Chapter XX · (continued 2)

But if women vote, they must sit on juries. Why not? Nothing is plainer than that thousands of women who are tried every year as criminals are not tried by their peers. And if a woman is bad enough to commit a heinous crime, must we absurdly assume that women are too good to know that there is such a crime? If they may not sit on juries, certainly they ought not to be witnesses. A note in Howell's State Trials, to which my attention was drawn by one of my distinguished colleagues in the convention, quotes an ancient work, "Probation by Witnesses," by Sir George Mackenzie, in which he says: "The reason why women are excluded from witnessing must be either that they are subject to too much compassion, and so ought not to be more received in criminal cases than in civil cases; or else the law was unwilling to trouble them, and thought it might learn them too much confidence, and make them subject to too much familiarity with men and strangers, if they were necessitated to vague up and down at all courts upon all occasions." Hume says this rule was held as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century. But if too much familiarity with men be so pernicious, are men so pure that they alone should make laws for women, and so honorable that they alone should try women for breaking them? It is within a very few years at the Liverpool Assizes in a case involving peculiar evidence, that Mr. Russell said: "The evidence of women is, in some respects, superior to that of men. Their power of judging of minute details is better, and when there are more than two facts and something be wanting, their intuitions supply the deficiency." "And precisely the qualities which fit them to give evidence," says Mrs. Dall, to whom we owe this fact, "fit them to sift and test it."

But, the objectors continue, would you have women hold office? If they are capable and desirous, why not? They hold office now most acceptably. In my immediate neighborhood, a postmistress has been so faithful an officer for seven years, that when there was a rumor of her removal, it was a matter of public concern. This is a familiar instance in this country. Scott's "Antiquary" shows that a similar service was not unknown in Scotland. In "Notes and Queries," ten years ago (Vol. II., Sec. 2, 1856, pp. 83, 204), Alexander Andrews says: "It was by no means unusual for females to serve the office of overseer in small rural parishes," and a communication in the same publication (First Series, Vol. II., p. 383) speaks of a curious entry in the Harleian Miscellany (MS. 980, fol. 153): "The Countess of Richmond, mother to Henry VII., was a Justice of the Peace. Mr. Atturney said if it was so, it ought to have been by commission, for which he had made many an hower's search for the record, but could never find it, but he had seen many arbitriments that were made by her. Justice Joanes affirmed that he had often heard from his mother of the Lady Bartlett, mother to the Lord Bartlett, that she was a Justice of the Peace, and did set usually upon the bench with the other Justices in Gloucestershire; that she was made so by Queen Mary, upon her complaint to her of the injuries she sustained by some of that county, and desiring for redress thereof; that as she herself, was Chief-Justice of all England, so this lady might be in her own county, which accordingly the Queen granted. Another example was alleged of one —— Rowse, in Suffolk, who usually at the assizes and sessions there held, set upon the bench among the Justices gladio cincta." The Countess of Pembroke was hereditary sheriff of Westmoreland, and exercised her office. Henry the VIIIth granted a commission of inquiry, under the great seal, to Lady Ann Berkeley, who opened it at Gloucester, and passed sentence under it. Henry VIII's daughter, Elizabeth Tudor, was Queen of England, in name and in fact, during the most illustrious epoch of English history. Was Elizabeth incompetent? Did Elizabeth unsex herself? Or do you say that she was an exceptional woman? So she was, but no more an exceptional woman than Alfred, Marcus Aurelius, or Napoleon were exceptional men. It was held by some of the old English writers that a woman might serve in almost any of the great offices of the kingdom. And, indeed, if Victoria may deliberate in council with her ministers, why may not any intelligent English woman deliberate in Parliament, or any such American woman in Congress? I mention Elizabeth, Maria Theresa, Catherine, and all the famous Empresses and Queens, not to prove the capacity of women for the most arduous and responsible office, for that is undeniable, but to show the hollowness of the assertion that there is an instinctive objection to the fulfillment of such offices by women. Men who say so do not really think so. The whole history of the voting and office-holding of women shows that whenever men's theories of the relation of property to the political franchise, or of the lineal succession of the government, require that women shall vote or hold office, the objection of impropriety and incapacity wholly disappears. If it be unwomanly for a woman to vote, or to hold office, it is unwomanly for Victoria to be Queen of England. Surely if our neighbors had thought they would be better represented in this convention by certain women, there is no good reason why they should have been compelled to send us. Why should I or any person be forbidden to select the agent whom we think the most competent and truly representative of our will? There is no talent or training required in the making of laws which is peculiar to the male sex. What is needed is intelligence and experience. The rest is routine.

The capacity for making laws is necessarily assumed when women are permitted to hold and manage property and to submit to taxation. How often the woman, widowed, or married, or single, is the guiding genius of the family—educating the children, directing the estate, originating, counseling, deciding. Is there anything essentially different in such duties and the powers necessary to perform them from the functions of legislation? In New Jersey the Constitution of 1776 admitted to vote all inhabitants of a certain age, residence, and property. In 1797, in an act to regulate elections, the ninth section provides: "Every voter shall openly and in full view deliver his or her ballot, which shall be a single written ticket, containing the names of the persons for whom he or she votes." An old citizen of New Jersey says that "the right was recognized, and very little said or thought about it in any way." But in 1807 the suffrage was restricted to white male adult citizens of a certain age, residence, and property, and in 1844 the property qualification was abolished. At the hearing before the committee, the other evening, a gentleman asked whether the change of the qualification excluding women did not show that their voting was found to be inconvenient or undesirable. Not at all. It merely showed that the male property-holders out-voted the female. It certainly showed nothing as to the right or expediency of the voting of women. Mr. Douglas, as I said, had a theory that the white male adult squatters in a territory might decide whether the colored people in the territory should be enslaved. They might, indeed, so decide, and with adequate power they might enforce their decision. But it proved very little as to the right, the expediency, or the constitutionality of slavery in a territory. The truth is that men deal with the practical question of female suffrage to suit their own purposes. About twenty-five years ago the Canadian government by statute rigorously and in terms forbade women to vote. But in 1850, to subserve a sectarian purpose, they were permitted to vote for school trustees. I am ashamed to argue a point so plain. What public affairs need in this State is "conscience," and woman is the conscience of the race. If we in this convention shall make a wise Constitution, if the Legislatures that follow us in this chamber shall purify the laws and see that they are honorably executed, it will be just in the degree that we shall have accustomed ourselves to the refined, moral, and mental atmosphere in which women habitually converse.

But would you, seriously, I am asked, would you drag women down into the mire of politics? No, sir, I would have them lift us out of it. The duty of this Convention is to devise means for the improvement of the government of this State. Now, the science of government is not an ignoble science, and the practice of politics is not necessarily mean and degrading. If the making and administering of law has become so corrupt as to justify calling politics filthy, and a thing in which no clean hands can meddle without danger, may we not wisely remember, as we begin our work of purification, that politics have been wholly managed by men? How can we purify them? Is there no radical method, no force yet untried, a power not only of skillful checks, which I do not undervalue, but of controlling character? Mr. Chairman, if we sat in this chamber with closed windows until the air became thick and fetid, should we not be fools if we brought in deodorizers—if we sprinkled chloride of lime and burned assafœtida, while we disdained the great purifier? If we would cleanse the foul chamber, let us throw the windows wide open, and the sweet summer air would sweep all impurity away and fill our lungs with fresher life. If we would purge politics let us turn upon them the great stream of the purest human influence we know.

But I hear some one say, if they vote they must do military duty. Undoubtedly when a nation goes to war it may rightfully claim the service of all its citizens, men and women. But the question of fighting is not the blow merely, but its quality and persistence. The important point is, to make the blow effective. Did any brave Englishman who rode into the jaws of death at Balaklava serve England on the field more truly than Florence Nightingale? That which sustains and serves and repairs the physical force is just as essential as the force itself. Thus the law, in view of the moral service they are supposed to render, excuses clergymen from the field, and in the field it details ten per cent of the army to serve the rest, and they do not carry muskets nor fight. Women, as citizens, have always done, and always will do that work in the public defense for which their sex peculiarly fits them, and men do no more. The care of the young warriors, the nameless and innumerable duties of the hospital and home, are just as essential to the national safety as fighting in the field. A nation of men alone could not carry on a contest any longer than a nation of women. Each would be obliged to divide its forces and delegate half to the duties of the other sex.

But while the physical services of war are equally divided between the sexes, the moral forces are stronger with women. It was the women of the South, we are constantly and doubtless very truly told, who sustained the rebellion, and certainly without the women of the North the Government had not been saved. From the first moment to the last, in all the roaring cities, in the remote valleys, in the deep woods, on the country hill-sides, on the open prairie, wherever there were wives, mothers, sisters, lovers, there were the busy fingers which, by day and by night, for four long years, like the great forces of spring-time and harvest, never failed. The mother paused only to bless her sons, eager for the battle; the wife to kiss her children's father, as he went; the sister smiled upon her brother, and prayed for the lover who marched away. Out of how many hundreds of thousands of homes and hearts they went who never returned. But those homes were both the inspiration and the consolation of the field. They nerved the arm that struck for them. When the son and husband fell in the wild storm of battle, the brave woman-heart broke in silence, but the busy fingers did not falter. When the comely brother and lover were tortured into idiocy and despair, that woman-heart of love kept the man's faith steady, and her unceasing toil repaired his wasted frame. It was not love of the soldier only, great as that was; it was knowledge of the cause. It was that supreme moral force operating through innumerable channels like the sunshine in nature, without which successful war would have been impossible. There are thousands and thousands of these women who ask for a voice in the government they have so defended. Shall we refuse them?

I appeal again to my honorable friend, the Chairman of the Committee. He has made the land ring with his cry of universal suffrage and universal amnesty. Suffrage and amnesty to whom? To those who sought to smother the government in the blood of its noblest citizens, to those who ruined the happy homes and broke the faithful hearts of which I spoke. Sir, I am not condemning his cry. I am not opposing his policy. I have no more thirst for vengeance than he, and quite as anxiously as my honorable friend do I wish to see the harvests of peace waving over the battle-fields. But, sir, here is a New York mother, who trained her son in fidelity to God and to his country. When that country called, they answered. Mother and son gave, each after his kind, their whole service to defend her. By the sad fate of war the boy is thrown into the ghastly den at Andersonville. Mad with thirst, he crawls in the pitiless sun toward a muddy pool. He reaches the dead-line, and is shot by the guard—murdered for fidelity to his country. "I demand amnesty for that guard, I demand that he shall vote," cries the honorable Chairman of the Committee. I do not say that it is an unwise demand. But I ask him, I ask you, sir, I ask every honorable and patriotic man in this State, upon what conceivable ground of justice, expediency, or common sense shall we give the ballot to the New York boy's murderer and refuse it to his mother?

Mr. Chairman, I have thus stated what I conceive to be the essential reasonableness of the amendment which I have offered. It is not good for man to be alone. United with woman in the creation of human society, their rights and interests in its government are identical, nor can the highest and truest development of society be reasonably conceived, so long as one sex assumes to prescribe limits to the scope and functions of the other. The test of civilization is the position of women. Where they are wholly slaves, man is wholly barbarous; and the measure of progress from barbarism to civilization is the recognition of their equal right with man to an unconstrained development. Therefore, when Mr. Mill unrolls his petition in Parliament to secure the political equality of women, it bears the names of those English men and women whose thoughts foretell the course of civilization. The measure which the report of the Committee declares to be radically revolutionary and perilous to the very functions of sex, is described by the most sagacious of living political philosophers as reasonable, conservative, necessary, and inevitable; and he obtains for it seventy-three votes in the same House in which out of about the same whole number of voters Charles James Fox, the idol of the British Whigs, used to be able to rally only forty votes against the policy of Pitt. The dawn in England will soon be day here. Before the American principle of equal rights, barrier after barrier in the path of human progress falls. If we are still far from its full comprehension and further from perfect conformity to its law, it is in that only like the spirit of Christianity, to whose full glory even Christendom but slowly approaches. From the heat and tumult of our politics we can still lift our eyes to the eternal light of that principle; can see that the usurpation of sex is the last form of caste that lingers in our society; that in America the most humane thinker is the most practical man, and the organizer of justice the most sagacious statesman.

Mr. Gould, of Columbia, followed with a long speech in opposition, and the discussion[104] continued through several days; but Mr. Curtis's amendment, in the Committee of the Whole, received 24 ayes against 63 nays; and on the final vote in the Convention, 19 ayes[105] against 125 nays.

Mr. Greeley, seemingly to atone for the disappointment of the women of the State in his adverse report, published the following editorial in The Tribune of July 26th, 1867:

WOMEN IN POLITICS.

The Constitutional Convention of our State, yesterday, negatived—yeas 19, nays 125—the proposition that women should share with men the duties and responsibilities of voters at elections. This decision was preceded by an earnest, protracted discussion, in which the right and expediency of extending the elective franchise to women were most eloquently urged by George William Curtis, and less elaborately by several others. The judgment pronounced yesterday by the Convention must therefore be regarded as final.

We do not, however, regard it as a verdict against a participation in public affairs by women. On the contrary, we hold that woman's influence not only is, but should be felt in legislation and government, and must increase in power as the race becomes more enlightened and humane. We only insist that she shall speak and be heard distinctly as woman, not mingled and confused with man. To make women voters at our elections as now held, and eligible to office in competition with men, would be far better calculated to corrupt woman than to reform man and purify politics. To have women mingle freely with men in primary meetings, caucuses, nominating conventions, investigating committees, juries, etc., etc., is not in our judgment calculated to elevate woman more than to reform existing abuses in legislation and practical politics. We should greatly prefer a system like this:

Let the women of our State, after due discussion and consultation, hold a convention composed of delegates from the several counties, equal in number to the members of Assembly. To this Convention let none but women be admitted, whether as officers or spectators. Let this convention, keeping its debates wholly private, decide what department of legislative government may be safely assigned and set apart to woman. We would suggest all that relates to the family; marriage, divorce, separation from bed and board, the control and maintenance of children, education, the property rights of married women, inheritance, dower, etc., etc., as subjects that could wisely and safely be set apart to be legislated upon by woman alone. And we believe that if she (not a few women, but the sex) shall ever suggest and require such an apportionment of legislative powers and duties, man will cheerfully concede it.

"But would you have woman hold elections like ours"? No! we would not! We would have her teach us how to take the sense of the electors far more quietly and cheaply. When a department of legislation shall be assigned to woman, we would have her collect through school-district, or kindred organizations, the names of all female citizens who possess the qualifications, other than of sex, required from male voters at our elections. These being duly, lucidly registered, let, then, women in each Assembly district be designated to collect the votes of its women. Let them simply advertise the address to which votes should be sent and appoint a week wherein to collect them. Now, let every female citizen write her ballot and enclose it, signing her name to the address indicated; and due time having been allowed for votes to arrive by mail or otherwise, let the votes be duly canvassed, and the result ascertained and declared, and certificates of election issued accordingly.

Under this plan, the invalid, the bed-ridden, the bereaved, and even the absent, could vote as well as others, and the cost of holding an election throughout the State need not reach $10,000. Such are the outlines of our views regarding woman in politics. They are doubtless susceptible of improvement; but we think not by effacing in politics the natural and time-honored distinctions between women and men. A female legislature, a jury of women, we could abide; a legislature of men and women, a jury promiscuously drawn from the sexes we do not believe in.

The New York Independent published the following criticism on Mr. Greeley's report a few days after its publication:

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

BY ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.

Your committee does not recommend an extension of the elective franchise to woman. However defensible in theory, we are satisfied that public sentiment does not demand, and would not sustain, an innovation so revolutionary and sweeping; so openly at war with a distribution of duties and functions between the sexes as venerable as the Government itself, and involving transformations so radical in social and domestic life. Should we prove to be in error on this head, the Convention may overrule us by changing a few words in the first section of our proposed article.

In the above extract from the majority report of the Committee on Suffrage we have substantially four reasons why the committee did not recommend an extension of the elective franchise to women.

1st. Public sentiment does not demand it.

2d. It would be an innovation revolutionary and sweeping.

3d. It is at war with a distribution of duties and functions between the sexes.

4th. The enfranchisement of women would disturb relations as venerable as government itself, and radically change our domestic life.

Shades of Jeremy Bentham and Sidney Smith forgive! After publishing to the world that immortal oration of Noodledom, and refuting for all time such fallacies as the above, how amazing that Radical Republicans in the capital of the Empire State should repeat in the ears of the nineteenth century stale platitudes from the effete civilizations of the Old World—that to their starving wives and mothers, knocking at the door of the political citadel, instead of bread and the ballot, they should give stones and twenty years more of degradation in disfranchisement. But if it be true that public sentiment is not prepared for this just and beneficent measure, then it is the duty of our leaders, instead of stereotyping the ignorant prejudices of the people into statutes and constitutions, to educate this public sentiment, by the utterance of sound ideas, by the example of honest action. When God gives new truths to the few, it is that they may win the response of the many. There is no blunder more constantly made by politicians than the assumption that the people are never ready for an onward step.

The people were ready for emancipation so long before the Government declared it that, when it did come, the measure called forth but little enthusiasm. It is not so much the will of the people that troubles the politician as the safety of the party in power. This committee denies the ballot to woman, and gives it to the black man, for the same reason—party success; not because they think public sentiment is ready for either, for in their uncertainty they dare not submit the question of the black man separately to a vote of the people. "But the measure is so revolutionary and sweeping." When we abjured King George, and declared all men equal, we inaugurated a very revolutionary measure, undermined kingdoms and empires, deranged the political, commercial, and social interests of two continents, and upset innumerable family relations, by crowding husbands and fathers into untimely graves. Had the Honorable Suffrage Committee been in Boston Harbor, they would have objected to throwing the tea overboard as too revolutionary a measure; they would have scouted Jefferson's radical declaration as absurd, in view of the royal facts on every throne in Europe, and the divine command, "Honor the king." After revolutionizing, as we have just done, the entire system of labor at the South, the social and political status of a race, and in pressing a measure for which public sentiment seemed unprepared, deluging the land in blood, how futile is such reasoning as the above in the mouths of those who inaugurated this second revolution.

Again, "The enfranchisement of woman is at war with the distribution of duties and functions between the sexes." The plea of tyrants in all ages. Says the English peer, "I'll make laws and govern; let the peasant till the earth and provide the sinews of war." Says the proud slaveholder, "I'll read and write and think; let the negro hoe the sugar, rice, and corn." Says the New York Suffrage Committee, "We will do the voting; let women pay the taxes. We will be judges, jurors, sheriffs; and give woman the right to be hung on the gallows." Napoleon once said to Madame de Stael, "Why will you women meddle with politics?" "Sire," she replied, "if you will hang us, we must ask the reason why."

The functions of the sexes! What particular function does it require to vote? In the discussion on this point, we hear of property, education, morality, sanity; yet "white males" vote without these, and women possessing all are denied the right. While different men have different duties, different functions, different spheres, ranging from the heights of Parnassus to the bowels of the earth, why legislate all women into a nutshell? Because a man is a father, must he needs be nothing else? Are lawyers, merchants, tailors, cobblers, bootblacks less skilled in their specialties because they vote? Because some women are mothers, shall all women concentrate every thought in that direction? and can those who are mothers be nothing else? Have not those who are training up sons and daughters an interest beyond the home, in the great outer world, where they are soon to act their part? If women should vote one day in the year, must every duty and function of their being be subordinated to that one act during the whole 365?

Many men, possessing the right of suffrage, never exercise it: many more use it indifferently once a year, or sell it to the highest bidder; and on what principle does the theory rest, that if woman had this right, she would desert husband, child, and home, and reserve all her love and care, her smiles and enthusiasm, for the ballot-box? No; woman's love for man is not based on the statutes of the State, nor the maternal instinct on the second article of the Constitution. Whatever distribution of duties and functions are fixed by nature we need no legislation to enforce. So long as the fact of motherhood does not release woman from taxation, and the necessity of earning her own bread, it should not deprive her of that right most needed for her protection. If the 40,000 drunkards' wives in this State have the necessary functions to provide food, clothes, and shelter for worthless husbands and helpless children, they have the necessary functions to go to the polls and vote for such social and sanitary laws as shall end the vice of intemperance.

"But," says the Committee, "this measure would disturb relations as venerable as government itself."

So said objectors twenty years ago in this State when woman was first secured in her rights of property. Some of our must distinguished lawyers prophesied a social convulsion on the adoption of that measure. But it came without earthquake or tornado. In a single hour, by a stroke of the pen, the women of the Empire State were crowned property-holders. But only those who had felt the iron teeth of the law took note of the onward legislation. It was a mighty wave on the shores of progress, that made scarce a ripple on the surface, washing the feet of the lonely traveler on the sand, though unheeded by the multitude on the bosom of its waters.

The ballot in the hand of woman will bring neither the millennium nor pandemonium the next day; but it will surely right many wrongs. It will open to her the colleges, the professions, the profitable and honorable walks of life, and give her better wages for her work. In securing to woman self-respect, independence and power, we shall purify and exalt our social relations. Helpless and dependent, woman must ever be the victim of society. "Give a man a right over my subsistence," says Alexander Hamilton, "and he has a right over my whole moral being."

February 13, 1868, Mr. Graves offered a resolution: "That the article on suffrage be recommitted to be revised, by striking out the word 'male' after the word 'every' in the first line of Section 1, Article II."

Mr. Graves said: In offering this resolution I am not unmindful of the opinion that has been expressed in this Convention on the question. Yet, sir, I see a willingness expressed on all sides, to extend the suffrage to the black man at the South and the equally ignorant foreigner, alike without education, without knowledge of our laws and Constitution, incapable of appreciating the genius of republican institutions, and who, neither by manner, by effort, by example, by influence, can do aught to promote the best interests of this Government.

If this constitution as it now is shall be approved by the people, you allow the black men of the South, fresh from the chains of slavery, to go to the ballot-box and vote on all the great questions involving the interests of this nation, while you deny the same right to educated, patriotic women—our own wives and mothers, who are educating our children, who give tone and character to society, and who are first and foremost in all moral movements.

You deny them the right to select officers who are to discharge the duties of government, and, worse still, a voice in the laws they are compelled to obey. Yes, sir, you say to the drunken husband who spends his time in whisky saloons, who goes reeling home at night to abuse his wife and children, that he is fit to vote on the interests of the family and the town, while you deny that right to the clear-headed, industrious wife, who feeds, clothes and shelters the worthless husband and educates the half-orphaned children.

What a travesty on common sense and justice is such legislation! I know there are men in this Convention shaking in their boots for fear their mothers, wives, and daughters shall have equal power with themselves; cowardly men without gallantry, who fear that woman's voice in legislation might end some of the pet vices of society—might be more potent than their own.

Mr. Seaver rose to a point of order, and asked, "Who are the men shaking in their boots?"

Mr. Graves retorted, "Wounded birds will flutter."

Mr. Vedder wanted the gentleman's words recorded.

Mr. Graves: I was about to say that educated women should be permitted to go to the ballot-box, and by their votes help to maintain our form of government. Why is it that every father in this country is educating his daughter as well as his son in all branches of science? Why does he expend his money in preparing his daughter for the most responsible positions, and then deny her the right to exercise her powers in the most intricate and exalted of sciences—that of government? I know it is said that the right of suffrage conferred on woman would destroy all domestic peace; which is to say a man can not tolerate an equal at his fireside. Does domestic peace exist in the exact ratio of a woman's inferiority to the man she calls her husband? The intelligent, educated wife must exert an influence for good over the husband. The wise, far-seeing, self-disciplined mother must exert an influence for good over her children; why, then, may not this influence be equally potent in the State?

The resolution was lost.

The struggle in New York ended, all thoughts were turned towards Kansas, where, as already shown, the friends of woman suffrage were doomed to another disappointment. However, the year was one of active effort; tracts and petitions were diligently circulated; a thorough campaign made in Kansas; a series of meetings held in all the chief cities from Leavenworth to New York, and a newspaper established, demanding far more time and money than its founders anticipated. Thus the intervening months were fully occupied until the May Anniversaries, when all religious and reformatory associations were accustomed to hold their annual meetings in New York city.

EQUAL RIGHTS ANNIVERSARY.

The American Equal Rights Association held its annual meeting in Cooper Institute, New York, May 14, 1868. Its officers[106], with but few changes, were the same as before.

The Hutchinson Family, the branch of John, was present, and with their sister, Abby Hutchinson Patten, opened the meeting with their song, "We Come to Greet You." Lucy Stone read a letter from John Stuart Mill, expressing sympathy with the movement. Letters were also read from Rev. Robert Collyer of Chicago, Maria Giddings, the daughter of Hon. Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio, Frances Dana Gage, and several others. Miss Anthony invited all delegates of Equal Rights Societies to seats on the platform; she also moved that Mrs. Rose, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Burleigh and Mr. Foster be a committee to prepare resolutions.

Henry B. Blackwell reported the success of the campaign of the women of this Society in Kansas, where Rev. Olympia Brown, Lucy Stone, Mrs. Stanton and Susan B. Anthony had canvassed. Their eloquence and determination gave great promise of success; but in an inopportune moment, Horace Greeley and others saw fit in the Constitutional Convention to report unfavorably on the proposition to extend suffrage to the women of the Empire State, and that influenced the sentiment of the younger Western States, and their enterprise was crushed. Even the Republicans in Kansas, after witnessing this example, set their faces against the extension of suffrage to women. The negroes got but a few more votes than did the women.

Lucy Stone gave a resume of the progress of the cause in this country and in England. Col. Higginson and Mrs. Rose made excellent remarks. "Keep the ball rolling" was gracefully rendered by Mrs. Abby Hutchinson Patton, the whole audience joining in the chorus. Mrs. Stone presented two forms of petition to Congress; one to extend suffrage to women in the District of Columbia and the Territories, the other for the submission of a proposition for a 16th Amendment to prohibit the States from disfranchising citizens on account of sex. Frederick Douglass made an acceptable speech in favor of the petitions. The President announced that Mrs. Patten headed the subscription list to aid the association in its work for the coming year with $50. Miss Anthony presented the various tracts published by the Society, and The Revolution, urging the friends of the cause to aid in the circulation of the paper, as it was the only one owned and edited by women, wholly devoted to the cause of Equal Rights. Rev. Dr. Blanchard, of Brooklyn, opened the evening session with prayer; a resolution was proposed and adopted, on the death of James Mott, husband of Lucretia Mott, President of the first Woman's Rights Convention at Seneca Falls.

Rev. Olympia Brown: It is said that Nature is against us. In the Massachusetts Legislature, Mr. Dana, Chairman of the Committee before whom we had a hearing, said: "Nature is against it. It will take the romance out of life to grant what you desire"! If the romance of life is a falsehood and a fiction, we want to get back to truth, nature and God. We all love liberty and desire to possess it. No one worthy the name of man or woman is willing to surrender liberty and become subservient to another. Woman may be shut out of politics by law, but her influence will be felt there. Some of our leading reformers work for other objects first; the enfranchisement of the negro, the eight hour law, the temperance cause; and leave the woman suffrage question in the background; but woman will be enfranchised in spite of them. It is no use to tell us to wait until something else is done. Now is the accepted time for the enfranchisement of woman. The abolition of slavery was thought to be premature, but that mistake is now clearly seen. Now is the time for every disfranchised class to make known its wants. The Republican party is no better than the Democratic. It sacrificed principle and nominated a man for President to save the party, whom they were afraid the Democrats would nominate if they did not! The Republican party controlled Kansas, and yet repudiated woman's rights in the canvass of last year. We want a party (and would like the Republican party) who will adopt a platform of Universal Suffrage for every color and every sex. "The Republican party must be saved," is the cry; but its great danger is in not being true to principle. We will push on, keeping in view the rights of our common nature until woman is the peer of man in every sphere of life.

Elizabeth A. Kingsley, of Philadelphia, Charles Burleigh, Rev. Henry Blanchard and Mrs. Rose made brief addresses.

Frederick Douglass deprecated the seeming assertion of Rev. O. B. Frothingham, that one good cause was in opposition to another. I champion the right of the negro to vote. It is with us a matter of life and death, and therefore can not be postponed. I have always championed woman's right to vote; but it will be seen that the present claim for the negro is one of the most urgent necessity. The assertion of the right of women to vote meets nothing but ridicule; there is no deep seated malignity in the hearts of the people against her; but name the right of the negro to vote, all hell is turned loose and the Ku-klux and Regulators hunt and slay the unoffending black man. The government of this country loves women. They are the sisters, mothers, wives and daughters of our rulers; but the negro is loathed. Women should not censure Mr. Phillips, Mr. Greeley, or Mr. Tilton, all have spoken eloquently for woman's rights. We are all talking for woman's rights, and we should be just to all our friends and enemies. There is a difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.

Olympia Brown: What is it?

Frederick Douglass: The Democratic party has, during the whole war, been in sympathy with the rebellion, while the Republican party has supported the Government.

Olympia Brown: How is it now?

Frederick Douglass: The Democratic party opposes impeachment, and desires a white man's government.

Olympia Brown: What is the difference in principle between the position of the Democratic party opposing the enfranchisement of 2,000,000 negro men, and the Republican party opposing the emancipation of 17,000,000 white women?

Frederick Douglass: The Democratic party opposes suffrage to both: but the Republican party is in favor of enfranchising the negro, and is largely in favor of enfranchising woman. Where is the Democrat who favors woman suffrage? (A voice in the audience, "Train!") Yes, he hates the negro, and that is what stimulates him to substitute the cry of emancipation for women. The negro needs suffrage to protect his life and property, and to ensure him respect and education. He needs it for the safety of reconstruction and the salvation of the Union; for his own elevation from the position of a drudge to that of an influential member of society. If you want women to forget and forsake frivolity, and the negro to take pride in becoming a useful and respectable member of society, give them both the ballot.

Olympia Brown: Why did Republican Kansas vote down negro suffrage?

Frederick Douglass: Because of your ally, George Francis Train!

Olympia Brown: How about Minnesota without Train? The Republican party is a party and cares for nothing but party! It has repudiated both negro suffrage and woman suffrage.

Frederick Douglass: Minnesota lacked only 1,200 votes of carrying negro suffrage. All the Democrats voted against it, while only a small portion of the Republicans did so. And this was substantially the same in Ohio and Connecticut. The Republican party is about to bring ten States into the Union; and Thaddeus Stevens has reported a bill to admit seven, all on the fundamental basis of constitutions guaranteeing negro suffrage forever.

Olympia Brown again insisted that the party was false, and that now was the time for every true patriot to demand that no new State should be admitted except on the basis of suffrage to women as well as negroes.

Lucy Stone controverted Mr. Douglass' statement that women were not persecuted for endeavoring to obtain their rights, and depicted in glowing colors the wrongs of women and the inadequacy of the laws to redress them. Mrs. Stone also charged the Republican party as false to principle unless it protected women as well as colored men in the exercise of their right to vote.

The Tribune said the resolutions adopted declare that suffrage is an inalienable right without qualification of sex or race; that our State and National Governments are anti-Republican in form, and anti-Democratic in fact; that the only way to decide whether women want to vote is to give them an opportunity of doing so; that the Republicans are bound to extend the application of manhood suffrage to women; that Reconstruction will fail to secure peace, unless it gives women the right to vote; they invite the National Conventions of both parties to put a woman suffrage plank in their platforms; petition[107] Congress to extend suffrage to the women of the District of Columbia, and to propose a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting political distinctions on account of sex; assert that the laws depriving married women of the equal custody of their children and of the control of their property, are a disgrace to civilization; and thank the men of Kansas who voted for Woman Suffrage.

FOOTNOTES: