_Question_. What do you think of the influence of women in
politics?
_Answer_. I think the influence of women is always good in politics,
as in everything else. I think it the duty of every woman to
ascertain what she can in regard to her country, including its
history, laws and customs. Woman above all others is a teacher.
She, above all others, determines the character of children; that
is to say, of men and women.
There is not the slightest danger of women becoming too intellectual
or knowing too much. Neither is there any danger of men knowing
too much. At least, I know of no men who are in immediate peril
from that source. I am a firm believer in the equal rights of
human beings, and no matter what I think as to what woman should
or should not do, she has the same right to decide for herself that
I have to decide for myself. If women wish to vote, if they wish
to take part in political matters, if they wish to run for office,
I shall do nothing to interfere with their rights. I most cheerfully
admit that my political rights are only equal to theirs.
There was a time when physical force or brute strength gave pre-
eminence. The savage chief occupied his position by virtue of his
muscle, of his courage, on account of the facility with which he
wielded a club. As long as nations depend simply upon brute force,
the man, in time of war, is, of necessity, of more importance to
the nation than woman, and as the dispute is to be settled by
strength, by force, those who have the strength and force naturally
settle it. As the world becomes civilized, intelligence slowly
takes the place of force, conscience restrains muscle, reason enters
the arena, and the gladiator retires.
A little while ago the literature of the world was produced by men,
and men were not only the writers, but the readers. At that time
the novels were coarse and vulgar. Now the readers of fiction are
women, and they demand that which they can read, and the result is
that women have become great writers. The women have changed our
literature, and the change has been good.
In every field where woman has become a competitor of man she has
either become, or given evidence that she is to become, his equal.
My own opinion is that woman is naturally the equal of man and that
in time, that is to say, when she has had the opportunity and the
training, she will produce in the world of art as great pictures,
as great statues, and in the world of literature as great books,
dramas and poems as man has produced or will produce.
There is nothing very hard to understand in the politics of a
country. The general principles are for the most part simple. It
is only in the application that the complexity arises, and woman,
I think, by nature, is as well fitted to understand these things
as man. In short, I have no prejudice on this subject. At first,
women will be more conservative than men; and this is natural.
Women have, through many generations, acquired the habit of
submission, of acquiescence. They have practiced what may be called
the slave virtues--obedience, humility--so that some time will be
required for them to become accustomed to the new order of things,
to the exercise of greater freedom, acting in accordance with
perceived obligation, independently of authority.
So I say equal rights, equal education, equal advantages. I hope
that woman will not continue to be the serf of superstition; that
she will not be the support of the church and priest; that she will
not stand for the conservation of superstition, but that in the
east of her mind the sun of progress will rise.
_Question_. In your lecture on Voltaire you made a remark about
the government of ministers, and you stated that if the ministers
of the city of New York had to power to make the laws most people
would prefer to live in a well regulated penitentiary. What do
you mean by this?
_Answer_. Well, as a rule, ministers are quite severe. They have
little patience with human failures. They are taught, and they
believe and they teach, that man is absolutely master of his own
fate. Besides, they are believers in the inspiration of the
Scriptures, and the laws of the Old Testament are exceedingly
severe. Nearly every offence was punished by death. Every offence
was regarded as treason against Jehovah.
In the Pentateuch there is no pity. If a man committed some offence
justice was not satisfied with his punishment, but proceeded to
destroy his wife and children. Jehovah seemed to think that crime
was in the blood; that it was not sufficient to kill the criminal,
but to prevent future crimes you should kill his wife and babes.
The reading of the Old Testament is calculated to harden the heart,
to drive the angel of pity from the breast, and to make man a
religious savage. The clergy, as a rule, do not take a broad and
liberal view of things. They judge every offence by what they
consider would be the result if everybody committed the same offence.
They do not understand that even vice creates obstructions for
itself, and that there is something in the nature of crime the
tendency of which is to defeat crime, and I might add in this place
that the same seems to be true of excessive virtue. As a rule,
the clergy clamor with great zeal for the execution of cruel laws.
Let me give an instance in point: In the time of George III., in
England, there were two hundred and twenty-three offences punishable
with death. From time to time this cruel code was changed by Act
of Parliament, yet no bishop sitting in the House of Lords ever
voted in favor of any one of these measures. The bishops always
voted for death, for blood, against mercy and against the repeal
of capital punishment. During all these years there were some
twenty thousand or more of the established clergy, and yet, according
to John Bright, no voice was ever raised in any English pulpit
against the infamous criminal code.
Another thing: The orthodox clergy teach that man is totally
depraved; that his inclination is evil; that his tendency is toward
the Devil. Starting from this as a foundation, of course every
clergyman believes every bad thing said of everybody else. So,
when some man is charged with a crime, the clergyman taking into
consideration the fact that the man is totally depraved, takes it
for granted that he must be guilty. I am not saying this for the
purpose of exciting prejudice against the clergy. I am simply
showing what is the natural result of a certain creed, of a belief
in universal depravity, or a belief in the power and influence of
a personal Devil. If the clergy could have their own way they
would endeavor to reform the world by law. They would re-enact
the old statutes of the Puritans. Joy would be a crime. Love
would be an offence. Every man with a smile on his face would be
suspected, and a dimple in the cheek would be a demonstration of
depravity.
In the trial of a cause it is natural for a clergyman to start with
the proposition, "The defendant is guilty;" and then he says to
himself, "Let him prove himself innocent." The man who has not
been poisoned with the creed starts out with the proposition, "The
defendant is innocent; let the State prove that he is guilty."
Consequently, I say that if I were defending a man whom I knew to
be innocent, I would not have a clergyman on the jury if I could
help it.
--_New York Advertiser_, December 24, 1893.