Volume II Part 17 (1/2)
Mr. BROOKS: I suggested that I would move it at a convenient time.
Mr. STEVENS: Is the gentleman in favor of his own amendment?
Mr. BROOKS: I am in favor of my own color in preference to any other color, and I prefer the white women of my country to the negro.
[Applause on the floor and in the galleries promptly checked by the Speaker]. The Speaker said he saw a number of persons clapping in the galleries. He would endeavor, to the best of his ability, whether supported by the House or not, to preserve order. Applause was just as much out of order as manifestations of disapproval, and hisses not more than clapping of hands. Instead of general applause on the floor, gentlemen on the floor should set a good example.
[53] WOMEN POLITICIANS.--Mr. Lane, of Kansas, it is reported, has presented to the Senate the pet.i.tion of ”one hundred and twenty-four beautiful, intelligent, and accomplished ladies of Lawrence,” praying for a const.i.tutional amendment that shall prohibit States from disfranchising citizens on account of s.e.x. That trick will not do. We wager a big apple that the ladies referred to are not ”beautiful” or accomplished. Nine of every ten of them are undoubtedly _pa.s.se_. They have hook-billed noses, crow's-feet under their sunken eyes, and a mellow tinting of the hair. They are connoisseurs in the matter of snuff. They discard hoops, waterfalls, and bandeaux. They hold hen conventions, to discuss and decide, with vociferous expression, the orthodoxy of the minister, the regularity of the doctor, and the morals of the lawyer. They read the _Tribune_ with spectacles, and have files of _The Liberator_ and Wendell Phillips' orations, bound in sheepskin. Heaven forbid that we should think of any of the number as a married woman, without a fervent aspiration of pity for the weaker vessel who officiates as her spouse. As to rearing children, that is not to be thought of in the connection. Show us a woman who wants to mingle in the exciting and unpurified squabble of politics, and we will show you one who has failed to reach and enjoy that true relation of sovereignty which is held by her ”meek and lowly” sisters; who, though dest.i.tute of such panting aspirations, hold the scepter of true authority in those high and holy virtues which fascinate while they command in their undisputed empire--the social circle. What iconoclast shall break our idol, by putting the ballot in woman's hand?--_Albany Evening Journal._
A CRY FROM THE FEMALES.--Mr. Sumner yesterday presented a pet.i.tion to the Senate from a large number of the women of New England, praying that they may not be debarred from the right of suffrage on account of s.e.x. Our heart warms with pity toward these unfortunate creatures. We fancy that we can see them, deserted of men, and bereft of those rich enjoyments and exalted privileges which belong to women, languis.h.i.+ng their unhappy lives away in a mournful singleness, from which they can escape by no art in the construction of waterfalls or the employment of cotton-padding. Talk of a true woman needing the ballot as an accessory of power, when she rules the world by a glance of her eye.
There was sound philosophy in the remark of an Eastern monarch, that his wife was sovereign of the Empire, because she ruled his little ones, and his little ones ruled him. The sure panacea for such ills as the Ma.s.sachusetts pet.i.tioners complain of, is a wicker-work cradle and a dimple-cheeked baby.--_The New York Tribune._
[54] WOMAN SUFFRAGE.--_Editor Commonwealth_:--Enclosed is a letter I sent to the editor of _The Nation_. As I consider his allusion to it insufficient, will you have the kindness to print it, no paper but yours, that I know of, being now open to the subject. All that the editor of _The Nation_ has a right to say is, that he has not investigated the statistics. Most of the women who have signed the pet.i.tions are women who have not a male relative in the world interested in the matter. Very truly yours,
BOSTON, _Jan. 20, 1866_. CAROLINE H. DALL.
70 WARREN AVENUE, BOSTON, _Jan. 6, 1866_.
_To the Editor of The Nation_:--I saw with surprise in _The Nation_, received to-day, a paragraph on ”Universal Suffrage,” which contained the following lines:
”We think the women of the United States ought to have the franchise if they desire it, and we think they ought to desire it. But until they do desire it, and show that they do, by a _general_ expression of opinion, we are opposed to their being saddled with it on grounds of theoretical fitness, etc.”
Surely, it is difficult to explain such a sentence in a professedly far-seeing and deep-thinking journal! That argument will serve as well for the lately enfranchised blacks as for women, for no one will pretend that of the millions set free, a bare majority would of themselves contend for the franchise. That argument might have refused them freedom itself, for a large majority of Southern slaves knew too little of it to desire it, however they may have longed to be rid of a taskmaster and the pangs which slavery brought. During the last four years women have been silent about their ”rights” in the several States, because pressed by severe duties. Desirous to establish a reputation for discretion, we have refrained from complicating the perplexities of any Senator; but now that a const.i.tutional amendment is pending we must be careful, even if we gain no franchise, to lose no _opportunity_.
Hitherto the Const.i.tution of the United States has contained no word that would shut women out from future suffrage. Mr. Schenck, of Ohio, and Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode Island, propose to limit a right to ”male citizens” which should rest, as it now does, simply on ”legal voters.”
This would oblige women to move to amend the Const.i.tution of the United States after each separate State was carried. We have no inclination for this unnecessary work, and here, in Boston, we are preparing a pet.i.tion basing the necessity of our present interference on this fact alone. How much women desire the suffrage, Mr. Editor, you ought to perceive from the conduct of the women of Australia.
Carelessly enough, her male legislators omitted the significant adjective from their const.i.tutional amendment, and, without a word of warning, on election day, every woman, properly qualified, was found at the polls. There was no just reason for refusing them the privilege, and _The London Times_ says the precedent is to stand.
A very absurd article in _The Evening Post_ has lately given us an idea that New York contains some remarkable women. Women born to be looked at!--women who do their whole duty if they blossom like the roses, and like the roses die. Let us hope they fulfill the functions of this type by as short a sojourn on this earth as may be, lingering, as Malherbe would have it, only for ”the s.p.a.ce of a morning.” It may be among them that you find the women who ”look persistently to married life as a means of livelihood.” Here, in Ma.s.sachusetts, we do not acknowledge any such. Fas.h.i.+on has her danglers among men and women, but we pity those whose lot has thrown them into intimate relations with such women as you describe. They are not of our sort.
We think that if the writer in _The Evening Post_ were tested, he would be forced to admire most the hands which could do the best work.
It would be small comfort to him, when Bridget and John had simultaneously departed, when the baby was crying and the fire out, that his wife sat lonely, in one corner of the apartment, with serene eyes and unstained hands. Men who talk such nonsense in America, must remember that neither wealth nor gentle blood can _here_ protect them from such a dilemma. As to suffrage, we are not now talking of granting it to a distinct race; if we were, they might manifest a ”general” desire for it. Women, who love their husbands and brothers, can not _all_ submit to bear the reproach which clings to their demand for justice. A few of us must suffer sharply for the sake of that great future which G.o.d shows us to be possible, when goodness shall join hands with power. But we do not like our pain. We would gladly be sheltered, and comforted, and cheered, and we warn you, by what pa.s.ses in our own hearts, that women will never express a ”general” desire for suffrage until men have ceased to ridicule and despise them for it; until the representatives of men have been taught to treat their pet.i.tions with respect. There would be no difficulty in obtaining this right of suffrage If it depended on a property qualification. It is consistent democracy which bars our way.
CAROLINE HEALEY DALL.
[55] _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress a.s.sembled_: That, from and after the pa.s.sage of this act, each and every male person, excepting paupers and persons under guardians.h.i.+p, of the age of twenty-one years and upward, who has not been convicted of any infamous crime or offence, and who is a citizen of the United States, and who shall have resided in the said District for the period of six months previous to any election therein, shall be ent.i.tled to the elective franchise, and shall be deemed an elector and ent.i.tled to vote at any election in said District, without any distinction on account of color or race.
[56] _The New York Tribune_, Dec. 12, 1866, contains the following editorial comments: The Senate devoted yesterday to a discussion of the right of women to vote--a side question, which Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, interjected into the debate on suffrage for the District of Columbia. Mr. Cowan chooses to represent himself as an ardent champion of the claim of woman to the elective franchise. It is not necessary to question his sincerity, but the occasion which he selects for the exhibition of his new-born zeal, subjects him to the suspicion of being considerably more anxious to embarra.s.s the bill for enfranchising the blacks, than to amend it by conferring upon women the enjoyment of the same right. Mr. Cowan was once a Republican. He abandoned his party, has been repudiated by his State, and may well be casting about for some new issue by which to divert attention from his faithlessness on the old. We have heard that Mr. Cowan affects the cla.s.sics; we are sure, therefore, that he will thank us for reminding him of that familiar story out of Plutarch respecting Alcibiades. When the dissolute Athenian had cut off the tail of his dog, which was the dog's princ.i.p.al ornament, and all Athens cried out against him for the act, Alcibiades laughed, and said: ”Just what I wanted has happened. I wished the Athenians to talk about this that they might not say something worse of me.”
We are not to be suspected of indifference to the question whether woman shall vote. At a proper time we mean to urge her claim, but we object to allowing a measure of urgent necessity, and on which the public has made up its mind, to be r.e.t.a.r.ded and imperilled. Nor do we think the Radical majority in the Senate need be beholden to the enemy's camp for suggestions as to their policy. We want to see the ballot put in the hands of the black without one day's delay added to the long postponement of his just claim. When that is done, we shall be ready to take up the next question.
[57] Mrs. Frances Dana Gage, of Ohio.
[58] YEAS--Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Buckalew, Cowan, Foster, Nesmith, Patterson, Riddle, Wade--9. NAYS--Messrs. Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Creswell, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fogg, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Norton, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Yates--37.
[59] YEAS--Ancona, Baker, Barker, Baxter, Benjamin, Boyer, Broomall, Bundy, Campbell, Cooper, Defrees, Denison, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferry, Finck, Garfield, Hale, Hawkins, Hise, Chester D. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Humphrey, Julian, Ka.s.son, Kelley, Kelso, Le Blond, Coan, McClurg, McKee, Miller, Newell, Niblock, Noell, Orth, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Sitgreaves, Starr, Stevens, Strouse, Taber, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Trimble, Andrew H. Ward, Henry D. Washburn, Winfield--49.
CHAPTER XVIII.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS IN 1866-67.