Mrs. Sw.a.n.k is one of the most pleasing speakers of Indiana. She is a graduate of Antioch, and while yet in college she gained quite a reputation by her lecturing on Astronomy. She spent several years lecturing to cla.s.ses of women on Physiology, Anatomy, and Hygiene. Of late, she has devoted herself to Woman Suffrage and Temperance. She served as president of the State Society one year before the war and one since, and has always done good, service to the cause of woman with both pen and tongue.
SARAH E. UNDERHILL.
Mrs. Underhill was first known in Indiana as the editor and proprietor of the _Ladies" Tribune_ at Indianapolis in 1857. She a.s.sociated with her Amanda Way as office editor, that she might devote her entire time to lecturing. Though she remained in the State but three years, she was widely and favorably known as an earnest and effective speaker on Woman Suffrage and Temperance.
When the war began, she was among the first to go to the sick and wounded soldiers. A brief account of her work in the hospitals will be found in the "Women of the War."
JANE MORROW.
Miss Morrow was a pioneer in our movement; attended the Second Convention in 1852. She was not a speaker, but a practical business woman, owning and successfully carrying on a dry-goods store in Richmond for many years. By precept and example, she taught the doctrine of woman"s independence and self-reliance.
She was a kind, genial, sunny-hearted woman, who made all about her bright and happy, though she was what the world calls an "old maid." In 1867, she died suddenly, without a moment"s warning or parting word; but "Aunt Jane," as she was familiarly called, will long be remembered in her native town.
MARY B. BIRDSALL
was secretary of the Convention of 1852, and held that position for three years. She purchased _The Lily_, a Woman"s Rights paper, of Amelia Bloomer, in 1855, and published it for three years. Her home is in Richmond.
MARY ROBINSON OWEN.
Mrs. Owen, wife of Robert Dale Owen, was not known to the public until after the war. It is said, however, that she suggested and helped prepare the amendments to the laws with reference to woman"s property rights, that her husband carried through our Legislature. She had a strong, clear intellect, and her lectures were more argumentative and pointed than rhetorical and flinched.
She sympathized with and aided her husband in all his reformatory movements, and was his equal in mental power. She was one of the vice-presidents of our Indiana State Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation at the time of her death, 1871.
MARY F. THOMAS.
Mary F. Thomas, M.D., was born October 28. 1816, in Montgomery County, Maryland. Her parents, Samuel and Mary Myers, were members of the Society of Friends, and resided in their early days in Berks and Chester Counties, in Pennsylvania. Her father was the a.s.sociate of Benjamin Lundy, in organizing and attending the first anti-slavery meeting held in Washington, at the risk of their lives.
Desiring to place his family beyond the evil influences of slavery, he moved to Columbiana County, Ohio. He purchased a farm there; his daughters a.s.sisted him in his outdoor labors in the summer, and studied under his instructions in the winter. While in Washington he frequently took his daughters to the capitol to listen to the debates, which gave them interest in political questions. Mary was early roused to the consideration of woman"s wrongs by the unequal wages paid to teachers of her own s.e.x. In 1845 she was much moved in listening to the preaching of Lucretia Mott at a yearly meeting in Salem, Ohio, and resolved that her best efforts should be given to secure justice for woman.
In 1839 she was married to Dr. Owen Thomas. She has three daughters, all well educated, self-reliant women. Her youngest daughter, a graduate of Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, took the Greek prize in the intercollegiate contest in 1874. As Mrs. Thomas" husband was a physician, she studied medicine with him, and graduated at the Penn Medical College of Philadelphia in 1854. She was the first woman to take her place in the State Medical a.s.sociation as a regularly admitted delegate. She is a member of the Wayne County Medical a.s.sociation; has been physician for "The Home for Friendless Women" in the city of Richmond for nine years, and has filled the office of City Physician by the appointment of the Commissioners for several years.
Though deeply interested in the woman suffrage reform, owing to her domestic cares and medical studies she could not attend any public meetings until 1857; since that time she has been one of the most responsible standard-bearers, and for several years President of the State a.s.sociation.
Mrs. Thomas was always a conscientious abolitionist; the poor fugitive from bondage did not knock at her door in vain. The temperance reform, too, has had her warm sympathy and the benefit of her pure example. She is a member of the Grand Lodge of Good Templars, and has held important offices in that Order, having been a faithful disciple in spreading the gospel of temperance over forty years, always a member of some organization.
During the war of the rebellion she gave herself in every way that was open to woman to the loyal service of her country. As a.s.sistant physician in hospitals, looking after the sick and wounded, and in sanitary work at home, she manifested as much patriotism as any man did on the battle-field. After her long experience, she comes to the conclusion, that with the ballot in her own hand, with the power to coin her will into law, a woman might do a far more effective work in preventing human misery and crime, than she ever can accomplish by indirect influence, in merely mitigating the evils man perpetuates by law.
(_From the Liberator of May, 1856_).
RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN WISCONSIN.
Minority Report of C. L. Sholes, from the "Committee on Expiration and Re-enactment of Laws," to whom were referred sundry pet.i.tions, praying that steps may be taken to confer upon women the right of suffrage in Wisconsin.
The minority of the Committee on Expiration and Re-enactment of Laws, beg leave to report:
The theory of our government, proclaimed some eighty years since, these pet.i.tioners ask may be reduced to practice. The undersigned is aware that the opinion has been announced from a high place and high source, that this theory is, in the instrument which contains it, a mere rhetorical flourish, admirable to fill a sentence and round a period, but otherwise useless and meaningless; that so far from all mankind being born free and equal, it is those only who have rights that are ent.i.tled to them; those yet out of the pale of that fortunate condition being intended by Providence always to be and remain there. But notwithstanding this opinion has the weight of high authority, and notwithstanding the practice of the American people has thus far been in strict accordance with such opinion, the undersigned believes the theory proclaimed is not simply a rhetorical flourish, nor meaningless, but that it means just what it says; that it is true, and being true, is susceptible of an application as broad as the truth proclaimed.
All humankind, says the theory, are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Other governments proclaim the divine right of kings, and a.s.sume that man is the mere creature of the government, deriving all his rights from its concessions, and forever subject to all its impositions, while this government (or at least its theory) elevates all men to an equality with kings, brings every man face to face with the author of his being and the arbiter of his destiny, deriving his rights from that source alone; and makes government his creature instead of his master, inst.i.tuted by him solely for the better protection and application of his G.o.d given rights. It is important to keep in mind this theory of our government and its difference with the theories of all other governments. Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, it says, because those rights are necessary to correct relations between each individual of humanity and his Creator. Herein is the whole merit of the American theory of government, and of its practice too, so far as that practice has gone. It is a grand theory, opening as it does to every human being the boundless plains of progress which stretch out to the foot of the eternal throne, and implying as it does such n.o.ble powers in humanity, and such n.o.ble conditions and uses for those powers. Its effect upon those who have enjoyed the benefit of its application has been in harmony with its own exalted character. Though but a day old, as it were, in the history of nations, the United States, in a great many respects, outstrip all other nations of the earth, and are inferior in few or no particulars to any. The ma.s.s of her people are conceded to be the most intelligent people of the world, and manifest, individually and collectively, the fruits of superior intelligence. It will not be denied that our theory of government, viewing as it does every man as a sovereign, opening up to every man all the distinctions, all the honors, and all the wealth which man is capable of desiring, appreciating, or grasping, exercises a powerful, indeed a controlling influence in making our people what they are, and our nation what it is.
These pet.i.tions ask only that these rights, enjoyed by one portion of the American people, may be extended to embrace the whole, not less for the abstract but all-sufficient reason, that they have been given to the whole by the Creator, than that by their application to the whole, the more general will be the benefits experienced; and the deeper, broader, more prevailing and more enduring will become those benefits. Manifestly, such must be the case; for as these rights belong to humanity, and produce their exalted and beneficial fruits by their application to and upon humanity, it follows that, wherever humanity is, there they belong, and there they will work out their beneficial results. To exclude woman from the possession of equal political rights with man, it should be shown that she is essentially a different being; that the Creator of man is not her Creator; that she has not the same evil to shun, the same heaven to gain; in short, the same grand, immortal destiny which is supposed to invite to high uses the capacity of man, does not pertain to nor invite her. We say this must be shown; and if it can not be, as certainly it can not, then it follows that to withhold these rights, so beneficial to one portion, is to work an immediate and particular injury to those from whom they are withheld, and, although a more indirect, not a less certain injury to all.
Man-masculine is not endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights because he is male, but because he is human; and when, in virtue of our strong and superior physical capacity, we deny to man-feminine the rights which are ours only in virtue of our humanity, we exercise the same indefensible tyranny against which _we_ felt justified in taking up arms, and perilling life and fortune.
The argument against conceding these rights all are familiar with. They are precisely the same which have been in the mouths of tyrants from the beginning of time, and have been urged against any and every demand for popular liberty. A want of capacity for self-government--freedom will be only licentiousness--and out of the possession of rights will grow only the practice of follies and wrongs. This is the argument, in brief, applied to every step of gradual emanc.i.p.ation on the part of the male, and now by him applied to the female struggling to reach the common platform. Should the American male, in the van of human progress, as the result of this theory of a capacity for self-government, turn round and ignore this divinity, this capacity in another branch of the human family? The theory has worked only good in its application thus far, and it is a most unreasonable, a most unwarrantable distrust to expect it to produce mischief when applied to others in all respects mentally and morally the equals of those who now enjoy it. It neither can nor will do so; but, necessarily, the broader and more universal its application, the broader and more universal its benefits.
The possession of political rights by woman does not necessarily imply that she must or will enter into the practical conduct of all the inst.i.tutions, proper and improper, now established and maintained by the male portion of the race. These inst.i.tutions may be right and necessary, or they may not, and the nature of woman may or may not be in harmony with them. It is not proposed to enact a law compelling woman to do certain things, but it is proposed simply to place her side by side with man on a common platform of rights, confident that, in that position, she will not outrage the "higher law" of her nature by descending to a partic.i.p.ation in faults, follies, or crimes, for which she has no const.i.tutional predilections. The a.s.sociation of woman with man, in the various relations of life in which such a.s.sociation is permitted, from the first unclosing of his eyes in the imbecility of infancy, till they close finally upon all things earthly, is conceded to be highly beneficial. Indeed, we think it will be found, on scrutiny, that it is only those inst.i.tutions of society in which women have no part, and from which they are entirely excluded, which are radically wrong, and need either thorough renovation or entire abrogation. And if we have any duties so essentially degrading, or any inst.i.tution so essentially impure, as to be beyond the renovating influence which woman can bring to bear on them, beyond question they should be abrogated without delay--a result which woman"s connection with them would speedily bring about.
Who dares say, then, that such a.s.sociation would not be equally beneficial, if in every sphere of activity opened to man, woman could enter with him and be at his side? Are our politics, in their practice, so exalted, so dignified, so pure, that we need no new a.s.sociations, no purer and healthier influences, than now connected with them? Is our Government just what we would have it; are our rulers just what we would have them; in short, have we arrived at that happy summit where perfection in these respects is found? Not so. On the contrary, there is an universal prayer throughout the length and breadth of the land, for reform in these respects; and where, let us ask, could we reasonably look for a more powerful agent to effect this reform, than in the renovating influences of woman? That which has done so much for the fireside and social life generally, neither can nor will lose its potent, beneficial effect when brought to bear upon other relations of life.
To talk of confining woman to her proper sphere by legal disabilities, is an insult to the divinity of her nature, implying, as it does, the absence of instinctive virtue, modesty, and sense on her part. It makes her the creature of law--of our law--from which she is a.s.sumed to derive her ability to keep the path of rect.i.tude, and the withdrawal of which would leave her to sink to the depths of folly and vice. Do we really think so badly of our mothers, wives, sister, daughters? Is it really we only of the race who are instinctively and innately so sensible, so modest, so virtuous, as to be qualified, not only to take care of ourselves, but to dispense all these exalted qualities to the weaker, and, as we a.s.sume, inferior half of the race? If it be so, it may be doubted whether Heaven"s last gift was its best.
Kings, emperors, and dictators confine their subjects, by the interposition of law, to what they consider their proper spheres; and there is certainly as much propriety in it as in the dictation, by one s.e.x, of the sphere of a different s.e.x. In the a.s.sumption of our strength, we say woman must not have equal rights with us, because she has a different nature. If so, by what occult power do we understand that different nature to dictate by metes and bounds its wants and spheres? Fair play is a Yankee characteristic; and we submit, if but one-half of the race can have rights at a time because of their different natures, whether it is not about time the proscribed half had its chance in, to a.s.sume the reins of Government, and dictate _our_ sphere.
It is no great compliment to that part of the race to venture the opinion, that the country would be full as well governed as it now is, and our sphere would be bounded with quite as much liberality as now is theirs.
Let every human being occupy a common platform of political rights, and all will irresistibly gravitate exactly to their proper place and sphere, without discord, and with none but the most beneficial results. In this way human energy and capacity will be fully economized and expended for the highest interest of all humanity; and this result is only to be obtained by opening to all, without restriction, common spheres of activity.
Woman has all the interests on earth that man has--she has all the interest in the future that man has. Man has rights only in virtue of his relations to earth and heaven; and woman, whose relations are the same, has the same rights. The possession of her rights, on the part of woman, will interfere no more with the duties of life, than their possession by man interferes with his duties; and as man is presumed to become a better man in all respects by the possession of his rights, such must be the inevitable effect of their possession upon woman.
The history of the race, thus far, has been a history of tyranny by the strong over the weak. Might, not right, has been as yet the fundamental practice of all governments; and under this order of things, woman, physically weak, from a slave, beaten, bought, and sold in the market, has but become, in the more civilized and favored portions of the earth, the toy of wealth and the drudge of poverty. But we now have at least a new and different theory of government; and as the aspiration of one age is sure to be the code of the next, and practice is sure at some time to overtake theory, we have reason to expect that principle will take the place of mere brute force, and the truth will be fully realized,
"That men and women have one glory and one shame; Everything that"s done inhuman injures all of us the same."
Never, till woman stands side by side with man, his equal in the eye of the law as well as the Creator, will the high destiny of the race be accomplished. She is the mother of the race, and every stain of littleness or inferiority cast upon her by our inst.i.tutions will soil the offspring she sends into the world, and clip and curtail to that extent his fair proportions. If we would abrogate that littleness of her character which finds a delight in the gewgaws of fashion, and an enjoyment in the narrow sphere of gossipping, social life, or tea-table scandal, so long the ridicule of our s.e.x; open to her new and more enn.o.bling fields of activity and thought--fields, the exploration of which has filled the American males with great thoughts, and made them the foremost people of the world, and which will place the American females on their level, and make them truly helps meet for them. When we can add to the men of America a race of women educated side by side with them, and enjoying equal advantages with them in all respects, we may expect an offspring of giants in the comprehension and application of the great truths which involve human rights and human happiness.
These pet.i.tions ask that the necessary steps may be taken to strike from the Const.i.tution the legal distinction of s.e.x. Your Committee is in favor of the prayer of the pet.i.tions; but, under the most favorable circ.u.mstances, that is a result which could not be attained in less than two years. In all probability, it will not be longer than that before the Const.i.tution will come up directly for revision, which will be a proper, appropriate, and favorable time to press the question.
Your Committee, therefore, introduces no bill, and recommends no action at present.
All of which is respectfully submitted. C. L. SHOLES.
This able report was the result, in a great measure, of the agitation started by Mrs. Nichols and Mrs. Fowler in 1853, and by Lucy Stone"s lecturing tour in 1855, thus proving that no true words or brave deeds are ever lost. The experiences of these n.o.ble pioneers in their first visits to Wisconsin, though in many respects trying and discouraging, brought their own rich rewards, not only in higher individual development, but in an improved public opinion and more liberal legislation in regard to the rights of women in that State.
FOOTNOTES:
[55] "The Relation of Woman to Industry in Indiana," by May Wright Sewall.
[56] The vast audience of women alone, in Apollo Hall, to discuss the McFarland and Richardson tragedy.
[57] See Appendix.
[58] See Appendix.
CHAPTER X.