received from Lucretia Mott, Pa.; Clarina I. H. Nichols, Cal.;
Lucinda B. Chandler, N. J.; Annie Laura Quinby, Ky.; Mrs. N. R.
Allen, Ia.; Isabella B. Hooker, Ct.; Emeline B. Wells, Utah; Sarah
Burger Stearns, Minn.; Mary A. Livermore, Mass.; Elizabeth Oakes
Smith, N. Y.; Hannah Tracy Cutler, M. D., Ill.; Mrs. S. F.
Proebstell, Ore.; Mrs. C. C. Knowles, R. I.; Dr. Clemence S.
Lozier, Lillie Devereux Blake, N. Y. (with a fable, "Nothing New");
Lavinia Goodell, Wis.; Elizabeth H. Duvall, Ky.; Alida C. Avery, M.
D., Col.; Hattie M. Crumb, Mo.; Mrs. J. H. Pattee, Ill.; Caroline
B. Winslow, M. D., Washington; Miss Kate Trimble, Ky.; Mrs. M.
M'Clellan Brown, Pa.; Alice Black, Mo.; Margaret M. Baker, Mo.;
Mrs. Elsie Stewart, Kan.; Edward M. Davis, Pa.; Mrs. Scott Saxton,
Louisville; Kate Gannett Wells, Boston; Anna R. Irvine, Mo.; Sarah
M. Kimball, Salt Lake; Lelia E. Partridge, Pa.; Ellen H. Sheldon,
D. C.; Rev. W. C. Gannett, Minn.; Elizabeth L. Saxon, New Orleans;
Mrs. J. Swain, Ill.; Geo. M. Jackson, John Finn, A Practical Woman,
St. Louis; Maria Harkner, Mrs. J. Martin, Kate B. Ross, Ill.; Emma
Molloy, Ind.; Maria J. Johnston, Mo.; Zenas Brockett, N.Y.; Kate N.
Doggett, president of the Association for the Advancement of Women;
Rebecca N. Hazard, president of the American Woman Suffrage
Society; Madam Anneke, for the Wisconsin Suffrage Association; The
Hutchinson Family ("Tribe of John"); South Newbury Ohio Woman
Suffrage Society. Foreign letters were also received from Jessie
Morrison Wellstood, Edinburgh; Lydia E. Becker, Manchester,
England, editor _Woman's Suffrage Journal_.
[51] Though an extra edition was struck off not a paper was to be
had by 10 o'clock in the morning. Gov. Stannard and other prominent
members of the suffrage association bought and mailed every copy
they could obtain.
[52] On the Tuesday following the convention a large number of St.
Louis people met and formed a woman suffrage society, auxiliary to
the National. Miss Anthony who had remained over, called the
meeting to order; Mrs. E. C. Johnson made an effective speech; Mrs.
Minor was chosen president. Over fifty persons enrolled as
members. The second meeting held a fortnight after, was also
crowded--twenty-five new members were obtained.
CHAPTER XXIX.
CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS AND CONVENTIONS.
1880-1881.
Why we Hold Conventions in Washington--Lincoln Hall
Demonstration--Sixty-six Thousand Appeals--Petitions Presented in
Congress--Hon. T. W. Ferry of Michigan in the Senate--Hon. George
B. Loring of Massachusetts in the House--Hon. J. J. Davis of
North Carolina Objected--Twelfth Washington Convention--Hearings
before the Judiciary Committees of both Houses--1880--May
Anniversary at Indianapolis--Series of Western
Conventions--Presidential Nominating Conventions--Delegates and
Addresses to each--Mass-meeting at Chicago--Washington
Convention, 1881--Memorial Service to Lucretia Mott--Mrs.
Stanton's Eulogy--Discussion in the Senate on a Standing
Committee--Senator McDonald of Indiana Championed the
Measure--May Anniversary in Boston--Conventions in the Chief
Cities of New England.
The custom of holding conventions at the seat of government in
mid-winter has many advantages. Congress is then in session, the
Supreme Court sitting, and society, that mystic, headless, power,
at the height of its glory. Being the season for official
receptions, where one meets foreign diplomats from every civilized
nation, it is the time chosen by strangers to visit our beautiful
capital. Washington is the modern Rome to which all roads lead, the
bright cynosure of all eyes, and is alike the hope and fear of
worn-out politicians and aspiring pilgrims. From this great center
varied influences radiate to the vast circumference of our land.
Supreme-court decisions, congressional debates, presidential
messages and popular opinions on all questions of fashion,
etiquette and reform are heralded far and near, awakening new
thought in every State in our nation and, through their
representatives, in the aristocracies of the old world. Hence to
hold a suffrage convention in Washington is to speak to the women
of every civilized nation.
The Twelfth Annual Convention of the National Association assembled
in Lincoln Hall, January 21, 1880. Many distinguished ladies and
gentlemen occupied the platform, which was tastefully decorated
with flags and flowers, and around the walls hung familiar
mottoes,[53] significant of the demands of the hour. On taking the
chair Susan B. Anthony made some appropriate remarks as to the
importance of the work of the association during the presidential
campaign. Mrs. Spencer called the roll, and delegates[54] from
sixteen States responded.
Mrs. Gage read the call:
The National Association will hold its twelfth annual convention
in Lincoln Hall, Washington, D. C., January 21, 22, 1880.
The question as to whether we are a nation, or simply a
confederacy of States, that has agitated the country from the
inauguration of the government, was supposed to have been settled
by the war and confirmed by the amendments, making United States
citizenship and suffrage practically synonymous. Not, however,
having been pressed to its logical results, the question as to
the limits of State rights and national power is still under
discussion, and is the fundamental principle that now divides the
great national parties. As the final settlement of this principle
involves the enfranchisement of woman, our question is one of
national politics, and the real issue of the hour. If it is the
duty of the general government to protect the freedmen of South
Carolina and Louisiana in the exercise of their rights as United
States citizens, the government owes the same protection to the
women in Massachusetts and New York. This year will again witness
an exciting presidential election, and this question of momentous
importance to woman will be the issue then presented. Upon its
final decision depends not only woman's speedy enfranchisement,
but the existence of the republic.
A sixteenth amendment to the national constitution, prohibiting
the States from disfranchising United States citizens on the
ground of sex, will be urged upon the forty-sixth congress by
petitions, arguments and appeals. The earnest, intelligent and
far-seeing women of every State should assemble at the coming
convention, and show by their wise counsels that they are worthy
to be citizens of a free republic. All associations in the
United States which believe it is the duty of congress to submit
an amendment protecting woman in the exercise of the right of
suffrage, are cordially invited to send delegates. Those who
cannot attend the convention, are urged to address letters to
their representatives in congress, asking them to give as careful
attention to the proposed amendment and to the petitions and
arguments urged in its behalf, as though the rights of men, only,
were involved. A delegate from each section of the country will
be heard before the committees of the House and Senate, to whom
our petitions will be referred.[55]
Mrs. Spencer presented a series of resolutions which were ably
discussed by the speakers and adopted:
_Resolved_, That we are a nation and not a mere confederacy, and
that the right of citizens of the United States to
self-government through the ballot should be guaranteed by the
national constitution and protected everywhere under the national
flag.
_Resolved_, That while States may have the right to regulate the
time, place and manner of elections, and the qualifications of
voters upon terms equally applicable to all citizens, they should
be forbidden under heavy penalties to deprive any citizen of the
right to self-government on account of sex.
_Resolved_, That it is the duty of the forty-sixth congress to
immediately submit to the several States the amendment to the
national constitution recently proposed by Senator Ferry and
Representative Loring, and approved by the National Suffrage
Association.
_Resolved_, That it is the duty of the House of Representatives
to pass immediately the resolution recommended by the Committee
on Rules directing the speaker to appoint a committee on the
rights of women.
_Resolved_, That the giant labor reform of this age lies in
securing to woman, the great unpaid and unrecognized laborer and
producer of the whole earth, the fruits of her toil.
_Resolved_, That the theory of a masculine head to rule the
family, the church, or the State, is contrary to republican
principles, and the fruitful source of rebellion and corruption.
_Resolved_, That the assumption of the clergy, that woman has no
right to participate in the ministry and offices of the church is
unauthorized theocratic tyranny, placing a masculine mediator
between woman and her God, which finds no authority in reason,
and should be resisted by all women as an odious form of
religious persecution.
_Resolved_, That it is the duty of the congress of the United
States to provide a reform school for girls and a home for the
children whom no man owns or protects, and who are left to die
upon the streets of the nation's capital, or to grow up in
ignorance, vice and crime.
_Resolved_, That since man has everywhere committed to woman the
custody and ownership of the child born out of wedlock, and has
required it to bear its mother's name, he should recognize
woman's right as a mother to the custody of the child born in
marriage, and permit it to bear her name.
_Resolved_, That the National Association will send a delegate
and an alternate to each presidential nominating convention to
demand the rights of woman, and to submit to each party the
following plank for presidential platform: _Resolved_, That the
right to use the ballot _inheres_ in the citizen of the United
States, and we pledge ourselves to secure protection in the
exercise of this right to all citizens irrespective of sex.
_Resolved_, That one-half of the number of the supervisors of the
tenth census, and one-half of the collectors of said census,
should be educated, intelligent women, who can be safely
entrusted to enumerate women and children, their occupations,
ages, diseases and deaths, and who would not be likely to
overlook ten millions of housekeepers.
_Resolved_, That Ulysses S. Grant won his first victories through
the military plans and rare genius of a woman, Anna Ella Carroll,
of Maryland, and while he has been rewarded with the presidential
office through two terms, and a royal voyage around the world,
crowned with glory and honor, Miss Carroll has for fifteen years
been suffering in poverty unrecognized and unrewarded.
_Resolved_, That the thanks of this association are hereby
tendered to Governor Chas. B. Andrews, of Connecticut, for
remembering in each annual message to ask for justice to women.
The comments of the press[56] were very complimentary, and their
daily reports of the convention full and fair. Among the many
letters[57] to the convention, the following from a Southern lady
is both novel and amusing:
MEMPHIS, Tenn., December 11, 1889.
DEAR MRS. SPENCER: You want petitions. Well I have two which I
got up some time ago, but did not send on because I thought the
names too few to count much. The one is of _white_ women 130 in
number. The other contains 110 names of black women. This last is
a curiosity, and was gotten up under the following circumstances:
Some ladies were dining with me and we each promised to get what
names we could to petitions for woman suffrage. My servant who
waited on table was a coal-black woman. She became interested
and after the ladies went away asked me to explain the matter to
her, which I did. She then said if I would give her a paper she
could get a thousand names among the black women, that many of
them felt that they were as much slaves to their husbands as ever
they had been to their white masters. I gave her a petition, and
said to her, "Tell the women this is to have a law passed that
will not allow the men to _whip their wives_, and will put down
drinking saloons." "Every black woman will go for that law!" She
took the paper and procured these 110 signatures against the
strong opposition of black men who in some cases threatened to
whip their wives if they signed. At length the opposition was so
great my servant had not courage to face it. She feared some
bodily harm would be done her by the black men. You can see this
is a genuine negro petition from the odd way the names are
written, sometimes the capital letter in the middle of the name,
sometimes at the end.
Yours, ELIZABETH AVERY MERIWETHER.
In response to 66,000 documents containing appeals to women, issued
by the National Association, 250 petitions, signed by over 12,000,
arrived in Washington in time for presentation to congress before
the assembling of the convention, and were read on the floor of the
Senate, with the leading names, January 14, 16, 20, 21, by
forty-seven senators.
In the House of Representatives this courtesy (reading petitions
and names), requires unanimous consent, and one man, Hon. J. J.
Davis of North Carolina, who had no petition from the women of his
State, objected. Sixty-five representatives presented the petitions
at the clerk's desk, under the rule, January 14, 15, 16. In answer
to these appeals to both Houses, on Monday, January 19, Hon. T. W.
Ferry, of Michigan, introduced in the Senate a joint resolution for
a sixteenth amendment, which with all the petitions was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary. Tuesday, January 20, Hon. George B.
Loring, of Massachusetts, introduced the same resolution in the
House of Representatives, and it was referred, with all the
petitions, to the Committee on the Judiciary. There were also
during this congress presented over 300 petitions from law-abiding,
tax-paying women, praying for the removal of their political
disabilities.
On Friday and Saturday, January 23, 24, these committees granted
hearings of two hours each to delegates from ten States who had
been in attendance at the convention. Thoughtful attention was
given to arguments upon every phase of the question, and senators
and representatives expressed a strong determination to bring the
subject fairly before the people.
The committees especially requested that only the delegates should
be present, wishing, as they said, to give their sole attention to
the arguments undisturbed by the crowds who usually seek
admittance. Even the press was shut out. These private sessions
with most of the members present, and the close attention they gave
to each speaker, were strong proof of the growth of our reform, as
but a few years before representatives sought excuses for absence
on all such occasions.
THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U. S. SENATE, }
Friday, Jan. 23, 1880. }
The committee assembled at half-past 10 o'clock A.M. Present, Mr.
Thurman, _chairman_, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Bayard, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mr. Edmunds.
The CHAIRMAN: Several members of the committee are unable to be
here. Mr. Lamar is detained at his home in Mississippi by
sickness; Mr. Carpenter is confined to his room by sickness; Mr.
Conkling has been unwell; I do not know how he is this morning;
and Mr. Garland is chairman of the Committee on Territories,
which has a meeting this morning that he could not fail to
attend. I do not think we are likely to have any more members of
the committee than are here now, and we will hear you, ladies.
Mrs. ZERELDA G. WALLACE of Indiana said: _Mr. Chairman, and
Gentlemen of the Committee_: It is scarcely necessary to say that
there is not an effect without a cause. Therefore it would be
well for the statesmen of this nation to ask themselves the
question, What has brought the women from all parts of this
nation to the capital at this time? What has been the strong
motive that has taken us away from the quiet and comfort of our
own homes and brought us before you to-day? As an answer to that
question I will read an extract from a speech made by one of
Indiana's statesmen. He found out by experience and gave us the
benefit of it:
You can go to meetings; you can vote resolutions; you can
attend great demonstrations in the street; but, after all,
the only occasion where the American citizen expresses his
acts, his opinions, and his power is at the ballot-box; and
that little ballot that he drops in there is the written
sentiment of the times, and it is the power that he has as a
citizen of this great republic.
That is the reason why we are here; the reason why we want to
vote. We are not seditious women, clamoring for any peculiar
rights; it is not the woman question that brings us before you
to-day; it is the human question underlying this movement. We
love and appreciate our country; we value its institutions. We
realize that we owe great obligations to the men of this nation
for what they have done. To their strength we owe the subjugation
of all the material forces of the universe which give us comfort
and luxury in our homes. To their brains we owe the machinery
that gives us leisure for intellectual culture and achievement.
To their education we owe the opening of our colleges and the
establishment of our public schools, which give us these great
and glorious privileges. This movement is the legitimate result
of this development, and of the suffering that woman has
undergone in the ages past.
A short time ago I went before the legislature of Indiana with a
petition signed by 25,000 of the best women in the State. I
appeal to the memory of Judge McDonald to substantiate the truth
of what I say. Judge McDonald knows that I am a home-loving,
law-abiding, tax-paying woman of Indiana, and have been for fifty
years. When I went before our legislature and found that one
hundred of the vilest men in our State, merely by the possession
of the ballot, had more influence with our lawmakers than the
wives and mothers it was a startling revelation.
You must admit that in popular government the ballot is the most
potent means for all moral and social reforms. As members of
society, we are deeply interested in all the social problems with
which you have grappled so long unsuccessfully. We do not intend
to depreciate your efforts, but you have attempted to do an
impossible thing; to represent the whole by one-half, and because
we are the other half we ask you to recognize our rights as
citizens of this republic.
JULIA SMITH PARKER of Glastonbury, Conn., said: _Gentlemen_: You
may be surprised to see a woman of over four-score years appear
before you at this time. She came into the world and reached
years of discretion before any person in this room was born. She
now comes before you to plead that she can vote and have all the
privileges that men have. She has suffered so much individually
that she thought when she was young she had no right to speak
before the men; but still she had courage to get an education
equal to that of any man at the college, and she had to suffer a
great deal on that account. She went to New Haven to school, and
it was noised around that she had studied the languages. It was
such an astonishing thing for girls at that time to have the
advantages of education, that I had actually to go to cotillon
parties to let people see that I had common sense. [Laughter.]
She has had to pay $200 a year in taxes without knowing what
becomes of it. She does not know but that it goes to support
grog-shops. She knows nothing about it. She has had to suffer her
cows to be sold at the sign-post six times. She suffered her
meadow land, worth $2,000, to be sold for a tax less than $50. If
she could vote as the men do she would not have suffered this
insult; and so much would not have been said against her as has
been said if men did not have the whole power. I was told that
they had the power to take anything that I owned if I would not
exert myself to pay the money. I felt that I ought to have some
little voice in determining what should be done with what I paid.
I felt that I ought to own my own property; that it ought not to
be in these men's hands; and I now come to plead that I may have
the same privileges before the law that men have. I have seen
what a difference there is, when I have had my cows sold, by
having a voter to take my part.
I have come from an obscure town on the banks of the Connecticut,
where I was born. I was brought up on a farm. I never had an idea
that I should come all the way to Washington to speak before
those who had not come into existence when I was born. Now, I
plead that there may be a sixteenth amendment, and that women may
be allowed the privilege of owning their own property. I have
suffered so much myself that I felt it might have some effect to
plead before this honorable committee. I thank you, gentlemen,
for hearing me so kindly.
ELIZABETH L. SAXON of Louisiana, said: _Gentlemen_: I feel that
after Mrs. Wallace's plea there is no necessity for me to say
anything. I come from the extreme South, she from the West.
People have asked me why I came. I care nothing for suffrage
merely to stand beside men, or rush to the polls, or to take any
privilege outside of my home, only, as Mrs. Wallace says, for
humanity. I never realized the importance of this cause, until we
were beaten back on every side in the work of reform. If we
attempted to put women in charge of prisons, believing that
wherever woman sins and suffers women should be there to teach,
help and guide, every place was in the hands of men. If we made
an effort to get women on the school-boards we were combated and
could do nothing.
In the State of Texas, I had a niece living whose father was an
inmate of a lunatic asylum. She exerted as wide an influence as
any woman in that State; I allude to Miss Mollie Moore, who was
the ward of Mr. Cushing. I give this illustration as a reason why
Southern women are taking part in this movement. Mr. Wallace had
charge of that lunatic asylum for years. He was a good,
honorable, able man. Every one was endeared to him; the State
appreciated him as superintendent of this asylum. When a
political change was made and Gov. Robinson came in, Dr. Wallace
was ousted for political purposes. It almost broke the hearts of
some of the women who had sons, daughters or husbands there. They
determined at once to try and have him reinstated. It was
impossible, he was out, and what could they do?
A gentleman said to me a few days ago, "These women ought to
marry." I am married; I am a mother; and in our home the sons and
brothers are all standing like a wall of steel at my back. I have
cast aside the prejudices of the past. They lie like rotted hulks
behind me.
After the fever of 1878, when our constitutional convention was
about to convene, I suppressed the agony and grief of my own
heart (for one of my children had died) and took part in the
suffrage movement in Louisiana with the wife of Chief-Justice
Merrick, Mrs. Sarah A. Dorsey, and Mrs. Harriet Keating of New
York, the niece of Dr. Lozier. These three ladies aided me
faithfully and ably. I went to Lieutenant-Governor Wiltz, and
asked him if he would present or consider a petition which I
wished to bring before the convention. He read the petition. One
clause of our State law is that no woman can sign a will. Some
ladies donated property to an asylum. They wrote the will and
signed it themselves, and it was null and void, because they were
women. That clause, perhaps, will be wiped out. Many gentlemen
signed the petition on that account. Governor Wiltz, then
lieutenant-governor, told me he would present the petition. He
was elected president of the convention. I presented my first
petition, signed by the best names in the city of New Orleans
and in the State. I had the names of seven of the most prominent
physicians. Three prominent ministers signed it for moral
purposes alone. When Mrs. Dorsey was on her dying bed the last
time she ever signed her name was to a letter to go before that
convention. Mrs. Merrick and myself addressed the convention. We
made the petition then that we make here; that we, the mothers of
the land, should not be barred on every side in the cause of
reform. I pledged my father on his dying bed that I would never
cease work until woman stood with man equal before the law.
I beg of you, gentlemen, to consider this question seriously. We
stand precisely in the position of the colonies when they plead,
and, in the words of Patrick Henry, were "spurned with contempt
from the foot of the throne." We have been jeered and laughed at;
but the question has passed out of the region of ridicule. This
clamor for woman suffrage, for woman's rights, for equal
representation, is extending all over the land.
I plead because my work has been combated in the cause of reform
everywhere that I have tried to accomplish anything. The children
that fill the houses of prostitution are not of foreign blood and
race. They come from sweet American homes, and for every woman
that went down some mother's heart broke. I plead by the power of
the ballot to be allowed to help reform women and benefit
mankind.
MARY A. STEWART of Delaware said: The negroes are a race
inferior, you must admit, to your daughters, and yet that race
has the ballot, and why? It is said they earned it and paid for
it with their blood. Whose blood paid for yours? The blood of
your forefathers and our forefathers. Does a man earn a hundred
thousand dollars and lie down and die, saying, "It is all my
boys'"? Not a bit of it. He dies saying, "Let my children, be
they cripples, be they idiots, be they boys, or be they girls,
inherit all my property alike." Then let us inherit the sweet
boon of the ballot alike. When our fathers were driving the great
ship of State we were willing to sail as deck or cabin
passengers, just as we felt disposed; we had nothing to say; but
to-day the boys are about to run the ship aground, and it is high
time that the mothers should be asking, "What do you mean to do?"
In our own little State the laws have been very much modified in
regard to women. My father was the first man to blot out the old
English law allowing the eldest son the right of inheritance to
the real-estate. He took the first step, and like all those who
take first steps in reform he received a mountain of curses from
the oldest male heirs.
Since 1868 I have, by my own individual efforts, by the use of
hard-earned money, gone to our legislature time after time and
have had this law and that law passed for the benefit of women;
and the same little ship of State has sailed on. To-day our men
are just as well satisfied with the laws in force in our State
for the benefit of women as they were years ago. A woman now has
a right to make a will. She can hold bonds and mortgages of her
own. She has a right to her own property. She cannot sell it
though, if it is real-estate, simply because the moment she
marries, her husband has his right of courtesy. The woman does
not grumble at that; but still when he dies owning real-estate,
she gets only the rental value of one-third, which is called the
widow's dower. Now I think the man ought to have the rental value
of one-third of the woman's maiden property or real-estate, and
it ought to be called the widower's dower. It would be just as
fair for one as for the other. All that I want is equality.
The women of our State, as I said before, are taxed without
representation. The tax-gatherer comes every year and demands
taxes. For twenty years I have paid tax under protest, and if I
live twenty years longer I shall pay it under protest every time.
The tax-gatherer came to my place not long since. "Well," said I,
"good morning, sir." Said he, "Good morning." He smiled and said,
"I have come bothering you." Said I, "I know your face well. You
have come to get a right nice little woman's tongue-lashing."
Said he, "I suppose so, but if you will just pay your tax I will
leave." I paid the tax, "But," said I, "remember I pay it under
protest, and if I ever pay another tax I intend to have the
protest written and make the tax-gatherer sign it before I pay
the tax, and if he will not sign that protest then I shall not
pay, and there will be a fight at once," Said he, "Why do you
keep all the time protesting against paying this small tax?" Said
I, "Why do you pay your tax?" "Well," said he, "I would not pay
it if I did not vote." Said I, "That is the very reason why I do
not want to pay it. I cannot vote." Who stay at home from the
election? The women, and the black and white men who have been to
the whipping-post. Nice company to put your wives and daughters
in.
It is said that the women do not want to vote. Every woman
sitting here wants to vote, and must we be debarred the privilege
of voting because some luxurious woman, rolling around in her
carriage in her little downy nest that some good, benevolent man
has provided for her, does not want to vote? There was a society
that existed up in the State of New York called the Covenanters
that never voted. Were all you men disfranchised because that
class or sect up in New York would not vote? Did you all pay your
taxes and stay at home and refrain from voting because the
Covenanters did not vote? Not a bit of it. You went to the
election and told them to stay at home if they wanted to, but
that you, as citizens, were going to take care of yourselves.
That was right. We, as citizens, want to take care of ourselves.
One more thought, and I will be through. The fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a
great many smart men in the country, and smart women, too, give
the right to women to vote without any "if's" or "and's" about
it, and the United States protects us in it; but there are a few
who construe the law to suit themselves, and say that those
amendments do not mean that, because the congress which passed
the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments had no such intention.
Well, if that congress overlooked us, let the wiser congress of
to-day take the eighth chapter and the fourth verse of the
Psalms, which says, "What is man that Thou art mindful of him?"
and amend it by adding, "What is woman, that they never thought
of her?"
NANCY R. ALLEN of Iowa said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
Judiciary Committee_: I am a representative of a large class of
women of Iowa, who are heavy taxpayers. There is now a petition
being circulated throughout our State, to be presented to the
legislature, praying that women be exempted from taxation until
they have some voice in the management of the affairs of the
State. You may ask, "Do not your husbands protect you? Are not
all the men protecting you?" We answer that our husbands are
grand, noble men, who are willing to do all they can for us, but
there are many who have no husbands and who own a great deal of
property in the State of Iowa. Particularly in great moral
reforms the women there feel the need of the ballot. By
presenting long petitions to the legislature they have succeeded
in having better temperance laws enacted, but the men have failed
to elect the officials who will enforce those laws. Consequently
they have become as dead letters upon the statute books.
To refer again to taxes. I have a list showing that in my city
three women pay more taxes than all the city officials together.
They are good temperance women. Our city council is composed
almost entirely of saloon-keepers, brewers and men who patronize
them. There are some good men, but they are in the minority, and
the voices of these women are but little regarded. All these
officials are paid, and we have to help support them. As Sumner
said, "Equality of rights is the first of rights." If we can only
be equal with man under the law, it is all that we ask. We do not
propose to relinquish our domestic life, but we do ask that we
may be represented.
Remarks were also made by Mrs. Chandler, Mrs. Archibald and Mrs.
Spencer. The time having expired, the committee voted to give
another hour to Miss Anthony to state the reasons why we ask
congress to submit a proposition to the several legislatures for a
sixteenth amendment, instead of asking the States to submit the
question to the popular vote of their electors.[58] When Miss
Anthony had finished, the chairman, Senator Thurman of Ohio, said:
I have to say, ladies, that you will admit that we have listened
to you with great attention, and I can certainly say, with great
interest; your appeals will be duly and earnestly considered by
the committee.
Mrs. WALLACE: I wish to make just one remark in reference to what
Senator Thurman said as to the popular vote being against woman
suffrage. The popular vote is against it, but not the popular
voice. Owing to the temperance agitation in the last six years,
the growth of the suffrage sentiment among the wives and mothers
of this nation has largely increased.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 24, 1880.
The CHAIRMAN _pro tem._ (Mr. HARRIS of Virginia): The order of
business for the present session of the committee is the delivery
of arguments by delegates of the Woman Suffrage Convention now
holding its sessions in Washington. I am informed that the
delegates are in attendance upon the committee. We will be
pleased to hear them. A list of the names, of the ladies
proposing to speak, with a memorandum of the limit of time
allotted to each, has been handed to me for my guidance; and, in
the absence of the chairman [Mr. Knott] it will be my duty to
confine the speakers to the number of minutes apportioned to them
respectively upon the paper before me. As an additional
consideration for adhering to the regulation, I will mention that
members of the committee have informed me that, having made
engagements to be at the departments and elsewhere on business
appointments, they will be compelled to leave the committee-room
upon the expiration of the time assigned. The first name upon the
list is that of Mrs. Emma Mont. McRae of Indiana, to whom five
minutes are allowed.
Mrs. MCRAE said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Judiciary
Committee_: In Indiana the cause of woman has made marked
advancement. At the same time we realize that we need the right
to vote in order that we may have protection. We need the ballot
because through the medium of its power alone we can hope to
wield that influence in the making of laws affecting our own and
our children's interests.
Some recent occurences in Indiana, one in particular in the
section of the State from which I come, have impressed us more
sensibly than ever before with the necessity of this right. The
particular incident to which I refer was this: In the town of
Muncie, where I reside, a young girl, who for the past five years
had been employed as a clerk in the post-office, and upon whom a
widowed mother was dependent for support, was told on the first
of January that she was no longer needed in the office. She had
filled her place well; no complaint had been made against her.
She very modestly asked the postmaster the cause of her
discharge, and he replied: "We have a man who has done work for
the party and we must give that man a place; I haven't room for
both of you." Now, there you have at once the reason why we want
the ballot; we want to be able to do something for the party in a
substantial way, so that men may not tell us they have no room
for us because we do nothing _for the party_. When they have the
ballot women will work for "the party" as a means of enabling
them to hold places in which they may get bread for their mothers
and for their children if necessity requires.
Miss JESSIE T. WAITE of Illinois said: _Mr. Chairman, and
Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee_: In the State of Illinois
we have attained to almost every right except that of the ballot.
We have been admitted to all the schools and colleges; we have
become accustomed to parliamentary usages; to voting in literary
societies and in all matters connected with the interests of the
colleges and schools; we are considered members in good standing
of the associations, and, in some cases, the young ladies in the
institutes have been told they hold the balance of power. The
same reason for woman suffrage that has been given by the
delegate from Indiana [Mrs. McRae] holds good with reference to
the State of Illinois. Women must have the ballot that they may
have protection in getting bread for themselves and their
families, by giving to the party that looks for their support
some substantial evidence of their strength. Experience has
demonstrated, especially in the temperance movement, how
fruitless are all their efforts while the ballot is withheld from
their hands. They have prayed; they have petitioned; they have
talked; they have lectured; they have done all they could do,
except to vote; and yet all avails them nothing. Miss Frances
Williard presented to the legislature of Illinois a petition of
such length that it would have reached around this room. It
contained over 180,000 signatures. The purpose of the petition
was to have the legislature give the women of the State the right
to vote upon the question of license or no license in their
respective districts.
In some of the counties of our State we have ladies as
superintendents of schools and professors in colleges. One of the
professors in the Industrial University at Champaign is a lady.
Throughout the State you may find ladies who excel in every
branch of study and in every trade. It was a lady who took the
prize at "the Exposition" for the most beautiful piece of
cabinet-work. This is said to have been a marvel of beauty and
extraordinary as a specimen of fine art. She was a foreigner; a
Scandinavian, I believe. Another lady is a teacher of
wood-carving. We have physicians, and there are two attorneys,
Perry and Martin, now practicing in the city of Chicago.
Representatives of our sex are also to be found among real-estate
agents and journalists, while, in one or two instances as
preachers they have been recognized in the churches.
CATHERINE A. STEBBINS of Michigan said: "Better fifty years of
Europe than a cycle of Cathay!" So said the poet; and I say,
Better a week with these inspired women in conference than years
of an indifferent, conventional society! Their presence has been
a blessing to the people of this District, and will prove in the
future a blessing to our government. These women from all
sections of our country, with a moral and spiritual enthusiasm
which seeks to lift the burdens of our government, come to you,
telling of the obstacles that have beset their path. They have
tried to heal the stricken in vice and ignorance; to save our
land from disintegration. One has sought to reform the drunkard,
to save the moderate drinker, to convert the liquor-seller;
another, to shelter the homeless; another, to lift and save the
abandoned woman. "Abandoned?" once asked a prophet-like man of
our time, who added, "There never was an abandoned woman without
an abandoned man!" Abandoned of whom? let us ask. Surely not by
the merciful Father. No; neither man nor woman is ever abandoned
by him, and he sends his instruments in the persons of some of
these great-hearted women, to appeal to you to restore their
God-given freedom of action, that "the least of these" may be
remembered.
But in our councils no one has dwelt upon _one_ of the great
evils of our civilization, the scourge of war; though it has been
said that women will fight. It is true there are instances in
which they have considered it a duty; there were such in the
rebellion. But the majority of women would not declare war, would
not enlist soldiers and would not vote supplies and equipments,
because many of the most thoughtful believe there _is_ a better
way, and that women can bring a moral power to bear that shall
make war needless.
Let us take one picture representative of the general features of
the war--we say nothing of our convictions in regard to the
conflict. Ulysses S. Grant or Anna Ella Carroll makes plans and
maps for the campaign; McClellan and Meade are commanded to
collect the columbiads, muskets and ammunition, and move their
men to the attack. At the same time the saintly Clara Barton
collects her cordials, medicines and delicacies, her lint and
bandages, and, putting them in the ambulance assigned, joins the
same moving train. McClellan's men meet the enemy, and
men--brothers--on both sides fall by the death-dealing missiles.
Miss Barton and her aids bear off the sufferers, staunch their
bleeding wounds, soothe the reeling brain, bandage the crippled
limbs, pour in the oil and wine, and make as easy as may be the
soldier's bed. What a solemn and heartrending farce is here
enacted! And yet in our present development men and women seek to
reconcile it with the requirements of religion and the
necessities of our conflicting lives. So few recognize the
absolute truth!
Mrs. DEVEREUX BLAKE said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
Committee_: I come here with your own laws in my hands--and the
volume is quite a heavy one, too--to ask you whether women are
citizens of this nation? I find in this book, under the heading
of the chapter on "Citizenship," the following:
Sec. 1,992. All persons born in the United States and not
subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,
are declared to be citizens of the United States.
I suppose you will admit that women are, in the language of the
section, "persons," and that we cannot reasonably be included in
the class spoken of as "Indians not taxed." Therefore I claim
that we are "citizens." The same chapter also contains the
following:
Sec. 1,994. Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married
to a citizen of the United States, and who might herself be
lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen.
Under this section also we are citizens. I am myself, as indeed
are most of the ladies present, married to a citizen of the
United States; so that we are citizens under this count if we
were not citizens before. Then, further, in the legislation known
as "The Civil Rights Bill," I find this language:
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States
shall have the same right, in every State and territory, to
make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give
evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and
proceedings for the security of persons and property as is
enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like
punishments, pains, penalties, etc.
One would think the logical conclusion from that which I have
last read would be that _all citizens_ are entitled to equal
protection everywhere. It appears to mean that. Then I turn to
another piece of legislation--that which is known as "The
Enforcement Act"--one which some of you, gentlemen, did not like
very much when it was enacted--and there I find another
declaration on the same question. The act is entitled "An Act to
Enforce the Right of Citizens of the United States to Vote in the
Several States of this Union, and for other purposes." The right
of "citizens" to vote appears to be conceded by this act. In the
second section it says:
It shall be the duty of every such person and officer to
give to all citizens of the United States the same and equal
opportunity to perform such prerequisite, and to become
qualified to vote, without distinction of race, color or
previous condition of servitude.
I ask you, gentlemen of the committee, as lawyers, whether you do
not think that, after we have been declared to be citizens, we
have the right to claim the protection of this enforcement act?
When you gentlemen from the North rise in your places in the
halls of congress and make these walls ring with your eloquence,
you are prone to talk a great deal about the right of every
United States citizen to the ballot, and the necessity of
protecting every such citizen in its exercise. What do you mean
by it?
It occurs to me here to call your attention to a matter of recent
occurrence. As you know, there has been a little unpleasantness
in Maine--a State which is not without a representative among the
members of the Judiciary Committee--and certain gentlemen there,
especially Mr. Blaine, have been greatly exercised in their minds
because, as they allege, the people of Maine have not been
permitted to express their will at the polls. Why, gentlemen, I
assert that a majority of the people of Maine have never been
permitted to express their will at the polls. A majority of the
people of Maine are women, and from the foundation of this
government have never exercised any of the inalienable rights of
citizens. Mr. Blaine made a speech a day or two ago in Augusta.
He began by reciting the condition of affairs, owing to the
effort, as he states, "to substitute a false count for an honest
ballot," and congratulated his audience upon the
instrumentalities by which they had triumphed--
Without firing a gun, without shedding a drop of blood,
without striking a single blow, without one disorderly
assemblage. _The people_ have regained their own right
through the might and majesty of their own laws.
He goes on in this vein to speak of those whom he calls "the
people of Maine." Well, gentlemen, I do not think you will deny
that _women are people_. It appears to me that what Mr. Blaine
said in that connection was nonsense, unless indeed he forgot
that there were any others than men among the people of the State
of Maine. I don't suppose that you, gentlemen, are often so
forgetful. Mr. Blaine said further:
The Republicans of Maine and throughout the land felt that
they were not merely fighting the battle of a single year,
but for all the future of the State; not merely fighting the
battle of our own State alone, but for all the States that
are attempting the great problem of State government
throughout the world. The corruption or destruction of the
ballot is a crime against free government, and when
successful is a subversion of free government.
Does that mean the ballot _for men only_ or the ballot _for the
people_, men and women too? If it is to be received as meaning
anything, it ought to mean not for one sex alone, but for both.
Mr. Lincoln declared, in one of his noblest utterances, that no
man was good enough to govern another man without that man's
consent. Of course he meant it in its broadest terms; he meant
that no man or woman was good enough to govern another man or
woman without that other man's or woman's consent.
Mr. Blaine, on another occasion, in connection with the same
subject-matter, had much to say of the enormity of the oppression
practiced by his political opponents in depriving the town of
Portland of the right of representation in view of its paying
such heavy taxes as it does pay. He expressed the greatest
indignation at the attempt, forgetting utterly that great body of
women who pay taxes but are deprived of the right of
representation. In this connection it may be pertinent for me to
express the hope, by way of a suggestion, that hereafter, when
making your speeches, you will not use the term "citizens" in a
broad sense, unless you mean to include women as well as men, and
that when you do not mean to include women you will speak of male
citizens as a separate class, because the term, in its general
application, is illogical and its meaning obscure if not
self-contradictory.
President Hayes was so pleased with one of the sentences in his
message of a year ago that in his message of this year he has
reiterated it. It reads thus:
That no temporary or administrative interests of government
will ever displace the zeal of our people in defense of the
primary rights of citizenship, and that the power of public
opinion will override all political prejudices and all
sectional and State attachments in demanding that all over
our wide territory the name and character of citizen of the
United States shall mean one and the same thing and carry
with them unchallenged security and respect.
Let me suggest what he ought to have said unless he intended to
include women, although I am afraid that Mr. Hayes, when he wrote
this, forgot that there were women in the United States,
notwithstanding that his excellent wife, perhaps, stood by his
side. He ought to have said:
An act having been passed to enforce the rights of _male_
citizens to vote, the true vigor of _half_ the population is
thus expressed, and no interests of government will ever
displace the zeal of _half_ of our people in defense of the
primary rights of our _male_ citizens. _The prosperity of
the States depends upon the protection afforded to our male
citizens_; and the name and character of _male_ citizens of
the United States shall mean one and the same thing and
carry with them unchallenged security and respect.
If Mr. Hayes had thus expressed himself, he would have made a
perfectly logical and clear statement. Gentlemen, I hope that
hereafter, when speaking or voting in behalf of the citizens of
the United States, you will bear this in mind and will remember
that women are citizens as well as men, and that they claim the
same rights.
This question of woman suffrage cannot much longer be ignored. In
the State from which I come, although we have not a right to
vote, we are confident that the influence which women brought to
bear in determining the result of the election last fall had
something to do with sending into retirement a Democratic
governor who was opposed to our reform, and electing a
Republican who was in favor of it. Recollect, gentlemen, that the
expenditure of time and money which has been made in this cause
will not be without its effect. The time is coming when the
demand of an immense number of the women of this country cannot
be ignored. When you see these representatives coming from all
the States of the Union to ask for this right, can you doubt
that, some day, they will succeed in their mission? We do not
stand before you to plead as beggars; we ask for that which is
our right. We ask it as due to the memory of our ancestors, who
fought for the freedom of this country just as bravely as did
yours. We ask it on many considerations. Why, gentlemen, the very
furniture here, the carpet on this floor, was paid for with our
money. We are taxed equally with the men to defray the expenses
of this congress, and we have a right equally with them to
participate in the government.
In closing, I have only to ask, is there no man here present who
appreciates the emergencies of this hour? Is there no one among
you who will rise on the floor of congress as the champion of
this unrepresented half of the people of the United States? The
time is not far distant when we shall have our liberties, and the
politician who can now understand the importance of our cause,
the statesman who can now see, and will now appreciate the
justice of it, that man, if true to himself, will write his name
high on the scroll of fame beside those of the men who have been
the saviors of the country. Gentlemen I entreat you not to let
this hearing go by without giving due weight to all that we have
said. You can no more stay the onward current of this reform than
you can fight against the stars in their courses.
Mr. WILLITS of Michigan: _Mr. Chairman_: I would like to make a
suggestion here. The regulation amendment, as it has heretofore
been submitted, provided that the right of citizens of the United
States to vote should not be abridged on account of sex. I notice
that the amendment which the ladies here now propose has prefixed
to it this phrase: "The right of suffrage in the United States
shall be based on citizenship." I call attention to this because
I would like to have them explain as fully as they may why they
incorporate the phrase, "shall be based on citizenship." Is the
meaning this, that all citizens shall have the right to vote, or
simply that citizenship shall be the basis of suffrage? The
words, "or for any reason not applicable to all citizens of the
United States," also seem to require explanation. The proposition
in the form in which it is now submitted, I understand, covers a
little more than has been covered by the amendment submitted in
previous years.
SARA A. SPENCER of Washington, D. C.: If the committee will
permit me, I will say that the amendment in its present form is
the concentrated wish of the women of the United States. The
women of the country sent to congress petitions asking for three
different forms of constitutional amendment, and when preparing
the one now before the committee these three were concentrated in
the one now before you (identical with that of the resolution
offered in the House by Hon. George B. Loring and by Hon. T. W.
Ferry in the Senate), omitting, at the request of each of the
three classes of petitioners, all phrases which were regarded by
any of them as objectionable. The amendment as now presented is
therefore the combined wish of the women of the country, viz.,
that citizenship in the United States shall mean suffrage, and
that no one shall be deprived of the right to vote for reasons
not equally applicable to all citizens.
MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE said: It is necessary to refer to a
remarkable decision of the Supreme Court. The case of Virginia L.
Minor, claiming the right to vote under the fourteenth amendment,
was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, October
term, 1874; decision rendered adversely by Chief-Justice Waite,
March, 1875, upon the ground that "the United States had no
voters in the States of its own creation." This was a most
amazing decision to emanate from the highest judicial authority
of the nation, and is but another proof how fully that body is
under the influence of the dominant political party.
Contrary to this decision, I unhesitatingly affirm that the
United States has possessed voters in States of its own creation
from the very date of the constitution. In Article I, Sec. 2, the
constitution provides that
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members
chosen every second year by the people of the several
States, and the electors in each State shall have the
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous
branch of the State legislature.
The persons so designated are voters under State laws; but by
this section of the national constitution they are made United
States voters. It is directed under what conditions of State
qualification they may cast votes in their respective States for
members of the lower house of congress. The constitution here
created a class of United States voters by adoption of an already
voting class. Did but this single instance exist, it would be
sufficient to nullify Chief-Justice Waite's decision, as Article
VI, Sec. 2, declares
The constitution and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof * * * shall be the
supreme law of the land.
This supreme law at its very inception created a class of United
States voters. If in the Minor case alone, the premises of the
Supreme Court and Chief-Justice Waite were wrong, the decision
possesses no legal value; but in addition to this class, the
United States, by special laws and amendments has from time to
time created other classes of United States voters.
Under the naturalization laws citizenship is recognized as the
basis of suffrage. No State can admit a foreigner to the right of
the ballot, even under United States laws, unless he is already a
citizen, or has formally declared his intention of becoming a
citizen of the United States. The creation of the right here is
national; its regulation, local.
Men who commit crimes against the civil laws of the United States
forfeit their rights of citizenship. State law cannot
re-habilitate them, but within the last five years 2,500 such men
have been pardoned by congressional enactment, and thus again
been made voters in States by United States law. Is it not
strange that with a knowledge of these facts before him
Chief-Justice Waite could base his decision against the right of
a woman to the ballot, on the ground that the United States had
no voters in the States of its own creation?
Criminals against the military law of the United States, who
receive pardon, are still another class of voters thus created. A
very large body of men, several hundred thousand, forfeited their
rights of citizenship, their ballot, by participation in the
rebellion; they were political criminals. When general amnesty
was proclaimed they again secured the ballot. They had been
deprived of the suffrage by United States law and it was restored
to them by the same law.
It may be replied that the rebellious States had been reduced to
the condition of territories, over whose suffrage the general
government had control. But let me ask why, then, a large class
of men remained disfranchised after these States again took up
local government? A large class of men were especially exempted
from general amnesty and for the restoration of their political
rights were obliged to individually petition congress for the
removal of their political disabilities, and these men then
became "voters in States," by action of the United States. Here,
again, the United States recognized citizenship and suffrage as
synonymous. If the United States has no voters of its own
creation in the States, what are these men? A few, the leaders in
the rebellion, are yet disfranchised, and no State has power to
change this condition. Only the United States can again make them
voters in States.
Under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments the colored men of
the South, who never had possessed the ballot, and those colored
men of the North over whom some special disqualification hung,
were alike made voters by United States law. It required no
action of Delaware, Indiana, New York, or any of those States in
which the colored man was not upon voting equality with the white
men, to change their constitutions or statutes in order to do
away with such disqualifications. The fourteenth amendment
created another class of United States voters in States, to the
number of a million or more. The fourteenth amendment, and the
act of congress to enforce it, were at once recognized to be
superior to State law--abrogating and repealing State
constitutions and State laws contradictory to its provisions.
By an act of congress March 3, and a presidential proclamation of
March 11, 1865, all deserters who failed to report themselves to
a provost marshall within sixty days, forfeited their rights of
citizenship as an additional penalty for the crime of desertion,
thus losing their ballot without possibility of its restoration
except by an act of congress. Whenever this may be done
collectively or individually, these men will become State voters
by and through the United States law.
As proving the sophistry used by legal minds in order to hide
from themselves and the world the fact that the United States has
power over the ballot in States, mention may be made of a case
which, in 1866, came before Justice Strong, then a member of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, but since a justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States. For sophistical reasoning it is a
curiosity in legal decisions. One point made by Judge Strong was,
that congress may deprive a citizen of the opportunity to enjoy
a right belonging to him as a citizen of a State even the right
of voting, but cannot deprive him of the right itself. This is on
a par with saying that congress may deprive a citizen of the
opportunity to enjoy a right belonging to him as an individual,
even the right of life, but cannot deprive him of life itself.
A still more remarkable class of United States voters than any
yet mentioned, exists. Soon after the close of the war congress
enacted a law that foreigners having served in the civil war and
been honorably discharged from the army, should be allowed to
vote. And this, too, without the announcement of their intention
of becoming citizens of the republic. A class of United States
voters were thus created out of a class of non-citizens.
I have mentioned eight classes of United States voters, and yet
not one of the States has been deprived of the powers necessary
to local self-government. To States belong all matters of
strictly local interest, such as the incorporation of towns and
cities, the settlement of county and other boundaries; laws of
marriage, divorce, protection of life and property, etc. It has
been said, the ordaining and establishment of a constitution for
the government of a State is always the act of a State in its
highest sovereign capacity, but if any question as to nationality
ever existed, it was settled by the war. Even State constitutions
were found unable to stand when in conflict with a law of the
United States or an amendment to its constitution. All are bound
by the authority of the nation.
This theory of State sovereignty must have a word. When the Union
was formed several of the States did not even frame a
constitution. It was in 1818 that Connecticut adopted her first
State constitution. Rhode Island had no constitution until 1842.
Prior to these years the government of these States was
administered under the authority of royal charters brought out
from England.
Where was their State sovereignty? The rights even of suffrage
enjoyed by citizens of these States during these respective
periods of forty-two and sixty-six years, were either secured
them by monarchial England or republican United States. If by the
latter all voters in these two States during these years were
United States voters. It is a historical fact that no State save
Texas was ever for an hour sovereign or independent. The
experience of the country proves there is but one real
sovereignty. It has been said, with truth,
There is but one sovereign State on the American continent
known to international or constitutional law, and that is
the republic itself. This forms the United States and should
be so called.
I ask for a sixteenth amendment because this republic is a nation
and not a confederacy of States. I ask it because the United
States not only possesses inherent power to protect its citizens
but also because of its national duty to secure to all its
citizens the exercise of their rights of self-government. I ask
it because having created classes of voters in numberless
instances, it is most flagrant injustice to deny this protection
to woman. I ask it because the Nation and not the State is
supreme.
PHOEBE W. COUZINS of Missouri, to whom had been assigned the
next thirty minutes, said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
Judiciary Committee_: I am invited to speak of the dangers which
beset us at this hour in the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States in Mrs. Minor's case, which not only stultifies its
previous interpretation of the recent constitutional amendments
and makes them a dead letter, but will rank, in the coming ages,
in the history of the judiciary, with the Dred Scott decision.
The law, as explained in the Dred Scott case, was an infamous
one, which trampled upon the most solemn rights of the loyal
citizens of the government, and declared the constitution to mean
anything or nothing, as the case might be. Yet the decision in
that case had a saving clause, for it was not the unanimous voice
of a Democratic judiciary. Dissenting opinions were nobly uttered
from the bench. In the more recent case, under the rule of a
Republican judiciary created by a party professing to be one of
justice, the rights of one-half of the people were deliberately
abrogated without a dissenting voice. This violation of the
fundamental principles of our government called forth no protest.
In all of the decisions against woman in the Republican court,
there has not been found one Lord Mansfield, who, rising to the
supreme height of an unbiased judgment, would give the immortal
decree that shall crown with regal dignity the mother of the
race: "I care not for the dictates of judges, however eminent, if
they be contrary to principle. If the parties will have judgment,
let justice be done, though the heavens fall."
The Dred Scott decision declared as the law of citizenship, "to
be a citizen is to have actual possession and enjoyment, or the
perfect right to the acquisition and enjoyment of an entire
equality of privileges, civil and political." But the slave-power
was then dominant and the court decided that a black man was not
a citizen because he had not the right to vote. But when the
constitution was so amended as to make "all persons born or
naturalized in the United States citizens thereof," a negro, by
virtue of his United States citizenship, was declared, under the
amendments, a voter in every State in the Union. And the Supreme
Court reaffirmed this right in the celebrated slaughter-house
cases (16 Wallace, 71). It said, "The negro, having by the
fourteenth amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the United
States, is thus made a voter in every State in the Union."
But when the loyal women of Missouri, apprehending that "all
persons beneath the flag were made citizens and voters by the
fourteenth amendment," through Mrs. Minor, applied to the Supreme
Court for protection in the exercise of that same right, this
high tribunal, reversing all its former decisions, proclaims
State sovereignty superior to national authority. This it does in
this strange language: "Being born in the United States, a woman
is a person and therefore a citizen"--we are much obliged to them
for that definition of our identity as persons--"but the
constitution of the United States does not confer the right of
suffrage upon any one." And then, in the face of its previous
decisions, the court declared: "The United States has no voters
in the States of its own creation", that the elective officers of
the United States are all elected, directly or indirectly by
State voters. It remands woman to the States for her protection,
thus giving to the State the supreme authority and overthrowing
the entire results of the war, which was fought to maintain
national supremacy over any and all subjects in which the rights
and privileges of the citizens of the United States are involved.
No supreme allegiance, gentlemen of the committee, can be claimed
for or by a government, if it has no citizens of its own
creation, and constitutional amendments cannot confer authority
over matters which have no existence in the constitution. Thus,
our supreme law-givers hold themselves up for obloquy and
ridicule in their interpretation of the most solemn rights of
loyal citizens, and make our constitutional law to mean anything
or nothing as the case may be. You will see, gentlemen, that the
very point which the South contended for as the true one is here
acknowledged to be the true one by the Supreme Court--that of
State rights superior to national authority. The whole of the
recent contest hinged upon this. The appeal to arms and the
constitutional amendments were to establish the subordination of
the State to national supremacy, to maintain the national
authority over any and all subjects in which the rights and
privileges of the citizens of the United States were involved;
but this decision in Mrs. Minor's case completely nullifies the
supreme authority of the government, and gives the States more
than has hitherto been claimed for them by the advocates of State
rights. The subject of the franchise is thus wholly withdrawn
from federal supervision and control. If "the United States has
no citizens of its own creation," of course no supreme allegiance
can be claimed over the various citizens of the States.
The constitutional amendments cannot confer authority over a
matter which has no existence in the constitution. If it has no
voters, it can have nothing whatever to do with the elections and
voting in the States; yet the United States invaded the State of
New York, sent its officers there to try, convict, and sentence
Miss Anthony for exercising a right in her own State which they
declared the United States had no jurisdiction over. They send
United States troops into the South to protect the negro in his
right to vote, and then declare they have no jurisdiction over
his voting. Then, mark the grave results which may and can follow
this decision and legislation. I do not imagine that the Supreme
Court, in its cowardly dodging of woman's right to all the rights
and privileges which citizenship involves, designed to completely
abrogate the principles established by the recent contest, or to
nullify the ensuing legislation on the subject. But it certainly
has done all this; for it must logically follow that if the
United States has no citizens, it cannot legislate upon the
rights of citizens, and the recent amendments are devoid of
authority. It has well been suggested by Mr. Minor, in his
criticism of the decision, that if members of the House of
Representatives are elected by _State_ voters, as the Supreme
Court has declared, there is no reason why States may not refuse
to elect them as in 1860, and thus deprive congress of its power.
And if a sufficient number could be united to recall at their
pleasure these representatives, what authority has the federal
government, under this decision, for coercing them into
subjection or refusing them a separation, if all these voters in
the States desired an independent existence? None whatever. Mr.
Garfield, in the House, in his speech last March, calls attention
to this subject, but does not allude to the fact that the Supreme
Court has already opened the door. He says:
There are several ways in which our government may be
annihilated without the firing of a gun. For example,
suppose the people of the United States should say, we will
elect no representatives to congress. Of course this is a
violent supposition; but suppose that they do not. Is there
any remedy? Does our constitution provide any remedy
whatever? In two years there would be no House of
Representatives; of course, no support of the government and
no government. Suppose, again, the States should say,
through their legislatures, we will elect no senators. Such
abstention alone would absolutely destroy this government;
and our system provides no process of compulsion to prevent
it. Again, suppose the two houses were to assemble in their
usual order, and a majority of one in this body or in the
Senate should firmly band themselves together and say, we
will vote to adjourn the moment the hour of meeting arrives,
and continue so to vote at every session during our two
years of existence--the government would perish, and there
is no provision of the constitution to prevent it.
The States may inform their representatives that they can do
this; and, under this position, they have the power and the right
so to do.
Gentlemen, we are now on the verge of one of the most important
presidential campaigns. The party in power holds its reins by a
very uncertain tenure. If the decision shall favor the one which
has been on the anxious bench for lo! these twenty years, and in
probation until hope has well-nigh departed, what may be its
action if invested again with the control of the destinies of
this nation? The next party in power may inquire, and answer, by
what right and how far the Southern States are bound by the
legislation in which they had no part or consent. And if the
Supreme Court of a Republican judiciary now declares, _after_ the
war, _after_ the constitutional amendments, that federal suffrage
does not exist and never had an existence in the constitution, it
follows that the South has the right to regulate and control all
of the questions arising upon suffrage in the several States
without any interference on the part of an authority which
declares it has no jurisdiction. An able writer has said:
All injustice at last works out a loss. The great ledger of
nations does not report a good balance for injustice. It has
always met fearful losses. The irrepealable law of justice
will, sooner or later, grind a nation to powder if it fail
to establish that equilibrium of allegiance and protection
which is the essential end of all government. Woe to that
nation which thinks lightly of the duties it owes to its
citizens and imagines that governments are not bound by
moral laws.
It was the tax on tea--woman's drink prerogative--which
precipitated the rebellion of 1776. To allay the irritation of
the colonies, all taxes were rescinded save that on tea, which
was left to indicate King George's dominion. But our
revolutionary fathers and mothers said, "No; the tax is paltry,
but the principle is great"; and Eve, as usual, pointed the moral
for Adam's benefit. A most suggestive picture, one which aroused
the intensest patriotism of the colonies, was that of a woman
pinioned by her arms to the ground by a British peer, with a
British red-coat holding her with one hand and with the other
forcibly thrusting down her throat the contents of a tea-pot,
which she heroically spewed back in his face; while the figure of
Justice, in the distance, wept over this prostrate Liberty. Now,
gentlemen, we might well adopt a similar representation. Here is
Miss Smith of Glastonbury, Conn., whose cows have been sold every
year by the government, contending for the same principle as our
forefathers--that of resistance to taxation without
representation. We might have a picture of a cow, with an
American tax-collector at the horns, a foreign-born assessor at
the heels, forcibly selling the birthright of an American
citizen, while Julia and Abby Smith, in the background, with
veiled faces, weep over the degeneracy of Republican leadership.
But there are those in authority in the government who do not
believe in this decision by the Supreme Court of the United
States. The attorney-general, in his instructions to the United
States marshals and their deputies or assistants in the Southern
States, when speaking of the countenance and support of all good
citizens of the United States in the respective districts of the
marshals, remarks:
It is not necessary to say that it is upon such countenance
and support that the United States mainly rely in their
endeavor to enforce the right to vote which they have given
or have secured.
You notice the phraseology. Again, he says:
The laws of the United States are supreme, and so,
consequently, is the action of officials of the United
States in enforcing them.
Secretary Sherman said in his speech at Steubenville, July 6:
The negroes are free and are citizens and voters. That, at
least, is a part of the constitution and cannot be changed.
And President Hayes in his two last messages, as Mrs. Blake
recited to you, has declared that--
United States citizenship shall mean one and the same thing
and carry with it all over our wide territory unchallenged
security and respect.
And that is what we ask for women.
In conclusion, gentlemen, I say to you that a sense of justice is
the sovereign power of the human mind, the most unyielding of
any; it rewards with a higher sanction, it punishes with a deeper
agony than any earthly tribunal. It never slumbers, never dies.
It constantly utters and demands justice by the eternal rule of
right, truth and equity. And on these eternal foundation-stones
we stand.
Crowning the dome of this great building there stands the
majestic figure of a woman representing Liberty. It was no
idealistic thought or accident of vision which gave us Liberty
prefigured by a woman. It is the great soul of the universe
pointing the final revelation yet to come to humanity, the
prophecy of the ages--the last to be first.[59]
When the proposition to print these speeches came before the House
a prolonged debate against it showed the readiness of the
opposition to avail themselves of every legal technicality to
deprive women of equal rights and privileges. But the measure
finally passed and the documents were printed. To the Hon. Elbridge
G. Lapham of New York we were largely indebted for the success of
this measure.
The Washington _Republican_ of February 6, 1880, describes a novel
event that took place at that time:
In the Supreme Court of the United States, on Monday, on motion
of Mrs. Belva Lockwood, Samuel R. Lowry of Alabama was admitted
to practice. Mr. Lowry is president of the Huntsville, Ala.,
industrial school, and a gentleman of high attainments. It was
quite fitting that the first woman admitted to practice before
this court should move the admission of the first Southern
colored man. Both will doubtless make good records as
representatives of their respective classes. This scene was
characterized by George W. Julian as one of the most impressive
he ever witnessed--a fitting subject for an historical painting.
In 1880, women were for the first time appointed census
enumerators. Gen. Francis Walker, head of that department, said
there was no legal obstacle to the appointment of women as
enumerators, and he would gladly confirm the nomination of suitable
candidates. Very different was the action of the head of the
post-office department, who refused, on the ground of sex, the
application of 500 women for appointment as letter-carriers.
In view of the important work to be done in a presidential
campaign, the National Association decided to issue an appeal to
the women of the country to appoint delegates from each State and
territory, and prepare an address to each of the presidential
nominating conventions. In Washington a move was made for an act of
incorporation in order that the Association might legally receive
bequests. Tracts containing a general statement of the status of
the movement were mailed to all members of congress and officers of
the government.
At a meeting of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Randall, a Democratic
member of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Garfield, a Republican member of
Ohio, reminded Mr. Frye of Maine that he had been instructed by
that committee, nearly a year before, to present to the House a
resolution on the rights of women. The _Congressional Record_ of
March 27 contains the following:
Mr. FRYE: I am instructed by the Committee on Rules to report a
resolution providing for the appointment of a special committee
on the political rights of women, and to move that it be placed
on the House calendar.
Mr. CONGER: Let it be read.
The clerk read the resolution as follows:
_Resolved by the House of Representatives_, That the speaker
appoint a special committee of nine members, to whom shall
be referred all memorials, petitions, bills and resolutions
relating to the rights of the women of the United States,
with power to hear the same and report thereon by bill or
otherwise. The resolution was referred to the House
calendar.
This was a proof of the advancing status of our question that both
Republican and Democratic leaders regarded the "rights of women"
worthy the consideration of a special committee.
In the spring of 1880, the National Association held a series of
mass meetings in the States of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and
Michigan, commencing with the May anniversary in Indianapolis, at
which sixteen States were represented.[60] The convention was held
in Park Theatre, Miss Anthony presiding. The arrangements devolved
chiefly on Mrs. May Wright Thompson, who discharged her
responsibilities in a most praiseworthy manner, providing
entertainment for the speakers, and paying all the expenses from
the treasury of the local association. A series of resolutions was
presented, discussed by a large number of the delegates, and
adopted.
In accordance with the plan decided upon in Washington of attending
all the nominating conventions, the next meeting was held in
Chicago, beginning on the same day with the Republican convention.
Farwell Hall was filled at an early hour; Miss Anthony in the
chair. A large number of delegates[61] were present from every
part of the Union, among whom were many of the most distinguished
advocates of woman suffrage. Mrs. Harbert gave an eloquent address
of welcome.
Committees were appointed to visit the delegates from the different
States to the Republican convention, to secure seats for the
members of the National Association, and to ask that a plank
recommending a sixteenth amendment be incorporated in the platform
adopted by the Republican party. The proprietor of the Palmer House
gave the use of a large parlor to the Association for business
meetings and the reception of Republican delegates, many of whom
were in favor of a woman's plank in their platform, and of giving
the ladies seats in the convention. Strenuous efforts had been made
to this end. One hundred and eighteen senators and representatives
addressed a letter to the chairman of the National Republican
committee--Don Cameron--asking that seventy-six seats should be
given in the convention to the representatives of the National
Woman Suffrage Association. It would naturally be deemed that a
request, proceeding from such a source, would be heeded. The men
who made it were holding the highest positions in the body politic;
but the party managers presumed to disregard this request, and also
the vote of the committee. The question of furnishing seats for our
delegates was brought up before the close of their deliberations by
Mr. Finnell, of Kentucky, who said:
A committee of women have been here and they ask for seventy-six
seats in this convention. I move that they be furnished.
Mr. Cary of Wyoming, made some remarks showing that woman suffrage
in his territory had been to the advantage of the Republican party,
and seconded the motion of Mr. Finnell, which was adopted. The
following resolution of the Arkansas delegation to the National
Republican convention was read and received with enthusiasm:
_Resolved_, That we pledge ourselves to secure to women the
exercise of their right to vote.
It is here to be noted that not only were the Arkansas delegation
of Republicans favorable to the recognition of woman suffrage in
the platform of that party, but that the Southern delegates were
largely united in that demand. Mr. New told the ladies that the
Grant men had voted as a unit in favor of the women, while the
Blaine and Sherman men unanimously voted against them.
But the ladies, well knowing the uncertainty of politicians, were
soon upon the way to the committee-room, to secure positive
assurance from the lips of the chairman himself--Don Cameron of
Pennsylvania--that such tickets should be forthcoming, when they
were stopped by a messenger hurrying after them to announce the
presence of the secretary of the committee, Hon. John New, at their
headquarters, in the grand parlor of the Palmer House, with a
communication in regard to the tickets. He said the seventy-six
seats voted by the committee had been reduced to _ten_ by its
chairman, and these ten were not offered to the Association in its
official capacity, but as complimentary or "guest tickets," for a
seat on the platform back of the presiding officers.
The Committee on Resolutions, popularly known as the platform
committee, held a meeting in the Palmer House, June 2, to which
Belva A. Lockwood obtained admission. On motion of Mr. Fredley of
Indiana, Mrs. Lockwood was given permission to present the memorial
of the National Woman Suffrage Association to the Republican party.
_To the Republican Party in Convention assembled, Chicago, June
2, 1880_:
Seventy-six delegates from local, State and National suffrage
associations, representing every section of the United States,
are here to-day to ask you to place the following plank in your
platform:
_Resolved_, That we pledge ourselves to secure to women the
exercise of their right to vote.
We ask you to pledge yourselves to protect the rights of one-half
of the American people, and to thus carry your own principles to
their logical results. The thirteenth amendment of 1865,
abolishing slavery, the fourteenth of 1867, defining citizenship,
and the fifteenth of 1870, securing United States citizens in
their right to vote, and your prolonged and powerful debates on
all the great issues involved in our civil conflict, stand as
enduring monuments to the honor of the Republican party. Impelled
by the ever growing demand among women for a voice in the laws
they are required to obey, for their rightful share in the
government of this republic, various State legislatures have
conceded partial suffrage. But the great duty remains of securing
to woman her right to have her opinions on all questions counted
at the ballot-box.
You cannot live on the noble words and deeds of those who
inaugurated the Republican party. You should vie with those men
in great achievements. Progress is the law of national life. You
must have a new, vital issue to rouse once more the enthusiasm of
the people. Our question of human rights answers this demand. The
two great political parties are alike divided upon finance,
free-trade, labor reform and general questions of political
economy. The essential point in which you differ from the
Democratic party is national supremacy, and it is on this very
issue we make our demand, and ask that our rights as United
States citizens be secured by an amendment to the national
constitution. To carry this measure is not only your privilege
but your duty. Your pledge to enfranchise ten millions of women
will rouse an enthusiasm which must count in the coming closely
contested election. But above expediency is right, and to do
justice is ever the highest political wisdom.
The committee then adjourned to meet at the Sherman-house club
room, where they reaessembled at 8 o'clock. Soon after the calling
to order of our own convention in Farwell Hall, word came that a
hearing had been accorded before the platform committee. This
proved to be a sub-committee. Ten minutes were given Miss Anthony
to plead the cause of 10,000,000--yes, 20,000,000 citizens of this
republic(?), while, watch in hand, Mr. Pierrepont sat to strike the
gavel when this time expired. Ten minutes!! Twice has the great
Republican party, in the plentitude of its power, allowed woman
_ten_ minutes to plead her cause before it. Ten minutes twice in
the past eight years, while all the remainder of the time it has
been fighting for power and place and continued life, heedless of
the wrongs and injustice it was constantly perpetrating towards
one-half the people. Ten minutes! What a period in the history of
time. Small hope remained of a committee, with such a chairman,
introducing a plank for woman suffrage.
The whole Arkansas delegation had expressed itself in favor; most
of the Kentucky delegation were known to be so, while New York not
only had friends to woman suffrage among its number, but even an
officer of the State association was a delegate to the Republican
convention. These men were called upon, a form of plank placed in
their hands and they were asked to offer it as an amendment when
the committee reported, but that plan was blocked by a motion that
all resolutions should be referred to the committee for action.
Senator Farr of Michigan, a colored man, was the only member of the
platform committee who suggested the insertion of a woman suffrage
plank, the Michigan delegation to a man, favoring such action. The
delegates were ready in case opportunity offered, to present the
address to the convention. But no such moment arrived.
The mass convention had been called for June 2, but the crowds in
the city gave promise of such extended interest that Farwell Hall
was engaged for June 1, and before the second day's proceedings
closed, funds were voluntarily raised by the audience to continue
the meeting the third day. So vast was the number of letters and
postals addressed to the convention from all parts of the country
from women who desired to vote, that the whole time of each session
could have been spent in reading them--one day's mail alone
bringing letters and postals from twenty-three States and three
territories. Some of these letters contained hundreds of names,
others represented town, county, and State societies. Many were
addressed to the different nominating conventions, Republican,
Greenback, Democratic, while the reasons given for desiring to
vote, ranged from the simple demand, through all the scale of
reasons connected with good government and morality. So highly
important a contribution to history did the Chicago Historical
Society[62] deem these expressions of woman's desire to vote, that
it made a formal request to be put in possession of _all_ letters
and postals, with a promise that they should be carefully guarded
in a fire-proof safe.
After the eloquent speeches[63] of the closing session, Miss Alice
S. Mitchell sang Julia Ward Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic,"
Mrs. Harbert playing the accompaniment, and the immense audience of
3,000 people joining in the chorus. This convention held three
sessions each day, and at all except the last an admission fee was
charged, and yet the hall was densely crowded throughout. For
enthusiasm, nothing ever surpassed these meetings in the history of
the suffrage movement. A platform and resolution were adopted as
the voice of the convention.
The special object of the National Woman Suffrage Association is
to secure national protection for women in the exercise of their
right of suffrage. It recognizes the fact that our government was
formed on the political basis of the consent of the governed, and
that the Declaration of Independence struck a blow at every
existing form by declaring the individual to be the source of all
power. The members of this association, outside of our great
question, have diverse political affiliations, but for the
purpose of gaining this great right to the ballot, its members
hold their party predilections in abeyance; therefore,
_Resolved_, That in this year of presidential nominations and
political campaigns, we announce our determination to support no
party by whatever name called, unless such party shall, in its
platform, first emphatically endorse our demand for a recognition
of the exact and permanent political equality of all citizens.
A delegation[64] went to the Greenback convention and presented the
following memorial:
When a new political party is formed it should be based upon the
principles of justice to all classes hitherto unrecognized. The
finance question, as broad as it is, does not reach down to the
deepest wrong in the nation. Beneath this question lies that of
the denial of the right of self-government to one-half the
people. It is impossible to secure the property rights of the
people without first recognizing their personal rights. More than
any class of men, woman represents the great unpaid laborer of
the world--a slave, who, as wife and daughter, absolutely works
for her board and clothes. The question of finance deeply
interests woman, but her opinions upon it are valueless while
deprived of the right of enforcing them at the ballot box. You
are here in convention assembled, not alone to nominate a
candidate for president, but also to promulgate your platform of
principles to the world. Now is your golden opportunity. The
Republican party presents no vital issue to the country; its
platform is a repetition of the platitudes of the past twenty
years. It has ceased to be a party of principles. It lives on the
past. The deeds of dead men hold it together. Its disregard of
principles has thrown opportunity into your hands. Will you make
yourselves the party of the future? Will you recognize woman's
right of self-government? Will you make woman suffrage an
underlying principle in your platform? If you will make these
pledges, the National Association will work for the triumph of
your party in the approaching closely contested campaign.
The ladies were accorded hearings by several delegations previous
to the assembling of the convention. A resolution committee of one
from each State was appointed, and each member allowed two minutes
to present either by speech or writing such principles as it
requested incorporated in the platform. Lucinda B. Chandler, being
a Greenbacker on principle, was a regularly elected delegate and by
courtesy was added to a sub-committee on resolutions. The one
prepared by the National Association was placed in her hands, but,
as she was forbidden to speak upon it, her support could only be
given by vote, and a meaningless substitute took its place. The
courtesy of placing Mrs. Chandler upon the committee was like much
of man's boasted chivalry to woman, a seeming favor at the expense
of right.
After trying in vain for recognition as a political factor from the
Republican and Greenback nominating conventions the delegates went
to Cincinnati.[65]
Committees were at once appointed to visit the different
delegations. Women were better treated by the Democrats at
Cincinnati than by the Republicans at Chicago. A committee-room in
Music Hall was at once placed at their disposal, placards pointing
to their headquarters were printed by the local committee at its
own expense, and sixteen seats given to the ladies upon the floor
of the house, just back of the regular delegates. A hearing[66]
before the platform committee was granted with no limit as to time.
At the close a delegate approached the table, saying, "I favor
giving woman a plank," "So do I," replied Mr. Watterson, chairman
of the committee. Many delegates in conversation, favored the
recognition of woman's political rights, and a large number of the
platform committee favored the introduction of the following plank:
That the Democratic party, recognizing the rapid growth of the
woman suffrage question, suggests a consideration of this
important subject by the people in anticipation of the time, near
at hand, when it must become a political issue.
But although the platform committee sat until 2 A.M., no such
result was reached, in consequence, it was said, of the objection
of the extreme Southern element which feared the political
recognition of negro women of the South.
The delegations from Maine, Kansas and New York were favorable, and
offered the Association the use of their committee-rooms at the
Burnett House and the Grand Hotel whenever desired. Mayor Prince of
Boston not only offered a committee-room but secured seats for the
delegates on the floor of the house. Mr. Henry Watterson, of the
Louisville _Courier-Journal_, as chairman of the Platform
Committee, extended every courtesy within his power. Mayor Harrison
of Chicago did his best to secure to the delegates a hearing before
the convention. He offered to escort Miss Anthony to the platform
that she might at least present the address. "You may be
prevented," suggested one. "I'd like to see them do it," he
replied. "Have I not just brought about a reconciliation between
Tammany and the rest of New York?" Taking Miss Anthony upon his arm
and telling her not to flinch, he made his way to the platform,
when the chairman, Hon. Wade Hampton of South Carolina, politely
offered her a seat, and ordered the clerk to read the address:
_To the Democratic Party in Nominating Convention Assembled,
Cincinnati, June 22, 1880:_
On behalf of the women of the country we appear before you,
asking the recognition of woman's political rights as one-half
the people. We ask no special privileges, no special legislation.
We simply ask that you live up to the principles enunciated by
the Democratic party from the time of Jefferson. By what
principle of democracy do men assume to legislate for women?
Women are part of the people; your very name signifies government
by the people. When you deny political rights to women you are
false to your own principles.
The Declaration of Independence recognized human rights as its
basis. Constitutions should also be general in character. But in
opposition to this principle the party in power for the last
twenty years has perverted the Constitution of the United States
by the introduction of the word "male" three times, thereby
limiting the application of its guarantees to a special class. It
should be your pride and your duty to restore the constitution to
its original basis by the adoption of a sixteenth amendment,
securing to women the right of suffrage; and thus establish the
equality of all United States citizens before the law.
Not for the first time do we make of you these demands. At your
nominating convention in New York, in 1868, Susan B. Anthony
appeared before you, asking recognition of woman's inherent
natural rights. At your convention of 1872, in Baltimore,
Isabella Beecher Hooker and Susan B. Anthony made a similar
appeal. In 1876, at St. Louis, Phoebe W. Couzins and Virginia L.
Minor presented our claims. Now, in 1880, our delegates are
present here from the Middle States, from the West and from the
South. The women of the South are rapidly uniting in their demand
for political recognition, as they have been the most deeply
humiliated by a recognition of the political rights of their
former slaves.
To secure to 20,000,000 of women the rights of citizenship is to
base your party on the eternal principles of justice; it is to
make yourselves the party of the future; it is to do away with a
more extended slavery than that of 4,000,000 of blacks; it is to
secure political freedom to half the nation; it is to establish
on this continent the democratic theory of the equal rights of
the people.
In furtherance of this demand we ask you to adopt the following
resolution:
WHEREAS, Believing in the self-evident truth that all
persons are created with certain inalienable rights, and
that for the protection of these rights governments are
instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed; therefore,
_Resolved_, That the Democratic party pledges itself to use
all its powers to secure to the women of the nation
protection in the exercise of their right of suffrage.
On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.
MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Chairman Executive Committee_.
That the women however, in the campaign of 1880, received the best
treatment at the hands of the National Prohibition party is shown
by the following invitation received at the Bloomington convention:
_To the National Woman Suffrage Association of the United
States:_
The woman suffragists are respectfully invited to meet with and
participate in the proceedings of the National Prohibition
Convention to be held at Cleveland, Ohio, June, 1880.
JAMES BLACK, _Chairman of National Committee._
Per J. W. HAGGARD.
A letter was received from Mr. Black urging the acceptance of the
invitation. Accordingly Miss Phoebe Couzins was sent as a delegate
from the association. The Prohibition party in its eleventh plank
said:
We also demand that women having privileges as citizens in other
respects, shall be clothed with the ballot for their own
protection, and as a rightful means for a proper settlement of
the liquor question.
After attending all these nominating conventions, some of the
delegates[67] went to Wisconsin where the State and National
Associations held a joint convention, in the Opera House at
Milwaukee, June 4, 5. Madam Anneke gave the address of welcome.[68]
Fresh from the exciting scenes of the presidential conventions, the
speakers were unusually earnest and aggressive. The resolutions
discussed at the Indianapolis convention were considered and
adopted. Carl Doerflinger read a greeting in behalf of the German
Radicals of the city. Letters were read from prominent persons,
expressing their interest in the movement.[69] Dr. Laura Ross
Wolcott made all the arrangements and contributed largely to the
expenses of the convention. The roll of delegates shows that the
State, at least, was well represented.[70]
Thus through the terrible heat of June this band of earnest women
held successive conventions in Bloomington, Ill., Grand Rapids,
Mich., Lafayette and Terre Haute, Ind. They were most hospitably
entertained, and immense audiences greeted them at every point.
Mrs. Cordelia Briggs took the entire responsibility of the social
and financial interests of the convention at Grand Rapids, which
continued for three days with increasing enthusiasm to the close.
Mrs. Helen M. Gougar made the arrangements for Lafayette which were
in every way successful.
After the holding of these conventions, delegations from the
National Association called on the nominees of the two great
parties to ascertain their opinions and proposed action, if any, on
the question of woman suffrage. Mrs. Blake, and other ladies
representing the New York city society, called on General Hancock
at his residence and were most courteously received. In the course
of a long conversation in which it was evident that he had given
some thought to the question, he said he would not veto a District
of Columbia Woman Suffrage bill, provided such a bill should pass
congress, thereby putting himself upon better record than Horace
Greely the year of his candidacy, who not only expressed himself as
opposed to woman suffrage, but also declared that, if elected, he
would veto such a bill provided it passed congress.
Miss Anthony visited James A. Garfield at his home in Mentor, Ohio.
He was very cordial, and listened with respect to her presentation
of the question. Although from time to time in congress he had
uniformly voted with our friends, yet he expressed serious doubts
as to the wisdom of pressing this measure during the pending
presidential campaign.
As it was deemed desirable to get some expression on paper from the
candidates the following letter, written on official paper, was
addressed to the Republican and Democratic nominees:
ROCHESTER, N. Y., August 17, 1880.
Hon. JAMES A. GARFIELD: _Dear Sir_: As vice-president-at-large of
the National Woman Suffrage Association, I am instructed to ask
you, if, in the event of your election, you, as President of the
United States, would recommend to congress, in your message to
that body, the submission to the several legislatures of a
sixteenth amendment to the national constitution, prohibiting the
disfranchisement of United States citizens on account of sex.
What we wish to ascertain is whether you, as president, would use
your _official influence_ to secure to the women of the several
States a _national guarantee_ of their right to a voice in the
government on the same terms with men. Neither platform makes any
pledge to secure political equality to women--hence we are
waiting and hoping that one candidate or the other, or both, will
declare favorably, and thereby make it possible for women, with
self-respect, to work for the success of one or the other or both
nominees. Hoping for a prompt and explicit statement, I am, sir,
very respectfully yours,
SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
To this General Hancock vouchsafed no reply, while General Garfield
responded as follows:
MENTOR, O., August 25, 1880.
Dear MISS ANTHONY: Your letter of the 17th inst. came duly to
hand. I take the liberty of asking your personal advice before I
answer your official letter. I assume that all the traditions and
impulses of your life lead you to believe that the Republican
party has been and is more nearly in the line of liberty than its
antagonist the Democratic party; and I know you desire to advance
the cause of woman. Now, in view of the fact that the Republican
convention has not discussed your question, do you not think it
would be a violation of the trust they have reposed in me, to
speak, "as their nominee"--and add to the present contest an
issue that they have not authorized? Again, if I answer your
question on the ground of my own private opinion, I shall be
compelled to say, that while I am open to the freest discussion
and fairest consideration of your question, I have not yet
reached the conclusion that it would be best for woman and for
the country that she should have the suffrage. I may reach it;
but whatever time may do to me, that fruit is not yet ripe on my
tree. I ask you, therefore, for the sake of your own question, do
you think it wise to pick my apples now? Please answer me in the
frankness of personal friendship. With kind regards, I am very
truly yours,
JAMES A. GARFIELD.
Miss SUSAN B. ANTHONY, Rochester, N. Y.
ROCHESTER, N. Y., September 9, 1880.
Hon. JAMES A. GARFIELD: _Dear Sir_: Yours of the 25th ult. has
waited all these days that I might consider and carefully reply.
_First_. The Republican party did run well for a season in the
"line of liberty"; but since 1870, its congressional enactments,
majority reports, Supreme Court decisions, and now its
presidential platform, show a retrograde movement--not only for
women, but for colored men--limiting the power of the national
government in the protection of United States citizens against
the injustice of the States, until what we gained by the sword is
lost by political surrenders. And we need nothing but a
Democratic administration to demonstrate to all Israel and the
sun the fact, the sad fact, that all _is lost_ by the
_Republican_ party, and not _to be lost_ by the _Democratic_
party. I mean, of course, the one vital point of national
supremacy in the protection of United States citizens in the
enjoyment of their right to vote, and the punishment of States or
individuals thereof, for depriving citizens of the exercise of
that right. The first and fatal mistake was in ceding to the
States the right to "abridge or deny" the suffrage to
foreign-born men in Rhode Island, and all women throughout the
nation, in direct violation of the principle of national
supremacy. And from that time, inch by inch, point by point has
been surrendered, until it is only in _name_ that the Republican
party is the party of national supremacy. Grant did not protect
the negro's ballot in 1876--Hayes cannot in 1880--nor could
Garfield in 1884--for the "sceptre has departed from Judah."
_Second_. For the candidate of a party to _add_ to the
discussions of the contest an issue unauthorized or unnoted in
its platform, when that issue was one vital to its very life,
would, it seems to me, be the grandest act imaginable. And, for
doing that very thing, with regard to the protection of the
negroes of the South, you are to-day receiving more praise from
the best men of the party, than for any and all of your
utterances _inside_ the line of the platform. And I _know_, if
you had in your letter of acceptance, or in your New York speech,
declared yourself in favor of "perfect equality of rights for
women, civil and political," you would have touched an electric
spark that would have fired the heart of the women of the entire
nation, and made the triumph of the Republican party more grand
and glorious than any it has ever seen.
_Third_. As to picking fruit before it is ripe! Allow me to
remind you that very much fruit is _never_ picked; some gets
nipped in the blossom; some gets worm-eaten and falls to the
ground; some rots on the trees before it ripens; some, too slow
in ripening, gets bitten by the early frosts of autumn; while
some rich, rare, ripe apples hang unpicked, frozen and worthless
on the leafless trees of winter! Really, Mr. Garfield, if, after
passing through the war of the rebellion and sixteen years in
congress;--if, after seeing, and hearing, and repeating, that _no
class_ ever got justice and equality of chances from any
government except it had the power--the ballot--to clutch them
for itself;--if, after all your opportunities for growth and
development, you cannot yet see the truth of the great principle
of individual self-government;--if you have only reached the idea
of class-government, and that, too, of the most hateful and cruel
form--bounded by sex--there must be some radical defect in the
ethics of the party of which you are the chosen leader.
No matter which party administers the government, women will
continue to get only subordinate positions and half-pay, not
because of the party's or the president's lack of chivalric
regard for woman, but because, in the nature of things, it is
impossible for any government to protect a disfranchised class in
equality of chances. Women, to get justice, must have political
freedom. But pardon this long trespass upon your time and
patience, and please bear in mind that it is not for the many
_good_ things the Republican party and its nominee have done in
extending the area of liberty, that I criticise them, but because
they have failed to place the women of the nation on the plane of
political equality with men. I do not ask you to go beyond your
convictions, but I do most earnestly beg you to look at this
question from the stand-point of woman--alone, without father,
brother, husband, son--battling for bread! It is to help the
millions of these unfortunate ones that I plead for the ballot in
the hands of all women. With great respect for your frank and
candid talk with one of the disfranchised, I am very sincerely
yours,
SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
As Mr. Garfield was the only presidential nominee of either of the
great parties who deigned a reply to the National Association, we
have given his letter an honored place in our history, and desire
to pay this tribute to his memory, that while not fully endorsing
our claims for political equality he earnestly advocated for woman
all possible advantages of education, equal rights in the trades
and professions, and equal laws for the protection of her civil
rights.
The Thirteenth Annual Washington Convention assembled in Lincoln
Hall, January 18, 1881. The first session was devoted to memorial
services in honor of Lucretia Mott. A programme[71] for the
occasion was extensively circulated, and the response in character
and numbers was such an audience as had seldom before crowded that
hall. The spacious auditorium was brilliant with sunlight and the
gay dresses, red shawls and flowers of the ladies of the
fashionable classes. Mrs. Hayes with several of her guests from the
White House occupied front seats. The stage was crowded with
members of the association, Mrs. Mott's personal friends and wives
of members of congress. The decorations which had seldom been
surpassed in point of beauty and tastefulness of arrangement,
formed a fitting setting for this notable assemblage of women. The
background was a mass of colors, formed by the graceful draping of
national flags, here and there a streamer of old gold with heavy
fringe to give variety, while in the center was a national shield
surmounted by two flags. On each side flags draped and festooned,
falling at the front of the stage with the folds of the rich maroon
curtains. Graceful ferns and foliage plants had been arranged,
while on a table stood a large harp formed of beautiful red and
white flowers.[72] At the other end was a stand of hot-house
flowers, while in the center, resting on a background of maroon
drapery, was a large crayon picture of Lucretia Mott. Above the
picture a snow-white dove held in its beak sprays of smilax,
trailing down on either side, and below was a sheaf of ripened
wheat, typical of the life that had ended. The occasion which had
brought the ladies together, the placid features of that kind and
well-remembered face, had a solemnizing effect upon all, and
quietly the vast audience passed into the hall. The late-comers
finding all the seats occupied stood in the rear and sat in the
aisles.
Presently Miss Couzins, stepping to the front of the stage said
gently, "In accordance with the custom of Mrs. Mott and the
time-honored practice of the Quakers, I ask you to unite in an
invocation to the Spirit." She bowed her head. The audience
followed her example. For several minutes the solemn stillness of
devotion pervaded the hall. When Miss Couzins had taken her seat
the quartette choir of St. Augustine's church (colored) which was
seated on the platform, sang sweetly an appropriate selection,
after which Mrs. Stanton delivered the eulogy,[73] holding the
rapt attention of her audience over an hour. At the close Frederick
Douglass said:
He had listened with interest to the fine analysis of the life
and services of Lucretia Mott. He was almost unwilling to have
his voice heard after what had been said. He was there to show by
his presence his profound respect and earnest love for Lucretia
Mott. He recognized none whose services in behalf of his race
were equal to hers. Her silence even in that cause was more than
the speech of others. He had no words for this occasion.
Robert Purvis at the request of a number of colored citizens of
Washington, presented a beautiful floral harp to Mr. Davis, the
son-in-law of Lucretia Mott, the only representative of her family
present. He paid a tender tribute to the noble woman whose
life-long friendship he had enjoyed. Mr. Davis having a seat on the
platform, received the gift with evident emotion, and returning
thanks, he said:
He would follow the example of Mrs. Mott who seldom kept a gift
long, and present these rare flowers to Mrs. Spofford, the
treasurer of the Association.
Miss ANTHONY said: The highest tribute she could pay, was, that
during the past thirty years she had always felt sure she was
right when she had the approval of Lucretia Mott. Next to that of
her own conscience she most valued the approval of her sainted
friend. And it was now a great satisfaction that in all the
differences of opinion as to principles and methods in our
movement, Mrs. Mott had stood firmly with the National
Association, of which she was to the day of her death the honored
and revered vice-president.
Mrs. Sewall, after speaking of the many admirable qualities of Mrs.
Mott, said:
In looking around this magnificent audience I cannot help asking
myself the question, Where are the young girls? They should be
here. It is the birthright of every girl to know the life and
deeds of every noble woman. I think Lucretia Mott was as much
above the average woman as Abraham Lincoln above the average man.
Miss Couzins closed with a few graceful words. She expressed her
pleasure in meeting so magnificent an audience, and thought the
whole occasion was a beautiful tribute to one of America's best and
noblest women. She hoped the mothers present would carry away the
impressions they had received and teach their daughters to hold the
name of Lucretia Mott ever in grateful remembrance. The choir sang
"Nearer, My God, to Thee." The entire audience arose and joined in
the singing, after which they slowly dispersed, feeling that it had
indeed been a pentacostal occasion.
An able paper from Alexander Dumas, on "Woman Suffrage as a means
of Moral Improvement and Prevention of Crime,"[74] was translated
for this meeting by Thomas Mott, the only son of James and Lucretia
Mott. This convention continued two days, with the usual number of
able speakers.[75] It was announced at the last session that an
effort would be made by Senator McDonald, next day, to call up a
resolution providing for the appointment of a standing committee
for women; accordingly the ladies' gallery in the Senate was well
filled with delegates.
From the _Congressional Record_, January 20, 1881:
Mr. MCDONALD: On February 16, 1880, I submitted a resolution
providing for the appointment of a committee of nine senators,
whose duty it shall be to receive, consider and report upon all
petitions, memorials, resolutions and bills relating to the
rights of women of the United States, said committee to be called
"Committee on the Rights of Women." It is on the calendar, and I
ask for its present consideration.
The VICE-PRESIDENT (Mr. Wheeler of New York): The senator from
Indiana calls up for consideration a resolution on the calendar,
which will be reported.
The chief clerk read the resolution, as follows:
_Resolved_, That a committee of nine senators be appointed
by the Senate, whose duty it shall be to receive, consider
and report upon all petitions, memorials, resolutions and
bills relating to the rights of women of the United States,
said committee to be called the Committee on the Rights of
Women.
The VICE-PRESIDENT: The question is, Will the Senate agree to the
resolution?
Mr. MCDONALD: Mr. President, it seems to me that the time has
arrived when the rights of the class of citizens named in the
resolution should have some hearing in the national legislature.
We have standing committees upon almost every other subject, but
none to which this class of citizens can resort. When their
memorials come in they are sometimes sent to the Committee on the
Judiciary, sometimes to the Committee on Privileges and
Elections, and sometimes to other committees. The consequence is
that they pass around from committee to committee and never
receive any consideration. In the organization and growth of the
Senate a number of standing committees have been from time to
time created and continued from congress to congress, until many
of them have but very little duty now to perform. It seems to me
to be very appropriate to consider this question now, and provide
some place in the capitol, some room of the Senate, some branch
of the government, where this class of applicants can have a full
and fair hearing, and have such measures as may be desired to
secure to them such rights brought fairly and properly before
the country. I hope there will be no opposition to the resolution
but that it will be adopted by unanimous consent.
Mr. CONKLING: Does the senator from Indiana wish to raise a
permanent committee on this subject to take its place and remain
on the list of permanent committees?
Mr. MCDONALD: That is precisely what I propose to do.
Mr. CONKLING: Mr. President, I was in hopes that the honorable
senator from Indiana, knowing how sincere and earnest he is in
this regard, intended that an end should be made soon of this
subject; that the prayer of these petitioners should be granted
and the whole right established; but now it seems that he wishes
to create a perpetual committee, so that it is to go on
interminably, from which I infer that he intends that never shall
these prayers be granted. I suggest to the senator from Indiana
that, if he be in earnest, if he wishes to crown with success
this great and beneficent movement, he should raise a special
committee, which committee would understand that it was to
achieve and conclude its purpose, and this presently, and not
postpone indefinitely in the vast forever the realization of this
hope. I trust, therefore, that the senator from Indiana will make
this a special committee, and will let that special committee
understand that before the sun goes down on the last day of this
session it is to take final, serious, intelligent action, for
which it is to be responsible, whether that action be one way or
the other.[76]
Mr. MCDONALD: The senator from New York misapprehends one purpose
of this committee. I certainly have no desire that the rights of
this class of our citizens should be deferred to that far-distant
future to which he has made reference, nor would this committee
so place them. If it be authorized by the Senate, it will be the
duty of the committee to receive all petitions, memorials,
resolutions and bills relating to the rights of women, not merely
presented now but those presented at any future time. It is
simply to provide a place where one-half the people of the United
States may have a tribunal in this body before which they can
have their cases considered. I apprehend that these rights are
never to be ended. I do not suppose that the time will ever come
in the history of the human race when there will not be rights of
women to be considered and passed upon. Therefore, to make this
merely a special committee would not accomplish the purpose I had
in view. While it would of course give a committee that would
receive and hear such petitions as are now presented and consider
such bills as should now be brought forward, it would be better
to have a committee from term to term, where these same plaints
could be heard, the same petitions presented, the same bills
considered, and where new rights, whatever they might be, can be
discussed and acted upon. Therefore I cannot accept the
suggestion of the senator from New York to make this a special
committee.
Mr. DAVIS of West Virginia: I think it a bad idea to raise an
extra committee. I move that the resolution be referred to the
Committee on Rules, I think it ought to go there. That is where
the rules generally require all such resolutions to be referred.
The VICE-PRESIDENT: The question is on the motion of the senator
from Virginia, that the resolution be referred to the Committee
on Rules.
Which was agreed to by a vote of 26 yeas to 23 nays.[77]
Amid all the pleasure of political excitement the social amenities
were not forgotten. A brilliant reception[78] and supper were given
to the delegates by Mrs. Spofford at the Riggs House. During the
evening Mrs. Stanton presented the beautiful life-size photograph
of Lucretia Mott which had adorned the platform at the convention,
to Howard University, and read the following letter from Edward M.
Davis:
Mrs. ELIZABETH CADY STANTON--_Dear Madam_: As an expression of my
gratitude to the colored people of the District for their
beautiful floral tribute to the memory of my dear mother, I
desire in the name of her children to present to Howard
University the photograph of Lucretia Mott which adorned the
platform during the convention. It is a fitting gift to an
institution that so well illustrates her principles in opening
its doors to all youth without regard to sex or color. With
sincere regret that I cannot be present this evening at the
reception, I am gratefully yours,
EDWARD M. DAVIS.
In receiving the beautiful gift, Dr. Patton, president of the
institution, made a graceful response.
In the spring of 1881, the National Association held a series of
conventions through New England, beginning with the May anniversary
in Boston, of which we give the following description from the
_Hartford Courant_:
Among the many anniversaries in Boston the last week in May, one
of the most enthusiastic was that of the National Woman Suffrage
Association, held in Tremont Temple. The weather was cool and
fair and the audience fine throughout, and never was there a
better array of speakers at one time on any platform. The number
of thoughtful, cultured young women appearing in these
conventions, is one of the hopeful features for the success of
this movement. The selection of speakers for this occasion had
been made at the Washington convention in January, and different
topics assigned to each that the same phases of the question
might not be treated over and over again.
[Illustration: Jane H. Spofford]