History of Woman Suffrage Volume II Part 32

[86] Of course it is nothing new to say that Mrs. Stanton was the object of admiration and honor everywhere. Miss Anthony looked after her interests and comfort in the most cheerful and kindly manner, occasionally complaining good naturedly of Mrs. Stanton's carelessness in leaving various articles of her wearing apparel scattered over the State, and of the trouble she had in recovering a gold watch which Mrs. Stanton had left hanging on the bed post in a little hotel in Southern Kansas. I remember one evening of the Convention in Lawrence when the hall was crowded with an eager and expectant audience. Miss Anthony was there early, looking after everything, seats, lights, ushers, doorkeepers, etc. Presently Gov. Robinson came to her and said, "Where's Mrs. Stanton? It's time to commence." "She's at Mrs.

---- waiting for some of you men to go for her with a carriage," was the reply. The hint was quickly acted upon and Mrs. Stanton, fresh, smiling and unfatigued, was presented to the audience. H. E. S.

[87] See Appendix.

[88] Mrs. Gov. Charles Robinson, Mrs. Lieut-Gov. J. P. Root, Mrs. R.

B. Taylor, Mrs. Mary T. Gray--whose husbands were also active workers--Mrs. Lucy B. Armstrong, Mrs. Judge Humphrey, Mrs. Starrett, Mrs. Archibald, Mrs. Elsie Stewart, "Mother Bickerdike," and many others.

[89] Nov. 6, 1867.--The a.s.sociated press item in _The Evening Journal_ said: "Leavenworth, Kansas, Nov. 5th. Out of about 3,500 registered voters, only 2,600 voted here to-day. Negro suffrage received only about 700. Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony, who have been canva.s.sing the State, visited the polls in each ward and addressed the voters, probably the first occurrence of the kind in this country. They were accompanied by the Hutchinson family, and were received with hearty cheers for woman suffrage."

[90] This trip cost Mr. Train $2,500, as he paid all the expenses, advertising largely.

[91] The first number was published January 6, 1868, and ten thousand copies, under the frank of the Hon. James Brooks, were scattered throughout the country.

CHAPTER XX.

NEW YORK CONSt.i.tUTIONAL CONVENTION.

Const.i.tution Amended once in Twenty Years--Mrs. Stanton Before the Legislature Claiming Woman's Right to Vote for Members to the Convention--An Immense Audience in the Capitol--The Convention a.s.sembled June 4th, 1867. Twenty Thousand Pet.i.tions Presented for Striking the Word "Male" from the Const.i.tution--"Committee on the Right of Suffrage, and the Qualifications for Holding Office."

Horace Greeley, Chairman--Mr. Graves, of Herkimer, Leads the Debate in favor of Woman Suffrage--Horace Greeley's Adverse Report--Leading Advocates Heard before the Convention--Speech of George William Curtis on Striking the Word "Man" from Section 1, Article 11--Final Vote, 19 For, 125 Against--Equal Rights Anniversary of 1868.

This was the first time in the history of the woman suffrage movement that the Const.i.tution of New York was to be amended, and the general interest felt by women in the coming convention was intensified by the fact that such an opportunity for their enfranchis.e.m.e.nt would not come again in twenty years. The proposition of the republican party to strike the word "white" from the Const.i.tution and thus extend the right of suffrage to all cla.s.ses of male citizens, placing the men of the State, black and white, foreign and native, ignorant and educated, vicious and virtuous, all alike, above woman's head, gave her a keener sense of her abas.e.m.e.nt than she had ever felt before. But having neither press nor pulpit to advocate her cause, and fully believing this amendment would pa.s.s as a party measure, she used every means within her power to arouse and strengthen the agitation, in the face of the most determined opposition of friends and foes. Meetings were held in all the chief towns and cities in the State, and appeals and pet.i.tions scattered in every school district; these were so many reminders to the women everywhere that they too had some interest in the Const.i.tution under which they lived, some duties to perform in deciding the future policy of the Government.

This campaign cost us the friends.h.i.+p of Horace Greeley and the support of the _New York Tribune_, heretofore our most powerful and faithful allies. In an earnest conversation with Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony, Mr. Greeley said: "This is a critical period for the Republican party and the life of the Nation. The word "white" in our Const.i.tution at this hour has a significance which "male" has not. It would be wise and magnanimous in you to hold your claims, though just and imperative, I grant, in abeyance until the negro is safe beyond peradventure, and your turn will come next. I conjure you to remember that this is "the negro's hour," and your first duty now is to go through the State and plead his claims." "Suppose," we replied, "Horace Greeley, Henry J. Raymond and James Gordon Bennett were disfranchised; what would be thought of them, if before audiences and in leading editorials they pressed the claims of Sambo, Patrick, Hans and Yung Fung to the ballot, to be lifted above their own heads? With their intelligence, education, knowledge of the science of government, and keen appreciation of the dangers of the hour, would it not be treasonable, rather than magnanimous, for them, leaders of the metropolitan press, to give the ignorant and unskilled a power in government they did not possess themselves? To do this would be to place on board the s.h.i.+p of State officers and crew who knew nothing of chart or compa.s.s, of the safe pathway across the sea, and bid those who understand the laws of navigation to stand aside. No, no, this is the hour to press woman's claims; we have stood with the black man in the Const.i.tution over half a century, and it is fitting now that the const.i.tutional door is open that we should enter with him into the political kingdom of equality. Through all these years he has been the only decent compeer we have had. Enfranchise him, and we are left outside with lunatics, idiots and criminals for another twenty years."

"Well," said Mr. Greeley, "if you persevere in your present plan, you need depend on no further help from me or the _Tribune_." And he kept his word. We have seen the negro enfranchised, and twenty long years pa.s.s away since the war, and still woman's turn has not yet come; her rights as a citizen of the United States are still unrecognized, the oft-repeated pledges of leading Republicans and Abolitionists have not been redeemed.

As soon as the Const.i.tutional Convention was called by the Legislature of New York, Mrs. Stanton appeared before that body asking not only that the word "male" be stricken from Sec. 1, Art. 2, but that women be permitted to vote for members to that Convention, giving many precedents and learned opinions in favor of her demand. In the a.s.sembly Chamber on the afternoon of Jan. 23, 1867, an immense audience of judges, lawyers, members of the Legislature, and ladies of fas.h.i.+on greeted her. On being introduced by the Hon. Chas. J.

Folger,[92] Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, MRS. STANTON said:

_Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee and Members of the Legislature_:

I appear before you at this time, to urge on you the justice of securing to all the people of the State the right to vote for delegates to the coming Const.i.tutional Convention. The discussion of this right involves the consideration of the whole question of suffrage; and especially those sections of your Const.i.tution which interpose insurmountable qualifications to its exercise. As representatives of the people, your right to regulate all that pertains to the coming Const.i.tutional Convention is absolute. It is for you to say when and where this convention shall be held; how many delegates shall be chosen, and what cla.s.ses shall be represented. This is your right. It is the opinion of many of the ablest men of the country that, in a revision of a const.i.tution, the State is, for the time being, resolved into its original elements, and that all disfranchised cla.s.ses should have a voice in such revision and be represented in such convention. To secure this to the people of the State, is clearly your duty.

Says Judge Beach Lawrence, in a letter to Hon. Charles Sumner: "A State Const.i.tution must originate with and be a.s.sented to by a majority of the people, including as well those whom it disfranchises as those whom it invests with the suffrage." And as there is nothing in the present Const.i.tution of the State of New York to prevent women, or black men from voting for, or being elected as delegates to a Const.i.tutional Convention, there is no reason why the Legislature should not enact that the people elect their delegates to said Convention irrespective of s.e.x or color.

The Legislatures of 1801 and 1821 furnish you a precedent for extending to disfranchised cla.s.ses the right to vote for delegates to a Const.i.tutional Convention. Though the Const.i.tution of the State restricted the right of suffrage to every male inhabitant who possessed a freehold to the value of 20, or rented a tenement at the yearly value of forty s.h.i.+llings, and had been rated and actually paid taxes to the State, the Legislatures of those years pa.s.sed laws setting aside all property limitations, and providing that all men--black and white, rich and poor--should vote for delegates to said Conventions. The act recommending a convention for the purpose of considering the parts of the Const.i.tution of this State, respecting the number of Senators and Members of a.s.sembly--and also for the consideration of the 23d article of said Const.i.tution, relative to the right of nomination to office--"but with no other power or authority whatsoever," pa.s.sed April 6, 1801. Session Laws 1801, chap. 69, page 190, sec. 2, says:

And be it further enacted, that the number of delegates chosen shall be the same as the number of Members of a.s.sembly from the respective cities and counties of the State, and that all free male citizens of this State, of the age of twenty-one years and upward, shall be admitted to vote for such delegates, and that any person of that description shall be eligible.

The above law was pa.s.sed by the Legislature of 1801, which derived its authority from the first Const.i.tution of the State.

The act recommending a convention of the people of this State, pa.s.sed March 13, 1821. Session Laws of 1821, act 90, page 83, sec. 1. "Persons ent.i.tled to vote":

All free male citizens, of the age of twenty-one years or upward, who shall possess a freehold in this State, or who shall have been actually rated and paid taxes to this State, or who shall have been actually enrolled in the militia of this State, or in a legal, volunteer, or uniform corps, and shall have served therein either as an officer or private, or who shall have been or now are, by law, exempt from taxation or militia duty, or who shall have been a.s.sessed to work on the public roads and highways, and shall have worked thereon, or shall have paid a commutation therefor according to law, shall be allowed during the three days of such election to vote by ballot as aforesaid in the town or ward in which they shall actually reside.

Extract from Sec. 6th, Act 90:

And be it further enacted, that the number of delegates to be chosen shall be the same as the number of Members of a.s.sembly from the respective cities and counties of this State, and that the same qualification for voters shall be required on the election for delegates, as is prescribed in the first section of this act, and none other.... And that all persons ent.i.tled to vote by this law for delegates, shall be eligible to be elected.

Extracts from the first Const.i.tution of the State of New York, under and by virtue of which the Legislatures sat, which pa.s.sed the acts of 1801 and 1821, from which the extracts above are taken. Sec. 7. Qualification of electors:

That every male inhabitant of full age, who shall have personally resided for six months within one of the counties of this State, immediately preceding the day of election, shall at such election be ent.i.tled to vote for representatives of the said county in a.s.sembly, if during the time aforesaid, he shall have been a freeholder possessing a freehold of the value of 20, within the said county, or have rented a tenement therein of a yearly value of forty s.h.i.+llings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to this State.

SEC. 10. And this Convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that the Senate of the State of New York shall consist of twenty-four freeholders, to be chosen out of the body of the freeholders, and they be chosen by the freeholders of this State, possessed of freeholds of the value of 100 over and above all debts charged thereon.

By section 17, the qualifications for voters for Governor are made the same as those for Senators.

The laws above quoted show this striking fact: Those men, black and white, prohibited from voting for members of the a.s.sembly, were permitted to vote for delegates to said Conventions; and more than this, on each occasion they were eligible to seats in the body called to frame the fundamental law--the fundamental law from which Governors, Senators, and Members derive their existence.

The Const.i.tutional Convention of Rhode Island, in 1842, affords another precedent of the power of the Legislature to extend the suffrage to disfranchised cla.s.ses.

The disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of any cla.s.s of citizens is in express violation of the spirit of our own Const.i.tution. Art. 1, sec. 1:

No member of this State shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land and the judgment of his peers.

Now, women, and negroes not worth two hundred and fifty dollars, however weak and insignificant, are surely "members of the State." The law of the land is equality. The question of disfranchis.e.m.e.nt has never been submitted to the judgment of their peers. A peer is an equal. The "white male citizen" who so pompously parades himself in all our Codes and Const.i.tutions, does not recognize women and negroes as his equals; therefore, his judgment in their case amounts to nothing. And women and negroes const.i.tuting a majority of the people of the State, do not recognize a "white male" minority as their rightful rulers.

On our republican theory that the majority governs, women and negroes should have a voice in the government of the State; and being taxed, should be represented.

In the recent debate in the Senate of the United States, on the question of suffrage, Senator Anthony, of Rhode Island, said:

Nor is it a fair statement of the case to say, that the man represents the woman, because it is an a.s.sumption on the part of the man--it is an involuntary representation on the part of the woman. Representation implies a certain delegated power, and a certain responsibility on the part of the representative toward the party represented. A representation to which the represented party does not a.s.sent, is no representation at all; but is adding insult to injury. When the American Colonies complained that they ought not to be taxed unless they were represented in the British Parliament, it would have been rather a singular answer to tell them that they were represented by Lord North, or even by the Earl of Chatham. The gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber, who say that the States lately in rebellion are ent.i.tled to immediate representation in this Chamber, would hardly be satisfied if we should tell them that my friend from Ma.s.sachusetts represented South Carolina, and my friend from Michigan represented Alabama.

They would hardly be satisfied with that kind of representation. Nor have we any more right to a.s.sume that the women are satisfied with the representation of the men.

Where has been the a.s.sembly at which this right of representation was conferred? Where was the compact made? It is wholly an a.s.sumption.

"White males" are the n.o.bility of this country; they are the privileged order, who have legislated as unjustly for women and negroes as have the n.o.bles of England for their disfranchised cla.s.ses. The existence of the English House of Commons is a strong fact to prove that one cla.s.s can not legislate for another. Perhaps it may be necessary, in this transition period of our civilization, to create a Lower House for women and negroes, lest the dreadful example of Ma.s.sachusetts, nay, worse, should be repeated here, and women, as well as black men, take their places beside our Dutch n.o.bility in the councils of the State. If the history of England has proved that white men of different grades can not legislate with justice for one another, how can you, Honorable Gentlemen, legislate for women and negroes, who, by your customs, creeds and codes, are placed under the ban of inferiority? If you dislike this view of the case, and claim that woman is your superior, and, therefore, you place her above all troublesome legislation, to s.h.i.+eld her by your protecting care from the rough winds of life, I have simply to say, your statute books are a sad commentary on that position.

Your laws degrade, rather than exalt woman; your customs cripple, rather than free; your system of taxation is alike ungenerous and unjust.

In demanding suffrage for the black man of the South, the dominant party recognizes the fact that as a freedman he is no longer a part of the family therefore his master is no longer his representative, and as he will now be liable to taxation, he must also have representation. Woman, on the contrary, has never been such a part of the family as to escape taxation. Although there has been no formal proclamation giving her an individual existence, unmarried women have always had the right to property and wages; to make contracts and do business in their own name.

And even married women, by recent legislation in this State, have been secured in some civil rights, at least as well secured as those cla.s.ses can be who do not hold the ballot in their own hands. Woman now holds a vast amount of property in the country, and pays her full proportion of taxes, revenue included; on what principle, then, do you deny her representation? If you say women are "virtually represented" by the men of their household, I give you Senator Sumner's denial, in his great speech on Equal Rights in the First Session of the 39th Congress. Quoting from James Otis, he says: "No such phrase as virtual representation was known in law or const.i.tution. It is altogether a subtlety and illusion, wholly unfounded and absurd. We must not be cheated by any such phantom or any other fiction of law or politics, or any monkish trick of deceit or hypocrisy."

In regard to taxation without representation, Lord c.o.ke says: "The supreme power can not take from any man any part of his property without his consent in person or by representation.

Taxes are not to be laid on the people" (are not women and negroes people?) "without their consent in person or by representation. The very act of taxing those who are not represented appears to me to deprive them of one of their most essential rights as freemen, and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of every civil right; for what one civil right is worth a rush, after a man's property is subject to be taken from him without his consent?" In view of such opinions, is it too much to ask the men of New York, either to enfranchise women of wealth and education, or else release them from taxation? If we can not be represented as individuals, we should not be taxed as individuals. If the "white male" will do all the voting, let him pay all the taxes. There is no logic so powerful in opening the eyes of men to their real interests as a direct appeal to their pockets. Such a release from taxation can be supported, too, by your own Const.i.tution. In Art. 2, Sec.

1, you say, "And no person of color shall be subject to direct taxation, unless he shall be seized and possessed of such real estate as aforesaid," referring to the $250 qualification. Now, a poor widow who owns a lot worth a hundred dollars or less, is taxed. Why this partiality to the black man? He may live in the quiet possession of $249 worth of property, and not be taxed a cent. Is it on the ground of color or s.e.x, that the black man finds greater favor in the eyes of the law than the daughters of the State? In order fully to understand this partiality, I have inquired into your practice with regard to women of color. I find that in Seneca Falls there lives a highly estimable colored woman, by the name of Abby Gomore, who owns property to the amount of a thousand dollars, in village lots. She now pays, and always has paid, from the time she invested her first hundred dollars, the same taxes as any other citizen--just in proportion to the value of her property, or as it is a.s.sessed. After excluding women and "men of color" not worth $250, from representation, your Const.i.tution tells us what other persons are excluded from the right of suffrage. Art. 2, Sec. 2.

Laws may be pa.s.sed excluding from the right of suffrage all persons who have been or may be convicted of bribery, or larceny, or of any infamous crime, and for depriving every person who shall make, or become directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager depending upon the result of any election, from the right to vote at such election.

How humiliating! For respectable and law-abiding women and "men of color," to be thrust outside the pale of political consideration with those convicted of bribery, larceny, and infamous crime; and worse than all, with those who bet on elections--for how lost to all sense of honor must that "white male citizen" be who publicly violates a wise law to which he has himself given an intelligent consent. We are ashamed, Honored Sirs, of our company. The Mohammedan forbids a "fool, a madman, or a woman" to call the hours for prayers. If it were not for the invidious cla.s.sification, we might hope it was tenderness rather than contempt that moved the Mohammedan to excuse woman from so severe a duty. But for the ballot, which falls like a flake of snow upon the sod, we can find no such excuse for New York legislators. Art. 2, Sec. 3, should be read and considered by the women of the State, as it gives them a glimpse of the modes of life and surroundings of some of the privileged cla.s.ses of "white male citizens" who may go to the polls:

For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged in navigating the waters of the State, or of the United States, or of the high seas; nor while a student of any seminary of learning; nor while kept at any alms-house or other asylum, at public expense; nor while confined in any public prison.

What an unspeakable privilege to have that precious jewel--the human soul--in a setting of _white manhood_, that thus it can pa.s.s through the prison, the asylum, the alms-house, the muddy waters of the Erie ca.n.a.l, and come forth undimmed to appear at the ballot-box at the earliest opportunity, there to bury its crimes, its poverty, its moral and physical deformities, all beneath the rights, privileges, and immunities of a citizen of the State. Just imagine the motley crew from the ten thousand dens of poverty and vice in our large cities, limping, raving, cringing, staggering up to the polls, while the loyal mothers of a million soldiers whose bones lay bleaching on every Southern plain, stand outside sad and silent witnesses of this wholesale desecration of republican inst.i.tutions. When you say it would degrade woman to go to the polls, do you not make a sad confession of your irreligious mode of observing that most sacred right of citizens.h.i.+p? The ballot-box, in a republican government, should be guarded with as much love and care as was the Ark of the Lord among the Children of Israel. Here, where we have no heaven-anointed kings or priests, law must be to us a holy thing; and the ballot-box the holy of holies; for on it depends the safety and stability of our inst.i.tutions. I, for one, gentlemen, am not willing to be thus represented. I claim to understand the interests of the nation better than yonder pauper in your alms-house, than the unbalanced graduate from your asylum and prison, or the popinjay of twenty-one from your seminary of learning, or the traveler on the tow-path of the Erie ca.n.a.l. No wonder that with such voters as Art. 2, Sec. 3 welcomes to the polls, we have these contradictory laws and const.i.tutions. No wonder that with such voters, s.e.x and color should be exalted above loyalty, virtue, wealth and education. I warn you, legislators of the State of New York, that you need the moral power of wise and thoughtful women in your political councils, to outweigh the incoming tide of poverty, ignorance, and vice that threatens our very existence as a nation. Have not the women of the republic an equal interest with yourselves in the government, in free inst.i.tutions, in progressive ideas, and in the success of the most liberal political measures? Remember, in your last election, the republican majority in this State was only fourteen thousand, all told. If you would not see the liberal party swamped in the next Presidential campaign, treble your majority by enfranchising those cla.s.ses who would support it in all just and merciful legislation....

The extension of suffrage is the political idea of our day, agitating alike the leading minds of both continents. The question of debate in the long past has been the rights of races.

This, in our country, was settled by the war, when the black man was declared free and worthy to bear arms in defense of the republic, and the last remnants of aristocracy were scattered before our northern hosts like chaff in the whirlwind. We have now come to the broader idea of _individual_ rights. An idea already debated ably in Congress and out, by Republicans, Democrats and Abolitionists, who, in common with the best writers and thinkers of the day the world over, base all rights of society and government on those of the individual. Each one of you has a right to everything in earth and air, on land and sea, to the whole world of thought, to all that is needful for soul and body, and there is no limit to the exercise of your rights, but in the infringement of the rights of another; and the moment you pa.s.s that limit you are on forbidden ground, you violate the law of individual life, and breed disorder and confusion in the whole social system. Where, gentlemen, did you get the right to deny the ballot to all women and black men not worth $250? If this right of suffrage is not an individual right, from what place and body did you get it? Is this right of franchise a conventional arrangement, a privilege that society or government may grant or withhold at pleasure? In the Senate of the United States, in the recent discussion on the "bill to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia," GRATZ BROWN said:

Mr. President, I say here on the floor of the American Senate, I stand for universal suffrage; and, as a matter of fundamental principle, do not recognize the right of society to limit it on any ground of race or s.e.x. I will go farther and say, that I recognize the right of franchise as being intrinsically a natural right. I do not believe that society is authorized to impose any limitations upon it that do not spring out of the necessities of the social state itself.