« 이전계속 »
prove them wrong. She wanted to appeal to no written authority for selfevident truths and natural laws.” After some remarks on the Emperor of Russia, the Pope, and other great personages, Miss Rose came down like a thunderbolt on our own excellent countryman, Mr. Roebuck, who, while acknowledging that to woman he was indebted for the formation of his mind and the consolation of his sorrows, nevertheless would not accede to the proposition for giving women the 51. franchise.'
Miss Rose, confident in the world-wide importance of the movement, boldly challenges Mr. Roebuck through the press,
that mighty power, that will bring my words to him on the wings of the lightning, as quick as I speak them;' a daring prophecy, which we doubt not was fulfilled,
• This finished the evening session of the second day. We must make short work of the third day. Dr. Harriett K. Hunt took the lead by moving certain resolutions for the admission of female students into medical colleges, with a special view to raising the public morals and correcting certain abuses of the public press by "a new medical infusion of the woman element”-a threat which, as it is directed against editors, perhaps we ought to understand. Miss Anthony, described as a slender girl, of about twenty years of age, never known to smile, then moved a resolution on her own hook, to sustain journals edited by women in preference to those edited by men. She instanced the · Lily, edited by Miss Bloomer; the 'Genius of Liberty,' by Mrs. E. Aldridge; and the Democrat,' by Mrs. Nichols. Then ensued a very long debate about organization, both as a law of nature and a mode of diffusing opinions. The ladies took very strong views on this subject, for and against. Mrs. Rose thought all organizations Chinese bandages. They were the incubus of our nature. Others argued from the Jesuits, from the English Universities, and all conceivable analogies, that organization, though a bandage, was necessary to effect. The few gentlemen present were generally in favour of the principle, but did not gain much attention. Mr. James King, losing his temper at the clamour raised against him, shouted out,“ You would keep us out of your conventions if you could. The physical element rules the world, and it ever will; and the male being predominant”—No more was heard, and Mr. King ceased to predominate in that meeting. At the afternoon session the Rev. C. L. Hatch, of Massachusetts, congregational minister, asked leave to address the meeting, and did so from a paper. He began with much apparent tact, commenting in a mild and candid tone on certain published letters, and defending the ministerial order from the attacks of * women's-rights' women." Whether he was feeling his way, or whether he was warming with his subject, certainly there was a progression in his remarks. “ Miss Stone,” he said, had asserted “ that men shut up their wives. Women have the same right, if they are able. I knew a woman wbo shut up her drunken husband, and sewed him up in the sheets, and wbipped him till he got sober.” This was received with roars of laughter, and “ Served him right, too !” " I hope she will always do the same! After observing on the precedence given to women, he observed, “ Miss Stone has also said that nothing is peculiar to woman but her maternity;" and with that surplusage so common to clerical speakers, he proceeded to develop the idea of maternity with unnecessary distinctness. Receiving a check he drew in a little, but soon reminded his fair hearers that “if women Tun against horses they must expect to be betted on.” He then boldly contrasted the true feminine element with the sbrill clarion and the brazen trumpet" of the voices around him, and amidst a storm of indignation, sar
casm, and rebukes from the chair, he concluded, “ God fend the time when this feminine element shall be laid aside, and our sisters shall bustle in the crowd with their brothers and mix in the rough and trouble of life,' ' Continuing his offensive speech in terms which overwhelmed his hearers with indignation and confusion
He reiterated the idea with tedious minuteness and studied impropriety. Brought to a standstill by the blast of feminine execration, he humbly begged that he might be permitted to finish his paper-there were only three lines more. But considering the abyss he had been deliberately descending into, it is fearful to think what these three lines might have contained, and we must say the “women's-rights' women were justified in refusing to bear them, and in expelling him in a storm of hisses. Do they not see, however, that such a finale exposes the absurdity of the convention? There is, then, a moral as well as a physical difference between the two
Eve at Syracuse there are expressions that would fall unobserved and harmless in a company of men, but are intolerable in the bearing of
Mr. Hatch applied rather a coarse test, but it was sufficient to prove that his hearers were women in spite of themselves.'— Times, Dec. 30, 1852.
In this Report are included, either by express mention or implication, all the demands the movement party amongst American women are set upon obtaining. All that is understood by the rights of women:'--and these are briefly comprehended in an absolute equality between the sexes, and, in most senses, a subversion of all the preconceived notions of a natural division of duties. Women, as a sex, cannot help, it is true, being the mothers of the human race; but this is not admitted as any exemption from active public service. Therefore, they demand, first, an education which shall fit them for this sphere, and an admission to schools and colleges of men, and all the dignities and preferments annexed to these, at present, close foundations. Next, they claim political rights, not only the liberty of voting, but access to every public office. This naturally implies an assertion of equal fitness with men for every calling, clerical, professional, legal, medical; and for every art or craft they may incline to. Let them,' exclaims Margaret Fuller, 'be sea-captains if they will.' It is needless to add, that in social life all ideas of subjection are boldly discarded. Especial stress is laid on the rights of property. No woman shall forfeit her independence of action by marrying. She shall be at liberty to earn money by any calling, lay or clerical, she may choose, and her earnings shall be absolutely her own. The idea of obedience is, in fact, wholly disowned, as an antiquated figment; for submission to reason, which they substitute in its stead, proceeds from an entirely different principle from obedience to authority; the first is submission to self, the last to another. Woman is henceforth to be a self-sustaining
thing of power. Nor does she want male advocates to support all these pretensions : Mr. T. W. Higginson thus sums up their case :
It would seem that, under the circumstances, the rising protest of American women, though it may annoy men, can hardly surprise them. I have chosen to begin with the consideration of education, because that is a point commonly conceded, and therefore a good fulcrum for the lever. But much more remains behind. It is not the sole grievance of woman that she has not even her full share of school-education.
Nor is the complaint only, that any system of “education" is utterly imperfect which provides for women only schools, and not functions.
* Nor is it the whole of the grievance, that the employments easily accessible to women are few, unintellectual, and underpaid.
• Nor is it all, that the denial of equal political rights being an absolute wrong, must necessarily be in many ways a practical wrong. Is not each individual
, male or female, a unit before God? Has not woman, equally with man, an individual body to be protected, and an individual soul to be saved? Must she not see, feel, know, speak, think, act, for herself, and not through another? We hear much said of the value of the "franchise of a freeman,” say women; but why should Franchise belong to Francis more than to Frances, when the three words are etymologically the same, and should be practically so,-all signifying simply, Freedom? Nay, as things now stand, Frank may grow up a vulgar, ignorant ruffian, and Fanny nay have the mental calibre and culture of Margaret Fuller or Mary Lowell Putnam,—the self-devoted energy of Dorothea Dix or Mary Ware: yet it will make no difference. The man must count as one in the State, the woman counts zero; a ratio, as mathematicians agree, of infinite inferiority.
• But this is not all. Nor is it all, that this exclusion is a thing done without “the consent of the governed.” “The body politic (says the Massachusetts Constitution) is formed by a voluntary association of individuals.” Accordingly, we think it a daring responsibility to hold a Constitutional Convention, or even to pass a Liquor Law, without a popular vote thereon. When was the popular vote taken, in which women relinquished even the rights conceded to them by their English ancestors ? At any given moment there is probably a clear majority of women over men in this commonwealth. Have this majority consented to their present subjection ? No, they have had no opportunity to consent; they have never been asked; they have only acquiesced, as the black majority in South Carolina acquiesce, because that very subjection has made them both ignorant and timid.
• Nor is it all, that we lose the services of the purest half of the human race from our public offices. Not one of these admirable women, whom I have just named, may have a direct voice in legislating for a hospital or a prison; not one of these accomplished ones can have a place in even a school-committee; to say nothing of those grander cares of state, which were yet freely granted to Elizabeth of England and to Maria Theresa.
• Nor is it all, that female labour thus loses its guarantee of protection, which political economy has always recognized as an important feature of free institutions. “To give energy to industrial enterprise,” says one American writer, unconscious of the covert satire, “ the dignity of labour should be sustained; the franchise of a freeman should be granted to the humblest labourer who has not forfeited his right by crime. In the responsibilities of a freeman, he will find the strongest motives to exertion. Besides, so far as Government can by its action affect bis confidence of a just remuneration for his toil, he feels that a remedy is put in his hands by the ballot-box.” Indeed, John Neal asserts that the right of suffrage is worth fifty cents a-day, in its effect upon the wages of male labourers, in this country. But where are all these encouragements for women?
• Nor is it all, that with the right to labour, all the other rights of woman, as to person and property, are equally endangered by this exclusion from direct power.
• For the great grievance alleged by all women who make complaint of grievances is this, that all these details are but part of a system, which lies at the basis of all our organizations, assumes at the outset the inferiority of woman, merges every married woman in her husband, and imposes upon every single woman the injustice of taxation without representation ;-symbolical of the general fact, that she incurs most of the responsibilities of freedom, without its rights.'
• The protest of women, therefore, is not against a special abuse, but agaiust a whole system of injustice; and the peculiar importance of political suffrage to woman is only because it seems to be the most available point to begin with. Once recognize the political equality of the sexes, and all the questions of legal, social, educational, and professional equality will soon settle themselves.
• It is not to be denied, that the subject is coming rapidly into discussion, and bids fair to be ably handled. On the one side are the reports of three large and estimable “ Woman's-Rights Conventions," in Worcester and Syracuse, together with a series of ten tracts by the same indefatigable band of agitators. On the other side are the fixed observances of Church and State.'-Woman and her Wishes, pp. 14–16.
Thus far Mr. T. W. Higginson, Minister of the Worcester Free Church. Theodore Parker, a name too well known for the advocacy of infidel opinions, but here designated Minister of the Twenty-eighth Congregational Society, takes the same line of argument:
* The Family, Community, Church, and State, are four modes of action which have grown out of human nature in its historical development; they are all necessary for the development of mankind-machines which the human race has devised, in order to possess, use, develop, and enjoy their rights as human beings, their rights also as men.
. These are just as necessary for the development of woman as of man, and as she has the same Nature, Right, and Duty as man, it follows that she has the same right to use, shape, and control these four institutions, for her general human purpose and for her special feminine purpose, that man has to control them for his general human purpose and his special masculine purpose. All that is as undeniable as anything in metaphysics or mathematics.'
I rejoice at the introduction of women into common schools, academies, and high schools; and I thank God that the man who has done so much for public education in Massachusetts, is presently to be the head of a college in Ohio, where women and men are to study together, and where a woman is to be professor of Latin and Natural History. These are good signs.
The business of public lecturing, also, is quite important in New England, and I am glad to see that woman presses into tbat,--not without success.
The work of conducting a journal, daily, weekly, or quarterly, woman proves that she can attend to quite as decently, and as strongly, too, as most men.
* Then there are what are called the Professions, Medicine, Law, and Theology.
• The profession of Medicine seems to belong peculiarly to woman by pature; part of it, exclusively. She is a nurse, and half a doctor, by nature. It is quite encouraging that medical schools are beginning to instruct women, and special schools get founded for the use of women ; that sagacious men are beginning to employ women as their physicians. Great good is to be expected from that.
As yet, I believe, no woman acts as a Lawyer. But I see no reason why the profession of Law might not be followed by women as well as by men. "He must be rather an uncommon lawyer who thinks no feminine head could compete with him. Most lawyers that I have known are rather mechanics at law, than attorneys or scholars at law; and in the mechanical part, woman could do as well as man-could be as good a con. veyancer, could follow precedents as carefully, and copy forms as nicely. And in the higher departments of legal work, they who have read the plea which Lady Alice Lille made in England, when she could not speak by attorney, must remember there is some eloquence in woman's tongue which courts find it rather hard to resist. I think her presence would mend the manners of the court-of the bench, not less than of the bar,
'In the business of Theology, I could never see why a woman, if she wished, should not preach, as well as men. It would be hard, in the present condition of the pulpit, to say she had not intellect enough for that! I am glad to find, now and then, women preachers, and rejoice at their success. A year ago, I introduced to you the Reverend Miss Brown, educated at an Orthodox Theological Seminary ;-you smiled at the name of Recerend Miss. She has since been invited to settle by several congregations of unblemished orthodoxy, and has passed on, looking further.
For purposes of their own, these gentlemen claim a new field for women. They know that the movement party amongst them would further their own views, while the conservative element in the sex would on principle remain quiescent, and thus the whole weight of women, as a political engine, would be on their side. Mr. Parker wants women to be preachers, public theological teachers, because he knows the majority of women who would undertake these offices, would be opposed to dogmatic religion. We will not venture to quote the train of vital doctrines which he is confident women would discountenance, mixing with these, however, opinions which we are accustomed to call Calvinism, but which he affects to trace to monks and celibates. Why,'he exclaims, triumphantly, you could not get 'a woman that had intellect enough to open her mouth to preach
these things anywhere.' Women think they believe them, .but they do not. From which we only gather that he is fully alive to the fact that the preaching ladies would be at odds with their sisters who think it their duty to be in subjection and learn at home. Of course it would be the same in politics. Nevertheless, as men, they cling to the old, feminine, gentle,