The Twenty-fourth annual woman suffrage convention, held in the Church of Our Father, Washington, D. C., Jan. 17-21, 1892, was preceded by the usual services at three o"clock on Sunday afternoon. The text of the sermon, by the Rev. Mila Tupper, was "Think on these things" and it was devoted to a lofty consideration of "success through the moral power of ideals." Unexpectedly the congressional hearings were set for Monday morning, which called to the Capitol both Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Miss Susan B. Anthony, president and vice-president of the a.s.sociation. The convention was called to order by the Rev. Anna Howard Shaw, and Mrs. Caroline McCullough Everhard (O.) was made chairman _pro tem_. Twenty-six States were represented by seventy-six delegates, the reports showed a year of unprecedented activity and there were requests from every State for speakers and organizers. The treasurer reported receipts for the past year, $3,830.
The executive sessions throughout the convention were spirited and interesting. After some discussion it was decided to carry the work into the Southern States, and also to appropriate money and workers for Kansas, where it was likely that an amendment for full suffrage soon would be submitted. It was voted to accept the s.p.a.ce offered at the Columbian Exposition, to furnish and decorate a booth, circulate literature, etc. The motion to have the next meeting in Chicago during the Fair renewed the question of holding alternate conventions in some other city besides Washington, but the measure was defeated.
Mrs. Stanton introduced a resolution in favor of keeping the World"s Fair open on Sunday, which was advocated and opposed with great earnestness. The majority of opinion evidently was in favor of opening the gates on Sunday but many felt that the subject was not germane to the purposes of the a.s.sociation, while others were conscientiously opposed to Sunday opening. Finally, in the midst of the controversy Mrs. Stanton withdrew her resolution, saying that she had offered it largely for the sake of discussion. Miss Shaw presented a resolution opposing the sale of intoxicating liquor on the Fair Grounds, saying that she did so as a matter of conscience and in order that it might go on record. It was voted to call an international suffrage meeting at Chicago during the Columbian Exposition. Miss Anthony urged more systematic organization, special efforts with the Legislatures, the securing of a Woman"s Day at all Chautauqua a.s.semblies, county fairs, camp meetings, etc.
At the earnest request of Mrs. Stanton, who had now reached the age of seventy-six, she was permitted to retire from the presidency, and Miss Anthony, aged seventy-two, was elected in her place. The Rev. Anna Howard Shaw was made vice-president-at-large. Lucy Stone, who was now seventy-four, begged to be released as chairman of the executive committee, which was then abolished, the duties being transferred to the business committee consisting of all the officers of the a.s.sociation. Mrs. Stanton and Mrs. Stone were made honorary presidents.
This was Mrs. Stanton"s last appearance at a national convention after an attendance of forty years, but she never failed to take an active interest in the proceedings and to send her speech to be read by Miss Anthony. This also was the last time Lucy Stone appeared upon the national platform, as she died the next year, and Miss Anthony alone, of this remarkable trio of women, was left to carry forward the great work.
The addresses of this convention were up to the high standard of those which had preceded them during the past years, and no organization in existence, of either men or women, can show a more brilliant record of oratory. As Mrs. Stanton, Lucy Stone and Miss Anthony came on the platform the first evening they were enthusiastically applauded. The mental and physical vigor of Mrs. Stanton was much commented upon as in a rich and resonant voice she read the speech which she had that morning delivered before the Judiciary Committee of the House. It was ent.i.tled The Solitude of Self, and is considered by many to be her masterpiece.
Lucy Stone discussed The Outlook with clear vision. She contrasted the woman of the past, her narrow life, her limited education, her inferior position, with the educated, ambitious, independent woman of to-day, and urged that the latter should be equal to her opportunities, lay aside all frivolous things and labor unceasingly to secure for her s.e.x an absolute equality of civil and political rights.
In the half-humorous address of Mrs. Caroline Hallowell Miller (Md.) on The Golden Rule, she said:
I am firmly convinced that our present powerless--I may almost say ignominious--position arises not so much, as many aver, from the lukewarmness of our own s.e.x as from the supreme and absolute indifference of men. With a few honorable exceptions, men do not care one iota whether we vote or not....
Now if only men would take to betting on this question of woman suffrage, if we could open it up as a field of speculation, if we could manipulate it by some sort of patent process into stocks or bonds and have it introduced into Wall Street, we should very soon find ourselves emanc.i.p.ated. I keep on hoping that, by some fortuitous chance, fate may eventually execute for us as brilliant a _coup d"etat_ as did General Butler for the colored slaves when he made them contraband of war, so that we shall just tumble into freedom as they did very soon thereafter. Until then let us trust in G.o.d, keep our powder very dry and our armies well drilled and disciplined.
In an inspiring address on The True Daughters of the Republic, Mme.
Clara Neymann (N. Y.) pointed out the splendid material progress of our country under the guidance of men, and urged that women should be the power to lift it up to an equally exalted spiritual plane. The paper of Mrs. Clara Bewick Colby (D. C.) on Wyoming, in which as a Territory women had voted for twenty years and as a State for two years, presented a most convincing array of statistics proving the benefits of equal suffrage. Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt of Wyoming came to the platform and corroborated these statements, paying a fine tribute to the political influence of women. He was followed by Mrs.
Lida A. Meriwether (Tenn.), whose reputation as a humorist was fully sustained in her clever portrayal of Dreams that Go by Contraries.
Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt (N. Y.) gave a brilliant address on The Mission of a Republic.
In discussing The Value of Organizations for Women, Mrs. Elizabeth Lyle Saxon (La.) said:
Among the various organizations of women the suffrage society must rank first, for its demands have reached out and embraced every reform which comes under the head of right, justice or charity; and I am firmly persuaded that if the demand for the ballot, the full right of citizenship, had not been made the foundation of all other advantages, our organization would have fallen apart and drifted into the more conservative and popular lines along which less courageous women have successfully worked....
Financial independence has been gained by many women, who, proud of their own success, never try to benefit others, and fail to comprehend the debt they owe to the brave, unselfish ones who first made demands for them and who never ceased their efforts until one after another the barriers were removed and opportunities secured for thousands which they never could have found themselves. It was this stanch band of pioneers, defying criticism, scorn and hate, who forced open college doors, invaded the law courts and stubbornly contested every inch of ground so persistently held by fraud or force from the daughters of the great republic....
Organized as women now are, they could pour such an overwhelming moral influence into the political life of the country as to become its saving grace; for when women vote they will show good men, who have weakly shrunk from political duty, that they have a moral and clean const.i.tuency to stand with them.
The platform proceedings of the convention closed with Miss Shaw"s splendid delineation of The Injustice of Chivalry.
Every suffrage convention for the last twelve years had been preceded by a handsome reception at the Riggs House. This well-known and commodious hotel had been the convention headquarters, and it also had been the winter home of Miss Anthony, where she remained as a guest of the proprietor, C. W. Spofford, and his wife, being thus enabled to do a vast amount of congressional and political work, such as never has been done since. The hotel now had pa.s.sed into other hands and the Washington _Post_, in speaking of this matter, said: "The delegates feel like lost sheep without Mrs. Spofford"s hospitality at the Riggs House, which has always been headquarters for suffragist and all women"s conventions. Probably no one but those in the inner circle will ever know just how much Mrs. Spofford has done for the advancement of women in every direction. Whatever was hers was at the disposal of the leaders, and in the absence of so much a.s.sistance it is appreciated more nearly at its real worth."
[Ill.u.s.tration: MRS. ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.
Honorary President of National-American Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation.]
The new club house of Wimodaughsis was opened for a reception to the delegates by the District W. S. A., with Miss Anthony, Lucy Stone, Mrs. Stanton, Henry B. Blackwell, and Miss Shaw, president of Wimodaughsis, as guests of honor. All made clever little speeches toward the close of the evening, which were supplemented with remarks by Senator Joseph M. Carey (Wy.), Representatives J. A. Pickler (S.
D.), Martin N. Johnson (N. D.) and the Rev. Dr. Corey of the Metropolitan church.
The hearing on January 17 was held for the first time before a Judiciary Committee of the House, the majority of which was Democratic.[85] The Washington _Star_ said: "The new members of the committee were apparently surprised at receiving such a talk from a woman and there was the most marked attention on the part of every one present. Their surprise was still greater when they found that Mrs.
Stanton was not a phenomenal exception, but that every woman there could make an argument which would do credit to the best of public men."
The hearing before the Senate Committee on Woman Suffrage was held the morning of February 20. Four of the greatest women this nation ever produced addressed this committee, asking for themselves and their s.e.x a privilege which is freely granted without the asking to every man, no matter how humble, how ignorant, how unworthy, who is not included within the category of the insane, the idiotic, the convicted criminal--Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Isabella Beecher Hooker. Mrs. Stanton (N. Y.) gave her address, The Solitude of Self, in place of the old arguments so many times repeated, saying in part:
The point I wish plainly to bring before you on this occasion is the individuality of each human soul--our Protestant idea, the right of individual conscience and judgment--our republican idea, individual citizenship. In discussing the rights of woman, we are to consider, first, what belongs to her as an individual, in a world of her own, the arbiter of her own destiny, an imaginary Robinson Crusoe with her woman Friday on a solitary island. Her rights under such circ.u.mstances are to use all her faculties for her own safety and happiness.
Secondly, if we consider her as a citizen, as a member of a great nation, she must have the same rights as all other members, according to the fundamental principles of our Government.
Thirdly, viewed as a woman, an equal factor in civilization, her rights and duties are still the same--individual happiness and development.
Fourthly, it is only the incidental relations of life, such as mother, wife, sister, daughter, which may involve some special duties and training. In the usual discussion in regard to woman"s sphere, such men as Herbert Spencer, Frederick Harrison and Grant Allen uniformly subordinate her rights and duties as an individual, as a citizen, as a woman, to the necessities of these incidental relations, some of which a large cla.s.s of women never a.s.sume. In discussing the sphere of man we do not decide his rights as an individual, as a citizen, as a man, by his duties as a father, a husband, a brother or a son, some of which he may never undertake. Moreover he would be better fitted for these very relations, and whatever special work he might choose to do to earn his bread, by the complete development of all his faculties as an individual. Just so with woman. The education which will fit her to discharge the duties in the largest sphere of human usefulness, will best fit her for whatever special work she may be compelled to do.
The isolation of every human soul and the necessity of self-dependence must give each individual the right to choose his own surroundings. The strongest reason for giving woman all the opportunities for higher education, for the full development of her faculties, her forces of mind and body; for giving her the most enlarged freedom of thought and action; a complete emanc.i.p.ation from all forms of bondage, of custom, dependence, superst.i.tion; from all the crippling influences of fear--is the solitude and personal responsibility of her own individual life.
The strongest reason why we ask for woman a voice in the government under which she lives; in the religion she is asked to believe; equality in social life, where she is the chief factor; a place in the trades and professions, where she may earn her bread, is because of her birthright to self-sovereignty; because, as an individual, she must rely on herself....
To throw obstacles in the way of a complete education is like putting out the eyes; to deny the rights of property is like cutting off the hands. To refuse political equality is to rob the ostracized of all self-respect, of credit in the market place, of recompense in the world of work, of a voice in choosing those who make and administer the law, a choice in the jury before whom they are tried, and in the judge who decides their punishment.
Shakespeare"s play of t.i.tus and Andronicus contains a terrible satire on woman"s position in the nineteenth century--"Rude men seized the king"s daughter, cut out her tongue, cut off her hands, and then bade her go call for water and wash her hands."
What a picture of woman"s position! Robbed of her natural rights, handicapped by law and custom at every turn, yet compelled to fight her own battles, and in the emergencies of life to fall back on herself for protection....
How the little courtesies of life on the surface of society, deemed so important from man towards woman, fade into utter insignificance in view of the deeper tragedies in which she must play her part alone, where no human aid is possible!
Nothing strengthens the judgment and quickens the conscience like individual responsibility. Nothing adds such dignity to character as the recognition of one"s self-sovereignty; the right to an equal place, everywhere conceded--a place earned by personal merit, not an artificial attainment by inheritance, wealth, family and position. Conceding then that the responsibilities of life rest equally on man and woman, that their destiny is the same, they need the same preparation for time and eternity. The talk of sheltering woman from the fierce storms of life is the sheerest mockery, for they beat on her from every point of the compa.s.s, just as they do on man, and with more fatal results, for he has been trained to protect himself, to resist, to conquer....
In music women speak again the language of Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, and are worthy interpreters of their great thoughts. The poetry and novels of the century are theirs, and they have touched the keynote of reform in religion, politics and social life. They fill the editor"s and professor"s chair, plead at the bar of justice, walk the wards of the hospital, speak from the pulpit and the platform. Such is the type of womanhood that an enlightened public sentiment welcomes to-day, and such the triumph of the facts of life over the false theories of the past.
Is it, then, consistent to hold the developed woman of this day within the same narrow political limits as the dame with the spinning wheel and knitting needle occupied in the past? No, no!
Machinery has taken the labors of woman as well as man on its tireless shoulders; the loom and the spinning wheel are but dreams of the past; the pen, the brush, the easel, the chisel, have taken their places, while the hopes and ambitions of women are essentially changed.
We see reason sufficient in the outer conditions of human beings for individual liberty and development, but when we consider the self-dependence of every human soul, we see the need of courage, judgment and the exercise of every faculty of mind and body, strengthened and developed by use, in woman as well as man....
With the earnest persuasiveness for which she had been noted nearly half a century, Lucy Stone (Ma.s.s.) said:
I come before this committee with the sense which I always feel, that we are handicapped as women in what we try to do for ourselves by the single fact that we have no vote. This cheapens us. You do not care so much for us as if we had votes, so that we come always with that infinite disadvantage.
But the thing I want to say particularly is that we have our immortal Declaration of Independence and the various bills of rights of the different States (George Washington advised us to recur often to first principles), and in these nothing is clearer than the basis of the claim that women should have equal rights with men. A complete government is a perfectly just government....
What I desire particularly to impress upon this committee is the gross and grave injustice of holding thirty millions of women absolutely helpless under the Government. The laws touch us at every point. From the time the girl baby is born until the time the aged woman makes her last will and testament, there is not one of her affairs which the law does not control. It says who shall own the property, and what rights the woman shall have; it settles all her affairs, whether she shall buy or sell or will or deed....
Persons are elected by men to represent them in Congress and the State Legislatures, and here are these millions of women, with just the same stake in the Government that men have, with a cla.s.s interest of their own, and with not one solitary word to say or power to help settle any of the things which concern them.
Men know the value of votes and the possession of power, and I look at them and wonder how it is possible for them to be willing that their own mothers, sisters, wives and daughters should be debarred from the possession of like power. We have been going to the Legislature in Ma.s.sachusetts longer than Mrs. Stanton has been coming here. We asked that when a husband and wife make a contract with each other, as for instance, if the wife loan the husband her money, the contract should be considered valid just as it would be between any other parties--for now in case the husband fails in business, she can not get her money--and the Legislature very kindly gave us leave to withdraw. Then we asked that when a man dies and the wife is left alone, with the whole burden of life on her shoulders, the law might give her more than forty days in which to stay in her home without paying rent. But we could not defeat one of our legislators, and they cared not a cent for our pet.i.tion and less than a cent for our opinion; and so when we asked for this important measure they gave us leave to withdraw.
They respect the wants of the voter, but they care nothing about the wants of those who do not have votes. So, when we asked for protection for wives beaten by their husbands, and that the husband should be made to give a portion of his earnings to support the minor children, again we had leave to withdraw....
I can think of nothing so helpless and humiliating as the position of a disfranchised person. I do not know whether I am treading on dangerous toes when I say that, after the late war the Government in power wished to punish Jefferson Davis, and it considered that the worst punishment it could inflict upon him was to take away his right to vote. Now, the odium which attached to him from his disfranchis.e.m.e.nt is just the same as attaches to women from their disfranchis.e.m.e.nt. The only persons who are not allowed to vote in Ma.s.sachusetts are the lunatics, idiots, felons and people who can not read and write. In what a category is this to place women, after one hundred years and at the close of this nineteenth century? And yet that is history. In Ma.s.sachusetts we are trying to get a small concession--the right to vote in the cities and towns in which we live in regard to the taxes we have to pay. In 1792, in Newburyport, Ma.s.s., it was not thought necessary to give women education. At that time there were no schools for girls; the public money was not so used, and when one man said he had five daughters, and paid his taxes like other men, and his girls were not allowed to attend school, and that they ought to give the girls a chance, another man said, "Take the public money and educate shes? Never!"
Remember this was one hundred years ago. Some of the fathers urged that the girls should be educated in the public schools, and so the men--G.o.d forgive them!--said, "We will let the girls go in the morning between 6 and 8 o"clock, before the boys want the schoolhouse." Just think of the time those girls would have to rise in order to have a little instruction before the boys got there! This plan did not work well, and the teacher was directed not to teach females any longer. Every descendant of those men now feels ashamed of them; and I think that in one hundred years the children of the men who are now letting us come here, year after year, pleading for suffrage, will feel ashamed. Men would rather lose anything than their votes; they would fight for their right of suffrage, and if anybody attempted to deprive them of it there would be war to the knife and the knife to the hilt. We come here to carry on our bloodless warfare, praying that the privilege granted in the foundation of the Government should be applied to women....
What we look forward to is part of the eternal order. It is not possible that thirty millions of women should be held forever as lunatics, fools and criminals. It is not possible, as the years go on, that each person should not at least have the right to look after his or her own interests. As the home is at its best when the father and mother consult together in regard to the family interests, so it is with the Government. I do not think a man can see from a man"s point of view all the things that a woman needs, or a woman from her single point of view all the things that a man needs. Now men have brought their best, and also brought their worst, into the Government, and it is all here, but the thing you have not at all is the qualities which women possess, the feminine qualities. It has been said that women are more economical, peaceful and law-abiding than men, and all these qualities are lacking in the Government today.... But whether this be so or not, it is right that every cla.s.s should be heard in behalf of its own interest....
Now, gentlemen, I hope you will try to make this case your own.
It is simple justice and fair play, and it is also a fundamental principle of the Government. Here we are trying to have a complete republic, and yet there are twelve millions of disfranchised adults. I believe that among the great people--and by the people I do not mean men, but men and women, the whole people--nothing creates such disrespect for a fundamental principle as not to apply it. The Government was founded upon the principle that those who obey the laws should make them, and yet it shuts out a full half. As long as this continues to be done, it certainly tends to create disrespect for the principle itself.
Do you not see it? Why not reach out a hand to woman and say, "Come and help us make the laws and secure fair play"?