Mrs. Bloomer was a great critic, and for that reason may not have

been so popular with her associates as she otherwise might have

been. Her criticisms, possibly, were sometimes too unsparing and

too forcibly expressed. She had strong perceptive faculties and

noticed what she believed to be the mistakes and failings of others,

perhaps, too freely. No one ever attacked her, in print or otherwise,

without receiving a sharp reply either from tongue or pen if it

was in her power to answer. But no person ever had a kinder heart,

or more earnestly desired the happiness of others, or more readily

forgot or forgave their failings. Perhaps, she was deficient in the

quality of humor and took life too seriously; this over-earnestness,

however, if it existed at all, it is believed was brought out more

fully by dwelling so much upon what she regarded as the wrongs of

her sex and the degradation to which they were subjected through

unjust laws and the curse of strong drink. The same charge, that of

taking things too seriously, has recently been made by a noted writer

against the women of the present day who are battling for what they

conceive to be the sacred rights of women.

ABOUT THE FIRST SINNER.

Although Mrs. Bloomer was a member of one of the more conservative

branches of the Christian community, she was an earnest advocate

of woman’s admission to all departments of Christian work. She

repudiated the notion that woman was so great a sinner in the Garden

of Eden that she should be forever excluded from ministerial work and

responsibilities. As to the first sin in the garden, here is her view

of it as stated by herself:

“How any unprejudiced and unbiased mind can read the original

account of the Creation and Fall and gather therefrom that the

woman committed the greater sin, I cannot understand. When Eve

was first asked to eat of the forbidden fruit she refused, and it

was only after her scruples were overcome by promises of great

knowledge that she gave way to sin. But how was it with Adam

who was with her? He took and ate what she offered him without

any scruples of conscience, or promises on her part of great

things to follow—certainly showing no superiority of goodness, or

intellect, or strength of character fitting him for the headship.

The command not to eat of the Tree of Life was given to him before

her creation, and he was doubly bound to keep it; yet he not only

permitted her to partake of the tree without remonstrating with

her against it and warning her of the wrong, but ate it himself

without objection or hesitation. And then, when inquired of by

God concerning what he had done, instead of standing up like an

honorable man and confessing the wrong, he weakly tried to shield

himself by throwing the blame on the woman. As the account stands,

he showed the greater ‘feebleness of resistance and evinced a

pliancy of character and a readiness to yield to temptation’ that

cannot be justly charged to the woman. As the account stands, man

has much more to blush for than to boast of.

“While we are willing to accept this original account of the

Creation and Fall, we are not willing that man should add tenfold

to woman’s share of sin and put a construction on the whole matter

that we believe was never intended by the Creator. Eve had no more

to do with bringing sin into the world than had Adam, nor did the

Creator charge any more upon her. The punishment inflicted upon

them for their transgression, was as heavy upon him as upon her.

Her sorrows were to be multiplied; and so, too, was he to eat his

bread in sorrow and earn it with the sweat of his face amid thorns

and thistles. To her, no injunction to labor was given; upon her

no toil was imposed, no ground cursed for her sake. * * * * The

Bible is brought forward to prove the subordination of woman and

to show that, because St. Paul told the ignorant women of his time

to keep silent in the churches, the educated, intelligent women of

these times must not only occupy the same position in the church

and the family but must not aspire to the rights of citizenship.

But the same Power that brought the slave out of bondage will, in

His own good time and way, bring about the emancipation of woman

and make her the equal in dominion that she was in the beginning.”

GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY.

On the 15th of April, 1890, Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer commemorated the

Fiftieth Anniversary of their marriage at their home in Council

Bluffs. Many invitations were issued, nearly all of which were

generously responded to, and their house was filled with guests from

three o’clock in the afternoon when the reception began until late

in the evening. Over one hundred persons were in attendance. A local

paper describes the affair as follows:

“The reception of the guests began at three o’clock. At the

front-parlor entrance stood Mr. Bloomer attired in a black

broadcloth suit. Next to him sat Mrs. Bloomer. She wore a

black-satin costume _en train_ with gray damascene front, _crêpe_

lace in the neck, diamond ornaments. There were present Chas. A.

Bloomer and wife, of Buffalo, N. Y., N. J. Milliken and wife, of

Ontario County, N. Y., and Miss Hannah Kennedy, of Omaha. Chas.

A. Bloomer is a brother of D. C. Bloomer, and is president of the

Buffalo Elevator Company. N. J. Milliken is a nephew by marriage

and publisher of the _Ontario County Times_, of New York. These

constituted the reception company. The evening reception commenced

at eight o’clock, and lasted until a late hour. Among the callers

were the vestry of St. Paul’s Church, who paid their respects in a

body to the worthy couple.”

Mrs. Harris read a beautiful poem, and an original poem was also read

by Mrs. C. K. White, of Omaha, and Prof. McNaughton, superintendent

of city schools, read the following address:

“To Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer: It seems meet and proper on this joyous

occasion that the public schools, their officers and teachers

and pupils, should send kindly greetings to one who for the past

thirty-five years has extended to them a generous sympathy and, in

the earlier days of their existence, rendered them distinguished

service by aiding in the erection of a well-planned and commodious

edifice, the adoption of a wise curriculum, and the laying of a

broad and deep foundation upon which has been reared the fair

structure of to-day; one who has aided the teachers and pupils

by words of wise counsel and kindly sympathy and is, by common

consent, regarded as the father of the public-school system of the

city.

“To you, Mr. Bloomer, and your estimable and noted wife, in

behalf of the public schools of the city, I wish to offer sincere

and hearty congratulations; congratulations that, under a rare

dispensation of Providence, you have been permitted to enjoy

together a half-century of companionship in the sacred bonds of

family ties—fifty years of mutual helpfulness and love! fifty years

of sowing and reaping together in the fields whose fruitage is

intelligent progress and eternal joy! And now, amid the abundance

of the harvest, in the golden glories of life’s autumn, may you be

long permitted to remain among your devoted and admiring friends!”

The following letter from Miss Susan B. Anthony was received and read:

“_Washington, April 9th, 1890._

“My Dear Friends, Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer:—

“And is your Golden Wedding to be here April 15, 1890? That seems

quite as impossible as that I should have rounded out my three

score and ten years on February 15, 1890, just two months before.

“Well, your lives have been side by side for a whole half-century,

and this, too, when the wife has been one of the public advocates

of the equality of rights, civil and political, for women. I hardly

believe another twain made one, where the wife belonged to the

school of equal rights for women, have lived more happily, more

truly one.

“Your celebration of your fiftieth wedding day is one of the

strongest proofs of the falseness of the charge brought against

our movement for the enfranchisement of women, viz., that the

condition of equality of political rights for the wife will cause

inharmony and disruption of the marriage bond. To the contrary,

such conditions of perfect equality are the best helps to make for

peace and harmony and elevation in all true and noble directions.

Hence I rejoice with you on having reached the golden day of your

marriage union, not only for your own sakes, but for our cause’s

sake as well.

“I wish I could be present in your happy home on that day, but the

marriage of my younger sister’s son, on April 17th, takes me to

Cleveland to witness the starting out of two dear young people on

the way you have traveled so long and so well.

“So, with gratitude for the good work done in the first fifty years

of your married life, and wishing for you many more equally happy,

and hoping that both you and I and Mrs. Stanton and others of the

pioneers of our great movement may live to see not only Wyoming

fully in the Union but many others redeemed from the curse of sex

aristocracy, hoping _and believing_ I am

“Very sincerely yours,

“Susan B. Anthony.”

The following telegram was received from Bishop Perry, of Iowa:

“_Davenport, April 15th, 1890._

“Hon. D. C and Mrs. Bloomer:—

“Congratulations and benedictions. Fifty golden years exhaust

neither love nor hope.

“William Stevens Perry,

“Bishop of Iowa.”

Rev. G. W. Crofts also furnished a timely and very beautiful poem.

Because of his inability to attend the reception, he called upon the

couple Monday afternoon and in a few well chosen words presented

it to them. It was the production of the minister’s own pen, and

handsomely written on embossed cardboard fastened with orange-tinted

ribbons. The poem was beautifully illustrated by Miss S. D. Phere,

the cuts being the representations of a well-spent life. Upon its

receipt Mrs. Bloomer and her husband were greatly moved. The poem is

as follows:

“1840. April 15. 1890.

“TO MR. AND MRS. BLOOMER.

“The Psalmist says that he who goes forth with tears,

Conveying precious seed, shall doubtless come again

Rejoicing, bringing with him sheaves. ’Tis fifty years

Since you as one were made, and out upon the plain

Of Life’s great field together moved, ‘mid hopes and fears,

And in your faithful bosoms bearing golden grain.

“To-day you come with sheaves, oh rich and golden sheaves!

Immortal sheaves, sheaves glowing in the light of heaven

So softly sifting down thro’ life’s autumn leaves;

And, while the clouds that deck the sky above are riven,

I see the angels smile. And who is there that grieves

When noble souls in life’s great harvest-field have striven?

“This is a day of joy and praise, a crowning day!

Together you have walked for fifty years, and He

Who made your hearts to beat as one thro’ all the way

Has been your guide, His voice has stilled the stormy sea;

In darkest hours, you’ve heavenward looked and seen the ray

Of cloudless hope shine down with sweet tranquillity.

“When worn with toil, His loving arms have given you rest;

Sustaining grace He gave when you were weak and faint;

When sorrows came, ’twas then the haven of His breast

That opened wide and took you in. To each complaint

He lent His ear. In all things, you were truly blest

And ever upward drawn by love’s divine constraint.

“And now upon a lofty Mount you stand and look

Back o’er your pilgrim way; back o’er the fields you’ve sown

You see the stubborn soil, the burning sun, the nook

Where you did rest; and all the way is overstrown

With flowers; flower-wreathed you see the plow and pruning-hook.

And on that Mount there comes to you a fadeless crown.

“To Faithfulness there comes a crown, a Crown of Life;

’Tis one the Lord doth give to those who serve Him well,

To heroes true and strong amid the daily strife

’Tween right and wrong. For such, the sweetest anthems swell

By holy angels sung, and joy on earth is rife,

While thro’ the vanished years you hear a golden bell.

“Foremost in every noble work, in every cause

Where God leads on, where Light is seen, where Truth is heard,

There have you stood from first to last, the eternal laws

Of Right obeyed. Where’er your lips could frame a word

To voice the thought, a hand could strike the great applause

Of onward march, your helpful force has been conferred.

“To you, this day, a grateful people tribute bring

For all you’ve been to them, for all your steadfastness,

For all your words and deeds; for every noble thing,

They would this day your true and honest worth confess;

They would a golden cup, filled from Affection’s spring,

Hold out to you, and thus their gratitude express.

“Take, then, the Crown. Both heaven and earth proclaim it yours,

The Sower’s crown, the Reaper’s crown, that glows with light,

That glows with light and love, and one that aye endures.

The Evening Star, that hangs upon the fringe of night

And, like a lamp, the weary wanderer allures

And tells him of his home afar, is not more bright.

“Look round you, then, crowned as you are, and upward, too:

Here shine the golden sheaves; there gleam the jasper walls;

Around you gather here the noble, good and true,

With hearts aglow, and chant their tender madrigals.

Around, above, all things are wreathed in smiles for you,

While on you, like a burst of sun, God’s blessings fall!”

Many valuable presents were received. One was an elegant silver

tea-set from the lawyers of the city; another a beautiful ice-cream

set of solid silver in a handsomely ornamented plush case of old-gold

velvet, from the rector and vestrymen of St. Paul’s Church. Other

elegant souvenirs were sent in by friends from abroad. Indeed, the

gifts were so numerous and of so great variety that they almost

proved a burden to the recipients who, however, realized that they

came to them from generous friends with hearts full of love and

kindness, and most thankfully received them.

CLOSING YEARS.

Following this happy anniversary, Mrs. Bloomer’s life moved gradually

along to its close. In 1891, after returning home from a visit to

the Chautauqua Grounds near her residence, she suffered a partial

paralysis of her vocal organs and for a short time lost the power

of speech; but this trouble soon gradually passed away so that she

was once more able to converse with her friends, although not so

freely and readily as formerly. Her mind was still clear and her

memory remarkably good, and it was during this period that she

wrote the reminiscences given in the earlier part of this work. She

gradually lost to a considerable extent the activity of movement

for which in earlier days she had been noted, and her husband was

easily able now to keep up with her in their walks on the streets.

Mrs. Bloomer retained her youthful traits to a remarkable degree,

even in advanced years, and her friends frequently noted this and

complimented her on her vigor and cheerfulness. On meeting them, she

was ever bright and cheerful and had a pleasant smile and word of

encouragement for all.

Her early religious convictions remained unimpaired to the end

of her life. So long as health permitted, she was a constant and

regular attendant upon the services of her church and at the monthly

celebration of the Holy Communion. She was active in every good work

in the parish, and a steady friend of all benevolent enterprises

in the city. During the last few years of her life, she gave much

thought to the teachings of Christian Science and read and studied

the writings of Mrs. Eddy and others on that subject. While she never

gave her adhesion to its peculiar doctrines, yet she found in them

very much that she deemed worthy of careful consideration. She bore

witness to some of the remarkable results following their application

to disease in its various forms; and, on the whole, their study

enlarged her views on religious subjects and perhaps enabled her to

look with greater calmness upon the vicissitudes of the present life

and the untried realities of the life beyond.

To Mrs. Mary J. Coggshell, of Des Moines, Iowa, who had then recently

lost her husband, she wrote in 1889 as follows: “My heart goes out

to you in love and sympathy in this sad bereavement, and I pray that

the Almighty Father may sustain and comfort you and give you strength

to bear up under the great affliction. Mourn not for your beloved

one as dead, but think of him as only transferred to another sphere

of existence where he still lives and will await your coming. We

believe that the life that God gave can never die, that the grave has

no power over the spirit, but that it will live on forever doing the

Father’s will.”

Her last journey was made to Colorado, in the latter part of the

summer of 1894. She spent about two weeks at Colorado Springs and

Manitou, mainly in taking electric treatment at the sanatorium of

Mrs. Doctor Leonard who had long been an intimate friend; but was

prevented by impaired strength from again visiting with her husband

many of the interesting places of the vicinity. Another week was

spent in a visit to a dear niece and her family in southern Colorado;

she returned home about the middle of August, somewhat improved in

health and strength. She continued to occasionally accept the kind

invitations of her friends to social gatherings, and spent her last

Christmas at the home and table of N. P. Dodge, one of the most

prominent citizens of Council Bluffs, where she met also her old

and long-known neighbor and friend, Mrs. M. F. Davenport. This was,

however, the last time she was able to leave her residence. Friends

and neighbors continued to visit her to the end and on Friday,

December 28th, several were with her during nearly the entire day;

they remembered that she appeared remarkably bright and cheerful. The

final attack came on the evening of that day, and her brave and noble

spirit passed away at twelve o’clock noon on the following Sunday,

December 30th, 1894.

Of her last sickness and death, the Council Bluffs _Daily Nonpareil_

of January 1st, 1895, gave the following report:

“END OF AN EARNEST LIFE.

“Mrs. Amelia Jenks Bloomer died at her home, No. 123 Fourth Street,

Sunday at noon of heart failure at the advanced age of 76. For

years she had been afflicted with stomach trouble, which gradually

affected her heart and brought on a serious attack last Friday,

from which she never rallied.

“About six o’clock in the evening she was sitting in her accustomed

place reading, when suddenly she fell back in her chair and

exclaimed: ‘I am sick; I am sicker than I ever was before in my

life.’ Her husband was sitting opposite to her at the time and

quickly came to her assistance. She was in intense pain, and a

physician was at once summoned. He was unable to give her much

relief and she continued in a very critical condition during the

night and all day Saturday.

“PASSES AWAY PEACEFULLY.

“It soon became evident that she could not rally from the attack

and the physicians told Mr. Bloomer and the anxious friends about

her bedside that she could not recover. She was conscious during

the entire time and bore her suffering bravely. Sunday morning she

began to sink rapidly. Towards the end her pain seemed to leave

her, and she fell into a quiet sleep from which she never awoke.

Her husband was at her bedside holding her hand and noted the

gradual slowing of the pulse which ceased to be perceptible about

noon, when he knew she had passed away.

“GREAT LOSS TO COUNCIL BLUFFS.

“In the death of Mrs. Amelia Bloomer Council Bluffs loses one of

its oldest and most prominent residents. She was one of the early

pioneers of the west and for many years has been a striking,

picturesque character of western Iowa. Her prominence in the

woman-suffrage movement made her one of the eminent American women

of the century. Her name has become firmly linked with every reform

movement for the uplifting and betterment of woman’s condition

during the last fifty years.

“HER LIFE A BUSY ONE.

“Her life was an intensely busy one, filled with many deeds of

kindness and charity aside from the active part she always took

in the temperance cause and the advancement of her sex. During

her last years, however, she was unable to actively engage in the

work, but was always ready and willing to discuss these cherished

subjects in her characteristic, fluent manner. Up to within a

few years of her death she had been a contributor to prominent

journals, and her advice and counsel was always highly esteemed by

the more active workers of the equal-rights cause. Her death will

be felt throughout the entire nation as an irreparable loss to the

cause she so warmly espoused.

“HER CHRISTIAN CHARACTER.

“Although her death will bring sorrow to many a friend, the

remembrance of her kindly life and true, Christian character will

remain as an inspiration to them for all time to come. Earnest and

steadfast as were her life and character, so she died trusting in

the faith that has always shone through her kind words and deeds.

She will never be forgotten, for her influence, with that of other

good women, has done more to make the civilization of the west a

possibility than the many inventions of modern science. Her great

strength of character, manifested by her earnest and energetic

life, was a part of the truly essential civilizing influence

that sustained the early settlers in the rough experiences of

the frontier. It was her intention before she died to publish

reminiscences of these stirring times, and her sudden death left

several manuscripts unfinished. What has been missed by her sudden

taking off, leaving this work incomplete, can only be judged by

those who knew her best.

“LARGE CIRCLE OF FRIENDS.

“Mrs. Bloomer’s circle of friends in Council Bluffs was large,

and she was highly esteemed and loved by all who knew her. She

was an excellent entertainer, and was a great favorite among the

young people of the Episcopal Church of which she was a faithful

member. She was very fond of society and took an active part in

church and charitable work. Her death, although she has been an

invalid for several years, was very sudden. On Christmas day, she

was able to be about and with her husband took dinner at the home

of Mr. and Mrs. N. P. Dodge. She was in excellent spirits at the

time and enjoyed the holiday festivities with much interest. On the

day of her last attack, a number of friends called upon her and

she spent the afternoon pleasantly chatting with them. The sudden

announcement of her death came as a shock, for the fact of her

serious illness had not yet become generally known.”

MEMORIAL DISCOURSE.

On the thirteenth of January, 1895, her rector, Rev. Eugene J.

Babcock, delivered a memorial discourse on the life and character

of Mrs. Bloomer in St. Paul’s Church, Council Bluffs. In this he

reviewed the main incidents in Mrs. Bloomer’s life, and concluded

as follows:

“Mrs. Bloomer also held the relation of pioneer to this parish. On

the two registers in my possession the first woman’s name is hers.

“On my journey hither to assume the rectorship, I visited by the

way at my former home in Michigan. There I first learned of Mrs.

Bloomer from a gentleman whom I had met in a college connection

while I was an undergraduate. He was a former resident of Seneca

Falls, and informed me that in my new home I should meet a unique

and striking person in Mrs. Bloomer, whose early days were

associated with a remarkable career; that she was now living

quietly, ill health having compelled her to forego active duties;

and that she was now advanced in years.

“Our arrival here was signalized by becoming guests in the Senior

Warden’s home. In this we did as all the clergy had done before,

for no other home in this city has been the hospitable asylum

for so many of the cloth. Among ourselves, the happy descriptive

of ‘Saints’ Rest’ has come in vogue. From Mrs. Bloomer that

pleasant smile, which often had to triumph over bodily ailment,

was my greeting. This showing of hospitality was in keeping with

her ambition, which she frequently sacrificed to her personal

discomfort.

“Going back to a view of her early days, we are prepared now to

forecast her activity in church affairs. Such a nature could not

sit by with hands folded. Following her acceptance of gospel

privileges through which she came into this church, she immediately

entered into parish activities at Seneca Falls. Being a woman of

action, she did her part in the then somewhat limited sphere of

woman’s church work. Little as it may have been comparatively, it

was another demand upon her already enlarging engagements.

“Her removal to this city deprived her of the worship of her

own church. The then line of demarcation of the religious public

into ‘Mormons’ and ‘Gentiles’ very likely infused into the latter

a fellow sympathy. Soon after her settlement here, the Rev. Mr.

Rice invited her to attend a meeting of a sewing society which was

held at his house. This happened to be the annual meeting; she was

elected president of the society, and Mrs. Douglas first director.

In her ‘Early Recollections’ her felicitous comment is this: ‘Thus

putting their affairs in the hands of two Episcopalians.’ But

evidently affairs did not suffer at their hands, for they ‘carried

through a successful fair’ which secured money to put the first

church of the Congregationalists into shape for use.

“Her usual interest in what concerned her came out in the

organization of this parish. She entered with the same

characteristic zeal and expenditure of means into its upbuilding,

both as to what was preliminary and also permanent. She has been a

good example of what woman can do, and faithful in her service. The

women of this parish have worked so assiduously in raising money

that among men it has become a lost art.

“In spite of advanced years and impairment of strength, she

responded with her kindly support to my call for organization

of a Woman’s Parochial Aid Society. Her kindness to me was ever

constant and uniform, and her ingenuous frankness such as I always

enjoyed. Plain and albeit of rugged candor in her speech, such is

better for this world than the honey covering of deceit. A former

Rector, the Rev. Mr. Webb, writes respecting her: ‘My impression

of her kindness of heart is that it never failed; and I believe

more firmly than ever that it was God’s own cause which she so

characteristically espoused, and labored so long and faithfully to

promote.’

“She had the habit of clipping from newspapers whatever took her

fancy. Her recent quiet and somewhat afflicted living, owing to

her illness, was given to reading, needle work and entertaining of

guests when circumstances admitted. As the golden clouds brightened

in the west of her life’s decline, there came a strong inward

faith. A late clipping seems to speak her thought: ‘As the weeks

and months fly past, do you not think that the spirit of our daily

prayer ought to be—

“‘Break, my soul, from every fetter,

Him to know is all my cry;

Saviour, I am thine forever,

Thine to live and thine to die,

Only asking

More and more of life’s supply’?’

“She passed into Paradise on Sunday, December 30, 1894, and left a

name worthy to be entered among the illustrious galaxy of notables

whom the past year has numbered with the dead. On a beautiful

winter’s day, all that remained of mortality was brought to this

church, so large an object of her affection, and here, with

impressive funeral rites which speak comfortably our blessed hope,

we committed her body to the ground. And as the sweet notes of the

committal anthem broke in upon the constrained stillness of the

scene, how appropriate were the words—mutely echoed by the hushed

assembly: ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord * * * for they

rest from their labors’!”

In a grassy plat in beautiful Fairview Cemetery, overlooking the

cities of Council Bluffs and Omaha, lies the grave of the true woman,

the earnest reformer, the faithful Christian, whose history is

delineated in these pages; and near its foot stands a modest monument

bearing this inscription:

“IN MEMORIAM

AMELIA JENKS, WIFE OF D. C. BLOOMER

DIED DEC. 30TH, 1894

AGED 76 YEARS, 7 MONTHS, AND 3 DAYS

A PIONEER IN WOMAN’S ENFRANCHISEMENT”

And here the author and compiler, commending these pages to the

kindly consideration of his readers, brings his labor of love to a

close.

APPENDIX.

APPENDIX.

WOMAN’S RIGHT TO THE BALLOT.

BY AMELIA BLOOMER.

It is a principle of all free governments that the people rule.

Each member of the community, in theory at least, is supposed to

give assent to Constitution and laws to which he is subject; or,

at least, it is assumed that these were made by a majority of the

people. And this assent is given according to forms previously

prescribed. The people vote directly upon the adoption of the

Constitution, and by their representatives in making the laws.

And since all the people must be subject to the Constitution and

laws, so all the people should be consulted in their formation;

that is, all who are of sufficient age and discretion to express

an intelligent opinion. No one who claims to be a republican

or lover of freedom at heart can dispute these positions. They

are in substance the principles promulgated in the Declaration

of Independence, and they form the common basis upon which our

national and state governments rest. When they shall cease to be

recognized and respected by the people and by our lawmakers, then

free institutions will cease to exist.

But I presume their correctness, when applied to man, will be

doubted by none; for man is willing enough to claim for himself the

full recognition of all the high prerogatives I have shown him to

be entitled to. But I hold more than this to be true. I hold that

these rights belong, not to man alone, but to the race, and to

each individual member of it, without regard to sex. I hold that

woman has as good and rightful a claim to them as her brother, and

that the man who denies this claim is not only no good democrat,

and much less a good republican, but that in being guilty of this

denial he commits an act of the grossest injustice and oppression.

And I insist, not only that woman is entitled to the enjoyment

of all these rights which God and nature have bestowed upon the

race, but that she is entitled to the same means of enforcing

those rights as man; and that therefore she should be heard in the

formation of Constitutions, in the making of the laws, and in the

selection of those by whom the laws are administered.

In this country there is one great tribunal by which all theories

must be tried, all principles tested, all measures settled: and

that tribunal is the ballot-box. It is the medium through which

public opinion finally makes itself heard. Deny to any class in

the community the right to be heard at the ballot-box and that

class sinks at once into a state of slavish dependence, of civil

insignificance, which nothing can save from becoming subjugation,

oppression and wrong.

From what I have said you will of course understand that I hold,

not only that the exclusion of woman from the ballot-box is

grossly unjust, but that is her duty—so soon as she is permitted

to do so—to go to it and cast her vote along with her husband and

brother; and that, until she shall do so, we can never expect to

have a perfectly just and upright government under which the rights

of the people—of all the people—are respected and secured.

It is objected that it does not belong to woman’s sphere to take

part in the selection of her rulers, or the enactment of laws to

which she is subject.

This is mere matter of opinion. Woman’s sphere, like man’s sphere,

varies according to the aspect under which we view it, or the

circumstances in which she may be placed. A vast majority of the

British nation would deny the assumption that Queen Victoria is

out of her sphere in reigning over an empire of an hundred and

fifty millions of souls! And if she is not out of her sphere in

presiding over the destinies of a vast empire, why should any woman

in this republic be denied her place among a nation of sovereigns?

There is no positive rule by which to fix woman’s sphere, except

that of capacity. It is to be found, I should say, wherever duty

or interest may call her,—whether to the kitchen, the parlor, the

nursery, the workshop or the public assembly. And, most certainly,

no narrow contracted view of her sphere can suffice to deprive her

of any of those rights which she has inherited with her being.

Again, it is objected that it would be immodest and ‘unbecoming a

lady’ for women to go to the ballot-box to vote, or to the halls of

the capitol to legislate.

This, too, is mere matter of opinion, and depends for its

correctness upon the particular fashions or customs of the

people. In deciding upon what is appropriate or inappropriate for

individuals or classes the community is exceedingly capricious.

In one country, or in one age, of the world, a particular act may

be considered as entirely proper which in another age or country

may be wholly condemned. But a few years ago it was thought very

unladylike and improper for women to study medicine, and when

Elizabeth Blackwell forced her way into the Geneva, N. Y., medical

college people were amazed at the presumption. But she graduated

with high honors, went to Europe to perfect her studies, and now

stands high in her chosen profession. She let down the bars to

a hitherto proscribed sphere. Others followed her lead, and now

there are several colleges for the medical education of women, and

women physicians without number; and the world applauds rather than

condemns.

It is not a great many years since women sculptors were unknown,

because woman’s talent was not encouraged. Some years ago a

match-girl of Boston fashioned a bust of Rufus Choate in plaster

and placed it in a show window, hoping some benevolent lover of

art might be so attracted by it as to aid her to educate herself

in the profession of sculpture. A gentleman who saw great merit

in it inquired who was the artist, and when told that it was a

young girl, exclaimed, ‘What a pity she is not a boy!’ He saw that

such talent in a boy would be likely to make him famous and enrich

the world. But a girl had no right to such gifts. It would be an

unladylike profession for her, and so she must bury her God-given

talent and keep to match selling and dish washing. A few years

later Harriet Hosmer overleaped the obstacles that stood in her way

and went to Rome to undertake the work of a sculptor. The world now

rings with her praises and is enriched by her genius. She, too,

removed barriers to a hitherto proscribed sphere and proved that

the All-Father in committing a talent to woman’s trust gave along

with it a right to use it. Vinnie Ream and others have followed

in the way thus opened, and no one now questions the propriety of

women working in plaster or marble.

And so of many other departments of trade, profession and labor

that within my recollection were not thought proper for woman,

simply because she had not entered them. Women are debarred from

voting and legislating, and therefore it is unfashionable for them

to do either; but let their right to do so be once established, and

all objections of that kind will vanish away.

And I must say I can conceive of nothing so terrible within the

precincts of the ballot-box as to exclude woman therefrom. Who

go there now? Our fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons. And do

they act so badly while there that they dare not suffer us to go

with them? If it is really so bad a place surely they should stay

away from it themselves, for I hold that any place that is too

corrupt for woman to go to is also too corrupt for man to go to.

‘An atmosphere that is too impure for woman to breathe cannot but

be dangerous to her sires and sons.’ We mingle with our gentlemen

friends elsewhere with safety and pleasure, and I cannot think it

possible that the exercise of the right of franchise turns them at

once into ruffians.

Yet we are gravely told that woman would be treated with rudeness

and insult should she go to the polls in the exercise of a right

guaranteed to her by the laws of her country.

And would you, sir objector, be the one to do this? Would you

insult the wife or mother or sister of your neighbor? I think not.

Then judge other men by yourself and believe that, as each man, the

low as well as the high, would have some female relative or friend

with him there, each would be equally careful for the safety of

those belonging to him and careful also of his own language and

deportment. And should one dare to offer insult would there not,

think you, be a score of stout arms to fell the insulter to the

earth?

Men will behave as well I verily believe at the polls as at other

public assemblies, if they will permit woman to go with them

there; and if they have behaved badly heretofore, which from their

continual asseverations we must believe to be the case, it is

because woman has not always been there with them.

The idea advanced that woman would become debased by participating

in so important and sacred a duty as the selection of those who

are to be placed in power, and to whom are to be committed the

interests and happiness of the whole people, comes with a bad grace

from men, who are ever claiming for her superior natural virtues.

They should remember that God made her woman, that He gave her

equal dominion with man over the world and all that is therein,

and endowed her with high moral faculties, keen perceptions of

right, and a love of virtue and justice, and it is not easy to

change her nature. Her delicacy and sensitiveness will take care

of themselves, in any exposure, and she will be as safe at the

polls as at political and other conventions, at state and county

and church fairs, at railroad and Fourth of July celebrations, and

the various other crowds in which she mingles freely with men. That

virtue is little worth which cannot bear itself unharmed through a

crowd, or awe and frown down impudence whenever it meets with it.

The true woman will be woman still in whatever situation you place

her; and man will become elevated just so far as he mingles in her

society in the various relations of life.

In fact this argument that it would be unsafe for woman to go to

the polls is one that man, at least, should be ashamed to bring

forward, inasmuch as it impeaches his own gallantry and instinctive

regard for woman. But, if it be true that it would really be unsafe

for us to go to the polls with our husbands and fathers, all danger

could be avoided by our having separate places for voting apart

from theirs.

But here I am answered that it is not _men_ whom we have to fear so

much as the bad of our own sex, who will rush to the polls while

the good women will stay away. To this I have to say that I have

never yet met a woman that I was afraid of, or from whom I feared

contamination. In the theatre and concert and festival halls, the

Fourth of July gatherings, in the cars, on the fair grounds, and

any day upon the street or in the stores we meet and pass by the

coarse, the frail, the fallen of our sex. They have the same right

to God’s pure air and sunshine as we, and we could not deprive them

of it if we would and would not if we could. I see not how these

are going to harm us any more at the polls than at all these other

places.

The good women will vote as soon as the exercise of the right is

granted them, and they will outnumber the bad more than a hundred

to one. Instead then of the pure woman being contaminated, the

vile woman will be awed and silenced in her presence, and led by

her example into the right paths. Even those called low and vile

have hearts that can be touched, and they will gladly seize the aid

which the ballot and good women will bestow to raise themselves

from the degraded condition into which bad men, bad laws and bad

customs have plunged them.

This objection, then, which assumes such proportions in the minds

of many, looks very small when viewed in the light of truth and

Christian charity. I think no man would consider it good reason for

depriving him of rights because a bad man also enjoyed the same

rights.

This arguing that all women would go to the bad if allowed to vote

because some women are bad now when none of them vote is the most

absurd logic ever conceived in the brain of man, and if those who

use it could see their silly reasoning in the light that sensible

men and women see it there would be less of it. If the ballot makes

people bad, if it is corrupting in its tendencies and destructive

of virtue and goodness, then the sooner men are deprived of it the

better.

All men, good and bad, black and white, corrupt, debased,

treacherous, criminal, may vote and make our laws, and we hear no

word against it; but if one woman does or says aught that does

not square with men’s ideas of what she should do and say, then

she should not have the right of self-government, and all women

everywhere must on that account be disfranchised and kept in

subjection!

Such reasoning might have answered once, but the intelligence of

the present day rejects it, and women will not long be compelled to

submit to its insults.

But, again, one says votes would be unnecessarily multiplied, that

women would vote just as the men do, therefore the man’s vote will

answer for both. Sound logic, truly! But let us apply this rule to

men. Votes are unnecessarily multiplied now by so many men voting;

a few could do it all, as well as to take the mass of men from

their business and their families to vote. My husband votes the

republican ticket, and many other men vote just as he does; then

why not let my husband’s vote suffice for all who think as he does,

and send the rest about their business? What need of so many men

voting when all vote just alike?

Again, another says: ‘It has always been as now; women never have

had equal rights, and that is proof that they should not have.’

Sound logic again! Worthy emanation from man’s superior brain! But

whence did man derive his right of franchise, and how long has he

enjoyed it?

It is true that women never have had equal rights, because men have

ever acted on the principle of oppressors that might makes right

and have kept them in subjection, just as weaker nations are kept

in subjection to the stronger.

But must we ever continue to act on such principles? Must we

continue to cling to old laws and customs because they are old? Why

then did not our people remain subject to kings? How did they dare

to do what was not thought of in the days of Moses and Abraham? How

dared they set aside the commands of the Bible and the customs of

all past ages and set up a government of their own?

It is the boast of Americans that they know and do many things

which their fathers neither knew nor did. Progress is the law of

our nation and progress is written upon all its works. And while

all else is progressing to perfection, while the lowest may attain

to the position of the highest and noblest in the land, shall woman

alone remain stationary? Shall she be kept in a state of vassalage

because such was the condition of her sex six thousand years ago?

Clearly, my friends, when the prejudice of custom is on the side of

wrong and injustice in any matter we are not to be governed by it.

But again it is objected that if women should be enfranchised it

would lead to discord and strife in families. In other words, to

come down to the simple meaning of this objection, if women would

not vote just as their husbands wanted them to the husbands would

quarrel with them about it! And who are the men who would do this?

Surely, not those who consider and treat their wives as equals. Not

those who recognize the individuality of the wife and accord to her

the right to her own opinions, the right to think for herself, and

to act as her own sense and judgment may dictate. With such there

would be no cause for quarrels, nothing to contend about. In such

families all is harmony.

It would be only those who desire to rule in their families, only

those who regard and treat their wives as inferiors and subjects

who would get up contentions and discord; and it is only these who

bring forward this objection. No man who honors woman as he should

do would ever offer so flimsy a pretext for depriving her of rights

and enslaving her thoughts. I believe the enfranchisement of woman

will bring with it more happiness in the marriage relation, and

greater respect from the husband for his wife, because men are

always more respectful to their equals than to those they deem

their inferiors and subjects.

Another objection of which we hear much in these days, and to

which men invariably resort when answered on every other point, is

that women do not want to vote. They say when _all_ the women ask

for the right it will be granted them. Did these objectors take

the same ground in regard to the negro? Did the colored men very

generally petition for the right of franchise? No such petition

was ever heard of and yet men forced the ballot unasked into their

hands. Why then must woman sue and petition for her God-given right

of self-government? If one human being only claims that rights are

unjustly withheld, such claim should receive the careful attention

and consideration of this government and people. Yet tens of

thousands of women, subjects of their government, have made such

claims and set forth their grievances from time to time during the

last thirty years. They have come as suppliants before the people

asking for rights withheld, and they have been met with sneers and

ridicule, and told that they must wait till all the women of the

nation humbly sue for the same thing! Would such excuse ever be

offered for withholding rights from men?

Again, it is said that no considerable number of women would

exercise the right if granted. This, if true, and men do not know

it to be so, has nothing to do with the question. Give them the

right and let them exercise it or not as they choose. If they do

not want to vote, and will not vote, then surely there is no need

of restrictions to prevent their voting, and no harm can come from

removing the obstacles that now obstruct their way.

Men are not required to give pledges that they will vote. There

is no compulsion in their case. They are left free to do as they

please, or as circumstances permit. The right is accorded and there

the matter rests.

There is no justice in requiring more from women. That thousands

of women would vote is pretty certain. If _all_ do not avail

themselves of such privileges, it will be of their own choice and

right, and not because of its denial. The ballot is the symbol of

freedom, of equality; and because the right to use it would lift

woman from a state of inferiority, subjection and powerlessness

to one of equality and freedom and power we demand it for her.

If properly educated, she will use it for the best interests of

herself and of humanity.

Another objection that carries great weight in the minds of many

is that if women vote they must fight. Even some of our friends

are puzzled how to settle this question. But a few days ago a lady

friend asked me how we could get around it. I reply that all men

have not earned their right to the ballot by firing the bullet in

their country’s defense, and if only those who fight should vote

there are many sick men, many weak little men, many deformed men,

and many strong and able-bodied but cowardly men who should be

disfranchised.

These all vote but they do not fight, and fighting is not made

a condition precedent to their right to the ballot. The law

requires that only those of physical strength and endurance shall

bear arms for their country, and I think not many women could be

found to fill the law’s requirements. So they would have to be

excused with the weak little men who are physically disqualified.

If there are any great, strong women able to endure the marching

and the fighting who want to go to the front in time of battle,

I think they have a right to do so, and men should not dismiss

them and send them home. But as there are other duties to be

discharged, other interests to be cared for in time of war besides

fighting, women will find it enough to look after these in the

absence of their fighting men. They may enter the hospitals or the

battlefields as nurses, or they may care for the crops and the

young soldiers at home. They may also do the voting, and look after

the affairs of government, the same as do all the weak men who vote

but do not fight.

And further, as men do not think it right for woman to bear arms

and fear it will be forced upon her with the ballot, they can

easily make a law to excuse her; and doubtless, with her help,

they will do so. There is great injustice, so long as the ballot

is given to all _men_ without conditions, the weak as well as the

strong, in denying to woman a voice in matters deeply affecting her

happiness and welfare, and through her the happiness and welfare

of mankind, because perchance there may come a time again in the

history of our country when we shall be plunged into war and she

not be qualified to shoulder a musket.

This objection, like many others we hear, is too absurd to emanate

from the brains of intelligent men, and I cannot think they

seriously entertain the views they express. But give us a voice

in the matter, gentlemen, and we will not only save ourselves

from being sent to the battlefield, but will if possible keep you

at home with us by averting the difficulties and dangers, and

so compromising matters with foreign powers that peace shall be

maintained and bloodshed avoided.

In justification of the exclusion of woman from a voice in the

government we are told that she is already represented by her

fathers, husbands and sons. To this I might answer, so were our

fathers represented in the parliament of King George. But were they

satisfied with such representation? And why not? Because their

interests were not well cared for; because justice was not done

them. They found they could not safely entrust their interests

to the keeping of those who could not or would not understand

them, and who legislated principally to promote their own selfish

purposes. I wholly deny the position of these objectors. It is

not possible for one human being to fully represent the wants and

wishes of another, and much less can one class fully understand

the desires and meet the requirements of a different class in

society. And, especially, is this true as between man and woman.

In the former, certain mental faculties as a general thing are

said to predominate; while in the latter, the moral attain to a

greater degree of perfection. Taken together, they make up what we

understand by the generic term _man_. If we allow to the former,

only, a full degree of development of their common nature one-half

only enjoys the freedom of action designed for both. We then have

the man, or male element, fully brought out; while the woman, or

female element, is excluded and crushed.

It should be remembered too that all rights have their origin in

the moral nature of mankind, and that when woman is denied any

guarantee which secures these rights to her, violence is done to

a great moral law of our being. In assuming to vote and legislate

for her, man commits a positive violation of the moral law and

does that which he would not that others should do unto him. And,

besides all these considerations, it is hard to understand the

workings of this system of proxy-voting and proxy-representation.

How is it to work when our self-constituted representative happens

to hold different opinions from us? There are various questions,

such as intemperance, licentiousness, slavery, and war, the

allowing men to control our property, our person, our earnings,

our children, on which at times we might differ; and yet this

representative of ours can cast but one vote for us both, however

different our opinions may be. Whether that vote would be cast for

his own interests, or for ours, all past legislation will show.

Under this system, diversities of interest must of necessity arise;

and the only way to remove all difficulty and secure full and exact

justice to woman is to permit her to represent herself.

One more point and I have done. Men say women cannot vote without

neglecting their families and their duties as housekeepers. This,

to our opponents, is a very serious objection. Who would urge a

similar one to man’s voting and legislating, or holding office—that

he would neglect his family or his business? And yet the objection

would be about as reasonable in one case as in the other. In

settling a question of natural and inherent _right_, we must not

stop to consider conveniencies or inconveniencies. The right must be

accorded, the field left clear, and the consequences will take care

of themselves. Men argue as though if women were granted an equal

voice in the government all our nurseries would be abandoned, the

little ones left to take care of themselves, and the country become

depopulated. They have frightened themselves with the belief that

kitchens would be deserted and dinners left uncooked, and that

men would have to turn housekeepers and nurses. When the truth

is, mothers have as much regard for the home and the welfare of

the children as have the fathers; and they understand what their

duties are as well as men do; and they are generally as careful for

the interests of the one, and as faithful in the discharge of the

other, as are these watchful guardians of theirs who tremble lest

they should get out of their sphere. God and nature have implanted

in woman’s heart a love of her offspring, and an instinctive

knowledge of what is proper and what improper for her to do, and it

needs no laws of man’s making to compel the one or teach the other.

Give her freedom and her own good sense will direct her how to use

it.

Were the prohibition removed to-morrow, not more than one mother

in a thousand would be required to leave her family to serve

the state, and not one without her own consent. Even though all

the offices in the country should be filled by women, which

would never be likely to happen, it would take but a very small

proportion of the whole away from their families; not more than

now leave home each year for a stay of months at watering places,

in the mountains, visiting friends, or crowding the galleries of

legislative halls dispensing smiles on the members below. There

would, then, be little danger of the terrible consequences so

feelingly depicted by those who fear that the babies and their own

stomachs would suffer.

But I have no desire, nor does any advocate of the enfranchisement

of woman desire, that mothers should neglect their duties to their

families. Indeed, no greater sticklers for the faithful discharge

of such duties can be found than among the prominent advocates

of this cause; and no more exemplary mothers can be found than

those who have taken the lead as earnest pleaders for woman’s

emancipation. Undoubtedly, the highest and holiest duty of both

father and mother is to their children; and neither the one nor

the other, from any false ideas of patriotism, any love of display

or ambition, any desire for fame or distinction, should leave a

young family to engage in governmental affairs. A mother who has

young children has her work at home, and she should stay at home

with it, and care well for their education and physical wants.

But having discharged this duty, having reared a well-developed

and wisely-governed family, then let the state profit by her

experience, and let the father and the mother sit down together in

the councils of the nation.

But all women are not mothers; all women have not home duties;

so we shall never lack for enough to look after our interests at

the ballot-box and in legislative halls. There are thousands of

unmarried women, childless wives and widows, and it would always

be easy to find enough to represent us without taking one mother

with a baby in her arms. All women may vote without neglecting any

duty, for the mere act of voting would take but little time; not

more than shopping or making calls. Instead of woman being excluded

from the elective franchise because she is a mother, that is the

strongest reason that can be urged in favor of granting her that

right. If she is responsible to society and to God for the moral

and physical welfare of her son; if she is to bring him up as

the future wise legislator, lawyer and jurist; if she is to keep

him pure and prepare him to appear before the bar of the Most

High,—then she should have unlimited control over his actions and

the circumstances that surround him. She should have every facility

for guarding his interests and for suppressing and removing all

temptations and dangers that beset his path. If God has committed

to her so sacred a charge He has, along with it, given the power

and the right of protecting it from evil and for accomplishing the

work He has given her to do; and no false modesty, no dread of

ridicule, no fear of contamination will excuse her for shrinking

from its discharge.

Woman needs the elective franchise to destroy the prevalent idea

of female inferiority. She needs it to make her the equal of

her own sons, that they may not in a few years assume the power

to rule over her, and make laws for her observance without her

consent. The fact that she is the mother of mankind—‘the living

providence under God who gives to every human being its mental,

moral and physical organization, who stamps upon every human heart

her seal for good or for evil’—is reason why she should occupy

no inferior position in the world. In the words of Mrs. Stanton,

‘That woman who has no higher object of thought than the cooking a

good dinner, compounding a good pudding, mending old clothes, or

hemming dish-towels—or, to be a little more refined, whose thoughts

centre on nothing more important than an elegant dress, beautiful

embroidery, parties, dances, and genteel gossip concerning the

domestic affairs of the Smiths and Browns—can never give to the

world a Bacon or a Newton, a Milton or a Howard, a Buonaparte or a

Washington.’ If we would have great men, we must first have great

women. If we would have great statesmen and great philanthropists,

we must have mothers whose thoughts soar above the trifling objects

which now engage the attention of the mass of women, and who are

capable of impressing those thoughts upon the minds of their

offspring.

In conclusion the enfranchisement of woman will be attended with

the happiest results, not for her only, but the whole race. It will

place society upon a higher moral and social elevation than it has

ever yet attained. Hitherto, the variously devised agencies for the

amelioration of the race have been designed mainly for the benefit

of man. For him colleges have been established and universities

endowed. For his advancement in science and the arts professorships

have been founded and lecture rooms opened. And, above all, for

securing to him the widest field for the fullest display of

his abilities republican institutions have been proclaimed and

sustained at a great sacrifice of toil, of bloodshed and of civil

commotions. Although the doctrine of the innate equality of the

race has been proclaimed yet, so far as relates to women, it has

been a standing falsehood, We now ask that this principle may be

applied practically in her case, also; we ask that the colleges

and universities, the professorships and lecture rooms shall be

opened to her, also; and, finally, we ask for the admission to the

ballot-box as the crowning right to which she is justly entitled.

And when woman shall be thus recognized as an equal partner with

man in the universe of God—equal in rights and duties—then will she

for the first time, in truth, become what her Creator designed her

to be, a helpmeet for man. With her mind and body fully developed,

imbued with a full sense of her responsibilities, and living in the

conscientious discharge of each and all of them, she will be fitted

to share with her brother in all the duties of life; to aid and

counsel him in his hours of trial; and to rejoice with him in the

triumph of every good word and work.

A REPLY.

A lecture entitled, “Woman’s Sphere, Woman’s Work and Woman Suffrage

Discussed,” was delivered at the Central Presbyterian church, Des

Moines, on the evening of December 25th, 1870, by the Rev. T. O.

Rice. The address was published in the Des Moines _Register_ of

January 1st, 1871, and Mrs. Bloomer replied to it through the columns

of the same paper January 21st, 1871, as follows:

EDITOR OF THE REGISTER: A friend has placed in my hand a copy of

_The Register_ of January 1, containing a sermon by the Rev. T. O.

Rice on ‘Woman’s sphere, woman’s work, woman suffrage,’ etc.

After carefully reading this sermon, I find nothing new or

original in it. It is but a rehash of what has before been served

up to us by the Reverends Todd, Bushnell, Fulton and others, who

are alarmed lest woman should get the start of the Creator and

overleap the bounds He has set to her sphere. It throws no new

light on the vexed question of woman suffrage, brings to view no

passages of Scripture hitherto hidden from our sight, and gives no

arguments which have not already been met and refuted again and

again. In much that he says the advocates of woman suffrage fully

agree with him. A mother’s first duty is at home with her children,

and nothing can excuse her for neglect of those entrusted to her

care. Home is the happiest spot on earth when it is a _true home_—a

home where love and harmony abide, where each regards the rights,

the feelings, the interest, the happiness of the other, where

ruling and obeying are unknown, where two heads are acknowledged

better than one, and true confidence and esteem bind together the

wedded pair. And I know of no happier homes, no better trained and

better cared for children, than among the prominent advocates of

woman suffrage. Whatever may be thought to the contrary, Elizabeth

Cady Stanton is a model housekeeper, wife and mother; and nowhere

can greater sticklers be found for the full discharge of all wifely

duties than those who are pleading for woman’s enfranchisement. So

far, then, as relates to home and children your divine has given us

nothing but what we can subscribe to, and what we have preached for

a score of years, at least, before he awakened to the necessity of

giving the women of his congregation a sermon on their domestic

duties. If they were ignorant on those matters, his words have not

come to them an hour too soon.

After quoting familiar passages from both the Old and New Testament

referring to woman, your divine opens by saying: ‘The general drift

of these passages is obvious. Woman was designed to be a helpmeet

for man.’ To this we have nothing to object. We, too, say that God

made woman a helpmeet for man, finding it not good for him to be

alone. But God said nothing of her being inferior, or subordinate,

when he brought her to Adam—nothing of her being intended to fill

an inferior position or discharge particular or inferior duties.

She was made a helpmeet for man, not his subject and servant,

but his assistant, companion and counselor. Not a helper in any

particular sphere or duty, but in all the varied relations of life.

Not to be always the frail, clinging, dependent vine, which falls

helpless with the oak when it is riven by the thunderbolt, but to

take the place, _if need be_, of the sturdy oak at her side when so

riven, and bear upon her shoulders all the burdens which as true

helpmeet and companion fall to her lot. Not to be an idle drone in

the hive, but a sharer with him in all his head and his hands find

to do. Not a helpmeet in the domestic relation merely, but also in

the government of the earth and in the councils of the nation. It

was not to _him_ but to _them_ that God gave power and dominion

over the whole earth.

He next goes on to show why woman was to occupy a subordinate

position, and of all the arguments brought forward by our

opponents I never read a more weak and flimsy one than this.

Because Adam was first formed and then Eve, she was therefore to

be subordinate. But where is the proof of this? Do we find in all

nature that the things last formed were inferior and subordinate

to those first created? Again, that ‘Adam was not deceived, but

the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’ Now, will the

reverend gentleman tell us which he deems the greater sin, to

commit a wrong after being misled and deceived by promises of great

good to follow, or to commit the same wrong without such promises

or deception, and with the eyes wide open to the wrong? In any

court of the present day, the extenuating circumstances would be

considered and the former held the less guilty of the two.

How any unprejudiced and unbiased mind can read the original

account of the creation and fall, and gather therefrom that the

woman committed the greater sin, I cannot understand. When Eve

was first asked to eat of the forbidden fruit she refused, and it

was only after her scruples were overcome by promises of great

knowledge that she gave way to sin. But how was it with Adam, who

was with her? He took and ate what she had offered him without

any scruples of conscience, or promises on her part of great

things to follow—certainly showing no superiority of goodness, or

intellect, or strength of character fitting him for the headship.

The command not to eat of the Tree of Life was given to him before

her creation, and he was doubly bound to keep it; yet he not only

permitted her to partake of the fruit without remonstrating

against it, and warning her of the wrong, but ate of it himself

without objection or hesitation. And then, when inquired of by

God concerning what he had done, instead of standing up like an

honorable man and confessing the wrong he weakly tried to shield

himself by throwing the blame on the woman. As the account stands,

he showed the greater ‘feebleness of resistance, and evinced a

pliancy of character, and a readiness to yield to temptation,’ that

cannot justly be charged to the woman. As the account stands, man

has more to blush for than to boast of.

While we are willing to accept this original account of the

creation and fall, we are not willing that men should add tenfold

to woman’s share of sin, and put a construction upon the whole

matter that we believe was never intended by the Creator. Eve had

no more to do with bringing sin into the world than had Adam, nor

does the Creator charge any more upon her. The punishment inflicted

upon them for their transgression was as heavy upon him as upon

her. Her sorrows were to be multiplied, but so too was he to eat

his bread in sorrow, and to earn it in the sweat of his face amid

thorns and thistles. To her no injunction to labor was given, upon

her no toil imposed, no ground cursed for her sake.

But now we come to the consideration of a passage which seems to

bear more heavily upon woman, and which men have used as a warrant

to humble and crush her through all the ages that have passed since

our first parents were driven from the Garden of Eden: ‘_Thy

desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee._’

This Mr. Rice regards as a command binding upon every woman for all

time. Because Eve sinned, every woman must be ruled over by some

man as long as the world stands. It is a little strange that the

Creator did not tell us this. When talking to the serpent, He put

enmity between his seed and the seed of the woman; but to the woman

He said not a word of this law of subordination following her seed;

and to Adam he gave no command, or even license, to rule over his

wife.

Will the Rev. Rice please explain to us the meaning of a like

passage in the chapter following? ‘_The Lord said unto Cain, the

desire of thy brother shall be unto thee, and thou shalt rule over

him._’ Was this, too, a command for all time? Did God command

Cain to rule over Abel? And if so, to whom does it now apply? The

language is the same in both instances, except that in the latter

case it was addressed directly to the party who was to rule, and in

the former to the one who was to be ruled.

Clearly, the passage quoted should be regarded in the light of

prophecy or prediction, and not of command. Substitute _wilt_ for

_shalt_, which I am told the original fully permits, and then all

is clear. The prophecy has been fulfilled to the very letter. There

are other passages that I think clearly show that the word _shall_

has been wrongly translated. For instance, Cain says, ‘Whosoever

findeth me _shall_ slay me,’ taking the form of command rather than

prediction.

Having done with the Old Testament, our reverend lecturer proceeds

to give us what, in his opinion, was the idea and full meaning

of the Apostle Paul in his rules and injunctions to the women of

the churches he was addressing, and he wonders how there can be

any opinion but his own on the subject. He makes the apostle go a

long way beyond the Creator or the Saviour in his condemnation and

subordination of women, and then thinks it strange that all do not

take his version of the whole matter. Yet there are vast numbers

of good, Christian men and women who cannot read with his eyes and

who have presumed to differ from him. He quotes from some of the

early Fathers on the subject, and proves that they entertained

the same opinions and had the same fear of women getting into

authority the Todds, Rices and Fultons of the present day suffer

from. And the opinion of one party goes for as much as that of the

other. The women of those early days, as all know, were ignorant

and degraded and regarded as absolutely inferior to men. Custom

had assigned them an inferior place and, instead of being treated

as companions and equals, they were little better than servants

and slaves. None but dissolute women, or women of loose character,

sought for knowledge, and education was wholly denied to those who

were virtuous. They were expected to remain at home in ignorant

subjection to their masters. What wonder then if any, moved by

the spirit, dared raise their voice in the presence of men they

were instantly silenced, and told that it was not permitted them

to speak? The early Fathers, like St. Paul, but conformed to

the customs and shared the prejudices of the day in which they

lived, and under the circumstances no doubt their injunctions were

entirely proper and right.

We have no account on record of these ancient clergy disgracing

themselves over a woman speaking as did the Rev. John Chambers,

and other reverends of his stamp—and as we suppose the Rev. Rice

would have done had he been there—a few years ago at the World’s

Temperance Convention, in New York, when by their violent stamping,

shouting, scolding and other uproarious conduct they succeeded in

drowning the voice and driving from the stand a lovely, refined and

highly educated Christian woman whom the president had invited to

the platform. They carried their ends at that time; but that did

not awe all women back into silence, or do themselves or the church

any good. So all the warnings, and quotations from St. Paul, by all

the reverends since his day, have not succeeded in keeping women in

that state of ignorance and subjection they occupied two thousand

years ago. The world moves, and it is God’s will that women move

with it. He is no respecter of persons, but regards His people as

all one in Christ Jesus.

But what have we next? After putting women down as low as possible

our divine throws them a sop by telling them, if they will not

usurp authority over men in the pulpit they may speak, and pray,

and teach in Sunday schools, and in conference and covenant

meeting. And where, pray, does he get his authority for this? Not

in the Bible, surely. Paul says, ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’

Teach what? The scriptures—the gospel, to be sure. This is direct

and explicit. How can she teach the gospel in the Sunday school and

elsewhere, without violation of St. Paul’s law? ‘Let women keep

silence in the church,’ says the apostle. Then how can they talk,

and pray, and teach in the conference meeting, the covenant meeting

and other kindred places? St. Paul gives them no such liberty.

Plainly your divine is willing the women of his church should do

almost anything, so they do not interfere with his place, or usurp

authority over him.

Poor _me_ next comes in for a severe castigation from your reverend

lawgiver because I dared say that, while I supposed St. Paul’s

injunctions to women were right and proper at the time and under

the circumstances of their utterance, I did not believe they were

the rule for the educated Christian women of this enlightened day

and age, the circumstances surrounding them having greatly changed

since the introduction of Christianity. That I believed women were

no more bound by the laws and customs of that time than men were

bound to observe all the laws and customs of the same period; and

further, that the church, _by its practice_, teaches the same

thing, to a great extent. And, still further, that the words of St.

Paul had nothing to do with woman’s political rights. The reverend

gentleman puts words in my mouth I never uttered, thoughts in

my head that I never conceived, places me in a position I never

occupied and then, having attributed all manner of bad things to

me, wipes me out with a sweep of his pen. Well, I do not feel a bit

bad over all this. I have the consolation of knowing that I am in

good company, and cannot be so easily annihilated as he supposed.

There are scores of divines as able, as learned, as eloquent and

as orthodox as T. O. Rice, of Des Moines, who take the same view

of the matter as I do, and any number of good Christian people who

subscribe to the same doctrine. I ‘have no painful solicitude as

to which side will ultimately triumph.’ I am no more ‘squarely and

openly at variance with God’s Word’ than is our reverend lecturer,

who has set himself up as God’s oracle, and hopes to intimidate all

women, and strengthen the rule of all men to whom the sound of his

voice may come.

I do not question his right to think as he pleases, and lecture

women on proprieties and improprieties; but I must say, I consider

women quite as capable of judging for themselves what is proper and

what is improper for them to do as any man can be; and I think if

our reverends would turn their attention to their own sex, search

out passages and rules of conduct applicable to them, and lecture

them on their duty to their families and society, they would be

much better employed than in trying to subordinate women.

God has implanted in woman’s nature an instinctive knowledge of

what is proper and what improper for her to do, and it needs no

laws of man to teach the one or compel the other.

Our lecturer assumes that ‘God did not design that woman’s sphere

and woman’s work should be identical with that of man, but distinct

and subordinate.’ That ‘woman is happiest in subordination, as well

as more attractive,’ etc. This is, of course, only a picture of

his imagination—only an expression of his own feelings and wishes.

He can find no warrant for it in the Bible; for, as we have shown,

God did not assign her to any particular sphere or work, but made

her an helpmeet to stand side by side and walk hand in hand with

man through the journey of life.

‘When aspiring, insubordinate, overtopping and turbulent woman

loses all the attraction and fascination of her sex.’ Very true!

and so do men of the same character lose all that commands our love

and respect, and there are many more of the latter than of the

former class! I know no such woman, but if there are any, every

advocate of woman’s enfranchisement will do all they can to prevent

her ever becoming so ‘restless, troubled, muddy, and bereft of

beauty.’ So far as she has been admitted to the society of men they

have not yet made her that terrible being they fear and dread. She

has not proved herself coarse, vulgar, turbulent and corrupting

in any society to which she has been admitted; and we would bid

the reverend calm his excited mind, and remember that God made her

woman, and under no change that has come to her has she proved

untrue to the nature He implanted within her. So let him trust that

the good God who is leading her forward into broader fields of

usefulness will take care that she goes not beyond, in any respect,

the limit He has fixed to her sphere.

Having settled the question that the sexes are to move in spheres

distinct from each other to his own satisfaction, and having

dismissed the apostle from the witness stand, we are told what,

in the judgment of the speaker, is the proper and appropriate

sphere of woman. In much of what follows we agree with him; but not

altogether. ‘By analyzing any persons,’ men or women, ‘physically,

mentally and morally, we can ascertain what station they are fitted

to fill—what work they are fitted to do.’ And whatever either man

or woman has capacity for doing, that is right and proper in and

of itself; that thing it is right and proper for both, or either

of them, to do. If God has given them a talent, He has along with

it given them a right to its use, whether it be in the direction

of the home, the workshop, the public assembly, or the Legislative

Hall.

And if woman has hitherto neglected to improve all her God-given

talents, it is because men have only permitted her to get glimpses

of the world ‘from the little elevation in her own garden,’ where

they have fenced her in. But let them invite her to the ‘loftier

eminence’ where they stand, with the world for her sphere, as

it was at the beginning, and then they can better judge of the

qualities of her mind, and her capacity to fill any station.

In talking of man’s strength of body and mind fitting him for

certain places, and woman’s weakness consigning her to other

places, he forgets that intellectually, at least, a great many

women are stronger than a great many men, and therefore better

fitted for places where brains, instead of muscle, are needed. It

is no more true that every woman was made to be a cook and a washer

of dishes and clothes, than that every man was made to be a wood

sawyer and a ditch digger. While some are content, in either case,

to fill those stations, others are not content, and never will be,

and will aspire to something better and higher. To what place the

weak little men are to be consigned our speaker fails to tell us.

The home picture in the sermon is all very beautiful. Would

that all homes were a realization of the picture! Woman is told

great things of her duties, her influence, her glories and her

responsibilities, but not a word have we of man’s duty to the

home, the wife, the children. Woman is told that it is hers to

make her children great and good, as though they were like a blank

sheet of white paper and would take any impress she chose to give;

when, in fact, they are stamped before they see the light of the

world with the gross and vicious natures of their tobacco-chewing

and wine-bibbing fathers, as well as with the weaknesses of the

mothers, and it is often impossible for the best of mothers to

so train their children that they may safely pass the pitfalls

that men have everywhere placed to lead them into temptation and

destruction. We protest against the mothers being held alone

responsible for the children, so long as fathers wholly neglect

their duties and set such examples and such temptations before

their children as to corrupt their young lives and destroy the good

influence the mother might otherwise exert. Not till mothers have

a voice in saying what influences and temptations shall surround

their children when they go beyond the nursery walls, can they

justly be held accountable to society or to God for their conduct.

The woman who only takes a narrow view of life from the little

eminence in her garden can never give to the world very good or

very great children. She must be permitted to take in a wider

range from a loftier eminence, before she can form those great

characters and inscribe upon the immortal mind the great things

that are expected and demanded of her. If we would have great

men, we must first have great women. If we would have noble men,

we must first have noble mothers. A woman whose whole thought is

occupied in cooking a good dinner and mending old clothes—or (a

little more refined) whose thoughts center on a beautiful dress,

elegant embroidery, the fashionable party, the latest novel or the

latest fashion—can never give to the world a Bacon or a Newton,

a Howard or a Wesley, a Buonaparte or a Washington. Our preacher

lays a heavy responsibility on woman, but all his talk about her

influence, her duty and her subordination is not going to give her

that wisdom, strength and moral material out of which to properly

construct the fabric of the Church and the Commonwealth.

We would by no means undervalue the home, or the mother’s duty and

influence; but we would ennoble and purify the one, and enlarge

the duties and extend the influence and power of the other. Our

divine thinks that, because woman is mother, daughter, sister and

wife, it is enough for her and she should desire nothing more. Man

is father, husband, son and brother, and why is he not therefore

content? What can he desire or ask for more? Let men realize that

they, too, have duties to the home beyond merely supplying the

money to satisfy the physical wants of the family; let them throw

down the wall they have built up around the woman’s garden and

invite her to survey with them the wider range from the loftier

eminence, and many homes would be made glad that are now anything

but Gardens of Eden, and many women would be strengthened for the

full and faithful discharge of all their duties.

‘Woman is not a mechanic.’ Yes, she is. All men are not mechanics.

I know women who have more mechanical genius than their husbands;

and I believe there are few of the mechanical arts that women

could not master and perform successfully, if custom permitted and

necessity required. They are naturally ingenious, and fashion many

things as difficult to learn as to saw a board or drive a nail,

to make a watch or a shoe, a saddle or a harness. My next-door

neighbor is a natural mechanic, and has manufactured various

articles in wood, from a foot to two feet in size, such as tables,

chairs, bedsteads, wardrobes, frames, brackets, etc., with only

a penknife and a bit of sandpaper for tools, which are perfect

specimens of workmanship, and are so acknowledged by first-class

cabinetmakers. She has taken premiums on these articles for the

best woodcutting and carving at our agricultural fairs. This work

has only been done for pastime, and the lady is equally ingenious

with the needle, as well as a good housekeeper, wife and mother.

There are many women engaged in various kinds of mechanism.

There are many inventions by women; but how many have been

patented, can only be known by inquiry at the Patent Office. And

even then it would be difficult to ascertain facts, since the

patent is generally obtained in the name of the husband. I have a

lady friend who invented patterns for parlor stoves. Her husband

had them patented in his own name, and entered upon the manufacture

and sale of them.

The ‘natural difference in the turn of mind in the sexes’ is not

so great as is supposed. The seeming difference is more owing to

education and custom, than to nature. It is a very common thing to

hear a young girl wish she was a boy, or a man, that she might be

free to do what she lists in this world of work—to make use of the

powers which she feels burning within her. The girl envies the boy

his freedom and his privileges. In ‘earliest childhood,’ if let

alone, there is little difference between the boy and the girl.

The girl likes to ride the horse and blow the trumpet, as well as

the boy; and the boy loves a doll and a needle and thread, as well

as the girl. It is not the child that selects, but the parent that

selects for him. From the very first (the whip, the horse, the

trumpet) the boy is taught that it is not right or manly for him

to play with dolls, or girls; and the girl, that little girls must

not play with boys, or with boys’ playthings, because it is not

ladylike, and will make a tom-boy of her. And so education does

what nature has not done, and was never intended to do.

‘Those who would curse our race have ever attempted, in imitation

of the great progenitor, to poison all our fountains and wither and

blast all our budding hopes by directing their artful attacks and

deadly shafts against the breast of woman.’

Alas! this is but too true. Ever since Satan, who was a man, struck

the first blow at her happiness, men have directed their deadly

shafts against her, by first subjugating her to their will, and

then using their power to ‘poison the fountain of her happiness

and wither and blast her budding hopes.’ She has been made their

sport and their victim, with no power to avert the evil, or protect

herself, or those entrusted to her care, from their artful and

brutal attacks.

But what have we here? After telling women that home is their

sphere, and that God placed them in it, and they should not go

beyond it, the reverend lecturer turns right about and supposes

a case where a woman is called upon to devote her time, or

her energies, to home duties and family cares, or of one who

voluntarily chooses to do something else; and, strange as it may

seem after all that has gone before, he says ‘she may follow a

trade, teach, lecture, practise law and medicine, and fill a

clerkship.’ This is good woman’s-rights doctrine! The bars are let

down that separated the spheres, and woman is permitted to leave

the ‘distinct and subordinate’ one allotted to her, and enter upon

a sphere and work ‘_identical with that of man_.’ Here we can

join hands with our divine, and be thankful that light has so far

dawned upon him. And he farther ‘demands that all the sources of

learning, all the avenues of business which they are competent to

fill shall be thrown open to the whole sex, and that they shall

be fairly and fully rewarded for all they do’! These good words

go far to atone for all he has said before, and we will not ask

why this change, or concession. Enough that he comes thus far

upon our platform. But can he stop here? After giving her so wide

a sphere, and educating her mind to the fullest extent, can he

again put up the bar and say ‘thus far and no farther shalt thou

go’? Indeed, no! God himself has in these latter days broken down

the bounds that men had set to woman’s sphere, and they cannot,

by opposition or Bible argument, remand her back into the state

of silent subjection whence she came. The ministers of the church

for years set themselves up against the anti-slavery cause, and

proved conclusively, to themselves, from the Bible, that slavery

was right and God-ordained; that the Africans were, and were to

be, a subjugated race, and that to teach differently was in plain

violation of the teachings of the Bible. They held themselves

aloof from that cause, in the days of its weakness, at least, and

cried out against those who were pleading for the emancipation of

the slave. But God proved their mistake by setting that people

free, and endowing them with all the rights of citizenship. So,

too, the Bible is brought forward to prove the subordination of

woman, and to show that because St. Paul told the ignorant women

of his time that they must keep silent in the church the educated,

intelligent women of these times must not only occupy the same

position in the church and the family but must not aspire to the

rights of citizenship. But the same Power that brought the slave

out of bondage will, in His own good time and way, bring about the

emancipation of woman, and make her the equal in power and dominion

that she was at the beginning.

The divine uses the column and a half that remains of the space

allotted to him to show why, in his opinion, women should not

vote—after telling us there is nothing against their voting in the

Bible, and omitting to tell us what the passages quoted at the head

of his discourse have to do with politics or political rights.

One of these reasons is that women will want to hold office; and

in proof of this he tells us that the office of deaconess, which

existed in the church till the middle of the fifth century, was

abolished because the women ‘became troublesome aspirants after

the prerogatives of office.’ It is ever thus. Men are willing

women should be subordinate—do the _drudgery_ in the church and

elsewhere; but let them aspire to something higher and then, if

there is no other way to silence them, abolish the office. _Men_

want all the offices, and it is a crying shame for a woman to think

of taking one from them, thus setting them all aquake with fear!

Men argue as though, if women had the right to vote, they would

all abandon their homes and their babies, and stand at the polls

from year’s end to year’s end and do nothing but vote. When the

fact is men do not vote but twice a year; are detained from their

business but a few minutes to deposit their ballots; and then go

their way, none the worse for the vote. I regret that Rev. Rice

thinks so badly of the advocates of woman’s cause. So far as I

know them, his charges are unfair and sometimes untrue. A better

personal acquaintance would disarm him of much of his prejudice.

The women are all good sisters, wives and mothers, living in love

and harmony with their husbands, to whom they are true helpmeets,

and whom they have no thought of deserting. Not half of them ever

expect to hold office—certainly not, unless the offices are greatly

multiplied—nor to have any part in turning the world upside down.

On the contrary they will continue to care for the babies, cook the

dinners, and sew on the buttons the same as ever.

Another reason why woman should not vote is that he thinks ‘God has

not fitted her for government, that He never made her to manage the

affairs of state, that very few women would make good stateswomen,’

etc. And yet God did at the Creation give her an equal share in the

government of the earth, and our divine imposes upon her all the

government of the family! God called Deborah to manage the affairs

of state, and approved of her management, never once telling her

she was out of her sphere, or neglecting her domestic duties. And

the queens of the Bible are nowhere reproved for being in authority

and ruling over men. Many women have shown a fitness for government

in all ages of the world. There are few able statesmen among men,

and the world is suffering sadly for want of woman’s help and

woman’s counsel in the affairs of state.

But I cannot ask you to allow me space to follow the reverend

gentleman through all that follows on the question of woman

suffrage. His arguments are very stale, and many of them absurd.

I doubt not he is honest in his convictions; but all do not see

with his eyes, or judge with his judgment. As able minds as his own

among men take a different view of the matter, and believe that at

the polls, as elsewhere, woman will have a refining moral influence

upon men, and that she will herself be benefited and ennobled by

the enlarged sphere of action.

I cannot better close than with the words of Bronson Alcott, at a

recent ‘conversation’ in Chicago: ‘There is no friend of woman who

does not believe that, if the ballot were extended to her, not one

would ever vote for an impure man. To give woman the ballot would

purify legislation, plant liberty and purity in our families, our

churches, our institutions, our State.’

AMELIA BLOOMER.

Council Bluffs, Iowa.

MRS. STANTON ON MRS. BLOOMER.

“In the fall of 1850 I met Mrs. Bloomer for the first time, in

Seneca Falls, N. Y. I was happy to find her awake to the wrongs

of women. Mrs. Bloomer was publishing a paper at that time called

the _Lily_; a rather inappropriate name for so aggressive a paper,

advocating as it did all phases of the woman’s-rights question.

In 1849 her husband was appointed postmaster, and she became his

deputy, was duly sworn in, and during the administration of Taylor

and Fillmore served in that capacity. When she assumed her duties,

the improvement in the appearance and conduct of the office was

generally acknowledged. A neat little room adjoining became a kind

of ladies’ exchange, where those coming from different parts of the

town would meet to talk over the contents of the last _Lily_ and

the progress of the woman’s-suffrage movement in general. Those

who enjoyed the brief interregnum of a woman in the post office can

readily testify to the loss to the ladies of the village, and to

the void felt by all, when Mrs. Bloomer and the _Lily_ left for the

West, and men again reigned supreme.

“E. C. S.”

MEMORIAL SERMON.

Preached by the Rev. Eugene J. Babcock, in St. Paul’s Church, Council

Bluffs, January 13, 1895:

ECCL., vii. 1.—“_A good name is better than precious ointment, and

the day of death than the day of one’s birth._”

Wisdom is surveying life, and giving its best retrospect. The

thought which has entered this judgment is the righteous, just,

temperate, and loving care of God.

A life spent in satisfying the pleasures of sense alone leaves

nothing of value to the ‘pilgrims of night,’ for it passes away

like a shadow and is gone. The greatest heritage that can come to

the children of men—an inheritance that they should administer

jealously—is a good name. As to other things we can carry nothing

out of this world, but good character, like the ancient embalming,

forever preserves a good name.

The ‘name’ which wisdom here mentions is that which has acquirement

of reputation. This is suggested by the second member of the text.

The old application would have limited it to one who had won fame.

Evidently, reputation is to be the outcome of character just as

the perfume is associated with the nard. The things in comparison

are the good name which all delight to honor, and the fragrant odor

of the good, i. e. precious, ointment which all enjoy.

But more than this. Names of the great and good have a diffusive

power, subtly and incisively invading our spirits as their golden

deeds are told off and become signs to the world that earth has

souls of heroic mould. Then we are athrill with emotion as our

souls thus catch better insight of humanity. The correspondence is

in opening the box of delicate, pure and costly ointment, the odor

thereof filling the house.

How comes it that the day of death is better than the day of birth?

Solomon may have meant that life’s vexations, toils, temptations

and trials were thus at an end. This is the justifying consolation

that we give when our fellows depart hence and are no more seen.

The passing hence is undoubtedly merciful relief in many instances.

But life’s issues are varied and diverse, and to most of us

life, in its purely temporal aspect, is the sweetest and closest

companion of thought. There are but few to receive Solomon’s words.

Possibly, they are designed for the few. At an earlier stage of

his life he would not have written them. They came out of his

experience. He may have been touched by a gloom of apprehension

which sprung from ignorance, an ignorance that was done away in

Christ our Lord. That life does not cease absolutely is knowledge

which Christ’s religion has fixed in human minds. It is true that

there is as yet no test of experience, save that I point you to

Jesus Christ the Great Exemplar and those recorded cases who were

subjects of his power. In the spirit’s return to God, the ancients

did not know that to die is gain.

In view of acquirements attained from a well ordered and well spent

life, may there not be a sense in which the day of death is better?

As the three score and ten years come on, our minds contrast origin

and decline, infancy and age. What prodigious issues are involved!

The advances of time disclose two pathways, well worn and leading

up to these issues. In moral aspect they bear the names of good and

evil. Yet they are not so absolutely distinct as to be two separate

paths. Rather, to the eye of discernment, the individual walks

in two planes, the subject of two kingdoms. God, in His goodness

and mercy, furnished a guideboard for the journey of life, and

prophetic of the parting of the ways: Reject the evil; choose the

good. Behold the key to the good name that is better than precious

ointment!

Such was the high animating principle that guided Amelia Jenks

Bloomer through her womanhood. Born in Homer, New York, May 27,

1818, she removed from her native place at an early age, and after

a residence in two other villages in the same state, during which

her life passed through girlhood to young womanhood, she finally

came to Seneca County. She was little aware of the destiny that

awaited her, and of the probability that the precincts of her new

dwelling place were to become the theatre of events in which she

would play the part of leading character.

On her mother’s side she inherited a trend toward an earnest and

positive religious bent. This was supplemented by the mother-love

instilling into the child those principles of belief in things

supreme which become a part of moral fibre and the basis for

action. The one avenue of woman’s employment from time immemorial,

the public school, she seems to have eschewed. This may have been

owing to possession of talents for larger and higher educational

function; talents which found successful trial in a happy and

peculiar relation of governess in a family with three children.

This relation was terminated for another and more sacred bond,

she being joined in marriage the twenty-second year of her age.

Her married life began at Seneca Falls, New York, where was Mr.

Bloomer’s home.

In the beginning of the decade of years which are known as the

‘forties,’ there were gathering forces of a distinctively moral

movement which had for its object the regeneration of society.

Re-proclamation of an old truth in new form took aggressive phase

of agitation against the evils of intemperance with a view to

lessen them. The instrument employed was the ever truthful and

laudable agency of moral suasion. In due time there came into the

purview of such as were enlisted heart and soul in this noble

effort, the additional agency of suppression by means of legal

enactment. This first and new demonstration gathered momentum until

1856, when it seems to have spent its force in electing Myron A.

Clark, of Canandaigua, to the governorship of New York.

A glance at the early endeavors which led to the upheaval of

society and had a widespread effect for good, enables us to see the

sway of the agitation in that part of the state where dwelt the

honorable subject of this memorial. The movement had taken form in

the concrete by virtue of an organization named the Washingtonian

Society. To the influences of this society we are indebted,

indirectly at least, for the new firmament which spread above this

land in woman’s emancipation, and for its bright peculiar star,

Amelia Bloomer.

This came about in a simple and matter-of-fact way. Local

societies, of which there was one in Seneca Falls, were doing their

specific work. Mr. Bloomer was already in the newspaper field as

editor of the village press. To his editorial duties he joined

the duties of maintaining a paper called the _Water Bucket_, as

the organ of the local society. Another element came in the shape

of a religious awakening, following the Washingtonian movement,

and growing out of it. While the air was ringing with eloquent

words of precept, there was forced upon the mind that which was

equally eloquent, viz., personal example. Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer were

baptized and confirmed by Bishop Delancey in the parish church of

Seneca Falls in the year 1842. Henceforth, to the _rationale_ of

the movement was added the religious motive.

In response to her husband’s earnest and persuasive appeals to

‘lend a hand,’ she modestly and even reluctantly contributed

articles to the paper. With repeated protestations, she complied

with other demands. She did not desire to reveal her identity as

her contributions became subject to favorable comment and wide

quotation. She hid herself under a round of names, now masculine,

now feminine, in order to avoid publicity. But behind them there

was a personality that could not be hidden long. A keen and

powerful mind, and brimming sentiments of a woman’s heart, intense

and moving, came to the surface. The flashing of a bright pen,

tempered and pointed as a Damascus blade, was probing its way

to the forefront of discussion, and into the vitals of opposing

argument, and lo! a woman stepped forth into the arena, a champion

of woman’s side in the conflicting controversy!

With her lifeboat thus pushed out into the current of this mental

activity, and thrown upon her own resources, latent powers came to

her support. These were reabsorbed, again developed, and carried

on to renewed struggles. It is surprising to note how resolutely

and with what eminent capability she met the varied demands of true

sentiment, sound judgment and business tact.

She had great regard for the principles she advocated; for her

self-respect as an advocate; and for her pledged or promised word.

Thinking that woman was capable of originating an enterprise,

that she had capacity for conducting it, her ruling passion was

to show to the world that woman could do as woman, be accountable

to self, and had the right potential to do what she could. That

she esteemed woman a responsible creature is indicated in the

manner in which her paper _The Lily_ was launched upon society.

A woman’s temperance club had planned the paper, the president

of the society had named it; another was appointed editress,

Mrs. Bloomer to be associate; the first issue to appear January

1, 1849. A woman’s convention which had assembled in 1848 in the

village, and the first on record, may have stimulated the project.

But as the time approached to undertake the issue faintheartedness

dashed the scheme. Not even prospectuses and money received could

stay the retreat. Mrs. Bloomer was left alone. Her own words are:

‘My position was a most embarrassing one. * * * * I could not so

lightly throw off responsibility. There was no alternative but

to follow the example of the others and let the enterprise prove

a miserable failure as had been predicted it would, or to throw

myself into the work, bare my head to the storm of censure and

criticism that would follow, and thereby make good our promises to

the public and save the reputation of the society. It was a sad, a

trying hour, for one all inexperienced in such work, and at a time

when public action in woman was almost unknown. So unprepared was

I for the position I found myself in, so lacking in confidence and

fearful of censure, that I withdrew my name from the paper and left

standing the headline: “Published by a Committee of Ladies.”’ With

such splendid courage, integrity and determination, we can almost

predicate in advance the eminent success which attended this effort

during a period of six years.

The study of woman’s condition incident to aggressive measures

against intemperance and the direct appeal to woman’s sympathies,

without doubt, widened the scope of vision. That woman often stood

in need of independence was enforced cogently. Having succeeded in

a limited temperance work and become useful agents in lifting the

burdens of sisters, the idea of relief in other directions followed

hard apace. Some of these burdens were of woman’s own placing, some

were forced upon her by the inequalities of law, and others were in

deference to a wrong public opinion.

The power of the Press did not suffice for the complete extension

of the aims which the woman’s association had in view. The human

voice, than which there is nothing more potential in moving us,

was now raised to make the battlecry of reform more effective. The

last wonder of the world had come—for woman appeared as her own

advocate. Amelia Bloomer had gathered strength and reliance for a

new phase of her work. She more deeply realized that she had to

cope with other evils than the horrors of intemperance. The rising

questions were still more difficult, from their inherent nature

and there being no public sentiment to support them. As the issue

confronted her the same distrust of self, yet the same unfaltering

courage and devotion to a cause, prepared her for the rostrum as

armed her for the editress’ chair. She had faith in the justice

of men, and believed that God was on her side. She overstepped

mere conventionality, not that she spurned good, but to show that

conventionalism is sometimes a tyrant, and harmful. She could brave

the strictures of public opinion, knowing that it is not always

right. But that she could do this does not indicate that there

was no cost to herself, or that the cruel arrows of ridicule when

proceeding from unkindness did not reach tender sensibilities.

Had she but her own glory to seek, or were it but a vain notoriety

in order to puff up the mind, she could not have ‘bared her head

to the storm’ which a canvass of woman’s rights and woman’s wrongs

brought upon her.

* * * * *

It is for us to learn the lesson of her life: that, conspicuously,

she was unselfish. A conviction had come to her—may it not have

been true inspiration?—that what was wrong in practice might be

righted by promulgation of true principles. She had the courage of

her convictions, if ever any one had. Like a true reformer, she

had to furnish the principles and disclose the facts upon which

they were based, in order that correction might obtain. That which

sent her to the principal cities of her native and adopted states

and to cities far beyond, to legislative halls, to the use of her

trenchant and vigorous pen, was love for her own sex. To win for

one was gain for all. It was a doing for others all along. What

though abstract justice, statue-like, could point the index at

inequalities? There was no voice to awaken and plead!

In this part of her career she was as eminent a success as in the

other. She was mistress of argumentative persuasion, and could turn

the shafts of opponents with consummate skill. The extravagance

of rhetoric into which excited feelings are prone to lead a

controversialist, she met with good-natured repartee. It may be

said that she was advance-courier of ‘temperance literature,’ her

sprightly contributions being original matter, and in turn becoming

texts for other writers and publishers. She had other helpers in

creating a literature of woman’s rights, notably Mrs. Stanton,

who was one of others who accompanied her on a tour of lectures.

Her contention as to woman’s place was that she is created man’s

intellectual, moral and spiritual equal.

It certainly would have been derogatory to the Almighty Creator

to have bestowed on man an inferior partner for life. Genesis

discloses to us that the word for man and woman is the same, save

that a feminine termination is added to the latter. The true rise

of woman is centred in the Incarnation of our Blessed Lord. From

that time the dawn of woman’s elevation has been breaking into a

cloudless sky. Mrs. Bloomer rightly caught the gleaming light in

attributing to that august event a possibility for the broader and

higher sphere of woman’s action. With this she was wont to silence

Old-Testament quotations of opponents, and for that matter the

handlers of New-Testament writings which referred to a condition

closely approximating the old order of ignorance; the enlightenment

of Christianity not then having bathed the nations. She never

countenanced levity respecting the married state, or suffered the

intrusion of degrading theories respecting the domicile of home.

Her interpretation of a ‘help’ meet for man ranged along the high

lines of being a help in all that man does for the good of the

world, self, and actions that bear fruit of moral freedom.

Whenever she was asked to teach about woman’s sphere she complied,

as being a call to duty. Not long ago she related to a me thrilling

adventure which I am now able to see in a more characteristic

light. A certain and constant solidarity of character becomes

apparent at every turn. Duteous devotion, regard for promise, and

personal bravery enter into the exploit. She was to lecture on

‘Woman’s Education’ before, and for the benefit of, the Library

Association of Omaha. I find the story transcribed in her ‘Early

Recollections.’[2]

* * * * *

The reference to home yearnings is a side light which illumines

the whole background of her public career. Ardently devoted to her

mission and responsive to its imperious calls, yet she was not a Mrs.

Jellyby of Bleak House. She cared for others, near to her as well as

remote. Adopted children have taken the Bloomer name, and other young

have found a home beneath the hospitable roof.

A woman engaged in the active enterprises of life was a new thing

under the sun. Beneath the royal occupation of queen-regent, or that

of gifted authorship, or being a ‘Sister of Charity,’ the lines of

woman’s work were few and greatly limited in the world outside of

home. Amelia Bloomer was a pioneer in woman’s emancipation and, as

falls to the lot of the pioneer, she had work to do which succeeding

generations reckon not, and of which successors in the field have

never felt the sting of the deep intensity of the striving. The first

faint, far-off echo has swelled to thunder tone as to-day there goes

over the land a call for the Second Triennial Meeting of the National

Council of Women, which was founded on the fortieth anniversary

of ‘the first organized demand for equal education, industrial,

professional, and political rights for women, made at a meeting in

Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848.’

It is given to but few to realize the effectiveness of consecration

to a work like that Mrs. Bloomer undertook. Rarely does one see

the rich results of a contention so manifoldly difficult. As iron

sharpeneth iron, so has been the clash of minds. Imaginary barriers

have gone, and a rigid conservatism, strong principally by reason of

inherited tendency, is supplanted by a _rationale_ of woman’s sphere

which has made occupation for thousands. She who was both prominent

and eminent in bringing this result ought to be an object of their

everlasting gratitude!”[3]

THE END.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] Here, with slight omissions, is quoted in Mrs. Bloomer’s own

words the narration of the incident of the “Dangers met in crossing

the Missouri,” previously given on pp. 214-216.

[3] The remainder of the sermon has already been given. It will be

found on pp. 327-331.

Transcriber’s Notes

pg 5 swapped Amelia’s and Dexter’s photo location

pg 33 Removed hyphen between Seneca and Falls

pg 40 Removed duplicate word from: women did not not know what

pg 120 Added hyphen between State and Temperance

pg 158 Removed extra quote after: so-called ‘Woman’s Rights’

pg 168 Removed hyphen after: having passed the New

pg 181 Removed hyphen from: AT THE NEW-YORK

pg 183 Removed hyphen from: Of this New-York Convention

pg 197 Removed hyphen from: We came from our New-York home

pg 200 Removed repeated word the from: and again the the cry

pg 206 Removed hyphen between Council and Bluffs

pg 296 Removed hyphen between bushel and basket

pg 322-323 Removed hyphen between Council and Bluffs

pg 337 Removed repeated word is from: but that is is her duty

Many hyphenated and non-hyphenated word combinations left

as written.