To the early influence of Nathaniel P. Rogers and his revolutionary journal, _The Herald of Freedom_, we may trace the general awakening of the true men and women of that State to new ideas of individual liberty. But while some gladly accepted his words as harbingers of a new and better civilization, others resisted all innovations of their time-honored customs and opinions. And when the clarion voices of Foster and Pillsbury arraigned that State for its compromises with slavery, howling mobs answered their arguments with brickbats and curses; mobs that nothing could quell but the sweet voices of the Hutchinson family. Their peans of liberty, so readily accepted when set to music, were obstinately resisted when uttered by others, though in most eloquent speech. Thus with music, meetings and mobs, New Hampshire was at least awake and watching, and when the distant echoes of woman"s uprising reverberated through her mountains she gave a ready response.
In 1868, simultaneously with other New England States, she felt the time had come to organize for action on the question of suffrage for women. A call for a convention was issued to be held in Concord, December 22, 23, and signed by one hundred and twenty men and women,[188] some of the most honored and influential cla.s.ses of all callings and professions. Nathaniel P. White, always ready to aid genuine reformatory movements, was the first to sign the call.
As a member of the legislature he had helped to coin into law many of the liberal ideas sown broadcast in the early days[189] by the anti-slavery apostles. Galen Foster, a brother of Stephen, used his influence also as a member of the legislature, to vindicate the rights of women to civil and political equality. This first convention was held in Eagle Hall, Concord, with large and enthusiastic audiences. A long and interesting letter was read from William Lloyd Garrison:
BOSTON, December 21, 1868.
DEAR MRS. WHITE: I must lose the gratification of being present at the Woman Suffrage Convention at Concord and subst.i.tute an epistolary testimony for a speech from the platform.
The two conventions recently held in furtherance of the movement for universal and impartial suffrage--one in Boston, the other in Providence--were eminently successful in respect to numbers, intellectual ability, moral strength and unity of action; and their proceedings such as to challenge attention and elicit wide-spread commendation. I have no doubt that the convention in Concord will exhibit the same features, be animated by the same hopeful spirit and produce as cheering results.
The only criticism seemingly of a disparaging tone, I have seen, of the speeches made at the conventions alluded to, is, that there was nothing new advanced on the occasion; as though novelty were the main thing, and the reiteration of time-honored truths, with their latest application to the duties of the hour, were simply tedious! For one, I ask no more light upon the subject; nor am I so vain as to a.s.sume to be capable of throwing any additional light upon it. One drop of water is very like another, but it is the perpetual dropping that wears away the stone. The importunate widow had nothing fresh or new to present to the unjust judge, but by her persistent coming she wearied him into compliance with her pet.i.tion. The end of the constant a.s.sertion of a right withheld is rest.i.tution and victory. The whole anti-slavery controversy was expressed and included in the Golden Rule, morally, and in the Declaration of Independence, politically; nor could anything new be added to these by the wisest, the most ingenious, or the most eloquent. "Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little"; that is the essential method of reform. If there is nothing new to be said in favor of suffrage for women, is there anything new to be urged against it? But though the objections are exceedingly trite and shallow, it is still necessary to examine and refute them by arguments and ill.u.s.trations none the less forcible because exhausted at an earlier period.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Armenia S. White]
The first objection is positively one of the most urgent reasons for granting suffrage to women; for it is predicated on the concession of the superiority of woman over man in purity of purpose and excellence of character. Hence the cry is, that it will not only be descending, but degrading for her to appear at the polls. But, if government is absolutely necessary, and voting not wrong in practice, it is surely desirable that the admittedly purest and best in the nation should find no obstacle to their reaching the ballot-box. Nay, the way should be opened at once, by every consideration pertaining to the public welfare, the justice of legislation, the preservation of popular liberty. It is impossible for a portion of the people, to be wiser and more trustworthy than the whole people, or better qualified to decide what shall be the laws for the government of all. The more minds consulted, the more souls included, the more interests at stake, in determining the form and administration of government, the more of justice and humanity, of security and repose, will be the result. The exclusion of half the population from the polls, is not merely a gross injustice, but an immense loss of brain and conscience, in making up the public judgment. As a nation we have discarded absolutism, monarchy, and hereditary aristocracy; but we have not fully attained even to manhood suffrage. Men are proscribed on account of their complexion, women because of their s.e.x. The entire body politic suffers from this proscription.
The second objection refutes the first; it is based on the alleged natural inferiority of woman to man, and the transition is thus quickly made for her, from a semi-angelic state, to that of a menial, having no rights that men are bound to respect beyond what they choose to allow. In the scale of political power, therefore, one male voter, however ignorant or depraved, outweighs all the women in America! For, no matter how intelligent, cultured, refined, wealthy, intellectually vigorous, or morally great, any of their number may be,--no matter what rank in literature, art, science, or medical knowledge and skill they may reach,--they are political non-ent.i.ties, unrepresented, discarded, and left to such protection under the laws, as brute force and absolute usurpation may graciously condescend to give.
Yet they are as freely taxed and held amendable to penal law as strictly as though they had their full share of representation in the legislative hall, on the bench, in the jury-box, and at the polls. This cry of inferiority is not peculiar in the case of woman. It was the subterfuge and defiance of negro slavery. It has been raised in all ages by tyrants and usurpers against the toiling, over-burdened millions, seeking redress for their wrongs, and protection for their rights. It always indicates intense self-conceit, and supreme selfishness. It is at war with reason and common-sense, and is a bold denial of the oneness of the human race.
The third objection is, that women do not wish to vote. If this were true, it would not follow that they should not be enfranchised, and left free to determine the matter for themselves. It was confidently declared that the slaves at the south neither wished to be free, nor would they take their liberty if offered them by their masters. Had that a.s.sertion been true, it would have furnished no justification whatever, for making man the property of his fellow-man, or for leaving the slaves in their fetters. But it was not true. Nor is it true that women do not wish to vote. Tens of thousands are ready to go to the polls and a.s.sume their share of political responsibility, as soon as they shall be legally permitted to do so; and they are not the ignorant and degraded of their s.e.x, but women remarkable for their intelligence and moral worth. The great ma.s.s will, ere long, be sufficiently enlightened to claim what belongs to them of right. I hope to be permitted to live to see the day when neither complexion nor s.e.x shall be made a badge of degradation, but men and women shall enjoy the same rights and privileges, and possess the same means for their protection and defense.
Very faithfully yours, WM. LLOYD GARRISON.
Mrs. A. S. WHITE.
At the close of this convention a State a.s.sociation was formed with Mrs. Armenia S. White president.[190] This society has been unremitting in its efforts to rouse popular thought, holding annual conventions, scattering tracts, rolling up pet.i.tions, and addressing legislatures. Many of the best speakers, from time to time, from other States[191] have rendered valuable aid in keeping up the agitation.
The opposition of a clergyman produced a sensation in Concord.
On last fast-day, 1871, Rev. S.L. Blake of the Congregational church in Concord, preached a sermon in which he came out against the woman"s rights convention held there last January, bringing the stale charge of "free-love" against its advocates--a charge that always leaps to the lips of men of prurient imagination--with much similar clap-trap of the Fulton type. Rev.
Mr. Sanborn of the Universalist church replied to him the next Sunday evening, an immense audience being in attendance, and completely disproved the baseless allegations of the reverend maligner, to the satisfaction of all. Rev. Mr. Blake has published his discourse in pamphlet form, repeating his disproved charges, whereupon Rev. J.F. Lovering of the Unitarian church came out with a reply, in which he characterized Mr. Blake"s charges as "unmitigated falsehoods" and "an insult to every member of the convention," and demanded of the author to "unsay his words."
Brainard Cogswell, in his journal, the _Concord Monitor_, of July 2, 1870, published the following letter:
Pet.i.tions for woman"s enfranchis.e.m.e.nt have been pouring into the New Hampshire legislature, until at last they have been referred to a special committee. On Thursday week this committee gave the pet.i.tioners a hearing; and on their invitation, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, Mrs. Elizabeth K. Churchill and ourself went to Concord to give "the reasons why" women should have the ballot. The members of the legislature came out in force to hear, and our good, tried friends, Nathaniel and Armenia White, learning their intention in advance, opened the s.p.a.cious Eagle Hall for their convenience, and that of the towns-people who wished to see and to hear. Warm as the evening was, the thermometer up in the nineties, the hall was packed, and great numbers went away that could not gain admittance. Rev. Mr. Blake, a Congregationalist minister of Concord, has done the cause good service by vilifying and abusing it, until he roused quite an interest. It was partly owing to his efforts that we had so grand an audience.
General Wilson, who twenty years ago was famed throughout New Hampshire for his eloquence and oratory, was chairman of the committee, and presided at the meeting, and very handsomely introduced the speakers. Mrs. Howe spoke with more pointed and pungent power than usual, dwelling on the deterioration of American womanhood, showing the cause, and suggesting the remedy.
We have never been so impressed by her as on this occasion. Mrs.
Churchill read a letter from Rev. Mr. Savage, a Congregationalist clergyman of the State, who advocates woman suffrage, and who, in a late ministerial gathering, took up the gauntlet thrown down by Mr. Blake, and defended the woman"s cause and its advocates from the slanders of his brother minister.
The president of the New Hampshire a.s.sociation, in writing from Concord to the _Woman"s Journal_, January 30, 1871, says:
Our second annual meeting was a grand success, if we count by money and numbers. The intense cold on Wednesday and Thursday made our audiences thinner than heretofore, but they were large in spite of the elements, Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Emma Coe Still, who had never presented the subject here before, were well received. Rev. Dr. Savage of Franklin made an excellent address, and encouraged us by timely suggestions. Stephen S. Foster aroused us, as he always does, with his bold declarations. The resolutions adopted look toward future work, and embody the principles which move us to act.
Lucy Stone, in the _Woman"s Journal_ of June 14, 1871, says:
The Select Committee, Harry Bingham, chairman, to whom was referred a bill for the further protection of the rights of married men, reported the bill in a new draft as follows:
Marriages shall not hereafter render the husband liable for the debts contracted by his wife prior to their marriage: _Second section_--No marriage shall hereafter discharge the wife from liability to pay the debts contracted by her before such marriage, but she, and all property which she may hold in her own right, shall be held liable for the payment of all debts, whether contracted before or after marriage; in the same manner as if she continued sole and unmarried.
This report was signed by eight of the ten members of the committee. The minority, through Mr. Sprague of Swanzey, made a report recommending that the whole subject be postponed to the time when women in New Hampshire have the right to vote. Mr.
Sprague moved that the minority report be subst.i.tuted for the majority, but the motion was lost by an almost unanimous vote.
The majority report was sustained in remarks by Messrs. Wadleigh of Milford and Cogswell of Gilman. The latter, hard pushed by an interrogatory concerning his social status, admitted that he was not married, but intended to be soon. The bill reported by the majority was then ordered to a second reading.
If this action should be sustained by the legislature, we can imagine some future suitor for a lady"s hand telling her that he shall expect her duly to keep his house and his wardrobe in order, to prepare his meals, to entertain his visitors, to bear his children, and that she will be required by law to pay her own bills; that for this inestimable privilege she shall be called Mrs. John Snooks, and may, perhaps, have the honor of being written in the newspapers, and on her tombstone, as the relic of Mr. John Snooks. Could any woman withstand that?
The following statistics have been used by speakers in the opposition, to show that women are too ignorant to vote:
A decided sensation has been produced throughout the country by the publication in the third number of the "Transactions of the American Social Science a.s.sociation" of statistics concerning the illiteracy of women in the United States. The subject has received very general discussion, and these are the conclusions reached:
1. That there is a large excess of female illiteracy. 2.
That from 1850 to 1860 there was an increase of illiterate women to the extent of 53 per cent. in New Hampshire, 27 in Vermont, 24 in Ma.s.sachusetts, 33 in Rhode Island, 16 in Connecticut, 37 in the District of Columbia, 33 in Wisconsin and 32 in Minnesota. 3. That this state of things is alarming, and ought to be remedied.
When the London _Sat.u.r.day Review_ raised the cry of alcoholic drunkenness among women, the conservative journals all over the world swelled the sound and confirmed the charges. Now that that story has run itself to death, a new a.s.sault is projected, and a general clamor concerning their illiteracy follows. If the charges are true, there is nothing very astonishing about them.
The education of women has been considered a matter of secondary importance until very recently, and with our foreign population the education of girls has been almost wholly neglected. When the customs and usages of the world have made ignorance largely compulsory in women, it is somewhat inconsistent in men to go into spasms about the results.
January 17, 1874, at the Republican State convention, Mayor Briggs of Manchester, on taking the chair, made a speech, rehearsing the history of the party and laying out its programme for the future, closing as follows:
The Republican party has future duties. Its mission cannot end and its work should not, so long as any radical reform shall yet urge its demands in behalf of humanity. The civil service reform is eminent and important. In this regard the movement of the present administration is in the right direction, and yet it is only a first step of many which must ultimately be taken. To the people, not to a part of the people, belongs the sovereignty of this nation. Let them keep it. To this end great care should be taken to guard against the caucus system. Nothing should be more scrupulously avoided in the management of political parties.
Anti-republican in spirit, it is sometimes exclusive in practice.
The people have the same right to nominate that they have to elect their own officers. Why not? Ultimately, too, they will take that right, and for its own sake no party can afford to make itself the nursery of caucus power. The political machinery should be simplified, that nothing which mere politicians can desire shall stand between the people and their government. In a genuine republic, every act of the government should be but a practical expression of its subjects. All the subjects, too, should share equally the power of such expression. There should be no exclusion among intelligent, qualified cla.s.ses. Involved in this principle is the idea of woman suffrage, the next great moral issue, in my judgment, which this country must meet, and a reform which no party can afford to despise. Indubitably right, as I believe it to be, I regard its success as inevitable, and that whatever party opposes it is as surely destined to defeat, as was the party which arrayed itself in opposition to the anti-slavery cause.
The following letter in the _Woman"s Journal_ shows that something of the spirit of the Connecticut Smith-sisters has been found in New Hampshire:
I have long felt a deep interest in the subject of woman"s rights, and some fifteen years ago I resisted taxation two successive years. The second year I worked out my highway tax, for which crime I brought down upon my guilty head a severe persecution from both men and women, from clergymen and lawyers, as well as other cla.s.ses of my fellow townsmen. The tax-collectors came into my house and attached furniture and sold it at auction in order to collect my tax, one of whom made me all the cost the laws would allow. The most incensed town officers threatened that if I resisted taxation the next year, they would take my house from me and sell it at auction. One of the tax-gatherers asked me what I thought I could do alone in resisting taxation. He said he did not believe there was another woman in the State of New Hampshire who possessed the hardihood to take such a stand against the laws. The editor of one of our weekly journals, who professed to be an advocate of woman"s rights, and who was a candidate for representative in the State legislature, condemned me through the columns of his paper, in order to secure the votes of his fellow townsmen who were opposed to woman"s rights. He had nothing to fear from me, knowing that I was only a disfranchised slave. Such unjust treatment seemed so cruel that I sometimes felt I could willingly lay down my life, if it would deliver my s.e.x from such degrading oppression. I have, every year since, submissively paid my taxes, humbly hoping and praying that I may live to see the day that women will not be compelled to pay taxes without representation.
MARY L. HARRINGTON.
_Claremont, N. H., January 17, 1874._
In 1870 a law was pa.s.sed allowing women to be members of school committees; and eight years later a law was enacted permitting women to vote at school meetings. On the evening of August 7, 1878, the House Special Committee granted a hearing to the friends[192]
of the School-suffrage bill, which had already pa.s.sed the Senate by a unanimous vote; and the next day, when the bill came up for final action in the House, the following debate occurred:
Mr. BATCHELDER of Littleton said: This bill is one of the greatest importance, and before we vote upon it let us have the views of the committee.
Mr. GALEN FOSTER of Canterbury called upon Mr. Blodgett to give his opinion as to the power of the legislature upon the question.
Mr. BLODGETT of Franklin said he had no doubt of the const.i.tutionality of the bill. School districts were created by statute and not by the const.i.tution; hence the legislature had a perfect right to say who should vote in controlling their affairs.
Mr. FOSTER said: The mothers of our children should have a voice in their education. We have allowed women to hold certain offices in connection with schools, but we have never given them a voice in the control of the money expended upon them. The mothers take ten times more interest in the education of the young than the fathers do, and should have an equal voice in the affairs of the school districts. This is a matter of right and justice.
Mr. SINCLAIR of Bethlehem said: There ought not to be any objection to this bill. If there is any cla.s.s that ought to have a voice in the education of children, it is the mothers.
[Applause.] Some of the best school committees in the State are women. If they can be elected to that office, is it proper to say they shall have no voice in the elections?
Mr. WHICHER of Strafford thought they would get a little mixed in carrying out the provisions of this bill, in the face of the statutes relating to school-district meetings. He would move to indefinitely postpone the bill.