or personal consideration bias you to act against the Republican
party at this momentous crisis. Remember we owe to it a debt of
gratitude that it has made for us this opportunity, that it has
thus launched our cause into the political arena, where it must
go on and on till justice and equality to woman shall at last
triumph in a true Republic; "a government of the people, for the
people, and by the people."
On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.
SUSAN B. ANTHONY, President,
MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, Chair. Ex. Com.
ROCHESTER, July 19, 1872.
The Congressional Republican Committee published thousands of this
appeal, and scattered them over the country. It also telegraphed to
the President of the National Woman Suffrage Association, to go to
Washington in order to consult with the committee as to what women
could do to aid in the coming campaign. Miss Anthony's plan was
cordially accepted, and liberal appropriations placed at her disposal
by both the National and New York Republican Committees for carrying
on a series of meetings.[150] The first of this series was at
Rochester, and was presided over by Hon. Carter Wilder, Mayor of the
city, the last in Cooper Institute, New York, at which meeting Luther
R. Marsh occupied the chair.
Mrs. Livermore and Mrs. Stanton, by special invitation of Republican
State Committees, also took part in the canvass in Connecticut and
Pennsylvania.
FOOTNOTES:
[127] Honorables Hamlin, Sumner, Patterson, Rice, Vickers, Pratt,
Harris, Cook, Welcker, Williams, Cowles, Bowles, Gilfillen.
[128] On Resolutions--Miss Susan B. Anthony, Dr. J. P. Root, Miss
Phoebe Couzins, Rev. Samuel J. May, Mrs. M. E. J. Gage, Mrs. Colby,
Mrs. Jacob Ela.
On Finance--Mrs. Paulina W. Davis, Miss S. B. Anthony, Mrs. B.
Lockwood, Mrs. M. Wright, Mr. Wilcox.
On Credentials--Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing, Mr. Stillman, Mrs. A. D.
Cridge.
[129] _Resolved_, That the National Woman's Suffrage Convention
respectfully ask the XLI. Congress of the United States--
First. To submit to the Legislatures of the several States a
XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution, prohibiting the
disfranchisement of any of their citizens on account of sex.
Second. To strike the word "male" from the laws governing the District
of Columbia.
Third. To enfranchise the women of Utah as the one safe, sure and
swift means to abolish polygamy in that Territory.
Fourth. To amend the laws of the United States so that women shall
receive the same pay as men for services rendered the government.
[130]
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19, 1870.
Miss SUSAN B. ANTHONY--DEAR MADAM:.... Accept my assurance of full and
cordial sympathy with the movement to extend the right of suffrage to
the women of the country, and my pledge to make that sympathy active
on the first and all occasions that may arise for my official action.
Very respectfully your obedient servant, E. G. ROSS.
WASHINGTON, Jan 19.
Mrs. ELIZABETH CADY STANTON--MADAM: Your favor of the 18th instant,
inviting me to address the convention now in session in this city for
the promotion of the cause of female suffrage, has been received. I
regret that my official duties will not allow me the time to comply
with this request; but I assure you, and the ladies with whom you are
associated, that I am heartily in sympathy with the efforts you are
making for the success of the cause which you especially have so long
and so ably advocated. I beg further to say that the bestowal of the
right of equal political suffrage upon the women of this republic can
not, in my judgment, be much longer withheld, and that whatever
influence I have shall be exerted, at every proper opportunity, to
hasten the consummation for which you are laboring. I have the honor
to be, very truly, yours,
MATT. H. CARPENTER.
[131] Rev. Olympia Brown, Connecticut; E. H. Heywood and Jennie
Collins, Massachusetts; M. Adele Hazlitt, Michigan; Mrs. Francis Minor
and Phoebe Couzins, Missouri; Hon. Henry B. Stanton; Judge Barlow,
Canastota; Josephine S. Griffing, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Lizzie M.
Boynton, Maud D. Molson, Susan B. Anthony, Gen. E. M. Lee, Act Gov.
Wyoming; Hon. A. G. Riddle, Washington; Hon. Jas. W. Stillman, Rhode
Island; Col. R. G. Ingersoll, Illinois; Hon. J. M. Scovill, New
Jersey; Dr. James C. Jackson, New York; Mrs. Louisa H. Dent, New York;
Lillie Peckham, Wisconsin; Mrs. M. E. J. Gage, New York; Mrs. Dr. S.
Hathaway, Boston; and S. D. Dillaye, Syracuse.
[132] The Fifth Avenue Conference proposition was presented to the
members of the National Association, duly discussed, and so far as one
of the parties could do, accepted; that is, the National Society
pledged itself to be merged into a Union Association, provided the
American would make the same surrender at its first Anniversary. But
as this overture for peace was rejected, the mission of the Union
Society ended, leaving the National free to reassert itself and go
forward with its catholic platform and persistent demands for
"National protection for United States citizens," while the American
devoted itself primarily to State legislation.
[133] WOMAN SUFFRAGE CELEBRATION.--The twentieth anniversary of the
inauguration of the woman suffrage movement in this country, will be
celebrated in Apollo Hall, in the city of New York, on the 19th and
20th of October, 1870. The movement in England, as in America, may be
dated from the first National Convention, held at Worcester, Mass.,
October, 1850. The July following that convention, a favorable
criticism of its proceedings and an able digest of the whole question
appeared in the _Westminster Review_, written by Mrs. John Stuart
Mill, which awakened attention in both hemispheres. In the call for
that convention, the following subjects for discussion were presented:
Woman's right to _education_, literary, scientific and artistic; her
_avocations_, industrial, commercial and professional; her
_interests_, pecuniary, civil and political: in a word, _her rights_
as an individual, and her _functions_ as a citizen. It is hoped that
the Old and the New World will both be largely represented by the
earlier advocates of this reform who will bring with them reports of
progress and plans for future action. An extensive foreign
correspondence will also add interest to the meetings. We specially
invite the presence of those just awakening to an interest in this
great movement, that from a knowledge of the past they may draw fresh
inspiration for the work of the future and fraternize with a
generation now rapidly passing away. As those who inaugurated a
reform, so momentous and far reaching in its consequences, should hold
themselves above all party considerations and personal antagonisms,
and as this gathering is to be in no way connected with either of our
leading woman suffrage organizations, we hope that the friends of real
progress everywhere will come together and unitedly celebrate this
Twentieth Anniversary of a great National Movement for Freedom.
Committee of Arrangements.--Lucretia Mott, Sarah Pugh, Elizabeth C.
Stanton, Ernestine L. Rose, Samuel J. May, Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols. On
behalf of the Committee,
PAULINA W. DAVIS, Chairman.
[134] In 1843, John Neal, of Portland, Maine, gave a lecture in New
York which roused considerable discussion; it was replied to by Mrs.
Eliza W. Farnham, with all the objections which have ever been urged,
and far more ably than by any of the later objectors. Mrs. Farnham
lived long enough to retrace her ground and accept the highest truth.
"Woman and her Era" fully refutes her early objections. Mr. Neal's
lecture, published in _The Brother Jonathan_, was extensively copied,
and as it reviewed some of the laws relating to woman and her
property, it had a wide, silent influence, preparing the way for
action. It was a scathing satire, and men felt the rebuke.
In this conflict for principle, the names of Wm. L. Garrison, Wendell
Phillips, Edmund Quincy, Oliver Johnson, Parker Pillsbury, S. S.
Foster, William Henry Channing, Samuel J. May, Charles Burleigh, James
Mott, Frederick Douglass, Edmund M. Davis, and Robert Purvis, stand
out conspicuously, and will so be remembered in all the future.
[135] _Resolved_, That at the close of over twenty years of persistent
agitation, petitioning, State Legislatures and Congress for the right
of suffrage, we, who inaugurated this reform, now demand the immediate
adoption of a XVI. Amendment to the Federal Constitution, that shall
prohibit any State from disfranchising its citizens on the ground of
sex; and whatever national party does this act of justice, fastens the
keystone in the arch of the Republic.
_Resolved_, That as neither free trade, finance, prohibition, capital
and labor, nor any other political question, can be so vital to the
existence of the Republic as the enfranchisement of women, it is
clearly our duty to aid and support the great National party that
shall first inscribe woman suffrage on its banner.
_Resolved_, That our thanks are due to the Democratic party of Utah
and Wyoming for securing to woman her right of suffrage in those
Territories.
_Resolved_, That the Democratic party of Kansas, in declaring, at its
recent convention at Topeka, the enfranchisement of women in its
judgment a most reasonable and timely enterprise, no longer to be
justly postponed, is entitled to the hearty support of the friends of
our cause in that State.
_Resolved_, That the American Equal Rights Association, in sending
Susan B. Anthony to the National Democratic Convention in 1868, and
the Massachusetts Suffrage Association, in sending Mary A. Livermore
to the Republican State Convention in 1870, have inaugurated the right
political action, which should be followed in the National and State
Conventions throughout the country.
_Resolved_, That we rejoice in the fact that the Republican
Legislatures of Iowa and other Western States have submitted to the
people the proposition to strike the word "male" from their
Constitutions.
_Resolved_, That it is as disastrous to human progress to teach women
to bow down to the authority of man, as divinely inspired, as it is to
teach man to bow down to the authority of Kings and Popes, as divinely
ordained, for in both cases we violate the fundamental idea on which a
Republican government and the Protestant religion are based--the right
of individual judgment.
_Whereas_, The accident of sex no more involves the capacity to govern
a family than does the accident of Papal election or royal birth the
capacity to govern a dominion or a kingdom; therefore,
_Resolved_, That the doctrine of woman's subjection, enforced from the
text, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands," should be thrown
aside, with the exploded theories of kingcraft and slavery, embodied
in the injunction, "Honor the king," and "Servants, obey your
masters."
_Resolved_, That as the gravest responsibilities of social life must
ever rest on the mother of the race, therefore law, religion, and
public sentiment, instead of degrading her as the subject of man,
should unitedly declare and maintain her sole and supreme sovereignty
over her own person."
[136] Married afterwards to Père Hyacinth.
[137] Chief among the guests were Mrs. Margaret Lucas, of Scotland,
sister of John and Jacob Bright; Mrs. Governor Jewell, of Conn.; Mrs.
Elmes, of Birmingham; Mrs. Caroline Stratton, and Miss Sarah Pugh, of
Philadelphia; Lucretia Mott, Abby H. Price, Adelle Hazlett, Olympia
Brown, Mrs. Davis, Mrs. Lucas, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Gage, and Miss
Anthony; Mrs. Godbie, wife of one of the leading reform advocates of
Utah; Mrs. Denman, of Quincy, Ill.; Mrs. Laura Curtis Bullard, and Dr.
Clemence Lozier.
Among the gentlemen present were Alexander Delmar, Rev. Henry Powers,
Mr. Lewis, of the _National Intelligencer_, Col. Hastings, Theodore
Tilton, Oliver Johnson, Prof. Wilcox, and Mr. Packard, of the Business
College, and others.
[138] CALL FOR A NATIONAL SUFFRAGE CONVENTION AT WASHINGTON.--We, the
undersigned, desiring to secure a full discussion of the question of
the enfranchisement of women during the present session of Congress,
with a view to the speedy passage of a XVI. Amendment to the Federal
Constitution, invite all men and women desiring this change in the
Constitution to meet us in convention for that purpose in the city of
Washington on the 11th and 12th of January. Eminent speakers will be
present from all parts of the country, including several members of
Congress, and plans of work will be presented and discussed. We
earnestly urge you, dear friends, to come together at this time in a
spirit of unselfishness and of hard work, and let us take one another
by the hand and move onward as never before.
PAULINA W. DAVIS, JOSEPHINE S. GRIFFING, ISABELLA B. HOOKER.
[139] Mrs. Esther Morris, a large fine-looking woman, administered
justice in that Territory for nearly two years, and none of her
decisions were ever questioned.
[140] The hearing took place in the committee room, which was crowded
with a goodly assemblage of men and women. Judge Bingham, of Ohio, was
chairman, Gen. B. F. Butler, of Mass., was prominent in favor of the
cause. Messrs. Eldridge, B. C. Cook, I. A. Peters, Ulysses Morcur, Wm.
Loughridge, Michael Kerr, S. W. Kellogg, and G. W. Hitchcock formed
the rest of the committee. The claimants for woman suffrage were
represented by Mrs. V. C. Woodhull and Mrs. L. D. Blake, New York;
Mrs. I. B Hooker, Rev. O. Brown, Conn.; Mrs. P. W. Davis, Miss K.
Stanton, Rhode Island; Mrs. J. Griffing, and Mrs. Lockwood, D. C.; and
Miss Susan B. Anthony. The proceedings were opened by the reading of
her memorial by Mrs. Woodhull. It was the first time the lady had ever
appeared in public, and her voice trembled slightly with emotion which
only made the reading the more effective. She claimed not a XVI.
amendment; but that under the XIV. and XV. Amendments, women have
already the right to vote, and prayed Congress merely to pass a
declaratory resolution to that effect.--The Washington _Republican._
[141] _Yeas_--Messrs. Allison, Arnell, Asper, Atwood, Banks, Barry,
Buck, Buffinton, Burdett, Churchill, Amasa Cobb, Clinton L. Cobb,
Coburn, Cullom, Darrall, Joseph Dixon, Ela, Farnsworth, Finkelnburg,
Hamilton, Harris, Hawkins, Hoar, Alexander H. Jones, Julian, Kelley,
Lawrence, Long, Loughridge, Maynard, Milnes, William Moore, Morey,
Daniel J. Morrell, Negley, Orth, Packard, Paine, Pierce, Platt,
Pomeroy, Porter, Prosser, Sargent, Scofield, Shanks, William J. Smith,
Stevenson, Stoughton, Strickland, Twichell, Cadwallader C. Washburn,
Willard, John T. Wilson, and Wolf.
[142] Among the speakers were Isabella Beecher Hooker, Paulina Wright
Davis, Minnie Swayze, Mrs. Dr. Hallock, Josephine S. Griffing,
Victoria C. Woodhull, Anna Middlebrook, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Susan B.
Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott.
[143] _An Appeal to the Women of the United States by the National
Woman Suffrage and Educational Committee, Washington, D. C._:
DEAR FRIENDS:--The question of your rights as citizens of the United
States, and of the grave responsibilities which a recognition of those
rights will involve, is becoming the great question of the day in this
country, and is the culmination of the great question which has been
struggling through the ages for solution, that of the highest freedom
and largest personal responsibility of the individual under such
necessary and wholesome restraints as are required by the welfare of
society. As you shall meet and act upon this question, so shall these
great questions of freedom and responsibility sweep on, or be
retarded, in their course.
This is pre-eminently the birthday of womanhood. The material has long
held in bondage the spiritual; henceforth the two, the material
refined by the spiritual, the spiritual energized by the material, are
to walk hand in hand for the moral regeneration of mankind. Mothers,
for the first time in history, are able to assert, not only their
inherent first right to the children they have borne, but their right
to be a protective and purifying power in the political society into
which those children are to enter. To fulfill, therefore, their whole
duty of motherhood, to satisfy their whole capacity in that divine
relation, they are called of God to participate with man in all the
responsibilities of human life, and to share with him every work of
brain and heart, refusing only those physical labors that are
inconsistent with the exalted duties and privileges of maternity, and
requiring these of men as the equivalent of those heavy yet necessary
burdens which women alone can bear.
Under the Constitution of the United States justly interpreted, you
were entitled to participate in the government of the country, in the
same manner as you were held to allegiance and subject to penalty. But
in the slow development of the great principles of freedom, you, and
all, have failed both to recognize and appreciate this right; but
to-day, when the rights and responsibilities of women are attracting
the attention of thoughtful minds throughout the whole civilized
world, this constitutional right, so long unobserved and unvalued, is
becoming one of prime importance, and calls upon all women who love
their children and their country to accept and rejoice in it.
Thousands of years ago God uttered this mingled command and promise,
"Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the
land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." May we not hope that in the
general recognition of this right and this duty of woman to
participate in government, our beloved country may find her days long
and prosperous in this beautiful land which the Lord hath given her.
To the women of this country who are willing to unite with us in
securing the full recognition of our rights, and to accept the duties
and responsibilities of a full citizenship, we offer for signature the
following Declaration and Pledge, in the firm belief that our
children's children will with fond veneration recognize in this act
our devotion to the great doctrines of liberty in their new and wider
and more spiritual application, even as we regard with reverence the
prophetic utterances of the fathers of the Republic in their
Declaration of Independence:
DECLARATION AND PLEDGE OF THE WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES CONCERNING
THEIR RIGHT TO AND THEIR USE OF THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
We, the undersigned, believing that the sacred rights and privileges
of citizenship in this Republic were guaranteed to us by the original
Constitution, and that these rights are confirmed and more clearly
established by the XIV. and XV. Amendments, so that we can no longer
refuse the solemn responsibilities thereof, do hereby pledge ourselves
to accept the duties of the franchise in our several States, so soon
as all legal restrictions are removed. And believing that character is
the best safeguard of national liberty, we pledge ourselves to make
the personal purity and integrity of candidates for public office the
first test of fitness. And lastly, believing in God, as the Supreme
Author of the American Declaration of Independence, we pledge
ourselves in the spirit of that memorable Act, to work hand in hand
with our fathers, husbands, and sons, for the maintenance of those
equal rights on which our Republic was originally founded, to the end
that it may have, what is declared to be the first condition of just
government, the consent of the governed.
You have no new issue to make, no new grievances to set forth. You are
taxed without representation, tried by a jury not of your peers,
condemned and punished by judges and officers not of your choice,
bound by laws you have had no voice in making, many of which are
specially burdensome upon you as women; in short, your rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are daily infringed, simply
because you have heretofore been denied the use of the ballot, the one
weapon of protection and defense under a republican form of
government. Fortunately, however, you are not compelled to resort to
force in order to secure the rights of a complete citizenship. These
are provided for by the original Constitution, and by the recent
amendments you are recognized as citizens of the United States, whose
rights, including the fundamental right to vote, may not be denied or
abridged by the United States, nor by any State. The obligation is
thus laid upon you to accept or reject the duties of citizenship, and
to your own consciences and your God you must answer, if the future
legislation of this country shall fall short of the demands of justice
and equality.
The participation of woman in political affairs is not an untried
experiment. Woman suffrage has within a few years been fully
established in Sweden and Austria, and to a certain extent in Russia.
In Great Britain women are now voting equally with men for all public
officers except members of Parliament, and while no desire is
expressed in any quarter that the suffrage already given should be
withdrawn or restricted, over 126,000 names have been signed to
petitions for its extension to parliamentary elections, and Jacob
Bright, the leader of the movement in Parliament, and brother of the
well known John Bright, says that no well-informed person entertains
any doubt that a bill for such extension will soon pass.
In this country, which stands so specially on equal representation, it
is hardly possible that the same equal suffrage would not be
established by law, if the matter were to be left merely to the
progress of public sentiment and the ordinary course of legislation.
But as we confidently believe, and as we have before stated, the right
already exists in our National Constitution, and especially under the
recent amendments. The interpretation of the Constitution which we
maintain, we can not doubt, will be ultimately adopted by the courts,
although, as the assertion of our right encounters a deep and
prevailing prejudice, and judges are proverbially cautious and
conservative, we must expect to encounter some adverse decisions. In
the meantime it is of the highest importance that in every possible
way we inform the public mind and educate public opinion on the whole
subject of equal rights under a republican government, and that we
manifest our desire for and willingness to accept all the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship, by asserting our right to be
registered as voters and to vote at the Congressional elections. The
original Constitution provides in express terms that the
representatives in Congress shall be elected "by the people of the
several States," with no restrictions whatever as to the application
of that term. This right, thus clearly granted to all the people, is
confirmed and placed beyond reasonable question by the XIV. and XV.
Amendments. The act of May, 1870, the very title of which, "An Act to
enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote," is a
concession of all that we claim, provides that the officers of
elections throughout the United States shall give an equal opportunity
to all citizens of the United States to become qualified to vote by
the registry of their names or other prerequisite; and that where upon
the application of any citizen such prerequisite is refused, such
citizen may vote without performing such prerequisite; and imposes a
penalty upon the officers refusing either the application of the
citizen to be qualified or his subsequent application to vote. The
Constitution also provides that "each House shall be the judge of the
elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members." When,
therefore, the election of any candidate for the lower House is
effected or defeated by the admission or rejection of the votes of
women, the question is brought directly before the House, and it is
compelled to pass at once upon the question of the right of women to
vote under the Constitution. All this may be accomplished without the
necessity of bringing suits for the penalty imposed upon public
officers by the act referred to; but should it be thought best to
institute prosecutions where the application of women to register and
to vote is refused, the question would thereby at once be brought into
the courts. If it be thought expedient to adopt the latter course, it
is best that some test case be brought upon full consultation with the
National Committee, that the ablest counsel may be employed and the
expenses paid out of the public fund. Whatever mode of testing the
question shall be adopted, we must not be in the slightest degree
discouraged by adverse decisions, for the final result in our favor is
certain, and we have, besides, great reason to hope that Congress, at
an early day, will pass a declaratory act affirming the interpretation
of the Constitution which we claim.
The present time is specially favorable for the earnest presentation
before the public mind of the question of the political rights of
women. There are very positive indications of the approaching
disintegration and reformation of political parties, and new and vital
issues are needed by both the great parties of the country. As soon as
the conviction possesses the public mind that women are to be voters
at an early day, as they certainly are to be, the principles and the
action of public parties will be shaping themselves with reference to
the demands of this new constituency. Particularly in nominations for
office will the moral character of candidates become a matter of
greater importance.
To carry on this great work a Board of six women has been established,
called "The National Woman Suffrage and Educational Committee," whose
office at Washington it is proposed to make the center of all action
upon Congress and the country, and with whom their Secretary, resident
there, it is desired that all associations and individuals interested
in the cause of woman suffrage should place themselves in
communication. The Committee propose to circulate the very able and
exhaustive Minority Report of the House Judiciary Committee on the
constitutional right of woman to the suffrage, and other tracts on the
general subject of woman suffrage. They also propose ultimately, and
as a part of their educational work, to issue a series of tracts on
subjects vitally affecting the welfare of the country, that women may
become intelligent and thoughtful on such subjects, and the
intelligent educators of the next generation of citizens.
The Committee are already receiving urgent appeals from women all over
the United States to send them our publications. The little light they
have already received concerning their rights under the Constitution,
and the present threatening political aspect of the country, make them
impatient of ignorance on these vital points. A single tract has often
gone the rounds in a neighborhood until worn out, and the call is for
thousands and thousands more.
A large printing fund will therefore be needed by the Committee, and
we appeal first to the men of this country, who control so large a
part of its wealth, to make liberal donations towards this great
educational work. We also ask every thoughtful woman to send her name
to the Secretary to be inserted in the Pledge-Book, and if she is
able, one dollar. But as many workingwomen will have nothing to send
but their names, we welcome these as a precious gift, and urge those
who are able, to send us their fifties and hundreds, which we promise
faithfully to use and account for. Where convenient, it is better that
many names should be sent upon the same paper, and the smallest
contributions in money can be put together and sent with them. Every
signature and every remittance will be at once acknowledged by the
Secretary, and one or more tracts enclosed with a circular as to the
work to be done by individuals.
ISABELLA BEECHER HOOKER, _President_. PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS,
JOSEPHINE S. GRIFFING, _Secretary_. RUTH CARR DENNISON,
MARY B. BOWEN, _Treasurer_. SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
_Washington, D. C., April 19, 1871._
[144] The National Woman Suffrage Association will hold its annual
convention at Lincoln Hall, Washington, D. C., January 10th, 11th and
12th, 1872. All those interested in woman's enfranchisement are
invited there to consider the "new departure"--women already citizens,
and their rights as such, secured by the XIV. and XV. Amendments of
the Federal Constitution.
LUCRETIA MOTT. ISABELLA BEECHER HOOKER.
ELIZABETH CADY STANTON. SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
JOSEPHINE S. GRIFFING.
[145] RESOLUTIONS.
Whereas, in the adjustment of the question of suffrage now before the
people of this country for settlement, it is of the highest importance
that the organic law of the land should be so framed and constructed
as to work injustice to none, but secure, as far as possible, perfect
political equality among all classes of citizens; and whereas, all
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the
State wherein they reside; be it
_Resolved_, That the privileges and immunities of American
citizenship, however defined, are National in character and paramount
to all State authority.
That while the Constitution of the United States leaves the
qualifications of electors to the several States, it nowhere gives
them the right to deprive any citizen of the elective franchise which
is possessed by any other citizen--the right to regulate, not
including the right to prohibit the franchise.
That, as the Constitution of the United States expressly declares that
"no State shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," those
provisions of the several State Constitutions that exclude women from
the franchise on account of sex, are violative alike of the spirit and
letter of the Federal Constitution.
That, as the subject of naturalization is expressly withheld from the
States, and as the States clearly would have no right to deprive of
the franchise naturalized citizens, among whom women are expressly
included, still more clearly have they no right to deprive native-born
women citizens of this right.
That justice and equity can only be attained by having the same laws
for men and women alike.
That having full faith and confidence in the truth and justice of
these principles, we will never cease to urge the claims of women to a
participation in the affairs of government equally with men.
_Resolved_, That as the XIV. and XV. Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States have established the right of woman to the elective
franchise, we demand of the present Congress a declaratory act which
shall secure us at once in the exercise of this right.
As the recognition of woman suffrage involves immediate political
action, and as numbers as well as principles control parties,
_Resolved_, That we rejoice in the rapidly organizing millions of
Spiritualists, labor reformers, temperance, and educational forces,
now simultaneously waking to their need of woman's help in the cause
of reform.
_Resolved_, That the movement for the enfranchisement of woman is the
movement of universal humanity; that the great questions now looming
upon the political horizon can only find their peaceful solution by
the infusion of the feminine element in the councils of the nation.
Man, representing force, would continue in the future, as in the past,
in the New World as in the Old, to settle all questions by war, but
woman, representing affection, would, in her true development,
harmonize intellect and action, and weld together all the interests of
the human family--in other words, help to organize the science of
social, religious, and political life.
_Resolved_, That our thanks are due to Governor Campbell, of Wyoming,
for his veto, and to the Republican members of the Legislature of
Wyoming, for their votes against the bill disfranchising the women of
that Territory.
_Resolved_, That the thanks of the women of America are due to Hon.
Benjamin F. Butler for introducing so early in the present session of
Congress, a bill to enfranchise woman under the Constitution, and also
to Hon. Wm. Loughridge and to the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler for their
admirable minority report, at the last session, sustaining the
Woodhull memorial.
[146]
WASHINGTON, D. C., January 8, 1872.
_Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren_--MADAM: The National Woman Suffrage
Association is to hold a three days' convention the present week, in
Lincoln Hall, commencing on the morning of Wednesday, the 10th.
Nothing would afford the officers and speakers of the convention
greater pleasure than to hold a debate, during some session, with
yourself and your friends, upon the question of woman suffrage. As you
have publicly expressed your opposition to woman's enfranchisement,
not only through the papers, but also by a petition against it to
Congress, we feel sure you will gladly accept our invitation and let
us know your reason for the faith that is within you.
Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as president of the association and
convention, will afford you every opportunity for argument, and will
herself enter the list against you. Not only Mrs. Stanton, but all
members of the committee, cordially extend this invitation for debate,
to be held at any session most convenient for yourself.
An early answer is desirable.
MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE,
Chairman of the Committee of Arrangements.
[147] _Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, Chairman Committee of
Arrangements_--MADAM: Mrs. Sherman and myself are this morning in
receipt of a note from you in which you invite us, in the name "of the
officers and speakers of the National Woman Suffrage Association," to
hold a debate upon the question of "woman suffrage," and mention that
"Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as President of the association and
convention, will afford every opportunity for argument, and will
herself enter the lists," etc.
In reply to this invitation, for which we thank you, in so far as it
may have been extended in a true desire to elicit fair argument, we
would remind you that in the very fact of soliciting us to "hold
debate" on a public platform, on this or any other question, you
entirely ignore the principle that ourselves and our friends seek to
defend, viz., the preservation of female modesty.
The functions of men and women in the State as citizens are
correlative and opposite. They can not be made common without
seriously impairing the public virtue.
Our men must be brave, and our women modest, if this country may hope
to fulfill her true mission for humanity.
We protest against woman suffrage, because the right of petition may
safely be considered as common to all, and its exercise most
beneficial.
We publish written articles, giving "our reasons for the faith that is
within us," because we may, consistently with the home life and its
duties, make such use of whatever talents God may have confided to our
keeping. To these printed articles, in which we have fully and at
different times explained our views, we are happy to refer you.
We likewise hold that an appeal to the public made in this manner is
much more likely to evolve a clear apprehension of this important
subject, as presenting a strict issue to the reasoning faculties, and
one undimmed by those personalities which generally are indulged in
during the course of oral debate.
I am, truly yours, MADELINE VICTOR DAHLGREN.
WASHINGTON, January 9, 1872.
[148] Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, Chairman, Roscoe Conkling of New
York, Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Matthew Carpenter of Wisconsin.
[149] PEOPLE'S CONVENTION.--The undersigned citizens of the United
States, responding to the invitation of the National Woman Suffrage
Association, propose to hold a Convention at Steinway Hall, in the
city of New York, the 9th and 10th of May.
We believe the time has come for the formation of a new political
party whose principles shall meet the issues of the hour, and
represent equal rights for all.
As the women of the country are to take part for the first time in
political action, we propose that the initiative steps in the
convention shall be taken by them, that their opinions and methods may
be fairly set forth, and considered by the representatives from many
reform movements now ready for united action; such as the
Internationals, and other Labor Reformers--the friends of peace,
temperance, and education, and by all those who believe that the time
has come to carry the principles of true morality and religion into
the State House, the Court, and the market place.
This convention will declare the platform of the People's Party, and
consider the nomination of candidates for President and Vice-President
of the United States, who shall be the best possible exponents of
political and industrial reform.
The Republican party, in destroying slavery, accomplished its entire
mission. In denying that "citizen" means political equality, it has
been false to its own definition of Republican Government; and in
fostering land, railroad, and money monopolies, it is building up a
commercial feudalism dangerous to the liberty of the people.
The Democratic party, false to its name and mission, died in the
attempt to sustain slavery, and is buried beyond all hope of
resurrection.
Even that portion of the Labor party which met recently at Columbus,
proved its incapacity to frame a national platform to meet the demands
of the hour.
We therefore invite all citizens who believe in the idea of
self-government; who demand an honest administration; the reform of
political and social abuses; the emancipation of labor, and the
enfranchisement of woman, to join with us and inaugurate a political
revolution which shall secure justice, liberty, and equality to every
citizen of the United States.
ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, ISABELLA BEECHER HOOKER,
MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE.
[150] The speakers were Rev. Olympia Brown, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Susan
B. Anthony, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Dr.
Clemence S. Lozier, Helen M. Slocum, Lillie Devereux Blake.
[Illustration: Belva A. Lockwood.]
CHAPTER XXIV.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS 1873, '74, '75.
Fifth Washington Convention--Mrs. Gage on Centralization--May
Anniversary in New York--Washington Convention, 1874--Frances
Ellen Burr's Report--Rev. O. B. Frothingham in New York
Convention--Territory of Pembina--Discussion in the
Senate--Conventions in Washington and New York, 1875--Hearings
before Congressional Committees.
The fifth Washington Convention was held in Lincoln Hall, January 16th
and 17th, 1873. The President, Miss Anthony, in opening, said:
There are three methods of extending suffrage to new classes. The
first is for the Legislatures of the several States to submit the
question to the vote of the people; that is to those already
voters. Before the war this was the only way thought of, and
during all those years we petitioned to strike the word "male"
from the State Constitutions. The second method is for Congress
to submit to the several legislatures a proposition for a XVI.
Amendment that shall prohibit the States from depriving women
citizens of their right to vote. The third plan is to take our
rights under the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution which
declares "that all persons are citizens," and "no State shall
deny or abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens."
Again, there are two ways of securing the right of suffrage under
the Constitution as it is; one by a declaratory act of Congress
instructing the officers of election to receive the votes of
women, the other in appeals to the courts by instituting suits as
women have already done, in order to secure a judicial decision
on the broad interpretation of the Constitution "that all persons
are citizens, and all citizens voters." The vaults in yonder
Capitol hold the petitions of many thousands of women for a
Declaratory Act, and the calendars of our courts show that many
are already testing their right to vote under the XIV. Amendment.
I stand here under indictment for having exercised my right as a
citizen to vote at the last election; and by a fiction of the
law, I am now in custody, and not free on this platform.
A series of resolutions[151] were reported, and discussed at great
length.
After the appointment of committees,[A] Matilda Joslyn Gage made the
annual report. She said:
Though the casual observer might think but little progress had
been made during the year, this is not the fact. There has been
in many ways a marked advance, and although I do not claim to
have a complete and exact record, I would mention points which
have come under my notice.
Soon after the opening of the last session of Congress several
important bills were introduced. The Hon. Mr. Hoar introduced a
bill against Territorial disfranchisement, which, as women vote
in two Territories, was a bill having an important bearing upon
this question of suffrage. About the same time, the Hon. Mr.
Butler introduced a bill for a Declaratory Law to protect women
citizens in their right to vote. During the progress of our
annual Convention in January last, a memorial was presented, and
a hearing obtained before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The
speeches made by women at that time have been printed in pamphlet
form, and extensively circulated throughout the nation. Within a
few days after this hearing, a petition, containing 35,000 names,
was presented to the House by the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler. During
his remarks upon this occasion his coadjutors left their seats
and pressed around him, so anxious were they to hear, until, in
order to give all an equal chance, the Speaker was forced to call
to order.
The Hon. Matt. Carpenter made an elaborate argument before the
Supreme Court, in the Myra Bradwell case. Mrs. Bradwell, as is
well known, is the editor of a paper, entitled the _Legal News_,
which is ably conducted, and accepted as authority by the
profession. Mrs. Bradwell, upon applying for admission to the bar
in Illinois, found her husband a "legal disability," and carried
her case up to the Supreme Court. This argument was also
published and circulated in pamphlet form.
The Hon. Mr. Munroe, member from Indiana, presented a petition
from the women of that State, praying for the removal of
political disabilities; and in the Senate Mr. Wilson introduced a
bill to allow women to hold office in the Territories.
In February an argument was made before the Senate Military
Committee in behalf of women who served in the army. Mrs. Admiral
Dahlgren argued in person before a Congressional committee, in
reference to moneys due her deceased husband.
* * * * *
Mrs. Lockwood and Mrs. Spencer both gave interesting statements in
regard to women voting in the District of Columbia, and ably argued
their right to do so under the National Constitution. Mrs. Lockwood
introduced the following resolution:
_To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives, in
Congress assembled:_
We, the undersigned, citizens of the United States, being
deprived of some of the privileges and immunities of citizens,
among which is the right to vote, beg leave to submit the
following resolution:
_Resolved_, That we, the officers and members of the
National Woman Suffrage Association, in convention
assembled, respectfully ask Congress to enact appropriate
legislation, during its present session, to protect women
citizens in the several States of this Union in their right
to vote.
FRANCIS MILLER, Esq. said that he had one reason for
congratulation in being engaged in the suit with Mr. Riddle, as
it gave him an opportunity to do something for the women of his
country. Under the XIV. Amendment he contended that women had the
right to vote, and no lawyer that read the amendment could decide
in any other way.
It was not true that the cohorts of this issue had been defeated
every time, but it was true that they had gained two victories.
Chief-Justice Cartter had decided that woman was a full citizen,
and had not the right to vote, simply because they had not passed
a law necessary for the purpose. If the XIV. Amendment did not
confer suffrage they must go through the States with a new
amendment, and fight a battle in each. He thought that very
obscure ideas prevailed on the subject. How could anyone that had
no self-government enjoy any inalienable right? It was said that
the ballot was a creature of legislation, consequently not
natural. This was an absurdity. There was no way in the world for
a man to govern himself except by the ballot. To deny any one the
only means of exercising that right is a wrong before heaven and
should be redressed. He did not propose to go into a legal
argument; the best of his ability has been expended in the cause,
and is before the public.
At the evening session Mrs. Gage gave the following address:
Mrs. GAGE said: We hear many fears expressed in regard to the
danger of "centralized power," and the growing tendency of the
nation toward it. The people have been told that through this
tendency their liberties were endangered. The truth is just the
contrary. "State rights" has from the very commencement of this
Government been the rock on which the ship of the nation has many
times nearly foundered, and from which it is to-day in great
danger. The one question of the hour is, Is the United States a
Nation with full and complete National powers, or is it a mere
thread upon which States are strung as are the beads upon a
necklace?
Let us look back a hundred years. The War of the Revolution
commenced merely as a rebellion of the Colonies against the
Nation to which they belonged. Though all were located on the
continent of America, each colony was under its own charter,
separate and distinct from every other one. Each colony resisted
what it deemed to be acts of oppression against itself.
Therefore, the War of the Revolution began as the resistance of
individual colonies, but with the progress of this resistance
grew up a feeling of united interests, and in 1774 eleven of
these colonies, and a portion of the twelfth, connected
themselves under certain articles of association. The colonies
still considered themselves as belonging to the British Empire,
and in these articles avowed their allegiance to His Majesty,
George the Third. Although we date the birth of our nation two
years later, our nationality actually dates back to these
articles of association, for the colonies bound themselves as one
in regard to non-importation, non-exportation, and
non-consumption; the first two pledges having National bearing as
regarded commerce, and the last one regulating internal affairs
in a National manner. This course of the colonies made them one,
and has had a bearing on our every step since, even up to this
day of grace, January 17, 1873. Resolutions of independence and
freedom from all control of Great Britain were introduced into
the Colonial Congress in June, 1776, and the committee which was
then appointed to draft a declaration of independent government
was required to base it upon the first resolution of the June
declaration of rights, which said, "These United Colonies are,
and of right ought to be, free and independent," etc. The veriest
school-boy needs not to be told the date of this instrument,
which we are fond of terming the "Great Charter of our
Liberties;" yet even professed statesmen, from that day to this,
have seemingly forgotten that this declaration was agreed to, and
signed by the already United Colonies in their Congress
assembled, and issued as the action of "one people." No new
Congress met; the declaration was not the act of single colonies,
or states, but the act of already united colonies, or states, and
in this instrument we first find our National name of United
States.
The members of Congress did not sign this declaration as New
Yorkers, or Virginians, or New Englanders, but as Americans. Nor
was it referred to different colonies for approbation, but on
that very Fourth of July, 1776, Congress, with already National
authority, flung to the world the announcement that these united
colonies were a Nation, and ordered that copies of the
declaration should be sent to the several colonial assemblies,
conventions, councils of safety, and to each of the commanding
officers of the Continental troops, and that it should be
proclaimed in each of the United States, and at the head of the
army. We see, therefore, that the Declaration of Independence, in
being truly National, was wholly centralizing--and much more so
than any act since, and is therefore the truest basis of our
liberties.
Our age has annihilated space; danger lies in darkness and
distance. With every newspaper, every railroad, every line of
telegraph, danger from centralized National power grows less.
With the newspaper, the railroad, the telegraph, the course of
the government is constantly before our eyes The reporter
penetrates everywhere, the lightning flashes everywhere, and
before plans are scarcely formed here in Washington, the miner of
California, the lumberman of Maine, and the cotton-grower of
Carolina are passing opinions and interchanging views upon them
with their neighbors. The increase of education in the common
schools, and the vast private correspondence of the country, too,
help to put the proceedings of the government under the
cognizance of the whole people. Our danger lies elsewhere, and to
clearly see it we must still look back to the early history of
our Nation. For a few months after the Declaration of
Independence, our new-born republic worked under a common
sentiment, for a common interest; but ultimately self-interest
prompted the claim of "State Rights." This doctrine was, by wise
men, seen to be utterly destructive to the government, and in the
second year of our independence it became necessary to fight this
State-right doctrine, and the second step was taken in
centralization, by the Articles of Confederation, which were
declared to make the Union perpetual, and States were forbidden
to coin money, establish their own weights and measures, their
own post-offices, and forbidden to do many other things which, by
right, belong to independent self-controlling States.
So anxious was the Nation to set its own power upon a firm basis,
entirely over and above that of the States, that back in these
articles of confederation we find the term "privileges and
immunities," that vexed phrase in the present discussion. In the
fourth article, the inhabitants of each State were declared to be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens of the
several States, etc. These articles, unlike the declaration, were
made dependent upon ratification by the Legislatures of the
several States, which was not fully accomplished till 1781.
For awhile all went merry as a marriage bell. Power had been
further centralized, and the Nation felt secure. But there had
been left a little loophole, which was destined to create State
claims in defiance of the general government. Congress soon found
that under the articles of confederation the limitation of States
was more theoretical than practical. It found that though, in a
general way, the United States possessed national powers, as over
boundaries, peace and war, the issue of money, the establishment
of post-offices, etc., yet in the very necessary matter of
revenue, and the regulation of trade and commerce, it was
powerless against the States. The old form of the confederation
was found insufficient to secure the full independence of the
United States as a Nation, and in the very year that the articles
were fully adopted, and before the last State had given its
adherence (1781), a member of Congress from New Jersey moved a
recommendation to the States to invest Congress with additional
means of paying the public debt and prosecuting the war of the
Revolution, by laying duties on imports and prize goods.
This proposition at once roused opposition, and it is well to
remember that it did not first come from a Southern State. "State
rights" is not a peculiar Southern doctrine. South Carolina was
not the original nullifying State. It was Rhode Island, which
then, as to-day, set at defiance national authority, and asserted
her right to control her own internal affairs. The New England
States, which claim to lead the Union in all that is grand and
good, must be made to bear the shame of the evils into which
they have also led. Even John C. Calhoun learned his first State
rights lessons in Connecticut and Massachusetts of the most
eminent men; of President Dwight when a student in Yale college,
and Theophilus Parsons, with whom he read law in Massachusetts.
When Rhode Island, in 1781, refused to comply with the
recommendations of Congress in regard to levying duties on
imports and prizes, she looked only at her own interests as a
sea-board State. The address of her Assembly to Congress, through
Hon. William Bradshaw, gave reasons of purely local self-interest
for her refusal; but her State selfishness was seen by the
patriots of the hour not to be even that of an enlightened
State-interest, and Congress at once declared there "could be no
general security, no confidence in the Nation, at home or abroad,
if its actions were under the constant revisal of thirteen
different deliberations."
It therefore became necessary to take another step in the
centralization of power, and let it be remembered that every such
successive step we have traced was taken in the interests of
liberty, and for the benefit of the whole people. The Nation has
acted in the defense of its citizens against the tyranny of
States. We are not first citizens of Rhode Island, or South
Carolina, but, if we belong to the Nation at all, we are first
parts of that Nation. I am first a citizen of the United States,
then a citizen of the State of New York, then a citizen of
Onondaga county in that State, and then a citizen of the town of
Manlius, and lastly, a citizen of the village of Fayetteville.
That every person born or naturalized in the Nation, is first a
citizen of the Nation, must be borne in mind, for upon that
depend the liberties of every man, woman and child in the Nation,
black or white, native or foreign. Although Rhode Island led in
State rights, she had many followers, as only four States
complied with the recommendation of Congress to invest that body
with more powers for collecting the revenue and prosecuting the
war. This non-compliance led to active debate. In regard to the
public debt it was said, "That it must, once for all, be defined
and established on the faith of the States, solemnly pledged to
each other, and not revocable by any, without a breach of the
general compact." If a feeling of insecurity existed in regard to
the property interests of the Nation when but thirteen
legislative bodies assumed their control, how much greater is the
insecurity of our personal interests if they are, as is assumed,
under the control of thirty-seven separate legislative bodies,
and subject to their constant revision?
The controversy soon based itself upon the security of human
rights. It was said that it "had ever been the pride and boast of
America that the rights for which she contended were the rights
of human nature," that "the citizens of the United States were
responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political
society," and that it was for "the people of the United States,
by whose will and for whose benefit the Federal Government was
instituted, to decide whether they would support their rank as a
Nation." Virginia and New York ultimately led in the proceeding
which caused the formation of the Constitution; New York, through
her Legislature, declaring that the radical source of the
government embarrassments lay in the want of sufficient power in
Congress, and she suggested a convention for the purpose of
establishing a firm National government. Out of this agitation
grew the Constitution of the United States, which was the third
great step in the centralization of power. The pride and the
boast of this country has been more fully centered, if possible,
on the Constitution than on the Declaration, and yet the
Constitution was not framed until eleven years after our
existence as a Nation--not ratified by the whole of the original
States until about fourteen years after we had taken rank as a
free and independent people--Rhode Island being the last State to
give her adherence--and it was expressly framed and adopted in
order to centralize power, and to destroy the State rights
doctrine.
Washington himself, in transmitting, as President of the
Convention, the Constitution to Congress, said: "It is obviously
impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure
all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide
for the interest and safety of all," and in the deliberations of
the Convention upon the subject, they kept steadily in view that
which appeared to them "the greatest of every true American--the
consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity,
safety, and, perhaps, our National existence." Thus we see not
only the desire of the originators of the Constitution to
strengthen the National power by that instrument, but we also
have the views of Washington himself in regard to the necessity
of consolidating power in the Nation.
The various amendments to the Constitution have been adopted with
the intent of further defining and securing National power. The
first ten, which were called the conciliatory amendments, were
suggested in the conventions of a number of the States at the
very time of adopting the Constitution. The first Congress which
met thereafter proposed twelve amendments, of which ten were
adopted in 1791, only two years after the full adoption of the
Constitution. These ten amendments secured religious freedom,
freedom of speech, the right of people to be secure in their
houses, trials by jury, etc. All of them centralizing power in
the National hands, and at the same time securing broader liberty
to the people. These amendments were passed at the first session
of the First Congress. An eleventh amendment was proposed by the
Third National Congress in 1794, and declared ratified in 1798,
thus making eleven amendments to the Constitution in the short
space of seven years. In 1803 a twelfth amendment was proposed by
the Eighth Congress, and ratified in 1804.
We pass now over quite a space of time, in which the National
power and State power retained their relative positions to each
other. Perhaps in no better place can I mention two constantly
existing, yet diverse tendencies in the people of the United
States, which are well-defined in the minds of but few persons.
There are two kinds of centralized power, one dangerous to
liberty, and the other fortifying and securing liberty. The
dangerous is that which has grown to such dimensions in the
various States, multiplying legislation and regulating each petty
local concern within its borders, down to a village cemetery.
This has led to that destruction of liberty--a multiplication of
statutes which have scarcely been recorded ere a second
legislative body has annulled them. Each State has, in fact, been
an immense centralized power; and as bitter as has been the South
against centralized National power, we have in it seen a most
imperious, tyrannical exercise of centralized power under the
specious name of State rights. The evil is such a constantly
increasing one under the old constitutions, that they are being
revised in many States with special intent to check this
centralizing tendency. New York has now a commission sitting, and
Pennsylvania a convention in session, for the purpose of revising
their constitutions, and attention has been especially directed
to this dangerous feature of State centralization. The new
constitution of Illinois limits the passage of special laws by
its legislature to certain specified subjects, leaving all local
interests in the hands of local corporations. The need of the
hour--and, in fact, I may say the new tendency of the hour--is
toward diffused power within the limits of States in matters
pertaining solely and entirely to their small or local interests.
The centralization that fortifies and secures liberty is National
centralization, which we have traced through six steps since
1776, and which has, within the last ten years, received a new
impetus by the XIII., XIV., and XV. Amendments, and which, as
they successively followed each other at short intervals, may be
termed the seventh, eighth, and ninth steps in centralization. By
and through these three amendments the Nation fortified and
enlarged its powers in reference to personal rights. It defined
citizenship; it secured the exercise of the ballot--and we can
not fail to see that in these last three centralizing steps, it
more broadly than ever before enlarged the bounds of liberty. The
protection of citizens of the Nation, by the Nation, is the
national duty.
This is the second tendency of which I spoke. Most persons who
have been awake to the evils of State centralization, have
applied the same rules of judgment to National centralization.
The two are dissimilar as are darkness and light. State
centralization is tyranny; National centralization is freedom.
State centralization means special laws; National centralization
means general laws. The continued habit of States to make laws
for every part of their own boundaries brought to the surface the
"State rights" theory which precipitated upon us our civil war.
States had become so absolute in themselves that out of it grew
the feeling of absoluteness in regard to the Nation. But is it
not strange that after the late sad experience there can still be
found people so stupid as not to see that the security of
individual citizens of the Nation in matters pertaining to their
personal political rights, does lie, and in the very fact of our
Nationality must lie, in National power superior to State power?
The corner-stone of our Nation is political equality. Our
ancestors came here for civil and religious freedom. To secure
political freedom they formed themselves into a Nation; if the
United States has no power to protect its citizens it is not a
Nation.
The eighth step in centralization, the XIV. Amendment,
specifically declares that "all persons born or naturalized in
the United States, are citizens of the United States, and of the
States in which they reside." Notwithstanding this plain
language--notwithstanding the corner-stone of this Nation is
political equality--notwithstanding the chief right of
citizenship in this country is a right to share in making its
laws--notwithstanding the Constitution and laws of the United
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, are declared to
be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State
shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or law of
any State to the contrary notwithstanding, yet 10,000 naturalized
citizens of the United States have, during this session of
Congress, petitioned that body for protection of their rights as
citizens of the United States against the State in which they
live.
"State rights" is again rearing its head. Rhode Island is again
raising her hand against National power. She again assumes to be
superior to the United States. All foreign-born citizens of that
State, not possessed of a freehold estate of $134 value, or
property amounting to an annual rental of $7, are, by State law,
forbidden to vote. These men were naturalized under a law of the
United States, not under a law of Rhode Island. The United States
not only made them citizens, but expressly in the XIV. Amendment
declares them to be citizens, and yet little Rhode Island
presumes to be stronger than the United States.
Here again arises what I have shown to be the question of the
hour. Is the United States a Nation? If it does not possess
powers to protect its own citizens it is not a Nation. Citizens
of the United States are entitled to protection, whether they are
robbed of their liberties in a Spanish dungeon, or in the States
of Rhode Island or New York. The Judiciary Committee of Congress
has reported adversely upon the petition of the 10,000
naturalized citizens of Rhode Island. Does Congress intend to
sustain State Rights? What better is it for those 10,000 men that
they became naturalized? If they are first citizens of the United
States, as the XIV. Amendment declares, they should be protected
in their rights of citizenship by the United States against the
States, and their thirty-seven isolated methods of legislation.
This adverse report of the Judiciary Committee in regard to the
10,000 disfranchised men of Rhode Island, foreshadows the course
of Congress in regard to the great class of citizens now knocking
at its door. Women claim National protection as citizens of the
Nation.
The original Constitution in its fourth article touches upon
State control, for it declares that the Constitution shall
guarantee to every State a republican form of government. The
"shall" is imperative. It shall! Even as long ago as 1787 it was
declared that the people of the States should no longer be
dependent upon State caprice for their rights, but the general
government took upon itself the authority and the duty of
enforcing in each State a republican form of government. Either
this article is a mere sounding phrase, or the Constitution has
such power, although until the XIV. Amendment the real status of
citizenship had not been settled. People thought of themselves as
first citizens of the States, then of the United States, but now
such a position can not be taken. The eighth step in
centralization settled that point; "every person," not every male
person--but "every person born or naturalized in the United
States"--"is a citizen of the United States, and of the State in
which he resides." First, entitled to national protection, and
through the Nation to State protection. Moreover,
The Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, are
by article sixth of the Constitution, declared to be the
supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall
be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of
any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Is the Constitution supreme in the case of the 10,000 naturalized
citizens of Rhode Island, whose petition the honorable judiciary
reported adversely upon, the 12th of December?
The naturalized citizens of our country should rise _en masse_
against his attack upon their liberties. If Rhode Island can say
that a naturalized citizen shall not vote unless possessed of a
certain amount of property, any State can, with equal justice,
enact a law declaring that only those naturalized citizens who
live in brick houses shall vote; a law, equally as binding as the
present property qualification in Rhode Island, can be enacted,
that only those foreign-born citizens who come over in a Cunarder
shall vote. Why not? If a State has a right to deprive one class
of citizens of its vote for one cause, it has a right to deprive
any other class of its vote for any reason.
The power and the mischief do not stop here. If a State has power
over the political rights of a naturalized citizen of the United
States, it has like power over the native-born citizen. If a
State has power over the franchise of the women citizens of the
United States, it also has power over the men citizens. Unjust
laws, like curses, go home to roost; they can always be made to
plague their enactors. When the rights of any one class of
citizens are assailed, a blow is struck against the rights of
all. The danger to individual liberty lies in special laws. If
States are powerful enough to weaken the National constitution,
then are we weak indeed. The safety of the citizen lies in a
strong National constitution: it lies in a National
centralization of power that shall override the States in their
attempt to destroy individual rights.
If the National government has not power over the ballot in the
several States, where did the United States Commissioner get his
authority to institute proceedings against Miss Anthony for
voting in the State of New York? If the ballot is in the control
of the States, then is the United States guilty of a high-handed
outrage against New York, in the case of the fourteen women who
are now bound over for trial in Rochester for voting at the last
election. If the control of the franchise is the right of each
State as sovereign, then the National law of 1870 in regard to
frauds in voting was an unauthorized interference of the United
States in a matter belonging solely to the respective States. On
the contrary, if the question as to who may vote in any
State--exclusive of black men, over whom it is conceded the
nation has thrown its ægis of protection--is one of National
control, how does it happen that the Judiciary Committee of the
present Congress reported adversely upon the petition of the
10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island? If, then, voting is
a matter of State control alone, what authority had the United
States to prosecute Susan B. Anthony? One of two things is
plainly true. Either the United States authorities had no right
to prosecute Miss Anthony in the State of New York, or, if they
had, then they had the right to regulate suffrage in Rhode
Island. If the general government could not extend suffrage to
Irishmen in Rhode Island, it could not abolish it for women in
New York.
The time has passed when men can take their choice between "State
sovereignty" and "centralized power." What State of the
thirty-seven has power to make a treaty, to form an alliance, to
declare war? Not one, because not one of them is a sovereign
State. An attempt would be treason against the Nation. If the
general government can not be secure with a diversity of laws in
regard to war, or the tariff, in regard to questions of property,
how much less secure is it with diverse laws in regard to
personal rights; in regard to the elective franchise, the vital
principle of our government.
This government does not stand to-day on free trade, or tariff,
or the war-power, or its right to manage post-offices, or to coin
money, or to make treaties. Not one of these singly, nor all
collectively, form the ground-plan of this Nation. This Nation
stands upon the ballot, the self-governing power; it stands upon
the right of every person governed by the Nation to share in the
election of its rulers.
How can statesmen believe the Nation secure unless personal
rights are held inviolable? The National government has control
over money, currency, and national banks. It will not trust its
question of finance to individual States; shall it trust the
personal political rights of its citizens where it can not its
money? Is it not an anomaly that the lesser rights shall be held
by the Nation, the greater by the States?
In the case of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island,
and that of Susan B. Anthony and other women of New York and
elsewhere, who try to vote, there is one great dissimilarity. The
suffrage of the 10,000 is only regulated. As soon as each one
secures real estate to the small value of one hundred and
thirty-four dollars, he votes; but there women can never vote,
simply because they are _women_. Property amounts to nothing;
education amounts to nothing; even native-born citizenship
amounts to nothing; the ballot for them is not regulated but
prohibited because they were born women instead of men. Congress
would quickly waken up to an appreciation of its power over the
ballot, if under pretense of "regulating" suffrage, all the male
citizens of a State were denied the ballot simply because they
were men. The Nation would lose no time in deciding that a
regulation of a character not possible to overcome was not a
regulation, but a prohibition destructive of every natural right.
The word "deny" would be elucidated by able lawyers and
lexicographers. We should then be told that to deny pre-supposes
an existing right; that only positive rights can be denied, and
force of arms would be invoked to maintain the existence of those
rights.
The battle for suffrage is narrowed down to the meaning of
"privileges and immunities." Those who believe the consent of the
governed to be the fundamental principle of the Nation, define
"privileges and immunities" as the right of voting, which is the
only "consent." Thaddeus Stevens went so far as to affirm that
"inalienable rights" in the Declaration meant the ballot. Persons
who thus define "inherent rights" belong to the true national,
patriotic class. But others, deeply tinctured with belief in the
supreme right of States, declare "privileges and immunities" to
comprehend anything and everything except the ballot. Even some
good Republicans, contrary to the principles indorsed and
sustained by them in the war amendments, led by their prejudices
against acknowledging woman's right to self-government; have
declared that "privileges and immunities" merely signify civil
and legal rights, but not political. Such was the groundwork of
the argument of the Hon. Matt. Carpenter in the Myra Bradwell
case. What a farce! It declared at an early day that the United
States possessed the greatest trust ever confided to a "political
society." "Political society" is the foundation of our nation,
and our political trust is the ballot.
It has been said by a member of the present Congress that no man
in that body doubts that the Constitution authorizes women to
vote, precisely as it authorizes trial by jury and many other
rights guaranteed to the citizens of the United States, but that
in order to give them practical force there must be legislation;
that these guaranteed rights are not self-executing. This is a
fine legal quibble, stated for a purpose; but since legal minds
disagree upon this point, a caviller might say no law is
self-executing; all laws require enforcement. It may be said that
the Ten Commandments are not self-executing; yet though given to
Moses, not only as the underlying constitution of the Jewish
nation and all nations, they contain self-executing provisions,
bearing the penalties of their infraction within themselves. By
their simple statement they carry within themselves the authority
for their enforcement. The provision that the sun shall each day
rise and run its accustomed rounds is a self-executing provision,
until some Joshua vetoes this divine right of the sun.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no
difficulty should be found in executing its provisions. But
while, as aimed against the exercise of arbitrary power, we have
no objection to the passage of a declaratory law which shall make
plain to every United States judge, and to the most obtuse
inspector of election, that women are voters, we still claim that
the recent "Act for enforcing the XIV. Amendment" should protect
woman in the exercise of her rights of self-government.
Although the States ratified the XIII., XIV. and XV. Amendments
by the requisite two-thirds vote, they still find it difficult to
realize the fact that these amendments have actually strengthened
the National power. The Enforcement Act, and the previous law in
regard to frauds in voting, may be called definitions of these
last centralizing steps, but as yet neither amendments nor
definitions are fully comprehended. A Rhode Island lawyer
astutely said: "The people of the United States have not yet
awakened to a sense of the vast centralizing power hidden in the
XIV. Amendment." Opposition and struggles have already come, and
will continue to arise, but legislators may beat their brains as
they will, the fact of new National centralization still remains.
Though State power dies never so hard, die it must, as only
through reorganized National power can the political rights of
citizens of the United States be protected.
"Citizen suffrage" is to-day the battle-ground of "State Rights,"
and the denial of woman's constitutional right to vote, and of
National protection in voting, is the weapon it uses against the
Nation. This question of citizen suffrage is not a woman question
alone, but it is a question of the rights of citizenship
affecting every man in this wide land. Let us, then, have the
centralization which shall recognize the United States as the
supreme political power of the land, which shall no longer allow
the political rights of citizens of the United States to be the
plaything of thirty-seven petty legislatures, of thirty thousand
ambitious demagogues. Without this, our National experiment is a
failure; without this, we are not freemen, but slaves; without
this, we are neither protected nor self-protecting; without this,
centralized State power, under the specious name of "State
rights," will continue to be a many-headed monster, impossible to
overcome. Elect the President direct by the people, and for a
single term, if you will; take from him his immense official
patronage; base senatorship upon population, not upon State
sovereignty through legislative gift; limit the power of the
judiciary: these steps must come; make of the people in reality
what they now are in theory--sovereigns, not first of States, or
the Nation, but of themselves, possessing in themselves all
rights, all powers, whose exercise is only delegated to the
Nation as their servant.
The call[152] for the annual May Convention in New York announced the
interesting fact that it was the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Woman
Suffrage movement. The speakers[153] represented many of the far
Western States. Among the letters of interest was one from Madam
Mathilde Francisca Anneke, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who accompanied
her letter with a beautiful laurel wreath to be presented to the
founder of the Woman's Rights movement, the venerable Lucretia
Mott.[154] The resolutions embody the substance of the various
speeches made at that Convention. The following letters were read:
MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY:--Being detained from attending this very
important Convention, which celebrates twenty-five years of as
honest and glorious work as ever was done by man or woman upon
the face of the earth, permit me through yourself, as president
of the National Society, to address a few words to my
fellow-workers in the cause of political equality.
At first, let me beg you, my friends, one and all, to read the
report of the first Convention held at Seneca Falls, twenty-five
years ago, as I have just been doing for the third time, that you
may join me in heartfelt admiration of the distinguished women
who there enunciated a "declaration of sentiments" equal to the
old Declaration of Independence, and founded on a similar list of
grievances as those which provoked and justified the
Revolutionary war. Especially will you note the speech of a woman
there, hardly thirty years of age, which for philosophic
comprehension of the great truths of liberty and responsibility,
for patriotism and eloquence, has not been surpassed in the
history of our country. This alone should be sufficient to send
the name of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, side by side with the
grandest of our revolutionary statesmen, down to the latest
posterity.
The moving spirit of the occasion, however, we are told, was
Lucretia Mott, who spoke with her usual eloquence to a large and
intelligent audience on the subject of "Reform in General," and,
from time to time, during the numerous sessions of the
Convention, swayed the assembly by her beautiful and spiritual
appeals, and was the first to affix her name to this prophetic
and inspired "Declaration of sentiments"--an act which she will
tell you to-day, I trust, has brought to her more joy than,
perhaps, any other act of her life.
Had I the means, the printed report of this Convention should be
placed in the hands of every woman in the United States capable
of reading it and understanding its high import. And, my friends,
if this could be done, our labors would be well nigh ended, and
those women who so desire might approach the polls unmolested,
leaving their sisters "who have all the rights they want" in the
comfortable security of homes made twice secure in that they are
guarded by the watchful care of the mothers as well as by the
courage of the fathers of the republic. That these noble women,
so intensely in earnest to secure the blessings of liberty to all
their posterity, and so deeply conscious of the heavy
responsibilities of such a trust, should have suspended their
claims during the season of our civil war, and have thrown
themselves into the contest for the rights of enslaved black men,
is only new proof, where none was wanting, of the unselfishness
of their nature, and the purity of their motive. But the war
being over, and a new million of black males being added to the
many million white males as rulers of the land, what do we find
to-day? Susan B. Anthony, the Garrison of the woman's rights
movement, not dragged by a rope round her neck, through the
streets of Rochester, precisely, but indicted for the crime of
attempting to vote for her rulers, she being an honest citizen of
the United States, and a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of the
State of New York! Nevertheless, permit me, dear friend, to
congratulate you upon the immense progress in our work which this
indicates. It is but a little time since you and your illustrious
compeers were counted only worthy of jests and sneers or
contemptuous neglect. That you are called to-day to answer for
the crime of loving liberty too well, declares to us who are
watching your career, that the beginning of the end is close at
hand, that slavery is soon to cease, and reconstruction to begin
under the auspices of noble women not a few, and of the noble men
who have acted as a body-guard through all these years of
struggle.
I have heard that with your accustomed indomitableness you have
been attempting to instruct your possible jurors of the county
upon the just principles of personal liberty and a republican
form of government. But have you considered in doing this to what
an incompetent jury you are possibly consigning your case, and
with it the hopes of multitudes of your sisters, who, less
favored than yourself, in not actually having been allowed to
enter the sacred precincts of the polls, have put their trust in
you as in one who should not fail, sooner or later, to achieve a
victory for herself and for us all? Have you considered the
result of white male legislation for nearly one hundred years, in
elaborating a jury that must inevitably consist of fools or
knaves, and twelve of these to declare in unison upon a case of
which they have formed no previous opinion, though the papers
have rung with it, and you have lectured every night for more
than a month to crowded houses upon it? But even this difficulty
you are able to meet, and we leave our destiny in your hands with
unfaltering hope and faith, saying only, as many a time before,
God bless Susan B. Anthony.... In conclusion, let me urge upon
you, dear friends, one and all, that each man and woman of you
shall work for impartial suffrage as though the welfare of our
beloved country depended upon the devotion of each single life,
and the day is ours. I am now and always yours for liberty,
ISABELLA BEECHER HOOKER.
WASHINGTON, May 5, 1873.
MISS SUSAN B. ANTHONY:--Your favor requesting my opinion of the
recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in
the New Orleans and Bradwell cases, was received yesterday. I had
not then seen those decisions, indeed they were not ready for
distribution until to-day. I have very hastily run over them and
only feel prepared to say that there is nothing in them
necessarily conclusive of the suffrage cases. The opinion of the
Court in the New Orleans cases is given by a bare majority, four
out of the nine justices dissenting, and the majority expressly
say: "We hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the United States, which no State can
abridge until some case involving those privileges may make it
necessary to do so." This language leaves us entirely at liberty
to present the question whether suffrage is one of these
"privileges" to their consideration.
There are expressions in the dissenting opinions that upon the
rules of interpretation applied to any other subject than the
rights of women would indicate that the minority were fully
prepared to admit that the recent amendments to the
Constitution--the new _magna charta_ as one of the justices
styles them--recognized the right of suffrage in women. Justice
Field says: "That only is a free government, in the American
sense of the term, under which the inalienable right of every
citizen to pursue his happiness is unrestrained, except by just,
equal, and impartial laws."
Justice Bradley says: "The States have not now, if they ever had,
any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or
persons. A citizen of the United States has a perfect
constitutional right to go to and reside in any State he chooses,
and to claim citizenship therein, and an equality of rights with
every other citizen, and the whole power of the nation is pledged
to sustain him in that right. He is not bound to cringe to any
superior, or to pray for any act of grace, as a means of enjoying
all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens."
Such language on any other subject would be conclusive, but the
crust of custom and prejudice is hard and thick and strong, and
the heat of the lava of regeneration may not yet have weakened
it sufficiently to allow of its destruction and removal.
We will try to have our cases fully prepared for argument when
reached in the call of the calendar, which will be about next
January, and after doing our best in them will have to trust for
success if not in this in some other effort.
Very truly yours, FRANCIS MILLER.
Miss Anthony gave the incidents of her arrest and trial to an immense
audience in the evening, moving them alternately to laughter and
indignation. At the close of this convention a large reception was
given to the friends of woman suffrage by Dr. Clemence Lozier at her
hospitable home in 34th street, New York. Her spacious parlors were
crowded until a late hour. The occasion was enlivened with music,
readings, and short, spicy speeches.
The National Woman Suffrage Association held its fifth convention at
Washington in January, 1874. Before the arrival of the principal
actors, the hall was filled with spectators. Soon after 11 o'clock the
President, accompanied by a large number of speakers[155] and friends,
came on the stage. Many interesting letters were received[156] and a
series of resolutions[157] reported.
Mrs. Gage occupied the evening with an address on Judge and Jury. The
following brief sketch of the convention by Frances Ellen Burr is as
good a summary of the proceedings as we find.
(Correspondence Hartford _Times_,) WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 1874.
The National Woman Suffrage Convention opened in Lincoln Hall
this morning with a full house.
Miss Anthony opened the meeting by reading the call, and then
briefly stated its purposes, which were to bring influences to
bear upon Congress that will secure National protection for women
in their right to vote. Black men are the only ones guaranteed by
the National Constitution in their right to vote. Women ask for
the same security. A letter from the Hon. E. G. Lapham, of New
York, puts a point in the closing paragraph to the effect that
the most degraded elector, who would sell his vote for a dollar,
or for a dram, couldn't be induced by the offer of a kingdom to
sell his right to vote.
Miss Anthony stated that the two articles of the woman suffrage
creed were: First, That every woman should get her vote into the
ballot box whenever she could get a judge of election to take it;
and wherever refused, should go just the same again next time.
Second, That all women owning property should refuse to pay
taxes. She read a memorial to Congress for "no taxation without
representation," the closing paragraph running as follows:
_Therefore_, We pray your honorable bodies to pass a law
during the present session of Congress, that shall exempt
women from taxation for national purposes so long as they
are unrepresented in national councils.
Mrs. Spencer has a case now pending in the Supreme Court of the
United States. She carried a suit for herself and seventy-two
other women who applied to be made voters and were refused. She
has prepared a petition for woman suffrage for the women of the
District of Columbia, on the ground, as Miss Anthony stated it,
that as "this little ten-mile square belongs to us all, if the
women here are enfranchised, those of the rest of the nation can
not long be shut out." As Congress has absolute control over the
District, no one can dispute its right to enfranchise the women
here, even though they dispute its control of this matter in
other parts of the nation. Miss Spencer submitted the following
petition for woman suffrage by the women of the district of
Columbia:
_Whereas_, The Supreme Court or the District or Columbia in
the ease of Spencer against the Board of Registration has
decided that by the operation of the first section of the
XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
"Women have been advanced to full citizenship and clothed
with the capacity to become voters," and
_Whereas_, The same court further decided that the said
first section of the XIV. Amendment does not execute
itself, but requires the supervention of legislative power
in the exercise of legislative discretion to give it effect.
And
_Whereas_, The Congress of the United States is the
legislative body having exclusive jurisdiction over this
District,
_Therefore_, We respectfully pray your honorable bodies for
the passage of an act amending an act entitled "An act to
provide a government for the District of Columbia," approved
Feb. 21, 1871, by striking the word "male" from the seventh
section of said act, thus placing the constitutional rights
of the women of this District, as declared by the highest
judicial tribunal, under the protection of the legislative
power.
She said it might surprise and encourage many, as it did her, to
learn that neither the Constitution of the United States nor any
State constitution, nor legislative enactment, general or local,
has ever forbidden women to vote. They have simply permitted
certain male citizens to vote, and have said nothing about women
whatever. It is one thing to forbid women to vote; it is quite
another thing to simply fail to expressly declare that they may.
Some people think the Bible forbids women to vote because it
doesn't say anything about it from beginning to end. True, it
does not give any authority for it. Neither does it give any
authority for using sewing-machines or clothes-wringers. The zeal
of the people who search the Scriptures in the interest of
bigotry and intolerance, assumes that all that is not commanded
to women is strictly forbidden. Judge Cartter says the general
Constitution interposes not a single obstacle to woman suffrage,
and there is therefore no need of a new amendment; while the
State constitutions simply leave her right in abeyance by
omitting to declare it. That this view of the general
constitution largely prevails is shown by so many women bringing
suits against those who have rejected their votes, under the
constitution as it is. Mrs. Spencer's manner is very pleasing,
and her speech was pungent and to the point. She closed with the
following pithy illustration of the need of woman's influence in
legislative matters:
I wanted a loaf of bread one day in a great hurry, and found
six dram-shops on one square and only one bakery, and that
was shut.
Mrs. Spencer was followed by Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Black,
and Mr. Davis, of Philadelphia, son-in-law of Lucretia Mott.
Committees on resolutions and finance were appointed, and the
meeting adjourned till afternoon.
F. E. B.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17.
This convention, of which I sent you some account in my last
letter, adjourned last night, _sine die_. Lincoln Hall has been
crowded at all the sessions except one, when an admission fee was
charged. And the admission fee worked up a little unpleasantness
in another direction, for in such a case a license has to be
bought of the city authorities. So on Thursday evening before the
meeting opened, word was sent to Miss Anthony in the ante-room,
that a police officer was after her. "Well, let him come then,"
she replied; "I shan't go after him, that's sure." In due time
the policeman walked in, brass buttons and all. Miss Anthony had
a pleasant little conversation with him for a few minutes. The
policeman was very mild and amiable, and so was Miss A. Having
had considerable experience with officers of justice(?), she has
gotten a little used to them--in fact, rather indifferent. Hard
knocks and rubs conduce to philosophy, and Miss Anthony has
acquired a philosophy akin to that of Diogenes in his tub. She
told the policeman she had no intention of paying this
government for the poor privilege of coming here to demand
justice at its hands. While Miss Anthony was as calm as a June
morning, and wholly indifferent in the matter, Mrs. Belva
Lockwood, a practicing attorney in this city, raised such a din
about the policeman's ears that he took to his heels, and didn't
darken the ante-room doors of Lincoln Hall again while the
convention was in session. That license remains _in statu quo_.
Mrs. Stanton said that people were always saying women didn't
want to vote, but the fact that the word "male" was in all the
statute books showed that men knew all the time that they would
vote if they had a chance. But whether they want to or not is a
matter, she claimed, that had nothing to do with the question. It
is time woman had a civil rights bill. No woman can enter
Columbia College, Princeton, Harvard, or Yale. During the century
we have spent $16,000,000 for the boys of New York, and
$1,500,000 for the girls. Are you willing to believe, women, that
your girls are sixteen times less valuable than the boys? What is
the reason of this low valuation of woman? Because she is never
to have anything to do with the State. It is a humiliating thing
to ask, but I insist that the white women of this country be
placed on the same civil and political footing with the colored
men from the plantations of the South. If a woman traveling alone
is belated at night, the hotels slam their doors in her face and
turn her into the street. We want a civil rights bill that shall
make every white woman just as respectable as a negro or a white
man.
Mrs. Blake followed with an anecdote of a girl who applied for
admission to Ann Arbor University. One of the sentences she had
to translate from the Greek was this one from Antigone: "Seeing
then that we are women, ought we not to be modest and not try to
compete with men?" She took the highest honors in Greek, and was
ahead of every man in the class. She prepared a Greek composition
and introduced this sentence: "Seeing then that we are men, ought
we not to be ashamed that we have been vanquished by women?"
Mrs. Stanton thought if girls could come out of colleges and
schools ahead of the boys in their studies, it was pretty clear
proof that they could accomplish almost anything within the power
of human capacity, for girls have to study under all sorts of
disadvantages that boys do not have to contend with. Hang a
hoop-skirt on a boy's hips; lace him up in a corset; hang pounds
of clothing and trailing skirts upon him; puff him out with humps
and bunches behind; pinch his waist into a compass that will
allow his lungs only half their breathing capacity; load his head
down with superfluous hair--rats, mice, chignons, etc., and stick
it full of hair-pins; and then set him to translating Greek and
competing for prizes in a first-class university. What sort of a
chance would he stand in running that race or any other!! Mrs.
Stanton read a civil rights bill for women, to be presented to
Congress. This bill is to secure to them, equally with colored
men, all the advantages and opportunities of life; open to them
all colleges of learning; secure to them the right to sit on
juries; to sue and be sued; to practice in all our courts on the
same terms with colored men; to be tried by a jury of their
peers; to be admitted to theaters and hotels alone; to walk the
streets by night and by day, to ramble in the forest, or beside
the lakes and rivers, as do colored men, without fear of
molestation or insult from any white man whatsoever, to secure
equal place and pay in this world of work.
She also presented a series of resolutions, nine in number. The
first five are for freedom generally, and no taxation without
representation. The sixth and seventh denounce the bills of
Senators Frelinghuysen and Logan, the former being designed to
deprive the women of the Territories of jury trial, and the
latter to restore the common law in the Territories. The eighth
recognizes the importance of the organization of the Grangers;
and the ninth opposes the granting of general amnesty to former
rebels. This resolution Mrs. Stanton denounced, speaking in favor
of universal amnesty. Quite a spicy discussion ensued on this
resolution, which was drawn up by Mrs. Joslyn Gage. Mrs. Stanton
in her remarks in opposition, said it was hardly worth while for
women in their conventions to throw any stigma on Jefferson
Davis. The institution of slavery was sustained by the North as
well as the South; the North got out expurgated editions of books
for the Southern market. It was in bad taste for the North to
denounce the South, and it was in particularly bad taste for
woman suffragists who are clamoring for representation and for
the ballot, to call for its denial to any part of the nation.
Col. R. J. Hinton, of Washington, also denounced the resolution,
saying that it violated one of the fundamental principles of the
woman suffrage platform, which is that the limitation of suffrage
is a gross outrage. Miss Anthony very pertinently said: "All the
trouble on this platform is that we haven't the right to vote. If
we had it we shouldn't complain of anybody else voting." The
resolution was voted down by a large majority.
At the evening session the Hall was literally packed. Mrs.
Dundore of Baltimore, and Miss Taintor of California were the
first speakers. Then the fascinating St. Louis lawyer, Miss
Phoebe Couzins, whose logic is as sound as her wit is sparkling,
was introduced, and delivered an address on "Woman as Lawyer," a
subject which, in most hands, would have put the audience to
sleep, but in hers, kept them wide awake with laughter and
applause at her brilliant sallies. At the conclusion of her
speech the Hutchinsons sang a stirring song, and then Miss
Anthony introduced the colored member of Congress from South
Carolina, Mr. A. J. Ransier, who spoke unqualifiedly in favor of
woman suffrage. Mr. Ransier is president of a woman suffrage
association in South Carolina. He was a little inclined to repeat
himself, and after having returned several times to the statement
that he had "no speech to make," an old lady in the audience
popped up on the bench and said: "Well, if you haven't got a
speech to make, I have," and immediately started out at the rate
of twenty-five knots an hour, utterly oblivious of the rights of
Mr. Ransier, who already had the floor, and who was very politely
waiting for her to subside. Miss Anthony, after patiently waiting
some time, said she should have to call the lady to order, but
she paid no attention to the call. After a while the ludicrous
situation set the audience to smiling audibly, and the louder
they smiled, and the greater the excitement grew, the swifter
flew the old lady's tongue. After consultation among the managers
of the meeting, it was finally decided to send a policeman to
quietly remove this garrulous disturber of the peace. A policeman
was accordingly summoned, but his entreaties had no effect on the
old lady, who stoutly maintained her perch, and declared she
would not go with him. Then Miss Couzins descended from the
platform, and accomplished with her winning ways what the
policeman couldn't. She calmed the troubled waters--got the old
lady to sit down by her side and keep the peace the rest of the
evening. Who wouldn't maintain the peace when entreated from such
a quarter? Mr. Ransier was enabled to finish his speech--a really
good one--Miss Anthony remarking at its close that she wished she
could have had him for her judge instead of Mr. Hunt. She then
made a wide awake and telling speech, which, if this letter were
not already too long, I should like to give. At its close she
introduced Mrs. Guthrie, a daughter of Frances Wright, that woman
of rare mind and original thought, who came from England to this
country some forty or more years ago; and who, with Robert Owen
and some others, tried to start a colony on the community system.
To the surprise of all, Mrs. Guthrie declared herself opposed to
woman suffrage. At the close of her remarks the Doxology was
sung, and the convention adjourned _sine die_.
F. E. B.
The correspondent of the Boston _Commonwealth_, after giving a
pen-picture of the ladies on the platform, said:
The Convention laid out some very practical work for the
consideration and action of Congress. It circulated a petition
and obtained six hundred names of citizens, both men and women of
the District, asking that the word male be stricken from the
organic act of the District government. This was presented by Mr.
Dawes, for Mr. Butler, to the House, and referred to the
Judiciary Committee, before the members of which the ladies
to-day had a hearing. Their case was presented and briefly argued
by Mr. Miller, a lawyer of some promise and reputation, a
resident of the District. Mrs. Sarah Spencer, of Washington,
addressed the Committee on the legal points involved. She said
that the petitioners did not conceal the point that the XIV.
Amendment did not give them the right to vote, but since Congress
had referred them to the State legislatures, they came now to ask
that the women of the District be allowed to vote. Mrs. Spencer
answered the argument so often made, that all of the bad women
would vote and the good ones would stay at home. She said in
reply to this oft-repeated objection, that she had found in
talking with that class they made the same objection to woman
suffrage that the fashionable women make, and were quite as
averse to its adoption. Again, she said statistics show the
lamentable fact that only one-fifth of this class live to be
eighteen years of age; their average length of life being only
five years, no real danger was to be apprehended from giving
woman the ballot. Mrs. Spencer spoke with feeling, and evidently
made a favorable impression upon the Committee. Mrs. Lockwood
made a few pertinent remarks. As this lady has lately been
admitted to the bar in this city, she can speak from experience
upon many points of law and fact. Miss Burr, of Hartford, asked
simply for full justice, eschewing law and legal lore upon the
subject, willing to be numbered with Plato and John Stuart Mill
on this question. Miss Couzins appealed to the heart; as so many
knock-down arguments had been hurled at their heads she preferred
to attack the heart. She said she felt great delicacy in
appearing before so much learning and wisdom, but the veteran
commander-in-chief of the forces, Miss Anthony, had ordered her
to the front, and when she told her she must spike a gun, like a
good soldier, although a raw recruit, she obeyed. Miss Anthony
introduced the speakers, and closed the meeting with a few
well-chosen words.
It was a picture worthy the brush of an old master. Eleven
lawyers seated around a table, with Benjamin F. Butler at the
head, listening to women pleading for the right of
self-government. Their faces, as they listened, every one of them
with respectful attention, was a study worthy the most thoughtful
student of human nature. Some of them listened, no doubt, for the
first time to an argument in favor of this innovation, but the
most unbelieving were evidently impressed with the earnestness
and strong feeling displayed in the advocacy of the cause. The
room was well filled with spectators, drawn together, some from
sympathy, others from idle curiosity, but all were compelled to
respectful consideration by the ease, dignity, and ability
displayed by the ladies in presenting their cause. Only upon the
faces of a few newspaper reporters just emerging from adolescence
into manhood, rested the traditional sneer at the strong-minded;
and when the hour for adjournment arrived, one of the members of
the Committee remarked he regretted that a longer time could not
have been given to the ladies. To those who think the cause of
woman suffrage has gone backwards, we commend the proceedings of
this meeting of the Judiciary Committee.
In addition to the petition for suffrage in the District, another
one has also been drawn, which Mr. Loughridge, of Iowa, will
present at an early day, asking for the remission of the fine
imposed upon Miss Anthony for voting at the last Presidential
election.
By the way, an incident showing the singular independence of Gen.
Grant happened on Saturday. When the President was taking his
afternoon stroll down Pennsylvania Avenue, he met Miss Anthony
and Miss Couzins. Instead of bowing and passing on, as most any
one of the high dignitaries occupying official position would
have done, he stopped, shook hands, and entered into conversation
with them. The chief justiceship being the absorbing subject of
interest, Miss Couzins suggested the name of Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, since he seemed to have so much trouble in getting a man
to suit. The President pleasantly replied he would not subject
any woman to the ordeal of such an examination as she would be
subjected to over Sunday, if the announcement of the nomination
to that office were made. Miss Anthony said if he would only
nominate Henry R. Selden, her counsel, the man who had brains and
courage enough to defend her for voting for him, the country
would at once recognize it as the best possible thing that could
be done. The group, as they stood there on the avenue, the
President of the United States with a pleased and animated face,
and Miss Anthony, whom everybody knows and respects, even
although they don't believe in suffrage for women, and the
strikingly handsome young lawyer from St. Louis, in animated
conversation over the Chief Justiceship, was the object of
attraction of all passing by. If some fortunate photographer
could have taken the picture his fortune would have been secured
beyond doubt.
The May Anniversary[158] of 1874 was held in Irving Hall, with the
usual list of speakers.[159] The attendance was large throughout.
Martha C. Wright, one of the most judicious and clear-sighted women in
the movement, was elected president. A large number of letters[160]
was received from nearly every State in the Union.
On May 28th, 1874, while the bill to establish the Territory of
Pembina was pending in the Senate, Mr. Sargent, of California, moved
to add "sex" to line 10 of section 5, which would make the clause
read:
_Resolved_, That the Legislative Assembly shall not, at any time,
abridge the right of suffrage, or to hold office, on account of
sex, race, color, or previous condition of servitude of any
resident of the Territory.
Mr. SARGENT.--In the same connection I move in the first line of
section 5 to strike out the word "male," so as to read "every
inhabitant of the United States."
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_.--The question is on the amendment of
the Senator from California.
Mr. SARGENT.--At the time when the last National Convention of
the Republican party assembled in Philadelphia, which nominated
General Grant for his second term, there was assembled a body of
able, respectable ladies of the United States, who urged upon
that convention a consideration of the subject involved in the
amendment which I propose; and as a concession to the demand made
by those persons, a plank was inserted in the platform whereby it
was declared that the Republican party would treat with
consideration the claims of women to be admitted to additional
rights. Since that time, although the Republican party has had a
two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress and elected the
President of its choice, and now has full power and has had ever
since the assembling of this Congress to carry out this promise,
not one step has been taken in this direction. It has not been
for want of petition or solicitation. It certainly has not been
because the matter has not been called to the attention of both
Houses of Congress, for petition after petition has been
presented, and no action has been taken except adverse action in
the other House, the committee reporting back those petitions
with the recommendation that the prayer be not granted. In the
Senate we have not yet been favored with the views of the
committee to whom those petitions were referred. Considering that
a great constitutional question was involved, it might be assumed
that these subjects would receive very early attention at the
hands of the committees of the Senate; but up to this time we
have had no light on the matter.
I believe, Mr. President, that the amendment which I offer to
this bill is justified by the organic law of the United States,
and in fact required by that law. Before the adoption of the XIV.
and XV. Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States women were hedged from the ballot-box by the use of the
word "male." Since that time another rule has been prescribed by
the organic law, giving to all citizens of the United States the
right to exercise this highest privilege of a citizen. By the
XIV. Article of Amendment it is provided that "all persons born
or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside." This most important declaration
is now the organic law of the United States. It does not say "all
males born or naturalized in the United States," but "all
persons," and it can not be contended successfully that a woman
is not a person, and not a person within the meaning of this
clause of the Constitution.
This being the status of all individuals, male and female, they
being citizens of the United States, it is provided that "no
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law." Of course if any State is prohibited
from doing this, any Territory should be prohibited from doing
it, because no Territory can constitutionally do that which a
State itself can not do. Then, if women are citizens of the
United States, and there is no right to abridge the privileges
and immunities of citizens of the United States, as proclaimed by
the supreme law of the land, what are these privileges and
immunities? Grant White, in his able work on "Words and Their
Uses," defines, on page 100, the privileges and immunities of
citizens, and among them gives the right to vote and the right to
hold office. Webster gives the same definition of the word
"citizen" and so does Worcester, and Bouvier's Law Dictionary
speaks expressly of these rights of citizens of the United States
to vote and hold office; and there is little adverse authority to
these definitions.
The Constitution, if it needs construction at all--and it would
hardly seem to need it in a case so plain as this--must be
construed by the ordinary and authoritative use of the words
contained in it; and here is both the ordinary and the
authoritative use of those words. This matter has not been
without judicial construction. In the Circuit Court Reports (4
Washington, 371), it was held that these privileges and
immunities included the right to hold office and to exercise the
elective franchise; and this view was adopted by Chancellor Kent
in his Commentaries, volume II., page 71. So that both by United
States courts and the best and highest commentary upon the laws
of the United States the construction which I contend for of the
XIV. Amendment is insisted upon and ably illustrated. The
considerations which I have urged address themselves not merely
to Republicans, they address themselves with great force to my
Democratic friends who are such sticklers for the Constitution.
Although that is true, nevertheless the Republican party has
pledged itself especially to a respectful consideration of these
demands in its last national platform, and it has control of both
Houses of Congress and of the executive department.
Passing from that consideration, we have all persons born or
naturalized in the United States declared by the Constitution to
be citizens; and we have the meaning of the word "citizen" given
by our courts, by our lexicographers, by our law commentators; we
have further their "privileges and immunities" settled by all
these authorities to include the right to vote and the right to
hold office. In consonance with this organic law, the policy of
which is not open to discussion because it has been adopted
according to all the legal forms by the people of the United
States, I offer this amendment.
Were this the time and place, and were not the discussion
foreclosed by the considerations which I have already advanced, I
might speak at some length upon the advantage which there would
be in the admission of women to the suffrage. I might point with
some pride to the experiment which has been made in Wyoming,
where women hold office, where they vote, where they have the
most orderly society of any of the Territories, where the
experiment is approved by the executive officers of the United
States, by their courts, by the press, and by the people
generally; and if it operates so well in Wyoming, where it has
rescued that Territory from a state of comparative lawlessness to
one of the most orderly in the Union, I ask why it might not
operate equally well in the Territory of Pembina or any other
Territory? I hope the time is not far distant when some of the
older States of the Union like New York, or Massachusetts, or
Ohio may give this experiment a fuller chance. But so far as it
has gone, the experiment has been entirely in favor of
legislation for admitting women to the ballot-box. And I do not
believe that in putting these higher responsibilities upon women
we degrade their character, that we subject them to uncongenial
pursuits, that we injure their moral tone, that we tarnish their
delicacy, that we in any way make them less noble and admirable
as women, as wives, and mothers. I believe that by realizing the
intention of the Constitution, which uses words that are so fully
explained by our courts and by our writers upon the uses of
words, we simply open a wider avenue to women for usefulness to
themselves and to society. I think we give them an opportunity,
instead of traveling the few and confined roads that are open to
them now, to engage more generally in the business of life under
some guarantee of their success. I believe that, instead of
driving them to irregular efforts like those which they recently
have made in many of the States to overthrow liquor selling, it
will give them an opportunity through the ballot-box to protect
their families, to break up the nefarious traffic and purify
society. As it is now, their energies in this direction are
repressed, and sometimes in order to have force are compelled to
be exercised even in opposition to law. I would give them an
opportunity to exercise them under the forms of law, and I would
enforce the law by the accession of this pure element. I do not
think that they would be corrupted by it, but rather that society
and politics would be purified by admitting them to the
ballot-box and giving them this opportunity.
I therefore trust that, in the spirit of the pledge that was made
by us as Republicans, in the spirit of the adhesion to the
Constitution professed by our democratic friends, there may be an
assent to this amendment, and that the United States will engraft
this feature in the organic law of this new Territory. There is
nothing peculiar in the form of this proposition. All the
original steps which we took toward circumscribing slavery were
taken by engrafting provisos on the organic laws of Territories,
from Nebraska down, providing that the Territories, when
organized, should not do this or that affecting the liberty of
human beings. In the mode pursued by that legislation, and
according to those precedents, I now propose that the
Constitution shall be invoked; that women shall have the right in
this Territory which is guaranteed by the organic law.
Mr. STEWART.--If this region is to be created into a Territory, I
think it eminently proper that this amendment should be adopted.
The question of female suffrage is a question that is being
seriously considered by a large portion of the people of the
United States. We may think lightly of it here; we may think it
never will be accomplished; but there are a great many earnest
people who believe if females had the ballot they could better
protect themselves, be more independent, and occupy useful
positions in life which are now denied to them. Whether they be
correct or not, it is not necessary for us to determine in
passing upon this amendment. Here is a new Territory to be
created, and it is a good opportunity to try this experiment. If
it works badly, when the Territory becomes a State there is
nobody committed. It is not an amendment of the organic law of
the nation. This is a bill simply providing for the organization
of a Territory and for a preliminary government, and I should
like for one to see this experiment tried. It is suggested by my
friend on my right (Mr. Conkling) that it can not spread unless
it is catching. (Laughter.) If it works well, if it succeeds in
protecting females in their rights and enabling them to assert
their rights elsewhere and obtain such employment as is suitable
to them, I hope it will become catching and spread all over the
country, if that is the light in which it is to be treated. I am
in earnest about this matter. I think this new Territory is the
place to try the experiment. If it works badly, we can see it,
and no great harm will be done. If it works well, the example
will be a good one and will be imitated. We first tried the
experiment of negro suffrage in the District of Columbia, and it
became catching and spread all over the South. Now, when there is
a large portion of the people of the United States desirous of
having this principle illustrated, here is a fair field for the
illustration of it, that they may see and we may see, whether
there is anything in their arguments by the practical
illustration of them for a few years until this new Territory
shall become a State. I say let them have female suffrage there
and try it. If it works well, their arguments will be vindicated;
if it works badly, it need not be followed. I hope that the
Senator from Minnesota will consent that this shall become a part
of the law. Let us try it. It will do no harm.
Mr. BOREMAN.--I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the
question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of woman
suffrage, nor a discussion of the propriety or impropriety of the
adoption of a provision in favor of it upon this bill. I think
this is not a very good time to "try experiments," to use the
language of the Senator from Nevada, and I trust we may have a
vote upon this question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ingalls in the Chair).--The question
is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from California.
Mr. SARGENT and Mr. SPRAGUE called for the yeas and nays, and
they were ordered.
Mr. MORTON.--I desire simply to state my views upon this
amendment; views long entertained. I am in favor of the amendment
on what I regard as the fundamental principles of our Government,
upon the theory upon which we have based our Government from the
beginning. The Declaration of Independence says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights; that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.