“If particular care and attention are not paid to the ladies, we are
determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound to
obey any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”—This was the
warning directed by =Mrs. John Adams= in March, 1776, to her husband
while he was attending the Continental Congress, assembled in
Philadelphia to consider the Declaration of Independence.
When this document was framed and adopted without recognizing the rights
of women, Mrs. Adams and a number of other women, deeply indignant, made
good the threat of Mrs. Adams and opened that most remarkable warfare,
which has lasted for more than a hundred years and may be called
“=Woman’s Battle for Suffrage=.”
That they were deeply disappointed by the inattention of Congress, may
be inferred from a letter by =Hannah Lee=, the sister of General Lee, in
which she asks her brother to demand from Congress suffrage for women,
as otherwise they would not pay any taxes. The same request was made by
various other prominent women, who pointed to the fact that, while their
husbands and sons had fought for the inherent rights of men, they had
likewise fought for the rights of women. But as at that time American
women were not organized their demands failed to make the necessary
impression and remained unheeded. Besides, the majority of American
women receiving only a very limited education, took little interest in
the question, because of their ignorance of its importance. Thus, the
subject of woman’s rights and suffrage dragged on until women had
discovered, that there is strength in numbers, in federation, and that
federation is the preliminary requirement to make victory possible.
The evolution of women’s clubs during the 19th Century is one of the
most striking and most important phenomena in woman’s history. The
movement began with the sewing or spinning circles of long ago, and made
a great stride when the custom was initiated of some members reading
while the others sewed. Later on these circles evolved into
reading-clubs, which again developed into literary societies and
associations for public improvement, aiming at the establishment of
public schools and libraries, the erection of hospitals, orphan asylums,
the sanitation of the streets, and other public works.
Such women’s clubs were not even afraid to tackle such most difficult
problems as the abolition of slavery, which, at the end of the 18th and
the beginning of the 19th Century, became the burning question of the
time. The hot discussion of this problem split the population of the
United States into two hostile factions, of which the South with its
partisans in the North made desperate efforts to prevent the free
expression of opinion respecting the institution of slavery. In the
slave States even the Christian churches used their influence in favor
of the maintenance of slavery.
Among the first and strongest advocates of abolition were =Sarah= and
=Angelina Grimke=, the daughters of a family of Salzburgers, who during
the 18th Century had immigrated into South Carolina and Georgia. Shocked
by the inhuman treatment and cruelties inflicted upon the slaves all
round, and suffering intensely from the stand taken by their own
relatives, the sisters resolved to fight these abuses.
While visiting Philadelphia, Sarah came under the influence of the
Quakers, and read the strong protest against slavery, which Pastorius
and the settlers of Germantown in 1688 had directed to the Quaker
meeting. Returning to her home, Sarah besought her relatives to free
their slaves. Failing in this effort, she left her home, joined the
Quaker society of the “Friends” in Philadelphia, and in 1835 directed an
“Appeal to the Christian Women of the South,” imploring them to become
active on behalf of the slaves. This pamphlet aroused such a profound
sensation wherever it was read, that when some time afterward Miss
Grimke expressed a desire to visit her former home, the mayor of
Charleston called upon her mother and informed her that the police had
been instructed to prevent her daughter’s landing when the steamer
should come into port. He also would see to it that she might not
communicate with any person, by letter or otherwise, and that, if she
should elude the vigilance of the police and go ashore, she was to be
arrested and imprisoned until the return of the vessel. As threats of
personal violence were also made, Miss Grimke abandoned her visit, but
published soon afterward “An Epistle to the Clergy of the Southern
States,” and, at the same time, began to address meetings in
Pennsylvania as well as in the New England States, in order to rouse the
dormant moral sense of the hearers to protest against the colossal sin
of the nation. She was assisted by her sister Angelina and such eloquent
speakers as =Lucretia Mott=, =Elizabeth Stanton=, =William Lloyd
Garrison= and others. These agitators finally created such a stir, that
the conservatives and opponents of abolition decided that they must be
silenced. Quite often their meetings were disturbed by mobs; halls were
refused them, and violence was threatened. The General Association of
Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts passed a resolution censuring
the Grimke sisters, and issued a pastoral letter containing a tirade
against “female preachers.” But in spite of all efforts, public
sentiment in the North in favor of abolition steadily grew, until it
became evident that the question could not be settled without an armed
conflict.
At a gathering of abolitionists, held on July 19th, 1848, at the home of
=Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton= in Seneca, N.Y., the question of women’s
rights was eagerly discussed. Mrs. Stanton, the daughter of a lawyer,
had found by frequent visits to her father’s office that according to
the then existing laws, which had been adopted from England, married
women had no right of disposal over their own inherited property, their
own income, or their own children, no matter how unfit, degraded, and
cruel their husbands might be. There was even no redress for corporal
punishment which the husbands might inflict on their wives.
[Illustration:
ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.
]
Another woman, present at the gathering, was =Lucretia Mott=, a Quaker
teacher. It had been her experience, that female teachers, having paid
for their education just as much as the males, obtained, when teaching,
only half of the compensation granted to male teachers.
But the indignation of the two women over the inferior position of woman
had been especially excited while attending the World’s Anti-Slavery
Convention, held in 1840 at London. Both women, together with Mrs.
Wendell Phillips, had been appointed delegates by the abolitionists of
America, and as they were able speakers, much had been expected from
their eloquence. But when the women submitted their credentials, they
discovered that the English abolitionists had not reformed their
antiquated views of male predominance and would not admit any woman as
delegate nor on the platform. When the question was submitted to vote,
the women were excluded by a large majority. This flat refusal to
recognize woman’s right to an equal participation in all social,
political, and religious affairs brought what is termed “the Woman
Question” into greater prominence than ever before. The gathering in the
Wesleyan chapel, at Seneca Falls, N.Y., Mrs. Stanton’s home, is known as
the =First Woman’s Rights Convention=. Held on the 19th and 20th of
July, 1848, it was attended by 68 women and 38 men. The simultaneous
discussion of the subject of slavery and the natural rights of man had
as their logical consequence, on the part of women, the demand of a
privilege exercised in many cases by persons far below them in
intelligence and education. They asserted that many of their number were
taxpayers, that all were interested in good government, and that it
would be unjust for women of intelligence to be deprived of a vote while
ignorant negroes could have a voice in the government. Furthermore they
asserted that the participation of women would have a purifying effect
on politics.
At the close of the second day the convention adopted the following:
Declaration of Sentiments.
“The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts
be submitted to a candid world.
“He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the
elective franchise.
“He has compelled her to submit to laws in the formation of which she
had no voice.
“He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant
and degraded men—both natives and foreigners.
“Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective
franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of
legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
“He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
“He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she
earns.
“He has so framed the laws of divorce as to what shall be the proper
causes, and, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the
children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of
women—the law in all cases going upon a false supposition of the
supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.
“After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the
owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which
recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.
“He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from
those she is permitted to follow she receives but a scanty remuneration.
He closes against her all the avenues of wealth and distinction which he
considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine,
or law, she is not known.
“He allows her in church, as well as state, but a subordinate position,
claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry and,
with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of
the church.
“He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a
different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies
which exclude women from society are not only tolerated but deemed of
little account in man.
“He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his
right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her
conscience and God.
“He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her
confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make
her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.
“Now, in view of this disfranchisement of one-half the people of this
country, their social and religious degradation; in view of the unjust
laws mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved,
oppressed and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we
insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and
privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.”
Of course, this declaration, modeled after the immortal Declaration of
1776, did not fail to create a sensation everywhere. Other conventions
were held in Rochester and Syracuse, N.Y., and in Salem, Ohio. They
brought to the front a number of wonderful women, whose names were
henceforth connected with this movement, first among them =Susan B.
Anthony=, =Lucy Stone=, =Paulina Wright Davis= and =Anna Howard Shaw=.
In October, 1850, the =First National Woman’s Rights Convention= was
held at Worcester, Mass. Attended by delegates from nine states it was
distinguished by addresses and papers of the highest character, which
filled the audiences with enthusiasm. A National Committee was formed,
under whose management conventions were held annually in various cities.
An account of the convention, written by =Mrs. John Stuart Mill=, in the
“Westminster Review,” London, marked the beginning of the movement for
woman suffrage in Great Britain. But in spite of all efforts and
agitation, progress was but slow. The first result was not gained before
1861, when Kansas granted school suffrage to women, a step that was not
followed by other states for many years afterwards.
How averse the stronger sex was to grant women suffrage became evident,
when in 1868 the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the
United States were adopted. These amendments abolished slavery and gave
the freed negroes of the South all privileges of citizenship, including
the right to vote. Section 1 of the 15th amendment reads:
“The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account
of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
As the advocates of woman suffrage were American citizens, they held
themselves entitled to the same rights as granted to the negroes. But
their demands to be registered as legal voters were denied by the
registrars of elections. Now the women appealed to the courts, to see if
their claim would be sustained by invoking the aid of those
constitutional amendments above cited. But the uniform decision in each
court was that these amendments had in no way changed or abridged the
right of each State to restrict suffrage to =males=, and that they
applied only to the men of color and to existing rights and privileges.
An appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in the decision that this body
was in accordance with the decisions of the State courts.
To test the application of the 14th and 15th amendments to the
Constitution =Susan B. Anthony=,—who in 1860 with others had been
successful in securing the passage of an Act of the New York
Legislation, giving to married women the possession of their earnings,
as well as the guardianship of their children,—cast in 1872 ballots at
the State and Congressional elections in New York. Miss Anthony was
indicted and in 1873 found guilty of criminal offense against the United
States for knowingly voting for congressmen without having a lawful
right to vote, which offense was punishable, under Act of Congress, by a
heavy fine or imprisonment. Fined $100 for illegal voting, Miss Anthony
declared that she would never pay the penalty, and in fact it has never
been collected.
[Illustration:
SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
]
Undaunted by the decision of the Court, Miss Anthony in 1875 proposed
the following amendment to Article 1 of the Constitution:
“Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on =account
of sex=.
“Section 2. Congress shall have power by appropriate legislation to
enforce the provisions of this article.”
This resolution was introduced by Senator Sargent of California in 1878,
but was rejected several times. In 1887 it secured in the Senate only 14
affirmative to 34 negative votes.
But several years before the indictment of Miss Anthony woman suffrage
had already won its first victory, in the Territory of Wyoming. The
Organic Act for the regulation of the Territorial governments provides
that at the first election in any Territory male citizens of the age of
twenty-one years shall vote, but
“at all subsequent elections the qualifications of voters
and for holding office shall be such as may be prescribed by
the legislative assembly of each Territory.”
Under this act the first legislative assembly of Wyoming, in 1869,
granted women the right to vote and to hold office upon the same terms
as men. An effort made in 1871, to repeal this statute, failed, and to
the men of Wyoming belongs the honor, of having been first to recognize
the rights of women.
A further gain was made when the Republican National Convention of 1872
and 1876 resolved that “the honest demands” of women for additional
rights should be treated with respectful consideration.
Of still greater importance was the organization of two national Woman
Suffrage Associations, the one with headquarters in New York, the other
in Boston. A union of these two bodies was effected in 1890 under the
title of “=The National American Woman Suffrage Association=.”
Mrs. Stanton was elected president of the new organization. When in 1892
she resigned from her office because of advancing age, she was followed
by Miss Anthony, who in 1900 resigned at the age of 80. Her successors
were =Miss Anna Howard Shaw= and =Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt=.
Under the able leadership of these brilliant women victory was now
followed by victory. Up to 1914 Colorado, Idaho, Washington, California,
Arizona, Kansas, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Montana had joined the ranks
of Woman Suffrage States; also the Territory of Alaska.
To these Western regions the Eastern and Southern States formed a
strange contrast, as so far the suffragists had been unable to conquer
one of them. For this surprising fact I fail to find any other
explanation but that the Western men are much more conscious of a great
historical truth, which the men in the East and South seem to have
almost forgotten, namely: =that to the women the founding of real
culture in America is due. Having heroically shared with their husbands
all hardships and dangers, having gone with them on their hazardous
journeys into the wilderness, even on their long voyages across the
prairies and Rocky Mountains to far Oregon and California, the women
provided the first permanent homes and filled them with comfort,
sunshine and happiness. In recognition of these facts the Western men
granted their partners only a well deserved tribute of gratitude.=
In many places the men expressed their respect for the gentler sex by
electing women to important public offices, and in almost all cases
these positions have been filled to the fullest satisfaction.
* * * * *
The steady progress of woman suffrage in the United States was followed
by the women of other countries with intense interest, especially by
those of Great Britain and Australia. Encouraged to like activity, they
demonstrated with convincing clearness the injustice of the legislatures
toward women and thus prepared the way for a similar movement in favor
of woman suffrage. The result was that the English government in 1869
adopted the Municipal Reform Act, which permits women to vote in all
municipal elections. An Act of 1870 gave them the school vote. The Act
of 1888 made them voters for the county councils. An Act of 1894
abolished in all departments of local government the qualification of
sex.
[Illustration:
DR. ANNA HOWARD SHAW.
]
New Zealand, one of the most progressive of all countries, went even
farther. The women there were granted suffrage in 1893 on the same basis
with men. A similar step was taken in the following year by South
Australia. And when in 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was formed by
the federation of the six provinces, or states, of New South Wales,
Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania,
one of the first steps was to give all women full national suffrage.
In the countries of continental Europe the evolution of local women’s
organizations to State- and National Unions had been the same as in the
United States and in England. But the majority of these societies
remained conservative in regard to woman suffrage. Germany since 1813
has had the “=Vaterlaendische Frauenverein=” (Patriotic Women’s League),
a union of wonderful helpers for suffering humanity, both in peace and
in war. Since 1865 a “General Association of German Women” tried to
secure new rights for women, both along political and economic lines. A
“=Society for Woman Suffrage=” was not formed before 1902. But only two
years later the “=International Suffrage Alliance=” was formed in
Berlin, with =Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt=, of New York, as president. The
progressive movement in Germany took largely the form of educational and
industrial training. And the women shared the national belief that
education precedes every good, and that for their legal and political
protection from injustice they might rely upon their male relatives.
[Illustration:
CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT.
]
In certain districts of Germany, Austria, Denmark, Hungary and Russia
women who owned property, were permitted to cast their votes on various
communal matters, either by proxy or in person. In Belgium, the
Netherlands, France, Italy, Switzerland, Roumania and Bulgaria women had
no political rights whatever, but were permitted to vote for certain
state boards—educational, philanthropic, correctional and industrial. In
France, women as a rule showed little sympathy with suffrage, retaining
their racial instinct that they might accomplish more through social
influence, personal suasion and the special charms of their sex than by
working openly through the ballot.
In Switzerland few women had the courage to seek emancipation, as those
who favored the movement were looked upon as disreputable persons
without regard for social laws. In Portugal and Spain women remained
absolutely indifferent. Sweden had given women the right to vote in all
elections, except for representatives, while Finland and Norway in 1906
and 1907 granted full suffrage rights and eligibility to women upon
exceedingly generous terms.
Since the beginning of the 20th Century the Modern Woman’s Rights
Movement has also caused significant changes in the status of the women
of the Balkan States, and of the countries of the Orient and the Far
East. Restrictions and obstacles, placed on woman by tradition and
religious rules, have been abolished. Many Mohammedan women for instance
appear to-day on the streets without veils, a thing that no prominent
woman could do formerly. The establishment of girls’ schools, woman’s
colleges, universities, woman clubs and journals mark likewise the
progress of the movement. And in Servia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Egypt
and Japan exist federations of women’s clubs, which can be regarded as
political organizations.
Thus, at the beginning of the memorable year of 1914 woman throughout
the civilized world had gained various degrees of freedom in the
exercise of her political rights.
[Illustration]