Life and writings of Amelia Bloomer

“I have thus given you, as briefly as possible, a sketch of the introduction and early efforts of woman in this cause of temperance. It may not be so interesting to you as to those of us who encountered the opposition, bore the suffering, endured the struggle, who were subject to ridicule, censure and frowns for the cause’s sake and for woman’s sake. It is well that you of this later generation should know something of what has gone before; that you should know that, long before the W. C. T. U. arose, organizations of women did as great and greater work than that large body of women are doing. We had a cause and a purpose, and there was no lack of zeal and enthusiasm. There was no cold-hearted, half-way work with the Washingtonians and those who enlisted under them. I must mention Rev. George G. Rice, of this city, as among the liberal-minded men of early days. On my coming to Council Bluffs, he very soon called upon me and invited me to give a temperance lecture in his church; and later, at his request, I spoke on the education of girls from his pulpit, and also the church was freely given me for woman’s-rights lectures.

“Council Bluffs has always been a hard field for temperance work. Originally a frontier town, it was for many years almost completely in the hands of the gambling and liquor-drinking classes of the community. On my first coming here, in 1855, Sunday was hardly recognized at all as a day of rest or religious observance. It was the carnival day of the pleasure-seeking of every kind. Business was carried on as usual. The saloons were open and games of chance openly carried on along the streets. But even then there were a faithful few. A division of the Sons of Temperance had been organized, and very soon after we came we assisted in the organization of a lodge of Good Templars. These two societies handsomely fitted up and carpeted a large hall in Empire Block, opposite the Pacific House, and held regular meetings on different evenings of each week for several years. But financial troubles coming on, they were unable to meet their expenses, and before 1860 both had ceased to exist. I do not know whether the Sons of Temperance ever renewed their organization, but think they did not. But the Good Templars have at different times started up anew and I am glad to hear are quite prosperous at the present time. I have a strong feeling of sympathy with this organization because I was connected with it in New York, Ohio, and here, in my earlier days, and because it admits women to its membership on a footing of equality with men, and it was through its membership women passed through struggles for recognition. I have frequently assisted in the formation of lodges, and one of my last acts before coming to Council Bluffs was going by myself as deputy grand-chief templar to Indiana to organize two new lodges. Other organizations for promoting temperance work have existed here at different times. The late D. W. Price was president of one of the most effective of these, and really did a good work. Moved by his eloquent and effective pleadings, many votaries of strong drink were reformed and restored to their right minds and still remain sober citizens.

“The women of the city have not been wholly remiss in their duties to this cause, though they have not done all they could and should. In 1874 a society was organized, a constitution adopted, and a committee appointed to canvass the city to obtain memberships, and signatures to a petition to the city council asking that the laws enacted for their protection against liquor selling be enforced, and the license law amended. But their petitions passed unheeded, as those of tens of thousands of women in other sections had done before them. They were laid on the table as unworthy of notice, and when taken up received but one vote in their favor. What cared our city fathers for the petitions of disfranchised women? They had no votes to give to affect them at the next election, while the veriest drunkard had; and so should they not consult their constituents? Temperance workers, either men or women, have never received much help from the constituted authorities either of our city or county. Generally they have looked upon violations of the law with indifference. That is the case at the present time. Although we have a rigid prohibitory law now in force in this state, its provisions are openly violated and whatever effort is made to enforce it comes not from the men sworn to enforce the law but from individuals in private life, who are thus compelled to give their time and money to do that which should be done by officers elected for that purpose.”

“My reply to the argument of our opponents that ‘if women vote they must also fight,’ is this: All men have not earned their right to the ballot by the bullet; and, if only those who fight should vote, there are many sickly men, many weak little men, many deformed men, and many strong and able-bodied but cowardly men, who should at once be disfranchised. These all vote but they do not fight, and fighting is not made a condition precedent to the right to the ballot. The law only requires that those of sufficient physical strength and endurance shall take up arms in their country’s defense, and I think not many women can be found to fill the law’s requirement: so they would have to be excused with the weak little men, the big cowardly men, and the men who are physically disqualified. We know there are thousands of voters who never did any fighting and who never will. Why then must woman be denied the right of franchise because she cannot fight? If there are any great strong women who want to fight for their country in its hour of peril, they should be allowed to do so, and men have no right to disarm them and send them home against their will. But as there are other duties to be discharged, other interests to be cared for, in time of war besides fighting, women will find enough to do to look after these in the absence of their fighting men. They may enter the hospitals on the battlefields as nurses, or they may care for the crops or the young soldiers at home. They may also do the voting and look after the affairs of government, the same as do all the weak men, who vote and hold office and do not fight. And, further, as men do not think it right for women to fight, and fear it will be forced upon them with the ballot, they can easily make a law to excuse them, and doubtless with the help of the women will do so. There is great injustice, so long as the ballot is given to all men the weak as well as the strong, without condition, in denying to woman a voice in matters deeply affecting her interest and happiness, and through her the happiness and welfare of mankind because, perchance, there may come a time in the history of our country when we shall be plunged into war and she not be qualified to hold a musket!

“This objection, like many others we hear, is too absurd to emanate from the brains of intelligent men and I cannot think they honestly entertain such views. If they will but give us a voice in the matter, we will not only save ourselves from being sent to the battlefield, but will, if possible, keep them at home with us by averting the threatened danger and difficulties and so compromising matters with other powers that peace shall be maintained and bloodshed avoided.

“A. B.”

“‘Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.’—Gen., iv. 7.

“These words were addressed to Cain by the Creator. They are the same as those used to Eve, except that in the one case they were addressed to the one to be ruled, and in the other to the one who was to rule. The latter is more clearly a command than the former. And if a command, then Cain only obeyed it in ruling over his brother; and, as there was no limit fixed to the rule, was he very much to blame for taking the life of his brother? Did not God command him to rule and was not God responsible for the result?

“And if God foretelling to Eve that her husband should rule over her was a command to which all women were to be subject for all time, does not this command to Cain to rule over his brother follow the seed of Cain for all time, and are not all elder brothers commanded to rule over the younger, and is it not the duty of the younger to submit to such rule?

“Clearly the Scripture quoted was not a command in either case. We cannot throw upon God all the fearful consequences that have grown out of and resulted from the construction so often put upon these words. Read them as prophecy, substitute ‘wilt’ for ‘shalt’—as I am told the original fully warrants—and they become clear enough. In both cases it was a prophetic declaration of what was to follow, and the prophecy as we all know has been fulfilled to the letter.

“But read this Scripture as we may, I do not believe it has any binding force at this day. However much the first Adam may have ruled his wife, other Adams can derive no warrant from his case for ruling their wives, except in the evil nature they have inherited from him. The Adams still abound in the land, and will abound until woman fully asserts her individuality and compels men to acknowledge her equal right with themselves to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“The passages from the New Testament so frequently quoted have lost their terrors. We all know that in the early days when they were written woman’s position was one of ignorance and subjection. Peter and Paul were imbued with the prevalent sentiment of the times, and wrote of things as they found them. In writing of woman they followed the law and custom of the day in which they lived. They thought woman’s name was ‘submission’ just as many men think now, and wrote of her just as they write now.

“Barnard, in his ‘History and Progress of Education’ tells us that: ‘In India it was a terrible disgrace for a woman to learn to read, and the avowal of that knowledge was sufficient to class her with the most abandoned of her sex. Her duties and attainments were only such as would conduce to the mere physical comfort of her lord and master.’ Again, in writing of the ancient Persians, he says: ‘Female education was utterly neglected. The wife was the slave of the husband, and every morning must kneel at his feet and nine times ask the question, What do you wish that I should do? and, having received his reply, bowing humbly, she must withdraw and obey his commands.’

“Of Greece he says: ‘The female children were not allowed any instruction except such as they might receive at home. The condition of the female sex, except the abandoned portion of it, at Athens was pitiable. Secluded from society and all intellectual improvement, their lives must have been gloomy, dull and hopeless.’

“When we consider the condition of woman in the early ages we cannot be surprised at the injunction laid upon her by the apostles. But would John have her remain in that position? Clearly he would; but not so her Creator. He has called her out of former bondage and pointed out to her a higher mission.

“It is worthy of note that the writers of the New Testament did not give us a ‘Thus saith the Lord’ with any of the injunctions to women, nor did our Saviour enjoin any such rules upon her. So while we admit that the words of the apostles may have been proper at the day and under the circumstances of their utterance, we claim that the condition of woman has been so changed and her mind so educated since that time that they are not applicable to her now. We are told by some that her condition thousands of years ago was her natural condition, that in which God placed her and intended her to remain. If this be so, a great wrong has been done her by taking her out of the condition of ignorance and depravity in which she then existed. An educated mind cannot be kept in slavery. Our system of education is all wrong if God intended her to remain the ignorant slave of man she then was. How comes it that, if that was her natural God-ordained position, we find her condition so different at the present day? Whether right or wrong, that condition has greatly changed ever since the introduction of Christianity. And this work, this change, is not of herself, not of man. We must recognize in her course the direction and guidance of a Higher Power. If this change, this progress, tend to evil (as its opponents predict), then He who rules and overrules is for some wise purpose of His own bringing the evil on the world. But if, as we believe, it is for the good not only of woman but of humanity then, too, we should recognize the Higher Power that so orders it and do what we may to help forward His work. In any case we cannot by opposition, Bible argument, or indifference stay His work and will.

“Woman had a part to play in life that St. Paul never dreamed of, and he who lives in the next generation will see greater changes than the past has produced. As well say that men should be and do as they were and did in the days of Abraham, as to say that women should be kept in the state of bondage in which she existed thousands of years ago. The world moves and woman must move with it. She inherits the same blood, the same spirit of liberty, that descends to her brother and for which her fathers bled and died. To fight against this progression is like fighting against the emancipation of the slaves. As the chains of the latter were broken and the oppressed set free, in spite of opposition and Bible argument, so will the All-Father, in His own good time and way, bring about the emancipation of woman and make her the equal with man in power and dominion that He proclaimed her to be at the creation, that we may have—

“I am glad the Tribune has spoken out on this question, and had it gone further and included names as well as titles in its criticisms it would have done better. It has become so much the fashion for women to call themselves and to be known by their husbands’ names and titles that a woman’s Christian name is seldom heard or known. Why a woman as soon as she is married is willing to drop the good name of Mary or Elizabeth and take that of John, Thomas or Harry I never could understand. And as to titles, why a woman should be called Mrs. General, Mrs. Colonel, Mrs. Captain or Mrs. Judge I don’t know except it be on the principle that husband and wife are one and that one the husband, and the wife is his appendage and must be known by his title instead of having an individuality of her own.

“So far is this matter of appropriating names and titles carried, that women retain them after the death of the husbands and call themselves Mrs. Colonel or Mrs. Doctor when there is no such doctor or colonel in existence. It would seem as though, the man being dead, his title would die with him and henceforth his wife assume her Christian name.

“Quite recently an inquiry came to me from New York for the Christian name of a woman who had been quite prominent. On looking over letters and papers bearing her name I found that in every instance she had used her husband’s initials, and it was only after sending a postal with the inquiry one hundred and fifty miles that I learned her name and transmitted it to New York. This is but one instance of the many where women use the name of the husband with ‘Mrs.’ prefixed whenever they have occasion to write their names.

“But women are not alone to blame in the matter. The press does its part to keep up what the Tribune calls a vulgar custom. We have an instance at hand. Only a short time ago the daily press announced that ‘Mrs. Colonel C. S. Chase, of Omaha, is very ill.’ And again a short time after it announced ‘the death of Mrs. Colonel Chase,’ thus following the woman to the grave with her husband’s name and title. She was not a colonel, had never been a colonel, and it surely would have been more proper to say Mary, the wife of Col. Chase. Doubtless all have fallen into the custom thoughtlessly.

“Where a woman has earned a title of her own, it is right that she should be called by it, and I see no reason why the prefix of Mrs. should always be attached. It would be quite improper to say Mr. Doctor Green; then why should we say Mrs. Doctor Hilton?

“There are cases where it may be allowable and necessary to use the husband’s initials when naming or addressing his wife, but usually it is best for her to retain and be known by the name her parents gave her. The name or title of her husband gives no additional dignity or character to her, and it sinks her own individuality in him; which no woman should allow.

“Ever since the world began all women of note have been known by their own Christian names. Adam named his wife Eve and we have no account of her ever being called Mrs. Adam. Victoria of England has never called herself Mrs. Albert Saxe-Coburg, nor has Eugénie been known as Mrs. Emperor Louis Napoleon. Go back through all history and all married queens, all members of royal houses, all married women of any distinction such as artists, authors, scholars, teachers, actresses, singers, etc., have ever been known and called by their Christian names. In our own day and country this is the universal custom. Lydia H. Sigourney, Emma Willard, Margaret Fuller Ossoli, Lucretia Mott, Frances D. Gage, Mary A. Livermore, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Paulina W. Davis, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Lucy Stone Blackwell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Celia Burleigh, and a host of others of equal or less note never called themselves Mrs. John, Mrs. Tom and Mrs. Henry. Anna Mary Howitt, Dinah Maria Muloch, and Elizabeth Barrett Browning may be given as instances of English writers who have seen fit to drop their own names and adopt the Christian name and title of their husbands. The wife of our first president is known and revered in memory as Martha Washington, instead of Mrs. George or Mrs. General Washington; and Susannah Wesley is far better known than Mrs. Rev. John Wesley.

“In law, women must use their own names and no document is legal unless it bears the Christian name of the woman who signed it. Her appointment to any office is always made in her own name and not that of her husband. And yet many women have gotten the idea that their husbands’ names and titles in some way add to their dignity and importance and so appropriate them to their own use.

“May the day soon come when all this will be done away and women bear honored titles of their own, earned and conferred, but not borrowed!

“A. B.”

“The press has been very severe, in some instances, in its strictures upon a certain woman of this state for leaving home and husband to go before our public as a lecturer, thereby as they claim causing her husband to commit a fearful crime.

“Now supposing, instead of being out lecturing, and home frequently, this woman had gone away on a three months’ visit to friends—as many ladies are in the habit of doing—would the press be as ready to blame her as it now is? Would she be, and are other women, guilty of all the crime and wrongdoing which she or their husbands may commit in their absence? And would it be right, would it be manly, to publicly accuse these women and hold them up to censure? Is not their suffering already sufficient without this added sting? Why, pray, is it a more heinous offense to leave home to lecture than to visit, to travel abroad, or to sojourn for months at fashionable watering places?

“I know nothing of the domestic affairs of the person referred to. She has been to some extent a lecturer on temperance. Whether led into it by pecuniary necessity, or solely from inclination or a desire to do good, I never knew. But be the case as it may she is the first woman lecturer, so far as my knowledge extends, whose husband has ever disgraced both himself and her by such or any similar crime or any crime at all; while the cases are frequent of wives who are keepers at home and faithful guardians of family relations being humbled and disgraced by husbands guilty of all manner of crimes and wickedness. Men claim to be the stronger both mentally and physically. Then why are they ready to shoulder upon women the responsibility of their own wrongdoing? Why make the so-called ‘weaker vessel’ the scapegoat to bear their sins?

“But it was ever thus. The first Adam, the ‘lord of creation,’ tried to shield himself by accusing Eve and putting upon her the punishment of his transgression. And all Adams from that time to this have imitated his weakness and meanness by doing the same thing. Let the strong bear the burdens of the weak, is I believe a Scripture injunction, but men have reversed this and put upon the weak and powerless the burdens they are too cowardly to bear themselves. In these days the Adams abound and, no matter of what crime they may be guilty, some daughter of Eve must be made to sorrow, not only over the fall of a loved one but by seeing herself publicly accused of being in some way accessory to the crime.

“If a man commits suicide, it is forthwith charged to unpleasant domestic relations. If another, in a fit of insanity, takes himself out of the world his wife’s extravagance is the cause. So, too, ‘the extravagance of the wife’ is offered as an excuse for the reckless spendthrift and defaulter. If a man deserts his wife and family and goes after strange women, the wife is in some way to blame for it; and if he gratifies his lust by the ruin of innocent girls, there are enough of his fellows to come to his defense by implicating his wife as the guilty cause of his ruin. And so on to the end of the chapter, the same old story: ‘The woman whom Thou gavest me did it.’ What a pitiful sneaking plea to come from the self-styled ‘lords of creation,’ the boasted superiors of woman!

“I object to this frequent blaming of women for the misdeeds of men and in the name of all womanhood protest against its injustice.

“A. B.”

“The question of woman’s right to preach has been agitated more since the action of the Brooklyn presbytery in arraigning Dr. Cuyler for allowing Miss Smiley to occupy his pulpit than ever before. Instead of this action having the effect of preventing a repetition of the offense, or of convincing the people of its wrong or sinfulness, and silencing women preachers, the discussion has resulted favorably to the women and encouraged them in their good work.

“Two weeks ago Miss Smiley preached on Sunday both in a Methodist and Presbyterian church in Buffalo, N. Y., by invitation of the pastors of the churches, and she has preached in other orthodox churches since the Brooklyn trial, and no one has been called to account for a transgression of the rules.

“In St. Louis, the women of the Union Methodist church lately held a meeting to express their sense of the propriety and need of an ordained ministry for women in the church. The meeting is said to have been spirited and earnest, and embraced many of the leading women of the Methodist church and of other denominations. They offered their own prayers, made their own speeches, and called no man to their aid. The proceedings and speeches are reported at length in the Democrat, and reflect much credit upon the able women engaged in them. The following memorial reported by the committee was unanimously adopted:

“‘To the General Conference of the Methodist Church. Fathers and Brethren: We the undersigned members of the Methodist church respectfully but earnestly petition your venerable body to take such action, at your coming session in Brooklyn, New York, as may be necessary to allow women to be ordained as preachers, subject only to such requirements as are defined in our discipline.’

“In this, as in all other reforms, persecution and opposition strengthen the cause they would crush. The result of the anti-slavery movement should convince all that any God-ordained progressive movement, though it may be stayed for a time, cannot be killed and buried because men will it so.”

“It has long been customary for men, when they wish to express great contempt for the action of an individual, or to hold him up to the scorn and ridicule of the world, to present him with a petticoat. No matter whether the action be one of meanness and cowardice, or one of heroism in defense of a good cause, the man so acting must be degraded in the eyes of the world by the offer of a woman’s garment—no other being found sufficiently expressive of the disgust of its contemners. It has always seemed strange to me that men were willing to dishonor the mothers who bore them and the wives they have chosen for life-companions by thus selecting one of their garments as the most fitting badge of cowardice, of meanness, of treachery, of weakness, of littleness of soul; and I have never heard of an instance of the kind but my cheek has tingled with shame and indignation—shame that men could thus unblushingly offer insult to woman, indignation that woman must receive and submit tamely to the insult.

“But if such action on the part of men has been painful to me, much more so is the action of the women of Quincy as given in last week’s Chronotype. It is bad enough for men thus to dishonor and insult us; but when woman imitates them in wrongdoing and desecrates her own garment to so bad a use, it is doubly to be deplored, for it is an admission that we are guilty of all the weakness and meanness they attribute to us and that our garment is chosen to represent. It should rather be woman’s part to frown down all such acts with any part of her costume, and ever stand ready to defend it from dishonor.

“I by no means wish to condemn the ladies of Quincy for showing their contempt of the ‘gallant soldier of Kansas.’ Far from it, I admit their spirit and glory in their womanly courage; for I hold it to be the right and duty of woman to mark the slanderer, to speak out against wrong, to defend the injured and innocent, and to drive out and put down immorality and crime, by the power of her own might if need be. I only differ with them in the manner of punishing the coward and would have counseled a more womanly course. Had they waited upon the ‘slanderer’ and ‘coward,’ expressed in strong terms their scorn and contempt for his actions, and warned him to leave the town, it would have been more creditable to them and to the sex than was the presentation of the ‘red flannel garment’—a woman’s garment—as a badge of all that is most despicable in man. I am too jealous of the good name of woman, and hold in too much respect a woman’s petticoat to see it disgraced by any ‘slanderer,’ ‘coward’ or ‘whipped puppy,’ and I would to the last defend it from such disgrace.

“If that garment is in reality the badge of cowardice and inferiority that men would make it to be, then the sooner it is abandoned by woman and one more appropriate to her true character substituted the better. But it is not so. On the contrary it is honored by having been worn by the good, the great, the noble, the heroic, the virtuous, the honorable, the gifted, the most highly praised and exalted among women; and so long as it continues to be so worn it is entitled to respect from both men and women, and he who dares treat it with disrespect should receive the censures of men and the scorn of women.

“The error of the Quincy women was one of the head and not of the heart. Women are sometimes led into error by unthinkingly imitating the follies and vices of men, or by acting under their direction. In the ‘good time coming,’ when women learn to do their own thinking and to rely more on their own judgments, they will rarely be led into wrong or unwise action. May the day hasten speedily on when woman’s dormant powers shall be so developed by education that she will stand forth before the world in all the nobleness and excellence of her being! Then no longer will men revile her garments or taunt her as they now too often do, directly or indirectly, with cowardice, inferiority and weakness of intellect.

“A. B.”

“1. He says ‘it is not in the interest or in the disposition of man to legislate against woman,’ etc. And yet for ages men have legislated against woman and deprived her of all right to her own person, her earnings, her property, and her children. The common law places woman in a position little better than that of slavery. And this law was made by men; and it was not until the agitation of the woman’s-rights question by women, and their exposure of the injustice of the laws and their demands for redress of grievances, that changes were made in their favor. If the senator does not know of this, let him read up the common law on these points and the history of the woman-suffrage question for the last thirty years, and he will find that up to that time it was the ‘disposition of men to legislate against’ every interest of woman.

“2. He says ‘she ought not to be compelled by law to work out a poll-tax in the public highway, nor to learn the art of butchery on the battlefield.’ Most certainly she ought not, but she could hire a substitute to do these things, just as Senator Gaylord does. I venture the assertion, without knowing, that he did not earn his right to the ballot by the bullet or by shoveling dirt on the highways. If only those who do these things were allowed to vote the number of voters would be small indeed.

“3. ‘Because there is no evidence that the most intelligent women ask for the miserable privilege of becoming politicians.’ Does the senator think that it is a miserable privilege to have the right to the ballot, the right to vote for good men and measures, the right to self-protection, the right to sit in the halls of legislation making wise and just laws for the government of his country, which shall tend to the interest and happiness of the whole people? One who prizes these privileges so lightly should be deprived of them and the wonder is that, holding such opinions as he does, we find a ‘miserable politician’ having his seat in the legislative hall of this great state, where he surely ought not to be. The fact that the women and the men who are asking for the enfranchisement of women are among the most intelligent, refined, affectionate and exemplary citizens is too patent to need proof from me.

“4. ‘Because woman is superior to man, and she owes her superiority to the fact that she has never waded in the dirty pool of politics.’ Dear me! how worried this man is about the ‘dirty,’ ‘miserable’ politics! And again how strange, knowing the pool to be so muddy, that he has waded in so deep! and to think of his going home to his family with all this filth upon him! Really, if the place is so muddy it is high time that woman come in, with all the purity and goodness he gives her credit for, and sweep out the dirt that is befouling her husband and sons and make it a more fit place for them. An atmosphere that is too impure for her to breathe cannot but be dangerous to them, and it is her duty to rescue them from the ‘muddy’ pool or so to cleanse it that it will be safe for both.

“5. Senator Gaylord may call himself a wizard if he likes, and we shall not object; but women prefer not to be angels while sojourning here below, but rather good, sensible, practical wives and mothers, prepared to discharge life’s duties in whatever situation they may be placed—in the home, at the ballot-box or in legislative halls, wherever duty, interest and inclination may lead them.

“6. ‘Because a deference is now shown to women, which would be denied,’ etc. Deference shown to women does not make up for deprivation of rights, Mr. Gaylord. Besides, it is not a fact, but on the contrary, that equality of rights, politically or otherwise, leads men to disrespect woman. Give us rights and then, if you must, withhold courtesy: I trust we should have strength to bear it.

“7. ‘Because, if married women should vote against their husbands, there would be war.’ And who would make the war, Mr. Gaylord? No man, except one who wishes to play the tyrant in his family and enslave his wife’s thought and actions, could ever utter so silly a reason for depriving her of rights to which she is as justly entitled as himself. Does he question the right of a man to do his own thinking and vote as he pleases? Why then a woman? The very fact that he thus claims the right to make her action subservient to his wishes, or to make war upon her if she does not submit to his own dictation, is reason sufficient why her individuality and right to self-government should be recognized and secured to her by making her an enfranchised citizen.

“8. ‘Because there are bad women,’ etc. Well, why may not bad women vote as well as bad men? If they had had a vote long ago perhaps they would not be bad now, and perhaps there would not be so many bad men either. I would sooner trust those women to vote right than many men who now disgrace the ballot; and as to any contamination at the polls, we no more fear it than on the streets, at public gatherings, in the stores, and in various places where we meet and brush by them unharmed. We have more to fear from the men who make women bad. But, inasmuch as many women are compelled to associate in the closest relations with these men, and we all have to tolerate them in society, and come in contact with them in business matters, we think no great harm can come to us by dropping a bit of paper in the same box. But if there is really danger from such contact, we can avoid it by having voting places for our own sex away from theirs.

“9. ‘Because, if a woman trains up her children right, they will vote right.’ etc. No, not always. The training of the mother is often counteracted by the influence, authority and example of the father, and the two might differ as to what was right. The mother might teach her son that the ballot is a high and sacred thing, a mighty power to be wielded for the best interests and happiness of humanity, a power for the putting down of evil and for the forming and sustaining just governments; while the father might teach him that the right of the elective franchise is a ‘miserable privilege,’ that it leads to a ‘muddy pool’ into which all must wade, that it is all ‘moonshine and monsoons’ and that the ‘privilege of voting is not to be so much desired as the privilege of being voted for.’ Which training is he to follow? Where lies the danger?

“10. The senator here claims that men are ‘vain, ambitious and aspiring, caring more to be voted for than to vote,’ and he fears that women will show the same weakness if permitted to vote. It is to be hoped, for the credit of womanhood, that if a woman ever takes his seat she will not disgrace herself by the utterance of such senseless twaddle in opposition to any measure as characterized his effort on the proposed amendment!

“13. ‘Because there must be a dividing line, somewhere, between those who may vote and who may not,’ etc. Then why not let the educated, intelligent, sober and moral of both sexes vote, and shut out the ignorant, drunken and immoral? Why let men vote and make laws, no matter how low and vile they may be, simply because they are men while those who are subject to the man-made laws are denied the right to vote, simply because they are women? The line so drawn is unnatural, unjust, and productive of great wrong to all parties. The line as now drawn shuts out only Indians, idiots, and women.

“14. Here our senator throws all the responsibility upon the ‘All-wise Author of our natures,’ and claims that He has made laws to prevent woman entering the ‘moonshine and monsoon of politics,’ forgetting that God called Deborah to the political field and made her a judge in Israel, and that for all time there have been queens and rulers among women, evidently with God’s approval. The All-Father gave woman an intelligent mind and capacity for governing, and then left her free to exercise her gifts as she saw fit; and if there be times when by sickness or other circumstance she may be prevented from the discharge of political duties, so also there are times and circumstances when men are kept from the polls and from office, and if this be reason why the former should not be enfranchised then it is also reason why the latter should be disfranchised.

“15. ‘Because the wife has a voice and a vote already, and her husband is her agent to carry that vote to the ballot-box.’ How is it about the thousands of women who have no husbands to do such errands for them? How does this proxy-voting work when the wife differs with the husband on the question to be voted on? Does he waive his own preference and deposit the vote in accordance with her wishes? If he does not, then does he represent her? The only just course is to let her deposit her own vote; then both will be represented. Now, they are not. Man deposits his vote regardless of his wife’s interests and wishes.

“17. ‘Because there cannot be two equal heads in the same family.’ ‘Where the wife is anybody, the husband must be a nobody.’ ‘If the wife has sense enough to vote, the husband is dwarfed.’ So, according to our senator, the wife should be a weak-minded, senseless thing deprived of all right of opinion, so that the husband may rise to the dignity of a voter. Is not this sound logic? Did the superior brain of man ever before conceive of so strong an argument why woman should not vote? Two heads are better than one, Mr. Senator, and there may be two equal heads in the same family, at the same time, and neither of them be ‘dwarfed’ or belittled by the superiority of the other. If such is not the condition of your family, your wife is a subject for sympathy.

“18. ‘Because politics would pervert and destroy woman’s nature, the religious element,’ etc. God implanted in woman’s nature a love of home and a love of her offspring, and also an instinctive knowledge of what is proper and what improper for her to do; and it needs no laws of man’s making to incite the one or compel the other. Give her her rights and her own good sense will teach her how to use them. Does the ballot change man’s nature for the worse? Why then woman’s?

“Pp. 11, 12, 19, 20 and 21. These concluding reasons show a dreadful imaginative picture of the condition of things that would exist in the family should women be permitted to go to the polls and exercise the rights secured to them by the laws of their country. ‘Strife, contention, jealousy, hatred, slander, rivalry, intemperance, licentiousness, temper, retaliation, suicide, suspicion, discord, divorce,’ all these are to come to our good senator’s family when his wife has a right to vote. He anticipates it all and is doing all he can to avert the dire calamity. But while he is to be commiserated, he must remember that all families are not alike, and where he sees only dire disaster other men see the dawning of a better day and are ready to ‘turn the crank’ that shall hasten it on. Other men do not fear and tremble; but calmly await the time when they can take their wives on their arms and, side by side, go to the polls and drop in the little paper that declares them equal in rights and privileges. In these families there will be no war, for such men are proud to own their wives their equals and do not feel that they themselves are dwarfed thereby. As the ballot elevates and ennobles man, so they believe it will be with woman, and they cannot understand how rendering justice to her is going to convert her into the coarse, vile, quarrelsome thing our senator predicts, or how acknowledging her the equal of her husband is going to ‘dwarf’ men and convert them into ruffians and nobodies.

“A. B.”