-down upon the wind, or the sea-weed which the tide leaves to bleach on the rocks or sucks back to engulf in its own unfathomed depth—or she is responsible for everything, from Adam's eating of the apple in Paradise to the financial confusion which agitates us to-day; the first because she coveted so much knowledge, the second because she wants so many clothes. I wish we could, as speedily as possible without a general crash, lay aside this nonsense (regardless of the great loss of sirens and angels, which really never seemed to me exactly adapted to earthly conditions), and learn to regard woman as simply a human being, plus the powers and gifts peculiar to her sex, just as man is a human being, plus the powers and gifts peculiar to his sex. Here is a common basis of likeness sufficient to give community of interests and pursuits, with a variation which makes them mutually attractive and serviceable, each recognizing in the other the complement of himself and herself....
Miss Mary F. Eastman, from Massachusetts, said: It has been said that the greatest study of mankind is man. I think by the end of our three-day session at this congress, we might all agree that the greatest study of womankind is woman! Overlooked in many ways, she has become a major topic of our time, and the perspective on her is quite strange. Depending on who you ask, woman is a riddle to be solved, a puzzle to be interpreted, a mystery to be explained, a problem to be studied, or a paradox to be reconciled. She can be a toy or a worker, a boss or a helper, a queen or a servant, depending on the circumstances. At times, she seems like an irresponsible being, accepting her fate with as little resistance as thistledown in the wind or seaweed left on the rocks by the tide—or she can be blamed for everything, from Adam eating the apple in Paradise to today's financial mess; the first because she desired knowledge, the second because she wants so many clothes. I wish we could, as quickly as possible without causing chaos, set aside this nonsense (regardless of the supposed loss of sirens and angels, which never really seemed suited to earthly life), and start viewing woman as simply a human being, with the unique abilities and gifts of her sex, just as man is a human being, with his own unique abilities and gifts. This gives us a shared basis of similarity that allows for common interests and pursuits, along with a variation that makes us mutually attractive and supportive, each recognizing in the other the complement of himself and herself...
Speeches were also delivered by Mrs. S. E. Franklin, Rev. Fred. A. Hinckley, and Mrs. J. Ellen Foster. The Rev. John Snyder, of St. Louis, the last speaker of the evening, although the hour was late, highly entertained the audience with an address on the rights of all humanity.
Speeches were also given by Mrs. S. E. Franklin, Rev. Fred A. Hinckley, and Mrs. J. Ellen Foster. Rev. John Snyder from St. Louis, the final speaker of the night, captivated the audience with his address on the rights of all humanity, even though it was late.
The Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association was held at Cincinnati, November 4th and 5th, 1879. The hall had been tastefully decorated. Over the platform in large letters were inscribed, "Equal Work;" "Equal Wages;" "Welcome;" while around the entire hall ran evergreens in loops and circles. Elias Longley, the constant and true friend of suffrage for women, had taken charge of the advertising, and it was most effectively done. The newspapers showed good will in advance by pleasant local notices. Mrs. Margeret V. Longley, who has been a member of the American Association from the time it was organized, who is clear-eyed and true-hearted, took charge of arrangements for entertainment and hospitality. She was aided in this by Mrs. E. A. Latta, who has come later to the work, but who has brought her heart and conscience[Pg 855] to it, and in her church and out of it she remembers the rights of women; Mrs. Morse, of Walnut Hills, and other ladies co-operated, so that as delegates arrived they were assigned to pleasant homes. At the appointed hour on Tuesday evening a full hall greeted the speakers. The Cincinnati Gazette said:
The Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association took place in Cincinnati on November 4th and 5th, 1879. The hall was beautifully decorated. Above the platform, large letters proclaimed, "Equal Work;" "Equal Wages;" "Welcome;" while evergreens in loops and circles decorated the entire hall. Elias Longley, a dedicated supporter of women's suffrage, managed the advertising, and it was done very effectively. The local newspapers showed their support early with positive announcements. Mrs. Margeret V. Longley, who has been a member of the American Association since its inception and is both insightful and genuine, organized the arrangements for entertainment and hospitality. She was assisted by Mrs. E. A. Latta, who joined the effort later but brought her heart and dedication to it; she advocates for women's rights within her church and beyond. Mrs. Morse from Walnut Hills and other women helped so that as delegates arrived, they were welcomed into comfortable homes. At the designated time on Tuesday evening, the hall was full as it greeted the speakers. The Cincinnati Gazette reported:
The first meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association at the Melodeon Hall last evening, was one that would do credit to any cause. The large hall was nearly filled with people who would rank high in intelligence and good standing in this cultured community. And the fact that the larger portion were women meets the objection often made to this movement, that the women themselves are not in favor of suffrage for themselves.
The first meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association at Melodeon Hall last night was impressive and would be a credit to any cause. The hall was nearly packed with people who are recognized for their intelligence and respected status in this cultured community. Additionally, the fact that most attendees were women counters the common argument that women themselves are not in favor of voting rights for women.
Rev. W. C. Wendte, the first speaker of the evening, said: Woman should not only be allowed a fair chance so far as business and the administration of an estate is concerned; every woman ought to have the ballot. Many will say, I believe woman ought to have the right to equal education, wages, carry on business, and choose any vocation she wants, but doubt after all whether it is best to put upon her the responsibility of the ballot. We have not a very exalted opinion of our right to vote, and this objection is often made with a kindly, honest, and earnest fear that she will drag herself down to the low filth of politics. Leave out the ballot, and woman's rights is like a pyramid without the apex, or, better still, like building a temple without the corner stone. I have no Utopian notions concerning the immediate effect of woman's voting. I do not think the millennium is coming when she can vote. But if women could vote it would not be possible for those disreputable shows on Vine street, the foulest and filthiest that ever disgraced a Christian city, to continue one day longer. They would be put down by the overwhelming power of moral sentiment of the mothers, sisters, wives, and sweethearts, expressed at the ballot-box; and the men who are now so derelict, careless and indolent, will be wakened up to some earnestness against those exhibitions.
Rev. W. C. Wendte, the first speaker of the evening, said: Women should not only be given a fair opportunity in business and estate management; every woman should have the right to vote. Many will say they believe women should have equal rights to education, pay, run businesses, and pursue any career they choose, but they still question whether it’s right to place the responsibility of voting on them. Our view of the right to vote isn’t very high, and this concern often comes from a caring and sincere fear that women will be dragged into the dirty world of politics. Without the right to vote, women's rights are like a pyramid without the top, or better yet, like building a temple without the cornerstone. I don’t have any unrealistic ideas about the immediate impact of women voting. I don’t believe the perfect society will come just because women can vote. But if women could vote, the disgraceful shows on Vine Street, the most shameful and disgusting ever to tarnish a Christian city, would not last another day. They would be shut down by the overwhelming moral authority of mothers, sisters, wives, and sweethearts expressed at the ballot box; and the men who are currently negligent, indifferent, and lazy would be stirred into action against those displays.
I will say, in conclusion, that I most heartily welcome these women among us, some of whom, like Mrs. Lucy Stone, have labored long and faithfully. I would say that you may come up like Moses of old, and see the promised land, and unlike him, unless all signs fail, you shall enter and receive the just reward of all your toil. The time is coming when women will have the ballot. State after State is wheeling into the line. In Massachusetts they have the right of the ballot for school committee. Step by step they are climbing up, and soon the time will come when the American people will rise up in new-found manhood and say: "My sister, we will not ask you to receive the ballot from our hands as a condescending privilege, but will ask you to go forward and take it as your inalienable right."
I want to conclude by saying that I wholeheartedly welcome these women among us, some of whom, like Mrs. Lucy Stone, have worked long and hard. I believe you can come forward like Moses of old, see the promised land, and unlike him, if all signs are right, you will enter and receive the just reward for all your efforts. The time is approaching when women will have the right to vote. State after state is joining in. In Massachusetts, they already have the right to vote for the school committee. Step by step, they are making progress, and soon the moment will come when the American people will stand up and say: "My sister, we will not ask you to take the vote from us as a condescending favor, but we will encourage you to claim it as your inalienable right."
Mrs. Rebecca N. Hazard, of St. Louis, President of the Association, spoke as follows: As one after another the milestones are reached which mark the progress of our cause, we pause to examine the ground upon which we stand. If to our impatient vision in looking forward the journey seems long, we have only to look back to see how much of the way has been left behind. To those who have borne the burdens of this undertaking the work may appear to move slowly. But this is always the case where enduring principles are to be planted. "What the ancients said of the avenging gods, that[Pg 856] they are shod with wool," says Lieber, "is true of great ideas in history. They approach softly. Great truths always dwell a long time in small minorities." Growing in unobserved places, they take root and become strong before their spreading branches attract the public gaze.
Mrs. Rebecca N. Hazard, from St. Louis and President of the Association, said this: As we hit milestone after milestone that marks the progress of our cause, we take a moment to reflect on the ground we're standing on. If our eager eyes see the journey ahead as long, we only need to look back to realize how much distance we've already covered. For those who have shouldered the weight of this endeavor, the progress might seem slow. But this is always the case when lasting principles are being established. "What the ancients said about the avenging gods, that[Pg 856] they are shod with wool," says Lieber, "is true of great ideas in history. They approach softly. Great truths often linger for a long time in small groups." Growing quietly in unnoticed places, they take root and gain strength before their expanding branches catch the public's attention.
To many the pursuit of an abstract principle under so many difficulties seems an absurdity. They therefore impute motives more or less unworthy to those who are willing to immolate themselves for an idea. There are always at least two ways of looking at any question, and I have sometimes placed myself in the position of those who take an unfavorable view of woman suffrage, and who reason in this wise: "These women are discontented. They must have been unfortunate. They seek to overstep the limits which nature and circumstance have placed about them. Not content with the round of domestic duties which has hitherto constituted the sum total of woman's life, they seek to perform the functions which custom has allotted to man. They desire to be independent, self-sustaining—strong, while the more attractive ideal woman is fragile, clinging, dependent. Why should they desire to overturn the existing order of things? The world gets on pleasantly enough, why introduce these disquieting questions, when by patient acquiescence we might have tranquillity, and, perhaps, more of the pleasant things of life?" or as I once heard it formulated by a lady: "Why should Mrs. A. want to vote when she has such an indulgent husband." This is one view of the subject and there are times in the life of every woman when such reasoning has more or less weight.
To many, the pursuit of an abstract principle amidst such difficulties seems ridiculous. They often attribute less than noble motives to those willing to sacrifice themselves for an idea. There are always at least two perspectives on any issue, and I've sometimes considered the viewpoint of those who oppose women's suffrage, reasoning like this: "These women are unhappy. They must have faced hardships. They try to push beyond the boundaries that nature and circumstance have set for them. Unhappy with the routine of domestic duties that has defined a woman's life up to now, they aim to take on the roles that society traditionally assigns to men. They want to be independent, self-sufficient—strong, while the more appealing ideal of a woman is delicate, nurturing, and dependent. Why do they want to upset the current state of affairs? The world seems to function well enough, so why stir up these troubling questions when by patiently accepting things as they are, we might enjoy peace and potentially more of life's pleasant experiences?" Or as I once heard a woman put it: "Why should Mrs. A. want to vote when she has such a caring husband?" This is one perspective on the issue, and there are moments in every woman's life when such reasoning carries some weight.
But there is another side to this question, and how changed the picture. The whole scope and meaning of this wonderful woman's movement here dawns upon us. We find a new order of things indeed. We behold amid the changing dynasties of the world a new government arise—a republic based, not upon the will of the strongest, not upon property, but upon the rights of the individual. With a code of political ethics more perfect than any the world has yet seen, we find it still hesitating to put these principles to the test. As a consequence it struggles in the waves of political disorder like a ship without ballast. Recognizing as vital doctrines the equality of the race, and the value of the family as the political unit, we find the woman principle, the mother element, subdued, subjected, deprived of any fair expression in the conduct of the government. As a result we have corruption in high places, fraud, public distrust, and their host of accompanying evils. We find forces at work which threaten the security of our homes, the manhood of our sons, the purity of our daughters; in a word, the whole social structure of society. Reflecting on these things we begin to understand the meaning of the ballot for woman. Scrutinizing closely, we find that it means justice, integrity, peace, purity, temperance, sweeter manners, wiser laws.
But there’s another side to this issue, and it really changes the situation. The full scope and significance of this incredible women’s movement becomes clear to us. We see a new order of things indeed. We witness the emergence of a new government among the shifting dynasties of the world—a republic founded not on the power of the strongest, not on wealth, but on the rights of the individual. With a political ethics code that is more refined than anything the world has seen so far, we still find it hesitant to test these principles. As a result, it struggles in political chaos like a ship without ballast. Acknowledging the vital ideas of racial equality and the importance of the family as the political unit, we see the woman’s perspective, the maternal element, silenced, marginalized, and denied any fair representation in government. Consequently, we have corruption in high places, fraud, public mistrust, and a multitude of related problems. We observe forces at work that threaten the safety of our homes, the integrity of our sons, and the innocence of our daughters; in short, the entire social structure of society. Considering all this, we begin to grasp the significance of the vote for women. Upon closer examination, we find that it represents justice, integrity, peace, purity, temperance, kinder behavior, and wiser laws.
Lucy Stone made the next and last speech of the evening, on "The Meaning of the Woman Suffrage Movement, the What and the How."
Lucy Stone gave the final speech of the evening on "The Meaning of the Woman Suffrage Movement, the What and the How."
The session of Wednesday morning was devoted to business, the election of officers,[205] and hearing of reports of the auxiliary societies. At the afternoon session, Dr. Mary F. Thomas, of Indiana, Dr. Hannah Tracy Cutler, of Illinois, Rev. Thomas J. Vater, of Ohio, and Rev. Sarah M. Perkins, of[Pg 857] Vermont, made earnest and able addresses. Mrs. Perkins had come fresh from the Women's Christian Temperance Union in Indianapolis, baptized with its earnest spirit of work. Rev. T. J. Vater appealed to the women to strive for solid excellence, leaving forever the tinsel and the show which have been held as appropriate to woman. His speech excited discussion, and added much interest to the afternoon session. The Business Committee reported the following resolutions:
The Wednesday morning session focused on business, the election of officers,[205] and hearing reports from the auxiliary societies. In the afternoon session, Dr. Mary F. Thomas from Indiana, Dr. Hannah Tracy Cutler from Illinois, Rev. Thomas J. Vater from Ohio, and Rev. Sarah M. Perkins from[Pg 857] Vermont delivered passionate and effective speeches. Mrs. Perkins had just come from the Women's Christian Temperance Union in Indianapolis, filled with its dedicated spirit of activism. Rev. T. J. Vater urged the women to aim for true excellence, abandoning the superficial and flashy things that have been seen as suitable for women. His speech sparked discussion and added significant interest to the afternoon session. The Business Committee reported the following resolutions:
Resolved, That in the death of Wm. Lloyd Garrison, who signed the "Call" for the meeting which formed this Association, who was an officer in it from the beginning, and its President last year, the cause of equal rights has suffered an irreparable loss.
Resolved, That with the passing of Wm. Lloyd Garrison, who signed the "Call" for the meeting that established this Association, who served as an officer from the start, and was its President last year, the cause of equal rights has experienced an irreplaceable loss.
Resolved, That suffragists everywhere owe a debt of gratitude to the memory of Angelina Grimke Weld, lately deceased, who as one of the first women speakers, prepared the way and opened wide the door for all other women to be heard in their own defense.
Resolved, That suffragists everywhere owe a debt of gratitude to the memory of Angelina Grimke Weld, who recently passed away and was one of the first women speakers, paving the way and opening the door for all other women to be heard in their own defense.
Dr. Mary F. Thomas and Lucy Stone spoke feelingly to these resolutions, which were adopted by a standing vote of the meeting. At the last evening, Mrs. Cutler read a letter from Mrs. Frances D. Gage.
Dr. Mary F. Thomas and Lucy Stone passionately addressed these resolutions, which were approved by a standing vote of the meeting. On the final evening, Mrs. Cutler read a letter from Mrs. Frances D. Gage.
Friends of the American Woman Suffrage Association, of my dear native State, Ohio:
Friends of the American Woman Suffrage Association, from my beloved home state, Ohio:
With what joy and gladness I would lift my heart to the All-good, All-true, and All-beautiful, if I could be with you to-day, and speak my emphatic yes and amen in the behalf of all true efforts for woman suffrage. But what word can I speak that will not be better spoken? What argument is not already familiar to the reading and thinking mind? Are not "the truths as self-evident" to-day to the intelligent public as they were a century ago? That all people, "not men only," are born equal and endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights, among which are those to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Has the human race ever been made more miserable for one progressive step toward liberty since the days when Christ was hung upon the cross for daring to say, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you do ye the same unto them." What else does woman suffrage mean? What else is needed but this principle to settle the vexed question of "Solid North" or "Solid South"? What else but its recognition to drive every liquor-saloon from the land, making temperance universal? What but this to bring about the great system of social morality—making it as heinous a crime for man to do wrong as for woman....
With how much joy and happiness I would lift my heart to the All-good, All-true, and All-beautiful, if I could be with you today and express my strong yes and amen for all genuine efforts toward women's suffrage. But what can I say that hasn’t already been said better? What argument isn't already known to those who read and think? Aren’t the "self-evident truths" just as clear to the informed public today as they were a century ago? That all people, "not just men," are born equal and are given by the Creator inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Has humanity ever suffered more for taking a step toward liberty since the time Christ was crucified for saying, "Treat others how you want to be treated"? What else does women's suffrage mean? What else is needed to resolve the divisive issue of "Solid North" or "Solid South"? What else but its acceptance to eliminate every bar from the land, promoting universal temperance? What else is required to bring about a strong system of social morality—making it just as serious a crime for a man to do wrong as for a woman...
Francis D. Gage.
Francis D. Gage.
Bunker Hill, McCoupin Co., Ill., Oct. 23, 1879.
Bunker Hill, McCoupin Co., Illinois, Oct. 23, 1879.
Mrs. Cutler continued in a pertinent speech. Miss Hindman followed with an able argument to show why and where women need the ballot. Mrs. E. Dickerson, of St. Louis, Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati, and Lucy Stone followed. Each of these in their special way showed how to secure justice to women. Mrs. Dickerson answered objections, and put phases of the law as applied to women in fine contrast with the law as applied to men. Dr. Wilson, in a wide-awake lively speech, advised women to try a new method, and starve out the men who would not concede their rights. He said, "Give them no coffee for breakfast, nor steak for dinner, and nothing good for supper until they put the ballot in your hands." He gave deserved blame to women for not being more active in their own behalf. This breezy speech was often applauded, and good-natured criticism followed, putting the heaviest duty on the shoulders of men who have the power to free women, but still do not do it. The last speech of the evening was made by Lucy Stone, who showed the dreary helplessness implied in disfranchisement, and who sought to arouse women to a proper resentment against such degradation of position. Then was sung, "Praise God, from whom all blessings[Pg 858] flow," and thus closed the tenth annual meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association.
Mrs. Cutler continued with a relevant speech. Miss Hindman followed up with a strong argument about why and where women need the right to vote. Mrs. E. Dickerson from St. Louis, Dr. Wilson from Cincinnati, and Lucy Stone each contributed in their own unique ways to demonstrate how to achieve justice for women. Mrs. Dickerson addressed objections and highlighted the differences between how the law treats women compared to men. Dr. Wilson, in an energetic and engaging speech, encouraged women to try a new approach: to withhold certain comforts from men who wouldn’t acknowledge their rights. He said, "Don’t give them coffee for breakfast, steak for dinner, or anything nice for supper until they give you the right to vote." He rightly criticized women for not being more proactive on their own behalf. His lively speech received frequent applause, and good-humored critiques followed, placing the greatest responsibility on men who have the power to liberate women but still fail to do so. The final speech of the evening was by Lucy Stone, who illustrated the bleak helplessness that comes with disenfranchisement and aimed to inspire women to feel a justified anger towards such a demeaning situation. The meeting concluded with the singing of "Praise God, from whom all blessings[Pg 858] flow," closing the tenth annual meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association.
The Eleventh Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association held its sessions in 1880 at Washington, D. C. Delegates were present from Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and Iowa. A large and intelligent audience nearly filled the body and galleries of the large hall. The meeting was called to order by the President, Henry B. Blackwell, who said: Fellow-citizens, Ladies and Gentlemen: The Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association is not a mere mass meeting of individuals. It is a body of delegates from State and local societies assembled in a representative capacity, and as such I welcome you to-night. We meet for the first time in this capital city of the republic, to promote a great social and political change. We propose to substitute for the existing political aristocracy of men alone, a government founded upon the united suffrages of men and women. We urge the enfranchisement of women, not in a spirit of antagonism between man and woman, but as the common interest of both. We urge the enfranchisement of woman as an act of political justice, and also as a measure of the highest expediency. Women need the ballot for their own protection and self-respect. Men equally need the votes of women as an added power for order, temperance, purity, and peace.
The Eleventh Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association took place in 1880 in Washington, D.C. Delegates attended from Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and Iowa. A large and engaged audience filled almost all the seats in the hall. The meeting was called to order by the President, Henry B. Blackwell, who said: Fellow citizens, Ladies and Gentlemen: The Annual Meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association isn’t just a gathering of individuals. It’s a group of delegates from state and local societies coming together in a representative role, and for that reason, I welcome you tonight. We are meeting here for the first time in this capital city of the republic to promote a significant social and political change. We aim to replace the current political dominance of men with a government based on the united votes of both men and women. We advocate for women’s suffrage, not out of hostility between genders, but as a shared interest for everyone. We see women’s enfranchisement as a matter of political justice and also as the best course of action for society. Women need the right to vote for their own protection and dignity. Men equally need women’s votes to enhance efforts toward order, temperance, purity, and peace.
Mr. Blackwell read a dispatch from Gov. Hoyt, of Wyoming Territory:
Mr. Blackwell read a message from Gov. Hoyt of Wyoming Territory:
Green River, W. T., Dec. 15, 1880.
Green River, W. T., Dec. 15, 1880.
To the Committee on Woman Suffrage:—Your kind invitation was delayed, so that my acceptance is impossible. Understand, however, that I fully recognize the justice of the cause you represent, and wish you and your co-laborers God-speed in the great work of its furtherance.
To the Committee on Woman Suffrage:—Your invitation arrived later than expected, making it impossible for me to accept. Please know that I completely understand the importance of the cause you represent, and I wish you and your team all the best in your important efforts to advance it.
John W. Hoyt.
John W. Hoyt.
Mrs. Lucy Stone was the last speaker. She spoke with a quiet earnestness that showed the depth of her convictions, and how greatly her heart was in her work. Her address was an entirely argumentative one, abundant illustrations being used to clinch her statements. She said that she felt keenly the degradation of being disfranchised. To bring about a change in the present state of affairs, she would have every mother impress upon her children, when they were as young as nine years of age, that women have as much right to govern as their fathers; then the boys would grow up on the side of their mothers and the girls would become advocates of the cause. Personally she cared more for woman suffrage than anything else under the sun. In conclusion, she urged the people of Washington to help them in obtaining from Congress a XVI. Amendment to the Constitution, giving women the right to vote, and for the enactment of a law giving women suffrage in the Territories.
Mrs. Lucy Stone was the last speaker. She spoke with a quiet intensity that showed how deeply she felt about her beliefs and how passionate she was about her work. Her speech was completely focused on making arguments, using plenty of examples to support her points. She expressed how much the loss of voting rights affected her. To change the current situation, she wanted every mother to teach her children, starting at the age of nine, that women have just as much right to govern as their fathers; this way, boys would grow up supporting their mothers, and girls would become advocates for the cause. Personally, she cared more about women's suffrage than anything else. In conclusion, she called on the people of Washington to assist them in getting Congress to pass a 16th Amendment to the Constitution that would grant women the right to vote and to create a law providing women suffrage in the Territories.
The following letter was read:
The following letter was read:
Washington, Dec. 5, 1880.
Washington, Dec. 5, 1880.
My Dear Mrs. Howe:—My time is to be so crowded with occupations for the next ten days that I must decline your courteous invitation to speak at the annual meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association.
My Dear Mrs. Howe:—I'm going to be so busy with commitments for the next ten days that I have to decline your kind invitation to speak at the annual meeting of the American Woman Suffrage Association.
I shall be very glad to take some fitting opportunity publicly to reaffirm my conviction, which grows stronger with every year's experience, that the admission of woman to her full and equal share in the Government is essential to a perfect republic.
I will be very glad to take the right opportunity to publicly reaffirm my belief, which grows stronger with every year's experience, that allowing women to have their full and equal share in the Government is essential for a perfect republic.
Geo. F. Hoar.
Geo. F. Hoar.
I am, yours very truly,
I am, yours very truly,
Letters were read from W. G. Elliot, President of the University of Missouri, Lorepiza Haynes, Frances D. Gage, Emma C. Bascom, Mrs. Mary F. Henderson, and George B. Loring.
Letters were read from W. G. Elliot, President of the University of Missouri, Lorepiza Haynes, Frances D. Gage, Emma C. Bascom, Mrs. Mary F. Henderson, and George B. Loring.
Mrs. Helen M. Gougar, of Lafayette, Ind., read a carefully prepared statement of objections, and answered them with force and spirit. Her address was happily conceived and gracefully delivered. Her voice is a clear soprano, distinct, well modulated, with not a little melody in its pure, soft tones.
Mrs. Helen M. Gougar, from Lafayette, Ind., read a well-prepared statement of objections and responded to them with confidence and enthusiasm. Her speech was thoughtfully crafted and elegantly presented. She has a clear soprano voice, distinct and well-modulated, with a beautiful, soft melody in its tone.
Miss Eastman read a form of memorial which had been prepared to be presented to Congress to-day. It was adopted.
Miss Eastman read a memorial that had been prepared to be presented to Congress today. It was approved.
Miss Grew moved that the President of the association be requested to take steps to present it at once. Adopted.
Miss Grew suggested that the President of the association be asked to take action to present it immediately. Motion carried.
To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled:—The American Woman Suffrage Association at its annual meeting of delegates, convened in Washington, Dec. 16, 1880, respectfully pray your honorable bodies to enact a law securing to women, citizens of the United States, resident in the Territories, the same political rights as are exercised by the male citizens of the United States resident therein.
To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled:—The American Woman Suffrage Association at its annual meeting of delegates, held in Washington on December 16, 1880, respectfully asks your esteemed bodies to pass a law that grants women, citizens of the United States living in the Territories, the same political rights as those enjoyed by male citizens of the United States living there.
H. B. Blackwell, President.
Lucy Stone, Chairman Ex. Com.
Matilda Hindman, Secretary.H. B. Blackwell, President.
Lucy Stone, Chair of the Executive Committee
Matilda Hindman, Secretary.(Signed)
(Signed)
(The names of the Executive Committee, thirty in number, were also added).
(The names of the Executive Committee, totaling thirty, were also included).
Mrs. Lucy Stone, chairman of the Executive Committee, read the tenth annual report of the American Woman Suffrage Association. After which reports from the different States were given. At the afternoon session, after a statement by Mrs. Stone, in regard to the finances of the meeting, an invitation was extended to become members of the Association by the payment of $1. Mrs. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, of Somerville, N. J., made an address upon the right and necessity of granting woman suffrage. Mrs. Blackwell read from her manuscript, and made a quiet but effective appeal for the cause.
Mrs. Lucy Stone, chair of the Executive Committee, presented the tenth annual report from the American Woman Suffrage Association. After that, reports from different states were shared. In the afternoon session, following a statement by Mrs. Stone about the finances of the meeting, an invitation was extended to join the Association by paying $1. Mrs. Antoinette Brown Blackwell from Somerville, N.J., delivered a speech on the right and necessity of granting women the vote. Mrs. Blackwell read from her notes and made a calm but powerful appeal for the cause.
Miss Mary Grew, of Pennsylvania, was the next speaker. She maintained that the chief reason women were disfranchised was that men did not think about it, and the women did not either. She urged her hearers hereafter to think about it. This right should be conferred on women in accordance with the principles of this Government. But it is asked: What do you want of the ballot? And the speaker said that she wanted it to do with it the same as men did, and for the protection of her rights and those of other women. She could not say how women would vote if they got the ballot, but she supposed they would use it much as other citizens had done.
Miss Mary Grew, from Pennsylvania, was the next speaker. She argued that the main reason women were denied the right to vote was that men weren't thinking about it, and neither were the women. She encouraged everyone to start considering it moving forward. This right should be granted to women based on the principles of our government. But people ask: What do you want with the ballot? The speaker replied that she wanted to use it just like men do, to protect her rights and those of other women. She couldn't predict how women would vote if they got the ballot, but she figured they would use it much like other citizens had done.
As the last resolution was put, Mrs. Lucy Stone arose and paid very graceful and eloquent tributes to the memories of Lucretia Mott, Mrs. Child, and Mr. Nathaniel White.
As the final resolution was presented, Mrs. Lucy Stone stood up and offered elegant and heartfelt tributes to the memories of Lucretia Mott, Mrs. Child, and Mr. Nathaniel White.
Marshal Douglass was then introduced, and said he was not there to make a speech, but to show his sympathy with the cause. He was so entirely in love with it that he thought it deserved the highest eloquence and the profoundest earnestness it could command to advance it. He knew of no reason why a man should vote and a woman not. The republic needed the good qualities of its citizens to help it, and recognizing the intelligence and heart of women he was in favor of opening every avenue by which their moral worth could be utilized for the benefit of the country. It was an injury to keep any person in this country from the ballot when suffrage was universal. It was a degradation. If you want to keep a man out of the mud, black his boots. If you want to develop woman's best qualities, give her the ballot.
Marshal Douglass was introduced and stated that he wasn't there to give a speech, but to express his support for the cause. He was so passionate about it that he believed it deserved the most powerful and sincere speech possible to promote it. He saw no reason why a man should have the right to vote while a woman should not. The republic needed the virtues of all its citizens to thrive, and recognizing the intelligence and compassion of women, he supported opening every path for their moral contributions to benefit the country. Preventing anyone from voting in a nation where suffrage was universal was a disservice. It was degrading. If you want to keep a man out of the mud, polish his shoes. If you want to bring out the best in women, give them the vote.
Mrs. Mary E. Haggart, of Indiana, followed with a bold and brilliant argument, presenting the claims of her sex to the ballot.
Mrs. Mary E. Haggart, from Indiana, then delivered a confident and impressive argument, advocating for women's right to vote.
Mrs. Mary A. Livermore asked how it was that women to-day are exposed to a hotter fire than ever before. Women are not as much toasted at banquets or flattered with extravagant compliments as a few years ago. She warned her hearers that if woman continued to make of herself a peg to hang millinery goods on, she would be riddled with the shafts of ridicule. If she entered the sphere of man, and sought, by the cultivation of her intellect, to elevate both herself and man, she would equally expose herself to satire. The times were different now from the past. The question of woman suffrage in one form or another was constantly coming up everywhere.
Mrs. Mary A. Livermore asked why women today face more challenges than ever before. Women aren't as often the center of attention at banquets or showered with over-the-top compliments like they were a few years ago. She cautioned her audience that if women continued to present themselves merely as hangers for fashionable items, they would just become targets for mockery. If they stepped into traditionally male spaces and worked on improving themselves and their minds, they would also open themselves up to criticism. Times have changed compared to the past. The issue of women's suffrage frequently comes up in various discussions everywhere.
Mrs. Livermore said, as this was a political meeting of men and women, she hoped it would be closed after the usual fashion, by singing the doxology. The whole audience rose and sang it, and the Convention adjourned.
Mrs. Livermore mentioned that since this was a political meeting for both men and women, she hoped it would end as usual, with everyone singing the doxology. The entire audience stood up and sang it, and then the Convention was adjourned.
A memorial, signed by the officers of the American Woman Suffrage Association, asking Congress to establish suffrage for women in the Territories, was presented to the Senate by Hon. George F. Hoar, and referred to the Committee on Territories, which was to give a hearing to a committee from the Suffrage Association. But no quorum of the Senate Committee came together, and the opportunity was lost.
A memorial, signed by the officers of the American Woman Suffrage Association, requesting Congress to grant women the right to vote in the Territories, was presented to the Senate by Hon. George F. Hoar and sent to the Committee on Territories, which was meant to hear from a committee from the Suffrage Association. However, no quorum of the Senate Committee gathered, and the chance was missed.
On Friday afternoon Mrs. Hayes received the members of the Suffrage[Pg 861] Association with a cordiality and grace most becoming to her, and most delightful to us; our hearty sympathy with her good stand for temperance opened the way for conversation, and a very pleasant two hours were spent at the White House. Mrs. Hayes took us through the large conservatories, which, she said, had few flowers, as she "had most of them cut off for the Children's Hospital Fair." But there were a great many rare and beautiful flowers remaining. She cut and distributed some among us, and showed us the private family rooms, the new china ordered for the White House, and the writing desk made from the wreck of the ship that went in search of Sir John Franklin, which was presented by Queen Victoria to the President of the United States. In numberless ways she showed herself a fine hostess, as well as an accomplished lady. When at last we separated it was to carry away the memory of this pleasant visit, and of an excellent meeting.
On Friday afternoon, Mrs. Hayes welcomed the members of the Suffrage[Pg 861] Association with warmth and grace that suited her well and delighted us. Our strong support for her commitment to temperance opened the door for conversation, and we enjoyed a very pleasant two hours at the White House. Mrs. Hayes took us through the large conservatories, which, she mentioned, had few flowers since she "had most of them cut off for the Children's Hospital Fair." However, there were still many rare and beautiful flowers left. She cut some and shared them with us, and also showed us the private family rooms, the new china ordered for the White House, and the writing desk made from the wreck of the ship that went in search of Sir John Franklin, which was presented by Queen Victoria to the President of the United States. In countless ways, she demonstrated that she was not only a wonderful host but also an accomplished lady. When it was time to part, we left with fond memories of this enjoyable visit and a successful meeting.
Nothing could have been finer than the reception given by Louisville to the American Woman Suffrage Association, which met in that city October, 1881. The need of extending the outposts, and of winning new friends to the cause, had decided the executive committee of the Association to hold its Twelfth Annual Meeting in Louisville. It was an experiment which the result more than justified. Success was due in a great degree to the fairness and friendliness of the press. Mr. Watterson, of the Courier-Journal, said in advance that his paper would give full and accurate reports. Mr. Clark, of the Commercial, personally expressed his purpose to deal justly by the proceedings of the meetings. This was all that was needed. Any true statement of the claim of suffragists is sure to command the respect of right minded people.
Nothing could have been better than the welcome given by Louisville to the American Woman Suffrage Association, which gathered in that city in October 1881. The need to expand their reach and attract new supporters to the cause led the executive committee of the Association to hold its Twelfth Annual Meeting in Louisville. It was an experiment that proved to be more than justified. The success was largely due to the supportive and fair coverage from the press. Mr. Watterson from the Courier-Journal stated beforehand that his paper would provide full and accurate reports. Mr. Clark from the Commercial personally assured his commitment to cover the meetings fairly. That was all that was needed. Any truthful representation of the suffragists' cause is sure to earn the respect of people with integrity.
The first session was for business. It was thinly attended by the citizens of Louisville, there being not more than a hundred and fifty or two hundred people present. But each succeeding session increased in numbers until on the last evening, the Grand Opera House had not seats to hold the great and sympathetic audience, which completely filled the body and galleries of the house, and left rows of men and women standing all around against the walls. The Courier-Journal gave nine columns of verbatim report of the first day and evening, together with philosophic and friendly editorials. The Commercial, not so large in size, and hence with less space to use, yet did editorially and by its reports excellent service, by giving to its readers a true idea of the work which was sought to be done.
The first session was focused on business. It was sparsely attended by the people of Louisville, with only about a hundred and fifty to two hundred people present. However, each subsequent session saw an increase in attendance until, on the final evening, the Grand Opera House was completely full, accommodating a large and empathetic audience that filled both the main area and the balconies, leaving rows of men and women standing against the walls. The Courier-Journal provided nine columns of detailed coverage of the first day and evening, along with thoughtful and supportive editorials. The Commercial, being smaller and thus having less space, still offered excellent coverage with its editorials and reports, giving its readers a genuine understanding of the work being pursued.
Delegates had come with encouraging reports in most cases, of the work in twelve States by auxiliary societies. Local societies in towns sent letters, and letters from individuals—a very large number—came to hand, all showing how widely woman suffrage ideas are spreading, and how earnestly its advocates strive to advance their cause. All these reports the Louisville Courier-Journal published entire, together with the letters of Gov. Long, Gov. St. John, John G. Whittier, Wendell Phillips, President Bascom, President Eliot, and others, along with full reports of each session to the last, and crowned the whole by friendly editorials the morning after the close of the meetings.
Delegates arrived with mostly positive updates about the work being done by auxiliary societies in twelve states. Local groups in towns sent in letters, and there was a significant number of individual letters received, all illustrating how widely the ideas of women's suffrage are spreading and how passionately its supporters are working to promote their cause. The Louisville Courier-Journal published all these reports in full, along with letters from Gov. Long, Gov. St. John, John G. Whittier, Wendell Phillips, President Bascom, President Eliot, and others, and included complete reports from each session. They capped it all off with supportive editorials the morning after the meetings ended.
Col. J. W. Ward, of Louisville, had kindly attended to preliminary arrangements,[Pg 862] seconded by Mrs. Sylvia Goddard and Mrs. Col. Carr. At the opening session, Col. Ward called the meeting to order, and introduced Dr. Mary F. Thomas, of Indiana, the President of the association. Rev. Mr. Jones opened the meeting with prayer. The speaking was excellent; the tone of the meeting just what we should desire. Col. Ward, Mrs. Mary B. Clay, and Miss Laura Clay, daughters of Cassius M. Clay, took part. The two first-named arraigned the laws of Kentucky for their injustice to women. The old Common Law to a great extent prevails there still. Dr. T. S. Bell, one of the oldest and most justly celebrated physicians of Louisville, sat on the platform, supporting the cause by his presence. People from New Albany and Evansville, Indiana, crossed the river to attend the sessions. Lawyers, physicians, clergymen, the educated, the wealthy and the plain people made up the audiences which crowded the Opera House, where the earlier and the later advocates of this sacred cause united to forward it in this new field. At the last of the six sessions, Rev. Mr. Ashill, in a brief speech, indorsed our principles, and after prayer by Rev. Mr. Fyler, and the singing of the doxology, the meeting, which had been one of the most successful ever held, adjourned, having elected for its president next year, Hon. Erasmus M. Correll, of Nebraska, who so nobly championed the suffrage amendment in the State Legislature last winter, and who now, by speech and pen, devotes himself to secure its final success.
Col. J. W. Ward from Louisville did a great job organizing everything, supported by Mrs. Sylvia Goddard and Mrs. Col. Carr. At the first session, Col. Ward opened the meeting and introduced Dr. Mary F. Thomas from Indiana, the association's President. Rev. Mr. Jones started the meeting with a prayer. The speeches were excellent, and the atmosphere was just what we hoped for. Col. Ward, Mrs. Mary B. Clay, and Miss Laura Clay, the daughters of Cassius M. Clay, participated. The two women criticized Kentucky's laws for their unfairness to women. The old Common Law still largely exists there. Dr. T. S. Bell, one of Louisville's most respected and well-known physicians, sat on the platform, showing his support for the cause. People from New Albany and Evansville, Indiana, crossed the river to attend the sessions. The audience at the Opera House included lawyers, doctors, clergymen, educated individuals, wealthy people, and everyday folks, all united to support this important cause in this new area. At the end of the six sessions, Rev. Mr. Ashill briefly endorsed our principles, and after Rev. Mr. Fyler's prayer and the singing of the doxology, the meeting—one of the most successful ever—adjourned. Hon. Erasmus M. Correll from Nebraska, who strongly advocated for the suffrage amendment in the State Legislature last winter and now dedicates himself to ensuring its success through his speeches and writings, was elected as the president for the next year.
The seed sown had fallen on good ground—as appears in the fact that at the last session an invitation was given to all who desired to form a woman suffrage society to meet in adjoining rooms the next morning at nine o'clock. At the appointed time, a fine group of men and women came together, who proceeded at once to the organization of a "Kentucky Woman Suffrage Society." A constitution was adopted, which was subscribed to by every person present, with a dollar membership. Miss Mary B. Clay was chosen president, and the society made auxiliary to the American Woman Suffrage Association. The formation of this strong and live society is of great value, as the organized beginning of the movement at the South.
The seed sown had fallen on good ground—as shown by the fact that at the last session, an invitation was extended to anyone interested in forming a women's suffrage society to meet in nearby rooms the next morning at nine o'clock. At the scheduled time, a great group of men and women gathered and immediately set about organizing a "Kentucky Woman Suffrage Society." A constitution was adopted, which every person present signed, along with a dollar membership fee. Miss Mary B. Clay was elected president, and the society became an auxiliary to the American Woman Suffrage Association. The establishment of this strong and active society is highly valuable as the organized start of the movement in the South.
The citizens and public institutions of Louisville extended unsolicited courtesy to the members of the association, who were officially invited to the Home for the Widows and Orphans of Masons, the only home of the kind in the United States; to the House of Refuge; to the Hospital for Women and Children; and to the High School. Not the least pleasant thing was an interview with Henry Watterson, the morning after the close of the meetings. His friendly attitude, his comprehensive view of the whole situation and question, with his position of large influence as editor of the Courier-Journal, made even those who have grown old in the service of this cause hopeful of living to see it victorious. Another mile stone is passed, and the end of this long bloodless strife comes daily nearer. Let us thank God and take courage.
The citizens and public institutions of Louisville warmly welcomed the members of the association, who were officially invited to the Home for the Widows and Orphans of Masons, the only one of its kind in the United States; to the House of Refuge; to the Hospital for Women and Children; and to the High School. One of the highlights was a meeting with Henry Watterson the morning after the meetings ended. His friendly demeanor, broad perspective on the whole situation and issue, along with his significant influence as the editor of the Courier-Journal, gave even those who have been in this fight for a long time hope for eventual victory. Another milestone is behind us, and the conclusion of this long, peaceful struggle is getting closer every day. Let’s be grateful and stay encouraged.
FOOTNOTES:
[180] Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, of Chicago; Mrs. Caroline M. Severance, of Boston; A. J. Boyer, of Dayton; Mrs. H. T. Hazard, of Missouri; Mrs. C. G. Ames, of California; and H. B. Blackwell, of New Jersey.
[180] Mrs. Mary A. Livermore from Chicago; Mrs. Caroline M. Severance from Boston; A. J. Boyer from Dayton; Mrs. H. T. Hazard from Missouri; Mrs. C. G. Ames from California; and H. B. Blackwell from New Jersey.
[181] Mrs. Frances D. Gage, of N. J.; George W. Curtis, of N. Y.; George F. Downing, of the District of Columbia; Rev. Henry Blanchard, of Indianapolis; William Lloyd Garrison, of Boston; Mattie M. Griffith, of Iowa; Rev. R. Fisk, Canton, N. Y.; A. N. Fretz, of Virginia; Rev. Edward Eggleston, of Chicago; Hon. Sharon Tyndale, and Hon. George Fisher, of Illinois.
[181] Mrs. Frances D. Gage from New Jersey; George W. Curtis from New York; George F. Downing from Washington, D.C.; Rev. Henry Blanchard from Indianapolis; William Lloyd Garrison from Boston; Mattie M. Griffith from Iowa; Rev. R. Fisk from Canton, New York; A. N. Fretz from Virginia; Rev. Edward Eggleston from Chicago; Hon. Sharon Tyndale and Hon. George Fisher from Illinois.
[182] New Hampshire—Nathaniel White, Armenia S. White, Miss Dr. Hunt, of Concord; Miss H. A. Simons, of Manchester. Massachusetts—Julia Ward Howe, Rev. Rowland Connor, Boston; Mrs. Caroline M. Severance, T. C. Severance, West Newton; Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Reading; Stephen S. Foster, Worcester; Rev. A. Bronson Olcott, Concord; Miss Ellen E. Miles, Waltham; F. B. Sanborn, Springfield. Rhode Island—Col. T. W. Higginson, Newport. New York—Mrs. Celia Burleigh, Mrs. Anna C. Field, A. E. Bradley, Miss Mary Hillard, Mrs. A. E. Bradley, N. Y. City; Mrs. Jennie F. Culver, Syracuse; Ira E. Davenport, Buffalo. New Jersey—Mrs. Lucy Stone, Henry B. Blackwell, Newark; Mary F. Davis, Andrew Jackson Davis, Orange; Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Somerville; John Gage, Portia Gage, Vineland. Pennsylvania—John K. Wildman and Mrs. Charles Pierce, Philadelphia. Delaware—Dr. John Cameron, Isabella H. Cameron, and Samuel D. Forbes, Wilmington. Ohio—Dr. Hannah M. Tracy Cutler, Mrs. D. R. Tilden, Miss Edwards, Mrs. Dr. Merrick, Mrs. H. H. Little, Miss Deane, Cleveland; Mrs. M. V. Longley, Miss Helen J. Wolfe, Cincinnati; A. J. Boyer, Dayton; Mrs. M. M. Cole, Sydney; Jane O. DeForest, Findlay; Rev. H. J. McConnel, Yellow Springs; Mrs. Joshua R. Giddings, Ashtabula; Mrs. Esther Walters, Oberlin; Mrs. Lucinda Poole, Brownville; Rev. G. S. Abbott, Willoughby; Mrs. Jennie R. M. Eagleson, Cadiz; Mrs. Mercy B. Lane, Braceville; Mrs. C. T. Crain, J. J. Belville, Dayton; Mrs. E. D. Stewart, Springfield; Mrs. Lyon Jefferson. Indiana—Amanda M. Way, Rev. Charles H. Marshall, Mrs. Emi Swank, Indianapolis; J. T. Sage, Danville; Miss Lizzie M. Boynton, Crawfordsville; Dr. Alice B. Stockham, Lafayette; Nettie M. Pease, New Albany. Illinois—Myra Bradwell, Hon. James B. Bradwell, Mrs. E. J. Loomis, Mary A. Livermore, Chicago; Rev. J. B. Harrison, Bloomington; Mrs. A. Steward, Plano; Mrs. M. S. Severance, Dixon. Michigan—Rev. Dr. J. B. Stone, Mrs. L. H. Stone, W. S. Blakeman, Mrs. D. C. Blakeman, Kalamazoo; Giles B. Stebbins, Catharine A. F. Stebbins, Mrs. Dr. S. L. Jones, Mrs. Booth, Detroit; Mr. and Mrs. T. J. Sanford, Ann Arbor. Wisconsin—Lillie Peckham, Julia Ford, Milwaukee; E. L. Cassels, Lone Rock; Harriet Leland, Elkhorn. Minnesota—Mrs. Addie L. Ballou. Iowa—Capt. Judson N. Cross, Lyons. Missouri—Mrs. W. S. Hazard, Mrs. Ida S. Fialla, Miss Ellen Palmer, St. Louis. Florida—Henry S. Campbell, St. Augustine. Kansas—Gov. J. P. Root, Lawrence. California—Mrs. C. G. Ames and Mrs. Jennie B. Ritter.
[182] New Hampshire—Nathaniel White, Armenia S. White, Miss Dr. Hunt, of Concord; Miss H. A. Simons, of Manchester. Massachusetts—Julia Ward Howe, Rev. Rowland Connor, Boston; Mrs. Caroline M. Severance, T. C. Severance, West Newton; Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Reading; Stephen S. Foster, Worcester; Rev. A. Bronson Olcott, Concord; Miss Ellen E. Miles, Waltham; F. B. Sanborn, Springfield. Rhode Island—Col. T. W. Higginson, Newport. New York—Mrs. Celia Burleigh, Mrs. Anna C. Field, A. E. Bradley, Miss Mary Hillard, Mrs. A. E. Bradley, N. Y. City; Mrs. Jennie F. Culver, Syracuse; Ira E. Davenport, Buffalo. New Jersey—Mrs. Lucy Stone, Henry B. Blackwell, Newark; Mary F. Davis, Andrew Jackson Davis, Orange; Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Somerville; John Gage, Portia Gage, Vineland. Pennsylvania—John K. Wildman and Mrs. Charles Pierce, Philadelphia. Delaware—Dr. John Cameron, Isabella H. Cameron, and Samuel D. Forbes, Wilmington. Ohio—Dr. Hannah M. Tracy Cutler, Mrs. D. R. Tilden, Miss Edwards, Mrs. Dr. Merrick, Mrs. H. H. Little, Miss Deane, Cleveland; Mrs. M. V. Longley, Miss Helen J. Wolfe, Cincinnati; A. J. Boyer, Dayton; Mrs. M. M. Cole, Sydney; Jane O. DeForest, Findlay; Rev. H. J. McConnel, Yellow Springs; Mrs. Joshua R. Giddings, Ashtabula; Mrs. Esther Walters, Oberlin; Mrs. Lucinda Poole, Brownville; Rev. G. S. Abbott, Willoughby; Mrs. Jennie R. M. Eagleson, Cadiz; Mrs. Mercy B. Lane, Braceville; Mrs. C. T. Crain, J. J. Belville, Dayton; Mrs. E. D. Stewart, Springfield; Mrs. Lyon Jefferson. Indiana—Amanda M. Way, Rev. Charles H. Marshall, Mrs. Emi Swank, Indianapolis; J. T. Sage, Danville; Miss Lizzie M. Boynton, Crawfordsville; Dr. Alice B. Stockham, Lafayette; Nettie M. Pease, New Albany. Illinois—Myra Bradwell, Hon. James B. Bradwell, Mrs. E. J. Loomis, Mary A. Livermore, Chicago; Rev. J. B. Harrison, Bloomington; Mrs. A. Steward, Plano; Mrs. M. S. Severance, Dixon. Michigan—Rev. Dr. J. B. Stone, Mrs. L. H. Stone, W. S. Blakeman, Mrs. D. C. Blakeman, Kalamazoo; Giles B. Stebbins, Catharine A. F. Stebbins, Mrs. Dr. S. L. Jones, Mrs. Booth, Detroit; Mr. and Mrs. T. J. Sanford, Ann Arbor. Wisconsin—Lillie Peckham, Julia Ford, Milwaukee; E. L. Cassels, Lone Rock; Harriet Leland, Elkhorn. Minnesota—Mrs. Addie L. Ballou. Iowa—Capt. Judson N. Cross, Lyons. Missouri—Mrs. W. S. Hazard, Mrs. Ida S. Fialla, Miss Ellen Palmer, St. Louis. Florida—Henry S. Campbell, St. Augustine. Kansas—Gov. J. P. Root, Lawrence. California—Mrs. C. G. Ames and Mrs. Jennie B. Ritter.
[183] From Ohio—Dr. Hannah M. Tracy Cutler, Chairman. Florida—Henry T. Campbell. Indiana—Amanda M. Way. Illinois—Mary A. Livermore. Massachusetts—F. W. Sanborn. Rhode Island—Colonel T. W. Higginson. New York—Celia Burleigh. New Jersey—Henry B. Blackwell. Pennsylvania—Mrs. C. Pierce. Michigan—Rev. Dr. Stone. Wisconsin—Lilie Peckham. Minnesota—Addie L. Ballou. Missouri—Mrs. W. T. Hazard. California—Mrs. C. G. Ames. New Hampshire—Mrs. A. White. Delaware—Dr. John Cameron.
[183] From Ohio—Dr. Hannah M. Tracy Cutler, Chairperson. Florida—Henry T. Campbell. Indiana—Amanda M. Way. Illinois—Mary A. Livermore. Massachusetts—F. W. Sanborn. Rhode Island—Colonel T. W. Higginson. New York—Celia Burleigh. New Jersey—Henry B. Blackwell. Pennsylvania—Mrs. C. Pierce. Michigan—Rev. Dr. Stone. Wisconsin—Lilie Peckham. Minnesota—Addie L. Ballou. Missouri—Mrs. W. T. Hazard. California—Mrs. C. G. Ames. New Hampshire—Mrs. A. White. Delaware—Dr. John Cameron.
[184] President—Thomas Wentworth Higginson, of Rhode Island.
[184] President—Thomas Wentworth Higginson, from Rhode Island.
Secretaries—Mrs. Myra Bradwell, of Illinois; Mrs. Mary F. Davis, of New York.
Secretaries—Mrs. Myra Bradwell from Illinois; Mrs. Mary F. Davis from New York.
Vice-President—Hon. Nathaniel White, of New Hampshire; Mrs. Caroline M. Severance, of Massachusetts; Mrs. Annie C. Field, of New York; Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, of New Jersey; John K. Wildman, of Pennsylvania; Dr. John Cameron, of Delaware; Rev. Charles H. Marshall, of Indiana; Hon. James B. Bradwell, of Illinois; Rev. H. K. McConnell, of Ohio; Mrs. Addie L. Ballou, of Minnesota; Miss Lilie Peckham, of Wisconsin; Dr. L. H. Jones, of Michigan; Mrs. Ida Fialla, of Mississippi; Mrs. Ritter, of California; Captain Judson F. Cross, of Iowa; Mrs. Henry F. Campbell, of Florida.
Vice-President—Hon. Nathaniel White, from New Hampshire; Mrs. Caroline M. Severance, from Massachusetts; Mrs. Annie C. Field, from New York; Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, from New Jersey; John K. Wildman, from Pennsylvania; Dr. John Cameron, from Delaware; Rev. Charles H. Marshall, from Indiana; Hon. James B. Bradwell, from Illinois; Rev. H. K. McConnell, from Ohio; Mrs. Addie L. Ballou, from Minnesota; Miss Lilie Peckham, from Wisconsin; Dr. L. H. Jones, from Michigan; Mrs. Ida Fialla, from Mississippi; Mrs. Ritter, from California; Captain Judson F. Cross, from Iowa; Mrs. Henry F. Campbell, from Florida.
Treasurer—William N. Hudson, of the Cleveland Leader.
Treasurer—William N. Hudson, from the Cleveland Leader.
[185] The discussions were participated in by Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, A. Bronson Alcott, Messrs. Bellville, Foster, Gage, Blackwell, Marshall, Connor, McConnell, Mesdames Ames, Howe, Livermore, Cutler, Stone, and Hanaford.
[185] The discussions included Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, A. Bronson Alcott, and Messrs. Bellville, Foster, Gage, Blackwell, Marshall, Connor, McConnell, as well as Mesdames Ames, Howe, Livermore, Cutler, Stone, and Hanaford.
[186] Rev. James Freeman Clarke, Rev. Oscar Clute, Mrs. and Miss Beecher, Lucy Stone, Henry B. Blackwell, Julia Ward Howe, T. W. Higginson, Mary A. Livermore, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Celia Burleigh, Antoinette B. Blackwell, Miriam M. Cole, Margaret V. Longley, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Margaret Campbell, Mrs. Oscar Clute, Agnes Kemp, Mary F. Davis, Andrew Jackson Davis, G. B. Stebbins, H. M. Tracy Cutler, Oliver Johnson, A. J. Boyer, Aaron M. Powell, Hon. George W. Julian, "Grace Greenwood," and others.
[186] Rev. James Freeman Clarke, Rev. Oscar Clute, Mrs. and Miss Beecher, Lucy Stone, Henry B. Blackwell, Julia Ward Howe, T. W. Higginson, Mary A. Livermore, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Celia Burleigh, Antoinette B. Blackwell, Miriam M. Cole, Margaret V. Longley, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Margaret Campbell, Mrs. Oscar Clute, Agnes Kemp, Mary F. Davis, Andrew Jackson Davis, G. B. Stebbins, H. M. Tracy Cutler, Oliver Johnson, A. J. Boyer, Aaron M. Powell, Hon. George W. Julian, "Grace Greenwood," and others.
[187] Whereas, the Democratic party, in the days of Jefferson, abolished the political aristocracy of wealth and established "a white man's government;" and
[187] Whereas, the Democratic Party, in Jefferson's time, dismantled the political elite of wealth and set up "a government for white men;" and
Whereas, the Republicans have recently abolished the political aristocracy of race and established "manhood suffrage;" therefore
Whereas, the Republicans have recently gotten rid of the political elite based on race and set up "manhood suffrage;" therefore
Resolved, That the progressive tendencies of the age demand the abolition of the political aristocracy of sex by a XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution, extending suffrage to women.
Resolved, That the progressive trends of today require the elimination of the political aristocracy based on gender through a XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution, granting women the right to vote.
Resolved, That pending the adoption of the XVI. Amendment, we urge the friends of woman to work in their respective States for the establishment of this reform by State legislation, especially as the ratification of any Constitutional Amendment must finally depend upon the State Legislatures.
Resolved, That while we wait for the adoption of the XVI. Amendment, we encourage supporters of women's rights to advocate in their respective States for the implementation of this reform through State legislation, particularly since the ratification of any Constitutional Amendment ultimately relies on the State Legislatures.
Resolved, That the American Woman Suffrage Association seeks a thorough organization of the friends of the cause throughout the country by the following method, viz.: A central organization (already existing), organized by delegates from State societies; they in turn being organized by delegates from local societies, and the whole originating in primary meetings of the friends of woman suffrage in every locality.
Resolved, That the American Woman Suffrage Association aims to create a comprehensive organization of supporters across the country through the following method: A central organization (already in place), formed by delegates from state societies; these are then organized by delegates from local societies, with everything starting from grassroots meetings of those supporting women’s suffrage in each community.
Resolved, That we remonstrate against the proposition now pending in the Senate of the United States to disfranchise the women of Utah, as a movement in aid of polygamy, against justice, and a flagrant violation of a vested right.
Resolved, That we protest against the current proposal in the Senate of the United States to disenfranchise the women of Utah, as it supports polygamy, is unjust, and is a clear violation of a guaranteed right.
Resolved, That we congratulate the friends of woman suffrage upon the unexampled progress of the cause during the past year; upon the enfranchisement of women in Wyoming and Utah; upon the submission of the question in Vermont; upon its discussion in eleven State Legislatures, in numerous public meetings and in newspapers; upon the introduction of the XVI. Amendment in Congress; upon the extension of municipal suffrage to the women of Great Britain, and the passage of a bill to a second reading in Parliament removing all political disabilities on account of sex, and upon the rapid growth of public opinion in favor of woman's equality throughout the civilized world.
Resolved, That we congratulate the supporters of women's suffrage on the unprecedented progress of the movement over the past year; on the granting of voting rights to women in Wyoming and Utah; on the presentation of the issue in Vermont; on its debate in eleven State Legislatures, at numerous public meetings, and in newspapers; on the introduction of the XVI. Amendment in Congress; on the expansion of municipal voting rights to women in Great Britain, and the advancement of a bill to a second reading in Parliament that aims to eliminate all political restrictions based on sex, and on the rapid rise of public support for women's equality across the civilized world.
[188] Ohio—Mrs. M. V. Longley, Mrs. M. M. Cole, Mrs. J. O. De Forest, Mrs. R. A. S. Janney, Mrs. Mary Graham, Mrs. Harvey Sharpe, Mrs. Mary L. Strong, J. J. Belville, Mrs. H. M. Little, Miss Rebecca Rice, Mrs. Currier Brown, Mrs. Emmett, Mrs. Esther Wattles, Mrs. S. E. Newton, Mrs. E. Calt, Mary A. Currier, Olive C. Atkinson, Rebecca Ream, A. J. Boyer, Mrs. Hannah M. Clarke, Mrs. Agnes Cook; New York—Mrs. Celia Burleigh, Mrs. Rogers; Massachusetts—Margaret W. Campbell, Mrs. Hewitt, Lucy Stone, H. B. Blackwell; Rhode Island—T. W. Higginson; New Hampshire—Armenia S. White, Mrs. S. C. Pipher; New Jersey—Judge Whitehead, John Gage, Rev. Oscar Clute, Miss E. L. Bush; Missouri—Mrs. W. T. Hazard, Fanny Holy; Pennsylvania—John K. Wildman, Gulielma M. Jones, Dr. H. T. Child, Mrs. Ellen M. Child, Sarah Pearce, Miss M. W. Abbott, Mrs. E. S. Chapel, John Finlayson; Indiana—Mrs. Dr. Ellen B. Ferguson, Miss M. F. Burlingame, Miss Amanda M. Way; Michigan—Catharine A. F. Stebbins, Sarah C. Owen; Illinois—Hon. J. B. Bradwell, William D. Babbitt, Mrs. E. O. G. Willard, George M. Campbell; Delaware—S. D. Forbes, Mrs Forbes; Louisiana—Laura L. D. Jacobs; Nevada—Mary C. Hart. Total number of States represented, fourteen.
[188] Ohio—Mrs. M. V. Longley, Mrs. M. M. Cole, Mrs. J. O. De Forest, Mrs. R. A. S. Janney, Mrs. Mary Graham, Mrs. Harvey Sharpe, Mrs. Mary L. Strong, J. J. Belville, Mrs. H. M. Little, Miss Rebecca Rice, Mrs. Currier Brown, Mrs. Emmett, Mrs. Esther Wattles, Mrs. S. E. Newton, Mrs. E. Calt, Mary A. Currier, Olive C. Atkinson, Rebecca Ream, A. J. Boyer, Mrs. Hannah M. Clarke, Mrs. Agnes Cook; New York—Mrs. Celia Burleigh, Mrs. Rogers; Massachusetts—Margaret W. Campbell, Mrs. Hewitt, Lucy Stone, H. B. Blackwell; Rhode Island—T. W. Higginson; New Hampshire—Armenia S. White, Mrs. S. C. Pipher; New Jersey—Judge Whitehead, John Gage, Rev. Oscar Clute, Miss E. L. Bush; Missouri—Mrs. W. T. Hazard, Fanny Holy; Pennsylvania—John K. Wildman, Gulielma M. Jones, Dr. H. T. Child, Mrs. Ellen M. Child, Sarah Pearce, Miss M. W. Abbott, Mrs. E. S. Chapel, John Finlayson; Indiana—Mrs. Dr. Ellen B. Ferguson, Miss M. F. Burlingame, Miss Amanda M. Way; Michigan—Catharine A. F. Stebbins, Sarah C. Owen; Illinois—Hon. J. B. Bradwell, William D. Babbitt, Mrs. E. O. G. Willard, George M. Campbell; Delaware—S. D. Forbes, Mrs. Forbes; Louisiana—Laura L. D. Jacobs; Nevada—Mary C. Hart. Total number of States represented, fourteen.
[189] 1. Resolved, That the ballot in government means power and freedom for all; that adult citizens in this republican country can not be free without it, or be properly clothed with the necessary means for their own protection; that woman needs this power and freedom, and therefore should be enfranchised.
[189] 1. Resolved, That the right to vote in government represents power and freedom for everyone; that adult citizens in this democratic country cannot be free without it, nor can they have the essential means for their own protection; that women need this power and freedom, and therefore should be given the right to vote.
2. Resolved, That the primary object of the American Woman Suffrage Association is to secure the ballot for woman, and its general object includes the establishment of her equality of rights in all directions.
2. Resolved, That the main goal of the American Woman Suffrage Association is to obtain the right to vote for women, and its broader purpose involves ensuring their equality in all areas.
3. Resolved, That the officers of this Association and of each of the auxiliary State Associations be requested to memorialize Congress for a XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution, prohibiting political distinction on account of sex. Also, that each State society be requested to memorialize its Legislature for a change in the organic law, so as to secure the extension of suffrage to women.
3. Resolved, That the officers of this Association and each of the state associations are asked to urge Congress to propose a XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution that would prohibit political distinctions based on sex. Additionally, that each state society be asked to appeal to its Legislature for a change in the organic law to ensure that women have the right to vote.
4. Resolved, That the ballot for woman means stability for the marriage relations, stability for the home, and stability for our republican form of government.
4. Resolved, That giving women the right to vote ensures stability in marriage, stability in the home, and stability in our republican form of government.
5. Resolved, That we recommend the appointment of a Committee of Conference, of like number with the one appointed by the Union Suffrage Association, with a view to the union of both organizations.
5. Resolved, That we suggest appointing a Conference Committee, with the same number of members as the one appointed by the Union Suffrage Association, to promote the unification of both organizations.
[190] 3. Resolved, That it is the duty of every woman to resent the cowardly indignity which classes educated, virtuous women as the political inferiors of the meanest and most degraded men; and that she should demand the ballot in order to help to make good laws and elect worthy representatives.
[190] 3. Resolved, That every woman has a responsibility to challenge the shameful disrespect that ranks educated, virtuous women as politically inferior to the lowest and most degraded men; and that she should insist on the right to vote to help create fair laws and choose deserving representatives.
5. Resolved, That we recommend a concerted effort on the part of the woman suffragists to obtain from their respective Legislatures an act authorizing women to vote at the next Presidential election under the authority conferred by the first section of the second article of the Constitution of the United States.
5. Resolved, That we recommend a coordinated effort by the women suffragists to get their state Legislatures to pass a law allowing women to vote in the next Presidential election as granted by the first section of the second article of the Constitution of the United States.
6. Resolved, That we cordially approve of the effort to obtain suffrage for women in the District of Columbia, in Michigan, and elsewhere, under the provisions of the XIV. and XV. Amendments.
6. Resolved, That we wholeheartedly support the effort to secure voting rights for women in the District of Columbia, in Michigan, and in other places, under the provisions of the XIV and XV Amendments.
7. Resolved, That we urge upon Congress the passage of a XVI. Amendment, prohibiting political distinctions on account of sex, and also of a law conferring legal and political equality.
7. Resolved, That we urge Congress to pass an XVI. Amendment that forbids political distinctions based on gender, and also to create a law that ensures legal and political equality.
8. Resolved, That the claim of woman to participate in making the laws she is required to obey, and to equality of rights in all directions, has nothing to do with special social theories, and that the recent attempts in this city and elsewhere to associate the woman suffrage cause with the doctrines of free love, and to hold it responsible for the crimes and follies of individuals, is an outrage upon common sense and decency, and a slander upon the virtue and intelligence of the women of America.
8. Resolved, That women's right to be involved in creating the laws they have to follow, and to have equal rights in all areas, is not connected to any specific social theories. The recent efforts in this city and elsewhere to link the women's suffrage movement with the ideas of free love, and to blame it for the wrongdoings and mistakes of individuals, is an insult to common sense and decency, and a slur against the virtue and intelligence of American women.
[191] 8. Resolved, That the Executive Committee be instructed to address memorials in behalf of woman suffrage to Congress, and to the national conventions of every political party.
[191] 8. Resolved, That the Executive Committee is directed to send memorials in support of women's suffrage to Congress and to the national conventions of all political parties.
[192] Resolved, That suffrage means equality in the home, and therefore means greater constancy and greater permanency in marriage.
[192] Resolved, That voting rights mean equality at home, and therefore lead to stronger and more lasting marriages.
Resolved, That the agitation of the peace, temperance, and other reforms of the day is valuable as a means of creating a public sentiment in favor of woman suffrage, not only by convincing the men engaged in them of the necessity of co-operation at the ballot-box, but by educating woman to a sense of her obligation to avail herself of every power to secure their consummation.
Resolved, That the push for peace, temperance, and other reforms today is important as a way to build public support for women's voting rights, not just by persuading the men involved of the need to work together at the polls, but by empowering women to recognize their responsibility to use every opportunity to achieve these goals.
Resolved, That the Executive Committee of the American Woman Suffrage Association be requested to appoint a deputation to address the Legislatures of the several States on the subject of woman suffrage, with the co-operation of the State societies.
Resolved, That the Executive Committee of the American Woman Suffrage Association be asked to appoint a group to speak to the Legislatures of the various States about woman suffrage, in partnership with the State societies.
[193] 3. Whereas women, as a class, have special interests to protect and special wrongs to remedy, and, as individuals, have peculiar feminine characteristics and developments in which they differ from man; therefore,
[193] 3. Whereas women, as a group, have unique interests to safeguard and specific injustices to address, and, as individuals, possess distinct feminine traits and experiences that set them apart from men; therefore,
Resolved, That a government of men alone is neither republican nor representative, but is an aristocracy of sex inconsistent alike with the highest welfare of man, of woman, and of society.
Resolved, That a government run by men alone is neither republican nor representative, but an aristocracy based on gender that undermines the well-being of men, women, and society as a whole.
4. And Whereas, The National Republican platform of 1872 affirms that the admission of woman to wider spheres of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction, and the honest demand of woman for additional rights should receive respectful consideration; and
4. And Whereas, The National Republican platform of 1872 states that the inclusion of women in broader roles is welcomed, and the genuine request of women for more rights should be given respectful attention; and
Whereas, The Republicans have a large majority in both houses of Congress; therefore,
Whereas, the Republicans hold a significant majority in both chambers of Congress; therefore,
Resolved, That we call upon Congress to enact a law establishing impartial suffrage for all citizens irrespective of sex, in the District of Columbia and the Territories; also to declare woman eligible to all offices under Government, with equal pay for equal work: also to submit a XVI. Constitutional Amendment prohibiting political distinctions on account of sex.
Resolved, That we urge Congress to pass a law that guarantees equal voting rights for all citizens, regardless of gender, in the District of Columbia and the Territories; to also declare that women can hold any government positions, with equal pay for equal work; and to propose a XVI. Constitutional Amendment that forbids political discrimination based on sex.
5. Resolved, That we demand from the State Legislatures laws establishing equal suffrage for women in choosing electors of President and Vice-President of the United States, also in choosing municipal and State officers, in every case where the qualifications of voters are not restricted by the State Constitutions; also to amend the State Constitutions so as to establish equal rights for all.
5. Resolved, That we call on the State Legislatures to create laws that ensure equal voting rights for women in the selection of electors for the President and Vice-President of the United States, as well as in the election of municipal and State officials, wherever the qualifications for voters are not limited by the State Constitutions; and to amend the State Constitutions to establish equal rights for everyone.
6. And Whereas, many women have recently applied for registration as voters, and in some cases, have actually voted, and are now being prosecuted on the charge of having voted illegally; therefore,
6. And Whereas, many women have recently registered to vote, and in some instances, have actually cast their ballots, and are now facing prosecution for voting illegally; therefore,
Resolved, That we call upon the State and Federal courts to interpret all legal provisions that will admit of such a construction in favor of the equality of women.
Resolved, That we urge the State and Federal courts to interpret all legal provisions in a way that supports the equality of women.
8. Resolved, That the Executive Committee be instructed to address memorials to Congress, and State Legislatures, and National Conventions of every political party, in behalf of the legal and political equality of woman.
8. Resolved, That the Executive Committee is directed to send memorials to Congress, state legislatures, and national conventions of every political party, advocating for the legal and political equality of women.
9. Resolved, That we rejoice at the recognition of the rights of woman in the National Republican platform, and at the explicit indorsement of woman suffrage by the Republican Convention of Massachusetts; we congratulate the Republican party upon having enlisted the heart and intellect and conscience of woman in its support, and we call upon the party, in this hour of victory, to consolidate its supremacy by establishing impartial suffrage for all citizens, irrespective of sex.
9. Resolved, That we celebrate the acknowledgment of women's rights in the National Republican platform, and the clear support for women's suffrage by the Republican Convention of Massachusetts; we commend the Republican party for winning the hearts, minds, and moral support of women. In this moment of triumph, we urge the party to strengthen its dominance by ensuring equal voting rights for all citizens, regardless of gender.
Vice-Presidents at Large—Julia Ward Howe, Hon. Henry Wilson, Mary A. Livermore, Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Mass.; Hannah M. Tracy Cutler, Ill.; Geo. Wm. Curtis, N. Y.; Mrs. M. T. Hazard, Missouri; Margaret V. Longley, Ohio.
Vice-Presidents at Large—Julia Ward Howe, Hon. Henry Wilson, Mary A. Livermore, Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Mass.; Hannah M. Tracy Cutler, Ill.; Geo. Wm. Curtis, N. Y.; Mrs. M. T. Hazard, Missouri; Margaret V. Longley, Ohio.
Chairman of Executive Committee—Lucy Stone, Mass.
Chair of the Executive Committee—Lucy Stone, Massachusetts.
Foreign Corresponding Secretary—Kate N. Doggett, Ill.
Foreign Corresponding Secretary—Kate N. Doggett, Illinois.
Corresponding Secretary—Henry B. Blackwell, Mass.
Corresponding Secretary—Henry B. Blackwell, Mass.
Treasurer—John K. Wildman, Pa.
Treasurer—John K. Wildman, Pa.
Recording Secretaries—Mary Grew, Pa.; Amanda Way, Kansas.
Recording Secretaries—Mary Grew, Pennsylvania; Amanda Way, Kansas.
Vice Presidents Ex Officio—Mrs. Oliver Dennett, Me.; Armenia S. White, N. H.; Hon. C. W. Willard, Vt.; Jas. Freeman Clarke, Mass.; Elizabeth B. Chace, R. I.; Celia Burleigh, Conn.; Oliver Johnson, N. Y.; John Whitehead, N. J.; Passmore Williamson, Pa.; Mrs. Elizabeth Smith, Del.; Miriam M. Cole, Ohio; Mary F. Thomas, M.D., Ind.; Robert Collyer, Ill.; Augusta J. Chapin, Wis.; Stephen L. Brigham, Mich.; Mrs. A. Knight, Minn.; Mrs. Helen E. Starrett, Kansas; Amelia Bloomer, Iowa; Mrs. Beverly Allen, Mo.; Hon. Guy W. Wines, Tenn.; Seth Rogers, Fla.; Gen. Rufus Saxton, Oregon; Rev. Charles G. Ames, Cal.; Hon. John C. Underwood, Va.; Rufus Leighton, Wash. Ter.; A. K. P. Safford, Arizona; Sarah Jane Lippincott (Grace Greenwood), D. C.; Hon. D. K. Chamberlain, S. C.
Vice Presidents Ex Officio—Mrs. Oliver Dennett, Maine; Armenia S. White, New Hampshire; Hon. C. W. Willard, Vermont; Jas. Freeman Clarke, Massachusetts; Elizabeth B. Chace, Rhode Island; Celia Burleigh, Connecticut; Oliver Johnson, New York; John Whitehead, New Jersey; Passmore Williamson, Pennsylvania; Mrs. Elizabeth Smith, Delaware; Miriam M. Cole, Ohio; Mary F. Thomas, M.D., Indiana; Robert Collyer, Illinois; Augusta J. Chapin, Wisconsin; Stephen L. Brigham, Michigan; Mrs. A. Knight, Minnesota; Mrs. Helen E. Starrett, Kansas; Amelia Bloomer, Iowa; Mrs. Beverly Allen, Missouri; Hon. Guy W. Wines, Tennessee; Seth Rogers, Florida; Gen. Rufus Saxton, Oregon; Rev. Charles G. Ames, California; Hon. John C. Underwood, Virginia; Rufus Leighton, Washington Territory; A. K. P. Safford, Arizona; Sarah Jane Lippincott (Grace Greenwood), Washington D.C.; Hon. D. K. Chamberlain, South Carolina.
Executive Committee Ex Officio—Mrs. T. B. Hussey, Me.; Hon. Nathaniel White, N. H.; Albert Clarke, Vt.; Margaret W. Campbell, Mass.; Mary F. Doyle, R. I.; Phebe A. Hanaford, Conn.; Anna C. Field, N. Y.; Mrs. C. C. Hussey, N. J.; Annie Shoemaker, Pa.; John Cameron, Del.; Mrs. Rebecca A. S. Janney, O.; Martha N. McKaye, Ind.; Myra Bradwell, Ill.; Mrs. Frank Leland, Wis.; Lucinda H. Stone, Mich.; Abby J. Spaulding, Minn.; Hon. Isaac H. Sturgeon, Mo.; John Ritchie, Kan.; Mrs Lizzie B. Read, Iowa; Rev. Charles G. Woodbury, Tenn.; Miss Lottie Rollin, S. C.; Fannie B. Ames, Cal.; Col. Edward Daniels, Va.; Mrs. Matilda G. Saxton, Oregon; Rev. Frederick Hinckley, D. C.; Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols, Cal.; Hon. John A. Campbell, Wyoming.
Executive Committee Ex Officio—Mrs. T. B. Hussey, Maine; Hon. Nathaniel White, New Hampshire; Albert Clarke, Vermont; Margaret W. Campbell, Massachusetts; Mary F. Doyle, Rhode Island; Phebe A. Hanaford, Connecticut; Anna C. Field, New York; Mrs. C. C. Hussey, New Jersey; Annie Shoemaker, Pennsylvania; John Cameron, Delaware; Mrs. Rebecca A. S. Janney, Ohio; Martha N. McKaye, Indiana; Myra Bradwell, Illinois; Mrs. Frank Leland, Wisconsin; Lucinda H. Stone, Michigan; Abby J. Spaulding, Minnesota; Hon. Isaac H. Sturgeon, Missouri; John Ritchie, Kansas; Mrs. Lizzie B. Read, Iowa; Rev. Charles G. Woodbury, Tennessee; Miss Lottie Rollin, South Carolina; Fannie B. Ames, California; Col. Edward Daniels, Virginia; Mrs. Matilda G. Saxton, Oregon; Rev. Frederick Hinckley, Washington, D.C.; Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols, California; Hon. John A. Campbell, Wyoming.
[196] Resolved, That our thanks are due to the twenty-two United States Senators who, at the last session of Congress, voted and paired in favor of woman suffrage in the Territory of Pembina, and we rejoice at the submission of woman suffrage to the people by the Legislatures of Michigan and Iowa, as acts of enlightened statesmanship, which can not fail, whatever may be the immediate result, to hasten the day of woman's enfranchisement.
[196] Resolved, That we express our gratitude to the twenty-two United States Senators who, in the last Congress session, voted and paired in favor of woman suffrage in the Territory of Pembina. We celebrate the decision of the Legislatures of Michigan and Iowa to present woman suffrage to the public, as it represents enlightened leadership that will undoubtedly contribute to the advancement of women's voting rights, regardless of the immediate outcome.
Resolved, That the recent indorsement of woman suffrage by the Methodist Convention of Michigan, by the Conferences of Iowa, and by various other religious bodies of these and other States, is evidence that the value of woman's work in the churches begins to be recognized, and in view of the fact that three-fourths of American church members are women, we cordially invite the aid of Christians of all denominations in securing woman's enfranchisement.
Resolved, That the recent support for women's suffrage by the Methodist Convention of Michigan, the Conferences of Iowa, and several other religious organizations in these and other states shows that the importance of women's contributions in churches is starting to be acknowledged. Considering that three-fourths of American church members are women, we warmly invite Christians from all denominations to help secure women's right to vote.
Resolved, That the recognition of the right of women to vote and hold office, by the Patrons of Husbandry in their Granges, by the Sovereigns of Industry in their Councils, and by the Good Templars in their Lodges, entitles us to regard these societies as practical auxiliaries of the woman suffrage movement.
Resolved, That acknowledging women's right to vote and hold office, by the Patrons of Husbandry in their Granges, by the Sovereigns of Industry in their Councils, and by the Good Templars in their Lodges, allows us to see these organizations as valuable supporters of the woman suffrage movement.
Resolved, That we protest against the appropriation by Congress or by State Legislatures of one dollar of the public money, which is paid in part by women who are taxed without consent, for the purpose of celebrating the Centennial anniversary of a political independence in which women are not allowed to participate.
Resolved, That we protest against Congress or State Legislatures taking even one dollar of public money, partly contributed by women who are taxed without their consent, to celebrate the hundredth anniversary of a political independence that excludes women from participation.
[198] Among those on the platform were Bishop Gilbert Haven, Mrs. Lucy Stone, Miss Mary F. Eastman, Mrs. S. R. Hewitt, Mrs. Maria F. Walling, Thomas J. Lothrop, and H. B. Blackwell, of Mass.; Mrs. Rebecca Morse, Mrs. Margaret E. Winchester, Mrs. Halleck, Mrs. Frances D. Gage, Rev. Dr. Thompson, of New York; Mrs. Mary F. Davis, Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Mrs. Henrietta W. Johnson, of New Jersey; Mrs. Margaret V. Longley and Miss Jane O. De Forest, of Ohio; Mrs. Emma Malloy, of Indiana; Lelia E. Patridge and C. C. Burleigh, of Pa.; Mrs. Armenia S. White and Hon. Nathaniel White, of New Hampshire; Mrs. Frances E. W. Harper, of Md.; S. D. Forbes, of Delaware; and Charles Bradlaugh, of England.
[198] Among those on the platform were Bishop Gilbert Haven, Mrs. Lucy Stone, Miss Mary F. Eastman, Mrs. S. R. Hewitt, Mrs. Maria F. Walling, Thomas J. Lothrop, and H. B. Blackwell, from Massachusetts; Mrs. Rebecca Morse, Mrs. Margaret E. Winchester, Mrs. Halleck, Mrs. Frances D. Gage, and Rev. Dr. Thompson, from New York; Mrs. Mary F. Davis, Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, and Mrs. Henrietta W. Johnson, from New Jersey; Mrs. Margaret V. Longley and Miss Jane O. De Forest, from Ohio; Mrs. Emma Malloy, from Indiana; Lelia E. Patridge and C. C. Burleigh, from Pennsylvania; Mrs. Armenia S. White and Hon. Nathaniel White, from New Hampshire; Mrs. Frances E. W. Harper, from Maryland; S. D. Forbes, from Delaware; and Charles Bradlaugh, from England.
[199] 1. The American Woman Suffrage Association, in its seventh annual meeting assembled, re-affirm the great self-evident principle of equal rights for women, and demand its practical application in the public and private life of the nation. We declare that women who obey laws should have a voice in their enactment; that women who pay taxes should have a voice in their expenditure. We protest against the subjection and disenfranchisement of woman as injurious to society, destructive of morals, corrupting to politics, and a reproach to civilization. We attribute the alarming increase of insults and personal outrages inflicted upon women to a public sentiment hostile to their individuality and equality of rights. We affirm that a Government of the people, by the people, for the people, must be a Government composed impartially of men and women, and that the co-operation of the sexes is essential alike to a happy home, a refined Society, a Christian Church, and a Republican State.
[199] 1. The American Woman Suffrage Association, in its seventh annual meeting, reaffirms the fundamental principle of equal rights for women and demands its practical application in both public and private life in our nation. We state that women who follow the law should have a say in its creation; that women who pay taxes should have a say in how that money is spent. We oppose the oppression and disenfranchisement of women as harmful to society, damaging to morals, corrupting to politics, and a shame to civilization. We link the alarming rise in insults and personal attacks against women to public attitudes that are hostile to their individuality and equal rights. We assert that a government of the people, by the people, for the people, must include both men and women equally, and that collaboration between the sexes is vital for a happy home, a refined society, a Christian church, and a republican state.
2. In view of the approaching Presidential election, in which a great party will struggle to retain possession of power, while all the elements of opposition are organizing for its overthrow, we urge our friends in each State to petition their Legislature for the enactment, next winter, of a law enabling women to vote in the Presidential election of 1876.
2. With the upcoming Presidential election on the horizon, where a major party will fight to keep its hold on power while all opposing forces are coming together to challenge it, we encourage our friends in every State to ask their Legislature to pass a law this winter that will allow women to vote in the Presidential election of 1876.
3. In view of the evident disintegration of parties, we rejoice at the steady growth of the new issue of woman suffrage, at its successful establishment in Wyoming and Utah, in England, Holland, Austria, and Sweden, and at the recent promise of the Republicans of Massachusetts, at their State Convention, that they "will support all measures regarding the promotion of equal rights for all American citizens, irrespective of sex."
3. Given the clear breakdown of political parties, we're pleased to see the steady rise of the movement for women's voting rights, with its successful implementation in Wyoming and Utah, as well as in England, Holland, Austria, and Sweden. We're also encouraged by the recent commitment from the Massachusetts Republicans at their State Convention that they "will support all measures to promote equal rights for all American citizens, regardless of gender."
And whereas, on the second day of July, 1776 (two days before the Declaration of Independence), the Provincial Congress of New Jersey, assembled at Burlington, extended suffrage to all inhabitants, men and women; therefore,
And on July 2, 1776 (two days before the Declaration of Independence), the Provincial Congress of New Jersey met in Burlington and granted voting rights to all residents, both men and women; therefore,
Resolved, That in commemoration of that notable event we hold a woman suffrage Centennial celebration at Burlington, N. J., on the 2d day of July, 1876, or at such other place as the Executive Committee may select.
Resolved, That to celebrate that significant event we will have a woman suffrage Centennial celebration in Burlington, N.J., on July 2, 1876, or at another location chosen by the Executive Committee.
Resolved, That heroic deeds done for justice and human rights deserve and should receive commemorative tribute from all those who love justice and respect human rights; that a Centennial celebration on the Fourth of July next, of the one-hundredth Anniversary of the Independence of the United States is in the highest degree proper, and is due to the brave dead who periled all they had to secure the right to govern themselves; nevertheless,
Resolved, That heroic actions taken for justice and human rights deserve and should be honored by everyone who values justice and respects human rights; that a Centennial celebration on the Fourth of July next, marking the one-hundredth Anniversary of the Independence of the United States, is entirely appropriate and is owed to the brave individuals who risked everything to secure the right to self-govern; however,
Resolved, That men who use their political and personal power to deprive women of their right to govern themselves, can not with consistency have any share in that Centennial celebration.
Resolved, That men who use their political and personal power to take away women's right to govern themselves cannot, in good faith, be part of that Centennial celebration.
[202] Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Texas, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, California, Oregon, District of Columbia.
[202] Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Texas, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, California, Oregon, Washington, D.C.
[203] Whereas, The United States Courts have affirmed that the regulation of suffrage belongs exclusively to the States, and that "women are citizens and, as such, may be made voters by appropriate State legislation;" and,
[203] Whereas, the United States Courts have confirmed that the power to regulate voting is solely in the hands of the States, and that "women are citizens and, as such, can be granted the right to vote through appropriate State laws;" and,
Whereas, A sixteenth amendment to the Federal constitution abolishing political distinctions on account of sex, although just and necessary, can be more easily obtained when several States have set the example; therefore,
Whereas, a 16th amendment to the Federal constitution that eliminates political distinctions based on sex, while fair and necessary, can be more easily achieved when several states lead the way; therefore,
3. Resolved, That we urge every existing State association to renewed effort upon the next and each following State Legislature; and in every State where no such association exists, we urge individual effort and the immediate formation of a State Society.
3. Resolved, That we encourage every existing State association to put in renewed effort with the next and each upcoming State Legislature; and in every State where no such association exists, we advocate for individual efforts and the immediate creation of a State Society.
[206] 1. Resolved, That we urge upon Congress the performance of three important duties in behalf of the women of America—
[206] 1. Resolved, That we call on Congress to take action on three important responsibilities for the women of America—
First, To enact a law giving women citizens of the United States, resident in the Territories, the same political rights as are exercised by the male citizens of the United States resident therein.
First, to pass a law granting women citizens of the United States, living in the Territories, the same political rights as the male citizens of the United States who reside there.
Second, To reform the laws affecting the rights of married women in the District of Columbia and the Territories.
Second, to change the laws that impact the rights of married women in the District of Columbia and the Territories.
Third, To submit to the States a constitutional amendment prohibiting political distinction on account of sex.
Third, to present to the States a constitutional amendment that禁止 political distinctions based on sex.
2. Resolved, That we advise our auxiliary State societies to petition their respective Legislatures to enact a law this winter conferring suffrage on women in Presidential elections under Section 2, Article 2, of the Federal Constitution.
2. Resolved, That we recommend our supporting State societies to ask their respective Legislatures to pass a law this winter granting women the right to vote in Presidential elections according to Section 2, Article 2, of the Federal Constitution.
Whereas, Since the last annual meeting of the Association, three eminent advocates of the claim of women for equal political rights have passed away—Lucretia Mott, Lydia Maria Child, and Nathaniel White—therefore,
Whereas, Since the last annual meeting of the Association, three notable champions for women's equal political rights have died—Lucretia Mott, Lydia Maria Child, and Nathaniel White—therefore,
3. Resolved, That the American Woman Suffrage Association records its grateful appreciation of their invaluable service and its sense of irreparable loss, now that the eloquent voice is silent, the ready pen dropped, and the generous hand is cold in death. In the wealth of their matured character and great achievement they have left us the permanent inspiration of a noble example.
3. Resolved, That the American Woman Suffrage Association expresses its heartfelt gratitude for their invaluable service and acknowledges the significant loss we feel, now that their powerful voice is silent, their willing pen has ceased, and their warm hand is still in death. Through their developed character and remarkable achievements, they have left us a lasting inspiration of a noble example.
APPENDIX.
CHAPTER XVI.
WOMAN'S PATRIOTISM IN THE WAR.
House of Representatives (46th Congress, 3d Session. Report No. 386).
House of Representatives (46th Congress, 3rd Session. Report No. 386).
Anna Ella Carroll.
Anna Ella Carroll.
March 3, 1881.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed.
March 3, 1881.—Referred to the Committee of the Whole House and set to be printed.
Mr. Bragg, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following Report (to accompany bill H. R. 7,256):
Mr. Bragg, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following Report (to accompany bill H. R. 7,256):
The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom the memorial of Anna Ella Carroll was referred, asking national recognition and reward for services rendered the United States during the war between the States, after careful consideration of the same, submit the following:
The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom the memorial of Anna Ella Carroll was referred, asking for national recognition and compensation for her services to the United States during the Civil War, after thorough consideration, submits the following:
In the autumn of 1861 the great question as to whether the Union could be saved, or whether it was hopelessly subverted, depended on the ability of the Government to open the Mississippi and deliver a fatal blow upon the resources of the Confederate power. The original plan was to reduce the formidable fortifications by descending this river, aided by the gun-boat fleet, then in preparation for that object.
In the fall of 1861, the major question of whether the Union could be saved or if it was completely beyond rescue depended on the Government's ability to open the Mississippi River and deal a significant blow to the resources of the Confederate power. The initial plan was to weaken the strong fortifications by moving down the river, supported by the gunboat fleet that was being prepared for that purpose.
President Lincoln had reserved to himself the special direction of this expedition, but before it was prepared to move he became convinced that the obstacles to be encountered were too grave and serious for the success which the exigencies of the crisis demanded, and the plan was then abandoned, and the armies diverted up the Tennessee River, and thence southward to the center of the Confederate power.
President Lincoln had taken personal charge of this expedition, but before it was ready to go, he became convinced that the challenges ahead were too significant and serious for the success that the urgent situation required. The plan was then scrapped, and the armies were redirected up the Tennessee River and then south toward the heart of the Confederate power.
The evidence before this Committee completely establishes that Miss Anna Ella Carroll was the author of this change of plan, which involved a transfer of the National forces to their new base in North Mississippi and Alabama, in command of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad; that she devoted time and money in the autumn of 1861 to the investigation of its feasibility is established by the sworn testimony of L. D. Evans, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, to the Military Committee of the United States Senate in the 42d Congress (see pp. 40, 41 of memorial); that after that investigation she submitted her plan in writing to the War Department at Washington, placing it in the hands of Thomas A. Scott, Assistant Secretary of War, as is confirmed by his statement (see p. 38 of memorial), also confirmed by the statement of Hon. B. F. Wade, Chairman of the Committee on the Conduct of the War, made to the same Committee (see p. 38), and of President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton (see p. 39 of memorial); also by Hon. O. H. Browning, of Illinois, Senator during the war, in confidential relations with President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton (see p. 39, memorial); also that of Hon. Elisha Whittlesey, Comptroller of the Treasury (see p. 41, memorial); also by Hon. Thomas H. Hicks, Governor of Maryland, and by Hon. Frederick Feckey's affidavit, Comptroller of the Public Works of Maryland (see p. 127 of memorial); by Hon. Reverdy Johnson (see pp. 26 and 41, memorial); Hon. George Vickers, United States Senator from Maryland (see p. 41, memorial); again by Hon. B. F. Wade (see p. 41, memorial); Hon. J. T. Headley (see p. 43, memorial); Rev. Dr. R. J. Breckinridge on services (see p. 47, memorial); Prof. Joseph[Pg 864] Henry, Rev. Dr. Hodge, of Theological Seminary at Princeton (see p. 30, memorial); remarkable interviews and correspondence of Judge B. F. Wade (see pp. 23-26 of memorial).
The evidence before this Committee clearly shows that Miss Anna Ella Carroll was the one who came up with this change of plan, which included moving the National forces to their new base in North Mississippi and Alabama, under the command of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad. It’s confirmed that she spent time and money in the fall of 1861 to investigate its feasibility, as backed by the sworn testimony of L. D. Evans, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, to the Military Committee of the United States Senate in the 42nd Congress (see pp. 40, 41 of memorial). After that investigation, she presented her plan in writing to the War Department in Washington, handing it to Thomas A. Scott, Assistant Secretary of War, which is corroborated by his statement (see p. 38 of memorial), also supported by statements from Hon. B. F. Wade, Chairman of the Committee on the Conduct of the War, to the same Committee (see p. 38), and from President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton (see p. 39 of memorial); as well as by Hon. O. H. Browning from Illinois, a Senator during the war, who had confidential relations with President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton (see p. 39, memorial); along with Hon. Elisha Whittlesey, Comptroller of the Treasury (see p. 41, memorial); and by Hon. Thomas H. Hicks, Governor of Maryland, and by Hon. Frederick Feckey's affidavit, Comptroller of the Public Works of Maryland (see p. 127 of memorial); also by Hon. Reverdy Johnson (see pp. 26 and 41, memorial); Hon. George Vickers, United States Senator from Maryland (see p. 41, memorial); further supported by Hon. B. F. Wade (see p. 41, memorial); Hon. J. T. Headley (see p. 43, memorial); Rev. Dr. R. J. Breckinridge on services (see p. 47, memorial); Prof. Joseph[Pg 864] Henry, Rev. Dr. Hodge from Theological Seminary at Princeton (see p. 30, memorial); and notable interviews and correspondence from Judge B. F. Wade (see pp. 23-26 of memorial).
That this campaign prevented the recognition of Southern independence by its fatal effects on the Confederate States is shown by letters from Hon. C. M. Clay (see pp. 40-43 of memorial), and by his letters from St. Petersburgh; also those of Mr. Adams and Mr. Dayton from London and Paris (see pp. 100-102 of memorial).
That this campaign stopped the acknowledgment of Southern independence due to its disastrous impacts on the Confederate States is evident from letters by Hon. C. M. Clay (see pp. 40-43 of memorial), as well as his letters from St. Petersburgh; along with those from Mr. Adams and Mr. Dayton from London and Paris (see pp. 100-102 of memorial).
That the campaign defeated National bankruptcy, then imminent, and opened the way for the system of finance to defend the Federal cause, is shown by the debates of the period in both Houses of Congress (see utterances of Mr. Spalding, Mr. Diven, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, Mr. Roscoe Conkling, Mr. John Sherman, Mr. Henry Wilson, Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Trumbull, Mr. Foster, Mr. Garrett Davis, Mr. John J. Crittendon, etc., found for convenient reference in appendix to memorial, pp. 47-59. Also therein the opinion of the English press as to why the Union could not be restored).
That the campaign prevented a national bankruptcy, which was about to happen, and made it possible for the financial system to support the Federal cause, is evident from the debates of the time in both Houses of Congress (see the statements of Mr. Spalding, Mr. Diven, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, Mr. Roscoe Conkling, Mr. John Sherman, Mr. Henry Wilson, Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Trumbull, Mr. Foster, Mr. Garrett Davis, Mr. John J. Crittendon, etc., conveniently referenced in the appendix to the memorial, pp. 47-59. Also included is the opinion of the English press regarding why the Union could not be restored).
The condition of the struggle can best be realized as depicted by the leading statesmen in Congress previous to the execution of these military movements (see synopsis of debates from Congressional Globe, pp. 21, 22 of memorial).
The situation of the struggle can be best understood as shown by the key politicians in Congress before the execution of these military actions (see synopsis of debates from Congressional Globe, pp. 21, 22 of memorial).
The effect of this campaign upon the country and the anxiety to find out and reward the author are evidenced by the resolution of Mr. Roscoe Conkling, in the House of Representatives 24th of February, 1862 (see debates on the origin of the campaign, pp. 39-63 of memorial). But it was deemed prudent to make no public claim as to authorship while the war lasted (see Colonel Scott's view, p. 32 of memorial).
The impact of this campaign on the country and the eagerness to identify and reward the creator is shown by Mr. Roscoe Conkling's resolution in the House of Representatives on February 24, 1862 (see debates on the origin of the campaign, pp. 39-63 of memorial). However, it was considered wise not to publicly assert authorship while the war was ongoing (see Colonel Scott's view, p. 32 of memorial).
The wisdom of the plan was proven, not only by the absolute advantages which resulted, giving the mastery of the conflict to the National arms and evermore assuring their success even against the powers of all Europe should they have combined, but it was likewise proven by the failures to open the Mississippi or win any decided success on the plan first devised by the Government.
The effectiveness of the plan was confirmed, not only by the clear benefits that led to the National forces gaining control of the conflict and ensuring their success even against a united Europe, but it was also validated by the unsuccessful attempts to open the Mississippi or achieve any significant victories from the original plan created by the Government.
It is further conclusively shown that no plan, order, letter, telegram, or suggestion of the Tennessee River as the line of invasion has ever been produced, except in the paper submitted by Miss Carroll on the 30th of November, 1861, and her subsequent letters to the Government as the campaign progressed.
It is further conclusively shown that no plans, orders, letters, telegrams, or suggestions about using the Tennessee River as the line of invasion have ever been produced, except for the document submitted by Miss Carroll on November 30, 1861, and her later letters to the Government as the campaign went on.
It is further shown to this Committee that the able and patriotic publications of memorialist, in pamphlets and newspapers, with her high social influence, not only largely contributed to the cause of the Union in her own State, Maryland (see Governor Hicks' letters, p. 27, memorial), but exerted a wide and salutary influence on all the Border States (see Howard's report, p. 33 and p. 75 of memorial).
It is further demonstrated to this Committee that the capable and patriotic writings of the memorialist, in pamphlets and newspapers, along with her significant social influence, not only greatly contributed to the cause of the Union in her own State, Maryland (see Governor Hicks' letters, p. 27, memorial), but also had a broad and positive impact on all the Border States (see Howard's report, p. 33 and p. 75 of memorial).
These publications were used by the Government as war measures, and the debate in Congress shows that she was the first writer on the war powers of the Government (see p. 45 of memorial). Leading statesmen and jurists bore testimony to their value, including President Lincoln, Secretaries Chase, Stanton, Seward, Welles, Smith, Attorney-General Bates, Senators Browning, Doolittle, Collamer, Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Hicks, Hon. Horace Binney, Hon. Benjamin H. Brewster, Hon. William M. Meredith, Hon. Robert J. Walker, Hon. Charles O'Conor, Hon. Edwards Pierrepont, Hon. Edward Everett, Hon. Thomas Corwin, Hon. Francis Thomas, of Maryland, and many others found in memorial.
These publications were used by the government as wartime measures, and the debate in Congress shows that she was the first writer on the government's war powers (see p. 45 of memorial). Prominent politicians and legal experts confirmed their importance, including President Lincoln, Secretaries Chase, Stanton, Seward, Welles, Smith, Attorney-General Bates, Senators Browning, Doolittle, Collamer, Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Hicks. Hon. Horace Binney, Hon. Benjamin H. Brewster, Hon. William M. Meredith, Hon. Robert J. Walker, Hon. Charles O'Conor, Hon. Edwards Pierrepont, Hon. Edward Everett, Hon. Thomas Corwin, Hon. Francis Thomas from Maryland, and many others are acknowledged in the memorial.
The Military Committee, through Senator Howard, in the Forty-first Congress, third session, document No. 337, unanimously reported that Miss Carroll did cause the change of the military expedition from the Mississippi to the Tennessee River, etc.; and the aforesaid Committee, in the Forty-second Congress, second session, document No. 167, as found in memorial, reported, through the Hon. Henry Wilson, the evidence and bill in support of this claim.
The Military Committee, led by Senator Howard, reported unanimously in Document No. 337 during the third session of the Forty-first Congress that Miss Carroll was responsible for moving the military expedition from the Mississippi to the Tennessee River, among other things. Furthermore, in Document No. 167 from the second session of the Forty-second Congress, as detailed in a memorial, the Committee, represented by the Hon. Henry Wilson, provided evidence and a bill supporting this claim.
Again, in the Forty-fourth Congress, the Military Committee of the House favorably considered this claim, and General A. S. Williams was prepared to report, and being prevented by want of time, placed on record that this claim is incontestably established, and that the country owes to Miss Carroll a large and honest compensation, both in money and honors, for her services in the National crisis.
Again, in the Forty-fourth Congress, the Military Committee of the House looked favorably on this claim, and General A. S. Williams was ready to report. However, due to lack of time, he noted that this claim is clearly established and that the country owes Miss Carroll a substantial and rightful compensation, both in money and recognition, for her services during the national crisis.
In view of all the facts, this Committee believe that the thanks of the nation are due Miss Carroll, and that they are fully justified in recommending that she be placed on the[Pg 865] pension rolls of the Government, as a partial measure of recognition for her public service, and report herewith a bill for such purpose and recommend its passage.
Considering all the facts, this Committee believes that the nation owes its thanks to Miss Carroll, and they are completely justified in recommending that she be added to the[Pg 865] pension rolls of the Government as a partial acknowledgment of her public service. They are submitting a bill for this purpose and recommend its approval.
Hon. E. M. Stanton came into the War Department, in 1862, pledged to execute the Tennessee campaign.
Hon. E. M. Stanton entered the War Department in 1862, committed to carrying out the Tennessee campaign.
Statement from Hon. B. F. Wade, Chairman of the Committee on the Conduct of the War, April 4, 1876.
Statement from Hon. B. F. Wade, Chair of the Committee on the Conduct of the War, April 4, 1876.
Dear Miss Carroll:—I had no part in getting up the committee; the first intimation to me was that I had been made the head of it. But I never shirked a public duty, and at once went to work to do all that was possible to save the country. We went fully into the examination of the several plans for military operations then known to the Government, and we saw plainly enough that the time it must take to execute any of them would make it fatal to the Union.
Dear Miss Carroll:—I wasn't involved in forming the committee; the first I heard was that I had been appointed as its head. But I never avoid a public duty, so I immediately got to work doing everything I could to help save the country. We thoroughly reviewed the various plans for military operations that the Government was aware of, and it was clear to us that any of these plans would take too long to execute, which would be disastrous for the Union.
We were in the deepest despair, until just at this time Colonel Scott informed me that there was a plan already devised that if executed with secrecy would open the Tennessee and save the National cause. I went immediately to Mr. Lincoln and talked the whole matter over. He said he did not himself doubt that the plan was feasible, but said there was one difficulty in the way, that no military or naval man had any idea of such a movement, it being the work of a civilian, and none of them would believe it safe to make such an advance upon only a navigable river with no protection but a gun-boat fleet, and they would not want to take the risk. He said it was devised by Miss Carroll, and military men were extremely jealous of all outside interference. I plead earnestly with him, for I found there were influences in his Cabinet then averse to his taking the responsibility, and wanted everything done in deference to the views of McClellan and Halleck. I said to Mr. Lincoln, "You know we are now in the last extremity, and you have to choose between adopting and at once executing a plan that you believe to be the right one, and save the country, or defer to the opinions of military men in command, and lose the country." He finally decided he would take the initiative, but there was Mr. Bates, who had suggested the gun-boat fleet, and wanted to advance down the Mississippi, as originally designed, but after a little he came to see no result could be achieved on that mode of attack, and he united with us in favor of the change of expedition as you recommended.
We were in deep despair until Colonel Scott told me there was already a plan in place that, if carried out in secret, could open up Tennessee and save the National cause. I immediately went to Mr. Lincoln and discussed the whole thing. He said he didn’t doubt that the plan was doable, but there was one problem: no military or naval officer thought such a move could work since it was created by a civilian, and they wouldn't believe it was safe to advance on just a navigable river with only a gunboat fleet for protection, so they didn’t want to take the risk. He mentioned it was conceived by Miss Carroll, and military men were very protective of any outside interference. I pleaded with him earnestly because I noticed there were influences in his Cabinet that were against him taking responsibility and wanted to follow McClellan and Halleck's views. I said to Mr. Lincoln, "You know we are in our last resort, and you need to choose between adopting and immediately executing a plan you believe is right to save the country, or deferring to the opinions of the military leaders and losing the country." He finally decided to take the lead, but there was Mr. Bates, who had suggested the gunboat fleet and wanted to move down the Mississippi as originally planned. However, after a short time, he realized that no results could be achieved with that approach and joined us in supporting the change in expedition as you recommended.
After repeated talks with Mr. Stanton, I was entirely convinced that if placed at the head of the War Department he would have your plan executed vigorously, as he fully believed it was the only means of safety, as I did.
After talking to Mr. Stanton multiple times, I became completely convinced that if he were in charge of the War Department, he would carry out your plan with determination, as he truly believed it was the only way to ensure safety, just like I did.
Mr. Lincoln, on my suggesting Stanton, asked me how the leading Republicans would take it—that Stanton was so fresh from the Buchanan Cabinet, and so many things said of him. I insisted he was our man withal, and brought him and Lincoln into communication, and Lincoln was entirely satisfied; but so soon as it got out, the doubters came to the front, Senators and Members called on me, I sent them to Stanton and told them to decide for themselves. The gun-boats were then nearly ready for the Mississippi expedition, and Mr. Lincoln agreed, as soon as they were, to start the Tennessee movement. It was determined that as soon as Mr. Stanton came in the Department, that Col. Scott should go out to the western armies and make ready for the campaign in pursuance of your plan, as he has testified before committees.
Mr. Lincoln, when I suggested Stanton, asked me how the leading Republicans would react to the fact that Stanton was recently part of the Buchanan Cabinet and that there were so many opinions about him. I insisted he was the right choice for us, and I facilitated communication between him and Lincoln, and Lincoln was completely on board. However, as soon as the news broke, the skeptics came out of the woodwork; Senators and Members approached me, and I directed them to Stanton to make their own judgment. The gunboats were almost ready for the Mississippi mission, and Mr. Lincoln agreed to kick off the Tennessee initiative as soon as they were. It was decided that once Mr. Stanton took over the Department, Col. Scott would head out to the western armies to prepare for the campaign according to your plan, as he has mentioned in front of committees.
It was a great work to get the matter started; you have no idea of it. We almost fought for it. If ever there was a righteous claim on earth, you have one. I have often been sorry that, knowing all this, as I did then, I had not publicly declared you as the author. But we were fully alive to the importance of absolute secrecy. I trusted but few of our people; but to pacify the country, I announced from the Senate that the armies were about to move, and inaction was no longer to be tolerated, and Mr. Fessenden, head of the Finance Committee, who had been told of the proposed advance, also stated in the Senate that what would be achieved in a few more days would satisfy the country and astound the world.
It was a huge effort to get things rolling; you wouldn’t believe it. We almost got into fights over it. If there was ever a just cause on this planet, it’s yours. I've often regretted that, knowing all this back then, I didn’t publicly recognize you as the author. But we were very aware of the need for complete secrecy. I only trusted a few of our people; to calm the nation, I announced from the Senate that the armies were about to mobilize, and we could no longer afford to be inactive. Mr. Fessenden, the head of the Finance Committee, who was informed about the planned advance, also stated in the Senate that what would be accomplished in just a few more days would satisfy the country and amaze the world.
As the expedition advanced, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Stanton, and myself, frequently alluded to your extraordinary sagacity and unselfish patriotism, but all agreed that you should be recognized for your most noble service, and properly rewarded for the same. The last time I saw Mr. Stanton he was on his death-bed; he was then most earnest in his desire to[Pg 866] have you come before Congress, as I told you soon after, and said if he lived he would see that justice was awarded you. This I have told you often since, and I believe the truth in this matter will finally prevail.
As the expedition moved forward, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Stanton, and I often talked about your incredible insight and selfless patriotism. We all agreed that you should be acknowledged for your outstanding service and rewarded appropriately. The last time I saw Mr. Stanton, he was on his deathbed. He was very earnest in his wish to[Pg 866] have you come before Congress, as I mentioned to you shortly after, and he said that if he survived, he would make sure you got the justice you deserve. I've told you this many times since, and I truly believe that the truth in this matter will ultimately prevail.
B. F. Wade.
B. F. Wade.
From Hon. Elisha Whittlesey.
From Hon. Elisha Whittlesey.
Found among his private papers, and transmitted to Miss Carroll in 1874.
Discovered among his private papers and sent to Miss Carroll in 1874.
Treasury Department, Comptroller's Office, }
February 20, 1862. }
Treasury Department, Comptroller's Office, }
February 20, 1862. }
This will accompany copies of two letters written by Miss Anna Ella Carroll to the War Department.
This will come with copies of two letters written by Miss Anna Ella Carroll to the War Department.
Having informed me of the contents of the letters, I requested her to permit me to copy her duplicates. When she brought them to me she enjoined prudence in their use. They are very extraordinary papers as verified by the result. So far as I know or believe, our unparalleled victories on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers may be traced to her sagacious observations and intelligence. Her views were as broad and sagacious as the field to be occupied. In selecting the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers instead of the Mississippi, she set at naught the opinions of civilians, of military and naval men.
Having filled me in on what the letters said, I asked her if I could copy her duplicates. When she brought them to me, she advised me to be careful with them. They are quite remarkable documents, as proven by the outcome. As far as I know or believe, our unmatched victories on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers can be attributed to her insightful observations and intelligence. Her perspective was as wide-ranging and astute as the area we needed to cover. By choosing the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers over the Mississippi, she disregarded the views of civilians, military, and naval leaders.
Justice should be done her patriotic discernment. She labors for her country and her whole country.
Justice should be served through her patriotic judgment. She works for her country and for everyone in it.
Elisha Whittlesey.
Elisha Whittlesey.
Letters To Miss Carroll From Hon. Benjamin F. Wade.
Letters to Miss Carroll from Hon. Benjamin F. Wade.
Hon. Benjamin F. Wade, who during the war was Chairman of the Committee on the Conduct of the War, and during the last period of his services, after the assassination of President Lincoln had elevated Andrew Johnson to the Presidency, was acting Vice-President and President of the Senate, was a friend of Miss Carroll. He addressed the following letter to her in 1869, just before the close of his last Congressional session:
Hon. Benjamin F. Wade, who during the war was Chair of the Committee on the Conduct of the War, and during the final part of his service, after President Lincoln was assassinated and Andrew Johnson became President, was the acting Vice-President and President of the Senate. He was a friend of Miss Carroll. He wrote the following letter to her in 1869, just before the end of his last Congressional session:
Washington, March 1, 1869.
Washington, March 1, 1869.
Miss Carroll:—I can not take leave of my public life without expressing my deep sense of your services to the country during the whole period of our National troubles. Although a citizen of a State almost unanimously disloyal and deeply sympathizing with secession, especially the wealthy and aristocratic class of her people, to which you belonged, yet, in the midst of such surroundings, you emancipated your own slaves at a great sacrifice of personal interest, and with your powerful pen defended the cause of the Union and loyalty as ably and effectively as it has ever yet been defended.
Miss Carroll:—I can't say goodbye to my public life without expressing my deep appreciation for your service to the country throughout our National troubles. Even though you were from a state that was almost entirely disloyal and largely supported secession, particularly among the wealthy and aristocratic class you belonged to, you still chose to free your own slaves at a significant personal cost. With your powerful writing, you defended the cause of the Union and loyalty as effectively as it has ever been defended.
From my position on the Committee on the Conduct of the War, I know that some of the most successful expeditions of the war were suggested by you, among which I might instance the expedition up the Tennessee River.
From my role on the Committee on the Conduct of the War, I recognize that some of the most successful missions of the war were proposed by you, including the mission up the Tennessee River.
The powerful support you gave Governor Hicks during the darkest hour of your State's history, prompted him to take and maintain the stand he did, and thereby saved your State from secession and consequent ruin.
The strong support you provided to Governor Hicks during the toughest time in your state's history encouraged him to take and stick with the position he did, which ultimately saved your state from secession and the resulting disaster.
All those things, as well as your unremitted labors in the cause of reconstruction, I doubt not, are well known and remembered by the members of Congress at that period.
All those things, along with your ongoing efforts in the cause of rebuilding, I’m sure are well known and remembered by the members of Congress from that time.
I also well know in what high estimation your services were held by President Lincoln: and I can not leave the subject without sincerely hoping that the Government may yet confer on you some token of acknowledgment for all these services and sacrifices.
I also know how highly President Lincoln valued your contributions, and I can't finish this topic without truly hoping that the Government might still recognize you in some way for all your efforts and sacrifices.
B. F. Wade.
B. F. Wade.
Very sincerely, your friend,
Very sincerely, your friend,
On the 28th of February, 1873, three years after his leaving public life, Judge Wade addressed the following letter:
On February 28, 1873, three years after stepping away from public life, Judge Wade wrote the following letter:
To the Chairman of the Military Committee of the United States Senate:
To the Chair of the Military Committee of the U.S. Senate:
Dear Sir:—I have been requested to make a brief statement of what I can recollect concerning the claim of Miss Carroll, now before Congress. From my position as Chairman of the Committee on the Conduct of the War, it came to my knowledge that the expedition that was preparing, under the special direction of President Lincoln, to descend the Mississippi River, was abandoned, and the Tennessee expedition was adopted by the Government in pursuance of information and a plan presented to the Secretary of War, I think the latter part of November, 1861, by Miss Carroll. A copy of this plan was put[Pg 867] into my hands immediately after the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson. With the knowledge of its author I interrogated witnesses before the Committee to ascertain how far military men were cognizant of the fact. Subsequently President Lincoln informed me that the merit of this plan was due to Miss Carroll; that the transfer of the armies from Cairo and the northern part of Kentucky to the Memphis and Charleston Railroad was her conception, and was afterwards carried out generally, and very much in detail, according to her suggestions. Secretary Stanton also conversed with me on the matter, and fully recognized Miss Carroll's service to the Union in the organization of this campaign. Indeed, both Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Stanton, the latter only a few weeks before his death, expressed to me their high appreciation of this service, and all the other services she was enabled to render the country by her influence and ability as a writer, and they both expressed the wish that the Government would reward her liberally for the same, in which wish I most fully concur.
Dear Sir:—I’ve been asked to share a brief summary of what I remember regarding Miss Carroll’s claim currently before Congress. As the Chairman of the Committee on the Conduct of the War, I learned that the expedition set to go down the Mississippi River, under President Lincoln's specific direction, was canceled, and instead, the government decided to proceed with the Tennessee expedition based on a plan that Miss Carroll presented to the Secretary of War, I believe it was in late November 1861. A copy of this plan was given to me right after the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson. With her permission, I questioned witnesses before the Committee to see how aware military officials were of it. Later, President Lincoln told me that Miss Carroll deserved credit for this plan; that moving the armies from Cairo and the northern part of Kentucky to the Memphis and Charleston Railroad was her idea, and it was implemented broadly and in detail according to her recommendations. Secretary Stanton also discussed this with me and fully acknowledged Miss Carroll’s contributions to the Union in organizing this campaign. In fact, both Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Stanton, the latter only a few weeks before his passing, expressed their strong appreciation for her service, along with all the other contributions she made to the country through her influence and writing skills, and they both hoped the government would reward her generously for this, which I completely agree with.
B. F. Wade.
B. F. Wade.
We give extracts from letters written Miss Carroll by Judge Wade, after his retirement from public life:
We provide excerpts from letters that Judge Wade wrote to Miss Carroll after he stepped back from public life:
Jefferson, Ohio, Sept. 9, 1874.
Jefferson, Ohio, Sept. 9, 1874.
This Congress may be mean enough to refuse to remunerate you for your services, but thank heaven they can not deprive you of the honor and consciousness of having done greater and more efficient services for the country in the time of her greatest peril than any other person in the Republic, and a knowledge of this can not long be suppressed, though I do not underrate the mighty powers that may be arrayed against you.
This Congress might be unkind enough to not pay you for your services, but thank goodness they can't take away the honor and awareness of having provided greater and more effective help for the country during its most dangerous time than anyone else in the Republic, and this recognition can't be kept hidden for long, even though I don't underestimate the powerful forces that may be against you.
B. F. Wade.
B. F. Wade.
Jefferson, Ohio, Aug. 14, 1876.
Jefferson, Ohio, Aug. 14, 1876.
I rejoice that you are to have the testimony in your case published by Congress, as I can not but believe that Congress, when they have the facts properly before them, will be shamed into doing you justice, though late.
I’m glad that Congress will publish the testimony in your case because I truly believe that once they see the facts, they’ll feel embarrassed enough to give you the justice you deserve, even if it’s delayed.
I fully appreciate and deeply regret the injustice done you as though the case were my own. The country almost in her last extremity was saved by your sagacity and unremitted labor; indeed your services were so great that it is hard to make the world believe it. Many have been most generously rewarded for services having no more proportion to yours than a mole hill to a mountain—and that all this great work should be brought about by a woman is inconceivable to vulgar minds, but I hope and believe that justice will triumph at last.
I truly appreciate and deeply regret the injustice done to you as if it were my own situation. The country, almost at its breaking point, was saved by your wisdom and tireless efforts; in fact, your contributions were so significant that it's hard for people to believe it. Many have been generously rewarded for services that don't even compare to yours, like a molehill compared to a mountain—and the fact that all this incredible work was accomplished by a woman is hard for narrow-minded people to accept, but I hope and believe that justice will eventually prevail.
B. F. Wade.
B. F. Wade.
Jefferson, Ohio, Oct. 3, 1876.
Jefferson, Ohio, Oct. 3, 1876.
The truth is, your services were so great that they can not be comprehended by the ordinary capacity of our public men, and then again your services were of such a character that they threw a shadow over the reputation of some of our would-be great men. No doubt great pains has been taken in the business of trying to defeat you; but it has been an article of faith with me that truth and justice must ultimately triumph.
The truth is, your contributions were so outstanding that they can't be understood by the average abilities of our public figures, and on top of that, your efforts overshadowed the reputations of some of our self-proclaimed greats. It's clear that a lot of effort has been put into trying to bring you down; however, I've always believed that truth and justice will eventually win out.
B. F. Wade.
B. F. Wade.
Ever yours truly,
Ever yours truly,
From Reverdy Johnson.
From Reverdy Johnson.
Westminster Palace Hotel }
London, Nov. 29, 1875. }
Westminster Palace Hotel }
London, Nov. 29, 1875. }
My Dear Miss Carroll:—I remember very well that you were the first to advise the campaign on the Tennessee River in November, 1861. This I have never heard doubted, and the great events which followed it demonstrate the value of your suggestions. That this will be recognized by the Government sooner or later I can not doubt....
My Dear Miss Carroll:—I remember clearly that you were the first to suggest the campaign on the Tennessee River in November 1861. I've never heard anyone dispute this, and the significant events that followed prove the worth of your ideas. I have no doubt that the Government will acknowledge this sooner or later....
Reverdy Johnson.
Reverdy Johnson.
Sincerely your friend,
Sincerely your friend,
From Orestes H. Brownson.
From Orestes H. Brownson.
Quincy, Ill., Sept. 17, 1873.
Quincy, Ill., Sept. 17, 1873.
Miss A. E. Carroll:—During the progress of the war of the rebellion, from 1861 to 1865, I had frequent conversations with President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton in regard to the able and efficient part you had taken in behalf of the country, in all of which they expressed their admiration and gratitude for the patriotic and valuable services you had[Pg 868] rendered the cause of the Union. In the hope that you would be adequately recompensed by Congress....
Miss A. E. Carroll:—During the Civil War, from 1861 to 1865, I often spoke with President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton about the significant and effective role you played for the country. They both expressed their admiration and gratitude for the patriotic and valuable services you had rendered to the Union. They hoped that Congress would provide you with proper compensation....
O. H. Brownson.
O. H. Brownson.
I am your obedient servant,
I am your obedient servant,
Letter of Hon. Thomas A. Scott to Hon. Jacob M. Howard, Chairman of the Senate Military Committee upon Miss Carroll's claim for a pension after the close of the war:
Letter from Hon. Thomas A. Scott to Hon. Jacob M. Howard, Chairman of the Senate Military Committee regarding Miss Carroll's pension claim after the war ended:
Hon. Jacob M. Howard, United States Senate:—On or about the 30th of November, 1861, Miss Carroll, as stated in her memorial, called on me as Assistant Secretary of War, and suggested the propriety of abandoning the expedition which was then preparing to descend the Mississippi River, and to adopt instead the Tennessee River, and handed me the plan of the campaign as appended to her memorial, which plan I submitted to the Secretary of War, and its general ideas were adopted. On my return from the South-west in 1862, I informed Miss Carroll, as she states in her memorial, that through the adoption of this plan, the country had been saved millions, and that it entitled her to the kind consideration of Congress.
Hon. Jacob M. Howard, United States Senate:—Around November 30th, 1861, Miss Carroll, as mentioned in her memorial, came to see me as the Assistant Secretary of War. She suggested that we should abandon the expedition that was being prepared to go down the Mississippi River and instead use the Tennessee River. She provided me with the campaign plan attached to her memorial, which I shared with the Secretary of War, and its main ideas were accepted. When I returned from the Southwest in 1862, I told Miss Carroll, as she mentions in her memorial, that by adopting this plan, the country had saved millions, and that she deserved Congress's special consideration.
Thos. A. Scott.
Thos. A. Scott.
Letter of Hon. Thomas A. Scott to Hon. Henry Wilson, Chairman of the Military Committee, United States Senate:
Letter from Hon. Thomas A. Scott to Hon. Henry Wilson, Chair of the Military Committee, United States Senate:
Philadelphia, May 1, 1872.
Philadelphia, May 1, 1872.
My Dear Sir:—I take pleasure in stating that the plan presented by Miss Carroll, in November, 1861, for a campaign up the Tennessee River and thence southerly, was submitted to the Secretary of War and President. And, after Secretary Stanton's appointment, I was directed to go to the western armies and arrange to increase their effective force as rapidly as possible. A part of the duty assigned to me was the organization and consolidation into regiments of all the troops then being recruited in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, for the purpose of carrying through this campaign, then inaugurated.
My Dear Sir:—I’m pleased to say that the plan proposed by Miss Carroll in November 1861 for a campaign up the Tennessee River and then south was presented to the Secretary of War and the President. After Secretary Stanton was appointed, I was instructed to go to the western armies and find ways to increase their effective force as quickly as possible. Part of my duties involved organizing and consolidating all the troops that were being recruited in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan into regiments to carry out this campaign, which was then starting.
This work was vigorously prosecuted by the army, and as the valuable suggestions of Miss Carroll, made to the Department some months before, were substantially carried out through the campaigns in that section, great successes followed, and the country was largely benefited in the saving of time and expenditure.
This effort was actively pursued by the army, and since the valuable suggestions from Miss Carroll, made to the Department a few months earlier, were effectively implemented during the campaigns in that area, significant successes followed, greatly benefiting the country by saving time and money.
I hope Congress will reward Miss Carroll liberally for her patriotic efforts and services.
I hope Congress will generously reward Miss Carroll for her patriotic efforts and contributions.
Thomas A. Scott.
Thomas A. Scott.
Very truly yours,
Very truly yours,
Hon. Henry Wilson, Chairman of the Military Committee, United States Senate.
Hon. Henry Wilson, Chair of the Military Committee, United States Senate.
Letter from Hon. Thomas A. Scott to Mrs. Gage.
Letter from Hon. Thomas A. Scott to Mrs. Gage.
No. 233 South Fourth St., }
Philadelphia, Mar. 29, 1880. }
No. 233 South Fourth St., }
Philadelphia, Mar. 29, 1880. }
Dear Madam:—I have your letter of March 25th in regard to Miss Carroll's matter, and beg to say in reply that I do not know whether the old papers are on file in the War Department or not; I presume the only way to ascertain would be to apply to the Department direct. I have done all that I feel I can do in this matter, having given my evidence before the Committee in the most concise and direct form possible. I hope that Congress will do something for Miss Carroll, but with their present economical habits, I doubt very much whether they will.
Dear Madam:—I received your letter dated March 25th regarding Miss Carroll's situation and I want to reply that I'm not sure if the old papers are kept in the War Department or not; I think the only way to find out is to ask the Department directly. I've done everything I can in this matter, having provided my testimony to the Committee in the most clear and straightforward way possible. I hope Congress takes action for Miss Carroll, but with their current focus on saving money, I seriously doubt they will.
Hoping that the Committee in charge of the matter may have success,
Hoping that the Committee in charge of the matter finds success,
Thomas A. Scott.
Thomas A. Scott.
I am, very truly yours,
I am, very truly yours,
Editorial from the National Citizen (Syracuse, N. Y.), September, 1881:
Editorial from the National Citizen (Syracuse, N. Y.), September, 1881:
The Contrast.—"Look on this picture and on that." While President James A. Garfield lay dying, another American citizen, one to whom the country owes far more than it did to him, was stricken with an incurable disease. But in this case no telegram heralded the fact; no messages were cabled abroad; few newspapers made comment, and yet had it not been for the wisdom of this person whom the country forgets, we should have possessed no country to-day.
The Contrast.—"Look at this picture and that." While President James A. Garfield was dying, another American citizen, someone to whom the country owes much more than it ever did to him, was suffering from an incurable disease. However, in this case, there were no telegrams announcing it; no messages were sent overseas; few newspapers mentioned it, and yet if it weren't for the wisdom of this person whom the country forgets, we wouldn't have a country today.
Anna Ella Carroll lies at her home near Baltimore, stricken with paralysis—perhaps already beyond the river. As the readers of the National Citizen well know, when the nation was in its hour of extreme peril, with a nearly depleted treasury, with England and France waiting with large fleets for a few more evil days in order to raise the blockade, with President, Congress, and people nearly helpless and despairing, there arose[Pg 869] this woman, who with strategic science far in advance of any military or naval officer on land or sea, pointed out the way to victory, sending her plans and maps to the War Department, which adopted them. Thus the tide of battle was turned, victory perched on the Union banner, and in accordance with the President's proclamation, the country united in a day of public thanksgiving.
Anna Ella Carroll is at her home near Baltimore, paralyzed—perhaps already beyond recovery. As readers of the National Citizen know, when the nation faced its greatest threat, with the treasury nearly empty, and England and France waiting with their large fleets for just a few more unfavorable days to lift the blockade, with the President, Congress, and the people feeling nearly helpless and despairing, this woman appeared[Pg 869] with strategic insight far ahead of any military or naval officer on land or sea, showing the path to victory, and sending her plans and maps to the War Department, which adopted them. Thus, the tide of battle was turned, victory flew on the Union banner, and in line with the President's proclamation, the nation came together for a day of public thanksgiving.
But that woman never received recognition from the country for her services. The Military Committee of various Congresses has reported in her favor, but no bill securing her even a pension has ever been passed, and now she is dying or dead.
But that woman never got any recognition from the country for her contributions. The Military Committee of various Congresses has spoken out for her, but no bill to secure her even a pension has ever been approved, and now she is either dying or already dead.
In another column will be found the report of the Military Committee of the Forty-sixth Congress, in her favor, March, 1881, which as a matter of important history we give in full, hoping no reader will pass it by. Under the circumstances we shall be pardoned for giving an extract from a letter of Miss Carroll to the editor of the National Citizen, accompanied by a copy of this report.
In another column, you will find the report from the Military Committee of the Forty-sixth Congress, supporting her, dated March 1881. We are providing the full report here as it is an important piece of history, and we hope that no reader will overlook it. Given the circumstances, we believe it's acceptable to include an excerpt from a letter by Miss Carroll to the editor of the National Citizen, along with a copy of this report.
Miss Carroll says: "I am sure you retain your kind interest in the matter, and will be gratified by the last action of Congress, which is a complete recognition of my public service, on the part of military men; both Confederate and Union brigadiers belonging to the Military Committee."
Miss Carroll says: "I’m sure you still care about this issue, and you’ll be pleased by the recent decision of Congress, which fully acknowledges my public service from military personnel; both Confederate and Union brigadiers on the Military Committee."
While this bill was in no sense commensurable with the services rendered by Miss Carroll to the country, yet as the main point was conceded, it was believed it would secure one more consonant with justice at the next session of Congress.
While this bill didn't match the value of the services Miss Carroll provided to the country, it was thought that, since the main point was agreed upon, it would help achieve something more just at the next session of Congress.
The nation is mourning Garfield with the adulation generally given monarchs; General Grant is decorating his New York "palace" with countless costly gifts from home and abroad; yet a greater than both has fallen, and because she was a woman, she has gone to her great reward on high, unrecognized and unrewarded by the country she saved. Had it not been for her work, the names of James A. Garfield and of Ulysses S. Grant would never have emerged from obscurity. Women, remember that to one of your own sex the salvation of the country is due, and never forget to hold deep in your hearts, and to train your children to hold with reverence the name of Anna Ella Carroll.
The nation is mourning Garfield with the admiration usually reserved for kings; General Grant is adorning his New York "palace" with countless expensive gifts from near and far; yet someone greater than both has fallen, and because she was a woman, she has ascended to her great reward in silence, unrecognized and unrewarded by the country she saved. If it weren't for her efforts, the names of James A. Garfield and Ulysses S. Grant would have remained forgotten. Women, remember that the salvation of this country is thanks to one of your own, and always hold dear in your hearts, and teach your children to cherish the name of Anna Ella Carroll.
WOMEN AS SOLDIERS.
A Female Soldier.
There is a female here appealing for five months' back pay due her as a soldier in the army. Her name is Mary E. Wise. She is an orphan, without a blood relative in the world, and was a resident of Jefferson Township, Huntington County, Indiana, where she enlisted in the 34th Indiana Volunteers under the name of William Wise. She served two years and eighteen days as a private, participating in six of the heaviest engagements in the West, was wounded at Chicamauga and Lookout Mountain, at the latter place severely in the side. Upon the discovery of her sex, through her last wound, she was sent to her home in Indiana. When she arrived there, her step-mother refused her shelter, or to assist her in any way. Having five months' pay due from the Government, she started for Washington, in the hope of collecting it, arriving in this city on the 4th instant. Here her troubles have only increased. She can not get her pay. Her colonel probably, under the circumstances, not deeming it necessary, failed to give her a proper or formal discharge, with the necessary papers. In her difficulties she has, repeatedly, endeavored to refer her case to the President, but, not having influential friends to back her, she has been disappointed in all her efforts to see him, and the Department can pay her only upon proper or formal discharge papers, etc. So she is here, without friends or means, wholly dependent upon the bounty of the Sanitary Commission.
There’s a woman here asking for five months of back pay owed to her as a soldier in the army. Her name is Mary E. Wise. She’s an orphan with no relatives in the world, and she lived in Jefferson Township, Huntington County, Indiana, where she joined the 34th Indiana Volunteers under the name William Wise. She served two years and eighteen days as a private, taking part in six major battles in the West, and was injured at Chicamauga and Lookout Mountain, where she was seriously hurt in the side. After her last injury revealed her gender, she was sent back home to Indiana. When she got there, her stepmother refused to let her stay or offer any help. With five months of pay owed from the government, she traveled to Washington, hoping to collect it, arriving in the city on the 4th of this month. Unfortunately, her problems have only gotten worse. She still can’t get her pay. Her colonel, likely thinking it wasn’t necessary, didn’t give her a proper or formal discharge with the required paperwork. In her struggles, she has repeatedly tried to bring her case to the President, but without influential friends to support her, she has faced disappointment in all her attempts to meet him, and the Department can only pay her if she has the proper or formal discharge papers, etc. So, she’s here, without friends or resources, completely reliant on the charity of the Sanitary Commission.
NATIONAL FREEDMAN'S AID ASSOCIATION.
Josephine S. Griffing.
Washington, April 15, 1870.
Washington, April 15, 1870.
Lucretia Mott—My Dear Friend:—Feeling that the exact condition of the worn-out slaves now in this District could be better understood by a little explanation that I can make, and knowing that you desire the truth in this matter of life-long interest to[Pg 870] you, I desire to refer to the following facts, which I trust you will present to the meeting of Friends (Quakers) in Philadelphia who sympathize with you.
Lucretia Mott—My Dear Friend:—I believe that a brief explanation I can provide will give you a clearer picture of the current situation of the exhausted slaves in this District. I know you care deeply about this ongoing issue, so I want to share these facts with you. I hope you will bring them to the Friends (Quakers) meeting in Philadelphia where your supporters gather.
In the year 1864, when urging upon Senator Sumner and our friends in Congress, the necessity of a bureau that could afford special aid to the emancipated slaves, the great fact that the old people were suddenly turned out of the possibility of a subsistence, was recognized by all. Mr. Sumner, in his first speech putting the bill in passage, urged this as sufficient ground alone, if no other existed, which was not the case. From the time of the organization of the Bureau till now, their special claim has been recognized by Congress, and notwithstanding they received, in common with all the freed people of this District, an allowance made to each in rations, blankets, clothes, fuel, Government buildings, medical treatment, and monthly visitation; they also have each year received from Congress special aid in an appropriation because of their age and infirmity, many of them being helpless as infants, and all too far spent in slavery to labor for a support.
In 1864, while advocating to Senator Sumner and our allies in Congress for the need for an agency to provide special assistance to emancipated slaves, it was widely acknowledged that elderly individuals were suddenly left without any means of support. Mr. Sumner, in his initial speech to get the bill passed, pointed out that this situation alone was enough reason to act, though there were other valid reasons as well. From the establishment of the Bureau until now, Congress has recognized their unique needs, and even though they received, like all freed people in this District, supplies such as rations, blankets, clothing, fuel, access to government buildings, medical care, and monthly visits, they have also received additional financial support from Congress each year due to their age and poor health, with many of them being as helpless as infants and all too worn out from slavery to work and provide for themselves.
In providing for the able-bodied freed people, only partial support was intended by the Bureau, to bridge over the transition from slavery to freedom. Then education and the ballot, added to their own industrial resources, came in, and furnished them a basis for self-support and citizenship. The Bureau was no longer a necessary department in the Government for this class, and was abolished, without a substitute for the aged and worn-out slaves, though they were now older and more infirm, and had lost in this change houses, food, fuel, clothing, medical treatment, and, excepting myself, visiting agents.
In supporting the able-bodied freed people, the Bureau only planned to provide temporary assistance to help them transition from slavery to freedom. Education and the right to vote, along with their own job skills, provided them with a foundation for self-sufficiency and citizenship. The Bureau was no longer needed for this class and was shut down, without any alternative for the elderly and worn-out former slaves, even though they were now older and weaker, having lost homes, food, fuel, clothing, medical care, and, aside from myself, visiting agents.
Since the discontinuance of the Bureau, I have acted, as before its creation, as "best friend" and as agent of the National Freedman's Relief Association of this District, in the care of the old, crippled, blind, and broken-down, of whom I have at this time in number eleven hundred, not one of whom is able to earn for himself the necessaries of life. At this moment, at least one hundred and fifty broken-down slaves are at this office, covering all the porches, sitting on all the stairs, forming an almost impassable barrier to the entrances—all with a story of want in their faces; in fact of want, from "the crown of the head to the sole of the half-naked feet," and all eager to say, "We has nobody to go 'pon." An old woman ninety-one, sat on the steps just after the sun rose this morning, so tired, she looked a pitying sight for angels. "Can you let me stay anywhere?" she said. "I'se had no home dis winter; dey let me stay in de wash-room last night, but der wasn't any blanket, and 'pears I got chilled through." Upon investigation I found it was true she had no friend or relative, and had been going on the outskirts of the city begging among the colored people (poor as herself, except in shelter) a lodging, and often doing with almost nothing to eat for two or three days at a time. Perfectly disabled for life by weakness (so common among the old women of slavery) and the infirmities of ninety years of hard life. Through the noble efforts of Rachel W. M. Townsend in behalf of these poor human beings, I was able to give her a bedtick and twenty-five cents for straw to fill it, a comforter, and a place to stay in the house with two others of the same class, for whom we have all winter paid rental. What less than this would the loving Saviour of men have done for one like her? What less would you, who have battled half a century for her freedom, have done in a case like that? She has now a bed and comforter, no pillow, nor bedstead, and not one garment to change with the ragged and filthy ones that have served for day and night apparel, for bed and outdoor wrappings, the last three months. She has no resource for bread, in herself, and none but God to whom she can say, "Give" me "this day" my "daily bread". This woman represents at least two hundred persons in every way as destitute, who look to me for help. Another class of two hundred are in a similar state of destitution, with this exception, they are sheltered by a fellow-servant or distant relative, and sometimes furnished a bed, but nothing more, and none of these can labor.
Since the Bureau has been disbanded, I've continued to act, just like before it was created, as a "best friend" and as an agent of the National Freedman's Relief Association in this District, taking care of the elderly, disabled, blind, and destitute. Right now, I have about eleven hundred people on my hands, none of whom can earn the basic necessities of life. At this moment, at least one hundred and fifty disabled former slaves are in this office, filling all the porches, sitting on all the steps, creating an almost impassable barrier at the entrances—all with a look of need in their faces; in fact, they’re in need from "the crown of their head to the soles of their half-naked feet," and all eager to say, "We don’t have anyone to turn to." An old woman, ninety-one years old, sat on the steps just after sunrise this morning, looking so tired that she seemed a pitiable sight to angels. "Can you let me stay anywhere?" she asked. "I haven’t had a home this winter; they let me sleep in the washroom last night, but there weren’t any blankets, and I think I got chilled." After looking into her situation, I found out it was true she had no friends or family, and had been begging on the outskirts of the city among other Black people (who were just as poor as her, except for having some shelter) for a place to stay, often going without food for two or three days at a time. She was completely disabled for life by weakness (which is so common among elderly women from slavery) and the ailments of ninety years of hard living. Thanks to the generous efforts of Rachel W. M. Townsend on behalf of these unfortunate individuals, I was able to provide her with a bedtick and twenty-five cents for straw to fill it, a comforter, and a place to stay in the house with two others like her, for whom we have been paying rent all winter. What less than this would the loving Savior of humanity have done for someone like her? What less would you, who have fought for her freedom for half a century, have done in a situation like that? She now has a bed and comforter, but no pillow, or bedframe, and not one piece of clothing to change into from the ragged and filthy ones that have served for both day and night, as well as outdoor cover, for the last three months. She has no means to provide for herself, and only God to whom she can say, "Give me this day my daily bread." This woman represents at least two hundred others who are equally destitute and look to me for help. Another group of two hundred is in a similar state of poverty, with the exception that they are being sheltered by a fellow servant or distant relative, and sometimes provided with a bed, but nothing more, and none of them can work.
Two hundred more are equally destitute and as helpless, many of them as young children, needing the personal care that patients in our hospitals do, not excepting medical treatment and bathing. Add to these five hundred, who under the most favorable circumstances may, though do not generally, furnish their bread three months in the summer, by picking up bones and rags in the alleys and gutters, I believe I may safely say that out of the eleven hundred there are not one hundred who can do this, and pay house-rent[Pg 871] beside. And it must be remembered that none of these old people own a foot of ground in the city, or have a home they can call their own. A few of these only live with children, some of whom are also very old. Fanny Miner, one hundred and thirteen, lives with a daughter seventy-two. William Dennis, ninety-nine, lives with a daughter seventy-four. Anna Sauxter, one hundred and one, with a consumptive son of sixty, and has slept on an old table through the winter watching, as she says, two days and a night at one time, with no food at all. She was one of the slaves of Washington. Anna Ferguson, another of his slaves, emancipated when young, lives in a wretched garret, and has no one to give her a cup of water. She sent a child to me to-day, who said she went in to borrow some fire of "old auntie," and found her very sick, groaning with dreadful pain, with the message that she was perishing for something to eat; could I send her an Irish potato? She added in her message, "Tell her to come and see me, I'll not be here long."
Two hundred more people are just as poor and helpless, many of them as young as children, needing the personal care that patients in our hospitals require, including medical treatment and bathing. Along with these, there are five hundred others who, under the best conditions, might, though they usually don't, provide for themselves for three months in the summer by scavenging for bones and rags in the alleys and gutters. I can confidently say that out of the eleven hundred, fewer than one hundred can manage this and pay for their rent as well. It's important to note that none of these elderly people own any land in the city or have a home they can truly call their own. Only a few live with their children, some of whom are also quite old. Fanny Miner, who is one hundred and thirteen, lives with her seventy-two-year-old daughter. William Dennis, who is ninety-nine, lives with his daughter who is seventy-four. Anna Sauxter, at one hundred and one, lives with her sixty-year-old son who has tuberculosis and has slept on an old table through the winter, saying she sometimes stayed awake for two days and a night at a time with no food at all. She was one of Washington's slaves. Anna Ferguson, another slave of his who was freed when she was young, lives in a miserable attic and has no one to bring her even a cup of water. Today, she sent a child to me who said she went to ask "old auntie" for some fire and found her very sick, groaning in terrible pain, with the message that she was starving and needed something to eat; could I send her an Irish potato? She added in her message, "Tell her to come and see me, I won't be here long."
I have just now returned from a visit on "the Island," where I have seen twenty-seven of these helpless persons, a few cases of which (could you see them) would leave no doubt in your mind in reference to the necessity of a change from the present state of things. I saw enough in this visit to fill a book, and could tongue or pen describe it—to convince the mind of a savage—of terrible inhumanity and lack of all charity. The morning was sunny and clear, and old Aunt Clara and Uncle John sat on broken chairs, under the rude perch of a miserable shanty. He, tall and athletic, his long white beard and snow-white head, impressive as the type of venerable age, was putting Aunt Clara's foot into a soft shoe as carefully as though it was the last time it could be dressed. She 74, neat and velvet-faced, was stone blind, and so paralyzed that the slightest touch on the arm or hand made her spring and cry like a child. The shock put out both her eyes, and made her as helpless as an infant in all particulars.
I just got back from a visit to "the Island," where I saw twenty-seven of these helpless individuals. A few of the cases I witnessed would leave you with no doubt about the need for a change from the current situation. I saw enough during this visit to fill a book, and I could talk or write about it—to convince even the most hardened person—about the terrible inhumanity and utter lack of compassion. The morning was bright and clear, and old Aunt Clara and Uncle John were sitting on broken chairs under the crude roof of a shabby shack. He was tall and fit, with a long white beard and snow-white hair, looking impressive as a symbol of age, carefully putting a soft shoe on Aunt Clara's foot as if it were the last time he could do so. At 74, she was neat and had a velvet-like complexion but was completely blind and so paralyzed that the slightest touch on her arm or hand made her flinch and cry out like a child. The shock had blinded her and left her as helpless as an infant in every way.
For one year she has been unable to feed herself, undress, or to do anything to relieve the monotony of utter helplessness. He had brought her out in the sun, there was no window in their room, and had spread a cloth on her lap, as she said, hoping somebody would come along who would comb her hair. Uncle John was 14, he says, when Washington died. Not a child or a friend to go to them, there they stay. They said they had nothing to eat last night, and were often two days without a pint of meal, and nothing like food in the house, for the old man said, "When mamma has her 'poor turns', I never leaves her, and nobody ever feeds her but me, or dresses or undresses her." I shall not forget how the tears dropped from her face, as she told the story of her life. "A woman once, but nobody now, comfort all gone, and hungry and cold the rest of my days." Her mind was unimpaired, and her faith unwavering.
For a year, she hasn't been able to feed herself, get dressed, or do anything to break the boredom of complete helplessness. He’d taken her outside in the sun since their room didn’t have a window, and laid a cloth on her lap, hoping someone would come by to comb her hair. Uncle John was 14, he says, when Washington died. With no child or friend to visit them, there they stay. They mentioned they had nothing to eat last night and often went two days without even a pint of meal, with no food at all in the house, because the old man said, "When Mama has her 'poor turns,' I never leave her, and nobody else feeds or dresses her." I will never forget how the tears fell from her face as she recounted her life story. "A woman once, but nobody now, all comfort gone, and hungry and cold for the rest of my days." Her mind was sharp, and her faith was strong.
Henry and Milly Lang were two squares away; persons between sixty and seventy, living in a shanty used in time of the war as a stable. For five years they have lived there, paying, in all but the last two months, four dollars a month rent. Milly is also stone blind, and sick and helpless. They were in great distress, had no food in the house, for Henry has hip disease, and for eleven weeks has not walked a step. On every side I could look through the open boards, and when the last storms came, they said the rain came down on the whole floor, covering it, so they sat on the pallet all day. The landlord has ordered them to leave the house in five days, to put in a cow instead! Friendless, homeless, penniless!!! and yet must eat or die. Three of those I saw were over one hundred—one had five children, when Washington died, lived in his county. Sixteen were over seventy. Not one of them had a child in this city. Five were over 80; and all of these whom I saw were as dependent as infants.
Henry and Milly Lang lived just two blocks away; they were between sixty and seventy years old and stayed in a run-down place that had been used as a stable during the war. They had lived there for five years, paying four dollars a month in rent, except for the last two months. Milly is completely blind, sick, and unable to take care of herself. They were in serious trouble, with no food in the house, because Henry has a hip disease and hasn’t been able to walk for eleven weeks. I could see straight through the broken boards on every side, and when the last storm hit, they said the rain soaked the entire floor, so they just sat on the pallet all day. The landlord has told them to leave the house in five days, to put in a cow instead! They are friendless, homeless, and broke!!! and still have to eat or they’ll die. Three of the people I saw were over one hundred—one of them had five kids when Washington died, living in his county. Sixteen were over seventy. None of them had a child in this city. Five were over 80; and all of them I saw were as helpless as infants.
Johnny Scraper sat in rags, paralyzed from the top of his head to the soles of his feet, alone in a six-by-ten-foot room, unable to walk a step, yet is left entirely alone, sometimes for three days. If he has anything brought in to eat, he thanks God; if not, he must do without it. Tuesday and Saturday night he says a fellow-servant, living in a distant part of the city, came to see him, and sometimes brought a piece of fish or meat; this is all the chance he has for anything, except a little meal or dry bread. Every one of these old people complained that they were dying for some meat—were so weak. Aunt Dinah said that she went out on the street last week and begged of the school children, who gave her seven cents, and she went into a grocery to buy a piece of meat, and received[Pg 872] there five cents more. "Oh!" said she, "how that strengthened me, it lasted me three days."
Johnny Scraper sat in rags, paralyzed from head to toe, alone in a six-by-ten-foot room, unable to take a single step, and often left completely alone for up to three days. If someone brings him food, he thanks God; if not, he goes without. On Tuesday and Saturday nights, a fellow worker from a part of the city far away comes to see him and sometimes brings a piece of fish or meat; that’s his only hope for anything more than a small meal or dry bread. All these elderly people complained that they were dying for some meat—they felt so weak. Aunt Dinah said she went out on the street last week and begged the school kids, who gave her seven cents, and then she went into a grocery store to buy a piece of meat, receiving[Pg 872] there five cents more. "Oh!" she said, "how that gave me strength; it lasted me three days."
I might go on and fill the sheet with incidents of these extremely aged pilgrims and strangers in this city, for whom nobody cares. But I should fail to convey to you any just idea of what they suffer, because you can see there is no parallel to their status. In no city on the globe can you find a people to whom the words of Wood (I think it is) so well apply—"paupers whom nobody owns." You must see them as they are to believe.
I could fill this page with stories about these very old pilgrims and strangers in this city who are completely overlooked. But I wouldn't be able to truly express what they endure, as there's really no comparison to their situation. In no city anywhere can you find a group of people to whom Wood's words (I think that's who said it) resonate so perfectly—"paupers whom nobody owns." You need to see them as they are to believe.
The Government says, "They need provisions, let the city be taxed." The city says, "We care for the multitude of legitimate paupers of the Government—pensioners, who die waiting for their claims, but these are special wards, brought to the capital by special legislation, not any of them voluntary residents. We are unable to provide for this surplus of poor." Turning to the people of the country, they say, "We have given them their freedom, let them take care of themselves!" To the Abolitionists, and they rebuke us for listening to their cry, and say, "It is no more than must be expected; let them alone and they will die off." Even the loudest professors have said to me, "As long as you will take care of these poor old creatures, so long you may; there are plenty of others to come." So turn which way we may, we are met with coldness and distrust.
The government says, "They need support, so let the city be taxed." The city responds, "We care for the many legitimate needy people of the government—pensioners who die waiting for their claims, but these are special cases brought to the capital by specific laws, none of whom are voluntary residents. We can't provide for this overflow of poor people." Turning to the people of the country, they say, "We've given them their freedom, so let them take care of themselves!" To the Abolitionists, they criticize us for heeding their plea and say, "It's only to be expected; if we leave them alone, they'll just fade away." Even the most vocal experts have told me, "As long as you want to care for these poor old individuals, you can; there will be plenty more coming." No matter which way we turn, we face coldness and distrust.
I come now to you, and ask what is our duty to these worn-out slaves, whose labor we have enjoyed in the general prosperity, and whose destiny on earth we have fixed by legislation, over which they could have no control? In old age we have taken from their homes these people, and calling them "free," we have said to them, "Be ye warmed and clothed," and then gone on our way. Had I, like most others, have been so fortunate as not to have met these old people, on the day of arrival here as they came out from slavery, nor have listened to the thousand witnesses, that have each day testified to utter inability to live without charity, as a practical relief, I might as easily as they, perhaps, satisfy my conscience by the above reasoning; but one thing is sure, whoever stands in my place will find no half-way measure will answer. They can not look these people in the face, as they come, averaging under the present arrangements of the Secretary of War two hundred a day, to ask for bread and wood, and clothes and shoes and shelter, and bed and blanket and medicine, not one of whom can be satisfied without food.
I come to you now and ask: what is our duty to these worn-out slaves, whose labor we've enjoyed for our own prosperity, and whose fate we've determined through laws that they had no say in? In their old age, we've taken these people from their homes, and calling them "free," we've told them, "Be warm and well-dressed," then we’ve walked away. If I had been as fortunate as most not to have encountered these elderly individuals on the day they emerged from slavery, or to have listened to the countless testimonies from those who daily prove they cannot survive without charity, I might also find it easy to quiet my conscience with such reasoning. But one thing is certain: whoever stands in my position will realize that no half-measures will suffice. They cannot look these people in the eyes as they come, averaging under the current arrangement of the Secretary of War two hundred a day, asking for bread, wood, clothing, shoes, shelter, bedding, blankets, and medicine—none of whom can be satisfied without food.
One of the most distressing days we have seen was last Tuesday, when two hundred and fifty all broken down, stood and sat, three long hours, waiting and hoping that the Commissary would send bread or rations, but none came, and we could get only twenty-five loaves for them. Many came from the suburbs of the town, some from over the river, not less than five miles away, and had left an aged companion and orphan grandchildren on the alert for their return, with something for a dinner or a meal. But nothing came; and yet, as they left with sorrow in their faces, that almost breaks my heart to think of, in their meek way one after another said, "You'se done all you could, Honey, we'll do the best we can, and come again to-morrow."
One of the most distressing days we've experienced was last Tuesday, when two hundred and fifty people all broken down, stood and sat, for three long hours, waiting and hoping that the Commissary would send bread or supplies, but none came, and we could only get twenty-five loaves for them. Many came from the suburbs of the town, some from across the river, at least five miles away, and had left an elderly friend and orphaned grandchildren waiting for their return, with something for dinner or a meal. But nothing came; and yet, as they left with sorrow on their faces, which breaks my heart to think about, in their humble way one after another said, "You've done all you could, Honey, we'll do the best we can, and come back tomorrow."
You see, these people must eat. Bread must be furnished every day, rain or shine, hot or cold. I ask what is our duty? Will God perform a miracle to feed this multitude? I can not ask you, "Is it safe to leave them in the hands of the Government or the city?" I have for six years plead, as for the life of them, with both. None but God knows how earnestly I have laid their claims before officials in the highest departments. By the greatest efforts, and with the sympathy of a small number of friends, who in Congress see with us, and have from the beginning, that the repudiation of this claim must call down upon the Nation the just judgments of heaven, we have secured the special appropriations up to this time.
You see, these people need to eat. Bread has to be provided every day, no matter the weather. I ask, what is our responsibility? Will God perform a miracle to feed this crowd? I can’t ask you, "Is it safe to leave them in the hands of the Government or the city?" For six years, I have pleaded, as if it were for their lives, with both. No one but God knows how earnestly I have presented their needs to officials in the highest offices. Through the greatest efforts and with the support of a small group of friends in Congress who have understood our cause from the start—and who know that ignoring this claim must bring the rightful judgments of heaven upon the Nation—we have secured the special appropriations up to this point.
The history of the past warns us that unless the people, their constituents at home, recognize this duty, and work with us more earnestly by organized effort, and generous heartfelt contributions, the Government will ignore their claim altogether. Indeed I trembled at the prospect of this immediate result. Excepting the few noble men and women whose sympathy and aid I would have, and ever pronounce unparalleled in the history of benevolent work—but for these, Congress might well say, "The people do not demand it. They do nothing, why should we?" If you say, "Provision must be made[Pg 873] for them, they must not be left to starve and die, like Andersonville prisoners," then let us agree upon the best measures to relieve them, and put an end to the system of slow starvation under which so many have this winter suffered and died.
The history of the past warns us that unless the people and their constituents at home recognize this responsibility and work with us more seriously through organized efforts and generous contributions, the government will completely overlook their claims. Honestly, I was shaken by the thought of that immediate outcome. Aside from a few noble men and women whose support I would have, which I would always call unparalleled in the history of charitable work—but for these, Congress might as well say, "The people aren’t asking for it. They aren't doing anything, so why should we?" If you argue, "We need to make arrangements for them; we can't let them starve and die like the prisoners in Andersonville," then let's come together to agree on the best ways to assist them and end the terrible situation of slow starvation that so many have endured and perished from this winter.
We need and must have a hospital-home building to gather in the scattered, helpless ones, who now live alone, and in distant localities. With such an institution we could with far greater economy than ever before, provide for them all. But I have trespassed too long upon your patience. I thank you and all the friends in Philadelphia for timely aid during the past winter, and trust you will lay this before your yearly meeting soon to convene, as an appeal for help in the future. Hoping to hear what you think is our duty in this emergency,
We need and must have a hospital-home building to bring together the scattered, vulnerable individuals who are currently living alone and far away. With such an institution, we could provide for them all much more efficiently than ever before. But I have taken up too much of your time. I thank you and all the friends in Philadelphia for the timely support during the past winter, and I hope you will present this to your upcoming yearly meeting as a request for future assistance. I look forward to hearing what you believe our responsibility is in this situation.
Josephine S. Griffing.
Josephine S. Griffing.
Faithfully and lovingly,
Faithfully and lovingly,
Roadside, near Philada. 5mo. 1st. '70.
Roadside, near Philada. 5mo. 1st. '70.
My Dear Josephine:—Thy several sheets were duly received and read with heartfelt and thrilling attention. It may seem neglectful that no acknowledgment has been made before.
My Dear Josephine:—I received your letters and read them with sincere and excited interest. It might seem careless that I haven’t acknowledged them sooner.
I have waited hoping to have more than a mere acknowledgment. I took the letter to our meeting, and added somewhat to the appeal made the week before, by our earnest, truly sympathetic R. W. M. Townsend.
I have waited, hoping for more than just a mere acknowledgment. I brought the letter to our meeting and built upon the appeal made the week before by our sincere and genuinely sympathetic R. W. M. Townsend.
Just at this time the approach of our yearly meeting, the claims of the Indians under the care of our Friends, the freedmen's schools at the South, also under our care—for whom thousands have been raised—and the Swarthmore College, just reporting its great need to pay off a debt, etc. All these pressing their claims, of course make it more difficult to collect beyond our city poor, who are ever appealing to us—many of whom also suffering from the effects of cruel slavery. Still thy account was too harrowing to be cast aside, and a few men took hold of it and called a meeting. So I will enclose the small sum of $20, which thou doubtless will find use for.
Just as we approach our annual meeting, we have the needs of the Native Americans under our Friends' care, the freedmen's schools in the South that we also support—where thousands have been raised—and Swarthmore College, which is reporting its urgent need to settle a debt, etc. All of these pressing claims make it harder to collect beyond our city’s poor, who are always reaching out to us—many of whom are still suffering from the effects of terrible slavery. Still, your account was too distressing to overlook, and a few men took action and called a meeting. So I will enclose a small amount of $20, which I’m sure you will find useful.
I was sorry not to have time to speak to thee before leaving that Fifth Avenue Woman Suffrage Meeting. My daughter, fearing we should miss the cars to take us twelve miles to her children at Orange, rather hurried me away.
I was sorry I didn’t have time to talk to you before leaving that Fifth Avenue Woman Suffrage Meeting. My daughter, worried we would miss the trains to take us twelve miles to her kids in Orange, rushed me away.
I can not be in New York again now. Our yearly meeting occurs in Anniversary Week. My son, Edward M. Davis, took thy letter to have a copy taken before returning it to thee. He thought he might make some use of it for the benefit of those poor, aged sufferers.
I can't be in New York right now. Our annual meeting takes place during Anniversary Week. My son, Edward M. Davis, took your letter to get a copy made before returning it to you. He thought he might find some use for it to help those poor, elderly people.
Lucretia Mott.
Lucretia Mott.
Thine in haste and affectionately,
Thine in haste and affectionately,
Letters to Mrs. Stebbins.
Letters to Mrs. Stebbins.
Emily Robinson, of Salem, Ohio, writes me that Mrs. Griffing "was for several years the honored, loved, and trusted agent of the Western Anti-Slavery Society. The fact is indelibly graven on my heart that she was one of the most faithful and indefatigable laborers in the Anti-Slavery cause; she brought a great mother-heart to the work. Under fearful discouragement, she was ever strong and persevering. I do hope that you knew her, even better than I did, and that the history will be a success. Be sure of my heartiest and kindliest sympathy. It is a beautiful work—the effort to preserve and embalm the memories of the sweet-souled moral heroes in special reforms, those in which we have been pioneers, though scores go out of life without, in the book of God's remembrance they are gathered, and their work will bear harvest forever and ever."
Emily Robinson, from Salem, Ohio, writes to me that Mrs. Griffing "was for several years a respected, beloved, and trusted representative of the Western Anti-Slavery Society. It’s firmly etched in my heart that she was one of the most dedicated and tireless workers in the Anti-Slavery movement; she brought a large, compassionate heart to the work. Despite daunting discouragement, she was always strong and persistent. I really hope you knew her even better than I did, and that the history will be a success. You can count on my heartfelt and warm support. It’s a beautiful effort—the attempt to preserve and honor the memories of the morally upright heroes in special reforms, those in which we have been trailblazers, even though many leave this life unnoticed; in God’s book of remembrance, they are gathered, and their work will reap rewards forever and ever."
Mrs. Griffing's daughter says in a letter: "Mother lived till Feb. 18, 1872, and no one can ever know how faithfully she worked for every one but herself. Her very last words were, as she dropped her tired arms by her side, 'I have done the best I could,' and we knew she had."
Mrs. Griffing's daughter writes in a letter: "Mom lived until February 18, 1872, and no one will ever understand how hard she worked for everyone but herself. Her very last words were, as she let her tired arms fall by her side, 'I have done the best I could,' and we all knew she had."
Death of Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing.—Yesterday morning, at two o'clock, Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing departed to a higher life. A woman of rare beauty of character, of uncommon executive capacity and judgment, and ever inspired by a beautiful and self-sacrificing charity, she had warm friends among the best men and women, eminent in character, influence, and position, and a host of devoted friends also among the poor and aged freed people, to whom for years she has been a daily angel of mercy. Accomplished and cultivated, she has devoted herself to the wants of the poorest of the poor, visiting their homes and ministering to their wants with her own hands. She has disbursed many[Pg 874] thousands of dollars and a large amount of food and clothing furnished by the Government and by private benevolence, and done all wisely and well and for long periods of time without material fee or reward.
Death of Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing.—Yesterday morning, at two o'clock, Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing passed away to a better life. A woman of exceptional character, remarkable leadership, and sound judgment, she was always driven by a spirit of beautiful and selfless charity. She had close friendships with outstanding individuals known for their character, influence, and position, as well as countless devoted friends among the poor and elderly freed people, whom she had been a daily source of support for many years. Accomplished and well-educated, she dedicated herself to the needs of the most vulnerable, visiting their homes and helping them directly. She distributed many[Pg 874] thousands of dollars and a significant amount of food and clothing provided by the Government and private generosity, all managed wisely and effectively over long periods without any expectation of payment or reward.
Rarely, indeed, do we find such tender charity, such ability for continuous labor, and such spiritual beauty of life as hers, and her departure is no doubt the result of her too severe and self-sacrificing career of good works.
Rarely do we come across such genuine kindness, such dedication to hard work, and such inner beauty of spirit as hers, and her passing is undoubtedly the consequence of her intense and selfless commitment to doing good.
From 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. to-day the remains may be seen by her many friends at her late home, on Capitol Hill, and to-night her daughters go with all that is mortal of a most tender and loving mother to the family burial-place in her native town of Hebron, Conn.—Washington Chronicle.
From 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. today, her friends can visit her remains at her former home on Capitol Hill. Tonight, her daughters will take the earthly remains of their very loving mother to the family burial place in her hometown of Hebron, Connecticut.—Washington Chronicle.
Mrs. Griffing to Catharine F. Stebbins.
Mrs. Griffing to Catharine F. Stebbins.
Washington, June 27, 1870.
Washington, June 27, 1870.
My Dear Mrs. Stebbins:—Yours so kind and interesting came duly, and I thank you. I am sure you have seen how some genius, greater, more powerful than myself control me and forbids me to seek enjoyment in human friendships. If you comprehend my life, you will pardon long silence of the lips, and join me in the prayer, that the poor all taken into "Abraham's bosom," I may enjoy those I love, in heaven. I am pained when I think that not only you, but my dear father in his affliction, has been neglected, for it is now four long weeks since I have written a word of love and consolation to him. But the days are so full of work, and the nights of thinking, that all my vitality seems to be in requisition, and I sometimes think there is no reserve force left in me. Oh, how I wish our Christianity would be true to itself, and take to its heart the great questions of humanity, then would I turn over a precious few of the starving old people now calling upon God and me for their support, to churches, and enter the field for woman.
My Dear Mrs. Stebbins:—Your kind and interesting letter arrived safely, and I appreciate it. I know you’ve noticed how some greater, more powerful genius holds sway over me and keeps me from seeking joy in human connections. If you understand my life, you will excuse my long silence and join me in the hope that I will eventually enjoy the company of those I love in heaven, along with all the poor who are welcomed into "Abraham's bosom." It pains me to realize that not only you, but also my dear father in his suffering, has been neglected, especially since it’s been four long weeks since I’ve sent him any words of love and comfort. However, my days are filled with work, and my nights with thoughts, leaving me feeling drained and sometimes as if there’s no energy left in me. Oh, how I wish our Christianity would truly embrace the important issues facing humanity; if so, I would gladly turn over a few of the suffering elderly who are now calling out to God and me for help to the churches and dedicate myself to the cause of women.
How grandly the tide is lashing the shore on both sides of the Atlantic, and its voice is the voice of God, commanding once more that ye "let my people go, that they may serve me." Only the foam and the surge are seen to-day—"Woman and the Ballot." But there is overturning and upheaving below, and the great depths shall ere long become the surface, and what is now seen in the social realm and believed in, as a religious creed, must enter into the formation, geologically conforming to fossilization and decay; so the last shall be first, and the first last. The last half century is a grand prophecy. How slavery went down, carrying away social and religious systems with it! There they lie, like dust and ashes in the rear. None are found so poor and benighted as to do homage at their shrine. It was the moral agitation that gave spiritual birth to the race enslaved. I remember to have felt great impatience at the tardy and conservative elements that entered into the struggle side by side with the radical leaders of 1845, when to me the issue was not with the Constitution, nor even with the pulpit, nor the Bible, but with Justice. It was man to man, stripped of all but the Divine within him. The lessons of moral and political formation in its slow but certain work, come to strengthen me now. To my mind the issue of to-day in the woman cause is clearly not what Paul taught and thought, nor what God has settled upon her as her dower, nor what the marriage contract makes her, but it is woman as a beneficent genius, next to the angels, against woman below the beasts, in human society under the heel of the Law, in the arms of brute force, crushed to death with passion and lust. Lucy Stone has made it obvious to the world that six plates, six teacups and saucers, and a guardian for her children, at the time of her husband's death, are not her only legitimate property. Mrs. Stanton goes further, and declares that not alone is her property sacred, and must be restored to her, but that personal freedom, subject to the Moral Law, not to the law of Society, nor of Government, if those powers contravene or interfere with God's Law as it is written in her own constitution.
How powerfully the tide is crashing against the shore on both sides of the Atlantic, and its voice echoes the command of God, once again telling us to "let my people go, that they may serve me." Today, we only see the foam and the surge—"Woman and the Ballot." But underneath, there is a great upheaval, and soon the deep will become the surface, and what's currently visible and accepted in the social realm, seen as a religious creed, must undergo a transformation, resembling the process of fossilization and decay; thus, the last shall be first, and the first last. The last fifty years stand as a powerful prophecy. Look how slavery was defeated, dragging down social and religious systems with it! They now lie in the past, like dust and ashes. No one is so poor and misguided as to worship at their altar. It was the moral struggle that gave spiritual life to the enslaved race. I remember feeling immense frustration with the slow and conservative forces that joined the fight alongside the radical leaders of 1845, when to me, the issue was not about the Constitution, the pulpit, or the Bible, but about Justice. It was man to man, stripped of everything but the Divine within him. The lessons of moral and political development, in their slow yet certain progress, strengthen me now. To me, the issue today in the women's cause is clearly not about what Paul taught or believed, nor what God has determined to give her, nor what the marriage contract defines her as, but it is about woman as a powerful force, second only to angels, versus woman who is treated worse than beasts, in society crushed by the Law, held down by brute force, suffocated by passion and lust. Lucy Stone has made it clear to the world that six plates, six teacups and saucers, and a guardian for her children, at the time of her husband’s death, are not her only rightful possessions. Mrs. Stanton goes further, asserting that not only is her property sacred and must be returned to her, but that personal freedom, subject to the Moral Law, not to the laws of Society or Government, especially if those powers oppose or interfere with God's Law as it is written in her own nature.
In so much as woman is endowed by the Creator with the most loving and beneficent genius or nature capable of enduring the agonies of many deaths, to give life to many souls, in so much she is entitled to command, not left to obey. So says Mrs. Stanton; I agree with her. Both Lucy Stone and Mrs. Stanton are skilled workmen. Both representative women; representing the two wings in the cause of woman's freedom.
As much as woman is gifted by the Creator with a loving and nurturing nature that can endure many hardships to give life to others, she deserves to lead, not just follow. That's what Mrs. Stanton says, and I agree with her. Both Lucy Stone and Mrs. Stanton are talented advocates. They represent two key aspects of the movement for women's freedom.
You speak of Mrs. Stanton's view in the McFarland-Richardson case. I knew but little of the real character of Mrs. Richardson, but if what is acknowledged to be true of[Pg 875] his,—I do agree with Mrs. S. in declaring this case a forcible argument—not against marriage,—such a thing can not be—but against the marriage contract, as interpreted in the courts. What a burlesque upon insanity! Poor Minnie Gaines, the colored girl who shot her seducer the other day, in my neighborhood, was cleared upon as doubtful insanity as McFarland's, and she enjoys the benefit of the doubt in the insane asylum, where she will remain unquestionably for a term of years; why does this man "go at large"? Neither of the Associations, nor journals, are ready to assume the high ground that Mrs. Stanton standing alone and leading, as she always has on this question, can and will do. With all my heart, I pray that true women and the angels will stand by and sustain her in this noble daring.
You mention Mrs. Stanton's perspective on the McFarland-Richardson case. I didn’t know much about Mrs. Richardson, but if what’s acknowledged about[Pg 875] him is true, I agree with Mrs. S. that this case is a strong argument—not against marriage, because that’s not possible—but against the marriage contract as it’s interpreted in court. What a parody of insanity! Poor Minnie Gaines, the Black woman who shot her attacker recently in my neighborhood, was found not guilty by reason of dubious insanity, just like McFarland, and she gets to stay in the mental hospital, where she will definitely be for several years; why does this man "go at large"? Neither of the Associations nor the journals are willing to take the strong stance that Mrs. Stanton, standing alone and leading as she always has on this issue, can and will do. With all my heart, I hope that true women and the angels support her in this brave endeavor.
Our work (the Freedman's work) is as usual, every day painfully interesting and compensating. No money comes yet, and I have to raise some $2,000 soon, or lose our delightful home. (Yes, it is delightful). We have a bad city government, the colored people begin to feel the old rebel spirit. Hundreds thrown out of work, and I have nothing to hope from the City Council to compensate for my work. Some good friend said a few days since, that Congress would, if persons of influence would ask it, pay me. Now would Mr. Ward with Mr. Wade, do this, and so let me breathe and live? or not?
Our work (the Freedman's work) is as usual, every day painfully interesting and rewarding. No money has come in yet, and I need to raise about $2,000 soon, or we’ll lose our wonderful home. (Yes, it really is wonderful). We have a terrible city government, and the Black community is starting to feel that old rebellious spirit again. Hundreds are out of work, and I can’t expect any support from the City Council for my efforts. A good friend mentioned a few days ago that if influential people asked, Congress might pay me. So, will Mr. Ward and Mr. Wade do this for me, allowing me to breathe and live? Or not?
We can not go out of the city this summer. You will be in Philadelphia at the Decade meeting I hope, and I shall rejoice to be there too. You see the Peace Society is in "hot water" over the McFarland-Richardson discussion in the Band of Peace.
We can't leave the city this summer. I hope you'll be in Philadelphia for the Decade meeting, and I’ll be happy to be there too. You see, the Peace Society is in "hot water" over the McFarland-Richardson discussion in the Band of Peace.
Thermometer stood at 107° yesterday, and very hot to-day. Write when you can, and believe me ever your attached friend,
Thermometer hit 107° yesterday, and it's really hot today. Write when you can, and trust that I'm always your devoted friend,
J. S. Griffing.
J. S. Griffing.
THE WOMAN'S LOYAL LEAGUE.
Letters in Response to the Call for Meeting of the Loyal Women of the Country.
Letters in Reply to the Invitation for a Gathering of the Devoted Women of the Nation.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Hampton, N. H., May 4, 1863.
Hampton, N. H., May 4, 1863.
Miss Anthony—Dear Madam:—I cheerfully respond to the call, published in The Liberator, to the loyal women of the North, to meet on the 14th inst. I am sensible that you will have responses from many whose words will be more potent, and who can do braver deeds than I can do. But I want to add my feeble testimony, notwithstanding, to encourage this first effort of American women, in a national capacity, to sustain the Government, and help guide it through the perils which threaten its existence, thus demonstrating not only their loyalty, but their ability to understand its genius; the quickness of their perception of the cause and also of the remedies of the dangers which imperil the nation; and also their fitness to be admitted to take part in its deliberations. Not long since, men here at the North—loyal men—men who were not in favor of slavery, denied that they had any responsibility in regard to its existence. Marvelous, that they could not see that slavery is a moral pestilence, poisoning all the fountains of society, spreading infections over all the nation. Now the war teaches them that they have a responsibility, and that it would have been better had they seen it earlier. The right to take any responsibility in regard to it was denied to woman; it was out of her sphere; it ran into politics, which were unfit for woman, and into governmental affairs, which she was supposed incompetent to comprehend. But this painful hour of warfare crowds home upon us the conviction that woman's interests equally with man's are imperiled—private as well as public, individual as well as social. She must not only consent to the sacrifice of husbands and sons falling in their blood on the enemy's ground; but failing to conquer them there, these enemies are eager to change the scene of action, transfer the battle-field to our own doors, spread death and devastation, and then establish slavery as a legacy to us. Yes, let it be shown and sent home to the hearts of those who shall meet, that woman is equally interested and responsible with man in the final settlement of this problem of self-government.
Miss Anthony—Dear Madam:—I'm happy to respond to the call published in The Liberator for the loyal women of the North to gather on the 14th. I know many will speak more powerfully and can accomplish bolder actions than I can. However, I still want to add my small voice to support this first effort of American women, on a national level, to uphold the Government and help steer it through the dangers it faces, showing not only their loyalty but also their ability to grasp its essence; their quick understanding of both the cause of the dangers that threaten the nation and the solutions to those dangers; and their readiness to participate in its discussions. Not long ago, loyal men here in the North—men who opposed slavery—claimed they had no responsibility for its existence. It's astonishing that they couldn't see that slavery is a moral plague, tainting all aspects of society and spreading illness throughout the nation. Now, the war is teaching them that they do have a responsibility and that it would have been better had they recognized this sooner. Women were denied any responsibility regarding it; it was outside their realm; it delved into politics, which were deemed unsuitable for women, and into government affairs, which they were thought incapable of understanding. But this painful time of war drives home the realization that women’s interests are just as threatened as men’s—personal as well as public, individual as well as social. Women must not only endure the sacrifice of husbands and sons falling on the battlefield but, if they fail to conquer the enemy there, these foes are eager to shift the battleground to our own doorsteps, bringing death and destruction, and then leaving slavery as a legacy. Yes, let's make it clear and resonate in the hearts of those who gather that women share equal interest and responsibility with men in the ultimate resolution of this self-government issue.
Wishing that the women of every State may be largely represented by earnest and[Pg 876] faithful representatives, able to give wise counsel and efficient action, I am very cordially with you in spirit,
Wishing that the women of every State may be well represented by passionate and[Pg 876] dedicated representatives, capable of providing wise advice and taking effective action, I wholeheartedly support you in spirit,
Clarissa G. Olds.
Clarissa G. Olds.
Bradford, N. H., May 10, 1863.
Bradford, N. H., May 10, 1863.
Mrs. Stanton—My Dear Madam:—I thank you for myself, and for thousands of women in our State, who may perhaps remain silent, for the clarion call you have rung through the land for a convention of the loyal women of the nation, to be held at New York on the 14th of the present month. God bless you for the rallying cry, and may there be such a gathering of patriotic women as the times demand. I trust the women of our State will be well and largely represented. I must believe that the women nurtured among our granite hills are ready for all earnest work and brave self-sacrifice, to help bear up and on the banner of freedom, till it waves in victory over all our beloved country. I wish you a hearty God-speed in all noble and patriotic efforts.
Mrs. Stanton—My Dear Madam:—I thank you on my behalf and on behalf of thousands of women in our State who might remain silent, for the powerful call you have sent across the nation for a convention of the loyal women of the country, set to take place in New York on the 14th of this month. God bless you for this rallying cry, and I hope there will be a gathering of patriotic women that meets the demands of our times. I trust that the women from our State will be well represented. I believe that the women raised among our granite hills are ready for dedicated work and brave self-sacrifice, to support the cause of freedom until it triumphs throughout our beloved country. I wish you great success in all your noble and patriotic efforts.
Mary J. Tappan.
Mary J. Tappan.
Truly yours,
Truly yours,
Debry, N. H.
Debry, N. H.
We rejoice in your call to the women of our country to do something, in the great hour of her peril. They are generally too indifferent to her success or failure, lack zeal and earnestness, and need enlightenment on the true state of this contest. It is not a mere matter of triumph of arms, but of principle, which will affect us and future generations.
We celebrate your call for the women of our country to take action in this critical time of danger. They are often too apathetic about her success or failure, lacking passion and seriousness, and need to be informed about the true nature of this struggle. This is not just about winning battles, but about principles that will impact us and future generations.
H. T. and M. Adams.
H. T. and M. Adams.
VERMONT.
Randolph, Vt., May 9, a.d. 1863.
Randolph, Vt., May 9, a.d. 1863.
The Ladies of Randolph to the Loyal Ladies assembled at New York, send Greeting:—
The Ladies of Randolph send greetings to the Loyal Ladies gathered in New York:—
Thrillingly interested in all that concerns the great cause in which we, who love the inheritance our fathers bought for us at such a price of life and treasure, are now all embarked, the ladies of our Association desire, on this occasion, to manifest their oneness of spirit with you for everything that may promote loyal devotion to our country.
Thrilled by everything related to the important cause we, who cherish the legacy our fathers secured for us at such a great cost of life and resources, are now all involved in, the women of our Association want to express their unity of spirit with you for anything that encourages loyal dedication to our country.
We who have offered up on her altars what is dearer to us than life—our fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers—so that almost every home has made its sacrifice, and the blood of many from among us has already been shed, while others come back crippled for life—need hardly tell you that we are of one heart and mind with them, and ready to be bound and offered up too.
We who have given up what means more to us than life—our fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers—so that nearly every home has made its sacrifice, and many of us have already shed blood, while others return permanently injured—hardly need to say that we share their feelings and are prepared to be bound and sacrificed as well.
May the God of our fathers hear our cry, and save our beloved country from those who would destroy all her liberties.
May the God of our ancestors hear our plea and protect our beloved country from those who seek to take away all her freedoms.
Mrs. R. Parkinson.
Mrs. R. Parkinson.
Very truly yours,
Very truly yours,
In behalf of the Ladies' Aid Society.
On behalf of the Ladies' Aid Society.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Pittsfield, May 12, 1863.
Pittsfield, May 12, 1863.
Miss Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:—In response to the thrilling and patriotic address of Mrs. "E. C. Stanton on behalf of the Women's Central Committee," accompanying the "Call for a Meeting of the Loyal Women of the Nation on the 14th inst.," I beg leave to say that my heart is with you in the great work of crushing the rebellion.
Miss Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:—In response to the inspiring and patriotic speech by Mrs. "E. C. Stanton on behalf of the Women's Central Committee," along with the "Call for a Meeting of the Loyal Women of the Nation on the 14th inst.," I want to express that my heart is with you in the important effort to defeat the rebellion.
Our strength, clearly, is not "to sit still" at a time like the present. Although much has already been done by the women at the North, in their subordinate sphere, for the relief and comfort of the soldiers, yet the supineness of many of our sex has exposed us all to rebukes.
Our strength, clearly, is not to "sit still" during a time like this. Even though the women in the North have already accomplished a lot in their supportive roles to help and comfort the soldiers, the inaction of many women has put us all under scrutiny.
We hear of the enthusiasm of women at the South in aid of the Slave-holders' Rebellion, and can form some estimate of the "fierceness of their wrath"; but, God be thanked, the days approach when their mad passions will recoil upon themselves—the days approach when their evil cause must die. Let us unitedly pledge ourselves to stand by the Government, in our legitimate sphere, and out of it, if needs be. Let us, with womanly zeal, help to crush the power of its iniquitous assailants, remembering that the name of woman is in the list with those who "subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens."
We hear about the enthusiasm of women in the South supporting the Slaveholders' Rebellion, and we can gauge the "fierceness of their anger"; but, thank God, the days are coming when their reckless emotions will turn back on them—the days are coming when their wrongful cause will come to an end. Let’s all commit to supporting the Government, in our rightful roles and even beyond that if necessary. Let’s, with a woman’s determination, help to eliminate the influence of its immoral attackers, keeping in mind that the name of woman is listed among those who "conquered kingdoms, did right, received promises, silenced lions, extinguished the flames, escaped the sword, turned weakness into strength, became brave in battle, and routed the armies of the foreigners."
Shall we not, in this "crisis of our country's destiny," imitate the example of these heroic worthies, if "hereunto we are called"?
Shall we not, in this "crisis of our country's destiny," follow the example of these heroic individuals, if "this is what we are called to do"?
Mrs. Sarah R. Barnes.
Mrs. Sarah R. Barnes.
Very truly yours,
Very truly yours,
Worcester, April 20, 1863.
Worcester, April 20, 1863.
Dear Susan:—I see your call to the loyal women. Will you let me know distinctly if you propose to commit yourselves to the idea of loyalty to the present Government? I can not believe you do. But to me there is something equivocal in the call, if it does not mean that. I am sorry it is not explicit on that point.
Dear Susan:—I see your message to the loyal women. Can you tell me clearly if you intend to commit to loyalty to the current Government? I can't believe you would. But to me, there's something vague in the message if it doesn't mean that. I'm sorry it’s not clear on that point.
You and I believe if the present Administration had done its duty, the rebellion would have been put down long ago. Hence, we hold it with its supporters responsible for the terrible waste of treasure and of blood thus far, and for that which is to follow. It needs strong rebuke instead of unqualified sympathy and support.
You and I believe that if the current administration had done its job, the rebellion would have been stopped a long time ago. Therefore, we hold it and its supporters responsible for the terrible loss of resources and lives so far, as well as for what’s yet to come. It deserves strong criticism instead of complete sympathy and support.
Abby Kelly Foster.
Abby Kelly Foster.
Hastily, yours as ever,
Hastily, yours as ever,
Natick, May 8, 1863.
Natick, May 8, 1863.
Every loyal woman in America has a part to perform in this great struggle for the preservation of the nation. I trust that the coming meeting in the city of New York will inspire the women of the loyal States with new zeal and patriotism, and enable them to serve more efficiently their once prosperous, but now distracted, country.
Every loyal woman in America has a role to play in this important fight to protect the nation. I hope that the upcoming meeting in New York City will motivate the women of the loyal states with fresh enthusiasm and patriotism, allowing them to contribute more effectively to their once thriving, but now troubled, country.
Mrs. Henry Wilson.
Mrs. Henry Wilson.
Yours respectfully,
Yours respectfully,
CONNECTICUT.
The Loyal Women of Manchester, Ct., to the Meeting of Loyal Women in New York, Greeting:—Patriotism in this town is in the ascendant. Impelled by the conduct of traitors, dupes, and cowards, the loyal women of Manchester formed themselves into a League, in which they resolved to be unconditionally loyal to the Government and its institutions; to abhor treason and cowardice in every form, and under every disguise; to encourage and sustain our brave soldiers by constant tokens of interest; to study carefully the great principles of civil liberty, which constitute the spirit and life of our Republican Government; and to publicly wear as the badge of the Loyal League the Union colors, until the day of our national triumph. We mean by this to occupy no doubtful position, and to express ourselves in no ambiguous words. We believe in the Union, one and inseparable, and stick to the motto, "E Pluribus Unum."
The Loyal Women of Manchester, CT, to the Meeting of Loyal Women in New York, Greetings:—Patriotism in this town is on the rise. Driven by the actions of traitors, fools, and cowards, the loyal women of Manchester have come together to form a League. In this League, we are committed to being fully loyal to the Government and its institutions; to detest treason and cowardice in all its forms; to support and encourage our brave soldiers with constant gestures of interest; to deeply understand the essential principles of civil liberty that embody the spirit and life of our Republican Government; and to publicly display the Union colors as the badge of the Loyal League until the day of our national victory. We aim to take a clear stance and to communicate in unequivocal terms. We believe in the Union, one and indivisible, and adhere to the motto, "E Pluribus Unum."
We find nothing to justify the rebellion, and have no sympathy with those who do. We long for peace, but believe in war as the only legitimate way to reach it; therefore hail the advance of our armies, and rejoice in every Union victory with unspeakable joy.
We see no reason to support the rebellion and feel no sympathy for those who do. We yearn for peace, but believe that war is the only rightful path to achieve it; that’s why we welcome the progress of our troops and celebrate every Union victory with immense joy.
We believe, moreover, in the natural rights of man, and intend to stand by our President in his Emancipation Proclamation. We regard negro-hate and disloyalty as near akin, and feel that those who would not employ the black man to save the country are not over-anxious to save it themselves.
We also believe in the natural rights of all people and plan to support our President in his Emancipation Proclamation. We see hatred toward Black individuals and disloyalty as closely related, and we think that those who refuse to hire Black people to help protect the country aren't really interested in saving it themselves.
The Loyal League of Manchester numbers some five hundred members, and we mean by all within our power to cast our influence on the side of the Union, and its brave defenders.
The Loyal League of Manchester has about five hundred members, and we intend to use all our power to support the Union and its courageous defenders.
In true sympathy with all who stand by the Government and repel its enemies, in behalf of the Executive Committee and members,
In genuine support of everyone who stands by the Government and fights against its enemies, on behalf of the Executive Committee and its members,
Mrs. S. M. Dorman.
Mrs. S. M. Dorman.
NEW YORK.
Waterloo, N. Y.
Waterloo, N. Y.
I have read Mrs. Stanton's call to the loyal women of America, and can not resist telling you how valuable such a suggestion appears. For what is more meet, than that those upon whom fall the direst agonies of the war should with one voice cry out, "Give us a nation for whose preservation we may joyfully surrender our heart's dearest treasure; but swear by the green graves of our slaughtered brethren, that this sacrifice shall seal the doom of every trafficker in human flesh?"
I have read Mrs. Stanton's call to the loyal women of America, and I can't help but express how valuable this suggestion seems. What could be more fitting than for those who endure the greatest pains of the war to unite and shout, "Give us a nation for whose preservation we are willing to joyfully give up our most treasured possessions; but swear by the green graves of our fallen brothers that this sacrifice will put an end to every trader in human flesh?"
Sarah Hunt.
Sarah Hunt.
Utica, N. Y., April 19, 1863.
Utica, N. Y., April 19, 1863.
We write to assure you that we appreciate the address of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, published in The Tribune of the 18th. We have long expected such a call, and regard it as the external manifestation of a wide-spread demand among women.
We want to let you know that we value the speech by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, published in The Tribune on the 18th. We’ve been anticipating such a call for a while, and we see it as a clear sign of a widespread demand among women.
Mary Dean, and Seven other Women.
Mary Dean and seven other women.
Waterloo, May 4, 1863.
Waterloo, May 4, 1863.
My Dear Friend:—I read with great pleasure the "Call for a meeting of the Loyal[Pg 878] Women of the nation." I think such a gathering can not fail of great and good results. I hope you will have a correct and full report of the proceedings for the benefit of those who can not be present to see and hear for themselves.
My Dear Friend:—I read with great interest the "Call for a meeting of the Loyal[Pg 878] Women of the nation." I believe that such an event will undoubtedly lead to significant and positive outcomes. I hope you will prepare an accurate and comprehensive report of the proceedings for the benefit of those who cannot attend to witness and hear it for themselves.
Phebe B. Dean.
Phebe B. Dean.
Sincerely yours,
Sincerely yours,
Frey Chapel, May 1, 1863.
Frey Chapel, May 1, 1863.
To Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:—In response to the call for a meeting of the loyal women of the nation in the City of New York, on Thursday, the 14th of May, the undersigned wish to be represented at the ten o'clock session.
To Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:—In response to the invitation for a meeting of the loyal women of the nation in New York City on Thursday, May 14th, we would like to be represented at the 10 a.m. session.
Harriet Graham, Emily Frey, and 88 others.
Harriet Graham, Emily Frey, and 88 others.
NEW JERSEY.
Old Bridge, Middlesex County, N. J.
Old Bridge, Middlesex County, NJ
Mrs. E. C. Stanton:—Being unable to attend in person in answer to your stirring appeal to the loyal women of the nation, and feeling a deep interest in this cause, we can not forbear answering it in this manner at least. We do not believe there is a lack of enthusiasm in the mass of the women of the North; all we want is a common channel in which to pour it out. Do this, only point us the way, and you will find our efforts as irresistible as the tides of the ocean.
Mrs. E. C. Stanton:—I can't be there in person to respond to your inspiring call to the dedicated women of the nation, but I want to express my strong interest in this cause, so we couldn't resist replying in this way. We don't think there's a lack of enthusiasm among the women in the North; we just need a common way to express it. Show us the way, and you'll find our efforts as unstoppable as the ocean's tides.
We believe now, if ever, Halleck's lines apply:
We believe that now, more than ever, Halleck's lines apply:
Strike, for our altars and our fires;
Strike for the green graves of our sires,
God, and our native land."
Hoping God may so direct you that our dear bleeding country may be cheered through the storm and darkness to a glorious peace, with our starry flag floating as of old from the Bay of Fundy to the far shores of the Pacific, and believing that freedom, truth, and right must prevail,
Hoping God guides you so that our beloved struggling country can find comfort through the storm and darkness to a glorious peace, with our starry flag flying once again from the Bay of Fundy to the distant shores of the Pacific, and trusting that freedom, truth, and justice will ultimately win,
We are, for ourselves and numerous friends,
We are, for ourselves and many friends,
Mary E. Disdrow, Margaret M. Willis.
Mary E. Disdrow, Margaret M. Willis.
Respectfully and truly yours,
Respectfully and truly yours,
PENNSYLVANIA.
Columbia, Pa., May 8, 1863.
Columbia, Pa., May 8, 1863.
Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:—I beg that my name may be recorded with those of the Loyal Women of the Nation. Though we walk in darkness, tears, and blood all the days of this generation, let us not shrink; we have to do the most blessed duty ever laid upon a people. Though we see not the end, our deed shall be blessed. Let us rejoice that upon us is laid the glory of suffering for the good of mankind. Though all our dearest fall, though we are wrapt in woe, let us not flinch to the bitterest end. Right shall triumph. God shall cause the wrath of man to praise Him. Upon Northern traitors be unutterable and everlasting contempt. Highest honors, tenderest glory to our heroes, immortal in the heart of the nation.
Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:—I ask that my name be included with those of the Loyal Women of the Nation. Even though we face darkness, tears, and blood every day of this generation, let’s not back down; we have the most important duty ever given to a people. Although we can't see the end, our actions will be honored. Let’s celebrate that we bear the glory of suffering for the good of mankind. Even if all our loved ones fall and we are consumed by sorrow, let us not waver until the very end. Justice will prevail. God will turn the anger of man into praise for Him. Let there be indescribable and everlasting contempt for Northern traitors. Highest honors and deepest glory to our heroes, who will remain immortal in the heart of the nation.
Sophia Lyman Smith.
Sophia Lyman Smith.
We wish to obtain the documents of the Ladies' National Union League, that we may be "transformed into the same image"; and also desire to wear the same badge.
We want to get the documents from the Ladies' National Union League so that we can be "transformed into the same image"; and we also want to wear the same badge.
Mary R. H. Haynes,
President Richwood Ladies' Union League.
Mary R. H. Haynes,
President of the Richwood Ladies' Union League.
Yours fraternally,
Yours fraternally,
Pennsylvania State Normal School, }
Millersville, May 11, 1863. }
Pennsylvania State Normal School, }
Millersville, May 11, 1863. }
To the National Convention of Loyal Women:
To the National Convention of Loyal Women:
Ladies:—I beg leave to introduce to you Miss Fannie W. Willard and Mrs. Annie V. Mumford, who have been elected by the ladies of this institution as delegates to represent them in your Convention. Hoping that, by word and work, your Convention may add strength to the arm that is now raised in defense of the nation's life, I am,
Ladies:—I would like to introduce you to Miss Fannie W. Willard and Mrs. Annie V. Mumford, who have been chosen by the women of this organization to represent them at your Convention. I hope that, through your discussions and efforts, your Convention will strengthen the cause that is currently being defended for the nation's survival. I am,
J. P. Wickersham, Principal.
J. P. Wickersham, Principal.
Yours truly,
Yours truly,
Green Grove, Luzerne Co., Pa., May 8, 1863.
Green Grove, Luzerne Co., PA, May 8, 1863.
Dear Madam:—With pleasure I read the "Call," and gladly would respond to it in person, but must be content with sending my name. Prospectively I see the places of[Pg 879] meeting filled to overflowing, every eye kindling with enthusiasm, every heart swelling with patriotism, all determined to aid in preserving our sacred legacy of liberty. The woman who is not truly loyal is unworthy the protection of our dear old flag.
Dear Madam:—I was happy to read the "Call," and I would love to respond in person, but I must settle for sending my name. I can picture the meeting spots at[Pg 879] packed to the brim, every eye shining with excitement, every heart filled with patriotism, all set on helping to protect our cherished legacy of freedom. A woman who isn’t genuinely loyal does not deserve the protection of our beloved flag.
May God bless all the efforts made in sustaining the best Government on earth!
May God bless all the efforts put into maintaining the best government on earth!
Sarah J. Vosburgh.
Sarah J. Vosburgh.
Yours sincerely,
Yours sincerely,
From the Loyal Ladies of Stevensville, Pa., to the Ladies assembled in Convention in New York:
From the Loyal Ladies of Stevensville, PA, to the Ladies gathered in Convention in New York:
Dear Sisters:—Although unable to co-operate with you in your noble efforts in behalf of our country by attending your Convention, we dare not remain silent when treason is in our very midst, and thousands, with blind fury, are trying to uproot the fair tree of Liberty which our fathers planted and watered with their blood. We have already sent our fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons to defend our country, and are willing to make still greater sacrifices if necessary. We heartily sustain the President in every effort he has made to put down the rebellion, and hope that the war may be prosecuted with renewed vigor, until every traitor, North or South, shall be subdued. We would express our sympathy for the brave soldiers in the field and for those who are languishing in prisons and hospitals, and pray that their sacrifices and sufferings may not be in vain. May the angel of Peace soon spread her wings over our unhappy country, is the prayer of your loyal sisters,
Dear Sisters:—Even though we can't join you at your Convention to support our country, we can't stay silent while treason threatens us. Thousands, filled with blind rage, are attempting to destroy the beautiful tree of Liberty that our fathers planted and nourished with their blood. We've already sent our fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons to protect our nation, and we're ready to make even greater sacrifices if needed. We fully support the President in all his efforts to end the rebellion and hope that the war will be fought with renewed determination until every traitor, whether from the North or the South, is defeated. We want to express our sympathy for the brave soldiers on the battlefield and for those suffering in prisons and hospitals, and we pray that their sacrifices and hardships won’t be in vain. May the angel of Peace soon spread her wings over our troubled country, is the prayer of your loyal sisters,
Mrs. Angie E. L. Stevens,
And Twenty-five other Women of Stevensville, Pa.
Mrs. Angie E. L. Stevens,
And twenty-five other women from Stevensville, PA.
West Auburn, Pa., May 9, 1863.
West Auburn, Pa., May 9, 1863.
In compliance with the call for a meeting of the Loyal Women, we, the undersigned, take this method to manifest our approbation of the President's Proclamation. Thinking we comprehend the principles involved in the nation's struggle for existence, we believe it the duty of every loyal woman to pledge herself to co-operate, in word and deed, for the benefit and encouragement of our brave men in the field, until our country is Free.
In response to the call for a meeting of the Loyal Women, we, the undersigned, are using this method to express our support for the President's Proclamation. We understand the principles at stake in the nation's fight for survival, and we believe it is the responsibility of every loyal woman to commit to supporting, both verbally and actively, our courageous men in the field until our country is free.
Lucy A. Seely,
And Thirty-five other Women of West Auburn, Pa.
Lucy A. Seely,
And thirty-five other women from West Auburn, PA.
Kennett Square, Pa.
Kennett Square, Pa.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:—The deep interest I feel in the subject to be considered in your Convention, prompts me to an expression of my sympathy in the movement. May you be able to speak God's truth in tones that shall arouse a nation's heart to a prompt performance of a nation's duty, will be the earnest prayer of many who are not privileged to meet with you in solemn convention.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:—The strong interest I have in the topic you'll discuss at your Convention motivates me to express my support for the movement. I sincerely hope you can convey God's truth in a way that inspires the nation to fulfill its duty. This is the heartfelt prayer of many who aren't fortunate enough to join you in this important gathering.
Hannah M. Darlington.
Hannah M. Darlington.
Columbia, Pa.
Columbia, Pa.
Dear Miss Anthony:—Let me have the happiness of giving my name where are my heart and soul, with the loyal women of the nation.
Dear Miss Anthony:—I would be happy to put my name alongside the loyal women of this nation, where my heart and soul truly belong.
Mrs. F. Boardman Wells.
Mrs. F. Boardman Wells.
OHIO.
To the Loyal Women, assembled in National Meeting in New York, the Loyal Women of Wilmington, Ohio, send Greeting:
To the Loyal Women gathered for the National Meeting in New York, the Loyal Women of Wilmington, Ohio, send warm greetings:
We have heard your earnest call for a National Meeting of women, and our hearts respond as one to the call, and our hands willing to do more than has yet been done. Here, as everywhere in the North, we have formed societies and united our efforts in contributing what we might to soothe, encourage, and cheer. But we would not speak of what we have done, for it is but a mite compared to the need, and a drop among the millions that have been given our brave ones who are so gloriously defending our homes. But the wide future with its great destiny is before us, and we hope after earnest counseling you will decide what more can be done, and we will gladly work with you as sisters, as daughters of our kind All-Father, as children of our common country for the good of all.
We’ve heard your heartfelt call for a National Meeting of women, and we all respond together to this call, ready to do more than what has already been accomplished. Here, just like everywhere in the North, we’ve organized societies and combined our efforts to contribute what we can to comfort, support, and uplift. However, we don’t want to focus on what we’ve done, as it’s just a small contribution compared to the immense need and a tiny drop among the millions that have been given to our brave ones who are so valiantly defending our homes. But the vast future with its significant destiny lies ahead of us, and we hope, after careful discussion, you will determine what more can be accomplished, and we will eagerly work alongside you as sisters, as daughters of our great All-Father, as children of our shared country for the benefit of everyone.
We shall be glad to hear of the decision of your meeting, and doubt not it will waken many who are slumbering to a sense of the duty of immediate action in a cause so just, and fraught with untold interest, not only to our own beloved country, but to the whole world.
We look forward to hearing about the outcome of your meeting, and we have no doubt that it will awaken many who are asleep to the responsibility of taking immediate action in such a just cause, filled with immense importance, not just for our beloved country, but for the entire world.
Louise McGregor, Secretary.
Louise McGregor, Secretary.
Martinsburg, Ohio, May 7, 1863.
Martinsburg, Ohio, May 7, 1863.
To Susan B. Anthony:—I was rejoiced and encouraged on reading your call for an assembly of the loyal women of the nation, and feel constrained to address you a word. For although I may not be able to elucidate the principles on which a free government is founded, with the force and clearness of many others who will doubtless respond to your call, nor awake enthusiasm with that magic power that some of the anti-slavery women of the North possess in so high a degree, I shall at least give to Ohio and my country one more voice in favor of a united and free republic; and certainly no voice should be silent when called to speak for liberty.
To Susan B. Anthony:—I was thrilled and inspired when I read your call for a gathering of the loyal women of our nation, and I feel compelled to reach out to you. While I may not be as able to explain the principles behind a free government with the strength and clarity that many others, who will surely respond to your call, can, nor can I ignite enthusiasm like some of the anti-slavery women of the North who excel in that regard, I will at least add another voice from Ohio and my country in support of a united and free republic; no voice should go unheard when it's time to advocate for liberty.
It was fit that the first work of the women of the North should be for the comfort of those who are enduring the hardships of the camp, exposed to sickness, and to the deadly horrors of the battle-field, in their defence.
It was appropriate that the first effort of the women of the North should be for the comfort of those enduring the hardships of the camp, facing sickness, and the terrifying dangers of the battlefield, in their defense.
But this is not all that should be done by intelligent women living under a free government, when that government is in danger of being overthrown by wicked conspirators. Every power and influence granted us under the social and political regulations of our country should be unreservedly laid upon the altar of liberty and right. It is necessary that we fully understand the nature of the conflict in which we are engaged. Enthusiasm can elevate and sustain but for a moment, unless upheld by the power of a great principle. Not only is our welfare as a great nation at stake, but the oppressed of the world look anxiously and hopefully to us as holding the key to their prison doors, which we may unlock if we will.
But this isn't all that intelligent women living in a free society should do when that society is at risk of being taken down by evil conspirators. Every power and influence we have through our social and political system should be completely dedicated to liberty and justice. It’s crucial that we fully grasp the nature of the struggle we are involved in. Enthusiasm can inspire and support us for a short time, but it must be backed by the strength of a significant principle. Not only is our well-being as a great nation in jeopardy, but the oppressed around the world are watching us with hope, believing that we hold the key to their freedom, which we can unlock if we choose to.
In view of the greatness of the trust committed to us, let us not flag in our efforts to free our land from slavery and the rebellion inaugurated by its minions, that they might establish it on a firmer base.
In light of the significant trust placed in us, let’s not waver in our efforts to liberate our land from slavery and the rebellion started by its supporters, so they can establish it on a stronger foundation.
By meeting as you are about to do, and giving expression to sentiments in favor of the perpetuation of our Government, and in behalf of those of our citizens who are denied the rights and privileges of citizenship, you will strengthen the hearts and hands of all among our rulers who are endeavoring to execute judgment and justice, and to save our Government under the guidance of Him who controls the destinies of nations.
By gathering like you are about to do and expressing feelings in support of our Government's continuation, as well as for those citizens who are denied their rights and privileges, you'll empower all of our leaders who are working to uphold justice and to preserve our Government under the guidance of the one who shapes the fates of nations.
Trusting that this is but the beginning of a good work among the true women of the nation, I subscribe myself, Yours for the interest of our common country,
Trusting that this is just the start of a positive movement among the genuine women of the nation, I remain, Yours for the welfare of our shared country,
Lizzie Welsh.
Lizzie Welsh.
Medina County, Ohio, May 12, 1863.
Medina County, Ohio, May 12, 1863.
Dear Miss Anthony:—This is no time to be idle now. Every true woman must do her whole duty, and buckle on the strong armor of Faith, to meet the enemy face to face. Let the traitors of the country hear our voices, and let Southern tyrants tremble in their high places. Let the prayers of the loyal women ascend to the throne on high. I trust you may have a decidedly good meeting—one, too, that will be remembered in future ages, when war and bloodshed shall have passed forever away, and sweet peace shall reign again in our beautiful land. We long for our brave brothers to return to their homes, but not till the Union is restored, and the traitors receive their just punishment. My heart is deeply engaged in the cause of human liberty and justice, and I have given my all in the struggle.
Dear Miss Anthony:—This is not the time to be idle. Every true woman must fulfill her responsibilities and put on the strong armor of Faith to confront the enemy directly. Let the traitors of our country hear our voices, and let the Southern tyrants shake in their positions. May the prayers of the loyal women rise up to the high throne. I hope you have a truly great meeting—one that will be remembered in the future, when war and bloodshed are long gone, and sweet peace returns to our beautiful land. We are eager for our brave brothers to come home, but only once the Union is restored and the traitors get what they deserve. My heart is fully committed to the cause of human liberty and justice, and I have given everything in this struggle.
Emma C. Hard.
Emma C. Hard.
I remain, yours respectfully,
I remain, yours respectfully,
Richwood, May 9, 1863.
Richwood, May 9, 1863.
Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:—In The New York Tribune of April 25, 1863, we observed that a National Convention of the Ladies' Union League is to be held in the city of New York, on the 14th day of May. We were truly gratified with this intelligence, and should be very happy to be present on that occasion; but as that is among the impossibilities, we deem it a great privilege to represent the Richwood Ladies' Union League through epistolary correspondence. The cause is glorious, and is calculated to elevate woman to a higher sphere. Louder voices and holier motives urge us to duty as never before. At the time our Ladies' Union League was organized, we knew not that there was another in the world, or that there ever would be. Its infancy was feeble, as we must advance cautiously, if we would surely; but it was as a city set on a hill. The good work is still progressing.[Pg 881]
Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:—In The New York Tribune on April 25, 1863, we learned that a National Convention of the Ladies' Union League will be held in New York City on May 14. We were genuinely pleased to hear this news and would love to be there in person; however, since that isn't possible, we consider it a great privilege to represent the Richwood Ladies' Union League through this letter. The cause is noble and aims to elevate women to a higher status. Stronger voices and purer motivations are calling us to action like never before. When our Ladies' Union League was first formed, we had no idea that another existed anywhere in the world or that there ever would be. In its early days, we were hesitant, knowing we needed to proceed carefully, but it was like a city on a hill. The good work continues to move forward.[Pg 881]
INDIANA.
Angola. Ind., May 6, 1863.
Angola. Ind., May 6, 1863.
Miss Anthony:—The call for a Convention in New York to express the feelings of woman in view of the condition of the country, is timely. I regret that I can not be present to share the inspiration of the occasion, and as far as possible to aid in making an impression worthy of the hour. We call this an alarming crisis because it is a struggle involving our lives, our liberty, and our happiness. It must be borne in mind that this nation is great not simply from the number of States it has held in union, but from its creative genius. We are told that this is the best expression of a republican form of government. It is so because it is self-sustaining, self-reliant, and therefore may be self-governing. The stern, smooth-faced Puritan fled from religious persecution in the Old World to find room for an idea in the New; and the planting of one religious idea has yielded a rich harvest of sects, each an improvement on the last.
Miss Anthony:—The call for a Convention in New York to express women's feelings about the country's situation is timely. I'm sorry I can't be there to share in the inspiration of the event and do my part to create an impression that's worthy of this moment. We refer to this as a serious crisis because it's a struggle that affects our lives, our freedom, and our happiness. It's important to remember that this nation is great not just because of the number of states it has united, but because of its innovative spirit. We're told this is the best example of a republican government because it's self-sustaining, self-reliant, and can thus be self-governing. The stern, smooth-faced Puritan escaped religious persecution in the Old World to find a space for an idea in the New World; and the introduction of one religious idea has led to a diverse range of sects, each one an improvement on the last.
Yesterday politics had its center in a party; to-day, in the nation; to-morrow, it will find an equilibrium in the individual. This is a stern work, wearing furrows in the cheeks of statesmen, shaking the frame-work of the Government, letting the blood and drinking the treasure of the nation. It can not be avoided. God has said, "And unto you a child is born," and his name shall be called Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, the Holy of Holies, the Universal Republic. And as God rested after the first creation, so shall this nation find its Sabbath of rest when this struggle for freedom is over, and from the little child to the bowed-down man, all shall breathe through the new Constitution a fresher, more glorious life. Viewed from the daily papers, the battle is long, terrific, and uncertain. Go to the stricken hearthstones, and we exclaim, "Oh, that this cup might pass from us!" Visit the solemn battle-field, and in anguish we murmur, "My God, why hast Thou forsaken us?" Retiring to the high mountain of our faith, we see in this painful view the magnitude of our cause, and that slowly but surely this contest will end triumphantly. From this point we mark the milestones that show we have made indelible foot-prints toward Liberty and Union.
Yesterday, politics revolved around a party; today, it's centered on the nation; tomorrow, it will balance itself in the individual. This is a tough task, leaving lines on the faces of politicians, shaking the structure of the Government, draining the country’s resources. There's no escaping it. God has declared, "A child is born to you," and his name will be Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, the Sacred of the Sacred, the Universal Republic. Just as God rested after the first creation, this nation will find its day of rest when the struggle for freedom is finished, and from the youngest child to the oldest man, everyone will experience a renewed, more glorious life through the new Constitution. When viewed through the daily news, the battle seems lengthy, intense, and uncertain. Go to the grieving homes, and we cry out, "Oh, that this burden would be lifted from us!" Visit the solemn battlefield, and in despair we whisper, "My God, why have you abandoned us?" However, retreating to the heights of our faith, we recognize in this painful struggle the significance of our cause, and that slowly but surely, this contest will end in victory. From this perspective, we can see the milestones that demonstrate we have made lasting strides toward Liberty and Unity.
The choice by the people of a Republican President, the firing on Sumter, the defeat at Manassas, the recognition of Hayti, the treaty with England for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, the decision of Attorney-General Bates in favor of universal citizenship, the conversion to the anti-slavery sentiment of Dickinson and Butler, the President's Proclamation, and the arming of the blacks, are signs in the political zodiac, showing our revolution certain as that of the rolling suns in the material heavens. Only Liberty can be our watchword henceforth! To this standard alone will the country, both North and South, rally when a few more days of leadership are over. God saw to this in the frame-work of every living thing, when He made his wants to be a blessing with freedom and a curse without it. Open the cage-door to the pining fox, loathing his master's beef and pudding, and see if his instincts are not true as the needle to the pole. Lay the sweet babe before the starved lion, and his want will not bow to your compassion. So in slaves; it matters not whether slaves to rebellion or to aristocracy. So in all men and in all women, the want of liberty, as the want of bread, is a vital principle in the blood. It is the motive power. Without it man is but a log, and is suited to rule over frogs only; or, like the silent water, becomes a loathsome stagnation. You may suppress, but you can not appease or destroy this divine inheritance in man. On this uniform idea the laws of society depend, and union can have no other. Raise the banner of freedom to all, and you have an imperishable Constitution, supported by the gushing blood of the millions, and immortalized in the spirit of the nation. This is our work: To comprehend liberty, to establish a constitution, and perpetuate union. We began at union, the right-hand figure, borrowing ten, as in mathematics, from the next higher order, observing the rule of maintaining an equal difference by paying what is borrowed.
The people's choice of a Republican President, the attack on Fort Sumter, the defeat at Manassas, the recognition of Haiti, the treaty with England to stop the international slave trade, the end of slavery in the District of Columbia, Attorney General Bates' decision in favor of universal citizenship, the conversion of Dickinson and Butler to the anti-slavery cause, the President's Proclamation, and the arming of Black people are all signs in the political landscape, indicating that our revolution is as inevitable as the movement of the suns in the sky. From now on, Liberty must be our guiding principle! This is the rallying cry for both the North and the South once we have a bit more leadership. God ensured this in the design of every living thing when He made our needs a blessing with freedom and a curse without it. Open the cage for the restless fox, who's tired of his owner’s beef and pudding, and see if his instincts aren't as true as a compass needle pointing north. Place the hungry lion beside a sweet baby, and his hunger won’t give way to your compassion. The same applies to slaves; it doesn't matter if they are slaves to rebellion or to aristocracy. For all men and women, the need for freedom, just like the need for food, is a vital principle in our blood. It drives us. Without it, a person is just a log, fit to rule only over frogs, or like stagnant water, which becomes repulsive. You can try to suppress it, but you can't appease or eliminate this divine right in humanity. Society's laws depend on this shared idea, and unity can only rest on it. Raise the banner of freedom for all, and you will have an everlasting Constitution, supported by the blood of millions and immortalized in the spirit of the nation. This is our mission: to understand liberty, to build a constitution, and to preserve our union. We started with union, the right-hand figure, borrowing ten, as in math, from the next higher order, making sure to keep an equal balance by repaying what we've borrowed.
We saw that fighting for union and slavery left us just what we began with. So we borrowed from the Constitution Fremont's Proclamation, and carried the popular response to the next Congress, and under the second period we wrote the liberty of three millions! We have now to work out the main principle or highest order, to test the virtue of the people, to see whether, when rebellion is put down, the nation can survive;[Pg 882] and there is now left us no escape from death or disgrace except in the announcement of freedom as a principle. Do this, and you have enlisted new recruits from men who will nobly dare to die, but never will retreat. Do this, and the mothers of the country will continue to lay their precious sons upon the altar, not as "Union soldiers," as before, but as heroes of a new republic. Do this, and woman, the subtle architect of society, will teach you how to walk the very verge of death with an unflinching hope of life; her faith will separate your light from darkness, truth from error, liberty from slavery. She will demonstrate for you that self-reliance is the condition of all creations, that as "the flower looks to no power outside itself to unfold its tendrils and accomplish its mission," so this nation is self-sufficient. In its warm beating heart lies its folded banner, and each man and woman must unfurl it as the seaman unfurls his sail. Nail Freedom to your banner, and it shall bring a prostrate nation to its staff, and together with their loud applause, "the morning stars shall sing, and all the sons of God shall shout for joy."
We realized that fighting for the union and against slavery left us exactly where we started. So, we took Fremont's Proclamation from the Constitution and brought the public's reaction to the next Congress. During this second phase, we declared the liberty of three million people! Now, we need to establish the core principle or highest ideal, to test the people's character, to find out whether the nation can endure after putting down rebellion; [Pg 882] and there’s no way to escape death or disgrace except by declaring freedom as a fundamental principle. If we do this, we’ll attract new supporters—men who will bravely face death but never back down. If we do this, mothers across the country will keep sacrificing their precious sons, not as “Union soldiers” like before, but as heroes of a new republic. If we do this, women, the quiet builders of society, will show you how to face the brink of death with unwavering hope for life; their faith will help you distinguish light from darkness, truth from falsehood, and freedom from slavery. They will prove to you that self-reliance is essential for all achievements, just as “the flower relies on no force outside itself to unfurl its tendrils and fulfill its purpose,” so this nation is self-sufficient. Within its warm, beating heart lies its folded banner, and each man and woman must unfurl it like a sailor unfurls his sail. Nail Freedom to your banner, and it will lift a fallen nation up, and with the sound of their loud cheers, “the morning stars will sing, and all the sons of God will shout for joy.”
Josephine S. Griffing.
Josephine S. Griffing.
To the Meeting of Loyal Women to be held in New York the 14th of May:
To the Gathering of Loyal Women set to take place in New York on May 14th:
Miss S. B. Anthony:—Not being able to attend your meeting, I desire to convey to you personally my heartfelt appreciation of your work. If, as the call implies, your object is to help create and keep alive a loyal public sentiment, it is truly praiseworthy. This is what we need—a public sentiment that will not tolerate disloyalty anywhere. We want the rebel sympathizer to feel the society of intelligent women a constant rebuke to their unfaithfulness; we want to go still further, and make them feel that they can not be admitted to the social circle of loyal women; we want to make them feel that we will not patronize them in business relations; in short, that we will hold no communion with them whatever, except it may be to reform them as fallen brethren. As the Spartan mothers of old, as the mothers of the Revolution, did not shrink from whatever of trial, of sacrifice, and of toil was theirs to endure, so may we of the XIXth century, the mothers of the soldiers of freedom, grasp heroically the sword of truth, and wield it with a power that shall make the tyrant tremble. It is not enough that we scrape lint, make hospital stores, knit socks, make shirts, etc., etc.; all this we should do by all means, but we have also other duties connected with this war. Let us endeavor to perform them all faithfully. As the war is working out for woman a higher and nobler life, while it is destined in the providence of God to free the slave, it will also bring about in a great measure the enfranchisement of woman. Let us prove that women are intellectually and morally capable of laboring side by side with our brothers in the great struggle, and heaven will bless our efforts.
Miss S. B. Anthony:—I’m unable to attend your meeting, but I want to express my genuine appreciation for your efforts. If your goal, as suggested, is to help foster and maintain a supportive public sentiment, then it’s truly commendable. This is exactly what we need—a public attitude that won’t accept disloyalty in any form. We want those who sympathize with the rebels to feel that they are constantly rebuked by the company of intelligent women; we want to go even further and make them understand that they cannot join the social circles of loyal women; we want them to feel that we will not engage with them in business; in short, we will have no association with them whatsoever, except perhaps to reform them as wayward siblings. Just as the Spartan mothers of the past and the mothers of the Revolution endured their trials, sacrifices, and hard work, so may we, the mothers of the soldiers of freedom in the 19th century, courageously take up the sword of truth and wield it with a force that will make the oppressors tremble. It’s not enough for us to simply scrape lint, prepare hospital supplies, knit socks, and make shirts; while we should definitely do all of this, we have other responsibilities tied to this war as well. Let’s strive to fulfill all our duties faithfully. As this war helps women attain a higher and more noble existence, while also destined, through God’s will, to free the slaves, it will significantly contribute to the enfranchisement of women. Let’s show that women are intellectually and morally capable of working alongside our brothers in this great struggle, and heaven will bless our efforts.
Mary F. Thomas.
Mary F. Thomas.
Yours in the great work,
Yours in the great work,
Richmond, Ind., May 11, 1863.
Richmond, Ind., May 11, 1863.
Pecor, Wabash Valley, Ind.
Pecor, Wabash Valley, Ind.
To the "Call for a meeting of the Loyal Women of the Nation," we most heartily respond. It is precisely what is needed at this time. There is a lack of enthusiasm here as elsewhere—not that our "Aid Societies" are not quite flourishing: but that we do after the manner of Miss Ophelia, "from a sense of duty." A lady says to me, "What more can be expected of women if men fail to some extent in our military affairs?" Well, they can arouse the smouldering fires of patriotism, help to raise the trailing banner, and stand devotedly by the dear old flag. If they enter into the work heart and soul, good results will follow. There is here a strong secession element; copperheads abound; the sky looks dark and threatening; but Gov. Morton's vigorous policy and Gen. Burnside's "Order No. 38," will show the traitors that we have a government—a strong one, too—that will bring them straight up to the mark.
To the "Call for a meeting of the Loyal Women of the Nation," we wholeheartedly respond. It’s exactly what we need right now. There’s a lack of enthusiasm here, just like everywhere else—not that our "Aid Societies" aren’t doing well, but we’re kind of like Miss Ophelia, doing it "out of a sense of duty." A woman told me, "What more can you expect from women if men are falling short in our military efforts?" Well, women can reignite the smoldering fires of patriotism, help raise the flag, and stand firmly by our beloved flag. If they dive into this work with full commitment, good things will come. There’s a strong secessionist presence here; copperheads are everywhere; the outlook seems dark and foreboding; but Gov. Morton’s strong policy and Gen. Burnside’s "Order No. 38" will demonstrate to the traitors that we have a government—a strong one, too—that will hold them accountable.
Those who are disposed to criticise your meeting, who have a word to say about women taking part in political or public affairs, should have their memories refreshed a little. From a great many who have ruled in affairs of State, I select one who lived a long time ago. The record is from the highest authority. Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, who judged Israel, had her canopy of State under the palm-tree in Mount Ephraim. At this time the children of Egypt had been mightily oppressed for twenty years by Jabin, King of Canaan. Hope is almost extinguished in Israel; not one man scarcely seems awake to his country's wrongs; patriotism is slumbering in every manly breast, yet glows[Pg 883] brightly in the heart of woman; and as the tribunal of judgment is deserted by manly virtue, ability, and zeal, Deborah takes the place, not by usurpation, but divine appointment. She instructs the people in the law and testimony of the living God, and inspires them with more than a common enthusiasm to go with Barak against the mighty host of Canaan. They go forth, and are victorious, completely routing the enemy. Sisera, the commander-in-chief of the great army of Jabin, is slain by the hand of woman! The mighty arm of the Lord of Hosts is seen in this conflict, for Jehovah has no attribute that will take sides with the oppressor!
Those who are quick to criticize your gathering and have something to say about women participating in political or public matters should take a moment to refresh their memories. From many who have led in political affairs, I'll point out one from a long time ago. This record comes from the highest authority. Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, who judged Israel, held her court under a palm tree in Mount Ephraim. At this time, the children of Egypt had been heavily oppressed for twenty years by Jabin, King of Canaan. Hope was nearly gone in Israel; hardly any man seemed aware of his country's suffering; patriotism was dormant in every man, yet it burned brightly in the heart of a woman. As the judicial system was abandoned by the virtues, skills, and passion of men, Deborah stepped in—not through usurpation, but by divine appointment. She taught the people the law and teachings of the living God, inspiring them with more than ordinary enthusiasm to join Barak against the mighty army of Canaan. They went out and achieved victory, completely defeating the enemy. Sisera, the commander of Jabin's great army, was killed by a woman's hand! The powerful hand of the Lord of Hosts was evident in this battle, for Jehovah has no attribute that will side with the oppressor!
Would it not be well for the women of to-day to emulate Deborah in her zeal and love of country? I trust your meeting will be productive of great good in arousing us to more correct views of our duties and responsibilities as members of the Republic. As Burke says, "I love agitation when there is a cause for it." The alarm-bell which startles the inhabitants of a city from their midnight slumbers, saves them from destruction.
Wouldn't it be great for today's women to follow Deborah's example in her passion and love for our country? I hope your meeting inspires us to have a clearer understanding of our duties and responsibilities as citizens of the Republic. As Burke says, "I love agitation when there is a cause for it." The alarm bell that wakes the people of a city from their deep sleep saves them from disaster.
Eliza B. Terrell.
Eliza B. Terrell.
Truly yours,
Truly yours,
May 11, 1863.
May 11, 1863.
E. M. Wilkinson, on behalf of the Soldiers' Aid Society in Laporte County, Ind., writes:
E. M. Wilkinson, representing the Soldiers' Aid Society in Laporte County, Indiana, writes:
"We will labor with all our might, mind, and strength for a free country, where there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. As our mothers stood by the Government in the Revolution, so we, like them, will stand by the present Administration. We believe the sin of slavery to be the cause of this horrid war, therefore we hailed with gladness the ninth section of the Confiscation law, and the Proclamation of Freedom by the President."
"We will work with all our might, mind, and strength for a free country, where there is no slavery or involuntary servitude. Just as our mothers supported the Government during the Revolution, we will stand by the current Administration. We believe that the sin of slavery is the cause of this terrible war, and so we greeted the ninth section of the Confiscation law and the President's Proclamation of Freedom with joy."
ILLINOIS.
Rosemond, Christian County, Ill., May 5, 1863.
Rosemond, Christian County, Illinois, May 5, 1863.
Miss Susan B. Anthony—My Dear Christian Friend:—I observed with deep interest, in The Independent of April 16th, an article on "Women and the War," stating that meetings would be held in your city on the 14th of May, "to consider how woman's services may be more effectually engaged in promoting the war, supporting the Government, and advancing the cause of Freedom and the Union."
Miss Susan B. Anthony—My Dear Christian Friend:—I noticed with great interest, in The Independent from April 16th, an article about "Women and the War," mentioning that meetings will take place in your city on May 14th, "to discuss how women's contributions can be more effectively involved in supporting the war, backing the Government, and furthering the cause of Freedom and the Union."
At that meeting I shall be most cordially present in spirit, while I am necessarily in body far from you; and for the result of your deliberations there I shall watch with eager interest. What can woman do? has been with me from the beginning of this war a question of the uppermost importance. I have asked it with tears again and again, and have watched every intimation upon this point in our journals, and from soldier friends, with a willing heart and ready hand; though I have sometimes observed with pain, that those who had given least for this great cause were least solicitous on this question, and less disposed to do, and to continue to do, than those very ones who, as they would say, had surely done enough, when they had given up husband or son, father or brother, or all of these, for the bloody conflict. But no, it is those who like me have given up their all, and perhaps like me are left by this war widowed and alone, helpless and in feeble health; such it is that cry, What can woman yet do for this sacred cause? Such may silently bear their lonely anxiety and sorrow, patiently toil and struggle to take care of themselves, and of those dependent upon them, as best they can, uncomplaining, asking not aid or sympathy, and all the while cheering their beloved ones yet spared in the conflict, and holding up their hands by words of encouragement and blessing. But such can not sit still, and feel that they have done enough. Such can not look with indifference upon the flowing tide of blood all around us; upon the thousands of hearths and homes as desolate as their own; upon the hardships and sufferings of our brave soldiers in field, or hospital, or camp; upon the hundreds of thousands of those poor freedmen, women and children, that have just begun to emerge from the house of their bondage, and come out empty, ignorant, and degraded, yet seeking liberty, protection, instruction, and offering their strong right arms for the defense of that wise and beneficent Government that has bid them go free. Methinks, every mother and every teacher should now take special care to instill into the minds of those committed to their instruction a holy and devoted patriotism; the sacred principles of liberty; liberty for all; the inestimable value of our free institutions; and the perpetuation of these as an end worthy of their[Pg 884] highest ambition. Teach them to honor the name of soldier, and to cherish sacredly the memory of those who have given their life's blood for the cementing and maintenance of this Union, and to be ready to stand up bravely for the right, when their turn may come.
At that meeting, I will be there in spirit, even though my body will be far from you. I will be watching your discussions and their results with great interest. The question What can woman do? has been extremely important to me since the beginning of this war. I have asked it with tears over and over, closely following every sign regarding this issue in our newspapers and from soldier friends, ready to contribute however I can. However, it has pained me to see that those who have sacrificed the least for this great cause seem the least concerned about this question and are less willing to act than those who have, as they put it, already done enough by giving up a husband, son, father, brother, or all of them in this bloody conflict. But it is those like me, who have lost everything, and who may, like me, find themselves widowed, alone, helpless, and in poor health, that ask, What more can women do for this sacred cause? Those who quietly endure their loneliness and sorrow, working and struggling to care for themselves and those who depend on them as best as they can, without complaint and without seeking help or sympathy, all while encouraging their loved ones still fighting in the conflict and supporting them with words of hope and blessing. But they can't just sit back and feel like they've done enough. They can't look with indifference at the wave of blood surrounding us, at the thousands of homes as desolate as their own, or at the hardships faced by our brave soldiers in the field, hospitals, or camps. They also can't ignore the hundreds of thousands of freed men, women, and children who have just begun to escape their bondage, emerging empty-handed, uneducated, and degraded, yet seeking freedom, protection, guidance, and ready to offer their strength to defend the wise and compassionate government that has granted them their freedom. I believe every mother and every teacher should take special care now to instill in those they teach a deep and devoted patriotism; the sacred principles of liberty; liberty for all; the immeasurable value of our free institutions; and the commitment to preserve these as a goal worthy of their[Pg 884] highest ambitions. Teach them to honor the name of soldier and to treasure the memory of those who gave their lives to hold together and maintain this Union, and to be ready to stand up bravely for what is right when their time comes.
I have written from the fullness of my heart, yet in much weakness and sorrow. My own beloved and noble husband was among the very first to offer his services at his country's call, and in less than one short year his sacrifice was owned of God, to whom he had early consecrated his life, and from the strife of the battle-field (at Donelson, in February, 1862) he was called up higher to rest in peace. In feeble health, I have returned to the asylum of a father's house, to which one beloved brother has just returned with his discharge, having wasted nearly to a skeleton in Southern hospitals, and two brothers are yet in the army. Should you have any printed circular of the result of your meetings, a copy would be very gratefully received; and if there is any way in which ladies at so great a distance can co-operate with you, in measures you may devise, you may be sure that this little town of Rosemond will furnish her full share of loyal women. I will almost venture to say, no other can be found here.
I’ve written from the depths of my heart, but with a lot of weakness and sorrow. My beloved and noble husband was one of the first to offer his service when his country called, and in less than a year, his sacrifice was recognized by God, to whom he had dedicated his life early on. From the battlefield at Donelson in February 1862, he was called up higher to rest in peace. In poor health, I’ve returned to my father’s house, where one beloved brother has just come back with his discharge, having nearly wasted away in Southern hospitals, while two other brothers are still in the army. If you have any printed information about the results of your meetings, I would be very grateful to receive a copy. And if there’s any way for women from such a distance to help with your initiatives, you can be sure that this little town of Rosemond will provide its full share of loyal women. I would almost dare say, no other can be found here.
In behalf of all that makes our country
In support of everything that defines our country
E. P. Weeks.
E. P. Weeks.
I am, yours very cordially,
I am, yours very cordially,
Aurora, Ill., May 8, 1863.
Aurora, Ill., May 8, 1863.
There never was a time in the world's history when the strength and efforts of women, as well as men, were so imperatively demanded as now. Never before in the annals of time has there been a struggle of such momentous import, not only at home, but abroad, as this. The eye of every principality and power on the face of the earth is upon us, anxiously watching and awaiting the success or defeat of our armies to prove or disprove the practicability of a republican form of government. Let us work for the right and true
There has never been a time in history when the strength and efforts of both women and men are as urgently needed as they are now. Never before have we faced a struggle of such great importance, both at home and internationally. Every nation and power on Earth is watching us closely, eager to see whether our armies succeed or fail, to determine if a republican form of government is workable. Let's strive for what is right and true.
Every woman, every man."
Ellen Beard Harman.
Ellen Beard Harman.
For Freedom and Union,
For Freedom and Union,
Washington, Tazewell County, Ill., May 12, 1863.
Washington, Tazewell County, IL, May 12, 1863.
Ladies:—Quickened by a call from our national metropolis, and prompted by the same loyalty that issued the call, a few of the women of this place have organized themselves into a Union League, for the maintenance of our Government and the encouragement and succor of our soldiers in the field. Our organization occurred too late, we fear, to enable us to report ourselves to the National Committee at the appointed meeting; but having opened, we propose to go forward, soliciting the co-operation of every individual woman of the place, so long as our Government is in peril and rebellion utters its voice in the nation.
Ladies:—Motivated by a call from our national capital and driven by the same loyalty that inspired that call, a few women in this area have come together to form a Union League. Our purpose is to support our Government and provide encouragement and assistance to our soldiers in the field. Unfortunately, we organized a bit too late to report to the National Committee at the scheduled meeting; however, now that we’ve started, we intend to move forward, seeking the participation of every woman in the community, as long as our Government is at risk and rebellion raises its voice in the nation.
Yours in the same cause,
Yours in the same cause,
Mrs. H. N. Kellogg, Pres't.
Mrs. H. N. Kellogg, Pres't.
Mrs. S. W. Fish, Sec'y.
Mrs. S. W. Fish, Sec'y.
Asbury, Lasalle County, Ill., May 8, 1863.
Asbury, Lasalle County, IL, May 8, 1863.
Madam Anthony:—I call myself a loyal woman, and am glad that there is about to be made some extra effort by woman for the strengthening and upholding of our common Government in this present rebellion. For my own part, I should rather work hard and fare poor for a number of years, that the Government may have a share of my industry, than that we fail in this present war. Drops form the ocean; and if we all can be made to feel the greatness of small things added together, we can present a truly strengthening arm in this struggle; and I would suggest that we all lay aside our vanity and love of extravagance in dress, and save the money from some of our intended purchases for a war fund. Almost every person can spare five, ten, or twenty dollars. Let some one take the lead in every city and village by stimulating the people to a little self-denial, and I think we can raise a grand sum, to be applied where it is most needed. Just set this ball in motion in New York, and it may roll all over the North.
Madam Anthony:—I consider myself a loyal woman, and I’m glad that women are about to put in extra effort to strengthen and support our government during this current rebellion. Personally, I’d rather work hard and live modestly for a few years so that the government can benefit from my labor than see us fail in this war. Individual contributions might seem small, but if we all realize how much those small contributions add up, we can create a powerful support system in this fight. I suggest we set aside our vanity and love for extravagant clothing and save that money for a war fund. Almost everyone can spare five, ten, or twenty dollars. If someone could lead the way in each city and village by encouraging people to practice a little self-denial, I think we could raise a substantial amount to be used where it’s needed most. Just get this started in New York, and it could spread all across the North.
I do not wonder that woman lacks enthusiasm in matters of Government, for our laws, though they may be nearly just to white men, are very oppressive to women, particularly[Pg 885] those that deprive married women of the right to hold property and do business themselves. I think that man and woman both would live more happily if the laws were more equal; but as they are, they are a shame to this enlightened age. They make a married woman a beggar all her life, although she may have a rich husband, and a most pitiable one, if he is poor. Wipe out the law entirely that gives us a third of our husband's property; we can make better bargains than that ourselves with our husbands. The one-third law does us not a mite of good, unless our husband dies, and we do not all of us want to part with them, although the laws do make them our oppressors. But notwithstanding the mean position that we are compelled to occupy, I feel like upholding the Government as the best that is, feeling quite sure that the kindness and good sense of our rulers will give us something a little more like justice after a while.
I’m not surprised that women lack enthusiasm for Government, because our laws, while they might be somewhat fair to white men, are very oppressive to women, especially[Pg 885] those that take away married women’s rights to own property and conduct their own business. I believe that both men and women would be happier if the laws were more balanced; as they are now, they shame this so-called enlightened age. They make a married woman dependent her whole life, even if she has a wealthy husband, and absolutely miserable if he’s poor. Let’s get rid of the law that gives us a third of our husband’s property; we can negotiate better deals ourselves with our husbands. The one-third law doesn’t help us at all, unless our husband dies, and not all of us want to lose them, even though the laws do make them our oppressors. But despite the lowly position we’re forced to occupy, I feel like supporting the Government as it’s the best we have, believing that the kindness and good sense of our leaders will eventually bring us something closer to justice.
Mariam H. Fish.
Mariam H. Fish.
WISCONSIN.
To the Meeting of Loyal Women in the City of New York, Greeting:
To the Gathering of Devoted Women in New York City, Hello:
It is now nearly three months since the loyal women of Madison, Wis., desiring to express their equal interest in the preservation of the Union and Government, and their abhorrence of all who by word and deed encourage the unholy rebellion which has filled our land with mourning, organized the first Ladies' Union League in the country, and pledged themselves, during the continuance of the war, to such individual persistent effort and self-sacrifice as should prove to our soldiers and their families that we have made common cause with them. Without delay we issued our preamble and constitution in the form of a circular-letter, inviting the co-operation of all loyal women of the State in the formation of similar organizations. Copies of this circular, inviting a full expression of feeling, and statement of cases of individual necessity, were sent to every company of infantry, artillery, and cavalry that have gone from the State; and the most gratifying letters from the army have proved the value which they put upon our efforts. We organized visiting committees, renewed every week, who examine into and report upon all cases of want in soldiers' families, many of whom have been cared for and relieved through the agency of these committees, thus obviating one of the most productive causes of discontent in the army. The ignorant woman who does not know what are the proper steps to take in securing her bounty, allotment, and pension; the discouraged wife who hears the low murmurs of treason to the Government on every side, whose appeals to her soldier in the field increase when they do not create the same feeling, are alike the objects of our care.
It has now been almost three months since the loyal women of Madison, Wis., wanting to show their equal commitment to preserving the Union and Government, and their disgust for anyone who encourages the unjust rebellion that has brought so much sorrow to our land, organized the first Ladies' Union League in the country. They committed themselves, for the duration of the war, to ongoing personal effort and self-sacrifice to demonstrate to our soldiers and their families that we stand together with them. Without delay, we issued our preamble and constitution in the form of a circular letter, inviting all loyal women in the State to join in forming similar organizations. Copies of this circular, which invited a full expression of feelings and details about individual needs, were sent to every infantry, artillery, and cavalry unit that had deployed from the State; and the very encouraging letters we've received from the army show how much they value our efforts. We established visiting committees that are renewed each week to investigate and report on all cases of need within soldiers' families, many of whom have received help through these committees, addressing one of the main sources of discontent in the army. The uninformed woman who doesn't know the proper steps to secure her bounty, allotment, and pension; the discouraged wife who hears whispers of treason against the Government all around her, whose appeals to her soldier in the field grow when they're not met with the same level of sentiment, are both the focus of our attention.
In addition to, and of more importance even than these home efforts, are those we make in encouraging the soldiers by correspondence. Does some officer distinguish himself by an act of personal bravery in the army of the West? we save the newspaper notices, cut these out, and inclose them, with a few hearty, earnest words, to some member of the army of the Potomac, and thus become a medium for the diffusion of all that can stimulate and inspire courage and loyalty.
In addition to, and even more important than these home efforts, are the ones we make to encourage the soldiers through letters. If an officer stands out for an act of bravery in the Western army, we save the newspaper articles, cut them out, and send them along with a few sincere, heartfelt words to someone in the Army of the Potomac. This way, we help spread anything that can boost and inspire courage and loyalty.
We have deemed this brief statement of our organization and mode of operation the best expression of our sympathy with your meeting. We joyfully hail the formation of such associations in the great centers of influence, and believe that a cause to which the women of the country as one soul devote their time, their energies, and all they love best, will stand vindicated as the cause of God, of justice and humanity, before the whole world.
We believe this short overview of our organization and how we operate is the best way to express our support for your meeting. We happily welcome the creation of such associations in major centers of influence, and we trust that a cause to which the women of the country devote their time, energy, and everything they hold dear will be recognized as the cause of God, justice, and humanity by the entire world.
Mrs. W. A. P. Morris, President.
Mrs. E. S. Carr, Secretary.
Mrs. W. A. P. Morris, President.
Mrs. E. S. Carr, Secretary.
Madison, Wis., May 9, 1863.
Madison, Wis., May 9, 1863.
Cassville, Wis., May 4, 1863.
Cassville, Wis., May 4, 1863.
Lately noticing in the New York Tribune a call for a meeting of the loyal women of this nation, and believing woman as responsible for its destiny as man, I feel it my duty to make known to you my most sincere wishes for its success. As loyal women, and being under so much responsibility, it seems necessary that some effort should be made to exchange our views and form resolutions on this subject. Let us remember then our duty; let us unite ourselves by associations, that we may act in concert in our country's cause. We must not forget that knowledge is power, and that the minds of this country are molded and governed by the press; let us therefore, in whatever sphere we move, aid[Pg 886] and encourage the reading and circulation of loyal newspapers and public speakers of both sexes that labor for our country (the best diplomatists of Europe have confessed that the State papers of the Revolution did almost, if not quite as much, for us as our soldiery); and let us at the same time discountenance all disloyal reading, all disloyal sentiments, and all disloyal persons of whatever standing or relation, and let our object be our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country.
Lately, I've seen in the New York Tribune a call for a meeting of the loyal women of this nation. Since I believe women are just as responsible for its future as men are, it's important for me to express my sincere hopes for its success. As devoted women, carrying so much responsibility, we need to come together to share our views and create resolutions on this issue. Let’s remember our duty; let’s join forces through associations so we can act together for our country's cause. We must keep in mind that knowledge is power and that the press shapes and influences the minds of this country. So, no matter where we are, let’s support and promote the reading and distribution of loyal newspapers and public speakers of both genders who are working for our country (the best diplomats in Europe have admitted that the state papers of the Revolution did almost, if not just as much, for us as our soldiers did); and at the same time, let’s reject all disloyal reading, disloyal sentiments, and all disloyal individuals, no matter their status or connection, with our focus being on our country, our entire country, and nothing but our country.
Mrs. Ursula Larned.
Mrs. Ursula Larned.
Baraboo, Wis., May 11, 1863.
Baraboo, Wis., May 11, 1863.
Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:—I can not tell you with what joy I received through the Anti-Slavery Standard the account of the formation of the "Loyal Women's League of Hartford, Ct." I forthwith communicated with the women met for sanitary purposes, and we organized a "Loyal Women's League" here. Forty women signed at once, and others now are constantly added. All over this region the women seem to be waiting, longing for some soul to animate the body of work with which we have been so long and lovingly busying ourselves. We shall do what we can to encourage and inspire our soldiers, to comfort and cheer their families, and to make our influence tell on the right side at home and wherever it is felt. Our organization is auxiliary to the Madison League. We have adopted mainly their Constitution. We would be glad to be represented in person in the National Convention, where the true woman's heart of the nation will utter itself; but this may not be so. We send you this our pledge. The bells are ringing and guns firing for joy for our military victories. Thank God for them. But our woman's work of educating the children into the idea and practice of true and universal justice is ever to be done. Oh that we may be wise and faithful In our work, till our priceless heritage of liberty be enjoyed by every human being in our land.
Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:—I can't express how joyful I was to read about the creation of the "Loyal Women's League of Hartford, Ct." in the Anti-Slavery Standard. I immediately reached out to the women gathered for health initiatives, and we set up a "Loyal Women's League" here. Forty women signed up right away, and more are joining us all the time. Women across this area seem to be waiting, eager for someone to energize the important work we've been passionately involved in for so long. We'll do what we can to support and uplift our soldiers, to comfort and encourage their families, and to ensure our influence is felt for the right cause at home and beyond. Our group is an auxiliary to the Madison League. We mainly adopted their Constitution. We would love to have representation at the National Convention, where the true spirit of women across the nation will be expressed; however, that may not be possible. We send you this pledge. Bells are ringing and cannons are firing in celebration of our military victories. Thank God for them. But our work as women—to educate children in the concept and practice of true and universal justice—must continue. Oh, may we be wise and faithful in our efforts until every person in our land enjoys the priceless gift of liberty.
Maria P. Codding.
Maria P. Codding.
Cordially yours,
Cordially yours,
IOWA.
Council Bluffs, Iowa.
Council Bluffs, Iowa.
Most gladly does my heart respond to the call, and most earnestly do I hope that the deliberations on that occasion will result in much good to women and to the cause you meet to promote. The women of the North are charged by the press with a lack of zeal and enthusiasm in the war. This charge may be true to some extent. Though for the most part they are loyal to their Government, and in favor of sustaining its every measure for putting down the rebellion; yet they do not, I fear, enter fully into the spirit of the women of the Revolution. There are many women in whose hearts the love of country and of justice is strong, and who are willing to incur any loss, and make almost any sacrifice, rather than the rebellion should succeed and the chains of the bondman be more firmly rivetted. If they manifest less enthusiasm than their patriotic brothers, it is because they have not so great opportunity for its exercise. The customs of society do not permit any strong or noisy demonstration of feeling on the part of woman; but the blood of Revolutionary sires flows as purely in her veins, and she can feel as deeply, suffer as intensely, and endure as bravely as her more favored brothers. But I would have her do more than suffer and endure; I would that she should not only resolve to stand by the Government in its work of defeating the schemes of its enemies, but that she should let her voice go forth in clear and unmistakable tones against any peace with rebels, except upon the basis of entire submission to the authority of the Government. Against the schemes and plans of the Peace party in the North, let loyal women everywhere protest. That your deliberations may be characterized by good judgment, sound wisdom, and true patriotism, is my heartfelt prayer.
My heart eagerly responds to the call, and I sincerely hope that the discussions during this occasion will lead to significant benefits for women and the cause you are here to support. The press has accused the women of the North of lacking zeal and enthusiasm in the war. While there is some truth to that, overall, they are loyal to their government and support all efforts to suppress the rebellion; however, I worry they do not fully embrace the spirit of the women during the Revolution. Many women have a deep love for their country and justice, and they are willing to face any loss and make almost any sacrifice to ensure that the rebellion fails and the bonds of oppression are not tightened. If they show less enthusiasm than their patriotic brothers, it’s because they have fewer opportunities to express that enthusiasm. Society’s norms don’t allow women to show strong or loud emotions. Yet, the blood of Revolutionary ancestors runs just as strongly in their veins, and they can feel just as deeply, suffer just as intensely, and endure just as bravely as their more privileged brothers. But I want them to do more than just suffer and endure; I want them to not only commit to supporting the government in its mission to thwart its enemies’ plans but to also raise their voices loud and clear against any peace with rebels unless it’s based on complete submission to the government’s authority. Loyal women everywhere should speak out against the plans of the Peace party in the North. It is my heartfelt wish that your discussions be marked by sound judgment, wise insight, and genuine patriotism.
Amelia Bloomer.
Amelia Bloomer.
MINNESOTA.
Hokah, Houston Co., Minn., May 13, 1863.
Hokah, Houston County, Minnesota, May 13, 1863.
To Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:— ... While the women of the South, with a heroism and self-denial worthy a better cause, have no doubt aided in fanning the flame of rebellion, it appears to me eminently proper that the loyal women of the North should meet in council to express their sentiments in regard to the great principles of humanity and justice. Many of us have sons and brothers on the tented field, and while we[Pg 887] deplore the stern necessity that drew them from the endearments of home; while we tremble with anxiety lest the mournful tidings that have saddened so many hearts should fall with crushing weight on ourselves, a voice from the army comes to us with thrilling earnestness that awakens with redoubled vigor the feeling of patriotism within us. Our noble soldiery are taking a stand on the broad platform of universal liberty and justice. With scathing words they have rebuked the traitors in our midst; and they now breathe out threatenings and slaughter to the miscreants who would rend the fair heritage transmitted to us by the heroes of the Revolution.
To Susan B. Anthony—Dear Madam:— ... While the women of the South, with a bravery and selflessness deserving of a better cause, have undoubtedly helped fuel the flames of rebellion, I believe it is absolutely proper for the loyal women of the North to gather and discuss their views on the vital principles of humanity and justice. Many of us have sons and brothers on the battlefield, and while we[Pg 887] lament the harsh necessity that pulled them away from the comforts of home; while we are filled with anxiety that the sad news that has broken so many hearts might crush us as well, a call from the army reaches us with a passionate intensity that reignites our sense of patriotism. Our brave soldiers are standing firm for the broad principles of universal liberty and justice. With strong words, they have condemned the traitors in our midst; and they are now issuing threats and promises of violence to the miscreants who would tear apart the beautiful legacy passed down to us by the heroes of the Revolution.
May every patriotic woman in the land do her utmost to uphold and strengthen the holy purpose that inspires the loyal heart of the army. For myself, I regard no sacrifice too great that will conduct to the comfort of the brave men who are risking life and limb in the sacred cause of freedom; and I am proud to say that this is the sentiment of every lady within the circle of my acquaintance. I most sincerely hope that some lady in your Convention will offer a resolution touching a great wrong that has been practiced toward our sick and wounded soldiers in some of the hospitals, namely, the neglect of the proper officers to affix their signatures to discharges made out, in many instances for a long time, until the hope of once more seeing the dear ones at home has faded from the heart of the poor soldier, and he has laid him down to die among strangers, when but for this cruel neglect his life might, perhaps, have been spared to bless the dear ones at home, or at least have given them the great boon of smoothing his passage to the grave. I believe this thing has done much to discourage enlistments. Is there no remedy? I leave it to those of more influence and superior judgment to decide.
May every patriotic woman in the country do her best to support and strengthen the noble cause that inspires the loyal hearts of the army. As for me, I believe no sacrifice is too great to ensure the comfort of the brave men who are risking their lives for the sacred cause of freedom; I am proud to say that this feeling is shared by every woman in my circle. I sincerely hope that someone in your Convention will propose a resolution addressing a serious injustice that has been inflicted on our sick and wounded soldiers in some hospitals, specifically the failure of the proper officials to sign discharge papers, which in many cases has taken far too long. This neglect has often caused the hope of returning home to fade from the hearts of these soldiers, leaving them to die among strangers when, with better care, their lives might have been saved to bring joy to their loved ones or, at the very least, to ease their passage to the grave. I believe this issue has significantly discouraged enlistments. Is there no solution? I leave it to those with more influence and better judgment to decide.
With sentiments of respect, I subscribe myself a loyal woman,
With respect, I consider myself a loyal woman,
Mary C. Pound.
Mary C. Pound.
KANSAS.
Quindaro, Kansas, May 4, 1863.
Quindaro, Kansas, May 4, 1863.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—Your call to the loyal women of the nation meets my hearty response. I have been feeling for months that their activities, in the crisis which is upon us, should not be limited to the scraping of lint and concocting of delicacies for our brave and suffering soldiers. Women, equally with men, should address themselves to the removing of the wicked cause of all this terrible sacrifice of life and its loving, peaceful issues. It is their privilege to profit by the lessons being taught at such a fearful cost. And discerning clearly the mistakes of the past, it is their duty to apply themselves cheerfully and perseveringly to the eradication of every wrong and the restoration of every right, as affecting directly or indirectly the progress of the race toward the divine standard of human intelligence and goodness. No sacrifice of right, no conservation of wrong, should be the rally-call of mothers whose sons must vindicate the one and expiate the other in blood! Negro slavery is but one of the protean forms of disfranchised humanity. Class legislation is the one great fountain of national and domestic antagonisms. Every ignoring of inherent rights, every transfer of inherent interest, from the first organization of communities, has been the license of power to robbery and murder, itself the embodiment of a thievish and murderous selfishness.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—Your call to the loyal women of the nation really resonates with me. I've felt for months that during this crisis, their efforts shouldn't just focus on bandaging injuries and making treats for our brave soldiers. Women, just like men, should work on eliminating the root cause of all this horrific loss of life and its peaceful aftermath. They have the opportunity to learn from the hard lessons this situation teaches us. Recognizing the mistakes of the past, it’s their responsibility to diligently and cheerfully work on correcting every injustice and restoring every right, which directly or indirectly influences the progress of humanity toward a higher standard of intelligence and goodness. No sacrifice of right, no conservation of wrong, should be the rallying cry of mothers whose sons must fight for justice and remedy the wrongdoings with their blood! Slavery of Black people is just one of the many forms of oppressed humanity. Class legislation is the main source of national and social conflicts. Every disregard for basic rights, every change of inherent interests, since communities first formed, has given power to theft and violence, reflecting a selfishness that is both thieving and murderous.
That the disenfranchisement of the women of '76 destroyed the moral guarantee of a pure republic, or that their enfranchisement would early have broken the chains of the slave, I may not now discuss. Yet it may be well to note that ever since freedom and slavery joined issue in this Government, the women of the free States have been a conceded majority, almost a unit, against slavery, as if verifying the declaration of God in the garden, "I will put enmity between thee (Satan) and the woman." Every legal invasion of rights, forming a precedent and source of infinite series of resultant wrongs, makes it the duty of woman to persist in demanding the right, that she may abate the wrong—and first her own enfranchisement. The national life is in peril, and woman is constitutionally disabled from rushing to her country's rescue. Robbery and arson invade her home; and though man is powerless to protect, she may not save it by appeals to the ballot-box.
That the disenfranchisement of women in '76 undermined the moral foundation of a true republic, or that giving them the right to vote could have helped free the slaves sooner, isn’t something I can discuss right now. Still, it’s important to point out that ever since the debate over freedom and slavery began in this country, the women in free states have formed a nearly unanimous majority against slavery, as if confirming God’s declaration in the garden, "I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman." Every legal attack on rights sets a precedent and leads to countless resulting injustices, making it a woman’s duty to continue demanding her rights to help end these wrongs—starting with her own right to vote. The nation is in danger, and women are constitutionally unable to step in and save their country. Crime and destruction threaten their homes; and even though men may be powerless to protect them, women can’t even help by voting.
A hundred thousand loyal voters of Illinois are grappling with the traitors of the South. If the hundred thousand loyal women left in their homes had been armed with ballots, copperhead treason would not have wrested the influence of that State to the aid and comfort[Pg 888] of the rebellion. If the women of Iowa had been legally empowered to meet treason at home, the wasteful expense of canvassing distant battle-fields for the soldiers' votes might have been saved. And it would have been easier for these women to vote than to pay their proportion of the tax incurred. Yankee thrift and shrewdness would have been vindicated if Connecticut had provided for the enfranchisement of her women by constitutional amendment, instead of wasting her money and butting her dignity against judicial vetoes in legislating for the absent soldiers' vote.
A hundred thousand loyal voters in Illinois are facing off against the traitors from the South. If the hundred thousand loyal women at home had been armed with ballots, copperhead treason wouldn’t have taken away the influence of that state to support the rebellion. If the women of Iowa had been legally allowed to combat treason locally, the costly effort of reaching out to distant battlefields for the soldiers' votes could have been avoided. It would have been easier for these women to vote than to pay their share of the taxes incurred. Yankee resourcefulness and intelligence would have been proven if Connecticut had set up a constitutional amendment to grant women the right to vote, instead of wasting money and fighting against judicial vetoes while trying to legislate for the absent soldiers' vote.
This war is adding a vast army of widows and orphans to this already large class of unrepresented humanity. Shall the women who have been judged worthy and capable to discharge the duties of both parents to their children, be longer denied the legal and political rights held necessary to the successful discharge of a part even of these duties by men? With these few hasty suggestions, and an earnest prayer for the highest wisdom and purest love to guide and vitalize your deliberations, sisters, I bid you farewell.
This war is creating a huge number of widows and orphans, adding to the already significant group of unrepresented people. Should women, who have proven themselves capable of taking on both parental roles for their children, continue to be denied the legal and political rights that are essential for fulfilling even part of these responsibilities, which men possess? With these brief thoughts in mind, and a heartfelt prayer for the greatest wisdom and purest love to lead and energize your discussions, sisters, I say goodbye.
C. I. H. Nichols.
C. I. H. Nichols.
BUSINESS MEETING.
New York Tribune's Report of the Adjourned Business Meeting of the Woman's Loyal National League, held Friday Afternoon, May 15, 1863.
New York Tribune's Report of the Adjourned Business Meeting of the Woman's Loyal National League, held Friday Afternoon, May 15, 1863.
The Business Committee of the Loyal League of Women, with a number of ladies who take an interest in the formation of such a society, met yesterday afternoon in the Lecture-Room of the Church of the Puritans, for the purpose of agreeing upon some definite platform, and of determining the future operations of the League.
The Business Committee of the Loyal League of Women, along with several ladies interested in creating such a society, met yesterday afternoon in the Lecture Room of the Church of the Puritans. They aimed to agree on a clear platform and figure out the League's future activities.
Miss Susan B. Anthony, as President of the Business Committee, took the chair, and at 3 o'clock called the meeting to order.
Miss Susan B. Anthony, in her role as President of the Business Committee, took her seat and started the meeting at 3 o'clock.
Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton rose to decline accepting the nomination she had received on Thursday, as President of the League. She could not pledge herself to unconditional loyalty to the Government—certainly not if the Government took any retrogressive step. As President of the National League, many might object to her on account of what they termed her isms, her radical Anti-Slavery and Woman's Rights, her demand for liberty and equality for women and negroes. She desired the vote by which she had been made President might be reconsidered.
Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton stood up to turn down the nomination she received on Thursday for President of the League. She could not commit to unconditional loyalty to the Government—especially not if the Government took any backward steps. As President of the National League, many might oppose her because of what they called her isms, her radical views on Anti-Slavery and Women's Rights, and her demand for liberty and equality for both women and Black people. She wanted the vote that made her President to be reconsidered.
Miss Anthony thought there were fears of the Government retrogressing in the policy of Freedom. The question is every day discussed in the papers as to what terms the South shall be received back again. She could not be Secretary of a League which was pledged to unconditional loyalty to the Government, until the Government was pledged to unconditional loyalty to Freedom. Miss Anthony then read the following pledge and resolutions, which had, on Thursday, been partially agreed to:
Miss Anthony believed there were concerns about the Government moving backward in its commitment to Freedom. The issue is frequently debated in the newspapers regarding the conditions under which the South should be readmitted. She couldn't serve as Secretary of a League that was committed to unconditional loyalty to the Government until the Government also committed to unconditional loyalty to Freedom. Miss Anthony then read the following pledge and resolutions, which had been partially agreed upon on Thursday:
THE PLEDGE.
We, the undersigned women of the nation, do hereby pledge ourselves loyal to justice and humanity, and to the Government in so far as it makes the war a war for freedom.
We, the undersigned women of the nation, pledge ourselves loyal to justice and humanity, and to the Government as long as it makes the war a war for freedom.
RESOLUTIONS.
Resolved, That we rejoice in the local Women's Leagues already formed, and earnestly recommend their organization throughout the country; and that we urge the women everywhere to take the highest ground of patriotism—our country right, not wrong.
Resolved, That we celebrate the local Women's Leagues that have already been established, and strongly encourage their formation across the country; and that we urge women everywhere to adopt the highest standard of patriotism—our country right, not wrong.
Resolved, That we hail the Conscription Act as necessary for the salvation of the country, and cheerfully resign to it our husbands, lovers, brothers, and sons.
Resolved, That we welcome the Conscription Act as essential for the country's survival, and willingly give up our husbands, partners, brothers, and sons to it.
Resolved, That inasmuch as this war must bring freedom to the black man, it is but just that he should share in the glory and hardships of the struggle.
Resolved, That since this war must bring freedom to Black people, it is only fair that they should share in the glory and challenges of the fight.
Miss Anthony explained what a National League was, and what business and pecuniary responsibilities it entailed.
Miss Anthony described what a National League was and the business and financial responsibilities it involved.
Mrs. Angelina G. Weld suggested that before entering on other matters, the question of officers should be settled.
Mrs. Angelina G. Weld suggested that before moving on to other topics, the issue of officers should be resolved.
Miss Anthony:—Will some one put the motion?
Miss Anthony:—Can someone please make the motion?
Mrs. Loveland took the floor. She stated that she had come there the day before with one idea—only one—and that she retained that one idea still, and that was that the women of the nation should pledge themselves to stand by the Conscription Act. Mrs. Loveland[Pg 889] trusted that the League would co-operate with the laws of the land, and strengthen the hands of the President in his efforts to vigorous prosecute the war. She thought the Government had made great advances in the path of progress. If the pledge required the war to be waged for freedom, that was all that was necessary. It would be desirable to secure the experience and ability of Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony in the offices to which they have been elected, she did not believe their isms would do any hurt. They were earnest and efficient workers, and the League needed them.
Mrs. Loveland took the stage. She said she had come here the day before with just one idea—only one—and she still held onto that idea, which was that the women of the nation should commit to supporting the Conscription Act. Mrs. Loveland[Pg 889] hoped that the League would work alongside the laws of the land and help the President in his efforts to vigorously prosecute the war. She believed the Government had made significant progress. If the pledge required that the war be fought for freedom, that was all that mattered. It would be beneficial to utilize the experience and skills of Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony in the positions they had been elected to, and she didn’t think their views would cause any harm. They were dedicated and effective workers, and the League needed them.
Miss Willard, of Pa., thought there was a way to get over the difficulty. The pledge is conditional to the extent of requiring the war to be a war for freedom. Miss Willard said she was a true patriot. She loved her country. She had borne with its defects, though she confessed she had sometimes desired to remove them. She believed in sustaining the Government, though if Vallandigham should chance to be elected President, she really didn't know what she should do.
Miss Willard from Pennsylvania thought there was a way to overcome the issue. The pledge depends on the war being a fight for freedom. Miss Willard claimed she was a true patriot. She loved her country and had tolerated its flaws, even though she admitted she sometimes wished to fix them. She believed in supporting the government, but if Vallandigham happened to be elected President, she honestly didn’t know what she would do.
Miss Willard seemed to think that the pledge offered would do under the existing Administration. When there is a change, we can have another League. She believed if the President was slow he was sure, and that he was the Moses who was to lead this people to their promised land of freedom.
Miss Willard seemed to believe that the pledge offered would work under the current administration. When there's a change, we can start another league. She thought that if the President was cautious, he was definitely right, and that he was the one meant to guide this people to their promised land of freedom.
Several desultory remarks were made in the audience. Presently an elderly lady—a Mrs. Maginley—arose and expressed her opinions. She had confidence in Mr. Lincoln, but denounced Gen. Banks, who, she said, was a hero in one place and a slave-driver in another. As next President, we may get a ditch-digger—(Mrs. M. evidently intended this as a sly allusion to a distinguished military chieftain)—and then what are we to do? She wished to know who, loving the black man, could take this pledge?
Several random comments were made by the audience. Then an elderly woman—Mrs. Maginley—stood up and shared her thoughts. She trusted Mr. Lincoln but criticized Gen. Banks, who, she claimed, was a hero in one situation and a slave-driver in another. If we end up with a ditch-digger as the next President—(Mrs. M. clearly meant this as a subtle dig at a well-known military leader)—what are we supposed to do? She wanted to know who, genuinely caring for the black man, could make that promise?
Miss Anthony read the pledge over previous to putting it on its passage. It was adopted without opposition.
Miss Anthony read the pledge aloud before it was passed. It was accepted without any objections.
Miss Anthony read the resolutions again.
Miss Anthony read the resolutions again.
Mrs. Spence asked if the Government had acted in a way to inspire confidence. She was not satisfied with the Emancipation Proclamation.
Mrs. Spence asked if the government had acted in a way that would inspire confidence. She wasn't satisfied with the Emancipation Proclamation.
Mrs. Stanton had faith that the Government was moving in the right direction.
Mrs. Stanton believed that the Government was heading in the right direction.
Mrs. Spence objected to Mr. Lincoln's grounds for issuing the Proclamation.
Mrs. Spence disagreed with Mr. Lincoln's reasons for issuing the Proclamation.
Mrs. Weld stated that he said he did it on the ground of justice.
Mrs. Weld said that he claimed he did it for the sake of justice.
Miss Willard believed Mr. Lincoln was working as fast as he could. A man going a journey of a mile did not do it all in one jump. He had to get over the ground step by step. Just so with the President. We must not expect him to do all at once.
Miss Willard believed Mr. Lincoln was working as quickly as he could. A man traveling a mile doesn’t do it all in one leap. He has to cover the distance step by step. The same goes for the President. We shouldn’t expect him to accomplish everything at once.
The first resolution was unanimously passed. The resolution in regard to the Conscription Act was then taken up.
The first resolution was approved unanimously. They then proceeded to discuss the resolution concerning the Conscription Act.
Mrs. Spence asked (for information) whether they were willing to receive the Conscription law as it was? What did they think of the $300 clause about substitutes? Some lovers (Mrs. Spence said lovers, not husbands) would certainly buy themselves off.
Mrs. Spence asked if they were okay with accepting the Conscription law as it was. What did they think about the $300 clause regarding substitutes? Some lovers (Mrs. Spence emphasized lovers, not husbands) would definitely pay to get out of it.
Mrs. Stanton would accept the Conscription law because it was necessary—not because it was just in all its provisions.
Mrs. Stanton would accept the Conscription law because it was necessary—not because it was fair in all its provisions.
Mrs. Spence: If your husbands propose to pay three hundred dollars, would you urge them to go themselves?
Mrs. Spence: If your husbands offer to pay three hundred dollars, would you encourage them to go themselves?
Mrs. Stanton: We shall urge them to go as to the post of glory.
Mrs. Stanton: We will encourage them to go as if heading to a place of honor.
Mrs. Loveland would urge her husband. She was very severe on the skedaddlers to Canada and Europe. Still, all the European conscription laws permitted some kind of substitution. Her idea was that as the men must go to the war now, the women should give tone to its music.
Mrs. Loveland would push her husband. She was really tough on those who fled to Canada and Europe. Still, all the European draft laws allowed for some sort of substitution. Her belief was that since the men had to go to war now, the women should shape its essence.
A Lady: If the men would give themselves, why not freely? Is a conscription itself consistent with freedom?
A Lady: If the men would volunteer, why not do it willingly? Is being drafted really consistent with freedom?
Miss Willard, while believing in certain cases of exemption, liked the conscription because it would take in the copperheads. (Applause).
Miss Willard, while believing in some cases of exemption, supported the draft because it would include the copperheads. (Applause).
The Lady: What kind of soldiers would copperheads make?
The Lady: What kind of soldiers would copperheads be?
Mrs. Loveland: Good soldiers! Men who have the courage they have to brave public opinion, would make good soldiers if put in the ranks with bayonets behind them. (Applause).
Mrs. Loveland: Good soldiers! Men who have the courage to stand up against public opinion would make great soldiers if they were lined up with bayonets at their backs. (Applause).
Mr. Giles B. Stebbins, of Rochester, reported, as information, the mistake lately[Pg 890] made in The New York Times that the $300 substitution indemnity was in the discretion of the Secretary of War.
Mr. Giles B. Stebbins, from Rochester, reported that there was a mistake recently[Pg 890] made in The New York Times claiming that the $300 substitution indemnity was up to the Secretary of War's discretion.
The resolution was thereupon moved by Miss Willard, seconded by Mrs. Stanton, and passed unanimously.
The resolution was then proposed by Miss Willard, seconded by Mrs. Stanton, and passed unanimously.
An address to the soldiers, prepared by Angelina Grimké Weld, was then read.
An address to the soldiers, prepared by Angelina Grimké Weld, was then read.
Soldiers of our Second Revolution—Brethren:—A thousand of your sisters, in a convention representing the Loyal Women of the Nation, greet you with profound gratitude. Your struggles, sufferings, daring, heroic self-devotion, and sublime achievements, we exult in them all.
Soldiers of our Second Revolution—Brothers:—A thousand of your sisters, in a convention representing the Loyal Women of the Nation, greet you with deep gratitude. We celebrate your struggles, suffering, bravery, heroic selflessness, and amazing achievements.
To you, especially, whose terms of service have expired, or are soon to expire, we desire to speak of the shifting scenes now acting in the nation's tragedy. This war of slavery against freedom did not begin with the first shot at Sumter, it did not begin when the slaveocracy broke up the Charleston Convention, in order to secure the election of Mr. Lincoln, and thus palm upon the Southern masses a false pretense for rebellion. It did not begin with nullification in 1832, nor in the Convention that framed the Federal Constitution; nor yet in that which adopted the Articles of Confederation; but it began in 1620, when the Mayflower landed our fathers on Plymouth Rock, and the first slave-ship landed its human cargo in Virginia. Then, for the first time, liberty and slavery stood face to face on this continent. From then till now, these antagonisms have struggled in incessant conflict. Two years since, the slaveocracy, true to their instincts of violence, after long and secret plotting, crowned their perfidy by perjury, by piratical seizures of Government property that cost $100,000,000, and then burst into open rebellion.
To you, especially those whose terms of service have expired or are about to expire, we want to talk about the changing events currently unfolding in the nation's tragedy. This war for freedom against slavery didn’t start with the first shot at Fort Sumter, nor when the slaveholders disrupted the Charleston Convention to ensure the election of Mr. Lincoln, forcing a false justification for rebellion on the Southern populace. It didn’t start with the nullification crisis in 1832, or in the Convention that created the Federal Constitution; nor did it begin with the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. It started in 1620, when the Mayflower brought our ancestors to Plymouth Rock, and when the first slave ship unloaded its human cargo in Virginia. That was the first time liberty and slavery confronted each other on this continent. From then until now, these opposing forces have been locked in constant conflict. Two years ago, the slaveholders, true to their violent instincts, after long and secretive plotting, sealed their betrayal with perjury and by unlawfully seizing government property worth $100,000,000, and then openly rebelled.
This war is not, as the South falsely pretends, a war of races, nor of sections, nor of political parties, but a war of Principles; a war upon the working-classes, whether white or black; a war against Man, the world over. In this war, the black man was the first victim; the workingman of whatever color the next; and now all who contend for the rights of labor, for free speech, free schools, free suffrage, and a free government, securing to all life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are driven to do battle in defense of these or to fall with them, victims of the same violence that for two centuries has held the black man a prisoner of war. While the South has waged this war against human rights, the North has stood by holding the garments of those who were stoning liberty to death. It was in vain that a few at the North denounced the system, and called the people to repentance. In vain did they point to the progress of the slave power, and warn the people that their own liberties were being cloven down. The North still went on, throwing sop after sop to the Cerberus of slavery that hounded her through the wilderness of concession and compromise, until the crash of Sumter taught her that with the slaveocracy no rights are sacred. The Government, attacked by assassins, was forced to fight for its own life. The progress of the war has proved that slavery is the life-blood of the rebellion. Hence the necessity of the President's Proclamation of Freedom to the slaves.
This war is not, as the South wrongly claims, a war of races, or regions, or political parties, but a war of Principles; a war against the working class, whether white or black; a war against Man globally. In this war, the black man was the first victim; the working man of any color was next; and now all who fight for labor rights, for free speech, free education, free voting, and a free government that ensures all have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are compelled to battle to defend these rights or face becoming victims themselves, experiencing the same violence that has kept the black man imprisoned for two centuries. While the South has fought this war against human rights, the North has stood by, complicit, as those who were attacking freedom were allowed to thrive. It was futile for a few in the North to denounce the system and call people to change. It was pointless for them to highlight the growing power of slavery and warn that their own freedoms were being stripped away. The North continued to appease the beast of slavery that chased it through a maze of concessions and compromises, until the attack on Fort Sumter made it clear that under the slave power no rights are safe. The government, under attack, had to fight for its own survival. The course of the war has shown that slavery is the lifeblood of the rebellion. That’s why the President's Proclamation of Freedom for the slaves was necessary.
The nation is in a death-struggle. It must either become one vast slaveocracy of petty tyrants, or wholly the land of the free. The traitors boast that they have swept from the national firmament one-third of its stars, but they have only darkened them with clouds, which the sun of liberty will scatter, revealing behind them the eternal pillars of Justice, emblazoned with liberty, equality, fraternity.
The nation is in a life-or-death battle. It must either turn into a massive dictatorship of small tyrants or fully become a land of freedom. The traitors brag that they've wiped out one-third of its stars from the national sky, but they have only covered them with clouds, which the sunlight of liberty will disperse, revealing the everlasting pillars of Justice, shining with liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Soldiers of this revolution, to your hands is committed the sacred duty of carrying out in these latter days the ideal of our fathers, which was to secure to all "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and to every State "a republican form of government." To break the power of this rebellion, calls for every available force. You know how extensively black men are now being armed. Some regiments are already in the field; twenty more are now under drill. Will you not, in this hour of national peril, gratefully welcome the aid which they so eagerly proffer, to overthrow that slave power which has so long ruled the North, and now, that you spurn its sway, is bent on crushing you? Will you not abjure that vulgar hate which has conspired with slavery against liberty in our land, and thus roll from the sepulcher, where they have buried it alive, the stone which has so long imprisoned their victim? The army of the North will thus become[Pg 891] the angel of deliverance, rescuing the nation from the shifting sands of compromise, and refounding it upon the rock of justice.
Soldiers of this revolution, you have the sacred duty to carry out in these last days the ideal of our forefathers, which was to guarantee for everyone "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and to provide every state with "a republican form of government." To defeat this rebellion, we need every available force. You know how widely black men are being armed now. Some regiments are already in the field; twenty more are currently in training. In this moment of national danger, will you not gratefully accept the support they are so eagerly offering to dismantle the slave power that has dominated the North for so long, and now, as you reject its control, is determined to crush you? Will you not abandon that crude hatred that has aligned itself with slavery against freedom in our country, and lift the stone that has kept liberty imprisoned in the grave where it was buried alive? The army of the North will thus become[Pg 891] the angel of deliverance, saving the nation from the shifting sands of compromise and rebuilding it on the foundation of justice.
Some of you have been mustered out of service; many more are soon to return to your homes. All hail to you! Honor and gratitude for what you have done and suffered! Enough if you have only been fighting for the Union as it was. But is it enough, if the work for which the war is now prosecuted is not accomplished? Your country needs your power of soldierly endurance and accomplishment, your hard-earned experience, your varied tact and trained skill, your practiced eye and hand—in a word, all that makes you veterans, ripe in discipline and educated power. Raw recruits can not fill your places. Brave men! your mission, though far advanced, is not accomplished. You will not, can not, abide at home, while your brethren in arms carry victory and liberty down to the Gulf.
Some of you have finished your service; many more of you will soon be back home. Cheers to you! We honor and appreciate everything you’ve done and endured! It’s enough if you’ve only been fighting for the Union as it was. But is that really enough if the goal of the war is not achieved? Your country needs your resilience and skills as soldiers, your hard-earned experience, your diverse strategies and honed abilities, your trained eye and hand—basically, everything that makes you seasoned veterans, skilled and disciplined. New recruits can’t take your place. Brave men! Your mission, although well underway, is not finished. You won’t, and can’t, stay at home while your fellow soldiers bring victory and freedom down to the Gulf.
With joy and admiration we greet you on your homeward way, while your loved ones await your coming with mingled delight and pride. When, after a brief sojourn, you go back again, convoyed by the grateful acclaim and God-speed of millions, to consummate at Freedom's call her holy work, the mightiest of all time, and now so near its end, with exultant shouts your brothers in the field will hail your coming to share with them the glory of the final victory. It will be the victory of free government, sacred rights, justice, liberty, and law, over the perfidies, perjuries, lying pretenses, and frantic revelries in innocent blood, of the foulest national crime that ever reeked to heaven—the overthrow of the most atrocious yet the meanest despotism that ever tortured the groaning earth.
With joy and admiration, we welcome you on your way home, while your loved ones eagerly await your arrival with mixed feelings of happiness and pride. When, after a short stay, you go back again, accompanied by the grateful cheers and well-wishes of millions, to fulfill Freedom's call and its sacred mission—the greatest of all time, now so close to completion—your brothers in the field will greet you with triumphant shouts as you join them in celebrating the glory of the final victory. This victory will be for free government, sacred rights, justice, liberty, and law, defeating the betrayals, lies, false claims, and reckless celebrations in innocent blood, of the most shameful national crime that ever cried out to heaven—the overthrow of the most atrocious yet the most cowardly tyranny that ever tormented the suffering earth.
In behalf of the Women's National Loyal League.
On behalf of the Women's National Loyal League.
E. Cady Stanton, President.
E. Cady Stanton, President.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary.
Mrs. Stanton: I suppose it is known to all present that Angelina Grimké Weld is the representative from South Carolina. Contrast her eloquent pleadings for freedom, throughout the sittings of our Convention, with the voice of South Carolina, when, at the framing of the Constitution, slavery, with its cruel creeds and codes, was fastened on the Republic just struggling into life. Here, for the first time in our history, have the women of the nation assembled to discuss the political questions of the day, and to decide where and how to throw the weight of their influence. I am proud to feel that from this meeting goes forth a united demand for freedom to all, for a true Republic, in which the rights of every citizen shall be recognized and protected.
Mrs. Stanton: I think everyone here knows that Angelina Grimké Weld is the representative from South Carolina. Compare her passionate calls for freedom during our Convention to the stance of South Carolina when the Constitution was being written, where slavery, along with its harsh beliefs and laws, was imposed on the young nation. For the first time in our history, the women of this country have come together to talk about the political issues of our time and to decide how to use their influence. I’m proud that from this meeting, we are sending out a unified demand for freedom for all, for a true Republic, where the rights of every citizen are recognized and protected.
THE PLATFORM OF THE LEAGUE.
Resolved, That our work as a National League is to educate the nation into the true idea of a Christian Republic.
Resolved, That our mission as a National League is to educate the nation about the true concept of a Christian Republic.
This is the resolve finally adopted. Considerable preliminary debate, in which many ladies joined, took place on details of form and phraseology. The resolve as it stands was constructed by Mrs. Stanton, with the exception of the word "Christian."
This is the resolution that was finally adopted. There was a significant amount of initial debate, with many women participating, focusing on the details of the wording and structure. The resolution as it is now was crafted by Mrs. Stanton, except for the word "Christian."
There was an earnest discussion on the introduction of the word Christian; some argued that a true Republic, where every human being's rights were recognized, could but be Christian. A Mrs. McFarland seemed to settle the question, by stating a fact of history, that in olden times there were Pagan Republics.
There was a serious conversation about when the term Christian came into use; some people argued that a true Republic, where the rights of every person were acknowledged, could only be Christian. A Mrs. McFarland appeared to resolve the debate by noting a historical fact: that in ancient times, there were Pagan Republics.
Miss Anthony said: No matter if it were a mere tautology: it required repetition to make this nation, so steeped in crime against humanity, understand. She then spoke of the awful lie of this nation, in naming itself Civilized, Republican, Christian, while it had made barter of men and women, bought and sold children of the Good Father, and paid their price to send missionaries to the Fejee Islands and the remotest corners of the earth, while it stood bound to fine and imprison any man or woman who should teach any one of four millions of its own citizens at home to read the letters that spell the word God. It would take long years to educate this nation into the idea and practice of a true, Christian Republic. It was a momentous work the women of this National Loyal League had undertaken. And she hoped one and all would take in its full import, and dedicate themselves fully and earnestly to the work.
Miss Anthony said: Even if it seemed like just repeating the same thing, it took repetition to get this country, so deeply entrenched in crimes against humanity, to understand. She then talked about the terrible hypocrisy of this nation, calling itself Civilized, Republican, and Christian, while it traded men and women, bought and sold children of the Good Father, and spent money to send missionaries to the Fiji Islands and the most distant parts of the world, all while being ready to fine and jail anyone who would teach any of its own four million citizens at home how to read the letters that spell God. It would take many years to educate this nation to grasp the idea and practice of a true Christian Republic. The women of this National Loyal League had taken on an important task. And she hoped everyone would recognize its significance and commit themselves fully and sincerely to the work.
Officers of the Women's Loyal National League.—President, Mrs. E. Cady Stanton; Vice-Presidents, Mrs. Col. A. B. Eaton, Mrs. Edward S. Bates, Mrs. Mary S.[Pg 892] Hall; Secretary, Susan B. Anthony; Corresponding Secretary, S. E. Draper; Treasurer, Mrs. H. F. Conrad; Executive Committee, Miss Mattie Griffith, Miss R. K. Shepherd Mrs. B. Peters, Mrs. C. S. Lozier, M.D., Mrs. Mary A. Halsted, Mrs. Laura M. Ward, M.D., Mrs. Mary F. Gilbert.
Officers of the Women's Loyal National League.—President, Mrs. E. Cady Stanton; Vice-Presidents, Mrs. Col. A. B. Eaton, Mrs. Edward S. Bates, Mrs. Mary S.[Pg 892] Hall; Secretary, Susan B. Anthony; Corresponding Secretary, S. E. Draper; Treasurer, Mrs. H. F. Conrad; Executive Committee, Miss Mattie Griffith, Miss R. K. Shepherd, Mrs. B. Peters, Mrs. C. S. Lozier, M.D., Mrs. Mary A. Halsted, Mrs. Laura M. Ward, M.D., Mrs. Mary F. Gilbert.
Plan of Work Adopted by the Women's Loyal National League.—At a meeting of the Women's Loyal National League, held at their office, room 20, Cooper Institute, May 29, the following resolutions were adopted:
Plan of Work Adopted by the Women's Loyal National League.—At a meeting of the Women's Loyal National League, held at their office, room 20, Cooper Institute, on May 29, the following resolutions were adopted:
Resolved, That the following be the official title and the pledge of the League—the pledge to be signed by all applicants for membership: "Women's Loyal National League, organized in the city of New York, May 14, 1863."
Resolved, That the following will be the official title and pledge of the League—the pledge to be signed by all applicants for membership: "Women's Loyal National League, established in New York City, May 14, 1863."
We, the undersigned, women of the United States, agree to become members of the Women's Loyal National League, hereby pledging our most earnest influence in support of the Government in its prosecution of the war for freedom and for the restoration of the national unity.
We, the undersigned women of the United States, agree to join the Women's Loyal National League, pledging our strongest support for the Government in its efforts to fight for freedom and restore national unity.
Resolved, That for the present this League will concentrate all its efforts upon the single object of procuring to be signed by one million women and upward, and of preparing for presentation to Congress, within the first week of its next session, a petition in the following words, to wit:
Resolved, That for now this League will focus all its efforts on getting one million women and more to sign a petition and preparing it for presentation to Congress during the first week of its next session, with the following text:
"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: The undersigned, women of the United States, above the age of eighteen years, earnestly pray that your honorable body will pass, at the earliest practicable day, an act emancipating all persons of African descent held to involuntary service or labor in the United States."
"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: We, the undersigned women of the United States, over the age of eighteen, sincerely request that your honorable body will pass, as soon as possible, a law freeing all individuals of African descent who are held in involuntary service or labor in the United States."
Resolved, That in furtherance of the above object the Executive Committee of this League be instructed to cause to be prepared and stereotyped a pamphlet, not exceeding four printed octavo pages, briefly and plainly setting forth the importance of such a movement at the present juncture—a copy of the said pamphlet to be placed in the hands of each person who may undertake to procure signatures to the above petition, and for such further distribution as may be ordered by the said Executive Committee.
Resolved, That to support the above goal, the Executive Committee of this League is instructed to prepare and print a pamphlet, no longer than four pages, clearly outlining the significance of this movement at this time—each person who volunteers to gather signatures for the above petition will receive a copy of the pamphlet, along with any additional distribution as directed by the Executive Committee.
Resolved, That to a committee of nine, to be hereafter appointed by the President and Secretary of this League, be intrusted the duty of procuring subscriptions to defray the expenses connected with the preparation, and signature, and presentation of the said petition.
Resolved, That a committee of nine, to be appointed later by the President and Secretary of this League, will be responsible for gathering donations to cover the costs associated with preparing, signing, and presenting the petition.
June 5.
June 5.
Resolved, That all bills be submitted for approval to the Executive Committee, and if approved, shall be certified as such by the Chairman of that Committee.
Resolved, That all bills must be submitted for approval to the Executive Committee, and if approved, will be certified by the Chairman of that Committee.
Resolved, That for the amount of each bill so approved the Secretary shall draw on the Treasurer in favor of the person presenting such bill.
Resolved, That for the amount of each approved bill, the Secretary shall request payment from the Treasurer in favor of the person submitting that bill.
June 12.
June 12.
Resolved, That as nearly the same labor and expense are required to obtain signatures of women alone as of both men and women, the Secretary be requested to prepare and circulate petitions for men also.
Resolved, That since it takes almost the same amount of effort and cost to get signatures from women alone as it does from both men and women, the Secretary is asked to prepare and share petitions for men as well.
June 26.
June 26.
Resolved, That the probable expense of preparing, circulating, and presenting our petitions, will amount to not less than one cent for each name; therefore,
Resolved, That the expected cost of preparing, distributing, and presenting our petitions will be at least one cent for each name; therefore,
Resolved, That we request those who circulate the petition, to solicit of each person signing a contribution of one cent, and forward the same with petition and signatures to our Secretary, Susan B. Anthony, Room No. 20, Cooper Institute, New York.
Resolved, That we ask those who are sharing the petition to request a contribution of one cent from each person signing it, and send the contributions along with the petition and signatures to our Secretary, Susan B. Anthony, Room No. 20, Cooper Institute, New York.
Resolved, That the Central League in New York will bestow their badge and membership, as a gift, upon each boy or girl, under eighteen, who shall collect and forward to them fifty or more names, and as many cents.
Resolved, That the Central League in New York will give their badge and membership, as a gift, to each boy or girl under eighteen who collects and sends them fifty or more names, along with that many cents.
Resolved, also, That the Central League will bestow a handsomely bound copy of each of the celebrated and recently published works of Augustin Cochin on Slavery and Emancipation, on the person who shall collect and forward the largest number of signatures from any city of the Union having a population of twenty-five thousand; also, on the[Pg 893] person who shall collect the largest number of names in any of the States, outside of said cities.
Resolved, also, that the Central League will award a beautifully bound copy of each of the famous and recently published works by Augustin Cochin on Slavery and Emancipation to the individual who gathers and sends the most signatures from any city in the Union with a population of twenty-five thousand; also, to the [Pg 893] person who collects the most names in any of the states, outside of those cities.
Resolved, That each lady to whom the pledge and petition blanks are inclosed be requested to bring them to the notice of the clergymen and teachers in her vicinity, with a request that they shall take some action in the matter.
Resolved, That each woman who receives the pledge and petition forms is asked to bring them to the attention of the clergymen and teachers in her area, with a request that they take some action on the issue.
Resolved, That such ladies are earnestly requested to organize Auxiliary Leagues in their towns and neighborhoods, for the purposes of correspondence with the Central League, and of collecting and forwarding with facility names and money for the furtherance of the grand object in view; also, for holding meetings to discuss and elucidate the necessity of our demand for an act of Universal Emancipation.
Resolved, That these ladies are strongly encouraged to set up Auxiliary Leagues in their towns and neighborhoods, to communicate with the Central League, and to easily collect and send names and funds to support our major goal; also, to hold meetings to discuss and clarify the importance of our demand for a law of Universal Emancipation.
A hearty co-operation from our women in all parts of the loyal States is most earnestly invited. We would urge upon them the formation of auxiliary Leagues, which shall receive from us blanks for petitions, and pledges, as well as any information or advice they may need. We ask them not only to form Leagues in their own towns and neighborhoods, but to send us up long lists of names as members of the Grand Central League.
A strong collaboration from our women in all parts of the loyal States is greatly encouraged. We urge them to create auxiliary Leagues, which will receive petitions, pledges, and any information or guidance they may need from us. We ask them not only to establish Leagues in their own towns and neighborhoods but also to send us extensive lists of names as members of the Grand Central League.
We beg them also to solicit and send contributions, small and large, as they may be able, for the promotion of the object of the League, viz: to end this fearful war by the removal of its exciting cause—Slavery.
We also urge them to ask for and send contributions, whether small or large, as they are able, to support the League's mission: to end this terrible war by eliminating its root cause—Slavery.
In making this call upon loyal women, we feel sure of meeting with a warm response from those whose hearts and energies have already so nobly sprung to meet their country's need in her hour of trial.
In reaching out to loyal women, we are confident that we will receive a strong response from those whose hearts and efforts have already so heroically risen to support their country in its time of need.
E. Cady Stanton,
President of the League.
E. Cady Stanton,
President of the League.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary.
COMMENTS OF THE PRESS.
The New York Tribune thus speaks of this enterprise:
The New York Tribune describes this venture as follows:
A VAST ENTERPRISE PROPOSED BY WOMEN.
The "Women's Loyal National League," recently organized in this city, at a meeting held by them yesterday at the Cooper Institute, adopted the following resolutions:
The "Women's Loyal National League," recently formed in this city, held a meeting yesterday at the Cooper Institute and adopted the following resolutions:
Resolved, That for the present this League will concentrate all its efforts upon the single object of procuring to be signed by one million women and upward, and of preparing for presentation to Congress within the first week of its next session, a petition in the following words, to wit:
Resolved, That for now this League will focus all its efforts on getting one million women and more to sign, and to prepare a petition to be presented to Congress during the first week of its next session, with the following wording:
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: The undersigned, women of the United States, above the age of eighteen years, earnestly pray that your honorable body will pass, at the earliest practicable day, an act emancipating all persons of African descent held to involuntary service or labor in the United States.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: We, the undersigned women of the United States who are over eighteen years old, respectfully request that your esteemed body will pass, as soon as possible, a law freeing all individuals of African descent who are held in involuntary servitude or labor in the United States.
Resolved, That in furtherance of the above object the Executive Committee of this League be instructed to cause to be prepared and stereotyped a pamphlet, not exceeding four printed octavo pages, briefly and plainly setting forth the importance of such a movement at the present juncture—a copy of the said pamphlet to be placed in the hands of each person who may undertake to procure signatures to the above petition, and for such further distribution as may be ordered by the said Executive Committee.
Resolved, That to support the above goal, the Executive Committee of this League is directed to prepare and print a pamphlet, no longer than four pages in octavo format, clearly and concisely explaining the importance of this movement at this time—a copy of which shall be provided to each person who agrees to collect signatures for the aforementioned petition, and for any additional distribution as ordered by the Executive Committee.
The women of the League have shown practical wisdom in restricting their efforts to one object, the most important, perhaps, which any Society can aim at; and great courage in undertaking to do what, so far as we remember, has never been done in the world before, namely, to obtain one million of names to a petition. If they succeed, the moral influence on Congress ought and can not fail to be great. The passage by the next Congress of an act of general emancipation would do more than any one thing for the suppression of the rebellion. As things now stand with slaves declared free in eight States of the Union, with two more States (Virginia and Louisiana) partly free and partly slave, and with the Border States still slave, we have a state of affairs resulting in interminable confusion, and which, in the very nature of things, can not continue to exist. Congress may find a way out of such confusion by an act of Compensated Emancipation, with the consent of these States and parts of States. God speed the circulation and signatures of the Women's Petition! The pledge of the League is commendably brief and to the point, reading as follows:[Pg 894]
The women of the League have shown practical wisdom by focusing their efforts on a single goal—arguably the most important one any Society can pursue—and demonstrated great courage by attempting what, as far as we know, has never been done before: gathering one million signatures for a petition. If they succeed, the moral impact on Congress should be significant. The passage of a law for general emancipation by the next Congress would do more than anything else to help end the rebellion. Currently, with slaves declared free in eight states, two more states (Virginia and Louisiana) being partly free and partly slave, and the Border States still holding slaves, we face a confusing situation that cannot last. Congress might find a solution to this chaos through an act of Compensated Emancipation, with the agreement of these states and regions. May the circulation and signatures of the Women's Petition thrive! The pledge of the League is refreshingly concise and direct, reading as follows:[Pg 894]
"We, the undersigned, women of the United States, agree to become members of the 'Women's Loyal National League,' hereby pledging our most earnest influence in support of the Government in its prosecution of the war for freedom and for the restoration of the national unity."
"We, the undersigned women of the United States, agree to join the 'Women's Loyal National League,' pledging our strongest support for the Government in its efforts to fight for freedom and to restore national unity."
The office of the League is Room No. 20, Cooper Institute. Let all loyal women, friendly to Emancipation, join their ranks, and devote what spare time they may have to this noble work.
The League's office is Room No. 20, Cooper Institute. All loyal women who support Emancipation are encouraged to join and dedicate any spare time they have to this important cause.
The New York Times published the following:
The New York Times published the following:
A MONSTER PETITION PROPOSED.
To the Editor of the New York Times:
To the Editor of the New York Times:
Until the advent of the present struggle, the word loyalty was hardly known among us, and though we often spoke of the Union, we seldom used the term national unity. With new phases of society new terms come into vogue. We have now, springing up everywhere, Loyal National Leagues, and great good they are doing. They have, so far, been chiefly set on foot by men, but women are now bestirring themselves in the same direction. Quite recently, a Woman's Loyal National League has been organized in this city....
Until the start of the current struggle, the word loyalty was barely recognized among us, and although we often talked about the Union, we rarely used the phrase national unity. With new phases of society, new terms come into fashion. Now, we see Loyal National Leagues emerging everywhere, and they are doing a lot of good. So far, they have mainly been initiated by men, but women are now getting involved in the same efforts. Just recently, a Woman's Loyal National League has been formed in this city....
The prudence of the members of this League is to be commended, first, in selecting a single object on which to concentrate their exertions, and secondly, in selecting as that object the of procuring an act of Congress declaring general emancipation, than which nothing is more needed at the present time, not only as an endorsement of the President's Proclamation, but also as a remedy for the utter confusion produced by the present state of affairs, under which it would puzzle the shrewdest lawyer to determine who, among the fugitives that are daily flocking to us across the lines, is free, and who still a slave. As a permanent arrangement, no one believes that a few counties in one State, and a few parishes in another, can remain slave, while all around them emancipation has been accomplished; nor that slavery can endure, except for a brief season, along a narrow border-strip, bounded North and South by freedom.
The members of this League deserve praise for two main reasons: first, for choosing a single focus for their efforts, and second, for selecting that focus to be securing an act of Congress that declares general emancipation. This is urgently needed now, not just as support for the President's Proclamation, but also as a solution to the chaos caused by the current situation. It would baffle even the sharpest lawyer to figure out which of the fugitives coming to us daily across the lines are free and which are still enslaved. No one thinks that a few counties in one state and a few parishes in another can remain enslaved while everywhere else around them has achieved emancipation. Similarly, slavery cannot persist for long in a narrow border area flanked by freedom to the North and South.
Whether these ladies will succeed in the task of procuring one million of names to their petition, depends chiefly on their business talent in organizing the machinery of so great an undertaking. R.
Whether these women will succeed in gathering one million names for their petition depends primarily on their skills in organizing the logistics of such a large project. R.
The New York Evening Post says:
The New York Evening Post says:
AN IMPORTANT UNDERTAKING.
It has sometimes been made a reproach to the women of the Northern States, that while their sisters of the South are the very life of the rebellion, exceeding the men in zeal and devotion and self-sacrifice, they, with a noble cause against a base one, show less zeal, less earnestness, do less to animate and inspire the combatants; in short, are less active in maintaining the Union than the ladies of the Slave States in working to destroy it.
It has sometimes been criticized that women in the Northern States don't match the passion, dedication, and selflessness of their Southern sisters, who are at the heart of the rebellion. While the Southern women are actively supporting a cause they believe in, it seems that the Northern women, who stand for a noble cause against a dishonorable one, show less enthusiasm and commitment. In essence, they are less involved in supporting the Union compared to the women in the Slave States, who are working to bring it down.
If, however, the members of the "Women's Loyal National League," an association recently commenced in this city, succeed in what they have just undertaken, it will go far to show that there is neither lukewarmness nor lack of energy in the women of the North; and that, in practical industry exerted in aid of the war and the Government, they are not to be outmatched by the zeal of the fair mischief-makers who oppose both....
If the members of the "Women's Loyal National League," a group that recently started in this city, succeed in what they’ve set out to do, it will clearly demonstrate that the women of the North are neither apathetic nor lacking in enthusiasm. It will show that, in practical efforts to support the war and the government, they are just as passionate as the charming troublemakers who are against both...
We learn that the League has already obtained several thousand names and addresses of persons and societies throughout the Northern and Border States who are favorable to emancipation, to whom they propose to address their circulars; and that they are organizing, after a business fashion, the machinery necessary to effect their object in the six months still intervening before the meeting of Congress. It is a great undertaking, this obtaining of one million signatures, such an undertaking as has seldom if ever been carried out before. If it succeeds it will obtain record in the history of the time as an enterprise most honorable to the sex which conceived and completed it.
We learn that the League has already gathered several thousand names and addresses of individuals and organizations across the Northern and Border States who support emancipation, to whom they plan to send their circulars. They are also organizing in a businesslike manner the necessary operations to achieve their goal in the six months remaining before Congress meets. Collecting one million signatures is a significant task, one that has rarely, if ever, been attempted before. If it succeeds, it will be recorded in history as a venture that is very honorable to the group that envisioned and accomplished it.
The pledge of the League is well worded and judicious....
The pledge of the League is thoughtfully crafted and wise....
Such Leagues ought to be, and we trust will be, organized all over the country, in aid of the mammoth petition. Without having made any accurate calculation, we doubt[Pg 895] whether less than four stout men could carry the roll comprising a million names into the House to which it is addressed.
Such leagues should be, and we hope will be, formed all across the country to support the massive petition. Without making any precise calculations, we doubt[Pg 895] that fewer than four strong individuals could transport the roll with a million signatures into the House it is directed to.
The Philadelphia Press says:
The Philadelphia Press says:
SPIRIT OF NORTHERN WOMEN.
It is a great country, this of ours. Great events occur in it. Great things are to be found in it. Where shall we find another Niagara? Where a cave of dimensions equal to those of the Mammoth Cave of Kentucky? Since California has been added we have her gigantic pines, towering above all other trees in the world. We can not make war, but we must carry it on upon a scale unknown since the days of Xerxes. Our women, too, it would seem, catch the spirit of the country. Until now they have chiefly been known, throughout the great national struggle, in the capacity of sisters of mercy, tenders in hospitals, collectors of comforts and of little luxuries for our sick and wounded. We find them laboring now in a new field. They, called the weaker sex, and properly so called, if thews and sinews constitute strength, have undertaken to do more than to care for the sick and wounded. They seek to aid in striking at the root of the evil whence has arisen the strife which causes the sickness of the hospital and the wounds of the battle-field. They have undertaken a task beyond that which the sturdy Chartists of England performed. The Chartist Petition, if we remember aright, had seven or eight hundred thousand names—the largest number ever obtained to a petition. But our Northern women have undertaken to procure one million of names to a Petition for Emancipation, and to complete their task in the next six months. The article from The Tribune, elsewhere, will be read with interest.
It’s a great country, this one of ours. Amazing events happen here. Incredible things can be found throughout it. Where can we find another Niagara? Where’s a cave as massive as the Mammoth Cave in Kentucky? Since California joined us, we’ve got its giant pines, towering above all other trees in the world. We may not make war ourselves, but we must engage in it on a scale not seen since the days of Xerxes. Our women, it seems, also embody the spirit of the nation. Until now, during our major national struggle, they’ve mainly been known as sisters of mercy, caregivers in hospitals, and collectors of comforts and little luxuries for our sick and wounded. Now, we see them working in a new area. They, labeled the weaker sex—rightfully so if physical strength is the measure—are taking on more than just caring for the sick and injured. They’re striving to address the root causes of the conflict that leads to the illnesses in hospitals and the injuries on the battlefield. They’ve taken on a challenge beyond what the determined Chartists in England did. The Chartist Petition, if I recall correctly, had seven or eight hundred thousand signatures—the largest number ever gathered for a petition. But our Northern women are aiming to gather one million signatures for a Petition for Emancipation, and they plan to complete this within the next six months. The article from The Tribune, elsewhere, will be worth reading.
The National Anti-Slavery Standard comments:
The National Anti-Slavery Standard comments:
THE WOMEN'S LOYAL LEAGUE—MAMMOTH PETITION TO CONGRESS.
The Women's Loyal National League, at a meeting held at their Room in the Cooper Institute on Friday, the 29th ult., changed the form of their pledge, so that it now reads as follows:
The Women's Loyal National League, at a meeting held in their room at the Cooper Institute on Friday, the 29th of last month, changed the wording of their pledge, so that it now reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned, women of the United States, agree to become members of the 'Women's Loyal National League,' hereby pledging our most earnest influence in support of the Government in its prosecution of the war for freedom and for the restoration of the national unity."
"We, the undersigned women of the United States, agree to join the 'Women's Loyal National League,' pledging our full support to the Government in its efforts to continue the war for freedom and to restore national unity."
This, it strikes us, is a much happier wording than that of the former pledge....
This seems to be a much better way of phrasing it than the previous promise....
The women of the League have embarked in an enterprise worthy of their energy and devotion, and we will not allow ourselves to doubt that they will meet with complete success. It will require some money and a great deal of hard work, but their courage and patience will be found adequate to the task. They will find a helper in every woman who loves justice and humanity, and realizes that there can be no permanent peace for the country until slavery is exterminated root and branch. The moral influence upon Congress and the nation of such a petition, signed by a million of women, will be incalculable; while the agitation attending the effort will be of the greatest benefit.
The women of the League have taken on a project that truly matches their energy and commitment, and we have no doubt they will achieve complete success. It will take some funding and a lot of hard work, but their courage and perseverance will be more than enough for the challenge. They will find support from every woman who believes in justice and humanity, and understands that there can be no lasting peace in the country until slavery is completely eradicated. The moral impact on Congress and the nation from a petition signed by a million women will be enormous, and the discussion generated by this effort will be incredibly beneficial.
Women willing to aid in circulating the petition should send their address at once to Susan B. Anthony, Secretary of the League, 20 Cooper Institute, New York.
Women who want to help spread the petition should send their address right away to Susan B. Anthony, Secretary of the League, 20 Cooper Institute, New York.
Office of the Women's Loyal National League, }
Room No. 20, Cooper Institute, New York, January 25, 1864. }
Office of the Women's Loyal National League, }
Room No. 20, Cooper Institute, New York, January 25, 1864. }
The Women's Loyal National League, to the Women of the Republic:—We ask you to sign and circulate this petition for the entire abolition of slavery. We have now one hundred thousand signatures, but we want a million before Congress adjourns. Remember the President's Proclamation reaches only the slaves of rebels. The jails of loyal Kentucky are to-day "crammed" with Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama slaves, advertised to be sold for their jail fees "according to law," precisely as before the war! While slavery exists anywhere there can be freedom nowhere. There must be a law abolishing slavery. We have undertaken to canvass the nation for freedom. Women, you can not vote or fight for your country. Your only way to be a power in the Government is through the exercise of this, one, sacred, constitutional "right of petition"; and we ask you to use it now to the utmost. Go to the rich, the poor, the high, the low,[Pg 896] the soldier, the civilian, the white, the black—gather up the names of all who hate slavery—all who love liberty, and would have it the law of the land—and lay them at the feet of Congress, your silent but potent vote for human freedom guarded by law.
The Women's Loyal National League, to the Women of the Republic:—We ask you to sign and share this petition for the complete abolition of slavery. We currently have one hundred thousand signatures, but we want a million before Congress closes. Keep in mind that the President's Proclamation only applies to the slaves of rebels. The jails in loyal Kentucky are currently "stuffed" with slaves from Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, advertised to be sold for their jail fees "according to law," just like before the war! As long as slavery exists anywhere, freedom cannot exist anywhere. There needs to be a law that abolishes slavery. We’ve committed to gathering signatures nationwide for freedom. Women, you can’t vote or fight for your country. Your only way to have power in the Government is through the exercise of this one, sacred, constitutional "right of petition"; and we ask you to use it now to the fullest. Reach out to the rich, the poor, the high, the low,[Pg 896] the soldier, the civilian, the white, the black—collect the names of everyone who hates slavery—all who love liberty and want it to be the law of the land—and present them to Congress, your silent but powerful vote for human freedom protected by law.
You have shown true courage and self-sacrifice from the beginning of the war. You have been angels of mercy to our sick and dying soldiers in camp and hospital, and on the battle field. But let it not be said that the women of the republic, absorbed in ministering to the outward alone, saw not the philosophy of the revolution through which they passed; understood not the moral struggle that convulsed the nation—the irrepressible conflict between liberty and slavery. Remember the angels of mercy and justice are twin-sisters, and ever walk hand in hand. While you give yourselves so generously to the Sanitary and Freemen's Commissions forget not to hold up the eternal principles on which our republic rests. Slavery once abolished, our brothers, husbands, and sons will never again, for its sake, be called to die on the battle-field, starve in rebel prisons, or return to us crippled for life; but our country, free from the one blot that has always marred its fair escutcheon, will be an example to all the world that "righteousness exalteth a nation." The God of Justice is with us, and our word, our work—our prayer for freedom—will not, can not be in vain.
You have shown true courage and selflessness since the start of the war. You have been a blessing to our sick and dying soldiers in camps and hospitals, as well as on the battlefield. But let's not say that the women of the republic, focused only on serving the physical needs, weren't aware of the deeper issues surrounding the revolution; that they didn't grasp the moral struggle that shook the nation—the unavoidable clash between freedom and slavery. Remember that mercy and justice are like twin sisters, always walking hand in hand. While you dedicate yourselves so generously to the Sanitary and Freemen's Commissions, don’t forget to uphold the timeless principles on which our republic is built. Once slavery is abolished, our brothers, husbands, and sons will never again be called to die on the battlefield, suffer in rebel prisons, or return to us permanently disabled; instead, our country, free from the stain that has always spoiled its honor, will become an example to the world, proving that "righteousness exalts a nation." The God of Justice is on our side, and our words, our actions—our prayers for freedom—will not, cannot be in vain.
E. Cady Stanton, President.
E. Cady Stanton, President.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary W. L. N. League, Room 20, Cooper Institute, N. Y.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary W. L. N. League, Room 20, Cooper Institute, New York.
Office of the Women's Loyal National League }
Room No. 20, Cooper Institute, N. Y., April 7, 1864. }
Office of the Women's Loyal National League }
Room 20, Cooper Institute, New York, April 7, 1864. }
Dear Friend:—With this you will receive a Form of a Petition to Congress, the object of which you can not mistake nor regard with indifference. To procure on it the largest possible number of adult names, at the earliest practicable moment, it is hoped you will regard as less a duty than a pleasure. Already we have sent one installment of our petition forward, signed by one hundred thousand persons; the presentation of which, by Senator Sumner, produced a marked effect on both Congress and the country. We hope to send a million before the adjournment of Congress, which we shall easily do and even more, if you and the twenty thousand others to whom we have sent petitions will promptly, generously co-operate with us. For nearly three years has the scourge of war desolated us; sweeping away at least three hundred thousand of the strength, bloom, and beauty of our nation. And the war-chariot still rolls onward, its iron wheels deep in human blood! The God, at whose justice Jefferson long ago trembled, has awaked to the woes of the bondmen.
Dear Friend:—With this message, you will receive a petition form to Congress, the purpose of which you cannot miss nor take lightly. We hope you see gathering as many signatures from adults as possible, as soon as you can, not just as a duty but as a pleasure. We've already sent out one batch of our petition, signed by one hundred thousand people; its presentation by Senator Sumner made a significant impact on Congress and the nation. We aim to gather a million signatures before Congress adjourns, which will be easy to achieve, and even exceed, if you and the twenty thousand others we’ve sent petitions to act quickly and generously with us. For nearly three years, the devastation of war has impacted us, taking away at least three hundred thousand of the strength, vitality, and beauty of our nation. The war machine still moves forward, its iron wheels heavy with human blood! The God, at whose justice Jefferson feared long ago, has awakened to the suffering of those in bondage.
"For the sighing of the oppressed, and for the crying of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord." The redemption of that pledge we now behold in this dread Apocalypse of war. Nor should we expect or hope the calamity will cease while the fearful cause of it remains. Slavery has long been our national sin. War is its natural and just retribution. But the war has made it the constitutional right of the Government, as it always has been the moral duty of the people, to abolish slavery. We are, therefore, without excuse, if the solemn duty be not now performed. With us, the people, is the power to achieve the work by our agents in Congress. On us, therefore, rests the momentous responsibility. Shall we not all join then in one loud, earnest, effectual prayer to Congress, which will swell on its ear like the voice of many waters, that this bloody, desolating war shall be arrested and ended, by the immediate and final removal, by Statute Law and amended Constitution, of that crime and curse which alone has brought it upon us? Now surely is our accepted time. On our own heads will be the blood of our thousands slain, if, with the power in our own hands, we do not end that system forever, which is so plainly autographed all over with the Divine displeasure. In the name of justice and of freedom then let us rise and decree the destruction of our destroyer. Let us with myriad voice compel Congress to
"For the sighing of the oppressed, and for the crying of the needy, now will I arise, says the Lord." The fulfillment of that promise is what we see now in this terrible time of war. We shouldn’t expect or hope that this suffering will stop while the source of it remains. Slavery has been our national sin for far too long. War is its natural and rightful consequence. But this war has made it the constitutional right of the Government, just as it has always been the moral duty of the people, to end slavery. We have no excuse if we don’t fulfill this serious obligation now. The power to achieve this lies with us, the people, through our representatives in Congress. Therefore, the significant responsibility falls on us. Shouldn’t we all come together in one loud, sincere, and effective prayer to Congress, which will resonate like the sound of many waters, asking that this bloody, devastating war be stopped and ended by the immediate and final removal, through Statute Law and an amended Constitution, of that crime and curse which has caused it? Now is indeed our time to act. The blood of our thousands who have died will be on our heads if, with the power in our hands, we do not put an end to that system forever, which is so clearly marked with Divine disapproval. In the name of justice and freedom, let us rise and demand the destruction of our oppressor. Let us with countless voices compel Congress to
Watch till the last faint spark expire;
Then strew its ashes on the wind,
Nor leave one atom wreck behind."
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary.
In behalf of the Women's League,
In support of the Women's League,
FORM OF PETITION.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled:
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States gathered in Congress:
The undersigned, citizens of ——, believing slavery the great cause of the present rebellion, and an institution fatal to the life of Republican Government, earnestly pray your Honorable Bodies to immediately abolish it throughout the United States; and to adopt measures for so amending the Constitution, as forever to prohibit its existence in any portion of our common country.
The undersigned, citizens of ——, believing that slavery is the main reason for the current rebellion and a system that threatens the existence of Republican Government, respectfully request your Honorable Bodies to immediately abolish it throughout the United States; and to take steps to amend the Constitution, so that its existence is forever prohibited in any part of our shared country.
MEN. | WOMEN.
MEN. | WOMEN.
Anniversary Meeting, May 14, 1864.—The adjourned meeting convened in the lecture-room of the Church of the Puritans, Saturday p.m., May 14th. The President in the chair.
Anniversary Meeting, May 14, 1864.—The postponed meeting took place in the lecture room of the Church of the Puritans, Saturday p.m., May 14th. The President was in charge.
The Secretary read the report of the Executive Committee, which was unanimously adopted. The resolutions were then read, and motion taken to act upon them separately. The 2d, 7th, and 8th elicited a long and earnest discussion, but were at last adopted, with but one or two dissenting votes.
The Secretary read the Executive Committee's report, which was approved unanimously. The resolutions were then read, and a motion was made to address them individually. The 2nd, 7th, and 8th sparked a long and serious discussion, but in the end, they were adopted with only one or two votes against.
The Committee then presented a list of women to serve as officers the coming year, who were unanimously elected.
The Committee then presented a list of women to serve as officers for the upcoming year, who were all unanimously elected.
Officers of the Women's National League:—President, Elizabeth Cady Stanton; Vice-Presidents, L. M. Brownson, Mary Bates, Mrs. Col. A. B. Eaton, S. A. Fayerweather; Corresponding Secretary, Charlotte B. Wilbour; Recording Secretaries, Susan B. Anthony, Elvira Lane; Treasurer, Mary F. Gilbert; Executive Committee, Mrs. L. M. Brownson, Mrs. H. M. Jacobs, Mary O. Gale, Mattie Griffith, Redelia Bates, Rebecca K. Shepherd, Frances V. Halleck, Mrs. C. S. Lozier, M.D.; Laura M. Ward, M.D.; Malvina A. Lane.
Officers of the Women's National League:—President, Elizabeth Cady Stanton; Vice-Presidents, L. M. Brownson, Mary Bates, Mrs. Col. A. B. Eaton, S. A. Fayerweather; Corresponding Secretary, Charlotte B. Wilbour; Recording Secretaries, Susan B. Anthony, Elvira Lane; Treasurer, Mary F. Gilbert; Executive Committee, Mrs. L. M. Brownson, Mrs. H. M. Jacobs, Mary O. Gale, Mattie Griffith, Redelia Bates, Rebecca K. Shepherd, Frances V. Halleck, Mrs. C. S. Lozier, M.D.; Laura M. Ward, M.D.; Malvina A. Lane.
The Women's National League to its Members and Friends:—The folding, directing, and sending out 20,000 petitions, then the assorting, counting, and rolling up, each State by itself, 300,000 signatures, has been an herculean task, that only those who have witnessed it could fully appreciate. Remember that paper, printing, postage, office, and clerks, all require money. At the last meeting of the Executive Committee we resolved to ask each of our 5,000 members to send us the small sum of fifty cents to carry on the work.
The Women's National League to its Members and Friends:—The process of folding, organizing, and sending out 20,000 petitions, along with sorting, counting, and bundling up 300,000 signatures from each state, has been an enormous task that only those who have experienced it can truly understand. Keep in mind that paper, printing, postage, office expenses, and clerks all require funding. At the last meeting of the Executive Committee, we decided to ask each of our 5,000 members to contribute the small amount of fifty cents to sustain our work.
Let the petitions be thoroughly circulated during the summer, throughout the country, that the people may speak in thunder-tones to our next Congress at its earliest sittings. Neither the Emancipation or Amendment bill has yet passed the House, and the recent vote on the Montana question shows the animus of the Administration. If the majority of our voters propose to re-elect such men to rule over us, those who believe in free institutions must begin the work of educating the nation into the idea that a stable government must be founded on justice—that freedom and equality are rights that belong to every citizen of a republic.
Let the petitions be widely shared this summer across the country, so the people can loudly express their voices to our next Congress at its earliest sessions. Neither the Emancipation nor the Amendment bill has passed the House yet, and the recent vote on the Montana issue reveals the motives of the Administration. If most of our voters plan to re-elect such leaders to govern us, those who believe in free institutions must start the work of educating the nation on the idea that a stable government should be based on justice—that freedom and equality are rights for every citizen in a republic.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary, 20 Cooper Institute.
Susan B. Anthony, Secretary, 20 Cooper Institute.
Amend the Constitution.—The Women's National League have just sent out, all through the States, fifteen thousand petitions, with an appeal to have them filled up and returned as speedily as possible. The bill to amend the Constitution so as to prohibit the holding of slaves in any part of the country has passed the Senate. Now comes the struggle in the House. If every one of the fifteen thousand persons—at least ten thousand of them ministers—will but gather up one hundred or more names, a million-voiced petition may yet pour into the Representatives' Hall; and such a voice from the people can not but make sure the vote, and leave the bill ready for the President's signature, and Congress disposed to recommend that a special session of each State Legislature be called immediately to act upon the question; and thus the hateful thing—Slavery—be buried out of sight before the opening of the Presidential campaign. Let the petitions be mailed to Washington, direct, to some member, or to Hon. Thomas D. Eliot, Chairman of Committee on Slavery and Freedmen. There is not a day to be lost. Let all work.—The National Anti-Slavery Standard, May 28, 1864.
Amend the Constitution.—The Women's National League has just sent out fifteen thousand petitions across the States, urging people to fill them out and return them as quickly as possible. The bill to amend the Constitution to ban slavery in any part of the country has passed the Senate. Now comes the battle in the House. If each of the fifteen thousand individuals—at least ten thousand of whom are ministers—can gather up one hundred or more names, a million-voiced petition could flood the Representatives' Hall; and such a voice from the people is bound to influence the vote, leaving the bill ready for the President's signature, and prompting Congress to recommend that a special session of each State Legislature be called immediately to address the issue; thus ensuring that the abhorrent practice of Slavery is buried out of sight before the Presidential campaign kicks off. Let the petitions be sent to Washington, directed to some member, or to Hon. Thomas D. Eliot, Chairman of the Committee on Slavery and Freedmen. There is no time to waste. Let everyone take action.—The National Anti-Slavery Standard, May 28, 1864.
The World.
The World.
New York City, July 25, 1864.
New York City, July 25, 1864.
WOMEN'S LOYAL NATIONAL LEAGUE.
The Necessity for Funds—The Delinquency of the Friends of the Negro—Miss Anthony on the Constitution—Fighting, a Barbaric way of Settling Questions.—About fifteen ladies and[Pg 898] half a dozen gentlemen were present at the meeting of the Woman's League, yesterday. Although more than one of the speakers bewailed the delinquency of the "friends of the negro" in failing to supply the League with the necessary funds, yet the piles of post-paid circulars on the tables, ready for the mail, were larger than ever. There was also a bundle of tracts on emancipation as the only means of peace.
The Need for Funds—The Neglect of the Friends of the Black Community—Miss Anthony on the Constitution—Fighting, a Primitive way of Resolving Issues.—About fifteen women and[Pg 898] half a dozen men attended the meeting of the Woman's League yesterday. Although several speakers lamented the neglect of the "friends of the black community" for not providing the League with the necessary funds, the stacks of pre-paid circulars on the tables, ready to be mailed, were bigger than ever. There was also a bundle of pamphlets on emancipation as the sole path to peace.
The meeting being called to order, a committee reported a series of resolutions, the gist of which was that, whereas the League is continually receiving from its friends to whom it applies for pecuniary assistance communications stating that the day for petition and discussion is past, and that the bullet and bayonet are now working out the stern logic of events; nevertheless the League considers that such day is not past, and it urges the friends of the negro to come forward boldly and pour out of their abundance liberally for its aid.
The meeting was called to order, and a committee presented a series of resolutions. The main point was that, although the League continuously receives messages from its supporters requesting financial help, stating that the time for petitions and discussions is over, and that violence is now determining the course of events, the League believes that this time is not over. It encourages the supporters of the Black community to step up confidently and generously offer their resources to help.
SPEECH BY MISS SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
Miss Susan B. Anthony made a speech arguing that the decision of the anti-slavery question should not be left to the "stern logic of events" which is wrought by the bullet and the bayonet. More knowledge is needed. The eyes and the ears of the whole public are now open. It should be the earnest work of every lover of freedom to give those eyes the right thing to see and those ears the right thing to hear. It pains her to receive in answer to a call for assistance and funds, letters saying that the day for discussion and petition is past. It looks as if we had returned to the old condition of barbarism, where no way is known of settling questions except by fighting. Women, who are noted for having control of the moral department of society and for lifting the other half of the race into a higher moral condition, should not relapse into the idea that the status of any human being is to be settled merely by the sword. Miss Anthony then spoke of the constitutional right of Congress to pass an emancipation law. She read a letter from a lady who, on receiving documents from the League, first doubted the power of Congress to pass such a law; then she thought perhaps it had; then she compared the petition and the Constitution; then she thought it had no such power, and finally she concluded to circulate the petition anyhow. Miss Anthony proceeded at some length to expound the Constitution, showing that it does not say that slaves shall not be emancipated, and therefore concluding that they may. But if Congress can not emancipate slaves constitutionally, it should do so unconstitutionally. She does not believe in this red-tapism that can not find a law to suppress the wrong, but always finds one to oppress the innocent. If she was a mayor, or a governor, or a legislator, and there was no law to punish mobocrats, she thought she should go to work to make one pretty quick. She requested the opinion of some gentleman.
Miss Susan B. Anthony gave a speech arguing that the decision on the anti-slavery issue shouldn’t be left to the “harsh logic of events” brought about by bullets and bayonets. We need more knowledge. The public's eyes and ears are now wide open. It should be the dedicated effort of every freedom lover to show them the right things to see and hear. It hurts her to receive responses to her calls for help and funds that say the time for discussion and petitions is over. It feels like we’ve reverted to old barbaric ways, where fighting is the only method for resolving issues. Women, who are known for their moral influence in society and for elevating the other half of the population to a higher moral state, should not fall back into the belief that the status of any human being can be decided solely by violence. Miss Anthony then talked about Congress's constitutional right to pass an emancipation law. She read a letter from a woman who, upon receiving documents from the League, initially doubted Congress’s authority to pass such a law; then she considered that perhaps it did; next, she compared the petition to the Constitution; then she concluded that Congress had no such power, and ultimately decided to circulate the petition anyway. Miss Anthony went on to explain the Constitution, pointing out that it doesn’t say that slaves cannot be emancipated, and therefore concludes that they can be. But if Congress cannot constitutionally free slaves, then it should do so regardless of legality. She doesn’t support this bureaucratic approach that always finds a law to oppress the innocent but can’t find one to stop wrongdoing. If she were a mayor, governor, or legislator, and there was no law to punish mobsters, she believes she should work to create one quickly. She asked for the opinion of some gentlemen.
A gentleman present related a number of touching incidents about the recent mobbing of negroes in this city, most of which have already appeared in print in this and other papers. Miss Anthony held up two photographs to the view of the audience. One represented "Sojourner Truth," the heroine of one of Mrs. H. B. Stowe's tales, and the other the bare back of a Louisiana slave. Many of the audience were affected to tears. "Sojourner Truth" had lost three fingers of one hand, and the Louisiana slave's back bore scars of whipping. She asked every one to suppose that woman was her mother, and that man her father. In that case would they think the time past for discussion and petition? The resolutions were at once unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned.
A gentleman in attendance shared several moving stories about the recent mob violence against Black people in this city, most of which have already been published in this and other papers. Miss Anthony held up two photographs for the audience to see. One showed "Sojourner Truth," the heroine of one of Mrs. H. B. Stowe's stories, and the other showed the bare back of a Louisiana slave. Many people in the audience were brought to tears. "Sojourner Truth" had lost three fingers on one hand, and the Louisiana slave's back was marked with whip scars. She asked everyone to imagine that woman was her mother and that man was her father. In that case, would they think it was time to stop debating and start taking action? The resolutions were immediately passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned.
Miss Anthony in Chicago.
Miss Susan B. Anthony is now on her homeward way from Kansas, where she has been spending several of the past months, and where she has performed much excellent service in the cause of the freedmen of the country generally. She has recently visited Chicago and given a lecture, which is highly commended by the Tribune and Republican of that city, the latter giving an extended report of it in its columns, besides pronouncing upon it very flattering encomiums, concluding with these words: "The audience dwelt with thoughtful and marked interest upon her words, and when occasionally her remarks called forth an irrepressible burst of feeling, the applause was marked and emphatic, without descending to a noisy disturbance." Of the lecture in general, the Chicago Tribune thus speaks:[Pg 899]
Miss Susan B. Anthony is now on her way home from Kansas, where she has spent several months and contributed significantly to the cause of the country's freedmen. She recently visited Chicago and gave a lecture that received high praise from the Tribune and Republican of that city, the latter providing an extensive report in its pages and offering very positive comments, concluding with these words: "The audience listened with thoughtful and keen interest to her words, and when her remarks occasionally sparked an uncontrollable outburst of emotion, the applause was strong and emphatic, without becoming a noisy disruption." Regarding the lecture overall, the Chicago Tribune comments:[Pg 899]
Last evening Miss Susan B. Anthony, of Rochester, N. Y., addressed an audience composed chiefly of colored people, in Quinn's Chapel. Her subject was "Universal Suffrage." Mrs. Jones, the President of the Ladies' Aid Society, in introducing her, said: "She was one of their old and firm friends; not one who had believed in sitting down to the communion first, and letting the negro come last. She was not one who needed to have her father or brothers starved in Southern prisons, to make her aware of the humanity of the black man."
Last night, Miss Susan B. Anthony from Rochester, NY, spoke to an audience mainly made up of Black people at Quinn's Chapel. Her topic was "Universal Suffrage." Mrs. Jones, the President of the Ladies' Aid Society, introduced her by saying: "She’s one of our long-time and strong allies; not someone who thought it was okay to take communion first and let Black people go last. She’s not someone who had to have her father or brothers imprisoned in Southern jails to recognize the humanity of Black men."
Miss Anthony is a clear, logical speaker, earnest and truthful, and has long considered the questions of the day. Few men in this or any other city could more ably present the subject, or more closely chain the audience that listened to her noble utterances, and one could not but wish that she had spoken to thousands rather than hundreds. Miss A. is recently from Leavenworth, Kansas, where she has been spending some months past, aiding as she had opportunity, in the elevation of the freed people, and occasionally by lectures, contributing to form a true public sentiment in that new State. Consequently, she speaks from absolute knowledge of the present state of the freedmen. Her criticism of the theories of reconstruction was masterly, showing that the fundamental principles of this Government are set aside and really endanger all that we have seemed to gain by the war, and that nothing but the admission of the black man to the franchise can save the nation from future disgrace and ultimate ruin.—National Anti-Slavery Standard, August, 1865.
Miss Anthony is a clear and logical speaker, earnest and honest, and has been thinking about the important issues of our time for a long time. Few men in this or any other city could present the topic as well or connect with the audience that listened to her powerful words, and one couldn't help but wish she had spoken to thousands instead of just hundreds. Miss A. recently came from Leavenworth, Kansas, where she has spent the past few months helping, whenever she could, in uplifting the freed people and occasionally giving lectures to help shape a true public sentiment in that new state. As a result, she speaks from firsthand knowledge of the current situation of the freedmen. Her critique of the theories of reconstruction was brilliant, showing that the fundamental principles of this Government are being ignored, which truly threatens everything we seemed to achieve through the war, and that only by granting the black man the right to vote can we save the nation from future shame and ultimate destruction.—National Anti-Slavery Standard, August, 1865.
CHAPTER XVIII.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS, 1866 AND 1867.
Report made to the Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention.
Report presented at the Eleventh National Women's Rights Convention.
BY CAROLINE H. DALL.
BY CAROLINE H. DALL.
For the last five years the women of the United States have held few public discussions. They have done wisely. Circumstances have proved their friend. Nothing ever had done, nothing ever will do again, so great a service to woman in so short a time, as this dreadful war out of which we are so slowly emerging. Respect for woman came only with the absolute need of her, and so many women of distinguished ability made themselves of service to the Government, that we had no single woman to honor as England had honored Florence Nightingale. With us her name was legion. But with the prospect of peace comes the old duty of agitation, and we find ourselves again summoned to a Convention, and again anxiously awaiting its results—anxiously, for a convention of women is an object which still attracts the gaze of the curious, and the smallest indiscretion on the part of a single speaker has a retrograde effect which few women seem able to measure.
For the last five years, women in the United States haven't had many public discussions. They've made the right call. The situation has worked in their favor. Nothing has done, and nothing will do again, as much for women in such a short time as this horrific war that we are slowly coming out of. Respect for women only emerged when there was an absolute need for them, and so many capable women stepped up to help the Government that we didn't have a single woman to celebrate like England celebrated Florence Nightingale. For us, her name was legion. But with the hope of peace comes the old responsibility of activism, and we find ourselves once again called to a Convention, anxiously awaiting the outcomes—anxiously, because a convention of women still draws the interest of the curious, and even the smallest mistake by a single speaker can have a backward impact that few women seem to grasp.
Our reform is unlike all others, for it must begin in the family, at the very heart of society. If it be not kindly, temperately, and thoughtfully conducted, men everywhere will be able to justify their remonstrances. Let us rather justify ourselves. My last report to any Convention was made to those called in Boston in 1859 and 1860. Between that time and 1863 I printed five volumes, which are nothing but reports upon the various interests significant to our cause. During the last four years I have watched the development of American industry in its relation to women, and have, through the newspapers, aroused public feeling in their behalf. My labor is naturally classed under the three heads of Education, Labor, and Law. A proper education must prepare woman for labor, skilled or manual; and the experience of a laborer should introduce her to citizenship, for it provides her with rights to protect, privileges to secure, and property to be taxed. If she is a laborer, she must have an interest in the laws which control labor. In considering our position in these three respects, it is impossible to offer you[Pg 900] a digest of all that has occurred during the last six years. What I have to say will refer chiefly to the events of the last two.
Our reform is different from all others because it has to start within the family, at the core of society. If it isn't handled kindly, calmly, and thoughtfully, people everywhere will have good reasons to complain. Instead, let’s focus on justifying ourselves. My last report to any convention was given to those gathered in Boston in 1859 and 1860. Between then and 1863, I published five volumes, which are simply reports on the various interests important to our cause. Over the past four years, I’ve observed the growth of American industry in relation to women, and I’ve worked through newspapers to raise public awareness for them. My work naturally falls into three categories: Education, Labor, and Law. A proper education should prepare women for work, whether skilled or manual; and the experience of being a worker should lead her to citizenship, as it grants her rights to protect, privileges to secure, and property to be taxed. If she is a worker, she needs to care about the laws that govern labor. Considering our position in these three areas, it’s impossible to provide you[Pg 900] with a summary of everything that’s happened in the last six years. What I will discuss will mostly focus on the events of the last two.
EDUCATION.
I wish it were in my power to furnish you with reports of the present condition of all the female colleges in the United States; but, while I receive from various foreign sources such reports, and am promptly informed of any educational movement in Europe, it never seems to occur to the government of such institutions in the United States that there is any necessary connection between them and the interests which this Convention represents. We are, consequently, dependent upon newspapers for our information.
I wish I could provide you with updates on the current status of all the women's colleges in the United States; however, while I get reports from various foreign sources and stay updated on educational developments in Europe, it doesn’t seem to occur to the administration of these institutions in the U.S. that there’s any important connection between them and the interests this Convention represents. As a result, we rely on newspapers for our information.
The most important educational movement of the last year has been the formation of an American Social Science Association, with four departments, and two women on its Board of Directors. Subsequently, the Boston Social Science Association was organized, with seven departments, and seven women on its Board of Directors, one woman being assigned to each department, including that of law. Any woman in the United States can become a member of this Association. If the opportunities it offers are not seized, it will be the fault of women themselves.
The biggest educational trend over the past year has been the creation of the American Social Science Association, which has four departments and two women on its Board of Directors. Following that, the Boston Social Science Association was established, featuring seven departments and seven women on its Board of Directors, with one woman assigned to each department, including law. Any woman in the United States can join this Association. If women don’t take advantage of the opportunities it provides, it will be their own doing.
During the past winter the Lowell Institute, in Boston, in connection with the government of the Massachusetts Technological Institute, took a step which deserves our public mention. They advertised classes for both sexes, under the most eligible professors, for instruction in French, mathematics, and natural science. As the training was to be thorough, the number of pupils was limited, and the women who applied would have filled the seats many times over. These classes have been wholly free, and have added to the obligation which the free Art School for women had already conferred.
During the past winter, the Lowell Institute in Boston, in partnership with the Massachusetts Technological Institute, took a notable step worth mentioning. They announced classes for both men and women, taught by top professors, covering French, mathematics, and natural science. Since the training was intended to be comprehensive, the number of students was kept limited, and the women who applied could have filled the seats many times over. These classes have been completely free and have further enhanced the contribution that the free Art School for women had already made.
Elmira College showed its enterprise last summer by a visit to Massachusetts, and Vassar College was organized and commenced its operations in September, with Miss Mitchell in the Chair of Mathematics, and Miss Avery in that of Physiology. I attempted to visit this institution last summer for the purpose of investigating the facilities its buildings and proposed courses might offer to foreign students. The reluctance of the Trustees to subject it to observation so early in its career interfered with my plan, but I have since received a letter from Miss Mitchell speaking of it in the most encouraging terms. "I have a class," she says, "of seventeen pupils, between the ages of 16 and 22. They come to me for fifty minutes every day. I allow them great freedom in questioning, and I am puzzled by them daily. They show more mathematical ability and more originality of thought than I had expected. I doubt whether young men would show as deep an interest. Are there seventeen students in Harvard College who take mathematical astronomy, do you think?" So Mr. Vassar's magnificent donation is drawing interest at last.
Elmira College demonstrated its initiative last summer with a trip to Massachusetts, and Vassar College was established and started its operations in September, with Miss Mitchell as the Chair of Mathematics and Miss Avery as the Chair of Physiology. I tried to visit this institution last summer to explore the facilities its buildings and proposed courses could offer to international students. However, the Trustees' reluctance to allow observation so early in its development disrupted my plan. Since then, I’ve received a letter from Miss Mitchell describing it in very positive terms. "I have a class," she writes, "of seventeen students, aged 16 to 22. They come to me for fifty minutes every day. I give them a lot of freedom to ask questions, and I find them puzzling on a daily basis. They show more mathematical ability and originality of thought than I expected. I wonder if young men would show the same level of interest. Are there seventeen students at Harvard College who study mathematical astronomy, do you think?" So Mr. Vassar's generous donation is finally generating interest.
On the 25th of June, 1865, the Ripley College, at Poultney, Vermont, celebrated its commencement. Seventeen young ladies were graduated. Ralph Waldo Emerson delivered the literary address, and two days were devoted to the examination of incoming pupils. Feeling very little satisfaction in the success of Colleges intended for the separate sexes, I take more pleasure in speaking of the Baker University in Kansas, which was chartered by the Legislature of that State in 1857 as a University for both sexes. It has now been in active operation for seven years. A little more than a year ago Miss Martha Baldwin, a graduate of the Baldwin University at Berea, Ohio, was appointed to the chair of Greek and Latin. She is but twenty-one years of age, but was elected by the government to make the address for the Faculty at the opening of the commencement exercises, and seems to have given entire satisfaction during her professors' year. In France, the Imperial Geographical Society, which is in a certain sense a college, has lately admitted to membership Madame Dora D'Istra as the successor to Madame Pfeiffer. Madame D'Istra had distinguished herself by researches in the Morea.
On June 25, 1865, Ripley College in Poultney, Vermont, held its commencement ceremony. Seventeen young women graduated. Ralph Waldo Emerson delivered the literary address, and two days were dedicated to examining new students. I find little satisfaction in the success of colleges meant for a single gender; I take more pleasure in mentioning Baker University in Kansas, which was chartered by the state's Legislature in 1857 as a university for both men and women. It has been actively operating for seven years now. A little over a year ago, Miss Martha Baldwin, a graduate of Baldwin University in Berea, Ohio, was appointed to the chair of Greek and Latin. At just twenty-one years old, she was chosen by the administration to give the address for the Faculty during the commencement exercises and has been completely satisfactory during her first year as a professor. In France, the Imperial Geographical Society, which is somewhat like a college, has recently admitted Madame Dora D'Istra as a member, succeeding Madame Pfeiffer. Madame D'Istra has distinguished herself through her research in the Morea.
On the 26th of October, 1864, a a Workingwomen's College was opened in London, with an address from Miss F. R. Malleson. It is governed by a council of teachers. In addition to the ordinary branches, it offers instruction in Botany, Physiology, and Drawing. Its fee is four shillings a year, and the coffee and reading-room, about which its social life centres, is open every evening from 7 to 11. But by far the most interesting[Pg 901] educational movement is Miss Nightingale's "Training-school for Nurses," which has been in operation for three years in Liverpool. It was founded after a correspondence with her, in strict conformity to her counsel. As a training-school it may be said to be self-supporting, but it is also a beneficent institution, and in that regard is sustained by donations. A most admirable system of district nursing is provided under its auspices for the whole city of Liverpool, all of whose suffering sick become, in this way, the recipients of intelligent care and of valuable instruction in cooking and all sanitary matters. It is too tempting an experiment to dwell upon, unless we could follow it into its details. Its Report occupies 101 pages.
On October 26, 1864, a Workingwomen's College opened in London, with a speech from Miss F. R. Malleson. It's run by a council of teachers. Besides the usual subjects, it also offers classes in Botany, Physiology, and Drawing. The annual fee is four shillings, and the coffee and reading room, which is the heart of its social life, is open every evening from 7 to 11. However, the most fascinating educational initiative is Miss Nightingale's "Training School for Nurses," which has been operating for three years in Liverpool. It was established following a correspondence with her and strictly follows her advice. While it can be considered self-supporting as a training school, it also serves as a charitable institution, relying on donations. A remarkable district nursing system is offered under its management for the entire city of Liverpool, providing intelligent care and valuable instruction in cooking and sanitary practices to all sick residents. It's too intriguing an experiment to explore in depth unless we could delve into its specifics. Its report spans 101 pages.
As regards medical education, we know of two colleges, or rather of one college and one hospital, in Boston, where education is given. There is one in Springfield and one in Philadelphia. We should be glad to get more statistics of this kind, for Cleveland, where Dr. Zakrzewska took her degree, is no longer open to female students, and Geneva is contenting herself with the honor of having graduated Dr. Blackwell. There is a female Medical Society in London. This society wishes to open the way for thorough medical instruction, which will entitle its graduates to a degree from Apothecaries' Hall, and it offered lectures from competent persons in 1864, upon Obstetrics and General Medical Science. Madame Aillot's Hospital of the Maternity in Paris, still offers its great advantages to women, of which two of our countrywomen, Miss Helen Morton and Miss Lucy E. Sewall have taken creditable advantage. They are both of them Massachusetts girls. Miss Morton is retained in Paris, and Miss Sewall is the resident physician of the Hospital for Women and Children in Boston.
Regarding medical education, we know of two institutions, or rather one college and one hospital, in Boston that provide education. There's one in Springfield and another in Philadelphia. We would appreciate getting more statistics like this because Cleveland, where Dr. Zakrzewska earned her degree, is no longer accepting female students, and Geneva is satisfied with just having graduated Dr. Blackwell. There is a Female Medical Society in London. This society aims to create pathways for comprehensive medical training, which will allow its graduates to receive a degree from Apothecaries' Hall and offered lectures from qualified individuals in 1864 on Obstetrics and General Medical Science. Madame Aillot's Maternity Hospital in Paris still provides significant opportunities for women, which two of our countrywomen, Miss Helen Morton and Miss Lucy E. Sewall, have successfully utilized. They are both from Massachusetts. Miss Morton is staying in Paris, and Miss Sewall is the resident physician at the Hospital for Women and Children in Boston.
A very great interest has been felt in this country in the success of Miss Garrett in obtaining her degree from Apothecaries' Hall, after it had been refused to her by the medical colleges. We regret to say that this fact does not show any real advance in the public opinion of Great Britain, nor does it secure any permanent advantage for women. When the Apothecaries' Hall refused her, Miss Garrett looked up its charter. She found the old Latin word indicating to whom degrees were to be granted clearly indeterminate. Langues told her that the Hall must grant her a degree or surrender its charter. She was wealthy and in earnest. She pushed her advantage. The Apothecaries' Hall prescribed certain courses of instruction to be pursued and certified before the degree could be granted. These she attended in private, paying the most exorbitant fees to her teachers. In one instance, in which a man's fee would have been five guineas she paid fifty! I am credibly informed that the round cost of these preparatory steps must have been £2,000. All honor to Miss Garrett. Should her genius as a physician equal her energy and her wealth, she may yet gain something for the cause she has espoused. Apart from this, she may be said to have gained nothing. Bribery is not possible to ordinary mortals, and the conditions of the degree make it generally impracticable until the lecture-rooms are opened to students. At present, to obtain thorough instruction in any branch, women are obliged to pay exorbitant prices, and receive as the results of their training but half wages. In Boston Dr. Zakrzewska has again unsuccessfully asked permission to become a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Many physicians, however, extend the fellowship which the institution denies, and the Medical Journal expresses itself courteously on this point.
A strong interest has been shown in this country regarding Miss Garrett's success in getting her degree from Apothecaries' Hall, after it was denied by the medical colleges. Unfortunately, this does not indicate any real progress in public opinion in Great Britain, nor does it provide any lasting benefit for women. When Apothecaries' Hall refused her, Miss Garrett looked into its charter. She discovered that the old Latin term specifying to whom degrees could be awarded was clearly indeterminate. Langues informed her that the Hall had to grant her a degree or give up its charter. She was wealthy and determined. She took advantage of the situation. The Apothecaries' Hall required certain courses of instruction to be completed and certified before the degree could be issued. She attended these classes in private, paying extremely high fees to her instructors. In one case, where a man's fee would have been five guineas, she paid fifty! I have reliable information that the total cost of these preparatory steps must have been £2,000. All respect to Miss Garrett. If her skill as a physician matches her determination and her financial means, she may still achieve something for the cause she supports. Apart from this, she hasn’t gained much. Bribery is not an option for ordinary people, and the conditions for obtaining the degree make it generally unrealistic until the lecture halls are open to students. Currently, to receive thorough training in any field, women are forced to pay very high prices and, as a result of their education, receive only half of what men earn. In Boston, Dr. Zakrzewska has once again unsuccessfully requested permission to become a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society. However, many physicians offer the camaraderie that the organization denies, and the Medical Journal addresses this matter courteously.
In 1863 there existed in St. Petersburg a stringent regulation which prohibited women from following the University courses. A Miss K., who had a decided taste for medicine without the means to pay for instruction, applied for such instruction to the authorities of Orenburg. Orenburg is partly in Europe and partly in Asia, and its territory includes the Cossack races of the Ural. These people have a superstitious prejudice against male physicians, and are chiefly attended in illness by sorceresses. Miss K. offered to put her medical knowledge at the service of the Cossacks, and received permission to attend the Academy of Medicine. The Cossacks promised her an annual stipend of 28 roubles, but when she passed the half-yearly examination as well as the male students, they sent her 300 roubles as a token of good will.
In 1863, there was a strict rule in St. Petersburg that prevented women from attending university courses. A young woman named Miss K., who was really interested in medicine but couldn't afford to pay for classes, sought permission from the authorities in Orenburg to pursue her studies. Orenburg is located partly in Europe and partly in Asia, and its area is home to the Cossack people of the Ural region. These folks have a strong superstition against male doctors and usually rely on sorceresses for medical help. Miss K. offered to use her medical knowledge to help the Cossacks and was granted permission to enroll in the Academy of Medicine. The Cossacks promised her a yearly stipend of 28 roubles, but when she passed her midterm exams just like the male students, they sent her 300 roubles as a gesture of goodwill.
In France, a Mlle. Reugger, from Algeria, lately passed a brilliant examination, and received the degree of Bachelor of Letters. She appealed to the Dean of the Faculty at Montpellier for permission to follow the regular course, and was refused on account of[Pg 902] her sex. She then turned to the Minister of Public Instruction, who granted it on condition that she should pledge herself to practice only in Algeria, where the Arabs, like the Cossacks, refuse the attendance of male physicians. Unlike our Russian friend, she refused to give the pledge. She threw herself upon her rights, and appealed in person to the Emperor. This was in December last, and I have not been able to find his decision. It was doubtless given in her behalf, for Louis Napoleon will always yield as a favor what he would stubbornly refuse as a right. The physicians of this country have been occupied this winter in discussing the discovery by one of their number of the active infectant in fever and ague. It has been found in the dust-like spores of a marsh plant—the Pamella. In Paris, at the same time, a woman of rank claims to have discovered the cause of cholera in a microscopic insect, developed in low and filthy localities. Her details were so minute, that the Academy of Science, which began by laughing at the introduction of the matter, has been compelled to listen, and the subject is now under investigation.
In France, a Mlle. Reugger from Algeria recently passed a brilliant exam and received her Bachelor of Letters degree. She appealed to the Dean of the Faculty at Montpellier for permission to continue with the regular course, but her request was denied because of[Pg 902] her gender. She then approached the Minister of Public Instruction, who granted her request on the condition that she promise to practice only in Algeria, where the Arabs, like the Cossacks, refuse to allow male physicians to attend them. Unlike our Russian friend, she refused to make that promise. She stood up for her rights and directly appealed to the Emperor. This happened last December, and I haven’t been able to find out his decision. It was likely in her favor, since Louis Napoleon tends to grant what he would firmly deny as a right. This winter, physicians in this country have been busy discussing a discovery made by one of their own regarding the active infectant in fever and ague. It has been found in the dust-like spores of a marsh plant—the Pamella. At the same time in Paris, a woman of high rank claims to have discovered the cause of cholera in a microscopic insect found in dirty and low-lying areas. Her details were so precise that the Academy of Science, which initially laughed off the subject, has been forced to pay attention, and the issue is now under investigation.
THE PULPIT.
In spite of the bitter words of warning which John Ruskin has thought it his duty to speak to such women as enter upon theological studies, a good many women in Great Britain and this country have engaged in what is properly the work of the Christian ministry. The only ordained minister whose work has come under our notice since the marriage of Antoinette Blackwell, is the Rev. Olympia Brown, settled over the Universalist Society at Weymouth Landing, Mass. Her ministry has been highly successful, and is to be mentioned here chiefly on account of a legal decision to which it has given rise. The church at Weymouth Landing made an appeal to the Legislature last winter as to the legality of marriages solemnized by her. The Legislature gave the same general construction to the masculine relatives in the enactment which the English law gave to the old Latin word in the Charter of Apothecaries' Hall, deciding that marriages so solemnized are legal, and no further legislation necessary.
Despite the harsh warnings that John Ruskin felt compelled to share with women who pursue theological studies, many women in Great Britain and this country have engaged in what is truly the work of the Christian ministry. The only ordained minister we have noted since Antoinette Blackwell's marriage is the Rev. Olympia Brown, who serves the Universalist Society at Weymouth Landing, Mass. Her ministry has been quite successful and is primarily mentioned here due to a legal decision it has sparked. Last winter, the church at Weymouth Landing appealed to the Legislature regarding the legality of marriages officiated by her. The Legislature interpreted the law in the same way that masculine relatives did regarding the old Latin term in the Charter of Apothecaries' Hall, concluding that the marriages she conducted are legal, with no further legislation needed.
LABOR.
The advance of women, as regards all sorts of labor, in the United States, has been such as might be expected by watchful eyes, and yet reports on the general question will not read very differently from those published ten years ago. In New York, women are still reported as making shirts at 75 cents a dozen, and overalls at 50 cents. These women have two protective unions of their own, not connected with the workingmen's union, and most of them have naturally enough sympathized with the eight-hour movement, not foreseeing, apparently, that the necessary first result of that movement would be a decrease of wages proportioned to the limitation of time. Ever since the beginning of the war, women have been employed in the public departments North and South. It has been a matter of necessity, rather than choice. The same causes combined to drive women into field labor and printing-offices. All through Minnesota and the surrounding regions, women voluntarily assumed the whole charge of the farms, in order to send their husbands to the field. A very interesting account has been recently published of a farm in Dongola, Ill., consisting of two thousand acres, managed by a highly educated woman, whose husband was a cavalry officer. It was a great pecuniary success. In New Hampshire, last summer, I was shown open-air graperies wholly managed by women, in several different localities, and was very happy to be told that my own influence had largely contributed to the experiment. In England field labor is now recommended to women by Lord Houghton, better known as Mr. Monckton Milnes, who considers it a healthful resource against the terrible abuses of factory life. At a meeting of the British Association last fall, he produced a well-written letter from a woman engaged in brick-making. This letter claimed that brick-making paid three times better than factory labor, and ten times better than domestic service. In addition to persons heretofore mentioned in this country as employing women in out-door work, I would name Mr. Knox, the great fruit-grower, who, on his place near Pittsburg, Pa., employs two or three hundred. I have seen it stated that, during the last four years, twenty thousand women have entered printing-offices. I do not know the basis of this calculation, but judging from my local statistics, I should think it must be nearly correct. To the Committee[Pg 903] of the Massachusetts Legislature, on the eight-hour movement, the following towns report concerning the wages and labor of women:
The progress of women in various kinds of work in the United States has been as expected by observant individuals, yet reports on the overall situation read much like those from a decade ago. In New York, women are still noted to be making shirts for 75 cents a dozen and overalls for 50 cents. These women have their own protective unions, separate from the men's union, and most of them have understandably supported the eight-hour movement, not realizing that the immediate outcome of that movement would likely result in wage reductions corresponding to the time limits. Since the start of the war, women have been employed in public offices both in the North and the South out of necessity rather than choice. The same factors pushed women into agricultural work and printing jobs. Throughout Minnesota and nearby areas, women took on the entire responsibility of running the farms so that their husbands could go to war. A fascinating article was recently published about a two-thousand-acre farm in Dongola, Illinois, managed by a highly educated woman whose husband served as a cavalry officer. It turned out to be quite profitable. Last summer in New Hampshire, I visited open-air vineyards completely managed by women in several locations and was pleased to learn that my influence had greatly helped with this initiative. In England, Lord Houghton, known as Mr. Monckton Milnes, now advocates fieldwork for women as a healthy alternative to the harsh realities of factory life. At a meeting of the British Association last fall, he presented a well-written letter from a woman working in brick-making. This letter claimed that brick-making paid three times as much as factory work and ten times more than domestic service. In addition to the previously mentioned individuals employing women in outdoor jobs, I would also mention Mr. Knox, the prominent fruit grower, who employs two or three hundred women at his farm near Pittsburgh, PA. I have seen estimates stating that twenty thousand women have joined printing offices over the past four years. I am unsure of how this figure was arrived at, but based on my local statistics, I believe it to be fairly accurate. To the Committee[Pg 903] of the Massachusetts Legislature regarding the eight-hour movement, the following towns report on the wages and labor of women:
Boston—Glass Co., wages from $4 to $8 a week. Domestics, from $1.50 to $3 per week; seamstresses, $1 a day; Makers of fancy goods, 40 to 50 cents a day. Brookline—Washerwomen, $1 a day. Charlestown and New Bedford are ashamed to name the wages, but humbly confess that they are very low. Chicopee—Pays women 90 per cent the wages of men. Concord—Pays from 8 to 10 cents an hour. Fairhaven—Gives to female photographers one-third the wages of men. Hadley—Pays three-fourths. To domestics, one-third; seamstresses, one-quarter to one-third. Holyoke—In its paper mills, offers one-third to one-half. Lancaster—Pays for pocket-book making from 50 to 75 cents a day. Lee—Pays in the paper mills one-half the wages of men. Lowell—The Manufacturing Co. averages 90 cents a day. The Baldwin Mills pay 60 to 75 cents a day. Newton—Pays its washerwomen 75 cents a day, or 10 cents an hour. North Becket—Pays to women one-third the wages of men. Northampton—Pays $5 a week. Salisbury—For sewing hats, $1 a day. South Reading—On rattan and shoe work, $5 to $10 a week. South Yarmouth—Half the wages of men, or less. Taunton—One-third to two-thirds the wages of men. Walpole—Pays two thirds the wages of men. Wareham—Pays to its domestics from 18 to 30 cents a day; to seamstresses, 50 cents to $1. Wilmington—Pays two-thirds the wages of men. Winchester—Pays dressmakers $1 a day; washerwomen, 12 cents an hour. Woburn—Keeps its women at work from 11 to 13 hours, and pays them two-thirds the wages of men.
Boston—Glass Co., wages from $4 to $8 a week. Domestics, from $1.50 to $3 per week; seamstresses, $1 a day; makers of fancy goods, 40 to 50 cents a day. Brookline—Washerwomen, $1 a day. Charlestown and New Bedford are embarrassed to mention the wages, but admit they are very low. Chicopee—Pays women 90% of what men earn. Concord—Pays from 8 to 10 cents an hour. Fairhaven—Gives female photographers one-third of what men earn. Hadley—Pays three-fourths. To domestics, one-third; seamstresses, one-quarter to one-third. Holyoke—In its paper mills, offers one-third to one-half. Lancaster—Pays for pocket-book making from 50 to 75 cents a day. Lee—In the paper mills, pays half the wages of men. Lowell—The Manufacturing Co. averages 90 cents a day. The Baldwin Mills pay 60 to 75 cents a day. Newton—Pays its washerwomen 75 cents a day, or 10 cents an hour. North Becket—Pays women one-third of what men earn. Northampton—Pays $5 a week. Salisbury—For sewing hats, $1 a day. South Reading—On rattan and shoe work, $5 to $10 a week. South Yarmouth—Half the wages of men, or less. Taunton—One-third to two-thirds of what men earn. Walpole—Pays two-thirds of what men earn. Wareham—Pays its domestics from 18 to 30 cents a day; to seamstresses, 50 cents to $1. Wilmington—Pays two-thirds of what men earn. Winchester—Pays dressmakers $1 a day; washerwomen, 12 cents an hour. Woburn—Keeps its women working from 11 to 13 hours, and pays them two-thirds of what men earn.
On the better side of the question, Fall River testifies that women, in competition, earn nearly as much as men.
On the positive side of the issue, Fall River shows that women, in competition, earn almost as much as men.
Lawrence—From the Pacific Mills, that the women are liberally paid. We should like to see the figures. The Washington Mills pays from $1 to $2 a day. Stoneham—Gives them $1.50 per week. Waltham—Reports the wages of the watch factory as very remunerative. In 1860 I reported this factory as paying from $2.50 to $4 a week. Here, also, we should prefer figures to a general statement. Boston—Has now many manufactories of paper collars. Each girl is expected to turn out 1,800 daily. The wages are $7 a week. In the paper-box factory, more than 200 girls are employed, but I can not ascertain their wages, and therefore suppose them to be low. I know individuals who earn here $6 a week, but that must be above the average.
Lawrence—From the Pacific Mills, the women are well paid. We’d like to see the numbers. The Washington Mills pays between $1 and $2 a day. Stoneham—Pays them $1.50 per week. Waltham—Says the wages at the watch factory are very good. Back in 1860, I reported that this factory paid between $2.50 and $4 a week. Again, we’d prefer numbers over general statements. Boston—Now has many factories making paper collars. Each girl is expected to produce 1,800 daily. The wages are $7 a week. In the paper-box factory, over 200 girls are employed, but I can't find out their wages, so I assume they are low. I know some people who earn $6 a week here, but that must be above average.
The best looking body of factory operatives that I have ever seen are those employed in the silk and ribbon mills on Boston Neck, lately under the charge of Mr. J. H. Stephenson, and those at the Florence Silk Mills in Northampton, owned by Mr. S. L. Hill. The classes, libraries, and privileges appertaining to these mills, make them the best examples I know, and this is shown in the faces and bearing of the women. We are always referred to political economy, when we speak of the low wages of women, but a little investigation will show that other causes co-operate with those, which can be but gradually reached, to determine their rates.
The best-looking workforce of factory workers I've ever seen are those working in the silk and ribbon mills on Boston Neck, recently managed by Mr. J. H. Stephenson, and those at the Florence Silk Mills in Northampton, owned by Mr. S. L. Hill. The classes, libraries, and benefits associated with these mills make them the best examples I know, and this is evident in the faces and demeanor of the women. Whenever we talk about women’s low wages, we are often directed to political economy, but a little digging will reveal that other factors also play a role in determining their pay, which can only be addressed gradually.
1. The willfulness of women themselves, which when I see them in positions I have helped to open to them, fills me with shame and indignation.
1. The stubbornness of women themselves, which I feel when I see them in roles I have helped to create for them, fills me with shame and anger.
2. The unfair competition proceeding from the voluntary labor, in mechanical ways, of women well to do.
2. The unfair competition coming from the voluntary work, in mechanical ways, of affluent women.
For the first, we can not greatly blame the women whom employers chiefly choose for their good looks, for expecting to earn their wages through them, rather than by the proper discharge of their duties. Their conduct is not the less shameful on that account, but I seem to see that only time and death and ruin will educate them.
For the first point, we can’t really blame the women that employers mainly pick for their looks for hoping to earn their pay through those looks instead of by doing their jobs properly. Their behavior isn’t any less shameful because of it, but it seems to me that only time, death, and hardship will teach them.
For the second, we must strive to develop a public sentiment which, while it continues to hold labor honorable, will stamp with ignominy any women who, in comfortable country homes, compete with the workwomen of great cities. There are thousands of wealthy farmers' wives to-day, who just as much drive other women to sin and death, as if they led them with their own hands to the houses in which they are ultimately compelled to take refuge. Still further it has come to be known to me that in Boston, and I am told in New York also, wealthy women who do not even do their own sewing, have the control of the finer kinds of fancy-work, dealing with the stores which sell such work under various disguises. I can not prove these words, but they will strike conviction to[Pg 904] the hearts of the women themselves, and I wish them to have some significance for men, for if these women had the pocket-money which their taste and position require, they would never dream of such competition. One thing these men should know, that such women are generally known to their employers, and their domestic relations are judged accordingly.
For the second point, we need to work on building a public opinion that, while still respecting labor, will shame any women who, living in comfortable homes in the countryside, compete with city working women. There are thousands of wealthy farmers' wives today who push other women towards sin and despair, just as if they were physically leading them to the places where they ultimately have to seek refuge. Furthermore, I have learned that in Boston, and I've been told the same is true in New York, wealthy women who don’t even do their own sewing control the finer kinds of crafts, working with stores that sell such items under different pretenses. I can’t prove these claims, but they will resonate with the hearts of these women themselves, and I hope they mean something to men as well, because if these women had the spending money their lifestyle and status demand, they wouldn't even consider competing in this way. One thing these men should understand is that these women are typically recognized by their employers, and their home lives are assessed based on that.
The recent investigations into factory labor in England concern rather the condition than the wages of women. At flower-making, 11,000 girls are employed from fourteen to eighteen hours daily. In hardware shops and factories, they work, from six years of age, fourteen hours daily. In glass factories, 5,000 women are employed from nine years of age and upwards, eighteen hours daily. In tobacco factories, 7,000 women are employed under conditions of great physical suffering. As knitters, from six years old, they work fourteen hours daily for 1s. 3d. a week! This terrible state of things is partly owing to competition with the labor of French machinery. A great deal of ignorant prejudice against machines is one of its results. In Sheffield files are still made by hand, while here in America we make watches by machinery. The disposition of the whole community, both here and in Great Britain, towards this labor question is kindly. It has become a momentous social problem. During the fifteen years that my attention has been riveted to this subject, I have seen a great change in public feeling.
The recent investigations into factory labor in England focus more on the working conditions than on the wages of women. In flower-making, 11,000 girls work between fourteen to eighteen hours a day. In hardware shops and factories, they start working at six years old and put in fourteen hours daily. In glass factories, 5,000 women work from nine years old and up to eighteen hours a day. In tobacco factories, 7,000 women face extreme physical suffering. As knitters, starting at six years old, they work fourteen hours a day for just 1s. 3d. a week! This awful situation is partly due to competition with French machinery. A lot of ignorant bias against machines is one of its consequences. In Sheffield, files are still made by hand, while here in America we produce watches using machinery. The general attitude of the entire community, both here and in Great Britain, towards this labor issue is compassionate. It has turned into a significant social problem. Over the fifteen years that I have focused on this issue, I have witnessed a considerable shift in public sentiment.
I have received the Sixth Annual Report of the Society for the Employment of Women, of which the Earl of Shaftesbury is President, and Mr. Gladstone a Vice-President. This Society has trained some hair-dressers, clerks, glass engravers, book-keepers, and telegraph operators, but its greatest service consists in the constant issue of tracts, to bias developing public opinion. Such an association should be started in New York. I should have been glad to inaugurate in Boston, during the last six years, several important industrial movements. The war checked the enthusiasm I had succeeded in rousing, and I have not been able to pause in my special work of collecting and observing facts, to stimulate it afresh or to solicit personally the necessary means. How easy it would be for a few wealthy women to test these experiments. I would first establish a Mending-School, and having taught women how to darn and patch in a proper manner, I would scatter them through the country to open shops of their own. As it is, I do not know a city in which a place exists to which a housekeeper could send a week's wash, sure that it would be returned with every button-hole, button, hem, gusset and stay in proper condition. These mending-shops should take on apprentices, who should be sent to the house to do every sort of repairing with a needle. I would open another school to train women to every kind of trivial service, now clumsily or inadequately performed by men. If, for instance, you now send to an upholsterer to have an old window-blind or blind fixture repaired, his apprentice will replace the entire thing, at a proportionate cost, leaving the old screw-holes to gape at the gazer. I would train women to wash, repair, and replace in part, and to carry in their pockets little vials of white or red lead to fill the gaping holes. Full employment could be found for such apprentices.
I have received the Sixth Annual Report of the Society for the Employment of Women, where the Earl of Shaftesbury is the President and Mr. Gladstone is a Vice-President. This Society has trained some hairdressers, clerks, glass engravers, bookkeepers, and telegraph operators, but its biggest contribution lies in its ongoing distribution of tracts to influence public opinion. A similar organization should be started in New York. I would have loved to launch several key industrial initiatives in Boston over the past six years. The war disrupted the excitement I had managed to create, and I haven't been able to take a break from my dedicated work of gathering and analyzing facts to reignite it or to personally seek the necessary funding. It would be so easy for a few wealthy women to test these ideas. I would first set up a Mending School, and after teaching women how to properly darn and patch, I would send them out across the country to open their own shops. As it stands, I don't know of any city where a housekeeper could send a week's worth of laundry, knowing it would come back with every button, buttonhole, hem, gusset, and stay in good condition. These mending shops should take on apprentices who would visit homes to do all kinds of repairs with a needle. I would start another school to train women for all sorts of minor services that are currently awkwardly or inadequately done by men. For example, if you send an old window blind or fixture to an upholsterer for repair, his apprentice will typically replace the whole thing at a corresponding cost, leaving the old screw holes exposed. I would train women to wash, repair, and partially replace items, carrying small vials of white or red lead to fill in the visible holes. There would be plenty of work available for such apprentices.
LAW.
The number of laws passed the last six years affecting the condition of women has been very small. The New York Assembly in February, 1865, passed a law putting the legal evidence of a married woman on the same basis as if she were a "femme sole." The Massachusetts Legislature have legalized marriage ceremonies performed by an ordained woman, and in January, 1866, Mr. Peckham, of Worcester, moved for a joint Special Committee "to consider in what way a more just and equal compensation shall be awarded to female labor." On the 4th of April just passed Samuel E. Sewall and others petitioned for leave to appoint women on School Committees. It is difficult to conceive on what ground such petitioners had leave to withdraw. These things are only valuable as indicating that public attention is still alive. Some remarkable illustrations of the absurdity of old laws might be recorded. One of these is to be found in the family history of Mad. de Bedout, recently dead at Paris.
The number of laws passed in the last six years that affect women's rights has been very limited. In February 1865, the New York Assembly passed a law that placed the legal status of a married woman on par with that of a "femme sole." The Massachusetts Legislature has allowed marriage ceremonies to be conducted by ordained women, and in January 1866, Mr. Peckham from Worcester proposed a joint Special Committee "to consider how to ensure fairer and more equal compensation for female labor." On April 4th, Samuel E. Sewall and others petitioned to allow women to be appointed to School Committees. It's hard to understand why such petitioners were allowed to withdraw their request. These events are only significant as indicators that public interest is still alive. One particularly striking example of the absurdity of outdated laws can be found in the family history of Madame de Bedout, who recently passed away in Paris.
A very important convention came together at Leipsic, in September, 1865. One hundred and fifty women assembled, pledged to assert the right to labor, and to bridge the gulf between the compensations of the two sexes. Madame Louise Otto Peters opened[Pg 905] the conference in an able speech. She stated that there were five millions of women in Germany who could each earn, if allowed, three thalers a week. A thousand women might find employment as chemists, on salaries of one hundred and fifty thalers a year, exclusive of board and lodging. Another thousand might be employed as boot-closers. The foundation of industrial and commercial schools was urged. The weak point of the speech as reported, appeared to be, that it took no cognizance of the fact that an influx of five millions of laborers must necessarily lower the current rate of wages she proposed. I mention this convention in a legal connection, believing that it was intended to remove some local legal barriers.
A very important convention took place in Leipzig in September 1865. One hundred and fifty women came together, committed to advocating for their right to work and to close the wage gap between men and women. Madame Louise Otto Peters opened the conference with a powerful speech. She mentioned that there were five million women in Germany who could each earn, if given the opportunity, three thalers a week. A thousand women could potentially work as chemists, earning one hundred and fifty thalers a year, not including room and board. Another thousand could find jobs as boot closers. The need for industrial and commercial schools was emphasized. A notable weakness in her speech, as reported, was that it didn’t acknowledge that bringing in five million workers would likely drive down the wage rates she suggested. I reference this convention in a legal context, as I believe it aimed to eliminate some local legal barriers.
SUFFRAGE.
Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Sarah E. Wall, and a few other women, have continued their annual protests without intermission. In somewhat the same way have petitions recently been sent to Congress in behalf of Universal Suffrage. We had no expectation that any favorable reception would await such petitions, but it was a duty to put them on record. What fate they met in Congress, you have so recently heard that I have no occasion to record it. Minnesota, New York, and other States, have petitioned their Legislatures to the same effect.
Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Sarah E. Wall, and a few other women have kept up their annual protests without stopping. Similarly, petitions have recently been sent to Congress advocating for Universal Suffrage. We didn't expect these petitions to be welcomed, but it was important to have them on record. You’ve heard recently about how they were received in Congress, so there’s no need for me to repeat that. Minnesota, New York, and other states have also petitioned their legislatures for the same reason.
PROGRESS.
The real gain of a reform, starting from the heart of the family, must necessarily be very slow. I remember that some years ago, when I printed my book on labor, one of my kindest critics congratulated the public that of my nine lectures, I had published only these. He thought it was useless to contend for more book-learning for women, and the subject of Civil Rights still disgusted his sensitive ear. The common sense of the book on labor ought to have shown him how I should treat the subject of education. He could not understand how the woman who gets an education which does not make her a "bread-winner," is essentially defrauded, nor how a woman well paid for her labor is essentially wronged, when she is denied the privilege of protecting it by her vote. There is, however, a surely growing sense of this shown in the substantial advance of her civil rights.
The real benefit of a reform, starting from the core of the family, will inevitably take time. I recall that a few years ago, when I published my book on labor, one of my kindest critics praised the public for the fact that I had only published these nine lectures. He believed it was pointless to argue for more education for women, and the topic of Civil Rights still offended his delicate sensibilities. The common sense reflected in the book on labor should have indicated to him how I would address the topic of education. He failed to grasp that a woman who receives an education that doesn’t help her become a "breadwinner" is fundamentally cheated, nor could he understand that a woman who is well-compensated for her work is fundamentally wronged when she is denied the right to protect it with her vote. Nonetheless, there is a definitely growing awareness of this, evident in the significant progress of her civil rights.
In the early part of 1865, the people of Victoria, in Australia, assembled to elect a member of Parliament, were surprised to find the whole female population voting. Some quick-sighted woman had discovered that the letter of the new law permitted it, and their votes were accepted and wisely given. The London Times, in the month of May, says that, in a country like Australia, it can easily believe that such an extension of the franchise will be a marked improvement, and thinks that the precedent will stand! The Government of Moravia has also, within the past year, granted the municipal franchise to widows who pay taxes. In January, 1864, the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, Ireland, restored to woman the old right of voting for Town Commissioners. The Justice (Fitzgerald) desired to state that ladies were entitled to sit as Town Commissioners as well as to vote for them, and the Chief Justice took pains to make it clear that there was nothing in either duty repugnant to womanly habits.
In early 1865, the people of Victoria, Australia, gathered to elect a member of Parliament and were surprised to see the entire female population voting. A perceptive woman had realized that the wording of the new law allowed it, so their votes were accepted and wisely cast. The London Times stated in May that, in a country like Australia, it could easily believe that this extension of voting rights would be a notable improvement, and anticipated that the precedent would hold! The Government of Moravia also granted the municipal voting rights to widows who pay taxes within the past year. In January 1864, the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, Ireland, restored the old right of women to vote for Town Commissioners. Justice Fitzgerald noted that women were entitled to serve as Town Commissioners as well as vote for them, and the Chief Justice made it clear that there was nothing in either role that conflicted with traditional female behavior.
The inhabitants of Ain (or Aisne) in France, lately chose nine women into their municipal council. At Bergeres, they elected the whole council, and the Mayor, not being prepared for such good fortune, resigned his office. A very remarkable autograph note of the Queen of England attracted my attention in 1865. It expressed to Lord John Russell the Queen's dissatisfaction with Lord Palmerston. It was a very distinct assertion of her regal prerogative, and as such Lord Palmerston submitted to it.
The people of Ain (or Aisne) in France recently elected nine women to their local council. In Bergeres, they chose the entire council, and the Mayor, caught off guard by such good luck, resigned from his position. A noteworthy handwritten note from the Queen of England caught my eye in 1865. It conveyed the Queen's disappointment with Lord Palmerston and was a clear assertion of her royal authority, which Lord Palmerston accepted.
Our cause has found able advocates in John Stuart Mill, The New York Evening Post, and Theodore Tilton. If I were asked whether, in connection with this gain, we have lost any ground, I should reply that we have decidedly lost it in connection with the daily press. I do not know any newspaper, if I except The Boston Commonwealth, which will print a letter touching civil rights from any woman, precisely as it is written. I think what we need most is to purchase the right to a daily use of half a column of The New York Tribune.
Our cause has found strong supporters in John Stuart Mill, The New York Evening Post, and Theodore Tilton. If you asked me whether, with this progress, we’ve lost any ground, I would say we’ve definitely lost it when it comes to the daily press. I don’t know of any newspaper, except for The Boston Commonwealth, that will print a letter about civil rights from any woman just as it’s written. I think what we need most is to buy the right to use half a column daily in The New York Tribune.
RECORD AND OBITUARIES.
I have been accustomed to connect with reports of this kind, some honorable mention of distinguished women recently dead. I can not do this at any length after a pause of[Pg 906] so many years, but a few names must be mentioned, a few facts recorded. I had occasion, some years ago, to commemorate the services of Maria Sybilla Merian, painter, engraver, linguist, and traveler, who published, at Amsterdam, two volumes of engravings of insects and sixty magnificent plates, illustrating the metamorphoses of the insects of Surinam. I did not at that time know that some of her statements had been held open to suspicion. In the first place, she asserted that a certain fly, the Fulgoria Lantanaria, emitted so much light that she could read her books by its aid. Still further, that one of the large spiders called Mygale, entered the nests of the humming-bird in Surinam, sucked its eggs and snared the birds. To all the contention which arose over these statements, Madame Merian could oppose only her word. Men who knew that her statements in regard to Europe were indisputable, decided that her word could not be taken in Asia. A very common folly; but two hundred years have passed, 1866 arrives, and her justification with it. An English traveler named Bates, has recently rescued quite large finches from the Mygale, and poisoned himself with its saliva in preparing them for his cabinet.
I’ve gotten used to connecting with reports like this, giving a nod to notable women who have recently passed away. I can’t go into too much detail after a break of[Pg 906] so many years, but a few names need mentioning, a few facts need recording. Some years ago, I had the chance to recognize the contributions of Maria Sybilla Merian, an artist, engraver, linguist, and traveler, who published two volumes of insect engravings and sixty stunning plates showcasing the transformations of insects from Surinam in Amsterdam. At that time, I didn’t know that some of her claims had been questioned. For instance, she claimed that a certain fly, the Fulgoria Lantanaria, emitted so much light she could read her books by it. Furthermore, she stated that one of the large spiders, known as Mygale, entered the nests of hummingbirds in Surinam, sucked their eggs, and caught the birds. In response to the debate that arose over these claims, Madame Merian could only rely on her own word. Men who knew her claims about Europe were undisputed concluded that her word could not be trusted regarding Asia. A common mistake; but now that two hundred years have passed, here comes 1866, bringing her vindication with it. An English traveler named Bates has recently saved some large finches from the Mygale and accidentally poisoned himself with its saliva while preparing them for his collection.
I do not know how many years Madame Baring, the mother of the great banker, has been dead. It is only recently that I have ascertained that to her prudence, activity, and business habits, the family attribute the sure foundation of their habits. Matthew Baring came to Larkbeare, near Exeter, from Bremen. His wife superintended in his day, the long rows of "burlers," or women who picked over the woolen cloth he made. Her sons, John and Francis, sought a wider field for the fortune their father left, but did not forget to erect a monument to their mother's industry.
I don’t know how many years it’s been since Madame Baring, the mother of the famous banker, passed away. I recently learned that the family credits her foresight, energy, and business skills for the solid foundation of their lifestyle. Matthew Baring came to Larkbeare, near Exeter, from Bremen. During his time, his wife managed the long lines of "burlers," or women who sorted through the woolen cloth he produced. Her sons, John and Francis, looked for broader opportunities for the fortune their father left behind but made sure to honor their mother’s hard work with a memorial.
When I first investigated the labor of woman, I was told that the great manufacturing interest, represented by the button factories at Easthampton, Mass., had its origin in the persevering industry of a woman. Last summer I went personally to see the factories and their proprietor, and it was a pleasant surprise to find the woman of whom I had heard still living. Samuel Williston told me that he did not usually gratify the curiosity of his visitors, but added that if I thought it would be any stimulus to the industry of other women, he should be glad to tell me the story. About forty years ago he had been an unsuccessful speculator in Merino sheep, and his wife strained every nerve to help her family. On going one day to the country store for a supply of knitting, she expressed so much disappointment on being told that there was none for her, that a tailor in the establishment asked her if she would cover some buttons for him. She soon found that certain kinds of buttons were in steady demand. They were then made wholly by hand. She provided herself with materials, took the farmers' daughters for apprentices, and her husband went to Boston, Hartford, and New York to solicit orders. From this small beginning arose one of the most lucrative industries of Massachusetts.
When I first looked into women's work, I learned that the major manufacturing sector, represented by the button factories in Easthampton, Massachusetts, began thanks to the tireless efforts of a woman. Last summer, I personally visited the factories and met their owner, and I was pleasantly surprised to find the woman I had heard about still alive. Samuel Williston mentioned that he usually didn't satisfy his visitors' curiosity, but he added that if I thought it would inspire other women, he would be happy to share the story. About forty years ago, he had been an unsuccessful investor in Merino sheep, and his wife worked tirelessly to support their family. One day, when she went to the country store for knitting supplies and found none available, she expressed her disappointment so clearly that a tailor in the store asked if she would cover some buttons for him. She quickly discovered that certain types of buttons were always in demand. They were then made entirely by hand. She got the materials she needed, took the farmers' daughters on as apprentices, and her husband traveled to Boston, Hartford, and New York to request orders. From this modest start, one of the most profitable industries in Massachusetts was born.
About a year since Eliza W. Farnham laid down her weary head. I did not know her, nor did I sympathize in her theories. They were sustained by her imagination rather than her reason; by her impulses rather than any practical judgment. No moral superiority can justly be conferred on either sex of a being possessed of intellect and conscience. God has conferred no such superiority; yet I gladly name Mrs. Farnham here as a woman whose life—a bitter disappointment to herself—was useful to all women, and whose books, published since her death, show a marvelous mental range. I name her with sympathy and admiration. During the last year Madam Charles Lemonnier has died in Paris. She devoted her life to the professional education of women. For six years she found it so difficult to raise the necessary funds, that she had to content herself with sending her pupils to institutions in Germany. In 1862 the Society for the Professional Instruction of Women was at last constituted, and opened a school in the Rue de Perle. Two other schools have since been opened; one in the Rue de Val Sainte Catherine, the other in the Rue Roche. The morning is occupied in these schools with general studies, the afternoon with industrial drawing, wood engraving, the making up of garments, linen, etc. She died after initiating a thoroughly successful work.
About a year since Eliza W. Farnham laid down her weary head. I didn’t know her, nor did I agree with her theories. They were based more on her imagination than on reason, driven by her feelings rather than any practical judgment. No moral superiority can fairly be given to either gender of a person with intellect and conscience. God hasn’t granted any such superiority; still, I gladly mention Mrs. Farnham here as a woman whose life—a bitter disappointment to her—was beneficial to all women, and whose books, published after her death, display an incredible range of intellect. I mention her with sympathy and respect. Over the past year, Madam Charles Lemonnier has passed away in Paris. She dedicated her life to the professional education of women. For six years, she struggled to raise the necessary funds, which forced her to settle for sending her students to institutions in Germany. In 1862, the Society for the Professional Instruction of Women was finally established, and a school opened in Rue de Perle. Two more schools have opened since then; one in Rue de Val Sainte Catherine and the other in Rue Roche. Mornings at these schools are devoted to general studies, while afternoons focus on industrial drawing, wood engraving, making garments, linen, and more. She died after starting a thoroughly successful initiative.
In July, 1865, there died at Corfu a Dr. Barry, attached to the Medical Staff of the British Army. He was remarkable for skill, firmness, decision, and great rapidity in difficult operations. He had entered the army in 1813, and had served in all quarters of the globe with such distinction, as to insure promotion without interest. He was clever[Pg 907] and agreeable, but excessively plain, weak in stature, and with a squeaking voice which provoked ridicule. He had an irritable temper, and answered some jesting on this topic by calling out the offender and shooting him through the lungs. In 1840 he was made Medical Inspector, and transferred from the Cape to Malta. He went from Malta to Corfu, and when the English Government ceded the Ionian Islands to Greece, resigned his position in the army and remained at Corfu. There he died last summer, forbidding, with his latest breath, any interference with his remains. The women who attended him regarded this request with the shameless indifference now so common, and unable to believe that an officer who had been forty-five years in the British service, had received a diploma, fought a duel, and been celebrated as a brilliant operator, was not only a woman, but at some period in her life a mother; they called in a medical commission to establish these facts. A sad, sad picture which those of us, who inquire into the fortunes of women, can readily understand.
In July 1865, Dr. Barry, who was part of the Medical Staff of the British Army, passed away in Corfu. He was known for his skill, determination, decisiveness, and incredible speed in performing difficult surgeries. He joined the army in 1813 and served in various parts of the world so impressively that he earned promotions without needing connections. He was intelligent[Pg 907] and friendly, but very plain-looking, short in stature, and had a squeaky voice that drew mockery. He had a short temper and once reacted to a joke about this by challenging the offender and shooting him in the lungs. In 1840, he became Medical Inspector and was transferred from the Cape to Malta. He then moved from Malta to Corfu, and when the British government handed over the Ionian Islands to Greece, he resigned from the army and stayed in Corfu. He died there last summer, insisting with his dying breath that no one should interfere with his remains. The women who attended him paid little attention to this request, which reflects the shameless indifference that's common now, and unable to accept that an officer who had served in the British army for forty-five years, received a diploma, fought a duel, and was known as a brilliant surgeon, was not only a woman but also, at one point in her life, a mother; they called in a medical panel to confirm these details. A sad, sad scene that those of us who look into the experiences of women can easily grasp.
Last November deprived us of Lady Theresa Lewes and Mrs. Gaskell. Mrs. Gaskell has perhaps done more than any woman of this century, not confessedly devoted to our cause, to elevate the condition of her sex, and disseminate liberal ideas as to their needs and culture. The first part of her career was one of those brilliant successes which startle us into surprise and admiration. It was checked midway by the publication of her life of Charlotte Bronte, the best and noblest of her works. Checked, because condemned, in that instance, without a hearing. She could never afterward feel the elastic pleasure, which was natural to her, in composing and printing, and for three long years afterward never touched her pen. I would not allude to this subject if every notice of her since her death had not done so, repeating the old censure, as a matter of course. Here in America we may exculpate her. The public was wrong in the first place, inasmuch as it has come to demand biography before biography is possible. The publisher was wrong in the second, for he ought to have known, and could easily have ascertained, how plain a statement the English law would permit. The public was still further wrong when it attributed misapprehension and carelessness to a woman whom it very well knew to be incapable of either. I, for one, shall never forgive nor forget the officious censure of the Westminster Review—censure given by one who must have known that the legal apology tendered in Mrs. Gaskell's absence to protect her pecuniary interests, had the unfortunate effect to put her in a position where explanation and self-defence were alike impossible. Mrs. Gaskell had deserved the steady confidence of the public.
Last November took away Lady Theresa Lewes and Mrs. Gaskell. Mrs. Gaskell has probably done more than any woman this century, not openly aligned with our cause, to improve the status of women and spread liberal ideas regarding their needs and education. The early part of her career was marked by incredible successes that left us surprised and in awe. This momentum was interrupted by the release of her biography of Charlotte Brontë, which is her greatest and most noble work. Interrupted, because it faced judgment without a fair hearing. She could never again feel the joyful excitement that came naturally to her when writing and publishing, and for three long years afterward, she didn’t write a thing. I wouldn’t mention this if every notice about her since her death hadn’t referred to it, repeating the same old criticism as if it were a given. Here in America, we can clear her name. The public was initially wrong, as it often demands biographies before they can actually be written. The publisher was also at fault, as he should have known—and could easily have learned—what a straightforward account English law would allow. The public erred even more by attributing misunderstanding and carelessness to a woman they knew was incapable of either. For my part, I will never forgive or forget the self-righteous criticism from the Westminster Review—criticism from someone who must have realized that the legal apology made in Mrs. Gaskell’s absence to protect her financial interests unfortunately put her in a position where she couldn’t explain or defend herself. Mrs. Gaskell deserved the ongoing trust of the public.
In Paris, recently, died Mrs. Severn Newton. She was the daughter of the artist Severn, the friend of Keats, and now British Consul at Rome. About five years since she married Charles Newton, Superintendent of Greek Antiquities at the British Museum. She was a person in whom power and delicacy were singularly blended. Ary Schæffer was accustomed to hold up her work as a model for his pupils. Her renderings of classic sculpture were so true that they were termed translations, and she had recently devoted herself to oil painting with great success. She died of brain fever at the early age of thirty-three, the most honored of female English artists.
In Paris, Mrs. Severn Newton recently passed away. She was the daughter of the artist Severn, who was a friend of Keats and currently the British Consul in Rome. About five years ago, she married Charles Newton, the Superintendent of Greek Antiquities at the British Museum. She was someone who uniquely combined strength and sensitivity. Ary Schæffer often held her work up as an example for his students. Her interpretations of classic sculpture were so accurate that they were referred to as translations, and she had recently focused on oil painting with great success. She died of brain fever at the young age of thirty-three, recognized as one of the most esteemed female English artists.
I have kept till the last the name of Fredrika Bremer, whose good fortune it was to secure lasting benefits to her sex. God sent to her early years dark trials and privations. Her father's tyrannical hand crushed all power and loveliness out of her life. At first she rebelled against her sufferings, but when he died in her girlhood she was able to see that they lent strength to her efforts for her sex. It was the rumor of what we were doing in this country for women that first drew her hither. It is not the fashion for Miss Bremer's friends fully to recognize her position in this respect. I owe my own convictions on the subject of suffrage to the reflections she awakened. When I told her that my mind was undecided on this point, she showed her disappointment so plainly, that I was forced to reconsider the whole subject. Miss Bremer did not hurry her work. She had a serene confidence that she should be permitted to finish what she had begun. She secured popularity by her cheerful humor, her genuine feeling, her true appreciation of men, and her insight into the conditions of family happiness, before she made any direct appeal against existing laws. Those who will read her novels thoughtfully, however, will see that she was from the first intent upon making such an effort possible.[Pg 908] From the beginning she pleaded for the social independence of wives; asked for them a separate purse; showed that woman could not even give her love freely, until she was independent of him to whom she owed it. To a just state of society, to noble family relations, entire freedom is essential.
I have saved the name of Fredrika Bremer for last, as she had the good fortune to bring lasting benefits to women. Early in her life, God sent her dark challenges and hardships. Her father's oppressive behavior took away all power and beauty from her existence. At first, she resisted her suffering, but when he died during her teenage years, she realized that they had strengthened her resolve to fight for her gender. It was the news of what we were doing for women in this country that first brought her here. Miss Bremer's friends don’t always fully recognize her role in this regard. I owe my own beliefs about suffrage to the thoughts she inspired in me. When I mentioned that I was unsure about this issue, her disappointment was so clear that I had to rethink the entire matter. Miss Bremer didn’t rush her work; she had a calm confidence that she would be able to complete what she started. She gained popularity through her cheerful humor, genuine feelings, true appreciation of men, and her understanding of family happiness before she made any direct appeals against existing laws. However, those who read her novels thoughtfully will see that she was always focused on making such efforts possible. From the start, she argued for the social independence of wives; she demanded a separate purse for them and showed that a woman couldn’t even give her love freely until she was independent of the man she owed it to. For a fair society and noble family relationships, complete freedom is essential.[Pg 908]
Under her influence females had been admitted to the Musical Academy. The Directors of the Industrial School at Stockholm had attempted to form a class, and Professor Quarnstromm had opened his classes at the Academy of Fine Arts to women. Cheered by her sympathy, a female surgeon had sustained herself in Stockholm, and Bishop Argardh indorsed the darkest picture she had ever drawn, when he pleaded with the state to establish a girls' school. It was at this juncture that Miss Bremer published Hertha. This book was a direct blow aimed at the laws of Sweden concerning women. By this time she had herself become in Sweden what we might fitly call a "crowned head." She was everywhere treated with distinction, and her sudden appearance in any place was greeted with the enthusiasm usually shown by such nations only to their princes. She said of her new book: "I have poured into it more of my heart and life than into anything which I have ever written," and, verily, she had her reward. She was at Rome, two years after, in 1858, when the glad news reached her that King Oscar, at the opening of the Diet, had proposed a bill entitling women to hold independent property at the age of twenty-five. All Sweden had read the book which moved the heart of the King, and the assembled representatives rent the air with their acclamations.
Under her influence, women were allowed to join the Musical Academy. The Directors of the Industrial School in Stockholm tried to create a class, and Professor Quarnstromm opened his courses at the Academy of Fine Arts to women. Encouraged by her support, a female surgeon managed to thrive in Stockholm, and Bishop Argardh endorsed the most challenging vision she had ever depicted when he urged the state to set up a girls' school. It was at this moment that Miss Bremer published Hertha. This book was a direct challenge to Sweden's laws regarding women. By this time, she had become what we might call a "crowned head" in Sweden. She was treated with respect everywhere, and her unexpected presence in any location was met with the enthusiasm usually reserved for royalty. She said of her new book, "I have poured more of my heart and life into it than into anything I have ever written," and indeed, she reaped her rewards. She was in Rome two years later, in 1858, when the exciting news reached her that King Oscar, at the opening of the Diet, had proposed a bill allowing women to own property independently at the age of twenty-five. All of Sweden had read the book that touched the heart of the King, and the gathered representatives filled the air with their cheers.
In the following spring the old University town of Upsala, where her friend Bergfalk occupies a chair, granted the right of suffrage to fifty women owning real estate, and to thirty-one doing business on their own account. The representative their votes went to elect was to sit in the House of Burgesses. Miss Bremer was not ashamed to shed happy tears when this news reached her. If she had ever reproached Providence with the bitter sorrow of her early years, she was penitent and grateful now. Then was fulfilled the prophecy which she had uttered, as she left our shores: "The nation which was first among Scandinavians to liberate its slaves shall also be the first to emancipate its women!"
In the following spring, the historic university town of Upsala, where her friend Bergfalk holds a position, granted the right of suffrage to fifty women who own property and to thirty-one who operate their own businesses. The representative chosen by their votes was to serve in the House of Burgesses. Miss Bremer wasn't afraid to cry tears of joy when she heard this news. If she had ever blamed Providence for the deep sorrow of her early years, she was now filled with remorse and gratitude. At that moment, the prophecy she had made as she left our shores came true: "The nation that was first among Scandinavians to free its slaves shall also be the first to free its women!"
Caroline H. Dall.
Caroline H. Dall.
Boston, April 26, 1866.
Boston, April 26, 1866.
P. S.—To add one word to this deeply interesting and able report may seem presumptuous, but it is fitting that something be said of those women in our own country in whom we feel a proper pride. In literature, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Lydia Maria Child are unsurpassed by any writers of our day. The former is remarkable for her descriptive powers, intuition of character, and rare common sense; the latter for patient research, sound reason, and high moral tone. No country has produced a woman of such oratorical powers as our peerless Anna Dickinson. Young, beautiful, and always on the right side of every question, her influence on the politics of this country for the last four years has been as powerful as beneficent. She has more invitations to speak before the first-class lyceums of the country, at two hundred dollars an evening, than she can accept, and draws crowded houses wherever she goes.
P.S.—Adding even a single word to this incredibly interesting and well-crafted report might seem bold, but it’s important to acknowledge the women in our own country of whom we feel a rightful pride. In literature, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Lydia Maria Child are unmatched by any writers today. Stowe is known for her descriptive abilities, insight into character, and exceptional common sense; Child for her diligent research, solid reasoning, and strong moral integrity. No country has produced a woman with such remarkable oratorical skills as our incomparable Anna Dickinson. Young, beautiful, and consistently on the right side of every issue, her impact on the politics of this country over the past four years has been both powerful and beneficial. She receives more invitations to speak at top-tier lyceums across the country, at two hundred dollars a night, than she can possibly accept, and attracts large audiences wherever she appears.
PHYSICAL CULTURE.
A friend who had visited Vassar College, after mentioning the fact of its two women professors—Miss Mitchell and Miss Avery—informed us that Elizabeth M. Powell is teacher of gymnastics there, and wonders whether success may not win for Miss Powell a place in the Faculty. There are literary societies in which the girls write and read essays, and give recitations, and have discussions, and President Raymond drills them in elocution or public entertainments. And yet, our friend says, "I dare say that it would be pronounced a very improper thing for women to speak in public, if the Faculty were to vote on the question." The influences of Vassar are altogether conservative.
A friend who visited Vassar College mentioned its two female professors—Miss Mitchell and Miss Avery. They also told us that Elizabeth M. Powell teaches gymnastics there and wonders if her success might earn her a spot on the Faculty. There are literary societies where the students write and read essays, perform recitations, and engage in discussions, and President Raymond trains them in public speaking and performances. Yet, our friend said, "I bet it would be considered very inappropriate for women to speak in public if the Faculty were to vote on it." The atmosphere at Vassar is entirely conservative.
Miss Mitchell is a woman of great force of character, the very soul of integrity, and entirely independent in her religious views. She thinks the theory of Woman's Rights all right, but her tastes are all against it. She dreads to be in the least conspicuous.
Miss Mitchell is a strong-willed woman, full of integrity, and completely independent in her beliefs. She supports the idea of Women's Rights, but she personally doesn't align with it. She fears being even slightly in the spotlight.
Miss Avery is a woman of great dignity and strength, and her presence and lectures can not fail to stimulate the girls to a noble womanhood. She tells them work is the necessity of the soul.[Pg 909]
Miss Avery is a woman of great dignity and strength, and her presence and lectures cannot help but inspire the girls toward becoming noble women. She tells them that work is essential for the soul.[Pg 909]
Miss Powell, a remarkably earnest young woman of rare moral and intellectual worth, has a grand field, and opens her work with good promise. Her first aim is to do away with tight-dressing. She believes that when women have deeper breathing they will have higher aspirations. That when women will apply conscience to their dress, they will be prepared for more important truths.
Miss Powell, a genuinely committed young woman of unique moral and intellectual quality, has a significant mission and starts her work with great potential. Her primary goal is to eliminate tight clothing. She believes that when women can breathe more freely, they will have greater ambitions. That when women approach their clothing choices with consideration, they will be ready for more significant truths.
In the great attention given to gymnasiums everywhere, we see the dawn of a new day of physical and mental power in woman. Mrs. Plumb's institution in this city, where hundreds of girls are trained every year, is a complete success.
In the significant focus on gyms everywhere, we witness the beginning of a new era of physical and mental strength in women. Mrs. Plumb's facility in this city, where hundreds of girls are trained each year, is a total success.
EQUAL EDUCATION.
St. Lawrence University, Canton, N. Y., May 4, 1866.
St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, May 4, 1866.
Miss Anthony:—Your letter came into my hands after some delay. I hasten to reply to your inquiries. Our college is young yet. The first class of two graduated last year. Two young ladies are to graduate at the close of this term.
Miss Anthony:—I received your letter after a bit of a delay. I'm eager to respond to your questions. Our college is still new. The first graduating class of two students finished last year. Two young women are set to graduate at the end of this term.
We receive ladies and gentlemen on the same terms and conditions; take them together into the recitation-room, where they recite side by side; require them to pursue the same course of study; and, when satisfactorily completed, give them degrees of the same rank and honor—Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts to gentlemen, Laureate of Science and Laureate of Arts to ladies. Both sexes are required to pursue the same course of study, with the exception of civil engineering and political economy, which are merely optional studies with the ladies.
We welcome both ladies and gentlemen under the same rules; they enter the recitation room together, reciting side by side. They’re expected to follow the same course of study, and upon successful completion, they receive degrees of equal status and distinction—Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts for men, and Laureate of Science and Laureate of Arts for women. Both groups must take the same courses, except for civil engineering and political economy, which are optional for the women.
We have two departments—Academical and Collegiate. The sexes are about equal in number in each department. We have only about twenty in the Collegiate Department. Half of these are ladies, among whom are some of our best in Mathematics, Languages, and Natural Sciences.
We have two departments—Academic and College. The number of male and female students is about equal in each department. There are only about twenty students in the College Department. Half of them are women, some of whom excel in Mathematics, Languages, and Natural Sciences.
We have also a Theological Department, to which ladies have access. We have received applications from only two yet. One, Miss Olympia Brown, is pastor of a Society in Weymouth, Mass., and is succeeding very well. She is a graduate of Antioch College as well of our Theological department. The other is now here.
We also have a Theological Department that ladies can access. So far, we've received applications from only two candidates. One is Miss Olympia Brown, who is the pastor of a Society in Weymouth, Mass., and she is doing very well. She graduated from Antioch College as well as from our Theological department. The other applicant is currently here.
Lombard University, Galesburgh, Ill., receives ladies, and takes them through the same course as gentlemen, and gives them equal degrees. I deeply sympathize with you in your efforts to raise the character and improve the condition of woman, though, perhaps, I should not be quite so radical as some in your Convention. Your cause is a good one, and I pray Heaven that it do good.
Lombard University in Galesburg, Illinois, admits women and offers them the same courses as men, granting them equal degrees. I truly empathize with your efforts to uplift the status and improve the situation of women, although I might not agree with all the radical ideas some in your convention support. Your cause is commendable, and I sincerely hope it brings about positive change.
J. S. Lee,
J. S. Lee,
Principal of the Collegiate Department St. Lawrence University.
Principal of the Collegiate Department St. Lawrence University.
Genesee College at Lima, New York—a Methodist institution—opens its doors equally to women, and has graduated several young ladies. Then we must never forget to mention and bless Oberlin for its pioneer work in the equal education of women. It was Oberlin that gave us Lucy Stone, Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Sallie Holley, and Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, to speak early and brave words for woman and the slave. And Antioch College that graduated the Rev. Olympia Brown. Mention too should be made of Rev. Lydia A. Jenkins, who has been a successful preacher among the Universalists for the last eight or ten years, and is now settled at Binghamton, New York.
Genesee College in Lima, New York—a Methodist college—welcomes both men and women, and has graduated several young women. We must also acknowledge and appreciate Oberlin for its groundbreaking efforts in providing equal education for women. Oberlin produced influential figures like Lucy Stone, Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Sallie Holley, and Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, who spoke out early and courageously for women and the rights of slaves. Antioch College also deserves recognition for graduating Rev. Olympia Brown. We should also mention Rev. Lydia A. Jenkins, who has been a successful preacher in the Universalist movement for the past eight to ten years, and is now serving in Binghamton, New York.
Of the Medical Profession it should be stated for the encouragement of the young, that there are over three hundred graduates from the several medical colleges for women, and that there is scarcely a village throughout the country but has its woman physician of greater or less skill. In New York city there are many successful physicians besides the Drs. Blackwell. Dr. Clemence S. Lozier has a practice of $15,000 a year, and owns two fine houses, all the proceeds of her own perseverance. In Orange, New Jersey, Dr. Almira L. Fowler is very popular, with a paying practice of $5,000 per year, besides a large gratuitous service. In Philadelphia are Dr. Hannah E. Longshore, with a $10,000 per annum practice, then there are Drs. Ann Preston, R. Tressel, H. J. Sartain, E. Cleveland, J. Myres, and others, with practices ranging from $5,000 to $2,000. In Utica, New York, Dr. Pamelia Bronson is a successful physician. In Albion, is Dr. Vail. In Weedsport, Dr. Harriet E. Seeley. In Rochester, Dr. Sarah R. A. Dolley numbers among her patrons many persons of wealth and fashion, who but a few years ago ridiculed the idea[Pg 910] of a "lady doctor." Mrs. Dolley's practice brings her fully $3,000 a year. In a letter to one of our Committee Mrs. Dolley says, "May your labors be prospered, that the women of our country may have a sphere rather than a hemisphere! Dr. R. B. Glasson, of Elmira, Dr. S. Ivison, of Ithaca, New York, and Dr. Green, late of Clifton Springs, who has opened a water-cure somewhere in Western New York, all do a large amount of practice, and with the greatest acceptance to those who favor Hydropathic treatment. Dr. Ross, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has a large practice, and commands the respect of the profession. And, as Mrs. Dall says of the many noble women who served efficiently in our armies during the war without even sounding the name of the wonderful Clara Barton, so we have to say of our woman physicians, "their name is legion."
Of the Medical Profession, it should be noted for the encouragement of young people that there are over three hundred graduates from various medical colleges for women, and nearly every village across the country has its woman physician with varying degrees of skill. In New York City, there are many successful doctors besides the Drs. Blackwell. Dr. Clemence S. Lozier has a practice earning $15,000 a year and owns two nice houses, all thanks to her own hard work. In Orange, New Jersey, Dr. Almira L. Fowler is quite popular, with a paying practice of $5,000 per year, in addition to a significant amount of free service. In Philadelphia, there’s Dr. Hannah E. Longshore, with a $10,000 annual practice, and then there are Drs. Ann Preston, R. Tressel, H. J. Sartain, E. Cleveland, J. Myres, and others, with practices ranging from $5,000 to $2,000. In Utica, New York, Dr. Pamelia Bronson is a successful physician. In Albion, there’s Dr. Vail. In Weedsport, Dr. Harriet E. Seeley. In Rochester, Dr. Sarah R. A. Dolley counts many wealthy and fashionable individuals among her patients, who just a few years ago mocked the idea of a "lady doctor." Mrs. Dolley's practice brings her about $3,000 a year. In a letter to one of our Committee, Mrs. Dolley says, "May your efforts be fruitful so that the women of our country may have a sphere instead of a hemisphere!" Dr. R. B. Glasson, from Elmira, Dr. S. Ivison, from Ithaca, New York, and Dr. Green, formerly of Clifton Springs, who has opened a water-cure facility somewhere in Western New York, all maintain a significant practice with great acceptance among those who support Hydropathic treatment. Dr. Ross from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has a thriving practice and earns the respect of her peers. And, as Mrs. Dall says of the many remarkable women who served effectively in our armies during the war without even mentioning the remarkable Clara Barton, we must say of our women physicians, "their name is legion."
The following is an item from the Boston Commonwealth:
The following is an item from the Boston Commonwealth:
Further Progress in Woman's Rights.—Miss Stebbins, of Chickasaw County, Iowa, has received an appointment as Notary Public for that county. She is the first female ever having received such a commission, and is represented as eminently competent.
Further Progress in Woman's Rights.—Miss Stebbins, from Chickasaw County, Iowa, has been appointed as a Notary Public for that county. She is the first woman to receive such a commission and is described as highly qualified.
This from the National Anti-Slavery Standard:
This from the National Anti-Slavery Standard:
Woman's Rights in Hungary.—A curious petition has been presented to the Hungarian Diet. It is signed by a number of widows and other women who are landed proprietors, and asks for them the same equality of political rights with the male inhabitants of the country as they possessed in 1848. These ladies represent that they have much more difficulty in bringing up their children and attending to their estates than men; that they have to bear the same State burdens; that they are not allowed to take part in the communal elections; and that, although many of them possess much more ground than the male electors, they have no political rights.
Woman's Rights in Hungary.—A curious petition has been submitted to the Hungarian Diet. It is signed by several widows and other female landowners, asking for the same political rights as the male citizens of the country that they had in 1848. These women argue that they face greater challenges in raising their children and managing their estates than men do; that they share the same responsibilities to the state; that they are excluded from participating in local elections; and that, despite many of them owning significantly more land than male voters, they have no political rights.
There is one point in the report open to objection. It is not fair to say that Mrs. Farnham's life "was a bitter disappointment to herself." Who does realize in life all that in starting was looked for? Who has nothing to regret? With a heart so generous and sympathizing as hers—a mind so disciplined and stored with general information—a life so rich in practical usefulness, she was not only a blessing to others, but she must have had a more than an ordinary share of that peace and happiness that gladdens every Christian life. I have just read her last great work. I took it up with prejudice, not believing her theory of the superiority of woman. I lay it down with a higher idea of woman's destiny, and a profound reverence for the author of the glorious thoughts that thrill my heart. I never met Mrs. Farnham on earth, but I know and honor and love her now, and from the celestial shores feel the pulsations of a true and noble soul.
There’s one point in the report that can be criticized. It’s not fair to say that Mrs. Farnham's life “was a bitter disappointment to herself.” Who really achieves everything they hope for at the start of life? Who has nothing to regret? With a heart as generous and compassionate as hers, a mind so well-trained and filled with knowledge, and a life so abundant in practical contributions, she was not just a blessing to others, but she must have enjoyed a greater share of the peace and happiness that brightens every Christian life. I just read her last major work. I approached it with bias, not believing in her theory of women's superiority. I set it down with an elevated view of women's potential, and a deep respect for the author of the inspiring thoughts that move me. I never met Mrs. Farnham in person, but I know, honor, and love her now, and from the celestial shores, I feel the energy of a true and noble soul.
E. C. S.
E. C. S.
LETTERS.
Wayland, April 28.
Wayland, April 28.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:— ... What I most wish for women is that they should go right ahead, and do whatever they can do well, without talking about it. But the false position in which they are placed by the laws and customs of society, renders it almost impossible that they should be sufficiently independent to do whatever they can do well, unless the world approves of it. They need a great deal of talking to, to make them aware that they are in fetters. Therefore I say, success to your Convention, and to all similar ones!...
Dear Mrs. Stanton:— ... What I really hope for women is that they go ahead and do whatever they’re good at without having to discuss it. However, the unfair situation they face due to societal laws and customs makes it nearly impossible for them to be independent enough to pursue their talents unless the world gives its approval. They need a lot of encouragement to realize they are constrained. So, I wish success to your Convention and all similar gatherings!...
Lydia Maria Child.
Lydia Maria Child.
I am very cordially yours,
I am very cordially yours,
New Castle, Del., April 21, 1866.
New Castle, Del., April 21, 1866.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:— ... I am with you in heart and sympathy, rejecting with contempt the antiquated idea that woman is only fit for a plaything or a household drudge. Nor can I see how it is less dignified to go to a public building to deposit a vote than to frequent the concert-room, whirl through the waltz in happy repose on some roue's bosom, or mingle in any public crowd which is, in modern times, quite admissible in polite society. Dethrone the idol and raise the soul to its true and noble elevation, supported on a foundation of undying principle, and woman becomes a thing of life and[Pg 911] beauty—then only fit to raise sons to be rulers. Justice requires your success, and I hope the age will prove itself sufficiently enlightened to mete out to you the reward of your years of toil.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:— ... I stand with you in heart and spirit, rejecting the outdated belief that a woman is only suited to be a plaything or a housewife. I don't understand how voting in a public building is less dignified than going to a concert, dancing happily with some guy, or being part of any public crowd, which is completely acceptable in today's society. We need to dismantle the idol and elevate the soul to its true and noble place, built on a foundation of enduring principles. Then, a woman becomes a living and beautiful being—truly capable of raising sons to be leaders. Justice demands your success, and I trust that this era will prove itself wise enough to reward you for your years of hard work.
Jane Voorhees Leslie.
Jane Voorhees Leslie.
Yours sincerely,
Yours sincerely,
Monday, April 22.
Monday, April 22.
Dear Miss Anthony:—What I enclose is not much for the work you have to do, but it is all I can proportion out for it just now. You are quite right in relying on my regard for you, although I can not see the subject as you do, and I was pleased to get your note saying so. I am sure you take great interest in following Mr. Gladstone's bill for the extension of suffrage in England. His speech upon it is in great contrast to the shallow nonsense talked by many Americans against our democratic form of government.
Dear Miss Anthony:—What I’m sending isn’t much for the work you have ahead, but it’s all I can offer right now. You’re completely justified in counting on my support for you, even though I don’t see the issue the same way you do. I appreciated your note expressing that. I’m sure you’re very engaged in following Mr. Gladstone’s bill to expand suffrage in England. His speech about it stands in stark contrast to the shallow nonsense many Americans say against our democratic system.
Jessie Benton Fremont.
Jessie Benton Fremont.
Very sincerely yours,
Very sincerely yours,
13 Chestnut St., Boston, April 19, 1866.
13 Chestnut St., Boston, April 19, 1866.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:—I have received yours of 14th inst., making eloquent and friendly appeal to me for the expression of my sympathy, written or spoken, in behalf of your forthcoming "Woman's Rights Convention." Surely you need not my assurance that I most heartily indorse all the claims and objects of your Association; that I earnestly advocate whatever would advance or insure the rights of humanity, whether for man or woman; that I as earnestly protest against any and all prejudices, limitations, or legislations which would interfere with those rights; that I claim for woman as ample social and civil privileges as are conceded to man, whether in the exercise of the franchise, the domain of our legislatures, or in the sphere of the professions. We are no true men if we deny or would barricade the exercise or the claim of those privileges, and have just so much less of manhood as we dare to question or infringe them. I agree with you, most fully, that the woman element is greatly needed in the present crisis of our affairs for the right reconstruction of our suffering Government. We have had, and still have, not men but too many brutes making a very "bear garden" of our congressional halls, rending and tearing this poor "body politic" of ours till, like the raving demoniacs of old, it is now foaming and wandering crazily around its own preconstructed tomb! while at the head of the Government we have only a surly, self-conceited despot in embryo! "The nation needs (as you say) at this hour the highest thought and inspiration of a true womanhood infused into every vein and artery of its life." There is no gainsaying your arguments on that head, for just so far, and only so far as the refining influence of that womanly element is so infused and felt in all our social and civil relations, will the consummation of our national peace and prosperity be effected.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:—I’ve received your message from the 14th, making a heartfelt and compelling request for my support, whether written or spoken, for your upcoming "Woman's Rights Convention." You surely know that I wholeheartedly agree with all the goals and missions of your Association; that I passionately support anything that promotes or protects the rights of all people, whether men or women; that I strongly oppose any prejudices, restrictions, or laws that would infringe on those rights; and that I advocate for women to have the same social and civil rights as men, whether in voting, legislation, or professional fields. We can’t call ourselves true men if we deny or would block the exercise or claim of those rights, and our manhood diminishes the moment we question or violate them. I fully agree with you that we need the perspective of women urgently during this critical time to properly rebuild our struggling government. There have been, and continue to be, too many brutes in our congressional halls, turning them into a chaotic scene, tearing apart our political system until, like deranged individuals from the past, it’s now spiraling out of control towards its own destruction! And at the helm of the government, we find only a grumpy, self-important tyrant in the making! “The nation needs (as you say) at this moment the highest thoughts and inspiration of true womanhood flowing into every part of its life.” Your arguments on this point are undeniable, because only to the extent that the uplifting influence of women is felt in all our social and civil interactions will we achieve true national peace and prosperity.
J. T. Sargent.
J. T. Sargent.
Yours truly,
Yours truly,
West Newton, May 6, 1866.
West Newton, May 6, 1866.
E. C. Stanton, President Executive Committee Women's Rights Association:
E. C. Stanton, President of the Executive Committee of the Women's Rights Association:
My Dear Mrs. S.:—I had hoped to be present at this, our eleventh anniversary, but find it impossible. And so, at the last moment, I hasten to express my earnest conviction that now, as never before, we are called upon for vigorous, united action—that we are left no alternative but an unflinching protest against the strange legislation by which a Republican Congress, so-called, assumes to engraft upon our national Constitution, as "amendments!" clauses which not only allow rebels to disfranchise loyal soldiers, who have borne the flag of the Republic victoriously against their treason and rebellion, but to keep the ballot from the hands of all women!
My Dear Mrs. S.:—I had hoped to be at our eleventh anniversary, but I find it impossible to attend. So, at the last minute, I want to express my strong belief that now more than ever, we need to take decisive, united action—we have no choice but to stand firm against the strange laws being imposed by a supposedly Republican Congress that attempts to add “amendments” to our national Constitution, which not only allow rebels to take away the voting rights of loyal soldiers who have bravely defended the flag of the Republic against treason and rebellion, but also to prevent all women from voting!
If not moved by an enlightened appreciation of the first principles of political economy and social justice in legislation touching them heretofore, we could scarcely believe that after the record made by both the proscribed classes during our late fearful struggle, our legislators could gravely stoop to brand them anew as "aliens" and outlaws! It is an act as discreditable to their hearts and their moral sense as to their statesmanship. And upon their shoulders must rest the responsibility of an agitation to which we are thus forced—an agitation which we have hesitated to arouse while so many vital questions touching the future of the negro were awaiting settlement, and in which we are acting strictly on the defensive. Under the magnificent utterance of our brave Senator Sumner—which[Pg 912] was an inspiration and a prophecy—we looked to see all faltering and compromise, so fatal in all our past, so fatal always and everywhere, swept like dew before the sun. But the old fears and falterings return sevenfold reinforced to renew a puerile and patch-work legislation, which, while asserting the truth, submits to, nay, invites a fresh struggle over each separate application of the same "self-evident truth." What remains for us, then, but to turn from a Congress from which we had hoped so much, which might have dared anything in the interest of loyalty and justice, as our brave brethren turned, from a recreant President to the people, whom he and Congress have not dared to trust, and resolve to do our utmost to awaken a public sentiment which only slumbers, but is not dead, and which shall make impossible such burlesques, such infamous "amendments" to our organic law. With undiminished hope and faith, yours,
If our legislators were not already enlightened about the basic principles of political economy and social justice regarding the previously marginalized groups, it’s hard to believe that after everything those groups endured during our recent struggle, they could still label them as "aliens" and outlaws! This action reflects poorly on both their hearts and their moral compass as well as their skills in governance. The blame for the agitation we feel now falls squarely on them—agitation we’ve hesitated to provoke while so many critical issues affecting the future of Black people still need resolution, and in which we are only defending ourselves. Inspired by our brave Senator Sumner’s powerful words—which[Pg 912] served as both inspiration and prophecy—we expected to see all hesitation and compromises, which have been so detrimental in our past, eliminated. Yet, the old fears and uncertainties have returned, even stronger, to create a new round of ridiculous and half-hearted legislation that claims to uphold the truth but actually submits to and encourages further struggle over every single application of that same "self-evident truth." What can we do but turn away from a Congress that we had hoped so much from—one that could have boldly supported loyalty and justice—just as our brave brothers turned from a cowardly President to the people, whom he and Congress have failed to trust, and commit ourselves to doing everything we can to stir public sentiment that's merely asleep, not dead, which will make it impossible for such absurdities and disgraceful "amendments" to our fundamental laws to occur. With unwavering hope and faith, yours,
Caroline M. Severance.
Caroline M. Severance.
Hartford, April 22, 1866.
Hartford, April 22, 1866.
Dear Madam:—I learn by a circular I have received that a Woman's Rights Convention is to be held in New York in May. I can not have the pleasure of attending it, but I would like to take this opportunity of telling you I am with you, heart and soul, in this cause—of thanking you, and those with whom you are associated, for the noble work you have done, and are doing, in the cause of universal suffrage. There never was a more opportune time for calling a convention of this kind than the present, when it is evident that the United States Constitution is about to undergo some repairs—when all the so-called radicals in Congress are trying to have it so altered as to insure the disfranchisement of one-half the nation. They have so strangely perverted the meaning of the term "universal suffrage," that it is a misnomer as at present used by them. It is rather significant of the "universality" of the suffrage intended, that every one of these special guardians of freedom refused to present Congress a petition for woman's enfranchisement; that the Massachusetts Senator who leads the van of freedom's host, did, finally, most reluctantly present it with one hand, while taking good care to deal it a blow with the other that would prove a most effectual quietus to it; that a representative [Mr. Boutwell], after repeating the self-evident truth that "there can be no just government without the consent of the governed," says that "man is endowed by nature with the priority of right to the vote rather than woman or child;" that the two Senators from Massachusetts have each proposed amendments to the Constitution holding out inducements to the States to enfranchise all male inhabitants, but none to enfranchise women, when they could have included them by omitting one word; that that light of freedom, Mr. Greeley, of the Tribune, states that "men express the public sense as fully as if women voted" [speech in Suffield, Conn., last June]. These are a few of the straws pointing to that sham labeled "universal suffrage."
Dear Madam:—I’ve learned from a circular I received that a Women’s Rights Convention will be held in New York in May. Although I won’t be able to attend, I want to take this chance to express my full support for your cause—thank you and your associates for the amazing work you’ve done and continue to do for universal suffrage. There’s never been a better time to hold a convention like this than now, especially since it’s clear that the United States Constitution is about to be revised—when all the so-called radicals in Congress are trying to change it in a way that would disenfranchise half the nation. They have twisted the meaning of "universal suffrage" so much that it’s practically a misnomer as they currently use it. It’s telling that every one of these supposed champions of freedom refused to present Congress with a petition for women's voting rights; that the Massachusetts Senator who claims to lead the fight for freedom reluctantly presented it with one hand while effectively undermining it with the other; that a representative [Mr. Boutwell], after stating the obvious truth that "there can be no just government without the consent of the governed," claims that "men are naturally prioritized over women and children when it comes to voting rights"; that the two Senators from Massachusetts each proposed amendments to the Constitution that incentivize States to allow all male inhabitants to vote, yet none to enfranchise women, which could have easily been included with just one word change; that the beacon of freedom, Mr. Greeley of the Tribune, claimed that "men represent public sentiment just as fully as if women voted" [speech in Suffield, Conn., last June]. These are just a few examples pointing to the hypocrisy behind the label "universal suffrage."
The conservatives of the slave-driving school have had an odious enough reputation, but I never heard of any of them taking measures to so amend the Constitution as to insure the perpetuation of the disfranchisement of sixteen millions of the nation, as would the proposed amendments of Messrs. Sumner and Wilson. And these Massachusetts Senators are called the foremost workers in the ranks of liberty's grand army. If these are the foremost, Heaven save us from those in the rear! Why does Mr. Boutwell try to make it appear that he believes that governments, to be founded on justice, should obtain "the consent of the governed," when he believes the consent of only one-half the governed should be obtained? when he classes adults as fully capable of exercising an enlightened judgment as himself with infants? If Mr. Greeley thinks it right for one-half the people to represent the wants, and speak as they may think best for the other half, that other half having no choice in the matter, he must admit, if he have a tithe of the sense of justice attributed to him, that it would be only fair to let each half take their turn—the men expressing the public sense a part of the time, then the women—thus alternating between the two, in order to balance the scales of justice with perfect equilibrium.
The conservatives who support slavery have built quite a nasty reputation, but I’ve never heard of any of them trying to change the Constitution to make sure that sixteen million people in the nation stay disenfranchised, like the amendments proposed by Messrs. Sumner and Wilson would. And these Massachusetts Senators are referred to as the leading advocates in the fight for liberty. If these are the top guys, God help us with those in the background! Why does Mr. Boutwell try to make it look like he believes that governments must be based on justice and should get "the consent of the governed," while he thinks only half of the governed need to give their consent? When he compares adults, who are capable of making informed decisions, to infants? If Mr. Greeley believes it’s okay for one-half of the population to represent the needs of and speak for the other half, without giving them a say, he must agree, if he has even a bit of the sense of justice that people say he has, that it would be only fair to let each half take turns—men expressing public opinion for a while, then women—alternating between the two in order to keep the scales of justice perfectly balanced.
It seems rather a difficult matter for men to appreciate the fact that women are ordinary human beings, with the wants and reasoning faculties of the same. If women lived on the plane where sword and cannon are resorted to for the procuring of justice, men might then see the necessity of establishing equality of rights for all. But the power of[Pg 913] women lies in spiritual, not in brute force; therefore men have failed to comprehend them, or to see the necessity of granting rights that are not contested at the point of the bayonet. Add to this the ambitious but weak love of power—of having some one to rule—inherent in the natures of most men, and the causes of woman's bondage are pretty clear. In the light of the developments of the past few months it is plain that the most thorough faced abolitionists—those who wax eloquent for the negro—are as much in favor of continuing the slavery of women as were Southern planters of continuing negro slavery. There are a few exceptions to this, and but a few.
It seems quite challenging for men to recognize that women are just ordinary human beings, with the same needs and reasoning abilities. If women operated in a world where swords and cannons were used to obtain justice, men might then understand the importance of establishing equal rights for everyone. However, the strength of women lies in their spiritual power, not in physical force; that's why men have struggled to understand them or to see the need for rights that aren't fought over with violence. Additionally, there's the ambitious but weak desire for power—wanting someone to rule—that exists in many men, which makes the reasons for women's oppression quite clear. In light of recent events, it's obvious that the most passionate abolitionists—those who speak out for Black individuals—are just as supportive of maintaining the oppression of women as Southern planters were of keeping Black people enslaved. There are only a few exceptions to this, and very few at that.
Even the Boston Commonwealth, perhaps as radical a paper as any now published, and which favors suffrage for women, is a good illustration of the difficulty of the most liberal-minded men seeing this question in its true light; for, in its issue of February 24, it says that "suffrage for women is not a political necessity of a republican government."
Even the Boston Commonwealth, maybe one of the most progressive papers around today and that supports women's voting rights, is a clear example of how even the most open-minded people struggle to see this issue clearly; in its February 24 edition, it states that "women's suffrage is not a political necessity for a republican government."
The Nation thinks women ought to be deprived of the franchise because they do not, as a general thing, express a wish for it, stating at the same time that they have as good a right to it as men. Remarkable logic this, to deprive the whole class of the power to obtain their dues because they do not en masse express a wish for them. There are men who do not care enough about the franchise to make use of it; therefore, according to this argument, they should be immediately disfranchised.
The Nation believes women should be denied the right to vote because, generally speaking, they don’t express a desire for it, while also claiming they have just as much right to it as men. This is some flawed logic—taking away the entire group’s ability to claim their rights just because they don’t all voice a demand for them. There are men who don’t care enough about the right to vote to use it; so, based on this reasoning, they should be instantly stripped of their voting rights.
There is no compulsion in exercising the right to the vote—all can let it alone who choose; and did every woman in the land choose to let it alone, it would be no argument for withholding from her the power to make use of it whenever disposed. But the statement that they are opposed to it is untrue. No woman—whether teacher, or telegraph operator, or government clerk, or dry-goods clerk, all the way down to the poor needle-woman who lives under a reign of oppression as frightful as that in the manufacturing districts of England—is paid more than half or a third what she earns, or what a man would be paid performing the same services, and performing them no better, in many cases not so well; and the needle-women are paid no more than a tenth part of what they earn. And yet women do not rise up against the oppression that denies them the just compensation; therefore these logicians of the Nation's school must, to be consistent, argue that women do not wish to have just wages paid them, and they should not have just wages offered them—the right of accepting or refusing being at their own option.
There’s no pressure to vote—anyone can choose to abstain. If every woman in the country decided not to vote, that wouldn’t justify taking away her ability to use it whenever she wants. However, the claim that women are against voting is false. No woman—whether she’s a teacher, a telegraph operator, a government clerk, or a retail worker, down to the low-paid seamstress who suffers under harsh conditions similar to those in England's factories—earns more than half or a third of what she deserves or what a man would earn for doing the same job, often doing it worse; and seamstresses earn barely a tenth of what they generate. Yet women don’t rise up against the injustice of being underpaid; therefore, these thinkers from the Nation must, to be consistent, argue that women don’t want fair wages, and thus should not be offered fair wages—the choice to accept or decline should be theirs to make.
It seems to be full time for the women of this country to demand a settlement of the question whether they are still to be treated as infants or as intelligent adults. If the former treatment is to be continued it would be very appropriate to present Congress with a protest against having one-half the basis of representation composed of those who are to remain in a state of perpetual infancy (which needs and can have representation; whose government must be as absolute as that of the Czar's, the very word "representative" implying a substitute chosen by another)—a protest that if they are too good—as often stated, too divine—to have any voice in such earthly matters as governments, they are also too good to be thrust just so far into the body politic as to swell the basis of representation one-half, merely for the furtherance of the interests of ambitious politicians, and then to be put one side and utterly ignored when the voice of a free intelligent being is required.
It’s definitely time for the women of this country to insist on an answer to whether they will continue to be treated like children or as capable adults. If they are to be treated like children, it would make sense to present Congress with a protest against having one-half of the representation made up of those who are stuck in a state of perpetual childhood (who need representation and can have it; whose government must be just as authoritarian as that of the Czar's, the term "representative" suggesting a stand-in selected by someone else)—a protest that if they are considered too good—as is often said, too divine—to have any say in practical matters like governance, then they are also too good to be used just enough in the political realm to inflate the representation base by half, solely for the benefit of ambitious politicians, and then set aside and completely ignored when the input of a free-thinking individual is needed.
It seems to be full time for women to take soundings of the depth of the professions, and make calculations of the latitude and longitude of the party to which alone they have looked for redemption from the slavery in which they have ever been held, when the chief ones of that party—now that there is any possibility of attaining that object—utterly refuse all efforts in that direction, and, worse than that, give indications of taking positive measures in the opposite direction. It is important that Congress be flooded with petitions on this matter—that it be allowed no rest from them; and, in addition to petitions, a bill is needed excluding women from the basis of representation so long as they shall be excluded from the franchise—excluding them from the list of taxable persons and from those who are by law liable to the death-penalty.
It seems like it's about time for women to explore the depth of the professions and figure out the direction of the party they’ve relied on for liberation from the oppression they've always faced. Now that there's a chance to achieve that goal, the leaders of that party completely reject any efforts in that direction, and even worse, show signs of taking concrete actions in the opposite direction. It’s crucial that Congress be overwhelmed with petitions on this issue—so that they can't ignore them; along with petitions, a bill is needed that excludes women from the basis of representation as long as they remain excluded from voting—excluding them from the list of taxpayers and from those who can be sentenced to death.
Should such a bill be tabled by Congress; should they refuse all action on it that would place them in their true light, showing that they look upon this question the same as the Southern Congress under Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan looked upon the anti-slavery[Pg 914] movement—very much afraid of having the subject agitated; should they give it a decided veto, that would place them in their true light—greatly opposed to universal suffrage, although it is their policy to sail under that banner, like the pirate who sometimes finds an advantage in substituting for his own black flag some more respectable one. Should they pass such a bill it would place them in a better light than they have ever had the fortune to be in before, while it would make it for the interest of the States to have this bill followed up by another, giving women the franchise; and it is very doubtful whether we will ever obtain it in any other way than from motives of self-interest on the part of legislators—motives of pure justice and right occupying a secondary place.
If Congress introduces such a bill and refuses to take action on it, revealing that they view this issue the same way the Southern Congress did under Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan regarding the anti-slavery movement—very much afraid of stirring up the debate; if they issue a strong veto, that would expose their true stance—strongly against universal suffrage, even though they pretend to support it, much like a pirate who occasionally benefits from replacing his own black flag with a more respectable one. If they were to pass such a bill, it would improve their image more than ever before, while also encouraging the States to support another bill granting women the right to vote; and it’s very uncertain whether we will achieve this through any means other than the self-interest of lawmakers—where motives of pure justice and fairness come in a distant second.
The statutes of the land present a remarkable conglomeration of inconsistencies and injustice in regard to women, and show the utter failure of the plan of having one class govern another class without any consent or participation in the matter on the part of the class so governed. The law ought not in certain cases to treat women as infants and wholly irresponsible beings, merely to foster a weak ambition and love of power, and in other cases as wholly responsible adults. The infant regimen should be enforced thoroughly from the day of their birth to the day of their death, whether it be in one year or a hundred, or they should come, in all respects, under a system adapted to responsible, intelligent adults. Infants should not pay taxes and they should not be hung. It is the general opinion that the infant Surrat committed crimes equal in magnitude to those of any of the conspirators who were hung with her, but her state of infancy should have afforded her legal protection from the gallows. If this government is too weak to decide the qualifications of voters; too weak to extend freedom from the northern coast of Maine to the southern coast of Florida; too weak to prevent any State disfranchising its inhabitants; too weak to make ignorance, criminality, and non-age the only political limitations for man or woman, be they black or white, or a combination of all the hues of the rainbow; too weak to send tyranny to the wall and make liberty the universal rule for this broad land; then a party must and will arise of sufficient metal to infuse into it the requisite strength—a party that will "strengthen its weak hands and confirm its feeble knees."
The laws of the land show a troubling mix of inconsistencies and injustices regarding women, highlighting the complete failure of allowing one group to govern another without any consent or involvement from those being governed. The law shouldn't treat women like children—completely irresponsible just to support a weak desire for power—while in other situations expecting them to act as fully responsible adults. The treatment of women should either be consistent throughout their lives, from birth to death, regardless of age, or they should be included under a system meant for responsible, informed adults. Children shouldn't pay taxes and they shouldn't be executed. It's broadly believed that the young Surrat committed crimes on par with those of the conspirators who were executed alongside her, yet her status as a child should have legally protected her from the gallows. If this government is too weak to determine the qualifications of voters; too weak to extend freedom from the northern coast of Maine to the southern coast of Florida; too weak to stop any state from disenfranchising its residents; too weak to ensure ignorance, criminality, and age are the only political limitations for anyone, regardless of race; and too weak to defeat tyranny and establish liberty as the standard throughout this vast land; then a party will emerge strong enough to provide the necessary strength—a party that will "strengthen its weak hands and confirm its feeble knees."
Concentration of power for the establishment and extension of liberty is not a tendency to despotism. Despotisms are never built out of that material. But that is a despotism as bad as Austria that allows one-half its citizens to govern the other half without any consent of theirs; and it is none the less a despotism for being divided up into petty State despotisms than if carried on by the general government, so long as they are all agreed on disfranchising one-half the people. Thirty-six despotisms make a pretty good sized one taken in the aggregate. The party to inaugurate the reign of freedom must inevitably arise, for the elements to bring it into power are at work. Morally, it will tower as far above the present republican party as that did above the old ones—whig and democratic. There are true souls, women and men, in the Old World and the New, faithfully working and watching for its advent.
Concentrating power to establish and expand liberty doesn’t lead to despotism. Despotisms are never created from that kind of foundation. But a system that lets half of its citizens rule over the other half without their consent is just as oppressive as Austria; it’s still a form of despotism, even if it’s divided into smaller State despotisms, as long as they all agree on denying half the population their rights. Thirty-six despotisms add up to one significant form of oppression. A movement to start a new era of freedom is bound to emerge because the elements needed for its rise are already in motion. Morally, it will stand far above the current republican party, just as that party did above the old whig and democratic parties. There are genuine individuals, both women and men, in both the Old World and the New, diligently working and anticipating its arrival.
Some months ago we got word from over the water that John Stuart Mill had been elected to that formidable body of conservatism—the British Parliament. Another significant fact, but this time significant of good. The writings of Mill are illumined by the sun-clear radiance of that liberty for which he appeals—a liberty that shines with the steady light of a fixed star—and which I have watched for in vain in the writings and speeches of the most noted reformers on this continent. When men like him come into power I think we have good ground for taking fresh courage. I have written more than I intended, but the subject is one on which I do not feel like restricting myself, especially when writing to one who fully appreciates the situation. Sincerely hoping you may never weary in your good work.
A few months ago, we heard from overseas that John Stuart Mill had been elected to that stronghold of conservatism—the British Parliament. Another important fact, but this time a positive one. Mill's writings are illuminated by the clear light of the liberty he advocates—a liberty that shines like a fixed star—and which I have looked for in vain in the works and speeches of the most prominent reformers on this continent. When people like him gain power, I believe we have solid reasons to feel hopeful. I've written more than I planned to, but this is a topic I don't feel like holding back on, especially when writing to someone who fully understands the situation. I sincerely hope you never tire of your important work.
F. Ellen Burr.
F. Ellen Burr.
Yours respectfully,
Yours respectfully,
Susan B. Anthony.
Susan B. Anthony.
Albany, April 9, 1866.
Albany, April 9, 1866.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—It will be out of my power to speak at your Convention—my health will not permit my attendance—but I cordially concur in your efforts to restore to woman her civil and political rights, and for her emancipation from slavery, her actual,[Pg 915] undeniable status at present in the Government. I can suggest no plan to effect this great object, except that of agitation and discussion, everywhere throughout the land. Whenever the public mind shall become sufficiently enlightened, and women themselves shall seriously and earnestly demand, on their own behalf, equal rights and equal laws, they will be accorded; and then we shall have, what the world has never yet had or seen, a true republican system of government. Excuse these hasty thoughts.
Dear Miss Anthony:—I won't be able to speak at your Convention—my health doesn't allow me to attend—but I fully support your efforts to restore civil and political rights to women and to free them from the bondage they currently endure in the Government. I can't propose a specific plan to achieve this important goal, other than advocating for discussion and activism all across the country. Once the public becomes sufficiently informed and women themselves seriously and passionately demand equal rights and laws for themselves, they will be granted. Then we will finally have, what the world has never witnessed before, a true republican system of government. Please forgive my hurried thoughts.
A. J. Colvin.
A. J. Colvin.
Truly yours,
Truly yours,
To the President and Members of the Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention in New York assembled:
To the President and Members of the Eleventh National Women's Rights Convention gathered in New York:
Ladies:—I notice with pleasure the call for your annual convention The hour is pregnant with events, and this period is opportune for opening and pressing upon the public attention the questions with which you are occupied. As the claims of the slave in past years have furnished to so many espousing them the occasion of manifold and large emancipations little thought by them at first, so the claims of the emerging freedman will lay open the way to the study and solution of the gravest and widest social questions. The great problems of social order: government, its fit aims and happiest methods, the nature and just basis of suffrage, etc., are to be studied anew and brought to true adjustment; false barriers and artificial distinctions must be swept away, no child of Adam must be inhibited from wielding those prerogatives which by birthright or attainment he may be entitled to. The more obvious abuses, the flagrantly gratuitous distinctions, involving very gross inequalities and oppressions, will be the first to be exposed and abolished.
Ladies:—I am pleased to see the call for your annual convention. This moment is full of possibilities, and it's the right time to bring attention to the issues you are addressing. Just as the struggles of slaves in past years led to significant and unexpected emancipations, the challenges facing the newly freed will open the door to examining and resolving some of the most serious and broad social issues. We need to re-evaluate the major social order problems: government, its rightful goals and best practices, the nature and fair foundation of voting rights, and more. False divisions and unfair distinctions must be eliminated; no individual should be denied the rights they are entitled to by birth or achievement. The most glaring abuses and unjust inequalities will be the first to be revealed and eradicated.
The natural and just basis of the right of suffrage is doubtless qualification, wisdom, and substantial honesty. The right to wield the ballot is not in the strict sense an inborn and original right, coeval with our being, except as any right to which we may by culture attain is of this character. It is ours potentially. It belongs to attainment and possession, as the right, for instance, in a particular case to survey land, or instruct minds. It is a right I am to rise to through intelligence, discipline, manhood. It is conditioned upon discernment and true faithfulness. Those too ignorant or uncaring to distinguish between rule and misrule, government and lawlessness, science and a juggle, supernal and infernal—those especially so profligate, who seek only to reach through government the sanction of law, the baptism of social order for their wickedness and misdeeds, have no business at any ballot-box, save that of recorded resolution to amend and repent. To put the ballot into the hands of the reckless, the besotted, and the profligate, is the sheerest abuse possible, and suicidal to all just protection and rule.
The natural and fair basis for the right to vote is clearly qualification, wisdom, and genuine honesty. The right to cast a ballot isn’t strictly an inherent right we’re born with, except in the sense that any right we develop through culture holds this same quality. It’s a potential we possess. It’s something we achieve and own, like the right to survey land or educate others. It’s a right I must earn through knowledge, discipline, and maturity. It depends on understanding and true commitment. Those who are too ignorant or apathetic to tell the difference between good governance and chaos, or between real knowledge and trickery, especially those who are reckless and seek to use government to justify their wrongdoings, shouldn’t be at the ballot box unless it’s to express a desire to change and atone. Giving the power to vote to the reckless, the intoxicated, and the immoral is the worst kind of abuse and is detrimental to all fair governance and protection.
It may be a long day ere suffrage shall be adjusted carefully and strictly to the normal basis. But before this the Gospel must be preached to all nations, the rough places must be made smooth and the paths straight for the coming of the Most High. Whatever unjust barriers or factitious discrimination there may be against any must be abolished, and equality must be for all. Wisdom or virtue is not the monopoly of any class or sex or race. By all the proprieties of nature, woman should have with man a voice in the enactment of laws and the administration of government. She is the complement of man, essential for the due poise, the right wisdom, and conduct in family, in neighborhood, in Church or in State. Sharing in civil government, she will be a redemptive agency for society in many ways little thought at present. And agitation and overturning shall not cease until the final realization is reached. Society shall yet be rewrought and born again. All rule shall be justice, and obedience liberty. Government shall be the reflection of the infinite kingdom, the incarnation of truth, wisdom, benignity, power, the protector and help of all, inviting and assisting each to full realization of the utmost possibilities of attainment and strength for the individual soul, building to perfect freedom, building also to perfect unity. Service, sacrament, supreme reverence—this shall be the motto and norm of the world, all society become a church and all life worship, the broad anthem of souls. For this high consummation let us look and labor, trusting and working on to the perfect end.
It might take a long time before suffrage is carefully and strictly adjusted to a normal standard. But before that can happen, the Gospel needs to be preached to all nations, the rough places must be made smooth, and the paths straightened for the arrival of the Most High. Any unjust barriers or artificial discrimination against anyone must be eliminated, ensuring equality for all. Wisdom and virtue aren't exclusive to any class, gender, or race. Naturally, women should have a voice alongside men in making laws and governing. She complements man, essential for balanced judgment and conduct within families, neighborhoods, churches, and the state. By participating in civil governance, she can be a transformative force for society in ways that are often overlooked today. The push for change won’t stop until the ultimate goal is achieved. Society will be reshaped and reborn. All governance should be just, and obedience should bring freedom. Government will reflect the infinite kingdom, embodying truth, wisdom, kindness, and strength, protecting and supporting everyone, while encouraging each person to reach their fullest potential and strength, moving toward true freedom and unity. Service, reverence, and respect will be the guiding principles of the world, with all society becoming like a church and all life treated as worship, creating a harmonious anthem of souls. Let us aspire to and work towards this noble fulfillment, trusting and striving for a perfect outcome.
Chas. D. B. Mills.
Chas. D. B. Mills.
Yours sincerely,
Yours sincerely,
Dwight, Ill., April 30, 1866.
Dwight, Ill., April 30, 1866.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—Your kind letter inviting me to attend the Convention on[Pg 916] the 10th of May, was duly received. I should be extremely happy to be with you in your deliberations, but so much of my time has of late been occupied in the work of the American Union Commission, that I can hardly spare a moment for even your good work. I, however, feel only selfish regrets, for I should be but a listener and partaker of the rich mental feasts that will there be freely offered to all who will partake. The great arguments have all been made by our opponents, and they concede all that we ask, save that they substitute expediency for principle. They have yet to learn that God will not be dethroned; that when He decrees a human soul, He surrounds it with all the dignity of free will and consequent responsibility. He therefore endows the soul with rights, the exercise and protection of which are the crown of humanity. We ask no new code of rights. We simply ask to be included in the general method of asserting and protecting them, which even the shadowy-browed children of bondage are now perceived to claim without presumption. It has been with no small degree of interest that I have seen that our wisest statesmen begin to so far see and feel the importance of the issue that lies inevitably in their path, that they stop to explain and apologize; but they dare not deny, lest the logic they use should be turned against themselves.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—Thank you for your thoughtful letter inviting me to the Convention on[Pg 916] May 10th. I would be very happy to join you in your discussions, but I’ve been so busy with the work of the American Union Commission that I can barely spare a moment for even your important work. I feel only selfish regrets, as I would merely be a listener and enjoy the rich ideas that will be freely offered to everyone there. Our opponents have made all their main arguments, and they agree to everything we ask, except they trade principle for expediency. They still have to realize that God won’t be sidelined; when He creates a human soul, He gives it the dignity of free will and the associated responsibility. Thus, He grants the soul rights, the exercise and protection of which are the essence of humanity. We don’t ask for a new set of rights. We simply want to be included in the overall method of asserting and protecting them, which even those still in bondage now seem to claim without shame. I’ve taken a keen interest in observing how our most astute statesmen are starting to understand and feel the significance of the issue that is inevitably in their way, to the point that they take time to explain and apologize; but they are afraid to deny it, or else the logic they use might be used against them.
The great Christian doctrine of the equality of all before God, who is declared to be no respecter of persons, is the axe laid at the root of the tree of prejudice, which has for such long ages brought forth injustice and oppression in a multitude of forms. Our good and great men are reading with anointed eyes the declaration, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free," and we may hope they will soon read the final assertion, "Neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." In this full and broad assertion lies the completion of the great Christian scheme, not limited to any number of parts, but embracing the great whole, thus recognizing the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. What our cause now needs is the Christian advocacy of good and wise men and women. Legally, our position is conceded, so far as the logical sequences are concerned; but the pulpit, on which woman is prone to lean for all her opinions on questions of morality, has, with a few rare exceptions, been silent. Henry Ward Beecher has dared to speak out in a manly, Christian way; but even he has not laid upon the women of the Church that burden of responsibility concerning government that they ought to be made to feel. For what, let me ask, is to excuse them, if their want of intelligence and activity should lead to a thorough corruption of political morals such as we have seen in portions of our country during a few years past. Will they not be among those who hide their Lord's talent in the earth, and by and by come back with the little morsel carefully wrapped up in a napkin, all beautifully embroidered, it may be, and tender it back, saying, "Lo! there is thine own, take it!" In this religious aspect women must come to consider the question before it will become vital. Political action may give it a body, but God only can breathe into it the breath of life that will constitute it a living soul. Hence we see that without the best religious sanction, little progress can really be assured. I am conscious that my views are not identical with those of many who have reached the same general conclusions; but as many are disposed to regard the question from this standpoint, I have thought it best to express myself with great frankness. With many regrets that I can not partake in your deliberations,
The important Christian belief in the equality of everyone before God, who shows no favoritism, is the tool aimed at the root of prejudice, which for so long has caused injustice and oppression in many forms. Our good and great leaders are reading with enlightened understanding the statement, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free," and we can hope they will soon grasp the final affirmation, "Neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." In this complete and expansive assertion lies the fulfillment of the great Christian message, not confined to a limited number of components but encompassing the entirety, thus acknowledging the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of humanity. What our cause needs now is the Christian support of good and wise men and women. Legally, our position is recognized, at least logically; however, the pulpit, which women often rely on for their views on moral issues, has, with some rare exceptions, remained silent. Henry Ward Beecher has bravely spoken up in a strong, Christian manner; yet even he has not placed the burden of responsibility for governance on the women of the Church that they should feel. For what, may I ask, will excuse them if their lack of awareness and engagement leads to a complete decay of political ethics as we've witnessed in parts of our country in recent years? Will they not be among those who bury their Lord's talent in the ground and later return with the little bit carefully wrapped in a napkin, perhaps beautifully embroidered, and say, "Look! Here it is, take it!" In this spiritual light, women must start to think about the question before it becomes crucial. Political action can give it form, but only God can breathe life into it, making it a living soul. Thus, we see that without the strongest religious support, real progress cannot be guaranteed. I understand that my opinions do not align with those of many who have come to similar conclusions, but since many seem inclined to view the issue from this angle, I felt it best to express myself openly. With much regret that I cannot join in your discussions,
Mrs. H. M. Tracy Cutler.
Mrs. H. M. Tracy Cutler.
I remain, truly yours,
I remain, truly yours,
1710 Locust Street, Philadelphia, May 10, 1866.
1710 Locust Street, Philadelphia, May 10, 1866.
My Very Dear Susan Anthony:—I fully intended coming to the meetings—gave up Washington, made all my arrangements, packed my bag—and stayed at home. Circumstances which I could not control, and which I can't very well explain, put utterly out of my power the duty and pleasure of coming. There's no use in saying how sorry I am, for it would waste paper and time to state all my regrets. Suffice it to declare that I have rarely been so extremely sorry and disappointed.
My Very Dear Susan Anthony:—I meant to attend the meetings—I cancelled my plans for Washington, made all my arrangements, packed my bag—and stayed home. Uncontrollable circumstances, which I can't really explain, made it impossible for me to fulfill the duty and joy of attending. There's no point in detailing how sorry I am because it would just waste paper and time to list all my regrets. It’s enough to say that I have rarely felt this level of sorrow and disappointment.
Anna E. Dickinson.
Anna E. Dickinson.
Affectionately and truly thine,
Affectionately and truly thine,
Office of Correspondence with the Friends of the Missing Men of }
United States Army, Washington, D. C.; April 3, 1866. }
Office of Correspondence with the Friends of the Missing Men of }
United States Army, Washington, D. C.; April 3, 1866. }
Dear Miss Anthony:—I am glad that my too kind and partial friends have set me "right on the record." I am "with you," and with all who labor for the advancement[Pg 917] of humanity and the world through the proper channels—the elevation of woman. You have my heart, my sympathies (if needed), my prayers, and, best of all, my hopes, for the success of your every endeavor; and my poor words you should have, if they could add either strength or interest, but neither nature nor art have contributed me anything in this direction. I sometimes work a little, but it seems to me to be in the most common manner, and I am sure I could not speak at all. But no one knows how happy I should be to be present and listen to those who can; and if not prevented by duties of a very pressing and positive nature, I shall indulge myself so far. With assurances of the highest regard, believe me your friend,
Dear Miss Anthony:—I’m really glad that my overly kind and partial friends have set the record straight for me. I stand with you and everyone working for the advancement[Pg 917] of humanity and the world through the right means—the uplift of women. You have my heart, my support (if you need it), my prayers, and, most importantly, my hopes for the success of everything you undertake; and I would gladly offer my words if they could contribute any strength or interest, but unfortunately, neither nature nor skill has given me anything in that regard. I sometimes try to work a little, but it always feels very basic to me, and I know I couldn’t speak effectively at all. But no one knows how happy I would be to be present and listen to those who can speak; and if I'm not held back by very pressing obligations, I’m going to treat myself to that. With my utmost respect, believe me, your friend,
Clara Barton.
Clara Barton.
Newport, R. I., May 14, 1866.
Newport, R. I., May 14, 1866.
Miss Susan B. Anthony—Dear Friend:—It has proved impossible for me to attend the Convention; and I hope it is unnecessary, so far as my own position is concerned, for me to renew my allegiance to the Equal Rights movement. It seems to me the most glaring of logical absurdities to apply the name of Universal Suffrage to any system which does not include both sexes. It seems, in this point of view, a righteous retribution upon American men, that the disfranchisement of woman has put such a weapon into the hands of those who would disfranchise the negro also. I must say, however, that a still greater share of this responsibility rests upon American women, for it is their unwillingness to ask for their rights which chiefly renders our legislators unwilling to concede them.
Miss Susan B. Anthony—Dear Friend:—I’m really sorry I can’t make it to the Convention; and I hope I don't need to reiterate my support for the Equal Rights movement. It seems completely illogical to call any system Universal Suffrage if it doesn't include both men and women. From this perspective, it's a just consequence for American men that the disenfranchisement of women has given those who would disenfranchise Black people a powerful argument. That said, I believe a larger part of this responsibility lies with American women, because their reluctance to demand their rights is what mainly makes our lawmakers hesitant to grant them.
Thomas Wentworth Higginson.
Thomas Wentworth Higginson.
Cordially yours,
Cordially yours,
A letter declining to speak at the Boston Equal Rights meeting, says: "There has been a time when no one could do any better than I, to speak in favor of women physicians, and then I was willing to come forward and do my best. At present there are so many able and eloquent, however, on the platform to advocate what we need—political franchise—that I would appear presumptuous should I attempt to add myself to the list. There is no other right which I want besides the elective franchise, because the right to work on equality with man we can obtain, with nothing but energy and firm will. My own case as a physician illustrates that; while I am paying very nearly $400 taxes (State and national), without the right to vote. These enormous taxes come from money earned, dollar by dollar, on equality with men, and yet there are all round me here many physicians of the stronger sex, who do not pay half this amount of taxes, who vote and rule. I hope before long a republic in the true sense of the word will be our share in this glorious country. With sincere wishes for the best of results in your present movement,
A letter declining to speak at the Boston Equal Rights meeting says: "There was a time when no one could advocate for women physicians better than I could, and at that time, I was willing to step up and do my best. Right now, though, there are so many capable and articulate people on the platform advocating for what we need—political voting rights—that I would come across as arrogant if I tried to add myself to the list. The only right I want besides the right to vote is equality in work, which we can achieve with nothing but determination and strong will. My own experience as a physician demonstrates that; I’m paying almost $400 in taxes (state and national) without having the right to vote. These huge taxes come from money I’ve earned, dollar by dollar, on the same level as men, yet there are many male physicians around me who don’t pay even half of that in taxes, while they get to vote and hold power. I hope that soon, a true republic will be what we experience in this wonderful country. Wishing you all the best in your current movement,"
M. E. Zakrzewska.
M. E. Zakrzewska.
I am truly yours,
I am truly yours,
FREDERICK DOUGLASS.
In a letter, saying it would be impossible for him to attend the Boston Equal Rights meeting on the 31st of May, says, "My best and most earnest wishes for the success of your noble Convention. The cause which it aims to subserve is the cause of the whole human family, in a sense the broadest and most striking ever hit upon by any other association."
In a letter, saying it would be impossible for him to attend the Boston Equal Rights meeting on May 31st, he says, "My best and sincerest wishes for the success of your great Convention. The cause it aims to support is the cause of all humanity, in the broadest and most significant sense ever taken on by any other group."
WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON,
In a letter stating that ill health prevented him from attending the National Woman's Rights Convention in New York, says: "In some way I will try to express my warm and hearty approval of the Equal Rights movement at the approaching meeting in Boston. I hail it with gladness, and as of far-reaching importance. The time has fully come to drop the phrase "Woman's Rights" for that of "Equal Rights."
In a letter saying that his health issues kept him from attending the National Woman's Rights Convention in New York, he states: "I will definitely find a way to show my enthusiastic support for the Equal Rights movement at the upcoming meeting in Boston. I welcome it with joy and see it as incredibly significant. It's time to replace the term 'Woman's Rights' with 'Equal Rights.'"
The following appeal, written by Parker Pillsbury, was issued in behalf of the American Equal Rights Association in the autumn of 1866:
The following appeal, written by Parker Pillsbury, was issued on behalf of the American Equal Rights Association in the fall of 1866:
APPEAL FOR UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.
In restoring the foundations of the Government, Justice, as the chief corner-stone, can alone secure a permanence of Peace and Prosperity. The eighteenth century gave the World the Declaration of Independence, the war of the Revolution, and the Constitution of the United States; but only in the light of the nineteenth are these[Pg 918] sublime phenomena to be interpreted to us. From the Government, the civilization, and religion of Great Britain, we derived our chattel slave system; but it survived the pen of Jefferson, the sword of Washington, and the wisdom, humanity, and statesmanship of the founders and framers of the Government; and until far louder thunders than Bunker Hill and Saratoga dashed it to the ground, and almost whelmed the Government itself with it in a common ruin. And the terrible lessons of the late war will all be in vain, should we now attempt to relay our foundations in injustice and oppression. Out of the jaws of rebellion and treason was the nation snatched by the hand of negro valor. And thus, surely, has that race earned the right of full citizenship and equality in the State. Even Jefferson declared, more than half a century ago, that whoever "fights and pays taxes" has the right of suffrage against the world. But the right of humanity, of manhood, is older and of higher and diviner appointment than any other. If the right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness be the gift and endowment of the Creator, then surely is the right to the ballot the only possible or conceivable assurance and guaranty of it in republican governments. And on this ground the claim of woman is no less than that of man. But base and degrading as has been the position of the negro in the Government, that of woman is far lower. At no price within human power to pay, can she arrive at equality in the Government she is compelled to support and obey. In the making or executing of no law, however deeply her womanly interest or happiness may be involved, can she bear a part. She is found guilty, not of a crime, not of a color, but of a sex; and all her appeals to courts or communities for equality and justice, are in vain, even in this democratic and Christian Republic. She is a native, free-born citizen, a property-holder, taxpayer, loyal and patriotic. She supports herself, and in proportionable part, the schools, colleges, universities, churches, poor-houses, jails, prisons, the army, the navy, the whole machinery of government; and yet she has no vote at the polls, no voice in the national councils. She has guided great movements of philanthropy and charity; has founded and sustained churches; established missions; edited journals; written and published invaluable treatises on history and economy, political, social, and moral, and on philosophy in all its departments; filled honorably professors' chairs; governed nations; led armies; commanded ships; discovered and described new planets; practiced creditably in the liberal professions; and patiently explored the whole realm of scientific research; and yet, because in life's allotment she is female, not male, woman, not man, the curse of inferiority cleaves to her through all her generations. Eden's anathema was to be removed on the coming of the second Adam; and in the new dispensation there was to be neither male nor female. Jewish outlawry from all the nations, continuing through almost twenty centuries, is repealed by common consent among all civilized governments. Nor does the curse of eternal attainder longer blast the Ethiopian race to degradation and slavery, through Canaan's sin and shame. But where shall woman look for her redemption in this auspicious hour, when new dawnings of liberty, new sunrises of human enfranchisement are illumining the world? A man once said, "where liberty is, there is my country." But on what continent or island, or in what vast wilderness shall woman find a nationality where she shall be taxed to support no government she did not aid in making, obey no law she did not help to enact, nor suffer any penalty until adjudged, by a jury, in part at least, of her peers? True, her privileges in some States have been, after long struggle and conflict, enlarged and increased. Like the Southern freedmen, she has had her Civil Rights bill. But all this is compatible with the Dred Scott decision itself. The power that gives can take away; but of that power woman is no part. Mr. Sumner says, "The ballot is the one thing needful to the emancipated slave." Without it, he declares, his liberty is but an illusion, a jack-o'lantern which he will pursue in vain. Without the ballot, he reiterates, the slave becomes only sacrifice. And shall it not also be pre-eminently so with woman? Formed by Almighty power a little lower than the angels, her ruling lords and masters have, by legislative proscription, plunged her not a little but immeasurably below myriads of the human race, whose only boast or claim is, that for some inscrutable reason they were so constituted as to stand men in the tables of the census.
In rebuilding the foundations of the Government, Justice, as the main cornerstone, is essential to ensure lasting Peace and Prosperity. The eighteenth century brought the world the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, and the Constitution of the United States; however, we can only fully understand these[Pg 918] remarkable events in light of the nineteenth century. We inherited our system of chattel slavery from the government, civilization, and religion of Great Britain, but it endured despite Jefferson's writings, Washington's military efforts, and the wisdom, humanity, and statesmanship of the nation's founders; it wasn't until the loudest thunders—much louder than those at Bunker Hill and Saratoga—that it was finally brought down, almost dragging the government down with it into ruin. The devastating lessons of the recent war will be meaningless if we now attempt to rebuild our foundations on injustice and oppression. The nation was rescued from the brink of rebellion and treason by the bravery of Black soldiers. Thus, that race has certainly earned the right to full citizenship and equality in the State. Even Jefferson stated more than fifty years ago that anyone who "fights and pays taxes" has the right to vote. But the right of humanity and manhood is older and holds a higher and nobler status than any other. If the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a gift from the Creator, then the right to vote is the only assurance of it in a republic. Therefore, women's claim to this right is no less valid than men's. However, as degraded as the status of Black people has been in the Government, the position of women is far worse. No amount of power within human capacity can bring her to equality in the government she is forced to support and obey. She cannot participate in the creation or execution of any law, regardless of how deeply her interests or happiness are affected. She is judged not for a crime, not for her color, but for her sex; and all her pleas for equality and justice to courts or communities are in vain, even in this democratic and Christian Republic. She is a native, free-born citizen, a property owner, taxpayer, loyal, and patriotic. She supports herself and, in part, the schools, colleges, universities, churches, poorhouses, jails, prisons, the army, the navy, and the entire machinery of government; and yet she has no vote at the polls and no voice in the national decisions. She has led significant movements in philanthropy and charity; founded and maintained churches; established missions; edited journals; written and published invaluable works on history, economy, politics, social issues, morals, and philosophy; filled prestigious academic positions; governed nations; led armies; commanded ships; discovered and documented new planets; worked successfully in various professions; and explored the entire realm of scientific research; yet, simply because she is deemed female rather than male, woman rather than man, the stigma of inferiority clings to her through all generations. The curse of Eden was meant to be lifted with the arrival of the second Adam; and in the new order, there should be no distinction between male and female. The historical exclusion of Jews from all nations, lasting nearly twenty centuries, has been revoked by the collective agreement of all civilized governments. Nor is the curse of eternal punishment still condemning the Ethiopian race to degradation and slavery due to Canaan's sins and shame. Yet where can women find redemption in this hopeful moment, as new opportunities for liberty and human freedom illuminate the world? A man once said, "Where liberty is, there is my country." But on what continent or island, or in what vast wilderness, can women find a nationality where they are not taxed to support a government they did not help create, where they do not have to obey laws they did not help enact, or suffer penalties without being judged by a jury that includes their peers? True, in some states, women's rights have expanded after long struggles. Like the Southern freedmen, she has her Civil Rights bill. But all this is compatible with the Dred Scott decision itself. The power that grants rights can also take them away; yet women are excluded from that power. Mr. Sumner asserts, "The ballot is the one thing needful to the emancipated slave." Without it, he claims, his freedom is merely an illusion, a will-o'-the-wisp he will chase in vain. Without the ballot, he reiterates, the slave is only a sacrifice. Shouldn’t the same apply to women? Created by Almighty power just a little lower than the angels, her ruling overlords have, through legislative exclusion, pushed her far below countless people whose only claim to superiority is that they were inexplicably identified as men in the census records.
In the American Equal Rights Association, it is determined to prosecute an agitation which shall wake the nation to new consciousness of the injustice long inflicted and still[Pg 919] suffered through proscriptive distinctions on account of sex and complexion. To the industrial, hard-toiling, property-producing, family-supporting women, this appeal is made to come to the rescue of their own long-lost rights. In New York the angel of a Constitutional Convention is soon to stir the waters. Let all who need healing hasten to the baptism. Nor is it one of the least cheering signs that multitudes of the intelligent women of the country are fast waking to a full consciousness of the wrongs they suffer. Even the war has taught invaluable lessons on the dignity and worth of woman in a thousand new spheres. Our Florence Nightingales have not been one, but many, yea thousands. Woman as well as the freedman saved the nation in its hour of peril, and invested herself with new dignity demanding new distinction. Now emphatically is her hour. But no comparison need be instituted, none surely should be urged, as to whose is the paramount claim. The great clock of humanity has struck the hour, and its tones are ringing across the continents, reverberating as well among the Alps as the Alleghanies, and mingling sweet music in both the hemispheres. We are coming to the rescue of justice and right, girded with the panoply of a divine and holy cause, and Omnipotence is pledged in our behalf. We propose to organize Equal Rights clubs or committees in every city, town, and village; to hold meetings for discussions and lectures; to circulate tracts and petitions, and to raise funds to enable the Association to carry forward its work for educating the popular sentiment. We shall endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press. Truth, justice, reason, humanity, must and will triumph. Already a host is on our side, and our principles can never be defeated. The prospect before us is full of encouragement, and we confidently submit our enterprise to the heart and hand of a waiting and expectant people.
In the American Equal Rights Association, we are committed to launching a movement that will awaken the nation to the long-standing injustices still faced because of discrimination based on gender and race. We appeal to the hardworking, property-owning, family-supporting women to reclaim their lost rights. In New York, a Constitutional Convention is about to ignite a change. Let everyone who needs healing rush to this opportunity. It's also encouraging to see that many intelligent women across the country are becoming fully aware of the injustices they endure. The war has taught us important lessons about the dignity and value of women in many new roles. Our Florence Nightingales are not just one, but many—indeed, thousands. Women, alongside freedmen, helped save the nation during its time of crisis, asserting their dignity and demanding recognition. This is truly her moment. However, there’s no need to compare or argue over whose claim is more important. The great clock of humanity has struck the hour, and its sounds are echoing across continents, resonating in both the Alps and the Alleghenies, creating a beautiful symphony in both hemispheres. We are coming together to uphold justice and righteousness, backed by a divine cause, with a higher power on our side. We plan to establish Equal Rights clubs or committees in every city, town, and village; host discussions and lectures; distribute pamphlets and petitions, and raise money to support the Association’s work in educating public opinion. We will work to engage the church and the media. Truth, justice, reason, and humanity must and will prevail. We already have many supporters, and our principles can never be defeated. The future looks bright, and we confidently present our mission to a hopeful and eager public.
LETTERS TO THE MAY ANNIVERSARY OF 1867.
Lawrence, Kansas, May 6, 1867.
Lawrence, Kansas, May 6, 1867.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—I hope your Convention will not fail to set in its true light the position of those editors in New York who are branding as the "infamous thirteen" the men who, in the New Jersey Legislature, voted against negro suffrage, while they themselves give the whole weight of their journals against woman's right to vote. They use the terms "universal and impartial suffrage," when they mean only negro suffrage; and they do it to hide a dark skin and an unpopular client. They know that a "lie will keep its throne a whole age longer if it skulks behind the shadow of some fair seeming name." In New Jersey a negro father is legally entitled to his children, but no mother in New Jersey, black or white, has any legal right to her children. In New Jersey a widow may live forty days in the house of her deceased husband without paying rent, but the negro widower, just like the white widower, may remain in undisturbed possession of house and property. A negro man can sell his real estate and make a valid deed, but no wife in that State can do so without her husband's consent. A negro man in New Jersey may will all his property as he pleases, but no wife in the State can will her personal property at all, and if she will her real estate with her husband's consent, he may revoke that consent any time before the will is admitted to probate, and thus render her will null and void. The women of New Jersey went to the Legislature last winter on their own petition, for the right of suffrage. Twenty-three members voted for them, thirty-two voted against them. But the editors who now find unmeasured words to express their contempt for the "infamous thirteen" who voted against the negro, were as dumb as death when this vote was cast against woman. The Washington correspondent of the New York Tribune says that Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens give it as their opinion that New Jersey will not have a republican form of government until they put the word "white" out of their Constitution. Do these gentlemen mean to say that when New Jersey has given her 8,000 negro men the vote she will have a republican form of government, while 134,000 women of that State are still without it? and not only without it, but blasted by laws which are a disgrace to the civilization of the age; and of these laws not one afflicts or affects the negro man. The rebels who starved our brave boys in Andersonville, and made ornaments of their bones, these men, traitors, guilty of the highest crime known to our laws, are to be punished by having their right to vote taken away. Of what crime are American women guilty that they are[Pg 920] to be compelled to stand on a political platform with such men as these? Let no man dream that national prosperity and peace can be secured by merely giving suffrage to colored men, while that sacred right is denied to millions of American women. That scanty shred of justice, good as far it goes, is utterly inadequate to meet the emergency of this hour. Men of every race and color may vote, but if the women are excluded our legislation will still lack that moral tone, for want of which the nation is to-day drifting toward ruin. There is no other name given by which the country can be saved but that of woman. "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Women are governed, negroes are governed, and should give their consent. Will men never learn that a principle which God has made true He has also made it safe to apply? Aye, more, that a principle He has made true, it is not safe not to apply? The problem for the American statesmen to-day is no narrow question of races, but how to embody in our institutions a guarantee for the rights of every citizen. The solution is easy. Base government on the consent of the governed, and each class will protect itself. Put this one great principle of universal suffrage, irrespective of sex or color, into the foundation of our temple of liberty, and it will rise in fair and beautiful proportions, "without the sound of a hammer or the noise of any instrument," to stand at last "perfect and entire, wanting nothing." Omit it, and only "He who sees the end from the beginning" knows through what other national woes we must be driven, before we learn that the path of justice is the only path of peace and safety.
My Dear Miss Anthony:—I hope your Convention will highlight the true situation of those editors in New York who are labeling the men who voted against Black suffrage in the New Jersey Legislature as the "infamous thirteen," while they themselves use their platforms to oppose women's right to vote. They talk about "universal and impartial suffrage," but really only mean Black suffrage, trying to hide behind the issue of a darker skin and an unpopular cause. They understand that "a lie can stay in power much longer if it hides behind a respectable name." In New Jersey, a Black father has legal rights to his children, but no mother, regardless of race, has any legal claim to her kids. In New Jersey, a widow can stay in her deceased husband's home for forty days rent-free, but a Black widower, just like a white one, can remain in his home and property without disruption. A Black man can sell his property and create a valid deed, but a wife in that state cannot do it without her husband's approval. A Black man in New Jersey can leave his property to anyone he chooses, but a wife can’t will her personal property at all. Even if a wife can will her real estate with her husband’s permission, he can revoke that permission any time before the will is probated, making her will invalid. Last winter, the women of New Jersey petitioned the Legislature for the right to vote. Twenty-three members voted in favor, thirty-two against. Yet, the editors who now express their outrage at the "infamous thirteen" for voting against Black suffrage were completely silent when the vote against women was cast. The Washington correspondent for the New York Tribune reports that Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens believe New Jersey won't have a republican form of government until they remove the word "white" from their Constitution. Do these gentlemen think that once New Jersey gives the vote to its 8,000 Black men, it will have a republican form of government while 134,000 women remain without it? Not only without the vote, but also subject to laws that are a disgrace to modern civilization; and none of these laws harm or affect the Black man. The rebels who starved our brave soldiers at Andersonville and used their bones as decorations—these traitors, guilty of the highest crime known to our laws—will be punished by being stripped of their right to vote. What crime are American women guilty of that they have to share a political stage with such men? No man should believe that national prosperity and peace can be achieved by merely granting suffrage to Black men while millions of American women are denied this sacred right. That small bit of justice, good as it may be, is completely inadequate to address the urgency of this moment. Men of every race and color may vote, but if women are excluded, our legislation will still lack the moral authority that our nation desperately needs to avoid ruin. There is no other name that can save the country but that of women. "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Women are governed, Black people are governed, and they should be able to give their consent. Will men never realize that a principle established by God is also safe to use? More importantly, that failing to apply such principles is unsafe? The challenge for American statesmen today is not a narrow issue of races, but how to ensure that our institutions guarantee the rights of every citizen. The solution is straightforward. Base government on the consent of the governed, and every group will defend itself. Incorporate this crucial principle of universal suffrage, regardless of sex or color, into the foundation of our temple of liberty, and it will rise beautifully and harmoniously, "without the sound of a hammer or any tool," to ultimately stand "perfect and whole, wanting nothing." Leave it out, and only "He who sees the end from the beginning" knows what further national troubles we must endure before we grasp that the path of justice is the only road to peace and safety.
Lucy Stone.
Lucy Stone.
Boston, May 5, 1867.
Boston, May 5, 1867.
To the American Equal Rights Association:
To the American Equal Rights Association:
Although not permitted to be present with you, yet, in spirit, I join you in all your efforts to secure justice and equality to all the children of God. I have so long felt deeply upon the subjects before you, that I wish to add my word to the voices of those who are more fortunate in being present. Since I was old enough to think upon important subjects, I have constantly felt the pressure of injustice that has borne so heavily upon my sex. At sixteen I earnestly desired to enter some college, that I might have the benefit of those helps to learning which were open to all boys, and I deeply felt the cruelty and injustice that closed the doors of the universities to me, who was longing and thirsting for knowledge, while they were invitingly open to the youth of the other sex, who often only used them to waste their time and give them the name of educated men. I could see no reason for this exclusion, nor could I imagine how it would harm any one to allow girls who desired to learn the privilege of going to the universities.
Although I can't be there with you, I’m with you in spirit as you work to secure justice and equality for all of God’s children. I’ve felt strongly about these issues for a long time, and I want to add my voice to those who are lucky enough to be present. Ever since I was old enough to contemplate important matters, I’ve constantly felt the weight of injustice that has affected my gender. At sixteen, I really wanted to go to college so I could benefit from the learning opportunities available to all boys, and I was deeply pained by the cruelty and injustice of being denied access to universities, while those doors were wide open for boys who often just wasted their time there and were called educated. I saw no reason for this exclusion, nor could I understand how allowing girls who wanted to learn the opportunity to attend universities could hurt anyone.
My next personal experience of the injustice done to women by the laws was, when a widow, I buried one of my little daughters, and found that I, who had borne her and nursed her and provided for all her wants, was not her heir, but her little sister, who had done nothing for her, and was still dependent on me for care, etc. This I felt very keenly, not on account of the property involved, for it was but little, but on account of the great injustice done to my maternal heart. My next personal lesson in the law's iniquity was, when about to marry the second time, both myself and husband desired to secure to me the property I possessed. I employed a great lawyer in Maine, Gov. Fessenden, the father of one of our senators, to make an instrument that would secure that end. After thinking on the subject a week, and doing the best he could, he handed me the paper, saying, "I have done my best; but I can not assure you that this instrument will secure to you your property if your husband should ever become insolvent!" This surely astonished me. The law not only did not protect women in their property rights, but did so much to prevent their getting or keeping them, that an able lawyer could not frame an instrument that would secure them even when signed by their intended husbands before marriage! This was more than thirty years ago, and some improvements have since been made in the laws in reference to women.
My next personal experience of the injustice faced by women through the laws happened when, as a widow, I buried one of my little daughters. I discovered that I, who had given birth to her, cared for her, and met all her needs, wasn't her heir; instead, her little sister, who had done nothing for her and still depended on me for care, was. This hit me hard, not because of the small amount of property involved, but because of the deep injustice it inflicted on my maternal heart. My next lesson in the unfairness of the law came when I was about to remarry. Both my husband and I wanted to ensure that the property I owned was protected. I hired a prominent lawyer in Maine, Gov. Fessenden, the father of one of our senators, to create a legal document to ensure that. After a week of consideration and effort, he handed me the document and said, "I've done my best, but I can't guarantee that this will protect your property if your husband ever goes bankrupt!" This truly shocked me. The law not only failed to safeguard women’s property rights but also created obstacles to obtaining or retaining them, to the point that a skilled lawyer couldn't draft a document that would secure them, even with their future husbands signing it before marriage! This was over thirty years ago, and while some progress has been made regarding women's rights in the law since then, there’s still a long way to go.
The next great wrong that pressed heavily upon me was when I again became a widow. I found myself yearly taxed for State and county, and later for revenue, without a voice in anything that concerned the raising of money, or in any of the elections to office in the great struggle that our country was passing through. With all the deep feeling of my brethren, a clear appreciation of the all-important issues at stake, and an intensely painful knowledge of the sin of slavery and its concomitant evils, I could not cast a vote[Pg 921] in favor of the right, but must look on with folded hands, and give my money to support the Government, without a chance of giving it an impetus, however slight, in the direction of justice and liberty! In view of all these wrongs, I felt that the women of America had as just cause for rebellion against the Government as our fathers had against the British Government when they resisted, on the ground that taxation and representation were one and inseparable. The three great desires of my life have been: That the halls of learning should be universally open to all souls who desire to enter them; that the property rights of all, without regard to sex, color, or race, should stand on the same foundation, and be equal; that every person twenty-one years old, who is a citizen of the United States, should have the ballot, unless disfranchised by crime, idiocy, or insanity. When these three things are granted, all else will follow in due time. But until these things are assured to the citizens of America, our Government presents the anomaly of being professedly founded upon the consent of the governed, and yet shutting out two-thirds of its citizens from all voice in it.
The next major injustice that weighed heavily on me was when I became a widow again. I found myself taxed annually for state and county expenses, and later for revenue, without any say in anything related to how that money was raised or in any elections during the significant struggles our country was going through. Despite sharing the deep concerns of my peers, a clear understanding of the critical issues at stake, and a painful awareness of the sin of slavery and its accompanying evils, I couldn't cast a vote[Pg 921] for what was right. Instead, I had to sit back with my hands folded and give my money to support the government, without the opportunity to influence it even slightly toward justice and liberty! Given all these injustices, I believed that the women of America had as much reason to rebel against the government as our forefathers did against the British government when they resisted on the grounds that taxation and representation are inseparable. The three main desires of my life have been: that the halls of education should be open to all who wish to enter; that everyone's property rights, regardless of sex, color, or race, should be equal; and that every U.S. citizen over the age of twenty-one should have the right to vote, unless disqualified by crime, incompetence, or insanity. Once these three things are achieved, everything else will follow naturally. But until these rights are guaranteed for all citizens of America, our government stands as a contradiction: it claims to be founded on the consent of the governed yet excludes two-thirds of its citizens from having any say in it.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Mercy B. Jackson, M.D.
Mercy B. Jackson, M.D.
Chicago, March 22, 1867.
Chicago, March 22, 1867.
Dear Miss Anthony:—I feel that I must do something for the "Woman's Suffrage" movement in the West. There is much interest here concerning it, but no movement is yet made. Matters are being prepared, and when the movement is made in the West, it will sweep onward majestically. Kansas and Iowa will first give women the right to vote before any other States, East or West. "Man proposes, but God disposes." I have always had a theory of my own concerning this suffrage question. Ever since I began to think of it, and that has been since Dr. Harriot Hunt's first protest against woman being taxed when she had no representation, I have believed that, in my day, woman would vote. But I have thought they would first obtain the right to work and wages, and that the right to vote would naturally follow. For woman's right to work and wages I have labored indefatigably. But I see that my plan is not God's plan. The right to vote is to come first, and work and wages afterwards, and easily. I "stumped" the Northwest during the war. Two women of us, Mrs. Hoge and myself, organized over 1,000 Aid Societies, and raised, in money and supplies, nearly $100,000 for the soldiers; and to do it, we were compelled to get people together in masses, and tell our story and our plans, and make our appeals to hundreds at a time. So I can talk here, and can help you here, when you are ready to lead. In the meanwhile, I have begun to work for the cause through my husband's weekly paper, which has a large circulation in the Northwest. I have announced myself as henceforth committed to the cause of woman suffrage, and have become involved, instanter, in a controversy on the subject. I am associate editor of the paper, and have been these dozen years. I have just completed a reply to an objector to the doctrine, which goes into this week's issue. In my way, I am working with you. I have always believed in the ballot for woman at some future time—always, since reading Margaret Fuller's "Woman in the Nineteenth Century," which set me to thinking a quarter of a century ago. Boston is my native city, and I lived there till my marriage, and had one or two talks with Theodore Parker which helped me wonderfully.
Dear Miss Anthony:—I feel that I need to do something for the "Woman's Suffrage" movement in the West. There is a lot of interest here, but no action has been taken yet. Preparations are underway, and when the movement starts in the West, it will gain momentum quickly. Kansas and Iowa will be the first states to give women the right to vote before any others, whether East or West. "Man proposes, but God disposes." I've always had my own theory about this suffrage issue. Ever since I started thinking about it, which was when Dr. Harriot Hunt first protested against taxing women without representation, I've believed that women would vote in my lifetime. However, I thought they would first secure the right to work and earn wages, with the right to vote following naturally. I've tirelessly worked for women's right to work and earn fair pay. But now, I see that my plan is not God's plan. The right to vote will come first, and work and wages will follow more easily. I campaigned in the Northwest during the war. Together with Mrs. Hoge, we organized over 1,000 Aid Societies and raised nearly $100,000 in money and supplies for the soldiers. To do this, we had to gather people in large groups, share our story and plans, and make appeals to hundreds at once. So, I can speak out here and support you when you're ready to take the lead. In the meantime, I have started working for the cause through my husband's weekly paper, which is widely read in the Northwest. I've declared that I am now committed to the cause of women's suffrage and have immediately gotten involved in a debate on the topic. I am the associate editor of the paper and have been for the last twelve years. I just finished a reply to someone who opposed the idea, and it will be in this week's issue. In my way, I am working alongside you. I've always believed in women's right to vote at some point in the future—ever since reading Margaret Fuller's "Woman in the Nineteenth Century," which got me thinking over twenty-five years ago. Boston is my hometown, and I lived there until I got married, and I had one or two conversations with Theodore Parker that helped me tremendously.
Mary A. Livermore.
Mary A. Livermore.
Yours truly,
Yours truly,
Topeka, Kansas, April 5, 1867.
Topeka, Kansas, April 5, 1867.
Dear Madam:—We are now arranging for a thorough canvass of our State for impartial suffrage, without regard to sex or color. We are satisfied that an argument in favor of colored suffrage is an argument in favor of woman suffrage. Both are based upon the same principle. It is the doctrine of our fathers "that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." We "white men" have no right to ask privileges or demand rights for ourselves that we are unwilling to grant to the whole human family. There never has been, and never can be, an argument, based upon principle, against colored or woman suffrage. Sneers and attempts at ridicule are not arguments. Henry B. Blackwell, of New Jersey, and Mrs. Lucy Stone, are now canvassing our State for impartial suffrage. Some of the most eminent men and women of the United States have been invited, and promised to visit our State this summer and fall;[Pg 922] and we shall succeed. Kansas will be free, and occupy the proudest place, in all time to come, in the history of the world.
Dear Madam:—We are currently organizing a comprehensive campaign in our State for equal voting rights, regardless of sex or race. We believe that advocating for voting rights for people of color also supports women's voting rights. Both are founded on the same principle. Our forefathers taught us that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." We "white men" have no right to seek privileges or demand rights for ourselves while refusing to extend the same to everyone. There has never been, and never can be, a principled argument against voting rights for people of color or women. Mockery and ridicule are not valid arguments. Henry B. Blackwell from New Jersey and Mrs. Lucy Stone are currently canvassing our State for equal voting rights. Some of the most distinguished individuals in the United States have been invited and have agreed to visit our State this summer and fall;[Pg 922] and we will prevail. Kansas will be liberated and hold a prestigious position in the history of the world for all time to come.
We desire to extend our meetings to every neighborhood in Kansas; reach, if possible, the ear of every voter. For this purpose we must enlist every home speaker possible. We shall arrange series of meetings in all parts of the State, commencing about September 1st, and running through September and October. We desire speakers to advocate the broad doctrine of impartial suffrage, but welcome those who advocate either. Those who desire colored suffrage alone, are invited to take the field; also those who favor only female suffrage. Each help the other. I am instructed by the State Impartial Suffrage Executive Committee to ask you to aid us, and speak at as many of our meetings as possible. Please answer at once, and let us know how much time you can spend in the campaign, and what part of the State you prefer to speak in.
We want to expand our meetings to every neighborhood in Kansas and reach out to every voter if we can. To do this, we need to get as many local speakers involved as possible. We'll organize a series of meetings all over the state, starting around September 1st and continuing throughout September and October. We want speakers to promote the idea of fair voting for everyone but are open to those who support any related cause. Those who want to advocate for voting rights only for people of color are encouraged to join, as are those who support voting rights only for women. Each group supports the others. The State Impartial Suffrage Executive Committee has asked me to request your help and for you to speak at as many of our meetings as you can. Please respond right away and let us know how much time you can dedicate to the campaign and which part of the state you prefer to speak in.
S. N. Wood,
Cor. Sec'y Kansas Impartial Suffrage Association.
S. N. Wood,
Corresponding Secretary of the Kansas Impartial Suffrage Association.
Yours truly,
Yours truly,
Bangor, Me., May 9, 1867.
Bangor, Me., May 9, 1867.
Dear Miss Anthony:—I should be truly glad to attend the Annual Meeting; but, as you see, I am far from New York. Mr. Davis and I are at work in another part of the great field of progress. While you and your noble friend, Mrs. Stanton, are endeavoring to move the adult population of our nation to just and righteous action, we are striving to establish on earth the beginning of the kingdom of heaven, by instituting a new and true method of moral and spiritual or religious education for the children and youth of the New Dispensation. Spiritualism, as a religious movement, has done more than any previous dispensation to give woman an equal career with man; and we trust that, through the influence of the "Children's Progressive Lyceums," the youth in our midst, rapidly advancing to the stage of action, will form a powerful phalanx on the side of "Equal Rights" and the elevation of humanity.
Dear Miss Anthony:—I would really love to attend the Annual Meeting; but, as you can see, I'm far from New York. Mr. Davis and I are working in another part of the vast field of progress. While you and your amazing friend, Mrs. Stanton, are trying to motivate the adult population of our nation to act justly and rightly, we are working to establish on earth the start of the kingdom of heaven, by creating a new and true method of moral, spiritual, or religious education for the children and youth of the New Dispensation. Spiritualism, as a religious movement, has done more than any previous dispensation to give women an equal opportunity with men; and we hope that, through the influence of the "Children's Progressive Lyceums," the youth in our community, who are quickly moving towards action, will form a strong force supporting "Equal Rights" and the betterment of humanity.
Mary F. Davis.
Mary F. Davis.
Yours fraternally,
Yours fraternally,
Buffalo, April 14, 1867.
Buffalo, April 14, 1867.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:—I thank you for your kind note.... I pray that God will bless you in the noble work you are in, and that woman will soon be admitted to her proper place where God intended she should be, and from which to exclude her must, like any other great wrong, bring misery and sorrow to the race.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:—Thank you for your thoughtful note.... I pray that God blesses you in the important work you are doing, and that women will soon be given the rightful place that God intended for them. Keeping them from this place, like any significant injustice, will only bring misery and sorrow to humanity.
Rufus Saxton.
Rufus Saxton.
Sincerely your friend,
Sincerely your friend,
148 Madison Avenue, Sunday Eve., April 14, 1867.
148 Madison Avenue, Sunday Evening., April 14, 1867.
My Dear Mrs. Stanton:—your invitation to me to lift my voice at your Annual Convention in behalf of the cause for which you have worked so faithfully and so long, and, let me add, so efficiently, was duly received; but I have an universal excuse for neglect of duty in the multitudinous professional engagements that absorb my life and strength. Believing in the justice of your cause, and that better laws and better order would bless our race could they be submitted to the arbitrament of woman, I yet am not able, individually, to give the time to it now which would be requisite for an adequate public presentation of its claims, but must content myself with only such passing words of cheer as the moment calls forth in the daily intercourse of life. I am grateful that you thought me competent to advocate so great a principle; but he would be a bold man who would attempt to add anything to the masterly effort of Mr. Beecher at the last Convention.
My Dear Mrs. Stanton:—I received your invitation to speak at your Annual Convention for the cause you've dedicated yourself to so faithfully, and I appreciate it. However, I have a universal excuse for not fulfilling this duty due to the many professional commitments that take up my time and energy. I truly believe in the justice of your cause and that better laws and order would benefit our society if women were given the chance to influence them. Still, I'm unable to dedicate the time needed for a proper public presentation of its importance, and I must settle for offering only brief words of encouragement as they come up in everyday life. I'm thankful you see me as capable of supporting such an important principle, but it would take a very bold person to try to add anything to Mr. Beecher's outstanding speech at the last Convention.
Luther R. Marsh.
Luther R. Marsh.
I am, as of old, your friend,
I am, as always, your friend,
148 Madison Avenue, April 14, 1867.
148 Madison Avenue, April 14, 1867.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:—Please accept the trifle enclosed, $20, as a token of my friendship to the good cause, whose mighty burden of enlightenment is to hold the growth of future cycles with an all-controlling destiny. I am glad to see that those who have been willing to wear the sackcloth and ashes are beginning to receive the crowns of the olive and the bay upon their consecrated heads. Many will find it very agreeable, now, to sail in upon the sunny and ardent tide of the rippling river, forgetting that once it was a[Pg 923] darksome, sluggish stream, not pleasant to launch forth upon. My father's[208] early championship of a despised cause taught me to hold very sacred those pioneers in holy efforts, which to embrace was to suffer the pangs of a daily martyrdom.
Dear Mrs. Stanton:—Please accept the small gift enclosed, $20, as a sign of my friendship for the important cause, which carries the great responsibility of guiding the future with a powerful destiny. I’m happy to see that those who have been willing to endure hardship are starting to receive the rewards of their efforts. Many will now find it enjoyable to glide along the bright and lively current of the river, forgetting that it once was a[Pg 923][208] early support of a neglected cause taught me to deeply respect those pioneers in important efforts, which involved enduring the struggles of a daily martyrdom.
Jeannie Marsh.
Jeannie Marsh.
Your friend, as of old,
Your friend, as of old,
May 29, 1867.
May 29, 1867.
It is foolish to say that the advocates of the "Woman Movement" demand "special legislation" for woman, or desire to array her in hostility to man. It is the enemies of this movement who have made special legislation necessary, since they declare woman not to be the equal of man. We desire nothing but one common law alike for each, with woman holding the ballot, not as the enemy, but as the peer and friend of man.
It’s silly to claim that supporters of the "Woman Movement" want "special laws" for women or wish to set them against men. It's the opponents of this movement who have made special laws necessary by saying that women aren't equal to men. We want nothing more than a single set of laws that applies equally to both, with women having the vote, not as an enemy, but as an equal and friend to men.
Anna E. Dickinson.
Anna E. Dickinson.
Kenosha, Wis., May 1, 1868.
Kenosha, Wis., May 1, 1868.
I saw your notice of the meeting of the American Equal Rights Association in that banner of freedom, the Boston Investigator. A thousand times I wish you success. We, in this State, intend to make a determined fight next year for female suffrage. The resolution submitting it to the people passed the Assembly and Senate by more than two to one (57 against 24. and 19 against 9); yet you must not suppose that our cause is so favorable as that. I send a few extracts, copied from the Racine Advocate; and to that number I am pleased to add the Milwaukee News, the leading Democratic paper of the State. Mr. Sholes, one of the leading Republicans of the State (elector on the last Presidential ticket), is warmly in support of your cause. Certainly the great car of progress is under motion, and no bigoted, conservative fogyism can long stay its progress. In the meantime, I really hope to see some of your best speakers in the Wisconsin field before the election of 1868. Where can I get some pamphlets containing the best arguments for universal suffrage? Go bravely on. Let not the scoffs and sneers of the low, mean, and vulgar intimidate, defeat, or discourage you.
I saw your notice about the meeting of the American Equal Rights Association in that freedom-loving publication, the Boston Investigator. I wish you all the success in the world. We in this state are planning to make a strong push next year for women's voting rights. The resolution to put it to a vote passed the Assembly and Senate by more than two to one (57 to 24 and 19 to 9); however, don't think our cause is as strong as that. I'm sending a few excerpts from the Racine Advocate; additionally, I’m happy to include the Milwaukee News, the top Democratic paper in the state. Mr. Sholes, one of the leading Republicans in the state (an elector on the last Presidential ticket), is a strong supporter of your cause. The movement for progress is definitely advancing, and no narrow-minded conservatism can hold it back for long. In the meantime, I sincerely hope to see some of your best speakers campaigning in Wisconsin before the 1868 election. Where can I find some pamphlets with the strongest arguments for universal suffrage? Keep pushing forward. Don't let the insults and mockery of the ignorant and petty discourage or defeat you.
R. F. Mills.
R. F. Mills.
Most respectfully,
Most respectfully,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
Receipts at the Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention, held in New York, May 10, 1866.
Receipts at the Eleventh National Woman's Rights Convention, held in New York, May 10, 1866.
| Abby Hutchinson Patton | $50 00 | Mrs. F. Knapp | $1 00 |
| Jessie Benton Fremont | 50 00 | Mary M. Bingham | 1 00 |
| Mrs. C. Lozier, M.D. | 20 00 | Harriet Clisby | 1 00 |
| James and Lucretia Mott | 10 00 | Sarah E. Payson | 1 00 |
| Anna Densmore, M.D. | 10 00 | Christiana T. Wallace | 1 00 |
| Margaret E. Winchester | 5 00 | D. J. H. Wilcox | 1 00 |
| Eliza Wright Osborn | 5 00 | Albert O. Wilcox | 1 00 |
| Martha C. Wright | 8 00 | J. H. H. Wilcox | 1 00 |
| Gerrit and Nancy Smith | 10 00 | Frances D. Gage | 1 00 |
| Elizabeth Smith Miller | 5 00 | Louisa Humphrey | 1 00 |
| C. C. Williams | 2 00 | A. M. Odell | 1 00 |
| S. R. Ferris | 50 | Dr. J. E. Snodgrass | 1 00 |
| Mrs. L. M. Ward. M.D. | 2 00 | Gustavus Muller | 1 00 |
| M. P. Allen | 1 00 | Charles Lenox Remond | 1 00 |
| M. A. Halsted | 1 00 | Mary Curtis | 1 00 |
| Mrs. J. B. Mix | 1 00 | Jane P. Thurston | 1 00 |
| H. Phelps | 1 00 | Martha T. Ketchum | 1 00 |
| J. H. Smith | 1 00 | Sarah H. Hallock | 1 00 |
| Frances V. Hallock | 1 00 | Elizabeth Barton | 1 00 |
| Ella M. Clymer | 1 00 | Mrs. Geo. C. White | 1 00 |
| Sarah S. White | 1 00 | A. Raymond | 1 00 |
| Cordelia Curtis | 1 00 | Susan M. Davis | 1 00 |
| Mrs. D. T. Tompkins | 1 00 | A. M. Powell | 1 00 |
| Josephine S. Griffing | 1 00 | General collection | 46 50 |
Receipts at the Equal Rights Convention, held at Boston, May 27, 1866.
Receipts at the Equal Rights Convention, held in Boston, May 27, 1866.
| Anna E. Dickinson | $100 00 | Sarah H. Young, M.D. | $5 00 |
| E. D. and Anna F. Draper | 50 00 | M. E. Woods | 1 00 |
| Geo. J. and Mary B. H. Adams | 20 00 | M. E. Jameson | 1 00 |
| Mr. and Mrs. A. M. McPhail | 20 00 | C. F. Haywood | 1 00 |
| Anna Davis Hallowell | 10 00 | H. A. Comly | 2 00 |
| C. Prince | 5 00 | Anna R. Southwick | 1 00 |
| Mrs. M. P. Snow | 5 00 | H. E. Sawyer | 1 00 |
| Caroline M. Severance | 5 00 | Richard Plummer | 1 00 |
| R. H. Ober | 4 00 | R. Howland | 1 00 |
| Mrs. L. Prang | 1 00 | S. R. Duzen | 1 00 |
| A. E. Heywood | 2 00 | F. A. Green | 5 00 |
| Parker Pillsbury | 1 00 | D. B. Morey | 1 00 |
| Mrs. E. D. Cheney | 1 00 | J. Wetherbe | 1 00 |
| L. H. Ober | 1 00 | Isaac H. Marshall | 1 00 |
| Mrs. M. H. Prince | 3 00 | Maria B. Clapp | 1 00 |
| John T. Sargent | 2 00 | J. E. Bruce | 50 |
| R. P. Hallowell | 2 00 | A. J. Patterson | 50 |
| Mrs. C. A. Baker | 1 00 | Cash | 3 05 |
| E. H. Merrill | 1 00 | T. B. Rice | 50 |
| Maria S. Page | 2 00 | Cash | 1 00 |
| Mary C. Shannon | 50 | Frances H. Drake | 1 00 |
| N. Allen | 1 00 | Kate C. Atkinson | 50 |
| S. Reynolds | 50 | Wilmot Wilson | 1 00 |
| R. T. Greene | 50 | Cash | 50 |
| M. Halliburton | 50 | Mary C. Sawyer | 2 00 |
| Harriet A. Foster | 2 00 | Elizabeth Mendum | 5 00 |
| A. B. Morey | 50 | H. W. Carter | 50 |
| C. S. Perry | 50 | L. F. Lalve, M.D. | 50 |
| A. S. Sisson | 50 | K. E. Walker | 50 |
| S. Boynton | 50 | Charles K. Whipple | 1 00 |
| Henry Abbott | 2 00 | Ruth Buffum | 1 00 |
| Lewis Ford | 1 00 | S. Cheney | 50 |
| Sarah J. Nowell | 1 00 | K. C. Atkins | 50 |
| Friend | 35 | Elizabeth M. F. Denton | 5 00 |
| Col. Wm. B. Green | 5 00 | H. N. Green | 50 |
| R. H. Morrill | 2 00 | M. E. Steward | 1 00 |
| Mrs. M. A. Dotcher | 1 00 | Margaret N. Wood | 1 00 |
| M. C. Wolson | 1 00 | Cash | 2 50 |
| Mary Willey | 50 | Kate Reynolds | 2 00 |
| Cash | 1 15 | John L. Whiting | 1 00 |
| Abby H. Stephenson | 5 00 | Universal Suffrage | 1 00 |
| Lewis McLaughlin | 1 00 | M. E. Darey | 1 00 |
| Mrs. S. D. Young | 3 25 | General collection | 41 00 |
Receipts from June 1, 1866, to May 1, 1867.
Receipts from June 1, 1866, to May 1, 1867.
| Levi Coates | $1 00 | Job Parker | 5 00 |
| Mrs. A. C. L. Hyde | 1 00 | Aaron Stedman | 1 00 |
| Jane Voorhees | 25 00 | Mrs. B. P. Markham | 50 |
| Harriet V. Rice | 10 00 | Mrs. D. F. Rogers | 50 |
| Mary F. Gilbert | 1 00 | Emily Rogers | 50 |
| F. A. Hinckley | 1 50 | Maggie Clemmer | 25 |
| Louisa Frost | 2 00 | James Eaton | 1 00 |
| M. B. Linton | 10 00 | Addison B. Tuttle | 1 00 |
| Olympia Brown | 5 00 | Anna H. McAvoy | 25 |
| Mary E. Ranks | 1 00 | Isadore Harrison | 25 |
| Mary E. Deuls | 2 00 | Joseph A. Sherman | 1 00 |
| Sarah H. Hallock | 50 | Frank Conway | 25 |
| Dansville E. R. Association (per James | Mary Jackson | 25 | |
| C. Jackson, M.D.) | 105 00 | J. D. Cook | 50 |
| Gerrit Smith | 100 00 | J. G. Howe | 2 00 |
| James and Lucretia Mott | 53 00 | R. Lippis | 50 |
| C. S. Lozier, M.D. | 50 00 | H. W. Hale | 25 |
| Samuel E. Sewall | 40 00 | William Litch | 50 |
| Sinclair Tousey | 10 00 | Sarah Willis | 1 00 |
| G. P. Lowrey | 10 00 | Mrs. E. B. Judson | 10 00 |
| Dr. Dio Lewis | 5 00 | S. J. May | 5 00 |
| Martha C. Wright | 5 00 | Joseph Savage | 5 00 |
| Eliza W. Osborn | 5 00 | H. Delano | 5 00 |
| E. V. Dickey | 6 00 | T. G. White | 3 00 |
| Edward M. Davis | 5 00 | Dr. H. S. Sparks | 2 00 |
| Matilda E. J. Gage | 5 00 | Mr. and Mrs. L. Spalding | 2 00 |
| E. D. Hudson | 5 00 | J. M. Wieting | 2 00 |
| [Pg 925]Mrs. W. H. Williams | 5 00 | Sarah Smith | 1 00 |
| Anna Willets | 5 00 | J. N. Holmes | 1 00 |
| Emily Jaques | 5 00 | M. Merrick | 1 00 |
| Sarah E. Wall | 5 00 | Charles D. B. Mills | 1 00 |
| James Freeman Clarke | 5 00 | A. P. Brown | 50 |
| Parker Pillsbury | 4 00 | Mrs. F. L. Brown | 50 |
| Mrs. S. M. Doty | 3 00 | E. C. Lewis | 1 00 |
| Mary Grew | 2 00 | Mrs. L. H. Hinsdale | 50 |
| Sarah Pugh | 2 00 | Mrs. B. Brook | 25 |
| Margaret J. Burleigh | 2 00 | C. A. Abbott | 25 |
| Geo. H. Sisson | 3 00 | Fayette Clark | 50 |
| E. G. Folsom | 2 00 | Priscilla Clark | 50 |
| Joseph Carpenter | 2 00 | Louisa J. Phelps | 1 00 |
| Susan Ormsby | 1 00 | Lydia P. Savage | 1 00 |
| Frances Ellen Burr | 1 00 | Mrs. Charles B. Sedgwick | 1 00 |
| J. D. Stephenson | 1 00 | Mary A. Horton | 25 |
| Paulina Gerry | 1 00 | J. T. Williams | 25 |
| J. H. Root | 1 00 | Mrs. G. G. Sperry | 50 |
| Mrs. Avery | 1 00 | A. D. Waters | 25 |
| Martha Pierce | 1 00 | S. Brewer | 50 |
| James Pierce | 1 00 | H. C. Todd | 25 |
| A Friend | 1 00 | C. G. Alton | 50 |
| Equal Rights | 1 00 | Mrs. L. A. Strowbridge | 3 00 |
| Mrs. C. S. Lozier, M.D. | 10 00 | Martha C. Wright | 5 00 |
| Mrs. E. Sanderson | 5 00 | Eliza W. Osborn | 5 00 |
| Isaac Sherwood | 5 00 | Mrs. Dr. Hall | 1 00 |
| Mrs. P. L. Upham | 5 00 | Abby Thayer Chase | 50 |
| John B. Bassett | 2 00 | Philadelphia E. R. Convention | 28 00 |
| H. T. Douley | 1 00 | Esther Cole | 1 00 |
| Sarah F. Rice, M.D. | 1 00 | L. Kelsey | 1 00 |
| Joseph Post | 1 00 | J. S. Northrup | 2 00 |
| Huldah S. Warrington | 1 00 | Mrs. A. Leaton | 1 00 |
| Mary Styles | 1 00 | Samuel Sutton | 50 |
| M. Parish | 25 | Caroline Thompson | 2 00 |
| Mrs. Field | 50 | Elizabeth M. Atwell | 2 00 |
| Martha Hudson | 1 00 | Jacob and Eliza Powell | 10 00 |
| Sarah E. Johonnet | 1 00 | Zenus Brackett | 10 00 |
| John Lancaster | 1 00 | Mrs. Judge Owen | 1 00 |
| Dr. and Mrs. A. L. Ward | 2 00 | Margaret Vanderpool | 75 |
| Frances E. Smith | 1 00 | James McEntee | 5 00 |
| Mrs. Whitley | 1 00 | H. M. Crane | 3 00 |
| Mrs. D. B. Hontz | 50 | James G. Lindsley | 1 00 |
| J. Sinclair | 50 | Walter B. Crane | 1 00 |
| Anna Rice Powell | 1 00 | Horatio Falks | 1 00 |
| Mrs. Mix, M.D. | 50 | J. E. Lasher | 1 00 |
| Alice Hall | 50 | Mrs. Vantassell | 1 00 |
| Ella Clymer | 1 00 | Jonathan Buffum | 10 00 |
| Linda Dietz | 1 00 | Luther Melendy | 5 00 |
| Mrs. Dietz | 50 | Anson Lapham | 40 00 |
| Dr. James Burson | 25 | Mary S. Moses | 3 00 |
| L. A. Van Cort | 25 | Mrs. Oliver Dennett | 10 00 |
| William Russel | 1 00 | Mr. Armstrong | 5 00 |
| Sarah B. Perry | 50 | Elisabeth J. Vail, M.D. | 1 00 |
| D. H. Hoffman | 50 | Matilda T. Saxton | 5 00 |
| P. A. Neale | 50 | Rosanna Thompson | 2 00 |
| Edward Kingsley | 2 00 | Helen Philleo | 1 00 |
| Fanny M. Callow | 2 00 | James Halleck | 1 10 |
| L. Jenny Kellogg | 1 00 | P. H. Boyce | 50 |
| Caroline H. Sherwood | 1 00 | Ellis Ellis | 1 00 |
| Delia A. Barker | 1 00 | Charlotte M. Schofield | 25 |
| Gustavus Muller | 3 00 | John Cadawalder | 10 |
| William L. Jaycox | 25 | David Perry | 25 |
| E. P. Bailey | 50 | Le Grand Marvin | 1 00 |
| M. Newth | 1 00 | J. Van Vleck | 1 00 |
| Cynthia DeLong | 5 00 | Cyrus P. Lee | 1 00 |
| John Castor | 25 | Aaron R. Vail | 2 00 |
| W. R. and M. H. Hallowell | 5 00 | E. Cumming | 31 |
| Mary B. F. Curtis | 5 00 | Mrs. J. Watson | 5 00 |
Receipts at the First Anniversary, May 9 and 10, 1867.
Receipts at the First Anniversary, May 9 and 10, 1867.
| Elizabeth B. Chace | $25 00 | Lydia Mott | 25 00 |
| Parker Pillsbury | 25 00 | Mrs. P. H. and M. Jones | 25 00 |
| Mrs. Luther Marsh | 20 00 | Susan B. Anthony | 50 00 |
| [Pg 926]Cora A. Syme | 10 00 | A. Noble, Sr. | 1 00 |
| Two Ladies, $5 each | 10 00 | C. B. Halsart | 1 00 |
| Frances D. Gage | 13 00 | E. Underhill | 1 00 |
| Samuel J. May | 10 00 | A. M. Powell | 1 00 |
| L. Francis | 10 00 | J. E. Snodgrass | 1 00 |
| Westchester E. R. Association (per | Mrs. Hibbard | 1 00 | |
| E. A. Studwell) | 15 00 | Nellie Lord | 1 00 |
| Jane Clegg | 15 00 | D. B. and A. Morey | 1 00 |
| Joseph and Mary Post | 10 00 | R. Salmon | 1 00 |
| Charlotte D. Lozier, M.D. | 5 00 | Adolphus O. Johnson | 1 00 |
| Elizabeth W. Brown | 5 00 | Levi K. Joslin | 1 00 |
| Oliver Johnson | 5 00 | Mary F. Davis | 1 00 |
| A. O. Willcox | 5 00 | Wm. P. Bolles | 1 00 |
| J. K. H. Wilcox | 5 00 | Cash | 1 00 |
| E. Cummings | 5 00 | E. Ostrander | 1 00 |
| Mary C. Sawyer | 5 00 | Esther Titus | 1 00 |
| J. C. Fergusson | 5 00 | L. B. Humphrey | 1 00 |
| Fred. H. Hernan | 5 00 | Martha Hudson | 1 00 |
| Harry H. Hall | 5 00 | Susan M. Davis | 1 00 |
| Charles P. Somerby | 5 00 | Sojourner Truth | 1 00 |
| Robert J. Johnston | 5 00 | T. M. Newbold | 1 00 |
| Mrs. S. M. Chickering | 5 00 | M. E. Woodson | 50 |
| J. Miller McKim | 5 00 | Mrs. M. Johnson | 50 |
| Sarah E. Wall | 3 00 | Ann Ellsworth Hunt | 50 |
| R. F. Hudson | 2 00 | L. Blake | 50 |
| Mrs. Gayno | 2 00 | J. L. Langworthy | 50 |
| Mrs. Dodge | 2 00 | T. B. Pierce | 50 |
| Mrs. L. Francis | 2 00 | Esther C. Pierce | 50 |
| Mrs. Elmer Stone | 2 00 | E. Campbell | 50 |
| Hannah W. Bell | 2 00 | M. H. McKinnon | 50 |
| S. S. Foster | 1 00 | Mrs. J. B. Mix, M.D. | 50 |
| Mrs. Brown | 5 00 | Samuel D. Moore | 25 |
| T. W. Higginson | 1 00 | M. P. Allen | 25 |
| S. D. White | 1 00 | R. Williams | 25 |
| Cash | 1 00 | P. E. Kipp | 25 |
Pledges.
Pledges.
| Anna E. Dickinson | $100 00 | Mrs. C. E. Collins | 5 00 |
| Margaret E. Winchester | 100 00 | Euphemia Cochrane | 5 00 |
| A. O. Wilcox | 55 00 | Melissa Johnson | 5 00 |
| C. and M. H. Prince | 25 00 | W. F. Douley | 2 00 |
| Gillis, Harney & Co. | 25 00 | Mrs. H. P. Baldwin | 1 00 |
| H. Hart | 20 00 | Dr. Chavau | 1 00 |
| D. B. and A. B. Morey | 20 00 | S. A. Turner | 1 00 |
| John Smith | 10 00 | Dio Lewis, M.D. | 50 00 |
| C. F. Wallace | 5 00 | R. C. Browning | 30 00 |
| C. E. Reason | 5 00 | George H. Taylor, M.D. | 5 00 |
SOJOURNER TRUTH ON THE PRESS.
To the Editor of the World:—We have had the pleasure of entertaining Mrs. Stowe's "Lybian Sybil" at our home for the last week, and can bear our testimony to the marvelous wisdom and goodness of this remarkable woman. She was a slave in this State for forty years, and has devoted forty years of freedom to the best interests of her race. Though eighty years of age, she is as active and clear-sighted as ever, and "understands the whole question of reconstruction, all its 'quagmires and pitfalls,' as she says, as well as any man does."
To the Editor of the World:—We’ve had the pleasure of hosting Mrs. Stowe's "Lybia Sybil" at our home for the past week, and we can attest to the incredible wisdom and kindness of this remarkable woman. She was a slave in this state for forty years and has spent her forty years of freedom working for the best interests of her people. Even at eighty years old, she is as active and clear-minded as ever, and she "understands the entire issue of reconstruction, all its 'quagmires and pitfalls,' as she puts it, just as well as any man."
The morning after the Equal Rights Convention, as the daily journals one by one made their appearance, turning to the youngsters of the household, she said: "Children, as there is no school to-day, will you read Sojourner the reports of the Convention? I want to see whether these young sprigs of the press do me justice. You know, children, I don't read such small stuff as letters, I read men and nations. I can see through a millstone, though I can't see through a spelling-book. What a narrow idea a reading qualification is for a voter! I know and do what is right better than many big men who read. And there's that property qualification! just as bad. As if men and women themselves, who made money, were not of more value than the thing they made. If I were a delegate to[Pg 927] the Constitutional Convention I could make suffrage as clear as daylight; but I am afraid these Republicans will 'purty, purty' about all manner of small things week out and week in, and never settle this foundation question after all." Sojourner then gathered up her bag and shawl, and walked into the parlor in a stately manner, and there, surrounded by the children, the papers were duly read and considered. The Express, the Post, the Commercial Advertiser, the World, the Times, the Herald, the Tribune, and the Sun, all passed in review. The World seemed to please Sojourner more than any other journal. She said she liked the wit of the World's reporter; all the little texts running through the speeches, such as "Sojourner on Popping Up," "No Grumbling," "Digging Stumps," "Biz," to show what is coming, so that one can get ready to cry or laugh, as the case may be—a kind of sign-board, a milestone, to tell where we are going, and how fast we go. The readers then call her attention to the solid columns of the other papers, and the versification of the World. She said she did not like the dead calm. She liked the breaking up into verses, like her songs. That is a good thing; it gives the reporter time to take breath and sharpen his pen, and think of some witty thing to say; for life is a hard battle anyway, and if we can laugh and sing a little as we fight the good fight of freedom, it makes it all go easier. "But, children, why did you not send for some of those wicked Democratic papers that abuse all good people and good things." "They are all here," said the readers in chorus. "We have read you all the Republicans and the Democrats say." "Why, children, I can't tell one from the other. The millennium must be here, when one can't tell saints from sinners, Republicans from Democrats. Is the World Horace Greeley's paper?" "Oh, no; the World is Democratic!" "Democratic! Why, children, the World does move! But there is one thing I don't exactly see; if the Democrats are all ready to give equal rights to all, what are the Republicans making such a fuss about? Mr. Greeley was ready for this twenty years ago; if he had gone on as fast as the Democrats he should have been on the platform, at the conventions, making speeches, and writing resolutions, long ago." "Oh," said some one of larger growth, "Mr. Greeley is busy with tariffs and protective duties. What do you think, Sojourner, of free trade? Do you not think if England and France have more dry-goods than they want that they had better send them to us, and we in turn send them our fruits and flowers and grains; our timber, iron, fish, and ice?" "Yes, I go for everything free. Let nature, like individuals, make the most of what God has given them, have their neighbors to do the same, and then do all they can to serve each other. There is no use in one man, or one nation, to try to do or be everything. It is a good thing to be dependent on each other for something, it makes us civil and peaceable. But," said Sojourner, "where is Theodore Tilton's paper?" "Oh, the Independent is a weekly, it came out before the Convention." "But Theodore is not a weekly; why did he not come to the Convention and tell us what he thought?" "Well, here is his last paper, with a grand editorial," and Sojourner listened to the end with interest. "That's good," said she, "but he don't say woman." "Oh, he is talking about sectarianism, not suffrage; the Church, not the State." "No matter, the Church wrongs woman as much as the State. 'Wives, obey your husbands,' is as bad as the common law. 'The husband and wife are one, and that one the husband.' I am afraid Theodore and Horace are playing bo-peep with their shadows. Did you tell me that Mr. Greeley is a delegate to the Constitutional Convention?" Yes, and I hope that he will soon wake up to the fact that the Democrats are going ahead of him, and instead of writing articles on 'Democracy run mad,' on tariffs and mining interests, it behooves him to be studying what genuine republicanism is, and whether we are to realize it in the Empire State this very year or not. "Speaking of shadows," said Sojourner, "I wish the World to know that when I go among fashionable people in the Church of the Puritans, I do not carry 'rations' in my bag; I keep my shadow there. I have good friends enough to give me clothes and rations. I stand on principle, always in one place, so everybody knows where to find Sojourner, and I don't want my shadow even to be dogging about here and there and everywhere, so I keep it in this bag." "I think," said one of the group, "the press should hereafter speak of you as Mrs. Stowe's Lybian Sybil, and not as 'old church woman.'" "Oh, child, that's good enough. The Herald used to call me 'old black nigger,' so this sounds respectable. Have you read the Herald too, children? Is that[Pg 928] born again? Well, we are all walking the right way together. I'll tell you what I'm thinking. My speeches in the Convention read well. I should like to have the substance put together, improved a little, and published in tract form, headed 'Sojourner Truth on Suffrage;' for if these timid men, like Greeley, knew that Sojourner was out for 'universal suffrage,' they would not be so afraid to handle the question. Yes, children, I am going to rouse the people on equality. I must sojourn once to the ballot-box before I die. I hear the ballot-box is a beautiful glass globe, so you can see all the votes as they go in. Now, the first time I vote I'll see if a woman's vote looks any different from the rest—if it makes any stir or commotion. If it don't inside, it need not outside. That good speech of Henry Ward Beecher's made my heart leap for joy; he just hit the nail right on the head when he said you never lost anything by asking everything; if you bait the suffrage-hook with a woman you will certainly catch a black man. There is a great deal in that philosophy, children. Now I must go and take a smoke!" I tell you in confidence, Mr. Editor, Sojourner smokes!
The morning after the Equal Rights Convention, as the daily papers arrived one by one, she turned to the kids in the house and said: "Kids, since there's no school today, will you read the Convention reports to Sojourner? I want to see if these young journalists are being fair to me. You know, kids, I don't read trivial things like letters; I read people and nations. I can see through a situation, even if I can't see through a textbook. What a narrow concept a reading qualification is for a voter! I know what's right better than many well-educated men. And that property qualification? Just as bad. As if the people who made money aren't worth more than the things they created. If I were a delegate to[Pg 927] the Constitutional Convention, I could make suffrage as clear as day; but I'm afraid these Republicans will fuss over insignificant details week in and week out and never sort out this fundamental issue." Sojourner then picked up her bag and shawl and walked into the parlor confidently, and there, surrounded by the kids, the papers were properly read and discussed. The Express, the Post, the Commercial Advertiser, the World, the Times, the Herald, the Tribune, and the Sun, all went through them. The World seemed to please Sojourner the most. She mentioned enjoying the humor of the World's reporter; all the little titles throughout the speeches, like "Sojourner on Popping Up," "No Grumbling," "Digging Stumps," "Biz," indicating what’s coming, so you can get ready to cheer or laugh, as needed—a kind of signpost, a milestone to show where we’re headed and how fast we’re going. Then the kids pointed out the solid columns in the other papers and the poetry of the World. She said she didn't like the dull uniformity. She preferred the verses, like her songs. It’s a good thing; it gives the reporter time to catch their breath and think of something clever to say; because life is a tough battle, and if we can laugh and sing a bit while fighting for freedom, it makes things easier. "But, kids, why didn’t you bring some of those awful Democratic papers that criticize all good people and things?" "They're all here," the kids answered in unison. "We've read everything the Republicans and Democrats say." "Well, kids, I can't tell one from the other. The millennium must be here when you can't tell saints from sinners, Republicans from Democrats. Is the World Horace Greeley’s paper?" "Oh, no; the World is Democratic!" "Democratic! Well, kids, the World is really changing! But there's one thing I don’t quite understand; if the Democrats are all set to give equal rights to everyone, what are the Republicans making such a fuss about? Mr. Greeley was ready for this twenty years ago; if he had kept up with the Democrats, he should have been up on the platform, at the conventions, making speeches and writing resolutions long ago." "Oh," said someone older, "Mr. Greeley is busy with tariffs and protective duties. What do you think, Sojourner, about free trade? Don't you think if England and France have more dry goods than they need, they should send them to us, and in return, we can send them our fruits, flowers, and grains; our timber, iron, fish, and ice?" "Yes, I'm all for everything being free. Let nature and individuals make the most of what God has given them, have their neighbors do the same, and then help each other. There's no point in one person, or nation, trying to do everything alone. It's good to rely on each other for something; it keeps us civil and peaceful. But," said Sojourner, "where's Theodore Tilton's paper?" "Oh, the Independent is a weekly; it came out before the Convention." "But Theodore isn’t a weekly; why didn’t he come to the Convention and share what he thinks?" "Well, here’s his latest paper, with a great editorial," and Sojourner listened intently to the end. "That's good," she said, "but he doesn't mention women." "Oh, he's discussing sectarianism, not suffrage; the Church, not the State." "It doesn't matter; the Church wrongs women just as much as the State does. 'Wives, obey your husbands,' is just as bad as common law. 'Husband and wife are one, and that one is the husband.' I'm afraid Theodore and Horace are playing hide-and-seek with their own shadows. Did you tell me that Mr. Greeley is a delegate to the Constitutional Convention?" Yes, and I hope he soon realizes that the Democrats are moving ahead of him, and instead of writing articles on 'Democracy run mad,' on tariffs and mining interests, he should be figuring out what true republicanism means and whether we can achieve it in the Empire State this very year. "Speaking of shadows," said Sojourner, "I want the World to know that when I visit fashionable people in the Puritan Church, I do not carry 'rations' in my bag; I keep my shadow there. I have enough good friends who provide me with clothes and food. I stand on principle, always in one spot, so everyone knows where to find Sojourner, and I don't want my shadow trailing around everywhere, so I keep it in this bag." "I think," said one of the group, "the press should now refer to you as Mrs. Stowe's Lybian Sybil, not as 'old church woman.'" "Oh, child, that's good enough. The Herald used to call me 'old black nigger,' so this sounds respectable. Have you read the Herald too, kids? Is that[Pg 928] born again? Well, we're all walking in the right direction together. I'll tell you what I'm thinking. My speeches at the Convention sound good. I’d like to have the content compiled, polished a bit, and published in pamphlet form, titled 'Sojourner Truth on Suffrage;' because if these timid men, like Greeley, knew that Sojourner was fighting for 'universal suffrage,' they wouldn't be so hesitant to tackle the issue. Yes, kids, I'm going to awaken people to the idea of equality. I must cast a vote at the ballot box before I die. I hear the ballot box is a beautiful glass globe, so you can see all the votes as they go in. Now, when I vote for the first time, I’ll check to see if a woman's vote looks any different from the others—if it creates any stir or excitement. If it doesn't inside, it shouldn’t outside. That great speech by Henry Ward Beecher made my heart leap with joy; he nailed it when he said you never lose anything by asking for everything; if you bait the suffrage hook with a woman, you'll definitely catch a black man. There’s a lot in that philosophy, kids. Now I must go take a smoke!" I’ll tell you in confidence, Mr. Editor, Sojourner smokes!
E. C. S.
E. C. S.
Yours respectfully,
Yours respectfully,
P. S.—She says she has been sent into the smoking-car so often she smoked in self-defense—she would rather swallow her own smoke than another's.
P. S.—She says she’s been put in the smoking car so many times that she started smoking just to defend herself—she'd rather inhale her own smoke than someone else's.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE KANSAS CAMPAIGN, 1867.
IMPARTIAL SUFFRAGE IN KANSAS—A VIGOROUS CANVASS ANTICIPATED.
IMPARTIAL SUFFRAGE IN KANSAS—A STRONG CAMPAIGN EXPECTED.
St. Louis, April 3.
St. Louis, April 3.
The Democrat's Topeka, Kansas, special says: "A large convention of those in favor of impartial suffrage is in session in this city. Lucy Stone and Dr. Blackwell, and delegates from different parts of the State are in attendance.
The Democrat's Topeka, Kansas, special says: "A large convention of people supporting equal voting rights is happening in this city. Lucy Stone, Dr. Blackwell, and delegates from various parts of the State are present.
"An association has been formed for the purpose of canvassing the State thoroughly and distributing documents. The object is to carry the female suffrage clause as well as the negro. The officers of the association are Gov. Crawford, for President; Lieut. Gov. Green, for Vice-President; Judge S. N. Wood, for Corresponding Secretary; and an Executive Committee of fourteen, including such men as Chas. Robinson, J. P. Root, J. B. Abbot, Col. Moonlight, all the members of the Supreme Court, and other leading men of the State. Arrangements are made to have the most prominent advocates of impartial suffrage from the East to stump the State. Money will be raised to conduct the fall campaign, which will probably be the most vigorously conducted of any which has yet taken place."
"An organization has been created to thoroughly canvass the state and distribute information. The goal is to pass both the women's suffrage clause and the African American suffrage clause. The leaders of the organization are Governor Crawford as President; Lieutenant Governor Green as Vice-President; Judge S. N. Wood as Corresponding Secretary; and an Executive Committee of fourteen, including notable figures like Chas. Robinson, J. P. Root, J. B. Abbot, Col. Moonlight, all members of the Supreme Court, and other prominent individuals in the state. Plans are in place to bring in the leading advocates for equal suffrage from the East to campaign throughout the state. Funds will be raised to support the fall campaign, which is expected to be the most vigorously conducted one yet."
The State Record, Kansas, says: "The opponents of woman suffrage use the argument very freely that its advocates are not in favor of negro suffrage. This is wickedly and wilfully false. The most earnest and influential supporters of woman suffrage in the State are equally anxious to give the negro his rights, and Republicans, generally, will vote for both propositions. We hope none will be deceived by these false charges made by those who write and speak in the interest of saloons, and who to turn expect to be elevated to office through their agency. The most bitter and relentless and united efforts now making against woman suffrage, are by those who are devoting their lives to degrading men and women too, and we are sorry to see a few respectable men keeping them company, under the foolish impression that the movement originated and is carried on by those who aim to defeat negro suffrage. We earnestly hope the day is near at hand when all men and women everywhere will be allowed to exercise their political rights."
The State Record, Kansas, states: "Those against woman suffrage often claim that its supporters do not support black suffrage. This is maliciously and deliberately false. The most dedicated and influential advocates for woman suffrage in the state also strongly support granting rights to black people, and Republicans, in general, will vote for both measures. We hope no one is misled by these false accusations made by individuals who write and speak on behalf of saloons, hoping to gain office through their influence. The most fierce, relentless, and united efforts currently against woman suffrage come from those who are dedicated to degrading both men and women. We’re also disappointed to see a few respectable men siding with them, mistakenly believing that this movement began and is driven by those who want to undermine black suffrage. We sincerely hope the day is coming soon when everyone, regardless of gender, can exercise their political rights."
Extract from a letter written by Mrs. S. N. Wood for the Lawrence Tribune, May, 1867: "The women of Cottonwood Falls have passed through this horrid furnace of an election,[Pg 929] and come out unscathed. Our laws require that a majority of all the legal voters in the district must vote to issue bonds to build a school-house, before bonds can be issued. As women were legal voters, to stay at home was to vote against bonds. The election had to be conducted exactly as other elections. It was a busy time; none of our men liked to leave their work to spend the day at the polls, so three women were chosen and qualified to act as judges. No guardians of the ballot-box ever acted with more ability or behaved with more propriety and dignity than they. There was not the least rudeness among the men; no brawling or swearing. Not a woman there lost a particle of refinement, or became a grain coarser, or neglected her family. Not one of the misguided women whose bad influences Mr. Reynolds, of the Journal, so much dreads, came to the polls. That kind of women, I judge, are literally opposed to women demoralizing themselves by voting. But if such lived in our district, and had offered to vote, I trust their votes would have been received and counted just the same as the votes of the men who support and encourage them in their wicked career. I never knew what men meant when talking about bonds, until I learned that I must vote on the subject. I wanted to vote intelligently; sought the requisite information; and I went to the polls feeling stronger and safer for that little knowledge gained. When I came home my little ones hailed me as lovingly as ever, and the same mother-love guided my hands for their comfort.
Extract from a letter written by Mrs. S. N. Wood for the Lawrence Tribune, May, 1867: "The women of Cottonwood Falls went through this terrible election,[Pg 929] and came out just fine. Our laws state that for bonds to be issued to build a schoolhouse, a majority of all legal voters in the district must vote. Since women were legal voters, staying home meant voting against the bonds. The election had to be run just like any other election. It was a hectic time; none of the men wanted to leave their work to spend the day at the polls, so three women were selected and trained to serve as judges. No one managed the ballot box with more skill or conducted themselves with more dignity and respect than they did. There was no rudeness among the men; no fighting or swearing. Not a single woman lost any grace or became less refined, nor did they neglect their families. Not one of the misguided women that Mr. Reynolds from the Journal worries about showed up at the polls. I believe those kinds of women are completely against the idea of women degrading themselves by voting. But if such women lived in our district and had chosen to vote, I trust their votes would have been accepted and counted just like the votes of the men who support and encourage their poor choices. I never really understood what men meant when they talked about bonds until I realized I had to vote on it. I wanted to cast an informed vote; I looked for the necessary information, and I went to the polls feeling empowered and secure from that little bit of knowledge I gained. When I got home, my little ones welcomed me with the same love as always, and that same motherly love guided my hands for their comfort."
"In 1858, a 'woman's rights' man, in Kansas, believing that there should be a perfect equality as to property rights between men and women, wrote to Gerrit Smith, Wm. Goodell, Lucy Stone, and other advocates of woman's rights, asking them to send him a form of a law that would secure that object. Among others he received the framework of a law written by Lucy Stone. He wrote it over according to her pattern, and Lyman Allen introduced it into the Legislature. It became a law in February, 1859. The original in Lucy Stone's handwriting is yet in existence. The law is virtually the one that, to-day, on our statute book testifies to the honest sense of justice that their conflict with tyranny nurtured in our men in the early days of Kansas. It testifies to Lucy Stone's zeal in behalf of her sex."
"In 1858, a proponent of 'women's rights' in Kansas, who believed in equal property rights for men and women, wrote to Gerrit Smith, Wm. Goodell, Lucy Stone, and other advocates, asking them to send him a law template to support this cause. Among the responses, he received a draft from Lucy Stone. He adapted it based on her outline, and Lyman Allen introduced it to the Legislature. It became law in February 1859. The original document in Lucy Stone's handwriting still exists today. This law is essentially the one that remains on our statute books, reflecting the commitment to justice that emerged from the struggle against tyranny during the early days of Kansas. It demonstrates Lucy Stone's dedication to her cause."
The following address to the Southern people was largely circulated in Kansas during the spring campaign, by Mr. Blackwell.
The following address to the Southern people was widely shared in Kansas during the spring campaign by Mr. Blackwell.
WHAT THE SOUTH CAN DO.
How the Southern States can make themselves Masters of the Situation.
How the Southern States can take control of the situation.
To the Legislatures of the Southern States:—I write to you as the intellectual leaders of the Southern people—men who should be able and willing to transcend the prejudices of section—to suggest the only ground of settlement between North and South which, in my judgment, can be successfully adopted.
To the Legislatures of the Southern States:—I'm reaching out to you as the intellectual leaders of the Southern people—individuals who should be capable and open-minded enough to move beyond regional biases—to propose the only basis for resolution between the North and South that, in my opinion, can be effectively pursued.
Let me state the political situation. The radical principles of the North are immovably fixed upon negro suffrage as a condition of Southern State reconstruction. The proposed Constitutional Amendment is not regarded as a finality. It satisfies nobody, not even its authors. In the minds of the Northern people the negroes are now associated with the idea of loyalty to the Union. They are considered citizens. They are respected as "our allies." It is believed in the North that a majority of the white people of the South are at heart the enemies of the Union. The advocates of negro suffrage daily grow stronger and more numerous.
Let me explain the political situation. The radical ideas from the North are firmly focused on Black voting rights as a requirement for rebuilding the Southern States. The suggested Constitutional Amendment isn’t seen as a final solution. It doesn’t satisfy anyone, not even those who created it. In the views of people in the North, Black individuals are now linked to loyalty to the Union. They are seen as citizens. They are respected as "our allies." People in the North believe that most white Southerners are, deep down, against the Union. The supporters of Black voting rights are becoming stronger and more numerous every day.
On the other hand, a majority of the Southern white population are inflexibly opposed to negro suffrage in any form, universal or qualified, and are prepared to resist its introduction by every means in their power. In alliance with the President and the Northern Democracy, they protest against any and all terms of reconstruction, demand unconditional readmission, and await in gloomy silence the Republican initiative.
On the other hand, most of the Southern white population are strongly against Black suffrage in any form, whether universal or restricted, and are ready to fight against its implementation by any means necessary. Together with the President and the Northern Democrats, they oppose any and all conditions of reconstruction, demand unconditional readmission, and wait in unhappy silence for the Republicans to take the lead.
This absolute and growing antagonism can only end, if continued, in one of two results, either in a renewal of civil war, or in a concession by the South of political equality to the negro. But in case of war, the South can not possibly succeed. The North is to-day far stronger in men and money, in farms and factories, than she was in 1860. She is now trained to war, conscious of overwhelming strength, flushed with victory, and respected, as never before, by the nations of Europe. Moreover, she is much more united in political sentiment. Do not again deceive yourselves. If you should resort to arms, the[Pg 930] North would be practically unanimous. The President would instantly be impeached and a radical successor appointed. The South has lost social unity with the loss of slavery. She can not fight better than before. And the braver her action, the more terrible would be her fate.
This ongoing and escalating conflict can only lead to one of two outcomes: either a resurgence of civil war or the South granting political equality to Black people. However, if war breaks out, the South cannot possibly win. The North is far stronger today in terms of people, resources, farms, and factories than it was in 1860. It is now trained for war, aware of its overwhelming strength, energized by past victories, and more respected by European nations than ever before. Additionally, the North is much more united in political views. Don’t fool yourselves again. If you resort to violence, the[Pg 930] North would be almost entirely united. The President would be quickly impeached, and a radical replacement would be put in place. The South has lost its social cohesion with the end of slavery. It cannot fight any better than it did before. The more daring the South’s actions, the more devastating the consequences would be.
Gentlemen, these are facts—not theories. Wise men try to see things as they are, uncolored by opinion or preference. The interest of both North and South, since they must live together, is peace, harmony, and real fraternity. No adjustment can fully succeed unless it is acceptable to both sections. Therefore the statesman and patriot must find a common ground as a basis of permanent reconciliation.
Gentlemen, these are facts—not theories. Wise people try to see things as they are, free from bias or personal preference. The interests of both the North and the South, since they have to coexist, are peace, harmony, and genuine brotherhood. No solution can fully succeed unless it is acceptable to both sides. Therefore, the statesman and patriot must find common ground as a foundation for lasting reconciliation.
Now the radicalism of the North is actual, organic, and progressive. Recognize the fact. But if "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed"—if "taxation without representation is tyranny"—and "on these two commandments hang all the (Republican) law and the prophets"—then these propositions are as applicable to women as to negroes. "Consistency is a jewel." The principle is so broad that, if you accept it in its entirety, you can afford to lead—not follow.
Now the radicalism of the North is real, genuine, and forward-thinking. Acknowledge this truth. But if "governments get their rightful powers from the consent of the governed"—if "taxation without representation is tyranny"—and "on these two principles hang all the (Republican) laws and teachings"—then these ideas apply to women just as much as they do to Black people. "Consistency is key." The principle is so expansive that if you embrace it fully, you can afford to lead instead of follow.
The population of the late slave States is about 12,000,000; 8,000,000 white, 4,000,000 black. The radicals demand suffrage for the black men on the ground named above. Very good. Say to them, as Mr. Cowan said to the advocates of negro male suffrage in the District, "Apply your principle! Give suffrage to all men and women of mature age and sound mind, and we will accept it as the basis of State and National reconstruction."
The population of the former slave states is about 12,000,000; 8,000,000 white and 4,000,000 black. The radicals are calling for voting rights for black men based on the reasons mentioned. That's fine. Tell them, as Mr. Cowan did to those supporting black male suffrage in the District, "Put your principle into action! Grant voting rights to all men and women of age and sound mind, and we will accept that as the foundation for state and national reconstruction."
Consider the result from the Southern standpoint. Your 4,000,000 of Southern white women will counterbalance your 4,000,000 of negro men and women, and thus the political supremacy of your white race will remain unchanged.
Consider the outcome from the Southern perspective. Your 4,000,000 Southern white women will balance out your 4,000,000 Black men and women, and as a result, the political dominance of your white race will stay the same.
Think well of this. It is a calculation of the relative political influences of white women and of negroes which perhaps your people have not yet considered. Let us make the statement in figures. Estimating one male voter to every five persons, your present vote is:
Think about this. It's a calculation of the political influence of white women and Black people that your community might not have thought about yet. Let's break it down with some numbers. Assuming one male voter for every five people, your current vote is:
| White males | 1,600,000 |
| Add white females | 1,600,000 |
| Total white voters | 3,200,000 |
| Negro males | 800,000 |
| Negro females | 800,000 |
| Total negro voters | 1,600,000 |
Suppose all the negroes vote one way and all the whites the other, your white majority would be 1,600,000—equal to your present total vote. Thus you would control your own State legislation. Meanwhile, your influence in the councils of the nation will be greater than ever before, because your emancipated slaves will be counted in the basis of representation, instead of as formerly, in the ratio of five for three. In the light of the history of your Confederacy, can any Southerner fear to trust the women of the South with the ballot?
Suppose all the Black voters vote one way and all the white voters the other, your white majority would be 1,600,000—equal to your current total vote. This way, you would control your state's legislation. Meanwhile, your influence in national politics will be greater than ever, because your freed slaves will be counted for representation, instead of the previous formula of five for three. Given the history of your Confederacy, can any Southerner really be afraid to trust Southern women with the right to vote?
But the propriety of your making the proposal lies deeper than any consideration of sectional expediency. If you must try the Republican experiment, try it fully and fairly. Since you are compelled to union with the North, remove every seed of future controversy. If you are to share the future government of your States with a race you deem naturally and hopelessly inferior, avert the social chaos, which seems to you so imminent, by utilizing the intelligence and patriotism of the wives and daughters of the South. Plant yourselves upon the logical Northern principle. Then no new demands can ever be made upon you. No future inroads of fanaticism can renew sectional discord.
But the appropriateness of your proposal goes beyond any consideration of regional convenience. If you’re going to try the Republican approach, do it completely and honestly. Since you have to join forces with the North, eliminate any chance of future conflict. If you’re going to share the future governance of your states with a group you consider naturally and hopelessly inferior, prevent the social chaos you find so likely by making use of the intelligence and patriotism of the wives and daughters of the South. Stand firmly on the logical principle of the North. This way, no new demands can ever be placed on you. No future waves of extremism can reignite regional discord.
The effect upon the North would be to revolutionize political parties. "Justice satisfies everybody." The negro, thus protected against oppression by possessing the ballot, would cease to be the prominent object of philanthropic interest. Northern distrust, disarmed by Southern magnanimity, would give place to the liveliest sentiments of confidence and regard. The great political desideratum would be attained. The negro question would be forever removed from the political arena. National parties would again crystallize upon legitimate questions of National interest—questions of tariff, finance, and foreign relations. The disastrous conflict between Federal and State jurisdiction would[Pg 931] cease. North and South, no longer hammer and anvil, would forget and forgive the past. School-houses and churches would be our fortifications and intrenchments. Capital and population would flow, like the Mississippi, toward the Gulf. The black race would gravitate by the law of nature toward the tropics. The memory and spirit of Washington would be cherished; and every deed of genuine gallantry and humanity would be treasured as the common glory of the republic.
The impact on the North would completely change political parties. "Justice satisfies everyone." The Black community, protected from oppression by having the vote, would no longer be the main focus of philanthropic efforts. Northern skepticism, softened by Southern generosity, would turn into strong feelings of trust and respect. The major political goal would be achieved. The issue of race would be permanently taken off the political stage. National parties would form again around real issues of national interest—issues like tariffs, finance, and foreign relations. The destructive conflict between federal and state authority would[Pg 931] come to an end. North and South, no longer in constant conflict, would move on from the past. Schools and churches would become our strongholds. People and capital would flow, like the Mississippi River, toward the Gulf. The Black population would naturally move toward warmer climates. The legacy and spirit of Washington would be honored, and every act of true bravery and compassion would be celebrated as a shared pride of the nation.
Do you say that Northern Republicans would not accept such a proposition? They can not avoid it. The matter is in your own hands.
Do you think that Northern Republicans would reject such a proposal? They can't avoid it. The decision is in your hands.
In New Jersey (then a slave State) from 1776 to 1807, a period of thirty-one years, women and negroes voted on precisely the same footing as white men. No catastrophe, social or political, ensued. The following is an extract from the New Jersey election law of 1797:
In New Jersey (which was a slave state) from 1776 to 1807, a span of thirty-one years, women and Black people voted on exactly the same level as white men. There was no disaster, social or political, that followed. The following is an excerpt from the New Jersey election law of 1797:
"Sec. 9. Every voter shall openly and in full view deliver his or her ballot, which shall be a single written ticket containing the names of the person, or persons, for whom he or she votes," etc.
"Sec. 9. Every voter must openly and visibly submit their ballot, which will be a single written ticket listing the names of the person or people for whom they are voting," etc.
Your Southern Legislatures can extend suffrage on equal terms to "all inhabitants," as the New Jersey State Convention did in 1776. Then let the Republicans in Congress refuse to admit your Senators and Representatives, if they dare. If so, they will go under. Upon that issue fairly made up, the men of positive convictions would rally round the new and consistent Democratic party. The very element which has destroyed slavery would side with the victorious South, and "out of the nettle danger you would pluck the flower safety."
Your Southern Legislatures can grant the right to vote on equal terms to "all inhabitants," just like the New Jersey State Convention did in 1776. Then let the Republicans in Congress refuse to accept your Senators and Representatives if they're bold enough. If they do, they'll face the consequences. With that issue clearly defined, people with strong convictions would unite around the new and consistent Democratic party. The very forces that ended slavery would stand with the victorious South, and "out of the nettle danger you would pluck the flower safety."
Henry B. Blackwell.
Henry B. Blackwell.
Respectfully yours,
Respectfully yours,
New York, January 15, 1867.
New York, January 15, 1867.
SUPPRESSED PROCEEDINGS.
The Republican State Central Committee met last week in Leavenworth. The Leavenworth papers published or pretended to publish the proceedings of the Committee, but suppressed an important portion. Fortunately, Mr. Taylor, the honest and able editor of the Wyandotte Gazette, is a member of the Committee, and was present at the meeting. From his paper we get the following that was for some cause or other suppressed:
The Republican State Central Committee met last week in Leavenworth. The Leavenworth newspapers published or claimed to publish the Committee's proceedings, but left out a crucial part. Luckily, Mr. Taylor, the honest and capable editor of the Wyandotte Gazette, is a member of the Committee and was there at the meeting. From his paper, we get the following information that was for some reason left out:
"Mr. Taylor offered the following resolution:
Mr. Taylor proposed the following resolution:
"Resolved, That the Republican State Central Committee do not indorse, but distinctly repudiate, as speakers, in behalf and under the auspices of the Republican party, such persons as have defamed, or do hereafter defame, in their public addresses, the women of Kansas, or those ladies who have been urging upon the people of Kansas the propriety of enfranchising the women of the State.
"Resolved, That the Republican State Central Committee does not endorse, but clearly rejects, as speakers, on behalf of and under the auspices of the Republican party, anyone who has defamed, or will hereafter defame, in their public speeches, the women of Kansas, or those ladies who have been advocating for the enfranchisement of the women of the State."
"Whiting moved to lay the resolution on the table.
"Whiting proposed to put the resolution on the table."
"Ayes—Whiting, Eskridge—2.
"Ayes—Whiting, Eskridge—2.
"Noes—Taylor—1.
"Noes—Taylor—1.
"Taylor moved to strike the name of I. S. Kalloch from the list of speakers in the Republican State Canvass.
Taylor moved to remove the name of I. S. Kalloch from the list of speakers at the Republican State Canvass.
"Ayes—Taylor—1.
"Ayes—Taylor—1.
"Noes—Whiting, Eskridge—2.
"Noes—Whiting, Eskridge—2.
PROTEST OF MR. TAYLOR.
"The undersigned, a member of the Republican State Central Committee of Kansas, protests against the action of the Committee this day had so far as relates to the placing of the names of I. S. Kalloch, C. V. Eskridge, and P. B. Plumb, on the list of speakers to canvass the State in behalf of Republican principles, for the reason that they have within the last few weeks, in public addresses, published articles, used ungentlemanly, indecent, and infamously defamatory language, when alluding to a large and respectable portion of the women of Kansas, or to women now engaged in canvassing the State in favor of impartial suffrage.
"The undersigned, a member of the Republican State Central Committee of Kansas, protests against the Committee's actions today regarding the inclusion of I. S. Kalloch, C. V. Eskridge, and P. B. Plumb on the list of speakers to promote Republican principles across the State. This is due to their recent public addresses and published articles where they used disrespectful, inappropriate, and outrageously defamatory language when referring to a significant and respectable segment of the women of Kansas, including those currently campaigning for impartial suffrage."
"R. B. Taylor.
"R. B. Taylor.
"Leavenworth, Sept. 18, 1867.
"Leavenworth, Sept. 18, 1867.
Address by the Women's Impartial Suffrage Association of Lawrence, Kansas.
Speech by the Women's Impartial Suffrage Association of Lawrence, Kansas.
To the Women of Kansas:—At the coming election on the 5th of November, questions of the greatest importance to every citizen of Kansas, whether man or woman, will be presented for the action of the people. Shall the right of suffrage be extended to negroes? Shall the right of suffrage be extended to women?
To the Women of Kansas:—In the upcoming election on November 5th, issues of vital importance to every citizen of Kansas, whether male or female, will be up for discussion. Should the right to vote be granted to Black people? Should the right to vote be granted to women?
The question of the enfranchisement of the negro now mainly occupies the attention of the Republican party. Upon the same principle, viz: that of equal rights and equal justice to all, we ask the ballot for woman, and expect to obtain it.
The issue of granting voting rights to Black people is now the main focus of the Republican party. Following the same principle, which is equal rights and equal justice for everyone, we are asking for the vote for women and expect to achieve it.
One great obstacle that the advocates of female suffrage have to contend with is the declaration on the part of many good and intelligent women that they do not want to vote. They say they are contented with their present condition; they have all the rights they want, and do not need the ballot; and they will take no interest in the matter, except to deprecate its agitation by women. Women of Kansas, let us reason together for a little concerning this matter.
One big challenge that supporters of women's voting rights face is that many smart and capable women claim they don’t want the right to vote. They say they’re satisfied with how things are, believe they have all the rights they need, and don’t care about the voting issue except to discourage other women from pushing for it. Women of Kansas, let’s discuss this issue together for a moment.
Honored wives and mothers, dwelling at ease in the comfortable homes your husbands provide for you, declare you do not want to vote, and would consider it almost a reflection on your husbands to desire such a thing, do you consider yourselves capable of forming a correct judgment in reference to any matter of public interest? You read the newspapers and are familiar with the literature of the day, and pride yourselves upon your general information and intelligence; can you then form a judgment as to the justness of any law, or the character of any candidate for office? Were any one to assert that you were not capable of this, you would resent it as an insult.
Honored wives and mothers, living comfortably in the homes your husbands provide, you say you don’t want to vote and would see it as a slight on your husbands to even want such a thing. Do you really think you’re capable of making a good judgment about any public issue? You read the newspapers and keep up with today’s literature, taking pride in your knowledge and smarts. Can you really judge whether a law is fair or what a candidate for office is like? If someone said you weren’t capable of this, you would take it as an insult.
But, say you, we feel no interest in public measures, laws, candidates, etc.; our sphere, cares, and duties are at home. So thought thousands of American women five years ago; but war, as the result of public measures, laws and candidates, called from the hearthstones and hearts of these same women, husbands, brothers, sons, and slew them on the field of battle—in crowded hospitals—in rebel prisons. Think you the women of America then had no interest in public measures? Can it be that any woman who has given one of her household to save our country will declare that she takes no interest in the government and affairs of that country? Consider a moment whether you have any interest in matters more immediately pressing upon our attention. Is it of any importance to you whether the dram-shops be closed or not? Perhaps your husbands are safe—above suspicion or fear of temptation; but those little sons playing around your knee, that young brother who is about to leave the paternal roof, when the hour comes that they shall go forth into the world, is it of any concern to you whether temptation meet them at every corner? Said a rumseller who is bitterly opposed to female suffrage, "What more do you want? a man can not now get license to sell liquor without the names of a majority of all the women of the ward upon his petition." Very true, but mark this, unless the women of Kansas obtain the ballot, that law will soon be blotted from the statute book.
But, you say, we’re not interested in public policies, laws, candidates, etc.; our responsibilities and concerns are at home. So thought thousands of American women five years ago; but war, as a consequence of public policies, laws, and candidates, called husbands, brothers, and sons from the safety of their homes and then killed them on the battlefield—in crowded hospitals—in rebel prisons. Do you really think the women of America had no interest in public policies then? Can any woman who has sacrificed a member of her family to save our country truly claim that she has no interest in the government and affairs of that country? Take a moment to consider whether you have any interest in issues that are more immediately impacting us. Does it matter to you whether bars are open or closed? Maybe your husbands are safe—without worry or fear of temptation; but those little sons playing at your feet, that young brother who is about to leave home—when the time comes for them to enter the world, shouldn’t you care whether temptation awaits them at every turn? A liquor seller who is strongly against women voting said, “What more do you want? A man can’t even get a license to sell liquor without the signatures of a majority of the women in the ward on his petition.” That’s true, but remember this: unless the women of Kansas gain the right to vote, that law will soon be erased from the books.
Again: the women of Kansas now vote on questions concerning the erection of school-houses and matters pertaining to the facilities for the education of their children. Where has this provision wrought anything but good? How many school districts now have commodious school-houses because the women of the district, who were mothers and wanted schools for their children, outnumbered the men, who, though large landholders, are not residents or had no children and did not want schools? Can it be that any woman who has felt and wielded the power for good that the ballot gave her, in this respect, will yet declare that she does not want to vote?
Once again: the women of Kansas now vote on issues related to building schools and the resources for their children's education. Where has this change led to anything but positive outcomes? How many school districts now have better school buildings because the women in these districts, who are mothers and want schools for their kids, outnumbered the men who, despite being wealthy landowners, aren't residents or don’t have children and have no interest in schools? Is it possible that any woman who has experienced and used the positive influence that the right to vote has given her in this area would say she doesn't want to vote?
If, then, you are capable of forming opinions on matters of public interest, and if you admit that you are in some degree liable to be affected by public affairs, in the name of Heaven, of Right, of Home—in the name of Husband, Brothers, Sons, can you not—will you not, give your voice in favor of right, and against wrong? Begin now, if you have never done so before, to inquire into the character of our law-makers, the justness of our laws, the regard our country pays to the rights of all. If you do not feel the need of so doing for yourselves, yet for the sake of generations yet to come, interest yourselves, "that our officers may be peace and our exactors righteousness." If you are in circumstances of ease and comfort, because shielded from every rude wind by noble protectors—father[Pg 933] husband, son—yet listen to the cry of thousands of women less favored than yourselves, whose natural protectors, as we style them, the licensed dram-shop transforms into abusive tyrants, from whom they must be protected, or who, being deprived of husband and father, cry aloud of the injustice inflicted upon them in their dependent condition by laws framed in unrighteousness. Listen, we say, to their cry, and will you not desire, yea will you not demand the right to give your voice on all these questions in the only way in which you can effectually do so—the use of the ballot? Why, it would seem that every earnest, philanthropic woman would desire to do so, even were she obliged to go to the polls in their present condition instead of the reformed and purified state that will inevitably result from the enfranchisement of women.
If you can form opinions about public issues and recognize that you're affected by them, for the love of Heaven, for Justice, for Home—and for your Husbands, Brothers, and Sons—can you not, will you not, speak up for what's right and against what's wrong? Start now, if you haven't before, by examining the character of our lawmakers, the fairness of our laws, and how our country respects everyone's rights. Even if you don’t feel the need to do this for yourselves, do it for future generations, so that "our officials may bring peace and our leaders may be just." If you live in comfort, sheltered from every storm by noble protectors—father, husband, son—still hear the cries of countless women who are less fortunate, whose so-called protectors are turned into abusive tyrants by the licensed liquor trade, from which they need protection. Listen to their pleas; won't you want, won't you demand the right to vote on these issues in the most effective way possible—the use of the ballot? It would seem that every passionate, caring woman would want to do this, even if she had to go to the polls in their current state instead of the reformed and improved condition that will surely come from women's enfranchisement.
The women of Kansas who, next to the Pilgrim mothers of America, have endured more privations and taken a more active part in public affairs than any other women of America, should of all others have a voice in controlling the affairs of State and framing the laws by which they shall be governed. Say some opposers, "the good and true women would not vote, but only the ignorant and vicious." What a monstrous libel upon the intelligence and public spirit of the women of Kansas! and just so certainly as women obtain the ballot, as far as the intelligent and virtuous outnumber the ignorant and abandoned, will the vote of women swell the majority for just and righteous measures—for the moral and upright man—the man who has never imbrued his hands in blood—who has never robbed woman of her virtue—whose senses are never drowned in the intoxicating bowl. Why! this is the great moral question of the day! It is not that the prominent opposers of this measure fear that it will drag women down; it is because they fear, and justly, that women will lift suffrage so far into the realm of purity and morality that they can never be able even to offer themselves as candidates for office. Then will the destinies of our country be no more decided at drunken orgies, amid scenes that our opponents say it would degrade us to witness, but all questions of public weal will be decided in the hearts and at the firesides of pure-hearted men and women, surrounded by those whose destinies are dearer than life, and that decision shall be enforced when men and women shall together go up to the temple of justice to deposit their ballots.
The women of Kansas, who have endured more hardships and played a more active role in public life than any other women in America, should definitely have a say in running the government and shaping the laws that they will live under. Some opponents claim, "the good and virtuous women wouldn’t vote, only the ignorant and immoral would." What a ridiculous insult to the intelligence and civic spirit of the women of Kansas! Just as surely as women gain the right to vote, the more that intelligent and virtuous women outnumber the ignorant and corrupt, the more women’s votes will strengthen the majority for fair and just causes—for the moral and honorable man—the man who has never shed blood—who has never robbed a woman of her dignity—whose senses aren't numbed by alcohol. This is the key moral issue of our time! The main opponents of this measure don’t fear that it will lower women; they fear, and rightly so, that women will elevate voting so high into the realm of purity and morality that they won’t even be able to put themselves forward as candidates for office. Then the fate of our country won't be determined at drunken parties or in situations that our opponents say would be degrading to witness, but rather all issues of public good will be decided in the hearts and homes of pure-hearted men and women, surrounded by those whose futures are more precious than life itself, and that decision will be upheld when men and women together go to the temple of justice to cast their ballots.
Whatever, then, may be the opinion of fair ladies who dwell in ceiled houses in our older Eastern States and cities, who like lilies, neither toil nor spin, whose fair hands would gather close their silken apparel at the thought of touching the homelier garments of many a heroine of Kansas—whatever they may say in reference to this question, we, the women of the Spartan State, declare, we want to vote.
Whatever the opinion of the well-off women living in elegant homes in our older Eastern States and cities, who, like lilies, do not work or create, and whose delicate hands would pull their fancy clothes closer at the thought of touching the simpler outfits of many heroines from Kansas—whatever they may say about this issue, we, the women of the Spartan State, declare that we want to vote.
By order of the Executive Committee.
By order of the Executive Committee.
| Mrs. Hon. E. G. Ross, | Mrs. Griffith, |
| Mrs. Ex Gov. Robinson, | Mrs. R. S. Tenney, |
| Mrs. Judge Thacher, | Mrs. Rev. W. A. Starrett, |
| Mrs. Judge Miller, | Mrs. Rev. R. Cordley, |
| Mrs. Judge Burnett, | Mrs. Rev. G. S. Dearborn, |
| Mrs. Judge Hendry, | Mrs. Rev. J. S. Brown, |
| Mrs. H. M. Simpson, | Mrs. Rev. George Meyer, |
| Mrs. Robt. Morrow, | Mrs. J. H. Lane, |
| Mrs. Major Platt, | Mrs. James Horton, |
| Mrs. Major Whitney, | Mrs. F. W. Sparr, |
| Mrs. S. Denman, | Mrs. Jane B. Archibald, |
| Mrs. Hendersen, | Mrs. Cone, |
| Mrs. J. O. Adams, | Mrs. Welsh, |
| Mrs. Mary Whitcomb, | Mrs. Marsh, |
| Mrs. Thermutius Sutherland, | |
Committee on Address.
Committee on Address.
Lawrence, Sept. 24, 1867.
Lawrence, Sept. 24, 1867.
N. B.—Friends wishing tracts on the subject of equal rights, should address Equal Rights Office, 77 Massachusetts Street, Lawrence, Kansas.[Pg 934]
N. B.—Friends who want pamphlets on equal rights should contact the Equal Rights Office, 77 Massachusetts Street, Lawrence, Kansas.[Pg 934]
THE HUTCHINSONS' KANSAS SUFFRAGE SONG.
WORDS BY P. P. FOWLER AND J. W. H.
As sung at the meetings and concerts during ther grand campaign on the suffrage issue the season of 1867 in Kansas, and at the polls in Leavenworth, by the Tribe of John, on the day of election.
As sung at the meetings and concerts during the grand campaign on the suffrage issue in 1867 in Kansas, and at the polls in Leavenworth, by the Tribe of John, on election day.
Wafted o'er the Kansas prairies,
Charm the ear while zephyrs speed 'em!
Woman's pleading for her freedom.
Clear the way, the world is noting;
Prepare the way, the right promoting,
And ballots, too, for woman's voting.
Husbands, too, and several others,
We're bound to win our right of voting,
Don't you hear the music floating?
Brave defenders of the nation,
And aim by noble, just endeavor
To elevate our sex forever.
Of its vile intoxication.
Can't get rum? Oh, what a pity!
Dram-shops closed in every city.
Duly keep the cradle rocking,
And beg you heed the words we utter,
The ballot wins our bread and butter.
Yours, the meed of praise and beauty,
You'll nobly crown your deeds of daring,
Freedom to our sex declaring.
CHAPTER XXV.
TRIALS AND DECISIONS.
LETTER FROM MISS ANTHONY ANNOUNCING HER HAVING VOTED.
LETTER FROM MISS ANTHONY ANNOUNCING THAT SHE HAS VOTED.
Rochester, November 5, 1872.
Rochester, November 5, 1872.
Dear Mrs. Stanton: Well, I have been and gone and done it! positively voted the Republican ticket—straight—this a.m. at seven o'clock, and swore my vote in, at that; was registered on Friday and fifteen other women followed suit in this ward, then in sundry other wards some twenty or thirty women tried to register, but all save two were refused. All my three sisters voted—Rhoda De Garmo, too. Amy Post was rejected, and she will immediately bring action against the registrars; then another woman who was registered, but vote refused, will bring action for that—similar to the Washington action. Hon. Henry R. Selden will be our counsel; he has read up the law and all of our arguments, and is satisfied that we are right, and ditto Judge Samuel Selden, his elder brother. So we are in for a fine agitation in Rochester on this question.[Pg 935]
Dear Mrs. Stanton: Well, I did it! I actually voted for the Republican ticket—straight—this morning at seven o'clock, and confirmed my vote, too; I was registered on Friday, and fifteen other women in this ward did the same, then in various other wards about twenty or thirty women attempted to register, but all except two were turned away. All three of my sisters voted—Rhoda De Garmo did, too. Amy Post was denied, and she will immediately take legal action against the registrars; then another woman who was registered but had her vote rejected will also take action for that—similar to the case in Washington. The Hon. Henry R. Selden will represent us; he has reviewed the law and all of our arguments, and believes we are correct. Judge Samuel Selden, his older brother, agrees. So, we are in for a serious movement in Rochester on this issue.[Pg 935]
I hope the morning telegrams will tell of many women all over the country trying to vote. It is splendid that without any concert of action so many should have moved here.
I hope the morning updates will report on many women across the country trying to vote. It's fantastic that so many have come here without any coordinated effort.
Thanks for the Hartford papers. What a magnificent meeting you had! Splendid climax of the campaign—the two ablest and most eloquent women on one platform and the Governor of the State by your side. I was with you in spirit that evening; the chairman of the Committee had both telegraphed and written me all about the arrangements.
Thanks for the Hartford papers. What a great meeting you had! A fantastic ending to the campaign—with the two most capable and eloquent women sharing the stage and the Governor of the State right beside you. I was there with you in spirit that evening; the chairman of the Committee had both texted and emailed me all about the plans.
Haven't we wedged ourselves into the work pretty fairly and fully, and now that the Republicans have taken our votes—for it is the Republican members of the board; the Democratic paper is out against us strong, and that scared the Democrats on the registry boards.
Haven't we really gotten ourselves deep into this work, and now that the Republicans have taken our votes—for it is the Republican members of the board; the Democratic paper is out strongly against us, and that has scared the Democrats on the registry boards?
How I wish you were here to write up the funny things said and done. Rhoda De Garmo told them she wouldn't swear nor affirm, "but would tell them the truth," and they accepted that. When the Democrats said that my vote should not go in the box, one Republican said to the other, "What do you say, Marsh?" "I say put it in." "So do I," said Jones; "and we'll fight it out on this line if it takes all winter." Mary Hallowell was just here. She and Sarah Willis tried to register, but were refused; also Mrs. Mann, the Unitarian minister's wife, and Mary Curtis, sister of Catharine Stebbins. Not a jeer, not a word, not a look disrespectful has met a single woman.
How I wish you were here to capture all the funny things that were said and done. Rhoda De Garmo told them she wouldn't swear or affirm, "but would tell them the truth," and they accepted that. When the Democrats said my vote shouldn't go in the box, one Republican turned to the other and said, "What do you think, Marsh?" "I say put it in." "Me too," Jones replied; "and we'll fight this out if it takes all winter." Mary Hallowell was just here. She and Sarah Willis tried to register, but were denied, as were Mrs. Mann, the Unitarian minister's wife, and Mary Curtis, sister of Catharine Stebbins. Not a single woman has faced a jeer, a word, or a disrespectful look.
If only now all the Woman Suffrage women would work to this end of enforcing the existing Constitutional supremacy of National law over State law, what strides we might make this very winter! But I'm awfully tired; for five days I have been on the constant run, but to splendid purpose; so all right. I hope you voted too.
If only now all the women in the suffrage movement would focus on enforcing the current Constitutional supremacy of National law over State law, think of how much progress we could make this winter! But I'm really tired; I've been going non-stop for five days, but it has been for a great cause, so that’s fine. I hope you voted too.
Susan B. Anthony.
Susan B. Anthony.
Affectionately,
Affectionately,
JUDGE SELDEN TO MISS ANTHONY.
Rochester, November 27, 1872.
Rochester, November 27, 1872.
Miss Anthony—Dear Madam: The District Attorney says he can not attend to your case on any day but Friday. So it will be indispensable for you to be ready Friday morning, and I will do the best I can to attend to it.
Miss Anthony—Dear Madam: The District Attorney says he can only handle your case on Fridays. So, it’s essential for you to be prepared Friday morning, and I will do my best to take care of it.
I suppose the Commissioner will, as a matter of course, hold you for trial at the Circuit Court, whatever your rights may be in the matter.
I guess the Commissioner will automatically take you to trial at the Circuit Court, no matter what your rights are in this situation.
In my opinion, however, the idea that you can be charged with a crime on account of voting, or offering to vote, when you honestly believed yourself to be a voter, is simply preposterous, whether your belief was right or wrong.
In my view, the notion that you can be charged with a crime for voting or trying to vote, when you genuinely believed you were a voter, is completely ridiculous, regardless of whether your belief was right or wrong.
However, the learned (!) gentlemen engaged in this movement seem to suppose they can make a crime out of your honest deposit of your ballot, and perhaps they can find a respectable court or jury that will be of their opinion. If they do so I shall be greatly disappointed.
However, the educated gentlemen involved in this movement seem to think they can turn your honest act of casting your ballot into a crime, and maybe they can find a respectable court or jury that agrees with them. If they succeed, I will be very disappointed.
H. R. Selden.
H. R. Selden.
Yours, truly,
Yours, truly,
(Boston Transcript.)
(Boston Transcript.)
The last work came on the New York Calender; a person is discovered to have voted who had no right to; this is believed to be the first case of the kind ever heard of in New York, and its heinousness is perhaps aggravated by the fact that the perpetrator is a woman, who, in the vigorous language of the Court, "must have known when she did it that she was a woman." We await in breathless suspense the impending sentence.
The latest news came from the New York Calendar; someone was found to have voted when they weren't allowed to. This is thought to be the first case like this ever reported in New York, and its seriousness is maybe made worse by the fact that the offender is a woman, who, in the strong words of the Court, "must have known when she did it that she was a woman." We're on the edge of our seats waiting for the upcoming sentence.
The Rochester Evening Express of Friday, May 23, 1873, under the heading of "An Amiable Consideration of Miss Anthony's Case," said: United States District Attorney Crowley is a gallant gentleman, as gallant indeed as District Attorneys can afford to be, but he confesses himself no match for Miss Anthony. That lady has stumped Monroe County in behalf of impartial suffrage, and it appears that the Government very prudently declines to give her case to the jury in this county. The fact is, it is morally certain that no jury could be obtained in Monroe that would convict the lady of wrongdoing in voting, while it is highly probable that four juries out of five would acquit her. It is understood, of course, that the Court and prosecuting officers are merely fulfilling their official functions in recognizing this departure from ordinary practice at the polls, but would feel as deeply astonished at a verdict of guilty as the general public. The[Pg 936] District Attorney is fortunate in having as a contestant (defendant, he would professionally call her) in this friendly little duel, a lady who is the embodiment of American common sense, courage, and ability; and we are certain that after this tournament is adjourned he will accept, with his usual urbanity, the aid of ladies' ballots to lift him to some other place where his conceded abilities shall be more widely known.
The Rochester Evening Express on Friday, May 23, 1873, with the headline "A Friendly Look at Miss Anthony's Situation," stated: United States District Attorney Crowley is quite the gentleman, as gentlemen go among District Attorneys, but he admits he's no match for Miss Anthony. She has challenged Monroe County in support of equal voting rights, and it seems the Government wisely chooses not to let her case go to a jury in this county. The truth is, it's pretty clear that no jury in Monroe would convict her for voting, while it's very likely that four out of five juries would exonerate her. It’s understood that the Court and prosecutors are just doing their jobs by acknowledging this deviation from the usual voting practices, but they would be just as shocked by a guilty verdict as the general public. The [Pg 936] District Attorney is fortunate to have as his opponent (or rather, as he would professionally label her, the defendant) a woman who embodies American common sense, courage, and skill; and we are confident that after this little showdown is over, he will graciously accept the support of women's votes to help him reach a place where his recognized talents can be better appreciated.
The New York Commercial Advertiser, under the heading, "Miss Anthony and the Jury of her Peers," said: There is perplexity in the Northern District of New York. It was in that jurisdiction that Miss Susan B. Anthony and sundry "erring sisters" voted at the November election. For this they were arrested and indicted. The venue was laid in Monroe County and there the trial was to take place. Miss Anthony then proceeded to stump Monroe County and every town and village thereof, asking her bucolic hearers the solemn conundrum, "Is it a crime for a United States citizen to vote?" The answer is supposed generally to be in the negative, and so convincing is Sister Anthony's rhetoric regarded that it is supposed no jury can be found to convict her. Her case has gone to the jurymen of Monroe in her own persuasive pleadings before they are summoned. The District Attorney has, therefore, postponed the trial to another term of the Court, and changed the place thereof to Ontario County; whereupon the brave Susan takes the stump in Ontario, and personally makes known her woes and wants. It is a regular St. Anthony's dance she leads the District Attorney; and, in spite of winter cold or summer heat, she will carry her case from county to county precisely as fast as the venue is changed. One must rise very early in the morning to get the start of this active apostle of the sisterhood.
The New York Commercial Advertiser, under the headline, "Miss Anthony and the Jury of her Peers," reported: There’s confusion in the Northern District of New York. It was here that Miss Susan B. Anthony and several "erring sisters" voted in the November election. For this, they were arrested and charged. The trial was set to take place in Monroe County. Miss Anthony then started campaigning across Monroe County and in every town and village, asking her rural audiences the serious question, "Is it a crime for a United States citizen to vote?" The general assumption is that the answer is no, and Sister Anthony's arguments are so compelling that it's believed no jury could be found to convict her. Her case has already reached the jurors in Monroe through her persuasive speeches before they are even called. As a result, the District Attorney has postponed the trial to a later court session and moved the location to Ontario County; consequently, the fearless Susan takes her campaign to Ontario, personally sharing her struggles and requests. She leads the District Attorney on a sort of St. Anthony's dance, and regardless of winter cold or summer heat, she will chase her case from county to county as quickly as the venue changes. One has to wake up very early to stay ahead of this energetic advocate for women's rights.
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: If Miss Anthony has converted every man in Monroe County to her views of the Suffrage question, as the District Attorney intimates in his recent efforts to have her case adjourned, it is pretty good evidence—unless every man in Monroe County is a fool—that the lady has done no wrong. "Her case," remarks the Auburn Bulletin, "will probably be carried over to another term, and all she has to do is to canvass and convert another county. A shrewd woman that! Again we say, she ought to vote."
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: If Miss Anthony has convinced every man in Monroe County to support her views on the Suffrage issue, as the District Attorney suggests in his recent attempts to postpone her case, it’s pretty clear—unless every man in Monroe County is an idiot—that the lady has done nothing wrong. "Her case," states the Auburn Bulletin, "will likely be postponed to another term, and all she needs to do is to campaign and win over another county. What a clever woman! Again, we say, she deserves the right to vote."
The Syracuse Standard said: Miss S. B. Anthony is sharp enough for a successful politician. She is under arrest in Rochester for voting illegally, and she is conducting her case in a way that beats even lawyers. She stumped the county of Monroe and spoke in every school district so powerfully that she has actually converted nearly the entire male population to the Woman Suffrage doctrine. The sentiment is so universal that the United States District Attorney dare not trust his case to a jury drawn from that county, and has changed the venue to Ontario County. Now Miss Anthony proposes to stump Ontario immediately, and has procured the services of Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, of Fayetteville, to assist her. By the time the case comes on Miss Anthony will have Ontario County converted to her doctrines.
The Syracuse Standard reported: Miss S. B. Anthony is savvy enough to be a successful politician. She is currently under arrest in Rochester for voting illegally, and she’s handling her case in a way that outshines even the lawyers. She campaigned around Monroe County and spoke at every school district so compellingly that she has nearly convinced the entire male population to support the Woman Suffrage movement. The support is so overwhelming that the United States District Attorney doesn’t dare trust a jury from that county and has moved the case to Ontario County. Now, Miss Anthony plans to campaign in Ontario right away and has enlisted the help of Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage from Fayetteville. By the time the case is ready to be heard, Miss Anthony will have swayed Ontario County to her beliefs.
The Rochester Union and Advertiser quoted the above and commented as follows: We give in another column to-day, from a legal friend, a communication which shows very clearly that Miss Anthony is engaged in a work that will be likely to bring her to grief. It is nothing more nor less than an attempt to corrupt the source of that justice, under law, which flows from trial by jury. Miss Anthony's case has passed from its gayest to its gravest character. United States Courts are not stages for the enactment of comedy or farce, and the promptness and decision of their judges in sentencing to prison culprits convicted before them shows that they are no respecters of persons.
The Rochester Union and Advertiser quoted the above and commented as follows: Today, we are sharing a piece from a legal expert in another column that clearly shows Miss Anthony is involved in work that could lead to her downfall. It's simply an attempt to undermine the foundation of justice that comes from trial by jury. Miss Anthony's situation has shifted from its light-hearted nature to a much more serious one. United States Courts are not stages for comedy or farce, and the quick and decisive actions of their judges in sentencing convicted criminals demonstrate that they do not show favoritism.
SUSAN B. ANTHONY AS A CORRUPTIONIST.
To the Editors of the Union and Advertiser:
To the Editors of the Union and Advertiser:
Gentlemen—I saw this morning with equal surprise and regret in the Democrat and Chronicle the following article:
Gentlemen—I saw this morning with both surprise and regret in the Democrat and Chronicle the following article:
"We understand that Miss Susan B. Anthony, in company with Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, intends to lecture through Ontario County. She is confident that by June 16th a jury of twelve men can not be found in that county who will render a verdict of guilty against the women who are to be tried for illegal voting at the last fall election."[Pg 937]
"We understand that Miss Susan B. Anthony, along with Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, plans to give lectures throughout Ontario County. She is sure that by June 16th, there won't be a jury of twelve men in that county that would convict the women on trial for illegal voting in last fall's election."[Pg 937]
I had learned from the same source that Miss Anthony had made such an effort in Monroe County, and it was stated elsewhere that her trial had been sent thence to Ontario County by reason of such efforts to persuade juries of the justice of her cause. I can scarcely credit these statements.
I had learned from the same source that Miss Anthony had put in so much effort in Monroe County, and it was mentioned elsewhere that her trial had been moved to Ontario County because of those efforts to convince juries of the fairness of her cause. I can hardly believe these statements.
Reduced to simple terms, it is an attempt by public lectures and female influence, by an accused party so to affect jurors 'that a jury of twelve men can not be found in that county who will render a verdict of guilty.' If this may be a part of the administration of justice, then the United States Attorney may by similar or other means attempt beforehand to secure an opposite result; and the administration of justice is brought into contempt, and corruption has entered the jury-box.... There is a statute and common law offense known as embracery, which is defined to consist "in such practices as lead to affect the administration of justice, improperly working upon the minds of jurors." It seems clear, adds Russell in his Treatise on Laws and Misdemeanors, 'that any attempt whatever to corrupt or influence or instruct a jury in the cause beforehand, or any way incline them to be more favorable to the one side than the other, by money, letters, threats, or persuasions, except only by the strength of evidence and the arguments of the counsel in open Court at the trial of the cause, is a proper act of Embracery, whether the jurors upon whom the attempt is made give any verdict or not, and whether the verdict given be true or false.' ... I trust no merely temporary excitement in respect to female suffrage will lead good citizens to sanction any attempt whatever to influence jurors out of Court, either before or during the trial of a cause. It is alike an insult to the juror and an imputation on our public virtue.
Put simply, it’s an effort through public speeches and women's influence by someone being accused to sway jurors such that "a jury of twelve men cannot be found in that county who will deliver a guilty verdict." If this is part of how justice is served, then the U.S. Attorney could use similar or other methods to try to secure the opposite outcome; thus, justice is disrespected, and corruption seeps into the jury box. There’s a law and a common offense known as embracery, defined as "practices that improperly influence the administration of justice by manipulating jurors' minds." Russell notes in his Treatise on Laws and Misdemeanors that "any attempt to corrupt, influence, or instruct a jury beforehand, or to bias them in favor of one side over the other—through money, letters, threats, or persuasion, except through the strength of evidence and arguments presented in open court during the trial—is a clear act of Embracery, regardless of whether the jurors affected actually deliver any verdict or whether that verdict is truthful or false." ... I hope that no temporary frenzy over women's suffrage will lead decent citizens to support any attempt to sway jurors outside of court, whether before or during a trial. Such actions are an affront to jurors and a blow to our public integrity.
Lex.
Lex.
May 24, 1873.
May 24, 1873.
[New York Sun, Saturday, January 4, 1873].
[New York Sun, Saturday, January 4, 1873].
GOING TO JAIL FOR VOTING FOR GRANT.
The arrest of the fifteen women of Rochester, and the imprisonment of the renowned Miss Susan B. Anthony, for voting at the November election, afford a curious illustration of the extent to which the United States Government is stretching its hand in these matters. If these women violated any law at all by voting, it was clearly a statute of the State of New York, and that State might be safely left to to vindicate the majesty of its own laws. Is is only by an overstrained construction of the XIV. and XV. Amendments, that the National Government can force its long finger into the Rochester case at all.
The arrest of the fifteen women from Rochester and the imprisonment of the well-known Miss Susan B. Anthony for voting in the November election provide a fascinating example of how far the United States Government is reaching in these matters. If these women broke any law by voting, it was clearly a law of the State of New York, and that State could be trusted to uphold its own laws. It's only through an extreme interpretation of the XIV and XV Amendments that the National Government can even get involved in the Rochester case.
But so it is. Eager to crowd in and regulate the elections at every poll In the Union, the power at Washington strikes down a whole State Government in Louisiana, and holds to bail a handful of women in New York. Nothing can escape its eye or elude its grasp. It can soar high; it can stoop low. It can enjoin a Governor in New Orleans; it can jug a woman in Rochester. Nothing is too big for it to grapple with; nothing is too small for it to meddle with.... By the by, we advise Miss Anthony not to go to jail. Perhaps she feels that she deserves some punishment for voting for General Grant, but it is a bailable offense. "Going to jail for the good of the cause" may do for poetry, but it becomes very prosaic when reduced to practice. Let Miss Anthony enter into bonds, adjust her spectacles, face her accusers, and argue her own case.
But that's how it is. Eager to influence and control the elections at every poll in the Union, the power in Washington takes down an entire State Government in Louisiana and holds a few women in New York on bail. Nothing can escape its attention or avoid its control. It can rise high; it can bend low. It can order a Governor in New Orleans; it can charge a woman in Rochester. Nothing is too big for it to deal with; nothing is too small for it to interfere with.... By the way, we advise Miss Anthony not to go to jail. Maybe she feels she deserves some punishment for voting for General Grant, but it's something that can be bail-worthy. "Going to jail for the good of the cause" might sound poetic, but it becomes quite ordinary when you have to actually do it. Let Miss Anthony get a bond, adjust her glasses, face her accusers, and argue her own case.
The Worcester Spy said: Miss Susan B. Anthony, whatever else she may be, is evidently of the right stuff for a reformer. Of all the woman suffragists she has the most courage and resource, and fights her own and her sisters' battle with the most wonderful energy, resolution, and hopefulness. It is well known that she is now under indictment for voting illegally in Rochester last November. Voting illegally in her case means simply voting, for it is held that women can not lawfully vote at all. She is to be tried soon, but in the meantime, while at large on bail, she has devoted her time to missionary work on behalf of woman suffrage, and has spoken, it is said, in almost every school district in Monroe County, where her trial would have been held in the natural course of things. She has argued her cause so well that almost all the male population of the county has been converted to her views on this subject. The District Attorney is afraid to trust the case to a jury from that county, and has obtained a change of venue to Ontario on the ground that a fair trial can not be had in Monroe.
The Worcester Spy stated: Miss Susan B. Anthony, no matter what else she may be, clearly has the qualities of a reformer. Among all the women pushing for the right to vote, she shows the most courage and resourcefulness, and she fights her own battle and that of her sisters with incredible energy, determination, and optimism. It is well known that she is currently facing charges for voting illegally in Rochester last November. In her case, voting illegally simply means voting, as it is argued that women cannot legally vote at all. She will be tried soon, but in the meantime, while out on bail, she has dedicated her time to advocacy for women's suffrage and is said to have spoken in almost every school district in Monroe County, where her trial would normally take place. She has made such a compelling case that nearly all the men in the county have changed their minds about this issue. The District Attorney is hesitant to trust the case to a jury from that county and has requested a change of venue to Ontario, claiming that a fair trial cannot be conducted in Monroe.
Miss Anthony, rather cheered than discouraged by this unwilling testimony to the strength of her cause and her powers of persuasion, has made arrangements to canvass Ontario[Pg 938] County as thoroughly as Monroe. As county lines do not inclose distinct varieties of the human race, it is fair to presume that the people of the former county will be as susceptible to argument and appeal, as those of the latter, and by the time the case comes on, an Ontario jury will be as little likely to convict as a Monroe jury is now supposed to be. Some foolish and bigoted people who edit newspapers, are complaining that Miss Anthony's proceedings are highly improper, inasmuch as they are intended to influence the decision of a cause pending in the courts. They even talk about contempt of court, and declare that Miss Anthony should be compelled to desist from making these invidious harangues. We suspect that the courts will not venture to interfere with this lady's speech-making tour, but will be of the opinion that she has the same right which other people, male or female, have to explain her political views, and make converts to them if she can. We have never known it claimed before that a person accused of an offense was thereby deprived of the common right of free speech on political and other questions.
Miss Anthony, feeling more encouraged than discouraged by this unwilling testimony to the strength of her cause and her ability to persuade, has arranged to canvass Ontario[Pg 938] County as thoroughly as Monroe. Since county lines don’t separate distinct groups of people, it’s reasonable to assume that the residents of the former county will be just as open to argument and appeal as those in the latter, and by the time the case is heard, an Ontario jury will be just as unlikely to convict as a Monroe jury is currently thought to be. Some ignorant and prejudiced people who run newspapers are complaining that Miss Anthony's efforts are highly inappropriate, as they aim to influence the outcome of a case that is still in the courts. They even mention contempt of court and insist that Miss Anthony should be forced to stop making these divisive speeches. We doubt that the courts will try to interfere with this lady's speaking tour, but will likely agree that she has the same right as anyone else, man or woman, to express her political views and try to win people over to them. We have never seen it claimed before that someone accused of a crime loses the basic right to free speech on political and other matters.
The New York Evening Post said: The proceedings of the Circuit Court of the United States at Canandaigua yesterday, before which Miss Susan B. Anthony was on trial for voting in Rochester at the late general election, were very remarkable. Hitherto the advocates of the right of our countrywomen to vote have hardly obtained a hearing, but Miss Anthony has made an important step in advance. It is a great gain to obtain a judicial hearing for her cause; to have the merits of woman suffrage carefully considered by careful and able men. The appearance of so eminent and distinguished a lawyer as Henry R. Selden in her defense will give to the question a new aspect in the minds of the people. The position he took is still more encouraging to those who think that women have a legal right to vote. The distinction he made between the absoluteness of this right and the belief of Miss Anthony that she possessed such a right, since the guilt relates only to the legal guilt in this particular instance, is of no general importance; but his emphatic testimony, irrespective of the present case, that all women have both an absolute and a legal right to vote, is a fact to command attention.
The New York Evening Post reported: The proceedings of the Circuit Court of the United States in Canandaigua yesterday, where Miss Susan B. Anthony was on trial for voting in Rochester during the recent general election, were quite noteworthy. Until now, those advocating for women's right to vote have barely been heard, but Miss Anthony has made a significant advancement. Gaining a judicial hearing for her cause is a major achievement; it means that the merits of women's suffrage are being carefully considered by capable and thoughtful men. The involvement of such a prominent and respected lawyer as Henry R. Selden in her defense will give the issue a fresh perspective in the eyes of the public. His stance is even more encouraging for those who believe that women have a legal right to vote. The distinction he made between the absolute nature of this right and Miss Anthony's belief that she had it—since the guilt pertains only to the legal ramifications of this specific case—is not broadly significant; however, his strong testimony, regardless of the current case, that all women hold both an absolute and a legal right to vote is a fact that deserves attention.
So convinced was Judge Selden of the validity of this opinion, that for the second time in his professional life, as he himself said, he was compelled to offer himself as a witness in behalf of his client. Being sworn, he testified that before the defendant voted she called on him for advice as to her legal right to vote; that he took time to examine the question very carefully, and then advised her that "she was as much a voter as I or any other man"; that he believed then that she had a legal right to vote, and he believed so now, and on that advice she voted. It seems likely that the decision of the Court will be in Miss Anthony's favor. If such be the result the advocates of woman suffrage will change places with the public. They will no longer be forced to obtain hearings from Congressional and Legislative Committees for their claims, but will exercise their right to vote by the authority of a legal precedent against which positive laws forbidding them from voting will be the only remedy. It is a question whether such laws can be passed in this country. A careful examination of the subject must precede any such legislation, and, the inference from the result of Judge Selden's investigation is that the more the subject is studied the less likely will any legislative body be to forbid those women who want to vote from so doing.
So convinced was Judge Selden of the validity of this opinion that, for the second time in his professional life, as he himself said, he had to offer himself as a witness for his client. Being sworn in, he testified that before the defendant voted, she came to him for advice about her legal right to vote; that he took the time to look into the question very carefully, and then advised her that "she was as much a voter as I or any other man"; that he believed then that she had a legal right to vote, and he believes that now, and based on that advice, she voted. It seems likely that the Court's decision will be in Miss Anthony's favor. If that happens, the advocates of woman suffrage will switch places with the public. They will no longer have to seek hearings from Congressional and Legislative Committees for their claims, but will exercise their right to vote based on a legal precedent, against which existing laws that forbid them from voting will be the only remedy. It is uncertain whether such laws can be passed in this country. A careful examination of the topic must come before any such legislation, and the conclusion from the outcome of Judge Selden's investigation is that the more the subject is studied, the less likely any legislative body will be to prohibit women who want to vote from doing so.
[The Rochester Evening Express, June 21st.]
[The Rochester Evening Express, June 21st.]
THE NATIONAL CASES AT CANANDAIGUA.
The trial of Miss Anthony at Canandaigua on a charge of having voted illegally on the 5th of November last, in this city, has attracted attention throughout this country and in England. It was a great National trial, intended as Judge Hunt said, as the purpose of the act of voting in this case, to settle a principle. The eminence of the judge presiding and the reputation of the counsel engaged in the case, gave it further significance. All the counsel won new laurels in this contest. Judge Selden could scarcely increase the respect for his character and legal ability by any fresh contest in the forum, but he evinced the power of his logical faculties and his perfect acquaintance with law and legal precedent in his closely reasoned argument. Mr. Crowley, United States District Attorney, made a very able argument in reply, which all agree was worthy of his high position and of the cause in which he appeared for the Government. Mr. Van Voorhis showed legal erudition[Pg 939] careful examination of the case in hand, and of the law and decision of courts bearing upon it, making bold and strong points which commanded the attention and respect of the Court, and elicited the approbation of clients and people.
The trial of Miss Anthony in Canandaigua for allegedly voting illegally on November 5th in this city has drawn attention across the country and in England. It was a significant National trial, intended, as Judge Hunt stated, to establish a principle regarding the act of voting in this case. The high profile of the presiding judge and the reputation of the lawyers involved added to its importance. All the lawyers gained new recognition in this battle. Judge Selden could hardly enhance the respect for his character and legal expertise through any new legal challenge, but he demonstrated his strong reasoning skills and deep understanding of law and legal precedent in his well-structured argument. Mr. Crowley, the United States District Attorney, delivered a very strong argument in response, which everyone agreed was fitting for his esteemed role and the case he represented for the Government. Mr. Van Voorhis displayed legal knowledge through a thorough analysis of the case at hand, as well as the relevant laws and court decisions, making bold and compelling points that captured the attention and respect of the Court and earned praise from clients and the public.
[Commercial Advertiser, June 18, 1873.]
[Commercial Advertiser, June 18, 1873.]
THE FEMALE SUFFRAGISTS.
When a jurist as eminent as Judge Henry R. Selden testifies that he told Miss Anthony before election that she had a right to vote, and this after a careful examination of the question, the whole subject assumes new importance, and Mr. Selden at once becomes the central object of adoration by all the gentle believers in woman's right to the ballot. And when the same able lawyer advocates the cause of Miss Anthony in the United States Courts, there is abundant reason why other men, both lay and legal, should put themselves in an attitude, at least of willingness to change their convictions upon this topic, which now threatens to take on very enlarged proportions. The points made in the argument by Mr. Selden are that the defendant had a legal right to vote; that even if no such right existed, if she believed she had such right and voted in good faith, that she committed no offense; and lastly, he argued that she did vote in pursuance of such belief. The point that Miss Anthony had acted illegally only because she was a woman, was well put. Had her brother, under the same circumstances done the same thing, his act would have been not only innocent but laudable. The crime was, therefore, not in the act done, but in the sex of the person who did it. Women, remarked the Judge, have the same interest in the maintenance of good government as men. No greater absurdity, to use no harsher term, can be presented to the human mind than that of rewarding men and punishing women for the same act, without giving women any voice in the question of which shall be rewarded and which punished. How grateful to Judge Selden must all the suffragists be! He has struck the strongest and most promising blow in their behalf that has yet been given. Dred Scott was the pivot on which the Constitution turned before the war. Miss Anthony seems likely to occupy a similar position now.
When a respected jurist like Judge Henry R. Selden testifies that he told Miss Anthony before the election that she had the right to vote, after carefully examining the issue, the whole topic takes on new significance, and Mr. Selden instantly becomes the focal point of admiration for all those who believe in a woman's right to vote. And when this skilled lawyer defends Miss Anthony in the United States Courts, there's plenty of reason for others, both laypeople and legal professionals, to at least be open to changing their views on this subject, which is set to gain major traction. Mr. Selden's arguments are that the defendant had a legal right to vote; that even if such a right didn't exist, if she believed she had that right and voted in good faith, she committed no offense; and lastly, he contended that she did vote based on that belief. The argument that Miss Anthony acted illegally solely because she was a woman was well articulated. If her brother, under the same circumstances, had done the same, his action would have been considered not only innocent but honorable. Therefore, the crime was not in the action itself but in the sex of the person who took it. Judge Selden remarked that women have the same stake in the maintenance of good government as men do. It is utterly absurd, to put it mildly, to reward men and punish women for the same action while giving women no say in who gets rewarded and who gets punished. How thankful all the suffragists must be to Judge Selden! He has delivered the strongest and most promising support for their cause that has been seen yet. Dred Scott was the turning point for the Constitution before the war. Miss Anthony seems poised to occupy a similar role now.
[From Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, July, 1873.]
[From Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, July, 1873.]
WOMEN'S MEETING.
A meeting of the women's tax-payers' association was held at the Mayor's office yesterday afternoon, the President, Mrs. Lewia C. Smith, in the chair. It had been expected that Judge Selden would address the meeting, but in consequence of professional engagements he had been unable to prepare such an address as he desired, but will speak at a future meeting.
A meeting of the women's taxpayers' association took place at the Mayor's office yesterday afternoon, with the President, Mrs. Lewia C. Smith, leading the discussion. It was anticipated that Judge Selden would speak at the meeting, but due to work commitments, he couldn't prepare the address he wanted. He will speak at a future meeting instead.
Miss Susan B. Anthony was present, and addressed the meeting. She stated that she had received many letters urging her not to be disheartened by the result of her case, and she assured all that she was far from being discouraged. In fact, she considered that they had won a victory by showing to the world that in order to accomplish her defeat the courts were obliged to set aside everything, even the sacred right of trial by jury. Miss Anthony read extracts from letters received from Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Parker Pillsbury. Mrs. Stanton pours out her indignation in a letter to Mrs. Gage and Miss Anthony thus:
Miss Susan B. Anthony was there and spoke to the group. She mentioned that she had gotten a lot of letters encouraging her not to be discouraged by the outcome of her case, and she assured everyone that she was not feeling down. In fact, she believed they had achieved a victory by demonstrating to the world that to defeat her, the courts had to override everything, even the essential right to a jury trial. Miss Anthony read excerpts from letters she received from Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Parker Pillsbury. Mrs. Stanton expressed her outrage in a letter to Mrs. Gage and Miss Anthony like this:
"To have my right to the earth and the fullness thereof equally with man; to do my work and say my say without his let or hindrance, or even question, has filled me with indignation ever since I began to think; and one more act of puny legislation, in line with all that has been done in the past, does not add a feather's weight to my chronic indignation.
"Having my equal rights to the earth and everything on it, just like men do; being able to do my work and express my opinions without interference or even questioning, has made me feel angry ever since I started to think for myself. One more insignificant law, similar to everything done before, doesn’t even slightly lessen my ongoing frustration."
"The insult of being tried by men—judges, lawyers, juries, all men—for violating the laws and constitutions of men, made for the degradation and subjugation of my whole sex; to be forever publicly impaled by the unwavering finger of scorn, by party press, and pulpit, so far transcends a petty verdict of a petty judge in a given case, that my continuous wrath against the whole dynasty of tyrants in our political, religious, and social life, has not left one stagnant drop of blood in my veins to rouse for any single act of insult.
"The insult of being judged by men—judges, lawyers, juries, all men—for breaking laws and constitutions created by men, which are designed for the oppression and subjugation of my entire gender; to be forever publicly attacked by the unyielding finger of contempt from the media and religious leaders, goes far beyond the trivial ruling of a trivial judge in any specific case, that my ongoing anger towards the entire system of oppressors in our political, religious, and social lives has left me with no remaining vitality to react to any individual act of disrespect."
"The outrage of trying intelligent, educated, well-bred, native-born American women by juries of men, made up of the riff-raff from the monarchies and empires of the old world, or ignorant natives of the new, who do not read the newspapers, nor form opinions[Pg 940] on current events or United States citizens' rights, so overtops the insult of any verdict they could possibly render, that indignation at what they might say is swallowed up in the outrage that they have the right to say anything in limiting the rights of women as citizens in this republic. What are Centennials and Fourth of Julys to us, when our most sacred rights can be made foot-balls for the multitude. Do not, therefore, argue from my silence, that I do not feel every fresh stab at womanhood. Instead of applying lint to the wounds, my own thought has been, how can we wrest the sword from the hand of the tyrant."
"The outrage of trying intelligent, educated, well-bred, native-born American women before juries of men, consisting of the lower classes from the monarchies and empires of the old world, or uneducated locals from the new, who do not read newspapers or form opinions[Pg 940] on current events or the rights of U.S. citizens, far exceeds the insult of any verdict they could possibly deliver. The anger at what they might say is overshadowed by the outrage that they have the right to say anything that limits the rights of women as citizens in this republic. What do Centennials and Fourth of Julys mean to us when our most sacred rights can be treated like playthings for the masses? So do not think that my silence means I do not feel each new attack on womanhood. Instead of just treating the wounds, my thoughts have been on how we can take the sword away from the tyrant."
The following resolutions were then offered and adopted:
The following resolutions were proposed and approved:
Resolved, That the gross outrage committed in the case of Miss Anthony by the United States Circuit Court, the stamping under foot by Justice Hunt of the Constitution of the United States, and all the forms of law, in order to defeat a woman who could not be defeated otherwise, has in no way discouraged the true friends of woman suffrage, but to the contrary, the unjustifiable means to which the Court was compelled to resort in order to convict Miss Anthony has not only aroused the old woman's rights women into new life and action, but shocked all thinking minds throughout the country, to a consideration of the vital question of American citizenship. Does it, or does it not give to the possessor the right to vote?
Resolved, That the gross injustice against Miss Anthony by the United States Circuit Court, where Justice Hunt trampled on the Constitution of the United States and all legal processes to defeat a woman who could not be beaten otherwise, has in no way discouraged the true supporters of women's suffrage. On the contrary, the outrageous tactics that the Court had to use to convict Miss Anthony have not only energized the women's rights activists but have also stunned all thoughtful individuals across the country into reflecting on the crucial question of American citizenship. Does it, or does it not, grant the right to vote to the citizen?
Resolved, That we arraign Ward Hunt, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors in his office, committed on the trial of Susan B. Anthony, on a charge of knowingly voting illegally for a representative in Congress. He denied the right of trial by jury; he refused to permit her counsel to address the jury in her behalf; he refused the request of her counsel that the jury be polled; he directed the clerk to enter a verdict of guilty without consulting the jury; he had prejudged her case, and had written his opinion against her before he came to the Court, or had heard the evidence, or the arguments of her counsel. He tried her in a manner indicating that he had undertaken to accomplish a certain result, and that he must do in spite of law or evidence. His assertion that the facts were admitted in her case is false. No facts were admitted on Miss Anthony's trial, except that she was a woman and had voted. The one fact of consequence to the United States was, whether or not Miss Anthony voted for a representative in Congress. To prove this the United States District Attorney proved that she handed to the inspectors four folded ballots, the contents of which were unknown. It did not appear that the ballots were not blanks. There were six boxes, and each elector might cast six ballots. Upon such evidence Judge Hunt decided that it was proved that Miss Anthony voted for a representative in Congress, and refused to submit the case, or the question of fact, to the jury. Therefore,
Resolved, That we charge Ward Hunt, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, with serious offenses in his role, committed during the trial of Susan B. Anthony, who was accused of knowingly voting illegally for a representative in Congress. He denied her the right to a jury trial; he wouldn't let her lawyer speak to the jury on her behalf; he ignored her lawyer's request to poll the jury; he instructed the clerk to record a guilty verdict without consulting the jury; he had already made up his mind about her case and written his opinion against her before arriving at the Court or hearing any evidence or arguments from her lawyer. He conducted the trial in a way that suggested he was determined to achieve a specific outcome, regardless of the law or the evidence. His claim that the facts were accepted in her case is false. The only facts acknowledged in Miss Anthony's trial were that she was a woman and that she had voted. The important fact for the United States was whether Miss Anthony voted for a representative in Congress. To prove this, the U.S. District Attorney showed that she handed the inspectors four folded ballots, the contents of which were unknown. There was no evidence proving that the ballots were not blank. There were six boxes, and each voter could cast six ballots. Based on this evidence, Judge Hunt ruled that it was proven that Miss Anthony voted for a representative in Congress and refused to submit the case, or the factual question, to the jury. Therefore,
Resolved, That a violation of the Constitution so palpable, a disregard of the forms of of law so flagrant, demand the impeachment of Justice Hunt, and his removal from a bench he has proved himself unfit to occupy.
Resolved, That a violation of the Constitution so clear, a disregard of the legal processes so obvious, requires the impeachment of Justice Hunt and his removal from a position he has shown himself unfit to hold.
Resolved, That we will petition Congress to reverse by Congressional enactment the judgments of Judge Hunt against Miss Anthony and the Inspectors of Election. These fiats of a judicial dictator must not be allowed to remain upon the records of the Court. Trial by jury must be restored to its throne, from which Judge Hunt has hurled it. A constitutional right so sacred must be vindicated by Congress. There is no other tribunal to which we can appeal. Therefore we shall confidently ask Congress to reverse these unjust judgments and rebuke and impeach this unjust judge.
Resolved, We will ask Congress to reverse the decisions made by Judge Hunt against Miss Anthony and the Election Inspectors through a law. These orders from a judicial dictator must not stay on the Court's records. Trial by jury needs to be reinstated to its rightful place, from which Judge Hunt has thrown it. A constitutional right this important must be upheld by Congress. There is no other authority to which we can turn. Therefore, we will confidently request Congress to overturn these unfair judgments and censure and impeach this unjust judge.
Resolved, That to the Hon. Henry R. Selden for his able and earnest defense of their citizen's right to vote, the women of this country owe a debt of gratitude beyond their present power to pay or appreciate.
Resolved, That to the Hon. Henry R. Selden for his skilled and passionate defense of their citizen's right to vote, the women of this country owe a debt of gratitude beyond what they can currently repay or fully understand.
Resolved, That we tender our thanks to John Van Voorhis, counsel for the inspectors of the Eighth Ward, for his prompt and efficient defense of their right and duty to register the names and receive the votes of all United States citizens.
Resolved, That we express our gratitude to John Van Voorhis, the attorney for the inspectors of the Eighth Ward, for his quick and effective defense of their right and responsibility to register the names and accept the votes of all United States citizens.
Resolved, That we bid Godspeed to our co-laborer, Susan B. Anthony, for the courage and persistence shown during her trial, and thank her for her assurance to the Court (which he did not need) of her unshaken conviction of the legality of her vote, and of her determination to persist in the exercise of her citizen's right of suffrage.
Resolved, That we wish our colleague, Susan B. Anthony, all the best for the courage and determination she showed during her trial, and we thank her for assuring the Court (which she didn’t have to) of her strong belief in the legality of her vote and her commitment to continue exercising her right to vote as a citizen.
Resolved, That we tender our thanks to the inspectors of election of the Eighth Ward,[Pg 941] Messrs. Jones, Marsh, and Hall, for their manliness and courage in receiving the women's vote and maintaining their right and duty in so doing through their long and unfair trial."
Resolved, That we extend our thanks to the election inspectors of the Eighth Ward,[Pg 941] Messrs. Jones, Marsh, and Hall, for their integrity and bravery in accepting the women's vote and upholding their right and responsibility to do so throughout their lengthy and unjust trial.
A paper of considerable length was read by Mrs. Hebard, which was very fine, and set forth the woman question in a philosophical manner.
A lengthy paper was presented by Mrs. Hebard, which was excellent and discussed the women's issue from a philosophical perspective.
Mrs. L. C. Smith said that in stamping his seal of death upon trial by jury, Judge Hunt had proved beyond all cavil the inseparability of man's and woman's interests. For in order to withhold the right of franchise from woman he was obliged to abolish trial by jury, man's only safeguard against the tyranny of the bench.
Mrs. L. C. Smith said that by putting his stamp of approval on the death of jury trials, Judge Hunt had clearly demonstrated that men's and women's interests are linked. To deny women the right to vote, he had to eliminate trial by jury, which is the only protection men have against the power of the courts.
The meeting then adjourned to meet at three o'clock p.m. on the 24th inst.
The meeting then ended to reconvene at 3:00 p.m. on the 24th of this month.
Miss Anthony received material sympathy from many persons who sent money to aid in the payment of her fine—Dr. E. B. Foote, of New York, sending $25, and Gerrit Smith, of Peterboro, $100, accompanied by a letter. Dr. Foote has kindly furnished Miss Anthony's reply to him for publication:
Miss Anthony received support from many people who sent money to help pay her fine—Dr. E. B. Foote from New York sent $25, and Gerrit Smith from Peterboro sent $100 along with a letter. Dr. Foote generously provided Miss Anthony's reply to him for publication:
Rochester, July 2, 1873.
Rochester, July 2, 1873.
Dr. E. B. Foote—My Dear Sir: Your letter of June 18, inclosing the quarter of the United States Government's fine for my alleged violation of State law was most welcome, I have waited this acknowledgment from fact of my absence from home since the judge pronounced that verdict and penalty. What a comedy! Such a grave offense and such a paltry punishment!
Dr. E. B. Foote—My Dear Sir: Your letter from June 18, enclosing the quarter of the United States Government's fine for my supposed violation of State law, was greatly appreciated. I've been waiting to acknowledge it since I've been away from home since the judge issued that verdict and penalty. What a joke! Such a serious offense and such a trivial punishment!
Now if the United States Government would only demand the payment of the $100 and costs—but it will never do it, because all parties know I will never pay a dime—no, not one. It, is quite enough for me pay all the just claims of the trial; my own counsel, etc. I owe no allegiance to the Government's penalties until I have a voice in it, and shall pay none. What the Government can exact it may, whether of cash or imprisonment.
Now, if the U.S. government would just demand the payment of the $100 and fees—but it never will, because everyone knows I won't pay a dime—no, not a cent. It's enough for me to cover all the legitimate claims from the trial; my own lawyer, etc. I owe no loyalty to the government's penalties until I have a say in it, and I won't pay any. The government can collect whatever it can, whether that's cash or jail time.
Do you know my one regret now is that I am not possessed of some real estate here in Rochester so that my name would be on the tax list, and I would refuse to pay the taxes thereon, and then I could carry that branch of the question into the Courts. Protests are no longer worth the paper they are written on. Downright resistance, the actual throwing of the tea overboard, is now the word and work. With many thanks for the $25.
Do you know my one regret now is that I don’t own any real estate here in Rochester so my name isn’t on the tax list, and I can't refuse to pay the taxes on it, and then take that issue to court. Protests are no longer worth the paper they're written on. It's all about taking a stand, like actually throwing the tea overboard. Thanks so much for the $25.
Susan B. Anthony.
Susan B. Anthony.
Sincerely yours,
Sincerely yours,
WOMAN SUFFRAGE ABOVE HUMAN LAW.
LETTER FROM GERRIT SMITH.
LETTER FROM GERRIT SMITH.
Peterboro, August 15, 1873
Peterboro, August 15, 1873
Susan B. Anthony—Dear Friend: I have your letter. So you have not paid your fine; are not able to pay it; and are not willing to pay it! I send you herein the money to pay it. If you shall still decline doing so, then use the money at your own discretion, to promote the cause of woman suffrage.
Susan B. Anthony—Dear Friend: I got your letter. So you haven't paid your fine; you can't pay it; and you don't want to pay it! I'm sending you the money to cover it. If you still choose not to pay it, feel free to use the money however you see fit to support the cause of women's suffrage.
I trust that you feel kindly toward Judge Hunt. He is an honest man and an able judge. He would oppress no person—emphatically, no woman. It was a light fine that he imposed upon you. Moreover, he did not require you to be imprisoned until it was paid. In taking your case out of the bands of the jury, he did what he believed he had a perfect right to do; and what (☞ provided there was no fact to be passed upon) he had precedents for doing. And yet Judge Hunt erred—erred as, but too probably, every other judge would, in like circumstances, have erred. At the hazard of being called, for the ten thousandth time, a visionary and a fanatic for holding opinions which, though they will be entirely welcome to the more enlightened future sense of men, are as entirely repugnant to their present sense, I venture to say that the Judge erred in allowing himself to look into the Constitution. Indeed, yours was a case that neither called for nor permitted the opening of any law-book whatever. You have not forgotten how frequently, in the days of slavery, the Constitution was quoted in behalf of the abomination. As if that paper had been drawn up and agreed upon by both the blacks and the whites, instead of the whites only; and as if slavery protected the rights of the slave instead of annihilating them. I thank God that I was withheld from the great folly and great sin of acknowledging a law for slavery—a law for any piracy—least of all for the superlative piracy. Nor have you forgotten how incessantly, in the late war, our enemies, Northern as well as Southern, were calling for this observance of the Constitution.[Pg 942] As if the purpose of that paper was to serve those whose parricidal hands were at the throat of our Nation. I recall but one instance in which I was ever reconciled to profanity. It was when, during the war, I was witnessing a heated conversation between a patriotic Republican and a rabid secession Democrat. The Republican was arguing that the Government should put forth all its powers to suppress the rebellion. At this stage the Democrat thrust in the stereotyped rebel phrase: "but only according to the Constitution." This interruption provoked the Republican to exclaim, as he hurried on, "Damn the Constitution!" The oath so happily helped to express my own feeling that I had no more heart to censure it than the recording angel had to preserve the record of Uncle Toby's famous oath.
I trust you have a good opinion of Judge Hunt. He’s an honest man and a capable judge. He wouldn’t mistreat anyone—especially not a woman. The fine he imposed on you was minor. Plus, he didn’t make you serve time until it was paid. By taking your case out of the jury’s hands, he did what he believed he had every right to do; and what he had precedents for doing, provided there were no facts to decide. And yet Judge Hunt made a mistake—likely the same mistake that many other judges would make in similar circumstances. At the risk of being labeled, for the ten thousandth time, a dreamer and a fanatic for holding views that, while welcomed by a more enlightened future, are completely rejected by the present, I dare to say that the Judge erred by consulting the Constitution. In fact, your case didn’t require or allow for any law book to be opened. You haven't forgotten how often, during slavery, the Constitution was cited to defend that evil. As if that document had been created and agreed upon by both black and white people, instead of just by white people; and as if slavery secured the rights of the enslaved rather than destroying them. I thank God I was spared the foolishness and sin of accepting a law for slavery—a law for any kind of robbery—especially not for the worst kind of robbery. Nor have you forgotten how relentlessly, during the recent war, our enemies, both North and South, insisted on adhering to the Constitution. As if that document was meant to support those whose treacherous hands were around the throat of our Nation. I remember only one time when I found myself accepting profanity. It was during the war, when I saw a heated debate between a patriotic Republican and a extreme secessionist Democrat. The Republican was arguing that the Government should use all its power to crush the rebellion. At that moment, the Democrat interjected the typical rebel line: "but only according to the Constitution." This interruption prompted the Republican to shout, as he pressed on, "Damn the Constitution!" His outburst so perfectly mirrored my own feelings that I couldn’t criticize it any more than the recording angel could take note of Uncle Toby’s famous curse.[Pg 942]
And now, in your case, is another wrongful use of the Constitution. The instrument is cited against woman, as if she had united with man in making it, and was, therefore, morally bound by the flagrant usurpation, and legally concluded by it. Moreover, an excuse for turning the Constitution against her is that doing so deprives her of nothing but the pastime of dropping in a box a little piece of paper. Nevertheless, this dropping, inasmuch as it expresses her choice of the guardians of her person and property, is her great natural right to provide for the safety of her life and of the means to sustain it. She has no rights whatever, and she lives upon mere privileges and favors, if others may usurp her rights. In fact she lies at the mercy of men, if men only may choose into whose hands to put the control of her person and property.... I do not complain of Judge Hunt's interpretations of the Constitution on the suffrage question. I do not complain of his refusing to accept the constitutional recognition of woman's right to vote, though that right seems to lie on the very surface of the Constitution amongst her rights of citizenship. Nor do I complain of his passing by this recognition to dig down into the Constitution for proofs of there being two kinds of citizens—one that can vote and one that can not vote. What I complain of is that he did not hold as void, instead of arguing them to be valid, any words in the instrument which seemed to him to favor the disfranchisement of woman and consequent robbery and destruction of her rights. What I complain of is that, instead of his conscientious regard for his oath, he was not prepared to ignore and scout all human law so far as it is antagonistic to natural law and natural rights....
And now, in your situation, this is another misuse of the Constitution. The document is used against women, as if she had joined with man in creating it, and is, therefore, morally obligated to accept the obvious violation, and legally bound by it. Moreover, the excuse for using the Constitution against her is that it deprives her of nothing but the trivial act of dropping a small piece of paper into a box. However, this act of voting, since it reflects her choice of who will protect her person and property, is her fundamental natural right to ensure the safety of her life and her means of living. She has no rights whatsoever, and lives merely on privileges and favors, if others can take away her rights. In fact, she is at the mercy of men if only they can decide who controls her person and property.... I don’t criticize Judge Hunt’s interpretations of the Constitution regarding the suffrage issue. I don’t criticize him for refusing to acknowledge women’s constitutional right to vote, even though that right is clearly evident in the Constitution among her citizenship rights. Nor do I criticize him for bypassing this acknowledgment to search the Constitution for evidence of two types of citizens—one that votes and one that doesn’t. What I criticize is that he did not declare as invalid, instead of arguing for their validity, any language in the document that appeared to support the disenfranchisement of women and the consequent theft and destruction of her rights. What I criticize is that, instead of holding true to his oath, he was not willing to disregard and reject any human law that contradicts natural law and natural rights....
How striking and instructive is the following extract from a speech made a year or two ago in the Spanish Parliament: "Natural rights dwell essentially in the individual, and are derived directly from his own moral nature. They are therefore, so to speak, unlegislatable, since they do not arise from the law, do not depend on the law, and, not depending on the law, can not be abrogated by the law. Born of the organic constitution of the individual, with the individual they live and die, unless a tyrannical, unrighteous, and iniquitous law tears them from him, and then he will have the right to protest forever against this wrong and the iniquity of the law, and to rise against it whenever he can. Well, my lords, the inalienable rights of the Cubans have been torn from them by unrighteous, tyrannical, and iniquitous laws." Would that Judge Hunt and all our judges might, ere long, take the ground of this sublimely eloquent Spaniard, that natural rights are "unlegislatable".... Would that my much esteemed friend, Judge Hunt, had so far outgrown bad law and grown into good law, as to have pronounced at your trial the disenthralment of woman, and thus have set the name of Hunt in immortality by the side of the names of Brougham and Mansfield, and others who have had the wisdom and the courage to thrust aside false paper law and install in its place that sovereign law which is written upon the heart and upon the very foundations of human being! He does not doubt that they did right. He honors them for having done as they did. Nor can he doubt that to deny to woman all part in the making and executing of laws under which her life and property may be taken from her is a crime against her, which no paper law can sanction and which God's law must condemn.... This worship of the Constitution!—how blinding and belittling! I would that every judge who tends to this weakness (and nearly every judge, yes, and nearly every other person tends to it) might find his steps arrested by the warning example of Daniel Webster. This pre-eminently intellectual man, whom nature had fitted to soar in the high sphere of absolute and everlasting law, had so shrivelled his soul by his worship of the Constitution that he came,[Pg 943] at last, to desire no other inscription on his grave-stone than his shameless confession of such base worship. And all this, notwithstanding the Constitution was, in his eye, the great bulwark of slavery!
How striking and instructive is the following extract from a speech made a year or two ago in the Spanish Parliament: "Natural rights essentially reside in the individual and come directly from his own moral nature. They are, in a sense, unlegislated, since they do not come from the law, do not depend on the law, and, not depending on the law, cannot be taken away by the law. Formed from the individual’s organic constitution, they live and die with the individual, unless a tyrannical, unjust, and corrupt law rips them away, and then he has the right to protest forever against this wrong and the injustice of the law and to rise against it whenever possible. Well, my lords, the inalienable rights of the Cubans have been taken from them by unjust, tyrannical, and corrupt laws." Would that Judge Hunt and all our judges might, soon, take the stance of this profoundly eloquent Spaniard, that natural rights are "unlegislated".... Would that my highly esteemed friend, Judge Hunt, had so far moved past bad law and embraced good law, as to have declared at your trial the freedom of women, and thus have immortalized the name of Hunt alongside the names of Brougham and Mansfield, and others who had the wisdom and courage to cast aside false legal documents and put in their place the sovereign law that is written on the heart and the very foundations of human existence! He does not doubt that they acted rightly. He honors them for what they did. Nor can he doubt that denying women any role in making and enforcing the laws under which their lives and property can be taken from them is a crime against her, which no legal document can justify and which God's law must condemn.... This worship of the Constitution!—how blinding and diminishing! I wish that every judge who is prone to this weakness (and nearly every judge, yes, and almost every other person, is prone to it) could have their steps halted by the cautionary example of Daniel Webster. This supremely intellectual man, whom nature had equipped to soar in the high realm of absolute and everlasting law, had so withered his soul through his worship of the Constitution that he ended up desiring no other inscription on his gravestone than his shameless confession of such base worship. And all this, despite the fact that the Constitution was, in his eyes, the great stronghold of slavery!
Be of good courage and good cheer, my brave and faithful sister! I trust our country is on the eve of great and blessed changes.... Best of all, the ballot can not much longer be withheld from woman. Men are fast coming to see that it belongs to her as fully as to themselves, and that the country is in perishing need of her wielding it. If the silly portion of our ladies will but cease from their silly apprehension that the plan is to make them vote whether they will or no, and also cease from their ignorant and childish admissions that they already have all the rights they want—then will the American women quickly be enfranchised, and their nation will rapidly achieve a far higher civilization than it is possible for any nation to arrive at which is guilty of the folly and the sin of clothing man with all political power and reducing women to a political cipher.
Be brave and stay positive, my courageous and loyal sister! I believe our country is about to experience significant and positive changes.... Most importantly, the right to vote can't be withheld from women for much longer. Men are quickly realizing that women deserve this right just as much as they do, and that the country desperately needs women to exercise it. If the less informed women among us could let go of their foolish fear that this means they will be forced to vote against their will, and also stop their misguided belief that they already have all the rights they need—then American women will soon gain the right to vote, and the nation will quickly achieve a much higher level of civilization than any nation can reach that foolishly and unjustly gives all political power to men while reducing women to nothing in the political sphere.
Gerrit Smith.
Gerrit Smith.
Cordially yours,
Cordially yours,
WASHINGTON NOTES.
BY GRACE GREENWOOD.
When I said that in the dull languor of our summer collapse we felt none of your fierce Northern excitements, I should have excepted the Anthony suffrage case. That touched nearly if not deeply. The ark of the holy political covenant resting here—the sacred mules that draw it being stabled in the Capitol for half a year at a time—the woman who has laid unsanctified hands upon it, is naturally regarded with peculiar horror. I did not take exception to the Times' article of June 19th on this case. It was mild and courteous in tone, and the view taken of the XIV. Amendment plea seems to me the only sound one. I certainly do not want to get into your political preserves by any quibble or dodge. I want my right there freely granted and guaranteed, and will be politely treated when I come, or I won't stay. The promised land of justice and equality is not to be reached by a short cut. I fear we have a large part of the forty years of struggle and zigzaging before us yet. I am pretty sure our Moses has not appeared. I think he will be a woman. Often the way seems dark, as well as long, when I see so much fooling with the great question of woman's claims to equal educational advantages with men; to just remuneration for good work, especially in teaching, and fair credit for her share in the patriotic and benevolent enterprises of the age. I do not say that equal pay for equal services will never be accorded to woman, even in the civil service, till she has the ballot to back her demand; but that is the private opinion of many high Government officials. I do not say that woman's right to be represented, as well as taxed, will never be recognized as a logical practical result of the democratic principle till the Democrats come in power. But it may be so. The Gospel was first offered to the Jews, but first accepted by the Gentiles.
When I said that during the dull weariness of our summer decline we didn't feel any of your intense Northern excitement, I should have made an exception for the Anthony suffrage case. That one hit home, if not deeply. The sacred political covenant is sitting here—the holy mules that pull it are stabled in the Capitol for half a year at a time—the woman who has touched it without permission is, of course, viewed with special horror. I didn't disagree with the Times' article from June 19th about this case. It was respectful and polite in tone, and the perspective on the XIV Amendment plea seems to be the only reasonable one. I certainly don’t want to slip into your political space with any tricks or loopholes. I want my rights granted and guaranteed without any hassle, and I expect to be treated respectfully when I show up, or I won’t stick around. The promised land of justice and equality can't be reached through shortcuts. I worry we still have a long journey ahead, with a lot of struggle ahead of us. I’m pretty sure our Moses hasn’t shown up yet. I think it’ll be a woman. Often, the path seems both dark and lengthy when I see so much nonsense around the crucial issue of women’s equal access to education; fair pay for good work, especially in teaching; and proper acknowledgment of their contributions to the patriotic and charitable efforts of today. I don’t claim that equal pay for equal work will never happen for women, even in civil service, until they have the vote to support their request; but that’s the personal opinion of many high government officials. I don’t believe that women’s right to representation, as well as taxation, will ever be recognized as a logical outcome of democratic principles until the Democrats are in power. But it might be the case. The Gospel was first offered to the Jews but accepted first by the Gentiles.
In your article, fair as it was in spirit, you failed to touch upon two points which struck me rather painfully. It seems that Judge Hunt, after pronouncing a learned, and, I suppose, a sound opinion, peremptorily ordered the jury to bring the defendant in guilty. Now, could not twelve honest, intelligent jurymen be trusted to defend their birthright against one woman? Why such zeal, such more than Roman sternness? Again, in the trial of the inspectors of election, why were both judge and jurymen so merciful? No verdict of guilty was ordered, and the council of twelve who had seen fit to punish Miss Anthony by a fine of $100 and costs, merely mulcted in the modest sum of $25, each defenseless defendant sinning against light. Was it that they considered in their manly clemency the fact that women have superior facilities for earning money, or did they give heed to the old, old excuse, "The woman tempted me, and I did register"?
In your article, although it was fair in spirit, you missed two points that really stood out to me. It seems that Judge Hunt, after giving a knowledgeable and, I assume, valid opinion, abruptly instructed the jury to find the defendant guilty. Couldn’t twelve honest, intelligent jurors be trusted to protect their rights against one woman? Why such eagerness, such more than Roman seriousness? Additionally, in the trial of the election inspectors, why were both the judge and jurors so lenient? No guilty verdict was given, and the twelve who decided to fine Miss Anthony $100 and costs only imposed a modest $25 on each defendant, all of whom had acted with awareness. Did they think in their manly kindness that women have better opportunities to earn money, or did they fall back on the old excuse, “The woman tempted me, and I did register”?
It surely is strange that such severe penalties should be visited on a woman, for a first and only indiscretion in the suffrage line, when a man may rise up on election morning and go forth, voting and to vote. If he be of an excitable and mercurial nature, one of the sort of citizens which sweet Ireland empties on us by the county, he may sportively flit about among the polls, from ward to ward, of the metropolis, and no man says to him nay; he may even travel hilariously from city to city, with free passes and free drinks—who treats Miss Anthony?—making festive calls, and dropping ballots for cards,[Pg 944] and no disturbance comes of it—he is neither fined nor confined. So, it would seem, "a little voting is a dangerous thing."
It’s definitely odd that such harsh penalties fall on a woman for her first and only mistake in voting, while a man can casually wake up on election morning and go vote. If he’s the excitable type, one of those citizens that sweet Ireland sends our way, he can bounce around the polling places in the city without anyone batting an eye; he can even travel cheerfully from city to city, enjoying free rides and drinks—who’s picking up the tab for Miss Anthony?—making social visits and dropping off ballots like they’re party favors,[Pg 944] and nothing ever happens to him—he faces neither fines nor imprisonment. So, it seems like, “a little voting is a dangerous thing.”
Say what you will, the whole question of woman's status in the State and the Church, in society and the family, is full of absurd contradictions and monstrous anomalies. We are so responsible, yet irresponsible—we are idols, we are idiots—we are everything, we are nothing. We are the Caryatides, rearing up the entablature of the temple of liberty we are never allowed to enter. We may plot against a government, and hang for it; but if we help to found and sustain a government by patriotic effort and devotion, by toil and hardship, by courage, loyalty, and faith, by the sacrifice of those nearest and dearest to us, and then venture to clutch at the crumbs that fall from the table where our Masters Jonathan, Patrick, Hans, and Sambo sit at feast, you arrest us, imprison us, try us, fine us, and then add injury to insult, by calling us old, ugly, and fanatical.
Say what you want, the whole issue of women's rights in the State and the Church, in society and the family, is filled with ridiculous contradictions and outrageous inequalities. We are seen as both responsible and irresponsible—we are idols, we are fools—we are everything and nothing. We are the Caryatids, holding up the structure of the temple of liberty that we are never allowed to enter. We can conspire against a government and face execution for it; but if we help create and support a government through patriotism, hard work, and dedication, through courage, loyalty, and faith, by sacrificing those we love most, and then dare to reach for the scraps that fall from the table where our Masters Jonathan, Patrick, Hans, and Sambo dine, you arrest us, imprison us, put us on trial, fine us, and then add insult to injury by calling us old, ugly, and fanatical.
One is forcibly reminded of the sermon of the colored brother on woman, the heads of which discourse were: "Firstly. What am woman? Secondly. Whar did she come from? Thirdly. Who does she belong to? Fourthly. Which way am she gwine to?"
One is strongly reminded of the sermon from the Black preacher about women, where the main points were: "First. What is a woman? Second. Where did she come from? Third. Who does she belong to? Fourth. Where is she going?"
The law and the Gospel have settled the "secondly" and "thirdly." Woman came from man, and belongs to him by the mortgage he holds on her through that spare-rib; but "firstly" and "fourthly" remain as profound and unsolvable questions as they were before the Ethiopian divine wrestled with them. But perhaps this troublous and perplexed existence is our "be-all and end-all"; that in the life beyond, man may foreclose that old mortgage and re-absorb woman into his glorified and all-sufficient being.
The law and the Gospel have clarified the "secondly" and "thirdly." Woman came from man and is connected to him by the bond he holds on her through that spare rib; however, "firstly" and "fourthly" remain deep and unresolved questions just like they were before the Ethiopian divine wrestled with them. But maybe this troubled and confusing existence is our "be-all and end-all"; that in the life beyond, man might cancel that old bond and fully embrace woman into his glorified and all-sufficient self.
I have never believed with Miss Anthony, that the XIV. Amendment was going to help us. I have never accepted certain other of her theories; but I believe in and accept her as a woman of intense convictions, of high courage and constancy; and I don't like to hear her ridiculed and abused. If anything can make me think meanly of my young brothers of the press, it is the way they pelt and pester Susan B. Anthony. For shame, boys! Never a one of you will make the man she is. Even some of our Washington editors turn aside from the fair game. Providence, in its inscrutable wisdom, has provided for them in the Board of Public Works, to vent their virtuous indignation and manly scorn of the woman they are determined shall stand in perpetual pillory in the market-place of this great, free Republic.—New York Times.
I have never agreed with Miss Anthony that the XIV Amendment would help us. I’ve never accepted some of her other theories either, but I respect her as a woman of strong beliefs, great courage, and unwavering determination. It bothers me to hear her mocked and insulted. If anything can make me think poorly of my young colleagues in the press, it’s the way they attack Susan B. Anthony. For shame, guys! None of you could ever match the person she is. Even some of our Washington editors shy away from the fair fight. Fate, in its mysterious wisdom, has set them up in the Board of Public Works to express their righteous anger and manly disdain toward the woman they insist on putting in perpetual disgrace in the public eye of this great, free Republic.—New York Times.
The Washington, D. C., Star says of Judge Hunt's opinion: "If his views are to prevail, of what effect are the suffrage amendments to the Federal Constitution."
The Washington, D. C., Star comments on Judge Hunt's opinion: "If his views take hold, what is the point of the suffrage amendments to the Federal Constitution?"
[The County Post, Washington Co., N. Y., Friday, June 27, 1873].
[The County Post, Washington Co., N. Y., Friday, June 27, 1873].
NOT A VOTER.
The United States Courts have pronounced on Miss Anthony's case, which she so adroitly made by voting last fall, in company with fourteen others of her sex. The decision was adverse to the claim made by this devoted friend of female suffrage, that as the Constitution now stood, women had a right to vote. Accordingly the indomitable old lady was found guilty of violating the law regulating the purity of the ballot-box, and fined one hundred dollars and costs. A good many journals seem to regard this as a good joke on Susan B, as they call her, and make it the excuse for more poor jokes of their own. It may be stupid to confess it, but we can not see where the laugh comes in. If it is a mere question of who has got the best of it, Miss Anthony is still ahead; she has voted, and the American Constitution has survived the shock. Fining her one hundred dollars does not rub out that fact that fourteen women voted, and went home, and the world jogged on as before. The decision of the judge does not prove that it is wrong for women to vote, it does not even prove that Miss Anthony did wrong in voting. It only shows that one judge on the bench differs in opinion from other equally well qualified judges off the bench. It is not our province to find fault with this decision of the United States Court at Rochester. Miss Anthony may be wrong in attempting to vote; of that we are not certain. But of the greater question back of it, of Miss Anthony's inherent right to vote we have no question, and that after all is the more important matter. This Rochester breakwater may damn back the stream for a while, but it is bound to come, sweeping away all barriers. The opposition to extending the suffrage to the other sex is founded alone on prejudice arising from social custom. Reason[Pg 945] and logic are both against it. Women will not be voters possibly for some years to come; it is not desirable that the franchise should come too quick; but they are certain to have the full privilege of citizenship in the end.
The U.S. Courts have ruled on Miss Anthony's case, which she cleverly created by voting last fall alongside fourteen other women. The decision was against her claim, made by this dedicated supporter of women's suffrage, that women had the right to vote under the current Constitution. Consequently, the determined older woman was found guilty of violating the law meant to protect the integrity of the ballot box and was fined one hundred dollars plus costs. Many newspapers seem to find humor in this situation regarding Susan B., as they refer to her, and use it as an excuse for their own bad jokes. It might be silly to admit, but we don’t see what’s funny about it. If it’s just about who comes out on top, Miss Anthony is still winning; she voted, and the American Constitution remains intact. Fining her a hundred dollars doesn’t erase the fact that fourteen women voted and then went home, and life continued as usual. The judge's decision doesn’t show that it’s wrong for women to vote, nor does it prove that Miss Anthony was wrong for voting. It simply reflects that one judge on the bench disagrees with other equally qualified judges off the bench. It's not our place to criticize this decision from the U.S. Court in Rochester. Miss Anthony might be mistaken in her attempt to vote; we’re not sure. But when it comes to the bigger issue of her inherent right to vote, we have no doubts, and that is the more significant matter. This Rochester ruling may hold back progress temporarily, but it's destined to come, breaking through all obstacles. The opposition to granting suffrage to women is based solely on prejudice from social customs. Reason and logic argue against it. Women might not be voters for a number of years; it’s not ideal for the franchise to happen too quickly, but they will ultimately gain full citizenship rights.
[The Age, Thursday, July 31, 1873.]
[The Age, Thursday, July 31, 1873.]
KU-KLUX PRISONERS.
The Ku-Klux prisoners are, it seems, now to be released. They are persons some of whom had committed assaults and other offenses cognizable by the laws of the States where they lived, and the Ku-Klux legislation by Congress was a political device as unnecessary as it was unconstitutional. Perhaps the most ridiculous, as well as the most unjust prosecution under the Ku-Klux law was that instituted against Miss Anthony for voting in Rochester. Under her view of her rights, she presented herself at the polls, and submitted her claims to the proper officers, who decided that she had a right to vote. She practiced no fraud or concealment of any kind. She did what every good citizen here would do, if any doubt arose from assessment, registration, or residence, as to his right to vote. He would state the case to the election officers, and abide their decision. Yet this, we are told, is a criminal offense under the Ku-Klux law, for which a citizen who has done exactly what he ought to have done, may be fined and imprisoned as a criminal. Nay, if, as often happens, a point of doubt is submitted to our Court of Common Pleas and decided in favor of the applicant, he is still liable to criminal prosecution under the Federal Ku-Klux law, if a United States Commissioner or Judge differs from the State Judge in the construction of the State law. Since the victims of the Ku-Klux act are now receiving pardons, we hope the fine of $100 unlawfully imposed on Miss Anthony may be remitted. We do not think there was a case of more gross injustice ever practiced under forms of law, than the conviction of that lady for a criminal offense in voting, with the assent of the legal election officers to whom her right was submitted. If all the victims of this unconstitutional law were as innocent as she was, they can not be too soon released. Even those who were guilty of offenses cognizable by the State law, were unjustly tried and condemned under an unconstitutional statute passed for political effect.
The Ku-Klux prisoners are apparently going to be released now. They are individuals, some of whom committed assaults and other offenses recognized by the laws of their states, and the Ku-Klux legislation passed by Congress was a political tool that was as unnecessary as it was unconstitutional. Perhaps the most absurd and unjust prosecution under the Ku-Klux law was against Miss Anthony for voting in Rochester. In her view of her rights, she went to the polls and presented her case to the appropriate officials, who decided she had the right to vote. She engaged in no fraud or concealment whatsoever. She did what any responsible citizen would do if there were doubts about their eligibility to vote due to assessment, registration, or residency—present the case to the election officials and accept their decision. Yet, we are told, this is considered a criminal act under the Ku-Klux law, making a citizen who did exactly what they should have done liable to fines and imprisonment as a criminal. Moreover, if, as sometimes occurs, a question of doubt is brought before our Court of Common Pleas and decided in favor of the applicant, they are still at risk of criminal prosecution under the Federal Ku-Klux law if a United States Commissioner or Judge interprets the state law differently. Since those affected by the Ku-Klux act are now receiving pardons, we hope the $100 fine wrongfully imposed on Miss Anthony will be canceled. We can't think of a more blatant injustice committed under the guise of law than convicting that woman of a criminal offense for voting, with the approval of the legal election officials to whom her right was presented. If all the victims of this unconstitutional law were as innocent as she was, they should be released without delay. Even those who were guilty of offenses recognized by state law were unjustly tried and condemned under an unconstitutional statute created for political gain.
[From the Philadelphia Age].
[From the Philadelphia Age].
THE FUNNY CASE OF MISS ANTHONY.
The case of Miss Susan B. Anthony seems to be dismissed with a laugh by most of the press; but from the first institution of a prosecution against her under the Ku-Klux law, we have regarded the proceeding as one in which the injustice was not cloaked by the absurdity. The law was passed by Congress on a political cry that massacre and outrage menaced negroes at the polls in the Southern States, and now we have it used to oppress a woman in Rochester, New York. We are not debarred from saying "oppressed" because the judge left the fine to be levied on her property instead of imprisoning her person—in a State in which women have, we suppose, long been exempt from imprisonment for debt. But the chief outrage in the case is that it affords the first case, we believe, in the United States, or anywhere in modern times, of a conviction for a crime when there was no criminal intent. The proof, or the presumption of this, is essential to a crime in the criminal law of every civilized nation. The case of Miss Anthony was that of a lady who believed that the much vaunted amendments of the Federal Constitution extended to white women; and many lawyers and Congressmen have also avowed this opinion. We do not hold it, but we do not doubt that Miss Anthony does, very sincerely. We think as the Judge says in her case, that the Federal Constitution has nothing to do with the matter; that is wholly regulated by the Constitution of New York. But every word of his argument was equally strong to show that he, a Federal Judge, had nothing to do with the matter, and that it wholly belonged to the courts of New York. They know, we presume, no law that can create a crime without a criminal intention, and we deny the right of Congress or any earthly authority to pass so monstrous a law. Every day in criminal courts that point arises. If a man charged with larceny is proved to have taken the goods of another, but under some idea that he had a right to them, no matter how erroneous, the criminal prosecution is instantly dismissed.[Pg 946] Our eminent jurist, Judge King, used to say: "This is a civil suit run mad." Has any citizen of Philadelphia supposed that if there is a doubt as to his right to vote—one of those numerous doubts that arise in changes of residence, time of registration, naturalization, etc.—and wishing scrupulously to do right, he go to the window and fully and fairly state his case, and the election officers consider it, and adjudge that he should vote then and there, has any citizen heretofore known that he thus became liable to conviction for a crime under the Ku-Klux laws, if some judge of a court should think the election officers decided the point erroneously?
The situation with Miss Susan B. Anthony seems to be brushed off by most of the media, but from the beginning of the prosecution against her under the Ku-Klux law, we have seen this as an unjust action that isn't hidden by its absurdity. The law was enacted by Congress in response to claims that violence and intimidation threatened Black voters at the polls in the Southern States, and now it's being used to target a woman in Rochester, New York. We can call it "oppression" even though the judge decided to impose a fine on her property instead of sending her to jail—in a state where women, we assume, have been free from imprisonment for debt for quite a while. However, the main injustice in this case is that it represents what we believe to be the first instance in the United States, or anywhere in modern times, where someone was convicted of a crime without any criminal intent. Proof, or the assumption of intent, is essential for establishing a crime in the legal systems of every civilized nation. Miss Anthony's case involves a woman who thought that the highly praised amendments of the Federal Constitution applied to white women; many lawyers and Congress members have also expressed this belief. While we do not share this view, we have no doubt that Miss Anthony genuinely holds it. We think, as the judge indicated in her case, that the Federal Constitution is irrelevant; the matter is entirely governed by the Constitution of New York. Yet, every point he made equally illustrated that he, as a Federal Judge, had no jurisdiction in this matter, which belonged solely to the courts of New York. We presume they know of no law that can establish a crime without underlying criminal intent, and we reject the authority of Congress or any other power to enact such an outrageous law. This issue comes up daily in criminal courts. If a man accused of theft can show he took someone else's property under the belief that he had a right to it, no matter how mistaken that belief may be, the criminal case is immediately dismissed. Our distinguished jurist, Judge King, used to say, "This is a civil suit gone crazy." Has any citizen in Philadelphia ever thought that if there’s a question about his right to vote—one of those many uncertainties that arise with changes in residence, registration timelines, naturalization, and so on—and he wishes to do the right thing by going to the election window and fully explaining his situation, only for the election officials to consider it and decide he can vote at that moment, has any citizen realized that he could then be at risk of being convicted of a crime under the Ku-Klux laws if some judge later decided the election officials made the wrong call?
Yet that is the doctrine of Miss Anthony's case. Her garb and person sufficed to tell she was a woman when she approached the polls, and there was also argument over the matter, exhibiting afresh the fact notorious at her home, that she claimed a lawful right to vote under certain amendments of the Constitution. She was no repeater or false personator, or probably she would not be persecuted, and certainly she would be pardoned.
Yet that is the principle of Miss Anthony's case. Her clothing and appearance clearly indicated she was a woman when she went to the polls, and there was also debate about this, highlighting the well-known fact at home that she asserted a legal right to vote under specific amendments to the Constitution. She was neither a voter impersonator nor a fraud, or else she wouldn’t be facing persecution, and surely she would be pardoned.
She submitted her right to the election officers, and they, the judges appointed by the law, decided in her favor. It is just the case we have supposed in Philadelphia, and which often really occurs here, and may occur anywhere. And now we are told the Ku-Klux law makes this hitherto laudable and innocent mode of procedure a crime, punishable with fine and imprisonment! This is the decision over which many journals are laughing because the first victim is a woman. We can not see the joke.
She handed her rights over to the election officials, and they, the judges assigned by law, ruled in her favor. This is exactly the scenario we imagined in Philadelphia, and it often actually happens here, and can happen anywhere. And now we're being told that the Ku-Klux law turns this previously commendable and harmless procedure into a crime, punishable by fines and jail time! This is the decision that many newspapers are mocking because the first victim is a woman. We can't see the humor in it.
[Chicago Evening Journal, Dec. 1, 1874].
[Chicago Evening Journal, Dec. 1, 1874].
Mrs. Myra Bradwell, the editor and publisher of the Legal News, of this city, is a warm advocate of woman's rights. In the last number of the News, speaking of Susan B. Anthony, she declares that Judge Ward Hunt, of the Federal bench, "violated the Constitution of the United States more, to convict her of illegal voting, than she did in voting, for he had sworn to support it, she had not."
Mrs. Myra Bradwell, the editor and publisher of the Legal News in this city, is a passionate supporter of women's rights. In the latest issue of the News, while discussing Susan B. Anthony, she states that Judge Ward Hunt, from the Federal bench, "violated the Constitution of the United States more to convict her of illegal voting than she did by voting, because he had sworn to uphold it, while she had not."
Sister Myra is evidently not afraid of being hauled up for contempt of court.
Sister Myra clearly isn't worried about being called out for contempt of court.
[St. Louis Daily Globe, Thursday, June 26, 1873].
[St. Louis Daily Globe, Thursday, June 26, 1873].
MISS ANTHONY'S CASE.
JUDGE HUNT'S DECISION REVIEWED—SHE HAD A RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.
Editor of St. Louis Globe:—I ask the favor of a small space in your paper to notice the very remarkable decision of Judge Hunt, in the case of the United States vs. Susan B. Anthony.
Editor of St. Louis Globe:—I would appreciate a small space in your paper to highlight the very significant decision made by Judge Hunt in the case of the United States vs. Susan B. Anthony.
The Judge tells us "that the right of voting, or the privilege of voting, is a right or privilege arising under the constitution of the States, and not of the united States. If the right belongs to any particular person, it is because such person is entitled to it as a citizen of the State where he offers to exercise it, and not because of citizenship of the United States."
The Judge says, "The right to vote, or the privilege of voting, comes from the constitution of the States, not from the United States. If someone has the right, it's because they are entitled to it as a citizen of the State where they want to vote, not due to being a citizen of the United States."
If this position be true (which I do not admit), then Judge Hunt should have pronounced the act of Congress unconstitutional, and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. If the matter belongs exclusively to the States, then the United States have nothing to do with it, and clearly have no right to interfere and punish a person for the (supposed) violation of a State law. But this is one of the least of the criticisms to which this opinion is exposed. A far graver one consists in the fact that the defendant was denied the right of a trial by jury.
If this position is true (which I don't accept), then Judge Hunt should have declared the act of Congress unconstitutional and dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction. If this matter is exclusively for the States, then the United States has no involvement and clearly has no right to interfere and punish someone for the (alleged) violation of a State law. But this is one of the less serious criticisms of this opinion. A much more serious issue is that the defendant was denied the right to a trial by jury.
The Supreme Court of the United States say: "Another guarantee of freedom was broken when Milligan was denied a trial by jury. The great minds of the country have differed on the correct interpretation to be given to various provisions of the Federal Constitution, and judicial decision has been often invoked to settle their true meaning; but, until recently, no one ever doubted that the right of trial by jury was fortified in the organic law against the power of attack. It is now assailed; but if ideas can be expressed in words, and language has any meaning, this right—one of the most valuable in a free country—is preserved to every one accused of crime, who is not attached to the army, or navy, or militia in actual service. The VI. Amendment affirms that in 'all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury,' language broad enough to embrace all persons and cases."—Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, p. 122.[Pg 947]
The Supreme Court of the United States states: "Another guarantee of freedom was violated when Milligan was denied a trial by jury. The great minds of the country have disagreed on the correct interpretation of various provisions of the Federal Constitution, and judicial decisions have often been called upon to clarify their true meaning; but, until recently, no one ever doubted that the right to a trial by jury was protected in the foundational law against any attempts to undermine it. It is now challenged; however, if ideas can be expressed in words, and language has any significance, this right—one of the most important in a free country—is preserved for everyone accused of a crime, who is not part of the army, navy, or militia in active service. The VI. Amendment confirms that in 'all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury,' a statement broad enough to include all individuals and cases."—Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, p. 122.[Pg 947]
It is true a jury was impaneled, but this was all, for we are informed that, at the conclusion of the opinion, Judge Selden requested that the case should be submitted to the jury upon the question of intent, and upon certain propositions of law; but the court declined to submit the case upon any question whatever, and directed them to render a verdict of guilty against the defendant.
It’s true a jury was assembled, but that was all, because we were told that, at the end of the opinion, Judge Selden asked for the case to be sent to the jury regarding the question of intent and some legal propositions; however, the court refused to submit the case on any issue at all and instructed them to deliver a guilty verdict against the defendant.
I have been pained to witness, on the part of some of our newspapers, a disposition to treat this decision with indifference, by some even with levity. Has it come to this, that because she is a woman the defendant can not get a fair and impartial trial? The case of the inspectors was not treated in this way—but then they were men.
I’ve been saddened to see that some of our newspapers are treating this decision with indifference, and some even with a lighthearted attitude. Has it really come to this, that the defendant can’t receive a fair and impartial trial just because she’s a woman? The inspectors' case wasn’t handled this way—but that’s because they were men.
Justice.
Justice.
[The Journal, Thursday, July 30, 1874].
[The Journal, Thursday, July 30, 1874].
THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL ON SUSAN B. ANTHONY'S CASE.
To the Editor of the Syracuse Journal:—I wish to call the attention of the readers of The Journal, especially legal ones, to the underlying intent and unjust perversions of the Albany Law Journal of this month, in its leading article, entitled "Can a Judge direct a Verdict of Guilty?"
To the Editor of the Syracuse Journal:—I want to draw the attention of the readers of The Journal, particularly those in the legal field, to the hidden intentions and unfair distortions of this month's Albany Law Journal, specifically in its main article titled "Can a Judge Direct a Verdict of Guilty?"
This Law Journal, which professes to lead the legal craft of the Empire State in the devious ways of legal justice, has but now, thirteen months after its date, a review of Miss Anthony's celebrated trial, as conducted by Judge Ward Hunt. Having taken a year and a month to get the first principles of justice and of constitutional law through his head, the belated editor of that law journal has come to the conclusion—self-evident as it ought to be to a child—that a judge has no legal right to take from an accused person the right of trial by jury. Sapient editor, wise man! No second Solomon, you. You, with all your legal lore, have at last managed to see, in a year and a month, what the veriest simple woman in the land, all uneducated as women are in the technicalities of the law, had no difficulty of seeing in an hour. Right of trial by jury holds all other legal rights within its grasp. Deprive a man or woman of that, and of what use is your habeas corpus act, of what use your law of penalties or acquittal? The terrors of the middle ages, the lettres de cachet, sequestration, confiscation, rayless dungeons, and iron masks at once rise in view.
This Law Journal, which claims to guide the legal profession of the Empire State in the complicated paths of legal justice, has now, thirteen months later, a review of Miss Anthony's famous trial, as overseen by Judge Ward Hunt. After taking over a year to grasp the basics of justice and constitutional law, the delayed editor of that law journal has concluded—something that should be obvious even to a child—that a judge has no legal right to strip an accused person of their right to a trial by jury. Wise editor, indeed! Not quite a second Solomon. With all your legal knowledge, you've finally managed to understand, in a year and a month, what the simplest woman in the land, uneducated in the intricacies of the law, could see in just an hour. The right to a trial by jury encompasses all other legal rights. Take that away from anyone, and what good is your habeas corpus act, or your laws on penalties or acquittal? The horrors of the Middle Ages—like the lettres de cachet, sequestration, confiscation, dark dungeons, and iron masks—immediately come to mind.
We will, however, allow to this editor one grain of sense, as he acknowledges the dangerous power in the hands of judges of the United States Circuit Court, a power they possess outside of right, a power through which one of them can, as did Judge Ward Hunt in Miss Anthony's case, transcend his legal rights, to warp and bend constitutional guarantees to his own ends, and having so done that there is no legal appeal from his unwarrantable decision. A United States judge is practically irresponsible. Nothing can touch him for illegality in office but a Congressional impeachment, which from a combination of circumstances is difficult to bring about. He holds the dearest rights of American citizens at pleasure in his hands, and this is law and justice in the United States. These are solely and entirely man-made laws. No woman had finger or tongue in the matter.
We will, however, give this editor some credit for recognizing the dangerous power held by judges of the United States Circuit Court—a power that exists outside of legal rights. This power allows a judge, like Judge Ward Hunt in Miss Anthony's case, to go beyond their legal authority, manipulating and distorting constitutional protections to serve their own purposes. Once they've done that, there is no legal recourse against their unjust decision. A United States judge is practically untouchable. The only way to hold them accountable for wrongdoing in their role is through a Congressional impeachment, which is often hard to achieve due to various circumstances. They hold the most cherished rights of American citizens in their hands at their discretion, and this is what constitutes law and justice in the United States. These laws are entirely created by humans, with no involvement from women in the process.
But Mr. Albany Law Journal editor, after acknowledging their injustice toward accused persons, and their dangers to the liberties of every individual, tells Miss Anthony that "if she" is dissatisfied with "our laws," meaning, of course, man-made laws like these, "she would better adopt the methods of reform that men use, or, better still, emigrate." Was ever a more disreputable phrase penned? Disgraceful to its author, and doubly so, as he pretends to be a teacher of law. This is the language of a very Nero come to judgment.
But Mr. Albany, the editor of the Law Journal, after admitting their unfairness towards accused people and the threats they pose to everyone's freedoms, tells Miss Anthony that "if she" is unhappy with "our laws"—referring, of course, to these man-made laws—"she would be better off adopting the reform methods that men use, or, even better, emigrating." Has there ever been a more disgraceful statement written? It's shameful for him, especially since he claims to be a teacher of law. This is the language of a modern-day Nero facing judgment.
"Our laws." Whose laws, pray? The laws of men made for "our" benefit alone. Is this what Mr. Editor of the Albany Law Journal means? Pray, Mr. Albany Law Journal, what are "the methods of reform that men use," when they are dissatisfied with "our laws," only to speak against such laws, and to vote for men to make better ones? Miss Anthony has tried both of "the methods of reform men use," and for doing the last was arrested, tried, fined, and all but imprisoned. It seems "the methods of reform men use" are, after all, not just the kind of methods for Miss Anthony and her friends to use. But then, Mr. Albany Law Journal allows Miss Anthony and Mrs. Gage one other alternative, which he deems a "better one," i.e., to "emigrate."[Pg 948]
"Our laws." Whose laws are those? The laws created by men for "our" benefit only. Is this what the editor of the Albany Law Journal means? So, Mr. Albany Law Journal, what are "the methods of reform that men use" when they're unhappy with "our laws"? They only criticize those laws and vote for people to create better ones? Miss Anthony has tried both of "the methods of reform men use," and for doing the second, she was arrested, tried, fined, and nearly imprisoned. It seems "the methods of reform men use" aren't really suitable options for Miss Anthony and her friends. But then, Mr. Albany Law Journal offers Miss Anthony and Mrs. Gage another option, which he calls a "better one," i.e., to "emigrate."[Pg 948]
Mr. Editor continues: "We can well afford to lose her who rehearsed the story of her wrongs in public addresses, in twenty-nine of the post-office districts of Monroe, and twenty-one of Ontario, in her canvass of those counties prior to her trial, and Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, who made a speech on this subject in Canandaigua and sixteen other towns of Ontario County, previous to Miss Anthony's trial, June 17, 1873, with a view, of course, of influencing public opinion in that region, so that a conviction could not be had."
Mr. Editor continues: "We can easily afford to lose her, who shared her story of injustices in public speeches across twenty-nine post-office districts in Monroe and twenty-one in Ontario during her campaign in those counties before her trial, and Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, who gave a speech on this issue in Canandaigua and sixteen other towns in Ontario County, before Miss Anthony's trial on June 17, 1873, obviously aiming to sway public opinion in that area to prevent a conviction."
As Judge Hunt trampled on the citizen's right of trial by jury, so Mr. Albany Law Journal shows himself to be of the same ilk, by desiring to trample on that other guaranteed constitutional right of free speech. He would ostracise Miss Anthony and Mrs. Gage; he would banish them from the country because they dared to use one of "the methods of reform that men use," i.e., speaking of their "wrongs" in order to educate and enlighten public opinion. If old Greece could banish her best citizen, Aristides, simply because he was her most just one, Miss Anthony and myself certainly ought to consider it a matter of self-gratulation that we are deemed fit for banishment because of our demand for justice; justice not merely for ourselves, but for one-half the nation.
As Judge Hunt trampled on citizens' rights to a trial by jury, Mr. Albany Law Journal reveals himself to be just as unjust by wanting to undermine another guaranteed constitutional right: free speech. He would ostracize Miss Anthony and Mrs. Gage; he would exile them from the country because they dared to use one of "the methods of reform that men use," i.e., speaking out about their "wrongs" to educate and enlighten public opinion. If ancient Greece could banish its finest citizen, Aristides, just because he was the most just, then Miss Anthony and I should definitely take pride in being considered worthy of banishment for our demand for justice—not just for ourselves, but for half the nation.
That editor's contempt of rights and justice, as shown in his article, is simply amazing. He might as well have said in so many words, "This country and its government is for the benefit of us males alone; you women are part and parcel of our property; if you are not suited with all things as we fix them for you, then get out from our country." This is the tenor of what Mr. Albany Law Journal editor says. Does not every honest lawyer's face tingle with shame when he reads this disgraceful sentiment in that journal to which he so constantly looks for instruction in the higher departments of justice? Does not his republicanism revolt from such a sentiment? Does he not here recognize the enunciation of a principle as directly opposed to liberty as even Judge Hunt's control of jury trial?
That editor's disregard for rights and justice, as demonstrated in his article, is simply astonishing. He might as well have openly stated, "This country and its government exist solely for the benefit of us men; you women are essentially our property; if you’re not happy with everything we've set up for you, then just leave our country." This captures the essence of what Mr. Albany from the Law Journal is saying. Doesn't every honest lawyer feel a pang of shame when reading this disgraceful sentiment in a journal they regularly rely on for guidance in the higher aspects of justice? Doesn't this sentiment make his republican values rebel? Doesn't he recognize this as a principle that stands in direct opposition to liberty, similar to Judge Hunt's control over jury trials?
This journal shows that the right to do a thing and the power to do it are distinctly separate. Judge Hunt did what he had the power to do, but not the right to do. Mr. Law Journal possesses neither the right nor the power of banishing those citizens who do not conform to his wishes, but he has evinced a desire to hold such power, and did he have it, the country would find in him a tyrant of the same class as Judge Hunt.
This journal demonstrates that having the right to do something and having the power to do it are clearly different. Judge Hunt acted within his power, but he didn’t have the right to do so. Mr. Law Journal lacks both the right and the power to banish citizens who don’t follow his desires, but he has shown that he wants to hold that kind of power, and if he did have it, the country would see him as a tyrant, just like Judge Hunt.
As dilatory as this editor has been in reviewing this important case, he is equally timid in his criticism upon it. Currying to judicial and political power, he terms Judge Hunt's willful and knowing infraction of law "a mistake," but in regard to Miss Anthony, he says, "she intended deliberately to break the law." A large class of people believe just the contrary. We who know Miss Anthony well, and who believe with her, know that, on the contrary, she intended to do an act which is protected by the law, instead of breaking law; she was acting under authority of the law. Because Judge Hunt defied the law; because the editor of the Albany Law Journal is inexcusably ignorant of, or recklessly indifferent to the law, it does not follow that Miss Anthony belongs to that class, or should be judged by their corrupt standard. Miss Anthony, in common with hundreds, nay, thousands of other women, as well as of a large class of scholarly men—men of intelligence and a broad sense of justice—men, too, of political insight—fully believes that to woman, equally with man, does the Constitution secure political rights. These persons, this large class, believe that the XIII., XIV., and XV. Amendments to the national Constitution overrode and destroyed all those parts of State constitutions which were, or are now, by expression contrary to their provisions, and they believe that the fundamental right of citizens of the United States is the right to take part in making the laws which shall govern them; the exercise of this right to be regulated (not prevented) by States. They do not concede Miss Anthony to have been a law-breaker as the Albany Law Journal, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, and other friends of Judge Hunt concede her to have been. If the judiciary of the country is so far powerful, and so far irresponsible as to warp the law in favor of its own prejudices, even to the extent of preventing trial by jury, as Judge Hunt is conceded to have done, then our judiciary and not our criminals is our dangerous class. With such judges as Hunt, who has attempted to crush out the trial by jury, and make of the jury merely an ornamental tail to his judicial kite; with such teachers as the Albany Law Journal,[Pg 949] which, while acknowledging Hunt's outrageous illegality of action, yet calls it "a mistake," and speaks of him as "a good and pure" man, the administrators and the expounders of law have become the most dangerous enemies of the people. The eminent Judge Brady recognizes the low condition of legal honor, and in a recent speech, said he hoped to see the day when his legal brethren would understand that it was their duty to assist in the administration of justice, and not to lend themselves to degrading efforts to defeat it. We commend these remarks to the consideration of Judge Hunt and the editor of the Albany Law Journal.
As slow as this editor has been in reviewing this important case, he is just as hesitant in his criticism of it. Bowing to judicial and political power, he calls Judge Hunt's willful and knowing violation of the law "a mistake," but when it comes to Miss Anthony, he claims, "she intended deliberately to break the law." A large group of people believe the opposite. Those of us who know Miss Anthony well, and who share her beliefs, understand that she intended to carry out an act that is protected by the law, rather than break it; she was acting under legal authority. Just because Judge Hunt defied the law and the editor of the Albany Law Journal is either woefully ignorant of or blatantly indifferent to the law, it doesn’t mean that Miss Anthony fits that same mold or should be judged by their corrupt standards. Miss Anthony, along with hundreds, even thousands of other women, and a significant group of educated men—intelligent men with a strong sense of justice and political insight—firmly believe that women, just like men, have political rights secured by the Constitution. These individuals believe that the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments to the national Constitution override and eliminate any parts of State constitutions that contradict their provisions, and they hold that the fundamental right of citizens of the United States is the right to participate in making the laws that govern them; the exercise of this right is meant to be regulated (not prevented) by States. They do not consider Miss Anthony to be a lawbreaker as the Albany Law Journal, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, and other supporters of Judge Hunt claim she is. If the judiciary of this country is so powerful and so irresponsible that it distorts the law to favor its own biases, even to the point of denying the right to a jury trial, as Judge Hunt is acknowledged to have done, then it is our judiciary, not our criminals, that is the real threat. With judges like Hunt, who has tried to eliminate the jury trial and reduce the jury to a mere decoration for his judicial authority; with educators like the Albany Law Journal,[Pg 949] which, while admitting Hunt's outrageous illegality, still describes it as "a mistake," and regards him as "a good and pure" man, the people who administer and interpret the law have become the most dangerous enemies of the public. The distinguished Judge Brady recognizes the poor state of legal ethics, and in a recent speech, he expressed hope that one day his legal colleagues would realize it is their duty to help administer justice instead of participating in degrading efforts to undermine it. We urge Judge Hunt and the editor of the Albany Law Journal to consider these remarks.
With that lack of self-respect which seems to inhere in all opponents of woman suffrage, that editor, in addition to all else, tries to indulge in a little facetiousness over the threadbare witticisms that Miss Anthony "was a woman when she voted." Coming down through the lips of Judge Hunt and the United States District Attorney of the prosecution, it reaches the law editor in time for him to say that "on the trial of Miss Anthony she conceded that on the day of election she was a woman," and in a parenthesis ("we know that she generally was a woman, and are not surprised to learn that she was on election day.") What an amazing platitude this is to fall from the lips of a teacher of law. That the United States District Attorney engaged in the prosecution should degrade the dignity of the law by the question (to Judge Selden) "if it was conceded that on the day of election Miss Anthony was a woman?" to which the reply was, "Yes, now and ever heart and soul a woman"; that Judge Hunt should ask her "if she voted as a female"? to which he got the answer, "No, sir, I voted as a citizen of the United States"; those questions, I say, were not so much a matter of surprise under the peculiar forms of the trial, but that a law journal should so far forget its dignity; should so far descend from argument, from discussion of law to unseemly banter on the question of sex; that it should so far stoop from a canvass of the most important trial that ever took place, to a senile jest on woman, must be matter of astonishment to every candid mind in the legal fraternity, and certainly has a tendency to convince the female portion of the country that the male man is fast losing his right to the definition of "man, a reasoning animal."
With the total lack of self-respect that seems to be common among all opponents of women's right to vote, that editor, on top of everything else, attempts to crack jokes about the tired old quips that Miss Anthony "was a woman when she voted." Coming from Judge Hunt and the U.S. District Attorney for the prosecution, it gets to the law editor just in time for him to say that "during the trial of Miss Anthony, she admitted that on Election Day she was a woman," followed by a parenthesis ("we know she usually was a woman, and we're not surprised to learn that she was on Election Day"). What a ridiculous cliché to come from the mouth of a law professor. That the U.S. District Attorney involved in the prosecution would degrade the law's dignity by asking (to Judge Selden) "if it was accepted that on Election Day Miss Anthony was a woman?" to which the response was, "Yes, now and forever a woman"; that Judge Hunt would ask her "if she voted as a female?" to which she replied, "No, sir, I voted as a citizen of the United States"; these questions, I say, weren't so shocking given the odd nature of the trial, but that a law journal would forget its dignity so completely; would sink from debate, from discussing the law to inappropriate teasing about gender; that it would stoop from analyzing the most significant trial ever held to a childish joke about women, should astonish anyone with an open mind in the legal field, and certainly suggests to the women of this country that men are quickly losing their claim to the title of "human, a reasoning being."
In regard to that editor's expressed desire that the case of Miss Anthony should have gone to the jury, as they would have brought in a verdict of guilty, I will inform him that one of those jurymen told me his verdict would have been "not guilty" had he been allowed by Judge Hunt to express his opinions, "nor would he have been alone." This was just what Hunt knew and feared and was determined should not take place. Therefore he gagged the jury and ordered the verdict of guilty entered—a verdict which, as this editor acknowledges, was never rendered.
Regarding that editor's stated wish for Miss Anthony's case to go to the jury, claiming they would have found her guilty, I want to let him know that one of the jurors told me his vote would have been "not guilty" if Judge Hunt had let him share his thoughts, and "he wouldn't have been the only one." This is exactly what Hunt knew and feared, and he was set on making sure it didn't happen. So, he silenced the jury and demanded a guilty verdict— a verdict that, as this editor acknowledges, was never actually delivered.
Matilda Joslyn Gage.
Matilda Joslyn Gage.
Fayetteville, N. Y.
Fayetteville, N. Y.
ULYSSES S. GRANT,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
To all to whom those Presents shall come, Greeting:
To everyone who receives this, greetings:
Whereas, at the June term, 1873, of the United States Circuit Court of the Northern District of New York, one Beverly W. Jones, one Edwin T. Marsh, and one William B. Hall were convicted of illegally registering certain persons as voters, and receiving their votes, and were sentenced each to pay a fine of twenty-five dollars,
Whereas, during the June session in 1873 of the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York, Beverly W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh, and William B. Hall were found guilty of unlawfully registering certain individuals as voters and accepting their votes, and each was sentenced to pay a fine of twenty-five dollars,
And whereas, the Honorable H. A. Sargent asks that they be pardoned, in view of the peculiar circumstances of their offense,
And whereas, the Honorable H. A. Sargent requests that they be pardoned, considering the unique circumstances of their offense,
Now, therefore, be it known, that I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of America, in consideration of the premises, divers other good and sufficient reasons me thereunto moving, do hereby grant to the said Beverly W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh, and William B. Hall, a full and unconditional pardon.
Now, therefore, be it known that I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of America, based on the circumstances and various other valid reasons that compel me, do hereby grant the full and unconditional pardon to Beverly W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh, and William B. Hall.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto signed my name and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
As proof of this, I have signed my name and attached the Seal of the United States.
[SEAL.]
[SEAL.]
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of March, a.d. 1874, and of the Independence of the United States the Ninety-eighth.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of March, a.d. 1874, and of the Independence of the United States the Ninety-eighth.
U. S. Grant.
U. S. Grant.
By the President.
By the President.
Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State.
Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM WASHINGTON—SPECIAL TO THE COMMONWEALTH.
Washington, April 14, 1874.
Washington, April 14, 1874.
SUSAN ANTHONY'S CASE.
Speaking of women, reminds me that a report will soon be made by the Judiciary Committee upon the petition of Susan B. Anthony for a remission of her fine for voting in the last Presidential campaign for General Grant and Henry Wilson. The friends of woman's suffrage confidently expect a favorable report upon this subject from the committee. It was a clear case of a decision by a judge in excess of his authority, and acting without warrant of law. It will not be a decision if favorably made into which the right of suffrage will necessarily enter. Miss Anthony claims her conviction was unconstitutional under the law, the judge having refused her the right of trial by jury in that he directed the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty. She insists that this proceeding of the judge was in derogation of her legal right of trial by jury, and as by law she had no appeal in a criminal case from the decision of a single judge, that it is the duty, as it is in the power, of Congress to remit the fine which she has been ordered to pay with the costs. This simply involves a legal question, and one which the Judiciary Committee will be quite likely to decide in Susan's favor as she has both law and precedent on her side. If the committee report favorably to the House, it will be quite likely to pass on its merits as a legal question, giving many members an opportunity to vote as their sympathies would direct without committing themselves squarely to the question of woman's suffrage. It is a step that will pave the way to this in the future. Mr. Sargent has introduced a similar bill in the Senate, and Senator Carpenter is pledged not only to its support but announces himself ready to work for its passage.
Talking about women reminds me that the Judiciary Committee will soon report on Susan B. Anthony's request to have her fine for voting in the last presidential election, where she supported General Grant and Henry Wilson, canceled. Supporters of women's suffrage expect that the committee will give a favorable report on this issue. It’s a clear case of a judge overstepping his authority and acting outside of the law. If the decision is made in her favor, it won’t necessarily relate to the right to vote. Miss Anthony argues that her conviction was unconstitutional because the judge denied her the right to a jury trial by instructing the jury to deliver a guilty verdict. She contends that this action by the judge violated her legal right to a jury trial and that, since she had no way to appeal a criminal case decision made by a single judge, it is both Congress's duty and power to cancel the fine she was ordered to pay along with the costs. This is purely a legal issue, and the Judiciary Committee is likely to rule in Susan’s favor since she has both the law and precedent supporting her case. If the committee reports positively to the House, it will likely pass based on its merits as a legal question, allowing many members to vote according to their beliefs without fully committing to the issue of women's suffrage. This is a step that will help lead to that in the future. Mr. Sargent has introduced a similar bill in the Senate, and Senator Carpenter is not only supporting it but is also ready to advocate for its passage.
The question of whether woman shall vote has become one of live issues in politics to-day, and must be met by parliaments and people whether they will or no. Susan B. Anthony, as the pioneer in this crusade, holds the respectful consideration of a large number of our public men. They have learned that she is in earnest in the advocacy of equal rights, social and political, for her sex. She has no other religion than work for this cause, unless it be war upon what she calls the male despotism of both church and State. She will have gained in this, the great cause to which she has consecrated her life, a substantial victory. Notwithstanding it does not bear directly upon the question of suffrage, it will be a recognition of the fact that judges can not with impunity make decisions that woman has no rights that they are bound to respect, and the rebuke that this remission of her fine, if ordered by Congress, will be to the judge presiding in her case is one that his associates throughout the country will be sure to heed. This will at the same time give courage and hope to the friends of equal rights to all regardless of race, sex, or previous condition of servitude.
The issue of whether women should be allowed to vote has become a pressing topic in today’s politics, and parliaments and citizens must address it whether they want to or not. Susan B. Anthony, as the leader in this movement, is respected by many of our public figures. They have realized that she is serious about advocating for equal rights, both social and political, for her gender. Her only mission is to work for this cause, unless it involves fighting against what she refers to as the male dominance of both the church and the state. If she achieves a significant victory in this essential cause to which she has dedicated her life, it will be a substantial win. Although it may not directly address the question of voting rights, it will acknowledge that judges cannot make decisions with disregard for the fact that women have rights they must respect. If Congress orders the cancellation of her fine, it will send a strong message to the judge in her case that will be heeded by his colleagues nationwide. This will also provide courage and hope to those who support equal rights for all, regardless of race, gender, or previous circumstances of servitude.
MINOR vs. HAPPERSETT.
(Toledo Sunday Journal, April, 1875,)
(Toledo Sunday Journal, April, 1875,)
We insert to-day a communication from a friend of equal rights, who highly condemns the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court—his opinion also being from a legal standpoint. There is no doubt but that although the mere letter of the Constitution may be adhered to, women not being specified as being people and not non-entities, the interpretation is clear behind the spirit of the Constitution. It is then the manifest duty of Congress, since the Supreme Court gives the conservative interpretation, to so amend the Constitution as to bring it up unmistakably to the design of the framers, which was representation for all the people.
We are sharing today a message from a friend of equal rights, who strongly criticizes the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution—his view also comes from a legal perspective. There's no doubt that while the exact wording of the Constitution may be followed, women are not explicitly stated as people rather than non-entities, the intention behind the Constitution is clear. Therefore, it is clearly the responsibility of Congress, since the Supreme Court maintains a conservative interpretation, to amend the Constitution to align it unmistakably with the original intent of the framers, which was to ensure representation for all people.
The Great Usurpation.
The Great Usurpation.
President Woman's Suffrage Association, Toledo, Ohio:
President of the Woman's Suffrage Association, Toledo, Ohio:
Dear Madam: What a fraud is practiced by the administration of this government upon the provisions of the Constitution of the United States! As government is administered, the female portion of the public are defrauded of constitutional right, and made to become political slaves. Since the beginning, all the way down to the present day, woman has been debarred of all political privilege, though reckoned and accounted[Pg 951] as one of the people, in matters of census and taxation. Her disabilities in this behalf were removed by the adoption of the National Constitution; but nullification of that Constitution and a high handed usurpation on the part of the States, have ever hindered the enjoyment of her constitutional rights. But so long as she is classed by the Constitution as one of the people—so long as the people are the owners, the proprietors of the government established by the Constitution—so long as it provides for self-government, popular sovereignty—so long must she be entitled to take part in administration, though prevented from doing so by fine and imprisonment.
Dear Madam: What a deception the government is pulling regarding the provisions of the Constitution of the United States! As it stands, women are robbed of their constitutional rights and forced into political oppression. From the very beginning to now, women have been excluded from all political privileges, even though they are counted as one of the people for things like the census and taxation. The National Constitution was supposed to eliminate these restrictions, but the states have continuously undermined those rights through nullification and outright usurpation. However, as long as women are recognized by the Constitution as part of the populace—since the citizens are the owners and managers of the government established by the Constitution—since it allows for self-governance and popular sovereignty—women must be entitled to participate in governance, even if they are blocked from doing so through fines and imprisonment.
I am awakened to this subject of woman suffrage by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, made at Washington this week. I have not seen the text of the opinion read by the Chief Justice, but I find this statement in the Court news of Monday last:
I woke up to the topic of women's suffrage because of a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States that was made in Washington this week. I haven't seen the text of the opinion read by the Chief Justice, but I found this statement in the Court news from last Monday:
"No. 182.—Virginia L. Minor agt. Reese Happersett: in error to Supreme Court of Missouri.—The plaintiff in error instituted an action against Happersett, who was the judge of an election, for denying her the right to vote. She based her right to vote upon the ground that as a citizen of the United States she had that right under the Constitution. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion, holding, first, that women are and always have been citizens of the United States as well as men; second, the Constitution of the United States does not attach the right of voting to the right of citizenship; third, nor does the Constitution of any of the States make the right to vote coextensive with citizenship; fourth, consequently, women are not entitled to vote by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, when the State laws do not give the right. Affirmed."
No. 182.—Virginia L. Minor vs. Reese Happersett: in error to Supreme Court of Missouri.—The plaintiff in error filed a lawsuit against Happersett, who was the election judge, for denying her the right to vote. She claimed her right to vote was based on being a citizen of the United States under the Constitution. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion, stating, first, that women are and always have been citizens of the United States just like men; second, the Constitution of the United States does not link the right to vote with the right of citizenship; third, no State Constitution makes the right to vote the same as citizenship; fourth, therefore, women are not entitled to vote based on the Constitution of the United States when state laws do not grant that right. Affirmed.
The great usurpation is now affirmed, legalized, by the decree of the Judicial Department of this government! More than 20,000,000 of the people of this Nation have been declared without the pale of political rights secured to them by the Constitution of the fathers. This decision indorses the disfranchisement of every female in the land, so long endured by her. Her citizenship, which the National Constitution makes evidence of her copartnership, or tenancy in common, or proprietorship in the Government, is worthless—is only a name; and does not enable her to exercise the privileges and immunities of our system of self-government which that Constitution declares this government to be—a government by and for its citizens. Woman can not now exercise her constitutional right—she is only a cipher, important once in a decade, in numbering the people—she is only a political slave, a helpless Helot. Make ready, adorn your person, O woman, to celebrate the coming centennial of the Declaration of American Independence of the British throne! Mark! a woman sits upon that throne and wears the royal crown! But, glorious parchment is that old Declaration. That instrument marks an epoch in government and political philosophy. It certifies the rights of the human race. Its truths sounded in American ears on every fourth of July, for one hundred years, save one, have, nevertheless, failed in their realization, and, to-day, one half the population of this Nation can not exercise a political right. How happens this state of affairs?—not that the Constitution hinders woman and prevents her participation in matters of government, for it is abundant in its provisions in her behalf. Let me examine and try to ascertain the point of difficulty. I copy from the Constitution a provision which covers the entire question of woman's right of suffrage:
The great usurpation is now confirmed and made legal by the ruling of the Judicial Department of our government! More than 20 million people in this nation have been declared outside the protections of the political rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution established by our founders. This decision supports the disenfranchisement of every woman in the country, a situation that has persisted for far too long. Her citizenship, which the National Constitution recognizes as her share in the government, is meaningless—it’s just a label; it doesn’t allow her to enjoy the privileges and rights of our self-governing system that the Constitution defines as a government created by and for its citizens. Women cannot currently exercise their constitutional rights—they are reduced to a mere statistic, only relevant once a decade for census purposes—they are merely political slaves, powerless and subjugated. Get ready, dress yourself, O woman, to celebrate the upcoming centennial of the Declaration of American Independence from British rule! Pay attention! A woman sits on that throne and wears the royal crown! But that Declaration is a magnificent document. It marks a significant turning point in government and political thought. It certifies the rights of humanity. Its truths have been celebrated in America every Fourth of July for the last hundred years, except one, yet they have not been fully realized, and today, half the population of this nation cannot exercise their political rights. How has this situation come to be? It’s not that the Constitution prevents women from participating in government matters, as it has ample provisions in their favor. Let me investigate and try to understand where the problem lies. I’ll quote a provision from the Constitution that addresses the entire issue of women's voting rights:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year, by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature."—[Art. 1. Sec. 2.]
"The House of Representatives will be made up of members elected every two years by the people of the various States; and the voters in each State must meet the qualifications required for voters in the largest branch of the State Legislature."—[Art. 1. Sec. 2.]
The law and logic of woman's right—her political right—to vote for members of Congress, President and Vice-President, appear thus in argument: These officers are to be chosen "by the people of the several States"—that is by the men and women of the Nation. The personality of the people, by the creative fiat, is distinguished by difference of sex, male and female. The choosers, the people of the several States, are required to have certain qualifications to enable them to choose, and these qualifications are to be subject to State regulations. The right to vote for these officers of the United States is anchored in the Constitution—no State may nullify that right—it can only regulate its exercise:—for example, prescribe, as qualifications for access to the ballot-box, that the[Pg 952] chooser or voter shall be twenty-one years old, a resident of the State for one year, of the county or town for thirty days, etc.—these are properly qualifications and such as the Constitution intends. Every State Constitution limits the right to a part only of the people, which is denial of right to the other portion of the people, and not regulation or the right by way of adjective qualifications, as illustrated above.
The law and logic of a woman’s right—her political right—to vote for members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President can be summarized like this: These officials are to be chosen “by the people of the several States”—meaning by both men and women of the Nation. The identity of the people, as defined by the creative authority, is marked by the distinction of sex, male and female. The voters, the people of the various States, have to meet certain qualifications to enable them to vote, and these qualifications are subject to State regulations. The right to vote for these officials of the United States is grounded in the Constitution—no State can take away that right; it can only regulate how it is exercised: for example, setting qualifications for voting, such as requiring that the[Pg 952] voter be at least twenty-one years old, a resident of the State for one year, and of the county or town for thirty days, etc.—these are appropriate qualifications and what the Constitution intends. Every State Constitution limits the right to only part of the people, which denies that right to the other portion and does not merely regulate it through additional qualifications, as demonstrated above.
Can sex either qualify or disqualify a chooser, one of the people to cast a ballot for President? All the States, in unchecked nullification, pronounce in the affirmative and write it in their constitutions—the masculine qualifies, the feminine disqualifies—and this has just now been echoed by the Supreme Court of the United States! My mind and reason forbid my acceptance of such postulate.
Can sex either qualify or disqualify someone who votes for President? All the states, without any checks, declare the answer is yes and write it into their constitutions—the male qualifies, the female disqualifies—and this has just been echoed by the Supreme Court of the United States! My mind and reason prevent me from accepting such a belief.
The term "people" comprehends and includes female persons as well as male persons. It is impossible, therefore, that sex, either the one or the other, is contemplated by the Constitution as a qualification or disqualification for suffrage. There must be National officers, President, etc., else no government; they are to be chosen—this calls for choosers or voters; the "people" are to choose—the people are a majority of persons—these persons are, some male, some female—no limitation is indicated as to which shall belong the right to vote; sex, it seems, is out of the question, as the people are of both sexes, so both male and female must vote or choose at the polls. Let the States regulate the approaches to the ballot-box, but not deny the right of user, by the people of the Nation. The Constitution exacts all this—it is plain, it is positive—there is no hint in the same that there shall be had at the polls any preference on account of sex. Expulsion of woman from the polls by State nullification is a gigantic wrong—a villainous usurpation.
The term "people" includes both women and men. Therefore, it’s not possible for the Constitution to consider gender as a qualification or disqualification for voting. There have to be national officials, like the President, or else there is no government; these officials need to be elected, which requires voters. The "people" are meant to choose—this is the majority of individuals—and these individuals include both men and women. There’s no indication that there should be any restriction on who has the right to vote; gender seems irrelevant, as the people comprise both sexes, so both men and women must vote at the polls. States can manage the process of voting, but they should not deny the right of the people of the Nation to participate. The Constitution demands all of this—it is clear and definite—there’s no suggestion that there should be any preference at the polls based on gender. Excluding women from voting through state actions is a massive injustice—a wrongful seizure of rights.
Again, some things carry in their very face the absurd, the incongruous, the ridiculous; States enacting laws and forming constitutions which are interpreted as warrants of right to vote—the masculine gender, this qualifies for voting—the feminine, this disqualifies the voter. How ridiculous! Virility the distinguishing qualification of voters in the United States! How queer this looks and sounds. Sex is elemental—inherent in all the people, and should never be deemed ground of qualification or disqualification to vote, any more than the height or weight of person. But the Supreme Court of the United States wink at the wickedness of the States as nullifiers, and allow the masculine usurpation to remain. Perhaps this grave body of learned Justices look upon the question of qualification in a broader or other sense than that taught by Dr. Webster. Their decision, it seems, turns upon the use and meaning of that word. This, then, is the solemn conclusion of the embodied justice of the land—qualification to vote, masculine gender!—and not things in common belonging to every person of the entire population, no matter what the sex; such as age, residence, etc.
Once again, some things clearly show the absurd, the incongruous, the ridiculous. States create laws and constitutions that are interpreted as justifications for the right to vote—the male gender qualifies to vote, while the female gender disqualifies the voter. How ridiculous! Masculinity being the sole qualification for voters in the United States! How strange this looks and sounds. Sex is fundamental—it's inherent in all people, and should never be considered a reason for qualification or disqualification to vote, any more than height or weight. But the Supreme Court of the United States turns a blind eye to the wrongdoing of the States as nullifiers and allows the male takeover to continue. Perhaps this esteemed group of learned Justices views the question of qualification in a broader or different way than what Dr. Webster taught. Their decision seems to hinge on the use and meaning of that word. This, then, is the serious conclusion of the justice system in the land—qualification to vote, male gender!—and not factors that are common to every individual in the entire population, regardless of sex, such as age, residence, etc.
Madam, you have no available political rights—the Constitution intends you shall have and exercise them, and it has made provisions accordingly—but the false interpretations of the courts, and the trespassing State Constitutions have hitherto hindered you. But I believe a day of revolution, call it reckoning if you please, is at hand—fast approaching. President Lincoln liberated by proclamation, three or four millions of chattel slaves. President Grant has the power, Constitutional power, to liberate, to-day, twenty millions of political slaves, of which, I am sorry to say, you are one. Let politicians and political parties beware how they treat this question of woman suffrage. What became of the old Whig Party, in consequence of its alliance with chattel slavery. Illium fuit.
Madam, you currently have no political rights—the Constitution intends for you to have and use them, and it has made provisions for that—but the incorrect interpretations by the courts and the overstepping state constitutions have held you back until now. However, I believe a day of revolution, or call it a reckoning if you prefer, is coming fast. President Lincoln freed three or four million enslaved people with his proclamation. President Grant has the constitutional power to free, today, twenty million political prisoners, of which, I regret to say, you are one. Politicians and political parties should be careful about how they handle the issue of women's suffrage. What happened to the old Whig Party because of its association with slavery? Illium fuit.
Horace Dresser.
Horace Dresser.
Sincerely yours, etc.,
Sincerely yours, etc.,
[The Toledo Sunday Journal.]
[The Toledo Sunday Journal.]
The New York Evening Post has a long article relative to the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the right of women to vote under the Constitution of the United States, coinciding in the decision. It closes by saying: "The advocates of woman suffrage will scarcely be disappointed by this judgment. We do not believe that sincere friends of the proposed reform will regret the failure to secure it by trickery."
The New York Evening Post has a lengthy article about the Supreme Court's decision on women's voting rights under the Constitution of the United States, aligning with the ruling. It concludes by stating: "Supporters of women's suffrage will likely not be let down by this ruling. We don't think that genuine supporters of this proposed reform will be upset about not achieving it through deceit."
There are few who have maintained that the XIV. and XV. Amendments secured suffrage to women as well as to colored men, who would be willing to admit that they desired to obtain suffrage through trickery? Either it is, or is not, conveyed through the Constitution and the Amendments. Certainly if it is, they have a right to avail themselves of it; and even if it is not, it is nevertheless, a right. The woman suffragists believe that the withholdal from women of the right of suffrage is a fraud and an imposition. To secure them what is already their right, can not involve trickery. Every day and every hour that the right of suffrage is withheld from women, a monstrous wrong is practiced upon them. As long as there were no women who demanded the ballot, and by tacit consent it was relinquished, the fraud practiced by debarring them from it was merely of a negative character—but the privilege should have been left open; but from the moment that one woman demanded it, an outrage was practiced upon her by the entire people in denying it her, and the plea that it is not woman's sphere, which is sometimes made, is the most shallow subterfuge of any, for it is not for men, but for woman alone, to determine what that sphere is, or is not.
There are few who argue that the XIV and XV Amendments granted voting rights to women as well as to Black men, and who would be willing to admit that they wanted to gain voting rights through deception? Either it is, or it is not, stated in the Constitution and the Amendments. Certainly, if it is, they have the right to claim it; and even if it isn’t, it is still a right. Women suffragists believe that denying women the right to vote is a fraud and an injustice. Securing what is already their right cannot involve trickery. Every day and every hour that women are denied the right to vote, a significant injustice is done to them. As long as there were no women demanding the vote, and by unwritten agreement it was given up, the fraud of denying them was merely passive—but that privilege should have been kept available. From the moment one woman demanded it, a violation was committed against her by everyone in refusing it, and the argument that voting is not a woman’s place, which is sometimes used, is the flimsiest excuse of all because it is not up to men, but to women alone, to decide what that place is or isn’t.
FOOTNOTES:
Transcriber's Notes
Transcriber's Notes
The transcriber made changes as below indicated to the text to correct obvious errors:
The transcriber made the following changes to the text to fix clear mistakes:
1. p. 10. permanance --> permanence
2. p. 18, batte-field --> battle-field
3. p. 80, menancing --> menacing
4. p. 84, ALL HUMAN GOVERNMENT. --> ALL HUMAN GOVERNMENT."
5. p. 88, Footnote #47, no footnote marker in footnote text.
6. p. 103, enfrachising --> enfranchising
7. p. 112, I have read --> "I have read
8. p. 119, Doubtles --> Doubtless
9. p. 125, it will led --> it will lead
10. p. 139, Do they like --> "Do they like
11. p. 189, "I ask you --> I ask you
12. p. 190, resolutions --> resolutions.
13. p. 224, consience --> conscience
14. p. 246, Thank you --> Thank you.
15. p. 284, Footnote #99, TRIAN --> TRAIN
16. p. 327, inviduous --> invidious
17. p. 348, everhelp --> everheld
18. p. 371, suffage --> suffrage
19. p. 424, indignat --> indignant
20. p. 435, devolop --> develop
21. p. 438, Aniversary --> Anniversary
22. p. 439, sincerly --> sincerely
23. p. 442, Athony --> Anthony
24. p. 444, appropiate --> appropriate
25. p. 455, delaring --> declaring
26. p. 530, sate --> state
27. p. 531, elswhere --> elsewhere
28. p. 554, surrended --> surrendered
29. p. 587, Dictrict --> District
30. p. 638, stautte --> statute
31. p. 666, syonymous --> synonymous
32. p. 691, ursurped --> usurped
33. p. 692, eithth --> eight
34. p. 708, folowing --> following
35. p. 723, 4 Wallace, 351-323 (left as published)
36. p. 727, plantiff --> plaintiff
37. p. 733, privieges --> privileges
38. p. 755, disabilty --> disability
39. p. 791, acording --> according
40. p. 803, Footnote #188, standardized punctutation in list
of states and individuals
41. p. 900, a a (left as published)
42. p. 921, Wom n's --> Woman's
43. p. 934, ther campaign (left as published)
44. p. 947, dissatified --> dissatisfied
1. p. 10. permanence --> permanence
2. p. 18, battle-field --> battle-field
3. p. 80, menacing --> menacing
4. p. 84, ALL HUMAN GOVERNMENT. --> ALL HUMAN GOVERNMENT."
5. p. 88, Footnote #47, no footnote marker in footnote text.
6. p. 103, enfranchising --> enfranchising
7. p. 112, "I have read --> "I have read
8. p. 119, Doubtless --> Doubtless
9. p. 125, it will lead --> it will lead
10. p. 139, "Do they like --> "Do they like
11. p. 189, "I ask you --> I ask you
12. p. 190, resolutions --> resolutions.
13. p. 224, conscience --> conscience
14. p. 246, Thank you --> Thank you.
15. p. 284, Footnote #99, TRAIN --> TRAIN
16. p. 327, invidious --> invidious
17. p. 348, everheld --> everheld
18. p. 371, suffrage --> suffrage
19. p. 424, indignant --> indignant
20. p. 435, develop --> develop
21. p. 438, Anniversary --> Anniversary
22. p. 439, sincerely --> sincerely
23. p. 442, Anthony --> Anthony
24. p. 444, appropriate --> appropriate
25. p. 455, declaring --> declaring
26. p. 530, state --> state
27. p. 531, elsewhere --> elsewhere
28. p. 554, surrendered --> surrendered
29. p. 587, District --> District
30. p. 638, statute --> statute
31. p. 666, synonymous --> synonymous
32. p. 691, usurped --> usurped
33. p. 692, eight --> eight
34. p. 708, following --> following
35. p. 723, 4 Wallace, 351-323 (left as published)
36. p. 727, plaintiff --> plaintiff
37. p. 733, privileges --> privileges
38. p. 755, disability --> disability
39. p. 791, according --> according
40. p. 803, Footnote #188, standardized punctuation in list
of states and individuals
41. p. 900, a a (left as published)
42. p. 921, Woman's --> Woman's
43. p. 934, ther campaign (left as published)
44. p. 947, dissatisfied --> dissatisfied Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!