History of Woman Suffrage Volume II Part 105

SEC. 9. Five members of the Executive Committee, when convened by the Chairman, after fifteen days written notice previously mailed to each of its members, shall const.i.tute a quorum. But no action thus taken shall be final, until such proceedings shall have been ratified in writing by at least fifteen members of the Committee.

SEC. 10. The Chairman shall convene a meeting whenever requested to do so by five members of the Executive Committee.

ARTICLE IV.

This a.s.sociation shall have a branch office in every State in connection with the office of the auxiliary State Society therein, and shall have a central office at such place as the Executive Committee may determine.

ARTICLE V.

This Const.i.tution may be amended at any annual meeting, by a vote of three-fifths of the delegates present therein.

ARTICLE VI.

Any person may become a member of the American Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation by signing the Const.i.tution and paying the sum of $1 annually, or life members by paying the sum of $10, which membership shall ent.i.tle the individual to attend the business meetings of delegates and partic.i.p.ate in their deliberations.

ARTICLE VII.

Honorary members may be appointed by the annual meeting or by the Executive Committee, in consideration of services rendered.

The officers of the a.s.sociation were then appointed:

_President_--Henry Ward Beecher.

_Vice Presidents at Large_--T. W. Higginson, Mary A.

Livermore, William Lloyd Garrison, Mrs. W. T. Hazard, George W. Curtis, Celia M. Burleigh, George W. Julian, Margaret V.

Longley.

_Chairman of Executive Committee_--Lucy Stone.

_Foreign Corresponding Secretary_--Julia Ward Howe.

_Corresponding Secretary_--Myra Bradwell.

_Recording Secretaries_--Henry B. Blackwell, Amanda Way.

_Treasurer_--Frank B. Sanborn.

_Vice-Presidents_--Maine, Rev. Amory Battles; New Hampshire, Armenia S. White; Vermont, Hon. C. W. Willard; Ma.s.sachusetts, Caroline M. Severance; Rhode Island, Rowland G. Hazard; Connecticut, Seth Rogers; New York, Oliver Johnson; New Jersey, Antoinette Brown Blackwell; Pennsylvania, Robert Purvis; Delaware, Mrs. Hanson Robinson; Ohio, Dr. H. M. Tracy Cutler; Indiana, Lizzie M. Boynton; Illinois, C. B. Waite; Wisconsin, Rev. H. Eddy; Michigan, Moses Coit Tyler; Minnesota, Mrs. A. Knight; Kansas, Hon.

Charles Robinson; Iowa, Amelia Bloomer; Missouri, Hon. Isaac H. Sturgeon; Tennessee, Hon. Guy W. Wines; Florida, Alfred Purdie; Oregon, Mrs. General Rufus Saxton; California, Rev.

Charles G. Ames; Virginia, Hon. J. C. Underwood; Washington Territory, Hon. Rufus Leighton; Arizona, Hon. A. K. P.

Safford.

_Executive Committee_--Maine, Mrs. Oliver Dennett; New Hampshire, Hon. Nathaniel White; Vermont, Mrs. James Hutchinson, Jr.; Ma.s.sachusetts, Rev. Rowland Connor; Rhode Island, Elizabeth B. Chace; Connecticut, Rev. Olympia Brown; New York, Mrs. Theodore Tilton; New Jersey, Mary F. Davis; Pennsylvania, Mary Grew; Delaware, Dr. John Cameron; Ohio, Andrew J. Boyer; Indiana, Rev. Charles Marshall; Illinois, Hon. J. B. Bradwell; Wisconsin, Lilie Peckham; Michigan, Lucinda H. Stone; Minnesota, Abby J. Spaulding; Kansas, Mrs.

C. I. H. Nichols; Iowa, Belle Mansfield; Missouri, Mrs.

Francis Minor; Tennessee, Rev. Charles J. Woodbury; Florida, Mrs. Dr. Hawkes; California, Mrs. Mary E. Ames; Virginia, Hon. A. M. Fretz; District of Columbia, Grace Greenwood.

The addresses of the evening were made by Judge Bradwell and Mary A. Livermore, of Illinois; Miriam M. Cole, of Ohio; Lilie Peckham, of Wisconsin; Frank B. Sanborn, editor of the Springfield, Ma.s.s., _Republican_; and Dr. Lees, of Leeds, England. At the Thursday morning session the attendance was large, and the interest in the Convention seemed to be increasing. The forenoon was devoted to a consideration of the basis of the National organization, its const.i.tution and by-laws.

The discussions[185] were earnest, temperate, in excellent spirit, every woman keeping within the five minutes' rule, and speaking to the point--a circ.u.mstance commented on pleasantly by the President. The articles of the Const.i.tution and By-Laws were discussed _seriatim_, and adopted, and then the Const.i.tution, as a whole, was adopted. A letter was presented by Mrs. Lucy Stone, from the proprietor of the Birch House, Water Street, offering to entertain a few delegates--free. She also read the following:

CLEVELAND, _November 25, 1869_.

_To the Delegates of the Woman's National Convention_:--The Faculty of the Homeopathic College hereby extend their most cordial invitation to your honorable body to visit the College. Conveyances for the same will be in readiness at any time desired. In this College, now in its twentieth annual session, woman, with the exception of one winter, has always been equal with man in privilege and honor, and here she shall always share an equal privilege and honor, so long as she is willing to conform to the same standard of culture.

Yours, most respectfully, T. P. WILSON, _Dean_.

H. V. BIGGAR, _Registrar_.

Judge BRADWELL offered the following, which was adopted:

_Resolved_, That we urgently request all State and National a.s.sociations, formed for the purpose of aiding in giving suffrage to woman, to become auxiliary to, or co-operate with the American Woman's Suffrage a.s.sociation, believing that by concert of action on the part of all Societies and a.s.sociations formed in the nation for this purpose, suffrage will sooner be extended to woman.

Able addresses were made during the afternoon by Rev. Charles Marshall, pastor of one of the Presbyterian churches of Indianapolis; Lizzie Boynton and Mrs. Sw.a.n.k, of Indiana; Lucy Stone, of New Jersey; Ex-Gov. Root, of Kansas; Mary E. Ames, of California; and Addie Ballou, of Minnesota. Rebecca Rickoff, of Cleveland, recited an original poem, "The Convict's Mother," with marked effect. During the entire session the hall was filled to its utmost limit. The Convention met for the closing session at an early hour. The hall was densely filled in every part, the man at the ticket-office having been literally inundated with "quarters." Mrs. Dr. Cutler occupied the chair. Mrs. STONE announced that she would go through the audience to get names of members of the a.s.sociation, which any one could become on payment of a dollar.

Brief speeches were made by Mr. Bellville and Mr. Lamphear, of Ohio; Mr. Henry Blackwell, of New Jersey; and Rev. Rowland Connor, of Ma.s.sachusetts, and then Mrs. Julia Ward Howe delivered a second address of remarkable power and unparalleled beauty. She spoke the day before as the prophet of the Convention--this evening, she spoke as its historian. Her address was faultless, peerless, perfect, and though read from a ma.n.u.script, moved the large audience deeply. Next followed Mrs. Celia Burleigh, of New York, a woman of rare grace and culture, with an address packed with thought and wisdom, uttered in the choicest language. Mrs.

Caroline M. Severance, of Boston, succeeded her with another speech of like polish and impressiveness, and then the great congregation rose, and closed the interesting meetings of the two days with the singing of the grand old doxology, "Praise G.o.d from whom all blessings flow," after which the Convention adjourned _sine die_.

A Ma.s.s Convention for the advocacy of Woman Suffrage, under the auspices of the American Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation, was held at Steinway Hall, New York City, May 11th and 12th, 1870. Upon each of those days three sessions were held, and at each session the attendance was numerous and enthusiastic. The Convention was presided over by Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. Upon the platform were seated many earnest, active supporters, and advocates of the cause.[186]

The address of Rev. HENRY WARD BEECHER was as follows: _Ladies and Gentlemen_:--It is but a little while ago that the question whether a woman might, with modesty and propriety, appear upon the public platform to speak her sentiments upon moral and philanthropic questions, agitated the whole community. Although I do not regard myself as excessively conservative, I remember very well when the appointment of women, by the Anti-Slavery Society of New England, to act on committees with men, grievously shocked my prejudices; and I said to myself, "Well, where will this matter end?" I remember very well that when many persons, whose names are now quite familiar to the people, first began to speak on the anti-slavery question, I felt that if the diffidence and modesty and delicacy of woman had not been sacrificed, it had, at any rate, been put in peril; and that, although a few might survive, the perilous example would pervert and destroy the imitators and followers.

It was in the year 1856 that I first made a profession of my faith in Woman's Rights. During the Fremont campaign I had so far had my eyes opened and my understanding enlightened, as to see that if it is right for the people of Great Britain to put a politician at the head of their government, and she a woman--if, in all the civilized nations of the world, it is deemed both seemly and proper for women to be in public meetings and take part therein, provided they are d.u.c.h.esses or the ladies of lords--if it is right, in other words, for aristocracy to give to their women the right of public speech, then it is right, also, for democracy to give their women the right of public speech.

Does any one question whether Lucy Stone may speak? or Mrs.

Livermore? or Mrs. Stanton? There is not a city or town in the nation that does not hail their coming; and there are no persons so refined, and no persons so conservative as not to listen to them; and there are none that listen who do not always admit that women may speak. G.o.d does not give such gifts for nothing.

We are in a community that is constantly growing, expanding, developing. We do not believe that human nature has reached its limits. There are new combinations, new developments, taking place. Nor do we believe that men have reached the ultimatum of their practical efficiency, any more than women have. It is in the order of things, that having met, tried, and settled this question--the right of woman to public speech--we should meet the next question, the right of women to act. She has a right to think,--has she a right to practice? May she vote, or sit upon committees in matters pertaining to local or National interests?

It is this question which is under discussion now. It seems wild and wandering to many, but not more wild and wandering than fifteen years ago, to the great majority of our citizens, seemed the question of woman's right to public speech. I venture to say that within the fifteen years next coming it will seem strange to the great ma.s.s of the people that it should have been considered of doubtful propriety for woman to exercise the privilege, or, I should rather say, the duty of suffrage.

And so within the last few years this question has risen up, to the suppression, I may say, of everything else; for everything else is conceded. I don't know what advanced step may be next proposed. If I did, I should propose it to-day--for this reason, that I notice that each advance becomes the acceptance of the disputed question immediately in its rear. When the doctrine of physiognomy--Lavater's doctrine--was first propounded, men laughed it to scorn, and contemned the idea that there could be anything true or n.o.ble in it, until phrenology came and a.s.serted that the brain's proportional parts could be known, and that the mind could be outwardly ascertained, and then men said: "Oh, this phrenology is a humbug! Physiognomy is rational; we can see how a man can judge that way; there is something in physiognomy."

So they swallowed physiognomy in order to be strong enough to combat phrenology. Animal magnetism, I believe, came up next; and the people ridiculed it as they had ridiculed those that had gone before. They now thought that there might be some sense in physiognomy and phrenology, but animal magnetism was preposterous. Then came mesmerism. "Why," people said, "this is nothing in the world but animal magnetism, in which, of course, there is some reason." Then came spiritualism. "Oh," people said, "that is nothing but mesmerism." So they admitted each anterior heresy for the sake of refuting the new one. And now, may a woman be an artist? May she sing in public? May she speak in public?

"Well," said people, "she can sing, if she has the gift; there is no harm in that; but this delivering an oration, this is not woman's sphere." Then if we say, "Shall a woman vote?" they say, "Oh! vote! vote! Let her speak if she wants to speak; but as for voting, that will never do!"

Therefore, as I have said, if I could but see the next point ahead, I would immediately proclaim it, because then people would say, "Let women vote if they want to vote, but that is as far as we can go." I rejoice in your presence this morning. I, for one, need not a.s.sert that I am from my whole heart and conviction thoroughly of opinion that the nature of woman, the purity and sweetness of the family, the integrity and strength of the State, will all be advantaged when woman shall be, like man, a partic.i.p.ator in public affairs.

Rev. JAMES FREEMAN CLARKE said--Ladies and gentlemen:--This is a very serious question, whichever way we look at it. I do not suppose that, if the women of the country were to be admitted to-day to vote, the consequences would appear to-day, or for some time to come, because women everywhere would vote very much as those around them are in the habit of voting. Young men growing up generally vote as their fathers and brothers are in the habit of voting--those with whom they are in the habit of communication; so it would be with women. They would probably, for some time to come, vote very much as their husbands, fathers, and brothers do now. The ultimate result, however, is of the greatest consequence; and n.o.body can tell exactly what it will be. I, for one, believe that it will be very beneficial, and it is for that reason that I am here to-day.

I believe, in the first place, that women ought to vote, because it seems to me that this is in the direction of all human progress, and in the direction of civilization. Civilization, thus far, has constantly occupied itself in bringing woman up to, and putting her by the side of man. In the barbarous stage of society, woman is the slave and tool of man; in the Asiatic age she is the plaything and ornament with which man amuses himself; but in Christendom there is a tendency to place woman side by side with man in everything, and just as far as it has been done we find the benefit of it. Woman ought to be made the companion of man in his great work of government. The reason why people think politics is a low and vulgar pursuit is that woman has never been in politics. Where man goes alone he is easily corrupted. Soldiers in the army are degraded, despite the patriotic n.o.bleness of their motive, by the absence of woman, and men are degraded at the polls, as well as everywhere else, through not having women by their side.

I believe in this movement, not only because it is in the direction of all modern civilization, but because it is in accordance with the idea of American government, and the policy of American inst.i.tutions. A State is saved by being faithful to its own idea, or lost by faithlessness to that idea. Now the American idea is faith in the people. We know perfectly well there are evils connected with republicanism, as there are with everything; but we have chosen the good of a republic with this great, broad basis of universal suffrage. People say, "Well, but there is no natural right to vote." We knew that very well before, because there is no voting in a state of nature. Voting is a social contrivance. Because it is not a natural right, is it any less unjust to deprive a large part of the people of it?

There are no roads in a state of nature. For that reason, shall we say to a woman, "You shall not walk in the road?" Wherever the male and female qualities go together, we are better for it, and therefore it is our business to put them together in the government. Put away all the absurd restrictions on woman, and let her do what G.o.d intended her to do. Let us trust nature and G.o.d, and give to woman the opportunity to do whatever she is able to accomplish.

I have another reason for woman suffrage, and that is, that nothing can be said against it. Our good friend, Dr. Bushnell, has written a book in which he says that if woman is allowed to vote she must be allowed to govern; and, being a subject nature, she can not govern. In other words, as she is a subject nature, let her stay at home and govern her household all the time!