Women -- Suffrage -- History; Women -- Suffrage -- United States -- History; Women's rights -- History; Women's rights -- United States -- History
Now, women are "individuals"; women are a part of "the people";
women are "citizens," for the Constitution elsewhere
distinguishes male citizens. This clause, then, concedes
precisely that which your petitioners claim. Observe how explicit
it is. The people are not merely to have good laws, well
administered; but they must have an equitable mode of making
those laws. The reason of this is, that good laws are no
permanent security, unless enacted by equitable methods. Your
laws may be the best ever devised; yet still they are only given
as a temporary favor, not held as a right, unless the whole
people are concerned in their enactment. It is the old claim of
despots--that their laws are good. When they told Alexander of
Russia that his personal character was as good as a constitution
for his people, "then," said he, "I am but a lucky accident."
Your constitution may be never so benignant to woman, but that is
only a lucky accident, unless you concede the claim of these
women to have a share in creating it. Nothing else "is an
equitable mode of making laws." But it is too late to choose
female delegates to your Convention, and the only thing you can
do is to allow women to vote on the acceptance of its results.
The claim of these petitioners may be unexpected, but is
logically irresistible. If you do not wish it to be renewed, you
must remember either to alter or abrogate your Bill of Rights;
for the petition is based on that.
The last speaker called this movement a novelty. Not entirely so.
The novelty is partly the other way. In Europe, women have direct
political power; witness Victoria. It is a false democracy which
has taken it away. In my more detailed argument, I have cited
many instances of these foreign privileges. In monarchical
countries the dividing lines are not of sex, but of rank. A
plebeian woman has no political power--nor has her husband. Rank
gives it to man, and, also, in a degree, to woman. But among us
the only rank is of sex. Politically speaking, in Massachusetts
all men are patrician, all women plebeian. All men are equal, in
having direct political power; and all women are equal, in having
none. And women lose by democracy precisely that which men gain.
Therefore I say this disfranchisement of woman, as woman, is a
novelty. It is a now aristocracy; for, as De Tocqueville says,
wherever one class has peculiar powers, as such, there is
aristocracy and oligarchy.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account