Lapas attēli

diminish the influence of the Alliance. A lady then proposed that the names of the women be withdrawn from the Alliance, and that they act by themselves, rather than be the occasion of bringing loss of influence and character to the Association. Whereupon, a clergyman, and a very good man too, but one who was nursing and cherishing his prejudices, arose, and in a most pitiful tone declared, that, before he came to the meeting he heard that he would be abused if he came.

The lady wondered how this could possibly be ; but nevertheless, withdrew the motion for the withdrawal of the women from the Association, although she could not very well see how the addition of one woman's name to the Alliance, or the withdrawal of a dozen, could possibly be abusing the clergyman. And thus the women continued to act on the Finance committee. Noble women, whom the cowardice of men dared not elevate to any higher office, readily performed the duties of drudges and beggars, for those who had so gracefully complimented them.

In one of the cities of New York, soon after the Syracuse Convention, an editor of a political paper, I do not know whether "Soft” or "Hard,” (new parties sometimes take new names you know, and not always inappropriate ones,) in speaking of a woman who had been elected in that convention to the office of Treasurer, declared that he felt almost afraid to write the name of woman,


; so great was his reverence for the sex, and so much was it taking her out of her proper sphere ! Poor man ! Poor man !! How I pitied him, and wondered that some benevolent Association did not get up a Cinderella carriage, with horses of mice, and Tom Thumb outriders and postillions, to draw him about, lest he be afraid of the dark ! ! How dreadfully his sensibilities must have been shocked !

Well, no wonder, after all; there's philosophy in all this cant. If you go to writing woman, Treasurer, she'll soon fancy herself such. And just you let woman once get her hand into the Treasury-box, and won't there be a scattering among the dollars ? Money will be spent for other purposes then, than mere political scrambles. But how is it now? I once heard the Mayor of a city say, that his salary amounted to $3000, but to obtain and support the office, would take every dollar of the salary. And how was this money spent ? first, in

wine suppers, and other libations to Bacchus ; feeing grog-shops, &c., &c. I think, should woman get control of the Treasury, the money would go some other way.

The question of woman's voting, of the propriety of woman's appearing at the polls, is already settled. See what has been done in Detroit : On the day of the late election, the women went to the offices and stores of gentlemen, asking them if they had voted. If the reply happened to be in the negative, as was often the case, the next question was, will you be kind enough to take this vote sir, and deposite it in the ballot-box for me? Which was seldom, if ever, refused. And so, many a man voted for the "Maine Law,” who would not, otherwise, have voted at all. But this was not all : many women kept themselves in the vicinity of the polls, and when they found a man undecided, they ceased not their entreaties until they had gained him to the Temperance cause. More than this, two women, finding an intemperate man in the street, talked to him four hours, before they could get him to promise to vote as they wished. Upon his doing so, they escorted him, one on each side, to the ballot box, saw him deposite the vote they had given him, and then treated him to a good supper.

Now, this is more than any Woman's Rights advocate ever thought of proposing. Yet no one thinks of saying a word against it, because it was done for Temperance. But how much worse would it have been for those women to have gone to the polls with a brother, or husband, instead of with this man? Or to have deposited two votes in perhaps five minutes time, than to have spent four hours in soliciting some other person to give one? Why is it worse to go to the ballot-box with our male friends, than to the church, parties, or pic-nics, &c. ?

If a man should control the political principles of his wife, he should also control her religious principles. I heard it stated by one of the speakers this afternoon, I know not with what truth, though I suppose the gentleman must have known what he was uttering, that there was a law in Ohio to prevent negroes voting, and yet that negroes did vote here in the city of Cleveland. If this be the case, it might be well for women to take the matter into their own hands, and on the day of the next election, march in a body to the polls and face the objection, if any there be, to her voting ; at least put the matter to a test, and let it no more be said that women don't take their rights. I think, that hardly an objection could be raised in Cleveland.

Not one of you but is convinced of the reasonableness of our position. It is a principle of your own manufacture, that irresponsible power is unsafe. Woman has always lived under the sway of this irresponsible power. She asks now that she be left to be responsible for herself. Her nature is the same as your own.

You can find no difference. She, as naturally thirsts for independence as yourselves. This craving should be as fully gratified in her case, as in yours. The laws should protect alike the freedom of each. Neither should be permitted to tyrannize over the other. I believe those who made these laws, were honest at the time, so far as they were informed. But we have lived under a cloud all our days. The cloud however is now breaking, and the light, and air, and sunshine come in ; shall we welcome them ; or shall we shut ourselves once more in gloom, and forbid the entrance of the blessings? I believe the hearts of this community are with us, and we have but to go firmly forward.

C. C. BURLEIGH.-Among the resolutions which have been acted upon and adopted by this meeting, is one which affirms that for man to attempt to fix the sphere of woman, is cool assumption. I purpose to take that sentiment for the text of a few words of remark, this evening, for it is just there that I think the whole controversy hinges. It is not so much, what is woman's appropriate sphere; it is not so much what she may do and what she may not do, that we have to contend about; as, whether one human being, or one class of human beings, is to fix for another human being, or another class of human beings, the proper field of action, and the proper mode of employing the faculties which God has given them. If I understand aright the principles of liberty, just here is the point of controversy, between the despot and the champion of human rights, in any department. Just when one human being as umes to decide for another, what is that other's sphere of action, just then despotism begins. Everything else is but the legitimate consequence of this.


I have said it is not so much a matter of controversy what woman may do, or may not do. Why, it would be a hard matter to say what has been recognized by men themselves, as the legitimate sphere of

We have a great deal of contradiction and opposition nowadays when woman attempts to do this, that, or the other thing, although that very thing has sometime or other, and somewhere or other, been performed or attempted to be performed by woman, with man's approval. If you talk about politics, why, woman's participation in politics is no new thing, is no mere assumption on her part, but has been recognized as right and proper by men.

You have already been told of distinguished women who have borne a very prominent part in politics, both in ancient and modern times, and yet the multitude of men have believed and acknowledged that it was all right; and are now acknowledging it with all the enthusiasm of devoted loyalty. They are now acknowledging it in the case of an Empire on which it has been said that the sun never sets ; an Empire, “the morning drumbeat of whose military stations, circies the earth with one continued peal of the martial airs of England." It is recognized too, not by the ignorant and thoughtless only, or the radical and heretical alone, but also by multitudes of educated and pious men. That bench of Bishops, sitting in the House of Lords, receiving its very warrant to act politically, from the hands of a woman, listening to a speech from a woman on the throne, endorses every day the doctrine, that a woman may engage in politics.

Does woman ask to engage in those manly occupations which some men, in some places, have claimed as peculiarly appropriate to the masculine muscle ? You will find that here also, the practice in regard to this particular, is altogether variant in different countries. Go to Germany, or France, or to much of that Island Empire which rules over so large a portion of the world, and you will find that woman shares the toil of the field with her husband, brother and father. You will find, that not only the lighter occupations which seem better adapted to her smaller frame, but the most severe drudgery of the field, falls to her lot; and that multitudes of men consent and approve. There, woman is not deemed "out of her

appropriate sphere," in engaging in manly occupations in the open
air, the performance of the toils of the artizan, or whatever else man
here'may choose to arrogate to be his exclusive employment.
The business of merchandizing has been conceded to woman, not
so much in this country, as in other countries ; but in this country
it is coming to be acknowledged to be within her appropriate sphere,
by people not reckoned among the advocates of human rights. And
thus I might go on and instance one sphere of action after another,
and say in regard to each one of them, that somewhere, man has
consented or is consenting that she should fill it, not excepting even
the bloody toils of the battle field; for have not orators, in their
rounded periods, and poets in their strains of sweetest melody, joined
to commemorate and eulogize in highest terms of praise, the deeds
of the Maid of Saragossa, and others who have placed themselves in
the "imminent deadly breach" in the service of their country? What
brighter name, whose higher renown has come down to us in the
praises of oratory and poetry, than that of Joan of Arc, who in the
day of her country's greatest peril, stepped forward to snatch the rod
of the invader from his hand, and roll back the invading host, placing
the crown on the head of its “God-anointed” and hereditary heir.

Everywhere, in every occupation then, men have recognized the right of woman to engage in all these occupations. All that men have asked at every step, has been, that woman should await their permission. Joan may set the crown upon the head of Charles, but she must go before the chief dignitaries of the Church and State, and ask leave to perform the duty to which God has called her.

Now, I confess, for the life of me, I do not see where the consistency or the logic is, in charging her now-a-days with departing from her sphere. If woman may do these deeds at man's bidding, I ask why she may not do the same deeds under the guidance of God, who wrote his warrant for her action on her very nature, when he created her soul such as it is, breathed the breath of life into her body which before was cold and senseless clay, and endowed her with these faculties, these instincts, these desires, which have drawn her out into active life, wherein she claims the right to display and exercise her powers. For did God ever put a faculty into a human being, which


« iepriekšējāTurpināt »