The History of Woman Suffrage Volume III Part 84

Willard--Social Science a.s.sociation--Art Union--International Congress at Paris--Jane Graham Jones--Moline a.s.sociation.

Illinois, one of the Central States in our vast country, stretching over five and a half degrees of lat.i.tude, was admitted to the Union in 1818. Its chief city, Chicago, extending for miles round the southern sh.o.r.es of Lake Michigan, is the great commercial center of the boundless West. We may get some idea of the magnitude of her commerce from the fact that the receipts and shipment of flour, grain and cattle from that port alone in 1872 were valued at $370,000,000.

When the battles with the Indians were finally ended, the population of the State rapidly increased, and in 1880 the census gave 1,586,523 males and 1,491,348 females. In the school statistics we find about the same proportionate number of women and girls as teachers and scholars in the public schools and in all the honest walks of life; while men and boys in the criminal ranks are out of all proportion. For example, in the state-prison at Joliet there were, in 1873, 1,321 criminals; fifteen only were women. And yet the more virtuous, educated, self-governed part of the population, that shared equally the hardships of the early days, and by industry and self-sacrifice helped to build up that great State, is still denied the civil and political rights declared by the const.i.tution to belong to every citizen of the commonwealth.

The trials and triumphs of the women of Illinois are vividly portrayed in the following records sent us by Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Ph. D.:

His biographer a.s.serts that Bernini, the celebrated Florentine artist, architect, painter and poet, once gave a public opera in Rome, for which he painted the scenes, composed the music, wrote the poem, carved the statues, invented the engines, and built the theater. Because of his versatile talents the man Bernini has pa.s.sed into history. Of almost equal versatility were the women of the equal-rights movement, since in many instances their names appear and reappear in the records we have consulted as authors, editors, journalists, lecturers, teachers, physicians, lawyers, ordained ministers and home-makers; and in many localities a woman, to be eligible for the lyceum, was expected to be statesmanlike as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, executive as Susan B.

Anthony, spiritual as Lucretia Mott, eloquent as Anna d.i.c.kinson, graceful as Celia Burleigh, fascinating as Paulina Wright Davis; a social queen, very domestic, a skillful musician, an excellent cook, very young, and the mother of at least six children; even then she was not ent.i.tled to the rights, privileges and immunities of an American citizen. So "the divine rights of the people" became the watchword of thoughtful men and women of the Prairie State, and at the dawn of the second half of the present century many caught the echoes of that historic convention at Seneca Falls and insisted that the fundamental principles of our government should be applied to all the citizens of the United States.

In view of the fearless heroism and steady adherence to principle of many comparatively unknown lives, the historian is painfully conscious of the meagerness of the record, as compared with the amount of labor that must necessarily have been performed. In almost every city, village and school district some earnest man or woman has been quietly waging the great moral battle that will eventually make us free; and while it would be a labor of love to recognize every one who has wrought for freedom, doubtless many names worthy of mention may unintentionally be omitted.

The earliest account of specific work that we have been able to trace is an address delivered in Earlville by A. J. Grover, esq., in 1855, who from that time until the present has been an able champion of the const.i.tutional rights of women. As a result of his efforts, and the discussion that followed, a society was formed, of which Mrs. Susan Hoxie Richardson (a cousin of Susan B. Anthony) was elected president, and Mrs. Octavia Grover secretary. This, we believe, was the first suffrage society in Illinois. Its influence was increased by the fact that, during two years of Mr. Grover's editorial control, the Earlville _Transcript_ was a fearless champion of equal rights. While that band of pioneers was actively at work, Prudence Crandall, who was mobbed and imprisoned in Connecticut for teaching a school for colored girls, was actively engaged in Mendota, in the same county. A few years later, lectures were delivered[351] on the subject of equal rights for women in different parts of the State.

Copies of two of the early appeals have been secured. One by A.

J. Grover, published in pamphlet form, was extensively circulated; the other by Mrs. Catharine V. Waite, appeared in the Earlville _Transcript_. Both of these doc.u.ments are yellowed with age, but the arguments presented are as logical as the more recent utterances of our most radical champions. There is a tradition of a convention at Galesburg some years later, but we have failed to find any accurate data. During the interim between these dates and that never-to-be-forgotten April day in 1861, but little agitation of this great subject can be traced, and during the six years subsequent to that time we witness all previously defined boundaries of spheres brushed away like cobwebs, when women, north and south, were obliged to fill the places made vacant by our civil war. An adequate record of the work accomplished during those eventful years by Illinois women, notably among them being Mary A. Livermore and Jane C. Hoge, lies before us in a bound volume of the paper published under the auspices of the Northwestern Sanitary Fair, edited by the Hon.

Andrew Shuman. This little journal was called the _Voice of the Fair_, a prophetic name, as really through the medium of these sanitary fairs were the voices of the _fair_ all potent, and through their patriotic services to our soldiery did the women of the United States first discover their talent for managing and administering great enterprises. In his first editorial Lieutenant-Governor Shuman says:

On motion of Mrs. Elizabeth A. Loomis, it was decided to open the fair on February 22, 1865, Washington's birthday, and to continue it till March 4, the presidential inauguration day. A committee, consisting of Mrs. H. H.

Hoge, Mrs. D. P. Livermore and Mrs. E. W. Blatchford for the commission, and Mrs. O. E. Hosmer, Mrs. C. P. d.i.c.kinson and Mr. L. B. Bryan for the Home, was appointed as executive.

This was the little cloud, scarcely larger than a man's hand, which grew till it almost encircled the heavens, spreading into every corner of our broad land, and including every department of industry in its ample details.

The undertaking was herculean, and on the grand occasion of the opening of the fair, although we do not find any account of women sharing in the honors of the day, yet they were vouchsafed honorable mention in the following terms by the governor of the State: "I do not know how to praise women, but I can say nothing so good as our late president once said on a similar occasion, 'G.o.d bless the women of America.' They have been our faithful allies during this fearful war. They have toiled steadily by our side, with the most enduring constancy through the frightful contest." Amid the first impulses of genuine grat.i.tude men recognized what at present they seem to forget, that by inheritance and patriotic service woman has an equal right with man to a share in the rights and privileges of this government.

In the winter of 1860 Hannah Tracy Cutler, M. D., and Mrs.

Frances D. Gage made a canva.s.s of the interior and western parts of the State, procuring signatures to pet.i.tions asking for equality before the law, and especially for the right of married women to earn and hold and dispose of property the same as a _feme-sole_. Also, that property acquired before marriage, or that may afterward accrue to a married woman by gift, devise, descent or deed, may be held, controlled and disposed of by herself where it had not been intentionally converted to common property by her consent. In response to a request for data on this point, Mrs. Cutler writes:

At the close of our campaign we were summoned to Ohio to a.s.sist in the canva.s.s in that State. Returning to Illinois, I learned that no action had been taken on our pet.i.tions.

The member to whom we had consigned them, and who had promised to act in our behalf, had found no convenient opportunity. I at once repaired to Springfield, and, on inquiry, was told that it was now too late in the session--that members were so busy that no one could be induced to draft a bill for an act granting such laws as we desired. I found one member ready to a.s.sist to the full measure of his ability--Mr. Pickett of Rock Island. By his encouragement I went to the State library and there drew up a bill giving women, during coverture, certain personal and property rights. Mr. Pickett presented our pet.i.tions, got a special committee, took my bill before it, got a favorable report, and a law was pa.s.sed to that effect. Some decisions occurred under this law. I think, however, that in a codification a year or two after, this law was left out, I know not by what authority, and some years later Mrs.

Livermore, Mrs. Bradwell and others presented the matter afresh, and succeeded in procuring again a similar enactment. The winter following I presented pet.i.tions for the right of guardianship; also, I asked that for estates not exceeding $5,000 the widow should not be required to take out letters of administration, but should be permitted to continue in possession, the same as the husband on the decease of the wife, the property subject to the same liabilities for the payment of debts and the maintenance of children as before the decease of the husband. I made this small claim for the relief of many wives whose husbands had gone into the army, leaving them with all the responsibility; and there seemed no sufficient reason for disturbing and distributing either the family or the estate, when the husband exchanged the battle-field for the "sleep that knows no waking." This pet.i.tion, asking for these reasonable and righteous laws, was, by motion of Colonel Mack, in a spirit of burlesque, referred to the Committee on Internal Navigation, and a burlesque report was made in open Senate, too indecent to be entered on the records. The grave and reverend seigniors, on this, indulged in a hearty guffaw, hugely enjoyed by his honor Lieutenant-Governor Hoffman, and, to this day, no further action has been taken to give the wife and mother this small modic.u.m of justice, though many of the senators at that time promised the question an early consideration.

On Sat.u.r.day, October 3, 1868, a genuine sensation was produced by the appearance of the Chicago _Legal News_, edited by Mrs. Myra Bradwell. At this day it is impossible to realize with what supreme astonishment this journal was received. Neither can we estimate its influence upon the subsequent legislation of the State. Looking through its files we find that no opportunity was lost for exposing all laws unjust to woman, or for noting each indication of progress throughout the world. Under date of October 31, 1868, a short article in regard to the "Citizenship of Women" reads thus:

The act of congress provides that any alien, being a free white person, may become a citizen of the United States.

While congress was very careful to limit this great privilege of citizenship to the free white person, it made no distinction or limitation whatever on account of s.e.x.

Under this statute it has been held that a married woman may be naturalized and become a citizen of the United States, and that, too, without the consent of her husband. A woman may be a citizen of the United States, be subject to the laws, own property, and be compelled to pay taxes to support a government she has no voice in administering or vote in electing its officers.

In the same issue of the _News_ we meet with an earnest appeal for the prompt pa.s.sage of a law conferring upon woman a right to her earnings. When we realize that one of the Supreme Judges soon after this a.s.sured Mrs. Bradwell that she was editing a paper that no lawyer could afford to do without, we shall understand how important a part this journal has played in the courts. In the sixth number of the _News_ we find the attention of the legal fraternity called to the fact that in the reign of James I. it was held in the cases of _Coats vs. Lyall_ and _Holt vs. Lyall_, tried in Westminster Hall, that a single woman, if a freeholder, had the right to vote for a parliament man; and in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Lady Packington, in right of property held by her, did actually vote for a return of two burgesses to parliament for the borough of Aylesburg; and in the time of Charles I., Mrs. Copley voted, in right of her property, for the return of a burgess for Gratton. The subject of their return was brought before parliament, and amended by joining other persons with Mrs. Copley in the right of returning burgesses for Gratton.

Women have actually sat and voted in the English parliament.

In 1868, Sorosis, a woman's club, was organized in Chicago, with Mrs. Delia Waterman president, and soon after several periodicals were established; _The Chicago Sorosis_, with Mrs. Mary L.

Walker, Cynthia Leonard and Agnes L. Knowlton, editors; _The Inland Monthly_, Mrs. Charlotte Clark, editor and publisher; and _The Agitator_, with Mary A. Livermore and Mary L. Walker editors. Though all were short-lived, they serve to show woman's ambition in the direction of journalism.

In 1868 there was a decided "awakening" on the question of woman suffrage in central Illinois. In the town of Elmwood, Peoria county, the question drew large audiences to lyceum discussions, and was argued in school, church and caucus. The conservatives became alarmed, and announced their determination to "nip the innovation in the bud." A spirited editorial in the New York _Independent_ was based upon the following facts, given by request of some of the disfranchised women:

Rev. W. G. Pierce was the pastor of the Elmwood Congregational Church. A large majority of the members were women, and there was no discrimination against them in the church manual. The pastor and two or three members decided that a change of rules was needed. A church meeting was held in March, 1868, at which the number in attendance was very small, owing to some irregularities in issuing the call. The suffrage question was brought up by the pastor, and the talk soon became so insulting that the women present felt compelled to leave the house. The manual was then amended so as to exclude women from voting "in matters pertaining to the welfare of the church," and making a two-thirds vote of adult males necessary to any change thereafter. This was carried by five yeas to one nay--only six votes out of a membership of 210! The church was taken by surprise, and there was no little excitement when the fact became known next day. A vigorous protest and a call for reconsideration was quickly signed by nearly a hundred members and sent to the pastor. The meeting was not called for weeks, and when at last it was secured, he, as moderator, ruled reconsideration out, on the ground that there was an error in the announcement of the business (by himself!) from the pulpit. At a later meeting a vote on reconsideration was reached, and enough of the male adult minority were in attendance to make the vote stand 19 to 17, not two-thirds of the male adult element voting for reconsideration.

The contention now became bitter, and twenty-eight of the more intelligent and earnest members withdrew and asked for letters to other churches. Such of the "adult males" as "tarried by the altar," refused to give the outgoing members the usual letters, to join in a mutual council on an equal footing, or to discipline the seceders. The latter called an ex-parte council, composed of such men as Dr. Bascom, of Princeton; Dr. Edward Beecher, of Galesburg; Dr. Haven, of Evanston; Dr. C. D. Helmer, of Chicago, and others. This council gave the desired letters, but advised reconciliation. Among the seceders, Mrs. Huldah Joy, an educated and intensely religious woman, was one of the most active and earnest, her husband, F. R. Joy, and her daughters, also doing good service. Mrs. H. E.

Sunderland,[352] another woman of culture, and Mrs. Mary Ann Cone and Mrs. S. R. Murray were faithful, brave and earnest.

The church, which previous to the secession, was strong and flourishing, became an inharmonious organization, and has never rallied from the effects of that unjust action.

At a meeting held in Chicago, in the autumn of 1868, a resolution was offered to the effect that "a State a.s.sociation be formed, having for its object the advocacy of universal suffrage." Among the many interesting facts connected with the "rise and progress"

of the equal-rights movement is the large number of representative men and women who have from the first been identified with it.[353] January 25, 1860 we find among the most progressive utterances from the pulpit, a sermon by the Rev.

Sumner Ellis of Chicago, while Rev. Charles Fowler and Dr. H. W.

Thomas were ever fearless and earnest in their advocacy of this measure. In February, 1869, the _Legal News_ said:

A call has been issued, inviting all persons in favor of woman suffrage to meet in convention in Library Hall, Chicago. There are many hundred names appended, including the judges of all the courts of Cook county, leading members of the bar throughout the State, representatives of the press, ministers of the gospel, from all denominations, and representatives from every profession and business.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and the Rev.

Olympia Brown have been invited and are expected to attend.

Pursuant to the foregoing "call," a notable convention was held.[354] The _Tribune_ devoted nine columns to an account of the proceedings, respectful in tone and fair in statement. During its two days' session, Library Hall was packed to its utmost capacity with the beauty and fashion of the city. Able lawyers, eloquent and distinguished divines and gallant generals occupied seats upon the platform and took part in the deliberations. The special importance of this convention at this time, was the consideration of the immediate duty of securing a recognition of the rights of women in the new const.i.tution, for the framing of which a convention had been called.

All the speakers had strong convictions and showed broad differences, continually making sharp points against each other.

Several clergymen were present, some in favor of woman suffrage, some opposed, some in doubt. Among these were the two Collyers--one, the Rev. Robert, the English blacksmith of former days, liberal, progressive, of large physical proportions; the other, the Rev. Robert Laird, a much smaller man, and of conservative tendencies.

The Rev. Robert Collyer dissented so entirely from what the preceding speaker, Dr. Hammond, had said, that he was determined to run the risk of attempting to reply. He thought that a majority of men who began by being reformers, ended by being old fogies, and he thought that might be the case with Mr. Hammond. He felt no doubt that the whole movement of women's rights was to be established in America.

He had seen the effects of woman's presence in a.s.sociations upon men, and he was sure that this same agency would have the effect of bringing politics to such a condition as that decent people of either s.e.x might take part in it. As to the Bible declaring that man shall rule over woman, he found a similar case where it used to be quoted in support of the inst.i.tution of slavery, but when the grander and more beautiful principles of the Bible came to be applied the contrary was clearly established. So it was with the question of woman's rights. To him the Bible seemed like an immense pasture wherein any and every species of animal might find its own peculiar food. In regard to what Mr.

Hammond said as to the rights of infants, he wished he had conferred with his wife and got her approval before he said it. The speaker was sure his own wife would not have advised him to say it. He believed that when maternal and home duties conflicted, the children and the home relations would take the preference invariably, and the remarks of Mr.

Hammond seemed to imply a terrible want of confidence in woman. He believed that woman would always do her duty to her children and her home. Then, too, he had been surprised, that Mr. Hammond, in speaking of preventing children from coming into the world, had failed to speak of the complicity of man, in reality the greatest criminal, in that matter. As to the excitement attendant upon political issues, was it worse, viewed as mere excitement, than that which is so earnestly sought to be aroused at religious meetings? Elizabeth, Anne, and Victoria were, with the exception, perhaps, of Cromwell, the best rulers England ever had, and, when the administration of Andrew Johnson was remembered, he thought we might do worse than to have a woman for president, after Grant's term shall have expired.

[Applause.] In conclusion, Mr. Collyer said that, even if the fearful picture drawn by Mr. Hammond, of 70,000 immoral women marching to the polls in New York, were realized, he could draw another picture--that of 75,000 good and pure women marching to the polls to vote the others down.

[Applause.]

Rev. Edward Beecher, of Galesburg, said: Exclusive cla.s.s legislation was not safe; it was oppressive and degrading.

Female influence has procured the repeal of some obnoxious laws, and that proved it was a powerful element. He thought the Bible, as regards man being the head, had been misinterpreted. When man took the att.i.tude in relation to women which Christ sustains to the church, that of love, of service, of helpfulness and sacrifice, he would be an example of true headship. He read an extract from an editorial in the _Tribune_, of February 11, in regard to the giving way of moral integrity in the affairs of the nation, and commended the question to the consideration of all. The country was never in greater danger than now of having the whole political system destroyed. Some great moral influence ought to be brought to eradicate the corruption so prevalent among public men. There were two great vices in existence--drunkenness and licentiousness--and in both, woman was the victim of man in the majority of cases. The legislation which pressed down women was wrong, and should be remedied. He admitted it was an experiment to introduce the female element into legislation, but the success of the male element had thus far been such that, according to his judgment, things could not be much worse than they are.

Women were always deeply interested in all public questions.

If responsibilities were put upon them they would become greater intellectually, morally and socially.

Several able lawyers also took part in the convention, who brought their legal learning to bear on the question. Mrs.

Stanton and Miss Anthony, hostile to the action of the Republican party as manifested in the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, were present with their stern criticisms and scathing resolutions on "manhood suffrage," submitting the following to the convention:

_Resolved_, That a man's government is worse than a white man's government, because in proportion as you increase the rulers you make the condition of the ostracised more hopeless and degraded.

_Resolved_, That as the Democratic cry of "a white man's government" created an antagonism between the Irish and the negro, culminating in the New York riots of '63, so the Republican cry of "manhood suffrage" creates an antagonism between the black man and all women, and will culminate in fearful outrages on womanhood, especially in the Southern States.

_Resolved_, That by the establishment of an aristocracy of s.e.x in the District of Columbia, by the introduction of the word "male" into the federal const.i.tution in article XIV., section 2, and by the proposition to enforce manhood suffrage in all the States of the Union, the Republican party has been guilty of three successive arbitrary acts, three retrogressive steps in legislation, alike invidious and insulting to women and suicidal to the nation.

After a long and earnest discussion, the resolutions were voted down. Mrs. Stanton's speech setting forth six reasons against a "male aristocracy"[355] was p.r.o.nounced able and eloquent, though directly in opposition to the general sentiment of the convention, which was mainly Republican. Miss Anna d.i.c.kinson, having a lyceum engagement in Chicago, was present at one of the sessions, and had quite a spirited encounter with Robert Laird Collier. As she appeared on the platform at the close of some remarks by that gentleman, loud calls were made for her, when she came forward and spoke as follows:

MRS. PRESIDENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It is impossible for me to continue in my seat after so kind and cordial a call from this house, and I thank you for the pleasant and friendly feeling you have shown. I have but a word to say. I had gone out of the room, not because of the discussion, but because it was too warm and the atmosphere so stifling, when I was recalled by hearing something to this effect: "That there had not been a single logical argument used on this platform in behalf of woman suffrage; that woman is abundantly represented by some man of her family; that when a woman lifts herself up in opposition against her husband, she lifts herself up, if I properly and rightly understood the declaration, against G.o.d; that the inspired a.s.sertion is that the husband is the head of the wife." Oh! but Mr.

Collier forgot to say the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. In my observation, and it has not been a limited one, though I confess I am not an unprejudiced observer, I have never yet discovered a man who is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.

Furthermore, he announces that these women, being represented by men, if they lift themselves up in opposition to their husbands, lose that womanly and feminine element which is so admirable and pure and beautiful, and nothing can preserve them from the contamination of politics. Woman is to lift herself against G.o.d if she lifts herself against her husband, and woman is abundantly represented by this same husband, or by some man in her own family. There are a mult.i.tude of women who have no husbands [laughter]. There are a mult.i.tude of women who never will have any husbands [renewed laughter]. There are a great many women who have no men in their own households to represent them, either for their wrongs or their rights. Mr. Collier, I suppose, however, is talking about women who have husbands.

He says the woman loses her purity, her delicacy, her feminine attributes when she lifts her voice and sentiments against the man whose name she bears. We will say, then, look across these western prairies to Utah. If the women there dare to say to the congress of the United States, "Amend this const.i.tution that we women of Utah can have one husband, and that the husband can take but one wife"; if these women demand decency in the marriage relation, demand justice for themselves, demand purity, they are lifting themselves against the laws of womanhood and the laws of G.o.d. Every woman represented by her husband is to lose her purity, her delicacy, her refinement, if she dares to lift her hand against him and his will. You have here, within the limits of your State of Illinois, 100,000 drunkards. Every woman who dares to lift her hand, cry out with her voice, "Give me the ballot that may offset the votes of these drunkards at the polls and save my children from starvation and myself from being put into the workhouse"--this woman is lifting herself against the laws of G.o.d and womanhood. That is not all! Last summer this question of prohibition was being tested in Ma.s.sachusetts by votes. I went from town to town--my engagements taking me all over the State at that time--and said my say upon this question of woman suffrage.

In whatever city or town I went, women, bowed down with grief, who desired to preserve their womanhood, their persons from blows and abuse, their sons from going to gambling h.e.l.ls and rum shops, their girls from being sent to houses of abomination, came to me and said: "Anna d.i.c.kinson, if you are a woman, speak and use your influence for our cause." Women who have drunken husbands, whether they lived in Beacon street or at the North End, whether they lived in luxury or poverty, said: "For the sake of womanhood, for the sake of motherhood, for the sake of all things good and true in the world, lift up our hands and voices, through yourself, to protest against these men whose names we bear."

Ah! that Mr. Collier could have seen these drunkards' wives, standing with tears streaming down their cheeks, and begging for power, begging for the ballot to save their homes, and themselves, and their children. Do you tell this audience--do you tell any mother or daughter here this afternoon, that she protests against the purity of womanhood, and lifts her powers against the laws of G.o.d?

Pardon me for taking this much of your time. I will simply add a thought. This is the cause of purity. This is the cause which is to strengthen young girls, which is to give them self-reliance and self-respect. This is the thing that is to put these girls on their feet; say to them "you are an independent being; you are to earn the clothes that cover you," and this will allow them to walk with steady feet through rough places. This thing which is to give these women such power, certainly will be strengthening to them by making them independent and self-reliant. The ballot is to save womanhood and save purity, which he says is in danger--the feminine element of dependence and weakness and tenderness, of clinging helplessness, which he so much adores. Let justice be done. Give us the ballot. Here is the power to defend yourself when your rights are a.s.sailed; when your home is entered. Here is the authority to tell the spoiler to stand back; when our sons are being brought up to wickedness and our daughters to lives of shame, here is the power in the mother's hand which says these children shall be taken from the wrong place and put in the right one. For the rights of mothers I plead. Let us allow, from one end of this country to the other, every man and woman, black and white, to go to the polls to defend their own rights and the rights of their homes.

The Rev. R. L. COLLIER said he would to G.o.d that every woman in America had such a heart and such a voice for woman's rights. But sympathy was one thing and logic was another. If he thought the ballot in the hand of woman would cure the wrongs she speaks of, he would favor female suffrage, but he was firmly convinced that it would only aggravate their wrongs. He could not fight Anna d.i.c.kinson.