The first address was given by Mrs. Sarah M. Perkins (O.), Are Women Citizens? "While suffrage will not revolutionize the world," she said, "the door of the millennium will have a little child"s hand on the latch when the mothers of the nation have equal power with its fathers."
In the evening Mrs. Clara Bewick Colby addressed the audience on The Relation of the Woman Suffrage Movement to the Labor Question. She began by saying, "All revolutions of thought must be allied to practical ends." After sketching those already attained by women, she continued:
The danger threatens that, having accomplished all these so thoroughly and successfully that they no longer need our help and already scarcely own their origin, we will be left without the connecting line between the abstract right on which we stand and the common heart and sympathy which must be enlisted for our cause ere it can succeed. Why is it that, having accomplished so much, the woman suffrage movement does not force itself as a vital issue into the thoughts of the ma.s.ses? Is it not because the ends which it most prominently seeks do not enlist the self-interest of mankind, and those palpable wrongs which it had in early days to combat have now almost entirely disappeared?...
We need to vitalize our movement by allying it with great non-partisan questions, and many of these are involved in the interests of the wage-earning cla.s.ses.... We need to labor to secure a change of the conditions under which workingwomen live.
We need to help them to educative and protective measures, to better pay, to better knowledge how to make the most of their resources, to better training, to protection against frauds, to shelter when health and heart fail. We must help them to see the connection between the ballot and better hours, exclusion of children from factories, compulsory education, free kindergartens; between the ballot and laws relating to liability of employers, savings banks, adulteration of food and a thousand things which it may secure when in the hands of enlightened and virtuous people.
Miss Ada C. Sweet, who for a number of years occupied the unique position of pension agent in Chicago, supplemented Mrs. Colby"s remarks by urging all women to work for the ballot in order to come to the rescue of their fellow-women in the hospitals, asylums and other inst.i.tutions. She emphasized her remarks by recounting instances of personal knowledge.
The Rev. Rush R. Shippen, pastor of All Souls Unitarian Church of Washington, a consistent advocate of equal suffrage, spoke on woman"s advance in every department of the world"s work, on the evolution of that work itself and the necessity for a continued progress in conditions.
Mrs. May Wright Sewall presented a comprehensive report of the year"s work of the executive committee. The Edmunds Bill had been a special point of attack because of its arbitrary disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of Utah women, and Mrs. Zerelda G. Wallace (Ind.) had written a personal plea against it to every member of the House. At the close of this report a vote on woman suffrage was called for. The audience voted unanimously in favor, except one man whose "no" called forth much laughter. Miss Anthony said she sympathized with him, as she had been laughed at all her life.
Mrs. Sallie Clay Bennett (Ky.), whose specialty was the Bible argument for woman"s equality, said in the course of her remarks: "I am filled with shame and sorrow that from listening to men, instead of studying the Bible for myself, I did once think that the G.o.d who said He came into the world to preach glad tidings to the poor, to break every yoke and to set the prisoners free, had really come to rivet the chains with which sin had bound the women, and to forge a gag for them more cruel and silencing than that put into their mouths by heathen men; for in many heathen nations women were once selected to preside at their most sacred altars."
Miss Mary F. Eastman (Ma.s.s), in an impressive address, said:
I asked a friend what phase of the subject I should talk about to-night. She answered, "The despair of it.".. Can you conceive what it is to native-born American women citizens, accustomed to the advantages of our schools, our churches and the mingling of our social life, to ask over and over again for so simple a thing as that "we, the people," should mean women as well as men; that our Const.i.tution should mean exactly what it says?...
Men tell us that they speak for us. There is no companionship of women as equals permitted in the State. A man can not represent a woman"s opinion. It was in inspiration that magnificent Declaration of Independence was framed. Men builded better than they knew; they were at the highest perception of principles; but after declaring this magnificent principle they went back on it....
Although I hold the att.i.tude of a pet.i.tioner, I come not with the sense that men have any right to give. Our forefathers erected barriers which exclude women. I want to press it into the consciousness of the legislator and of the individual citizen that he is personally responsible for the continuance of this injustice. We ask that men take down the barriers. We do not come to pledge that we will be a unit on temperance or virtue or high living, but we want the right to speak for ourselves, as men speak for themselves.
Mrs. Caroline Hallowell Miller (Md.) spoke strongly on A Case in Point. Mrs. Elizabeth Avery Meriwether, of St. Louis, devoted her remarks chiefly to a caustic criticism of Senator George G. Vest, who had recently declared himself uncompromisingly opposed to woman suffrage. He was made the target of a number of spicy remarks, and some of the newspaper correspondents insisted that the presence of the suffrage convention in the city was responsible for the Senator"s severe illness, which followed immediately afterwards. Mrs.
Meriwether"s son, Lee, paid a handsome tribute to "strong-minded mothers".
Mrs. Harriette R. Shattuck (Ma.s.s.) addressed the convention on The Basis of Our Claim, the right of every individual to make his personality felt in the Government. Madame Clara Neymann (N. Y.) gave a scholarly paper on German and American Independence Contrasted, in which she said:
The difference between the German and the American is simply this: Germans believe in monarchism, in the rule of the Emperor and Prince Bismarck, while Americans believe in the government by all the people, high or low, rich or poor. You have conferred the blessings of free citizenship upon the negro; you invite the humblest, the lowest men to cast their vote; you make them feel that they are sovereign human beings; you place those men above the most virtuous, intelligent women; you set them above your own daughters. Yes, your own child, if born a girl on this free soil, is not free, for she stands without the pale of the Const.i.tution.
She, and only she, is deprived of her rightful heritage.
Oh, shame upon the short-sightedness, the delinquency of American statesmen, who will quietly look on and suffer such an injustice to exist! Nowhere in the world is woman so highly respected as in free America, and nowhere does she feel so keenly and deeply her degradation. The vote--you know it full well--is the insignia of power, of influence, of position. And from this position the American woman is debarred.
Do you wonder at the low estimate of American politics? The exclusion of women means the exclusion of your best men. Not before the husband can take his wife, the brother his sister, the father his daughter to the primary meeting, to the political a.s.sembly and to the polls, will he himself become interested and fulfil his duty as a voter and a citizen....
"Look at the homes of the wealthy, or even of the large middle-cla.s.s", it is often said; "what shallowness and pretense among the women; how they shrink from the responsibility of motherhood; how they spend their days in idle gossip, in hollow amus.e.m.e.nts; how they waste their hours in frivolities; see what extravagant, unhallowed lives they lead". Sad and true enough!
For there is no aristocracy so pernicious as a moneyed aristocracy--no woman so dangerous as she who has privileges and no corresponding duties. There is nothing so wasteful as wasted energies, nothing so harmful as powers wrongfully directed; and the gifts and powers of our wealthy, well-to-do women are wrongfully directed. They are employed in the interest of vanity, of worldly ambition, of public display, of sense gratification.
From whence arises this misdirected ambition? The harm is caused by the false standard man holds up to woman. If men would no longer admire the shallowness of such women they would undoubtedly aim higher. On the one side man subordinates himself to woman"s whims and caprices, and on the other side she is made conscious all the time of her dependence and subordination in all that pertains to the higher interests of life; and while he makes a slave of her, she revenges herself and makes a slave of him.
See how these women hold men down to their own low level; for women who have no higher aspirations than their own immediate pleasure will induce men to do the same. There is an even-handed justice that rules this world. For every wrong society permits to exist, society must suffer. Look what fools men are made by foolish women--women who are brought up with the idea that they must be ornamental, a beautiful toy for man to play with. See how they turn around and make a toy of him, an instrument to play upon at their leisure.
What we ask in place of all this indulgence is simple justice, a recognition of woman"s higher endowment. In giving her larger duties to perform, n.o.bler aims to accomplish--in making her a responsible human being--you not only will benefit her, but will regenerate the manhood of America....
To make the advocates of suffrage responsible for the sins of American women is simply atrocious, since it is from these very advocates that every reform for and among women has started; it is they who preach simplicity, purity, devotion, and who would gird all womanhood with the armor of self-respect and true womanliness. That such women are compelled to come before the public, before the Congress and the Legislatures, and pray for such rights as are freely given to every unenlightened foreigner is a burning shame and reflects badly upon the intelligence, the righteousness of Legislatures and people.
Much indignation was expressed during the convention over the recent action of Gov. Gilbert A. Pierce, of the Territory of Dakota. The Legislature, composed of residents, the previous year pa.s.sed a bill conferring Full Suffrage on women, which was vetoed by the Governor, an outsider appointed a short time before by President Chester A.
Arthur. With a stroke of the pen he prevented the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of 50,000 women.
Hundreds were turned away at the last evening session and there was scarcely standing room within the church. A witty and vivacious speech by Mrs. Helen M. Gougar (Ind.) was the first number on the program.
Mrs. Julia B. Nelson (Minn.) followed in an original dialect poem, Hans Dunderkopf"s Views of Equality. Mrs. Sewall showed the Absurdity of the American Woman"s Disfranchis.e.m.e.nt:
The inconsistency of the present position of the American woman is forcibly shown in that she is now making such an advance in education, studying political science under the best teachers of const.i.tutional law, and enjoying such advantages at the expense of the Government, yet is not allowed to make use of this knowledge in the Government....
Much has been said about the need of the ballot to protect the industrial interests of men, but is it not as ungallant as it is illogical that they should have the ballot for their protection while women, pressed by the same necessities, should be denied it?...
I may perhaps put it that man is composed of brain and heart and woman of heart and brain. We must have the brain of man and the heart of woman employed in the higher developments to come. There can be no great scheme that does not require to be conceived by our brains, quickened by our hearts and carried into execution by our skilled hands. The activities which are considered the especial sphere of woman need more brain; the realm of State developed by the brain of man needs more heart. Home and State have been too long divided. Man must not neglect the interests of home, woman must care for the State. Our public interests and private hopes need all the subtle forces of brain and heart.
An interesting feature of these national conventions was the State reports, which contained not only valuable specific information, but often felicitous little arguments quite equal to those of the more formal addresses. Such reports were received in 1886 from thirty different States. A large number of interesting letters also were read, among them one from George W. Childs, inclosing check; John W.
Hutchinson, Belva A. Lockwood, the Hon. J. A. Pickler, Madame Demorest, Dr. Mary F. Thomas, Lucinda B. Chandler, the Rev. Olympia Brown, Mary E. Haggart, Armenia S. White, Emma C. Bascom, Almeda B.
Gray and many others.
A letter from Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton urged that the question of woman suffrage should now be carried into the churches and church conventions for their approval, and that more enlightened teaching from the pulpit in regard to women should be insisted upon. The letter was accompanied by a resolution to this effect, both expressed in very strong language. They were read first in executive session. The following extracts are taken from the stenographic report of the meeting:
Mrs. Helen M. Gougar (Ind.) moved that the resolution be laid upon the table, saying: "A resolution something like this came into the last convention, and it has done more to cripple my work and that of other suffragists than anything which has happened in the whole history of the woman suffrage movement. When you look this country over you find the slums are opposed to us, while some of the best leaders and advocates of woman suffrage are among the Christian people. A bishop of the Roman Catholic Church stood through my meeting in Peoria not long since. We can not afford to antagonize the churches. Some of us are orthodox, and some of us are unorthodox, but this a.s.sociation is for suffrage and not for the discussion of religious dogmas. I can not stay within these borders if that resolution is adopted, from the fact that my hands would be tied. I hope it will not go into open convention for debate.
MRS. PERKINS (O.): I think we ought to pay due consideration and respect to our beloved president. I have no objection to sending missionaries to the churches asking them to pay attention to woman suffrage; but I do not think the churches are our greatest enemies. They might have been so in Mrs. Stanton"s early days, but to-day they are our best helpers. If it were not for their co-operation I could not get a hearing before the public. And now that they are coming to meet us half way, do not throw stones at them. I hope that resolution, as worded, will not go into the convention.
MRS. MERIWETHER (Mo.): I think the resolution could be amended so as to offend no one. The ministers falsely construe the Scriptures. We can overwhelm them with arguments for woman suffrage--with Biblical arguments. We can hurl them like shot and sh.e.l.l. Herbert Spencer once wrote an article on the different biases which distort the human mind, and among the first he reckoned the theological bias. In Christ"s time and in the early Christian days there was no liberty, every one was under the despotism of the Roman Caesars, but women were on an equality with men, and the religion that Christ taught included women equally with men. He made none of the invidious distinctions which the churches make to-day.
MRS. SHATTUCK (Ma.s.s.): We did not pa.s.s the resolution of last year, so it could not have harmed anybody. But I protest against this fling at masculine interpretation of the Scriptures.
MRS. MINOR (Mo.): I object to the whole thing--resolution and letter both. I believe in confining ourselves to woman suffrage.
MRS. COLBY (Neb.): I was on that committee of resolutions last year and wrote the modified one which was presented, and I am willing to stand by it. I have not found that it hurts the work, save with a few who do not know what the resolution was, or what was said about it. The discussion was reported word for word in the _Woman"s Tribune_ and I think no one who read it would say that it was irreligious or lacked respect for the teachings of Christ. I believe we must say something in the line of Mrs.
Stanton"s idea. She makes no fling at the church. She wants us to treat the Church as we have the State--viz., negotiate for more favorable action. We have this fact to deal with--that in no high orthodox body have women been accorded any privileges.
EDWARD M. DAVIS (Penn.): I think we have never had a resolution offered here so important as this. We have never had a measure brought forward which would produce better results. I agree entirely with Mrs. Stanton on this thing, that the church is the greatest barrier to woman"s progress. We do not want to proclaim ourselves an irreligious or a religious people. This question of religion does not touch us either way. We are neutral.
MADAME NEYMANN (N. Y.): Because the clergy has been one-sided, we do not want to be one-sided. I know of no one for whom I have a greater admiration than for Mrs. Stanton. Her resolution antagonizes no one.
MRS. BROOKS (Neb.): Let us do this work in such a way that it will not arouse the opposition of the most bigoted clergyman. All this discussion only shows that the old superst.i.tions have got to be banished.
MRS. SNOW (Me.): Mrs. Stanton wishes to convert the clergy.
MRS. DUNBAR (Md.): I don"t want the resolution referred back to the committee, out of respect to Mrs. Stanton and the manner in which she has been treated by the clergy. I do not want to lose the wording of the original resolution, and therefore move that it be taken up here.
MRS. GOUGAR: I think it is quite enough to undertake to change the National Const.i.tution without undertaking to change the Bible. I heartily agree with Mrs. Stanton in her idea of sending delegates to church councils and convocations, but I do not sanction this resolution which starts out--"The greatest barrier to woman"s emanc.i.p.ation is found in the superst.i.tions of the church." That is enough in itself to turn the entire church, Catholic and Protestant, against us.
MRS. NELSON (Minn.): The resolution is directed against the superst.i.tions of the church and not against the church, but I think it would be taken as against the church.
MISS ANTHONY (N. Y.): As the resolution contains the essence of the letter, I move that the whole subject go to the Plan of Work Committee.
The meeting adjourned without action, and on Friday morning the same subject was resumed. A motion to table Mrs. Stanton"s resolution was lost. Miss Anthony then moved that both letter and resolution be placed in her hands, as the representative of the president of the a.s.sociation, to be read in open convention without indors.e.m.e.nt. "I do not want any one to say that we young folks strangle Mrs. Stanton"s thought."
THE REV. DR. MCMURDY (D. C.): I do not intend to oppose or favor the motion, but as a clergyman and a High Church Episcopalian, I can not see any particular objections to Mrs. Stanton"s letter.
The Scriptures must be interpreted naturally. Whenever Paul"s remarks are brought up I explain them in the light of this nineteenth century as contrasted with the first.