The History of Woman Suffrage Volume I Part 28

In February, 1853, Paulina Wright Davis started a woman's paper called _The Una_, published in Providence, Rhode Island, with the following prospectus:

Usage makes it necessary to present our readers with a prospectus setting forth our aims and objects. Our plan is to publish a paper monthly, devoted to the interests of woman. Our purpose is to speak clear, earnest words of truth and soberness in a spirit of kindness. To discuss the rights, duties, sphere, and destiny of woman fully and fearlessly. So far as our voice shall be heard, it will be ever on the side of freedom. We shall not confine ourselves to any locality, s.e.x, sect, cla.s.s, or caste, for we hold to the solidarity of the race, and believe if one member suffers, all suffer, and the highest made to atone for the lowest. Our mystical name, _The Una_, signifying _Truth_, will be to us a constant suggestion of fidelity to all.

_The Una_ could boast for its correspondents some of the ablest men and women in the nation; such as William H. Channing, Elizabeth Peabody, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Rev. A. D. Mayo, Dr. William Elder, Ednah D. Cheney, Caroline H. Dall, f.a.n.n.y Fern, Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Frances D. Gage, Hannah Tracy Cutler, Abby H. Price, Marion Finch, of Liverpool, Hon. John Neal, of Portland, Lucy Stone, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

For some time Mrs. Dall a.s.sisted in the editorial department. _The Una_ was the first p.r.o.nounced Woman Suffrage paper; it lived three years. Glancing over the bound volumes, one may glean much valuable information of what was said and done during that period. We learn that Lady Grace Vandeleur, in person, canva.s.sed the election of Kilrush, Ireland, and from her ladyship's open carriage, addressed a large a.s.semblage of electors on behalf of her husband, the Conservative candidate. She was enthusiastically greeted by the populace.

The _Maine Age_ announces the election of a Miss Rose to the office of Register of Deeds, and remarks: "Before the morning of the twentieth century dawns, women will not simply fill your offices of Register of Deeds, but they will occupy seats in your Legislative Halls, on your judicial benches, and in the executive chair of State and Nation. We deprecate it, yet we perceive its inevitability, and await the shock with firmness and composure."

This same year, _The Una_ narrates the following amusing incident that occurred in the town of P----, New Hampshire: It is customary in the country towns for those who choose to do so, to pay their proportion of the highway tax, in actual labor on the roads, at the rate of eight cents an hour, instead of paying money. Two able-bodied and strong-hearted women in P----, who found it very inconvenient to pay the ready cash required of them, determined to avail themselves of this custom. They accordingly presented themselves to the surveyor of the highway with hoes in their hands, and demanded to be set to work.

The good surveyor was sorely puzzled; such a thing as women working out their taxes, had never been heard of, and yet the law made no provision against it. He consulted his lawyer, who advised him that he had no power to refuse. Accordingly the two brave women worked, and worked well, in spreading sand and gravel, saved their pennies, and no doubt felt all the better for their labor.

In the April Number, 1853, we find the following appeal to the citizens of Ma.s.sachusetts, on the equal political rights of woman:

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--In May next a Convention will a.s.semble to revise the Const.i.tution of the Commonwealth.

At such a time it is the right and duty of every one to point out whatever he deems erroneous and imperfect in that instrument, and press its amendment on public attention.

We deem the extension to woman of all civil rights, a measure of vital importance to the welfare and progress of the State. On every principle of natural justice, as well as by the nature of our inst.i.tutions, she is as fully ent.i.tled as man to vote, and to be eligible to office. In governments based on force, it might be pretended with some plausibility, that woman being supposed physically weaker than man, should be excluded from the State.

But ours is a government professedly resting on the consent of the governed. Woman is surely as competent to give that consent as man. Our Revolution claimed that taxation and representation should be co-extensive. While the property and labor of women are subject to taxation, she is ent.i.tled to a voice in fixing the amount of taxes, and the use of them when collected, and is ent.i.tled to a voice in the laws that regulate punishments. It would be a disgrace to our schools and civil inst.i.tutions, for any one to argue that a Ma.s.sachusetts woman who has enjoyed the full advantage of all their culture, is not as competent to form an opinion on civil matters, as the illiterate foreigner landed but a few years before upon our sh.o.r.es--unable to read or write--by no means free from early prejudices, and little acquainted with our inst.i.tutions. Yet such men are allowed to vote.

Woman as wife, mother, daughter, and owner of property, has important rights to be protected. The whole history of legislation so unequal between the s.e.xes, shows that she can not safely trust these to the other s.e.x. Neither have her rights as mother, wife, daughter, laborer, ever received full legislative protection. Besides, our inst.i.tutions are not based on the idea of one cla.s.s receiving protection from another; but on the well-recognized rule that each cla.s.s, or s.e.x, is ent.i.tled to such civil rights, as will enable it to protect itself. The exercise of civil rights is one of the best means of education. Interest in great questions, and the discussion of them under momentous responsibility, call forth all the faculties and nerve them to their fullest strength. The grant of these rights on the part of society, would quickly lead to the enjoyment by woman, of a share in the higher grades of professional employment. Indeed, without these, mere book study is often but a waste of time. The learning for which no use is found or antic.i.p.ated, is too frequently forgotten, almost as soon as acquired. The influence of such a share, on the moral condition of society, is still more important. Crowded now into few employments, women starve each other by close compet.i.tion; and too often vice borrows overwhelming power of temptation from poverty. Open to women a great variety of employments, and her wages in each will rise; the energy and enterprise of the more highly endowed, will find full scope in honest effort, and the frightful vice of our cities will be stopped at its fountain-head. We hint very briefly at these matters. A circular like this will not allow room for more.

Some may think it too soon to expect any action from the Convention. Many facts lead us to think that public opinion is more advanced on this question than is generally supposed.

Beside, there can be no time so proper to call public attention to a radical change in our civil polity as now, when the whole framework of our government is to be subjected to examination and discussion. It is never too early to begin the discussion of any desired change. To urge our claim on the Convention, is to bring our question before the proper tribunal, and secure at the same time the immediate attention of the general public.

Ma.s.sachusetts, though she has led the way in most other reforms, has in this fallen behind her rivals, consenting to learn, as to the protection of the property of married women, of many younger States. Let us redeem for her the old pre-eminence, and urge her to set a n.o.ble example in this the most important of all civil reforms. To this we ask you to join with us[49] in the accompanying pet.i.tion to the Const.i.tutional Convention.

In favor of this Appeal Lucy Stone, Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips, and Thomas Wentworth Higginson, were heard.

We find in _The Una_ the following report of Mr. Higginson's speech before the Committee of the Const.i.tutional Convention on the qualification of voters, June 3, 1853, the question being on the pet.i.tion of Abby May Alcott, and other women of Ma.s.sachusetts, that they be permitted to vote on the amendments that may be made to the Const.i.tution.

MR. HIGGINSON'S SPEECH.

I need hardly suggest to the Committee the disadvantage under which I appear before them, in coming to glean after three of the most eloquent voices in this community, or any other [Lucy Stone, Wendell Phillips, and Theodore Parker]; in doing this, moreover, without having heard all their arguments, and in a fragment of time at the end of a two hours' sitting. I have also the minor disadvantage of gleaning after myself, having just ventured to submit a more elaborate essay on this subject, in a different form, to the notice of the Convention.

I shall therefore abstain from all debate upon the general question, and confine myself to the specific point now before this Committee. I shall waive all inquiry as to the right of women to equality in education, in occupations, or in the ordinary use of the elective franchise. The question before this Committee is not whether women shall become legal voters--but whether they shall have power to say, once for all, whether they wish to become legal voters. Whether, in one word, they desire to accept this Const.i.tution which the Convention is framing.

It is well that the question should come up in this form, since the one efficient argument against the right of women to vote, in ordinary cases, is the plea that they do not wish to do it.

"Their whole nature revolts at it." Very well; these pet.i.tioners simply desire an opportunity for Ma.s.sachusetts women to say whether their nature does revolt at it or no.

The whole object of this Convention, as I heard stated by one of its firmest advocates, is simply this: to "make the Const.i.tution of Ma.s.sachusetts consistent with its own first principles." This is all these pet.i.tioners demand. Give them the premises which are conceded in our existing Bill of Rights, or even its Preamble, and they ask no more. I shall draw my few weapons from this source. I know that this doc.u.ment is not binding upon your Convention; nothing is binding upon you but eternal and absolute justice, and my predecessor has taken care of the claims of that.

But the Bill of Rights is still the organic law of this State, and I can quote no better authority for those principles which lie at the foundation of all that we call republicanism.

I. My first citation will be from the Preamble, and will establish as Ma.s.sachusetts doctrine the principle of the Declaration of Independence, that all government owes its just powers to the consent of the governed.

"The end of the inst.i.tution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic....

The body politic is formed by a voluntary a.s.sociation of individuals; it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.... It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a const.i.tution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution of them," etc., etc.

Now, women are "individuals"; women are a part of "the people"; women are "citizens," for the Const.i.tution elsewhere distinguishes male citizens. This clause, then, concedes precisely that which your pet.i.tioners claim. Observe how explicit it is. The people are not merely to have good laws, well administered; but they must have an equitable mode of making those laws. The reason of this is, that good laws are no permanent security, unless enacted by equitable methods. Your laws may be the best ever devised; yet still they are only given as a temporary favor, not held as a right, unless the whole people are concerned in their enactment. It is the old claim of despots--that their laws are good. When they told Alexander of Russia that his personal character was as good as a const.i.tution for his people, "then," said he, "I am but a lucky accident."

Your const.i.tution may be never so benignant to woman, but that is only a lucky accident, unless you concede the claim of these women to have a share in creating it. Nothing else "is an equitable mode of making laws." But it is too late to choose female delegates to your Convention, and the only thing you can do is to allow women to vote on the acceptance of its results.

The claim of these pet.i.tioners may be unexpected, but is logically irresistible. If you do not wish it to be renewed, you must remember either to alter or abrogate your Bill of Rights; for the pet.i.tion is based on that.

The last speaker called this movement a novelty. Not entirely so.

The novelty is partly the other way. In Europe, women have direct political power; witness Victoria. It is a false democracy which has taken it away. In my more detailed argument, I have cited many instances of these foreign privileges. In monarchical countries the dividing lines are not of s.e.x, but of rank. A plebeian woman has no political power--nor has her husband. Rank gives it to man, and, also, in a degree, to woman. But among us the only rank is of s.e.x. Politically speaking, in Ma.s.sachusetts all men are patrician, all women plebeian. All men are equal, in having direct political power; and all women are equal, in having none. And women lose by democracy precisely that which men gain.

Therefore I say this disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of woman, as woman, is a novelty. It is a now aristocracy; for, as De Tocqueville says, wherever one cla.s.s has peculiar powers, as such, there is aristocracy and oligarchy.

We see the result of this in our general mode of speaking of woman. We forget to speak of her as an individual being, only as a thing. A political writer coolly says, that in Ma.s.sachusetts, "except criminals and paupers, there is no cla.s.s of persons who do not exercise the elective franchise." Women are not even a "cla.s.s of persons." And yet, most readers would not notice this extraordinary omission. I talked the other day with a young radical preacher about his new religious organization. "Who votes under it?" said I. "Oh," (he said, triumphantly,) "we go for progress and liberty; anybody and everybody votes." "What!" said I, "women?" "No," said he, rather startled; "I did not think of them when I spoke." Thus quietly do we all talk of "anybody and everybody," and omit half the human race. Indeed, I read in the newspaper, this morning, of some great festivity, that "all the world and his wife" would be there! Women are not a part of the world, but only its "wife." They are not even "the rest of mankind"; they are womankind! All these things show the results of that inconsistency with the first principles of our Const.i.tution of which the friends of this Convention justly complain.

II. So much for the general statement of the Ma.s.sachusetts Bill of Rights in its Preamble. But one clause is even more explicit.

In Section 9, I find the following:

"All the inhabitants of this Commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their form of government, have an equal right to elect officers," etc.

As "they" shall establish. Who are _they_? Manifestly, the inhabitants as a whole. No part can have power, except by the consent of the whole, so far as that consent is practicable.

Accordingly, you submit your Const.i.tution for ratification--to whom? Not to the inhabitants of the State, not even to a majority of the native adult inhabitants; for it is estimated that at any given moment--in view of the great number of men emigrating to the West, to California, or absent on long voyages--the majority of the population of Ma.s.sachusetts is female. You disfranchise the majority, then; the greater part of "the inhabitants" have no share in establishing the form of government, or a.s.signing the qualifications of voters. What worse can you say of any oligarchy? True, your aristocracy is a large one--almost a majority, you may say. But so, in several European nations, is n.o.bility almost in a majority, and you almost hire a n.o.bleman to black your shoes; they are as cheap as generals and colonels in New England. But the principle is the same, whether the privileged minority consists of one or one million.

It is said that a tacit consent has been hitherto given by the absence of open protest? The same argument maybe used concerning the black majority in South Carolina. Besides, your new Const.i.tution is not yet made, and there has been no opportunity to a.s.sent to it. It will not be identical with the old one; but, even if it were, you propose to ask a renewed consent from men, and why not from women? Is it because a lady's "Yes" is always so fixed a certainty, that it never can be transformed to a "No," at a later period?

But I am compelled, by the fixed period of adjournment (10 A.M.), to cut short my argument, as I have been already compelled to condense it. I pray your consideration for the points I have urged. Believe me, it is easier to ridicule the pet.i.tion of these women than to answer the arguments which sustain it. And, as the great republic of ancient times did not blush to claim that laws and governments were first introduced by Ceres, a woman, so I trust that the representatives of this n.o.blest of modern commonwealths may not be ashamed to receive legislative suggestions from even female pet.i.tioners.

On Tuesday, August 12, 1853, in Committee of the Whole, the report that "it is inexpedient to act on the pet.i.tion" of several parties that women may vote, was taken up.

Mr. GREEN, of Brookfield, opposed the report, contending that women being capable of giving or withholding their a.s.sent to the acts of government, should upon every principle of justice and equality, be permitted to partic.i.p.ate in its administration. He denied that men were of right the guardians or trustees of women, since they had not been appointed, but had usurped that position.

Women had inherent natural rights as a portion of the people, and they should be permitted to vote in order to protect those inherent rights.

Mr. KEYES, of Abington, paid a warm tribute to the virtues and abilities of the fairer s.e.x, and was willing to concede that they were to some extent oppressed and denied their rights; but he did not believe the granting of the privileges these pet.i.tioners claimed would tend to elevate or ameliorate their condition.

Woman exerted great power by the exercise of her feminine graces and virtues, which she would lose the moment she should step beyond her proper sphere and mingle in the affairs of State!

Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston, believed that the same reasoning that would deny the divine right of kings to govern men without their consent, would also deny a similar right of men over women. The Committee had given the best of reasons for granting the prayer of the pet.i.tioners, and then reported that they have leave to withdraw. He expatiated on the grievances to which women are subjected, and concluded by moving as an amendment to the report, that the prayer of the pet.i.tioners ought to be granted.

The Committee then rose, and had leave to sit again. Wednesday the first business of importance was the taking up in Committee of the report "leave to withdraw," relative to giving certain privileges to women. Question on the amendment of Mr. Whitney to amend the conclusion of the report, by inserting "that the prayer of the pet.i.tioners be granted." Debate ensued on the subject between Messrs. Marvin, of Winchendon; Kingman, of West Bridgewater; when the question was taken, and Mr. Whitney's amendment rejected. Mr. Marvin then moved to subst.i.tute "inexpedient to act" for "leave to withdraw"; which was adopted.

The Committee then rose, and recommended the adoption of the report as amended, by a vote of 108 to 44.

The prejudices of the 108 outweighed all the able arguments made by those who represented the pet.i.tioners, and all the great principles of justice on which a true republic is based.

We find the following comments on the character and duties of the gentlemen who composed the Convention, from the pen of Mr. Higginson, in _The Una_ of June, 1853:

_To the members of the Ma.s.sachusetts Const.i.tutional Convention:_

The publication in our newspapers of the list of members of your honorable body, has won the just tribute of men of all parties to the happy result of the selection. Never, it is thought, has Ma.s.sachusetts witnessed a political a.s.sembly of more eminent or accomplished men. And yet there are those to whom the daring thought has occurred, that to convoke such ability and learning, only to decide whether our Legislature shall be hereafter elected by towns or districts, is somewhat like the course of Columbus in a.s.sembling the dignitaries of his nation to decide whether an egg could be best poised upon the larger or the smaller end. A question which was necessarily settled, after all, by a compromise, as this will be.

But at that moment, there lay within the brain of the young Genoese a dream, which although denounced by prelates and derided by statesmen was yet destined to add another half to the visible earth; so there is brooding in the soul of this generation, a vision of the greatest of all political discoveries, which, when accepted, will double the intellectual resources of society, and give a new world, not to Castile and Leon only, but to Ma.s.sachusetts and the human race.

And lastly, as we owe the labor and the laurels of Columbus only to the liberal statesmanship of a woman, it is surely a n.o.ble hope, that the future Isabellas of this Nation may point the way for their oppressed sisters of Europe to a suffrage truly universal, and a political freedom bounded neither by station nor by s.e.x.

Elizabeth Oakes Smith, writing in _The Una_, says of this historical occasion:

The Ma.s.sachusetts Convention did not deign to notice the prayer of these two thousand women who claimed the privilege of being heard by men who a.s.sert that we are represented through them.

They decided that "it is inexpedient to act upon said pet.i.tion."