|
蘇姍‧B．安東尼
(SUSAN B. ANTHONY)
婦女的選舉權
Women's Right to Vote
(American Memory Collection, Library of Congress)
是我們人民，但不是我們男性白人公民，也不是我們男性公民，而是我們全體人民，在當時成立了這個聯邦。
蘇珊‧B‧安東尼(1820－1906)生長在馬薩諸塞州的一個開明的公誼會教徒家庭。她曾經教過小學。身為一個獨身婦女，她強烈地意識到婦女需要個人和經濟上的獨立。她曾積極投身於紐約的禁酒運動和廢奴運動。1851年，她見到正在撫養一大群孩子的伊利莎白‧凱蒂‧斯坦頓。在很長一段時間裏，安東尼能夠到外地進行演講和組織工作，而斯坦頓卻只好呆在家裏照看孩子。她們代表婦女的權利，成了工作中的夥伴。她們終身保持這一關係，而她們的這種關係決定了美國女權主義運動的進程。在1872年的總統大選中，安東尼帶了一群紐約州羅徹斯特的婦女到那些投票地點參加投票。因為當時婦女投票是非法的，所以她被逮捕並遭到起訴。安東尼於1873年6月被傳訊。在此之前，她前往紐約北部的大部分地區進行以下的演講，說明剝奪婦女的選舉權是不合理的。她最終被判有罪並加以罰款。但她拒付罰金，而且也沒有人向她索款。她在演講中爭辯說根本就不需要憲法修正案「給」婦女以選舉權，因為1868年通過的第十四條修正案中就講到：「凡在合眾國出生或歸化合眾國者」均為合眾國之公民，且享有一切公民權。她堅持認為，既然婦女是這裏提到的人們和公民，她們就完全有權投票選舉。
我因犯有所謂的沒有合法選舉權而擅自參加本屆總統選舉的罪名而遭到起訴。我今天晚上所要說的就是要向你們證明，我這樣做不僅沒有犯任何罪，而僅僅是履行了我的公民權。這些權利是國家憲法保證給我和所有美國公民的，也是哪一個州政府都無權加以剝奪的。
我們的民主共和政府是以它的每個成員在立法和執法中享有發言權和選舉權這一自然權利觀念為基礎的。我們認為政府的職權是保證它的人民享有他們的不可剝奪的權利。我們不再相信政府能夠賦予人民以權利的那一套老教條。誰都不會否認在組織政府之前，每個人都有權保護自己的生命、自由和財產。如果有一百到一百萬人加入了一個自由政府，他們的目的並不是為了要出賣自己的自然權利，他們只是希望通過所規定的立法和司法機構以互相保證捍衛他們對這些權利的享有。他們一致同意不再使用野蠻的手段，而是通過文明的辦法來調解他們之間的矛盾。《獨立宣言》、《合眾國憲法》以及許多州的憲法和
準州的基本法都一致提出要「保護」人民行使上帝所賦予的各種權利。這些章法都沒有裝出自己能給人們帶來什麼權利的樣子。
人人生而平等，造物者賦予他們若幹不可剝奪的權利，其中包括生命權、自由權和追求幸福的權利。為了保障這些權利，人類才在他們之間建立政府，而政府之正當權力，是經被治理者的同意而產生的。
這裏並沒有暗示政府的權力可以凌駕於人民的權利之上，或者哪一部分人所享有的全部平等權利可以被剝奪。這裏明確指出的是所有的人，如那位公誼會牧師所言，「所以也是所有的女人」在政府中的發言權。《獨立宣言》在第一段這裏肯定了每個人參加投票選舉的自然權利；理由是如果選舉權被剝奪，「被治理者的同意」又何以產生?……婦女們對這種形式的政府感到不滿，因為她們被課以捐稅而不准選舉代表；她們被迫遵行她們從未表示同意的法律；她們被判處徒刑和處決卻沒有一個由她們同等地位的公民所組成的陪審團；她們在婚姻中被剝奪了人身自由、勞動收入及對孩子的監護權──她們這一半人口完全聽憑另一半人口的任意擺佈。這直接違背了這個政府的締造者們在宣言中所體現的精神和文字要求。宣言中的每一項都是基於人人享有平等權利這一不可更改的原則之上。在這些宣言面前，所有的國王、教皇、牧師和貴族全都降為平民百姓，全都在政治上與出身最低賤的臣民和農奴同站在一樣的地位；在這些宣言面前，男人們也同樣失去神賦的治理權，而在政治上同婦女們站在一樣的位置上。通過宣言的實施，各階層等級間的界限將被取消，所有的奴隸、農奴、庶民百姓、妻子、女人全都從被奴役的地位站起來，登上平等的政治大舞臺。
聯邦政府的憲法在序言中寫道：
我們，合眾國的人民，為了組織一個更完善的聯邦，樹立正義，保障國內的安寧，建立共同的國防，增進全民福利和確保我們自己及我們的後代能安享自由帶來的幸福，為美利堅合眾因制定和確立這一部憲法。
是我們人民，但不是我們男性白人公民，也不是我們男性公民，而是我們全體人民，在當時成立了這個聯邦。我們組織這個聯邦，目的不是給什麼人以自由的幸福，而是保證人們安享這些幸福：不是僅僅向我們中間的一半人和我們後代的一半人，而是向全體人民──男人和女人，確保這些幸福。如果一方面向婦女們宣傳她們所享有的自由帶來的幸福，而另一方面卻拒不讓她們得到選舉權──這個民主共和政府所提供的唯一能夠獲得幸福的途徑，那麼，這就是地地道道的嘲弄。……
當我在1871年要求(查爾斯‧薩姆納參議員)就像他為黑人所做過的那件事一樣，宣佈合眾國憲法有權保護婦女的選舉權的時候，他遞給我一份他在戰後重建時期的全部演說稿，並且還說：
凡是在我寫有「種族」和「膚色」的地方，你都寫上「性別」，這樣，你就可以得到我為婦女們所能作出的最好的也是最有力的辯護。毫無疑問，婦女享有憲法所規定的選舉權，我也絕不投票要求第十六條修正案向她們保證這一權利。我曾經不得已投票贊同第十四條和第十五條修正案；若不是因為當時的情況緊急，我是絕不會這樣做的；我會堅決要求通過法律上的程序，對原憲法保護全體公民享有平等權利的權力加以證實。然而，當時那些剛獲得自由的奴隸不能理解，也沒有金錢和時間去等候這些緩慢的法律程序。婦女明顯在很大程度上具備這些條件，所以我認為她們還是應該訴諸於法庭，並通過它們成立美國大憲章以保護共和國的每個公民。
但是，朋友們，當我根據薩姆納議員的意見於去年11月到投票點履行我的公民選舉權的時候，法庭不等我上訴就先把我給告了，告我犯了非法投票罪。……
如果一個州把性別規定為一種限制條件，它將勢必造成整整一半的人民被剝奪公權。這樣做就等於通過一項剝奪逃犯或死囚的政治權利的議案，即一項溯及既往的法律，所以它就是違背國家的最高法律。根據這一性別規定，婦女和她們的女性後代都將永遠得不到自由所帶來的幸福。對她們而言，這個政府根本就沒有經被治理者同意而產生的任何合法權力，因此，這個政府也就不是一個民主政體，也不是一個共和政體。它是世界上所有政府中最醜惡的貴族政府。人們也許可以容忍由富人治理窮人的富翁寡頭政權，由有學問的人治理沒有學問的人的文人寡頭政權，乃至由英國人治理非洲人的種族寡頭政權；但是，這種性別寡頭政權卻使得每家每戶中的父親、兄弟、丈夫和兒子成為騎在母親、姊妹、妻子和女兒頭上的寡頭；它注定所有的男人為君主，所有的女人為臣民；它使全國上下家家戶戶中的成員變得不和睦甚至反目為仇。……
請大家注意，在所有的章法中都使用男性代詞「他」和「他的」，它表明這些規定和條款本來只是針對男人而言的。如果你們堅持法律文字的這一表達方式，那麼，我們就要求你們一定做到前後一致，正視問題的另一個方面，這就是要求你們免去婦女為政府交納的捐稅，婦女犯法而不治其罪。因為稅法中沒有「她」和「她的」，所有刑法中的情況也一樣。
就拿我被指控所違反的民權法來說，它所用的代詞都是男性的，而且大家也知道它是專門為了限制那些圖謀不軌的男人參加選舉而制定的。其中寫道：「如果有人明知他自己沒有合法的權利而故意參加投票，」……我堅決認為如果政府官可以像這樣竄改這些代詞而對婦女課以捐稅、加以罰款、關押和處決，那麼他們就有責任變動這些代詞以保護我們的選舉權。……
雖然在國家和州憲法中不偏不倚地用了「人們、人民、居民、選民、公民」這些字眼，但是在戰前人們對這些字眼是否屬同義詞還一直持有不同的見解。然而，不論在舊制度下，這方面有哪些值得懷疑的地方，在已經通過的第十四條修正案中的第一個句子徹底解決了這個問題：
任何人，幾在合眾國發生或歸化合眾國並受其管轄者，均為合眾國及其所居住之州的公民。
其中的第二個句子解決了全體公民的平等地位問題：
任何州不得制定或執行任何剝奪合眾國公民特權或豁免權的法律。任何州，如未經適當法律程式，均不得剝奪任何人的生命、自由或財產；亦不得對任何在其管轄下的人拒絕給予平等的法律保護。
現在剩下唯一要解決的問題是：婦女是人們嗎?我不相信任何反對我們的人有膽量說她們不是人們。既然是人們，那麼婦女就是公民，任何州都無權制定或執行任何剝奪她們的公民特權或豁免權的法律。因此，如今許多州的憲法和法律中歧視婦女的規定和條款就像每一項歧視黑人的規定和條款一樣都已經被廢除了。
選舉權是公民的一種特權嗎?我相信所有被剝奪公民權的前叛亂分子和前州的犯人都會贊同說，它不僅是一種特權或豁免權，而且還是一種捨此別無他權的權利。先要享有選舉權，其他東西自然全。這是政治訓諭。……
無論法律博士們對於「人民」和「公民」在原有憲法中是否同指一種人的問題，以及在第十四條修正案中的特權與豁免權是否包括選舉權的問題上存在多麼嚴重的分歧，公民選舉權的問題已經在第十五條修正案中得到徹底解決：「合眾國政府或任何州政府』，不得因種族、膚色，或以前曾服勞役而拒絕給予或剝奪合眾國公民的選舉權。」倘若公民不曾享有公民權，州政府又何以拒絕或剝奪之？結論只有一個：選舉是公民的權利；而且種族、膚色和以前曾服勞役等具體情況一點也不影響「不得拒絕給予或剝奪公民選舉權」這一著重強調句的份量。……
但是，如果你們一定堅持認為第十五條修正案強調製止「因種族、膚色及以前曾服勞役」而剝奪合眾國公民的選舉權這句話是承認合眾國或任何一個州政府有權根據任何其他理由剝奪這些人的選舉權，那麼，我可以向你們證明根據我們政府的本義和各州政府的許多法律，我正為之辯護的那一階層的公民是包括在「以前曾服過勞役」這一條款之下的。
先來討論已婚婦女和她們的合法地位。何謂奴役?「奴隸的身份。」何謂奴隸?「一個被剝奪勞動所得的人；一個服從他人意志的人。」根據喬治亞州、南卡羅來納州以及南方諸州的法律，黑人無自身監護權和支配權。他隸屬他的主人。他若不順從，其主人有權對他施加管教；這黑人若不願接受管教而逃走，其主人有權採取強制手段將其追回。根據這個聯邦南部和北部幾乎每一個州的現行法律規定，已婚婦女無自身監護權和支配權。妻子隸屬丈夫；她若不順從，他可以適當施加管教；她若不願接受這一適當管教而跟他「散夥」出走，丈夫可以使用適當的強制手段將其帶回。你們瞧，這個小字眼「適當的」就是妻子的保留條款。而且一旦受氣的丈夫用「九尾鞭」對她施加管教或者派大獵犬執行他的強制手段時，這一保留條款無疑要受到僭越。
再說奴隸無權享有自己的勞動所得，它屬於他的主人；奴隸無權監護自己的子女，他們也屬於他的主人；奴隸無權起訴和被起訴，也無權上法庭作證。他若是犯了罪，要起訴或被起訴的卻是他的主人。有幾個州設有專門的法規，允許已婚婦女有權享有遺產、遺贈財物、以及在外工作所得，也允許她們有權就這些財產的問題起訴或被起訴。但是，沒有哪
一個州保證妻子享有夫妻雙方共同創造的財富的平等權利。從道理上說，既然絕大多數已婚婦女不曾出外工作賺得分文，也不曾從父親的遺產中分得半個子兒，那麼可以說，她們自從結婚的第一天起直到丈夫死去的那一天為止，身上從無一文半子，除非丈夫為了尋開心才讓她帶上一點點。……
難道還要別的什麼來證明婦女們低下的奴役地位才能讓她們得到第十五條修正案中的那些保證嗎?我認為沒有選舉權而侈談自由是對這個共和國的婦女們的嘲弄，這與新英格蘭的演說家溫德爾‧菲力普斯在前一次戰爭結束時宣告說沒有選舉權而侈談自由對剛獲得解放的黑人來說是一種嘲弄是完全一樣的。有哪一位男的敢反對我的這種看法嗎?我承認在內戰以前，使出生在國內和國外的人成為奴隸以及剝奪他們公權的那種權利經一致同意已經交給州政府，但是，由內戰和重建法規所定下來的一個重大原則是，國家政府擁有最高權力，它將克服來自幾個州政府的干預而保護合眾國公民的自由權和選舉權。而且美國人民還一次又一次地肯定絕大多數支援林肯和格蘭持的人民所贏得的這一原則。
在前兩屆總統選舉中的一個問題是：第十四條和第十五條修正案是否應該被看成為不可動搖的民心?結論是必須這樣看待它們，同時國家政府不僅有權而且還有責任保證全體美國公民充分享受並自由行使他們的各種特權，並且在任何州政府企圖對此加以拒絕和剝奪時能夠對它們加以保護。
自從這兩條修正案得到通過以來，我們全美婦女選舉權協會所提出的每一個論點和所進行的第一項行動都是基於合眾國憲法的這──正確闡述。我們還將
於明年五月在紐約舉行慶祝女權運動二十五週年的活動。我們不再請求立法部門和國會給我們以選舉權，但我們要呼籲各地婦女行使起她們個被遺忘的「公民權」。我們請求選舉檢票員收點每個美國公民的選票，因為這是他們的職責。我們呼籲美國政府持派員和法警逮捕那些拒絕收點美國公民選票的檢票員而留用那些履行職責收點選票的檢票員，因為這是特派員和法警的責任。我們要求陪審團在審案時對那些遵紀守法投票的美國公民和那些在選舉時收點這些選票的檢票員作出「無罪」的判決。
我們要求法官作出公正無私的法律裁決。凡是在有可能的地方，請記住薩姆納說過：「根據國家憲法，尤其是根據修正以後的憲法，闡釋的真正標準是：凡是有益於人權的就是符合憲法的；凡是違反人權的就是不符合憲法的。」我們就是按照這一方法為選舉權而鬥爭的。我們的鬥爭是和平的，然而又是堅持不懈的。我們將一直鬥爭到我們獲得全勝，鬥爭到全體美國公民，男的和女的，都同樣被承認為這個政府中平等的一員。
I stand
before you under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last
presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my
work this evening to prove to you that in thus doing, I not only committed no
crime, but instead simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and
all
United States
citizens by the National Constitution beyond the power of any State to deny.
Our
democratic-republican government is based on the idea of the natural right of
every individual member thereof to a voice and a vote in making and executing
the laws. We assert the province of government to be to secure the people in the
enjoyment of their inalienable rights. We throve to the winds the old dogma that
government can give rights. No one denies that before governments were organized
each individual possessed the right to protect his own life, liberty and
property. When 100 to 1,000,000 people enter into a free government, they do not
barter away their natural rights; they simply pledge themselves to protect each
other in the enjoyment of them through prescribed judicial and legislative
tribunals. They agree to abandon the methods of brute force in the adjustment of
their differences and adopt those of civilization. . . . The Declaration of
Independence, the United States Constitution, the constitutions of the several
States and the organic laws of the Territories, all alike propose to protect the
people in the exercise of their Godgiven rights. Not one of them pretends to
bestow rights.
All
men are created equal, and endowed by
their Creator
with certain inalienable rights.
Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these,
governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.
Here is
no shadow of government authority over rights, or exclusion of any class from
their full and equal enjoyment. Here is pronounced the right of all men, and
"consequently," as the Quaker preacher said, "of all women," to a voice in the
government. And here, in this first paragraph of the Declaration, is the
assertion of the natural right of all to the ballot; for how can "the consent of
the governed" be given, if the right to vote be denied? . . . The women,
dissatisfied as they are with this form of government, that enforces taxation
without representation－that
compels them to obey laws to which they never have given their consent－that
imprisons and hangs them without a trial by a jury of their peers－that
robs them, in marriage, of the custody of their own persons, wages, and children－are
this half of the people who are left wholly at the mercy of the other half, in
direct violation of the spirit and letter of the declarations of the framers of
this government, every one of which was based on the immutable principle of
equal rights to all. By these declarations, kings, popes, priests, aristocrats,
all were alike dethroned and placed on a common level, politically, with the
lowliest born subject or serf. By them, too, men, as such, were deprived of
their divine right to rule and placed on a political level with women. By the
practice of these declarations all class and caste distinctions would be
abolished, and slave, serf, plebeian, wife, woman, all alike rise from their
subject position to the broader plat form of equality.
The
preamble of the Federal Constitution says:
We,
the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence,
promote the general
welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and es-
tablish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It was
we, the people, not we, the white male citizens, nor we, the male citizens; but
we, the whole people, who formed this Union. We formed it not to give the
blessings of liberty but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the
half of our posterity, but to the whole people－women
as well as men. It is downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of
the blessings of liberty while they are denied the only means of securing them
provided by this democratic-republican government－the
ballot....
When, in
1871, I asked [Senator Charles Sumner] to declare the power of the United States
Constitution to protect women in their right to vote－as
he had done for black men－he
handed me a copy of all his speeches during that reconstruction period, and
said:
Put "sex"
where I have "race" or "color," and you have here the best and strongest
argument I can make for woman. There is not a doubt but women have the
constitutional right to vote, and I will never vote for a Sixteenth Amendment to
guarantee it to them. I voted for both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth under
protest; would never have done it but for the pressing emergency of that hour;
would have insisted that the power of the original Constitution to protect all
citizens in the equal enjoyment of their rights should have been vindicated
through the courts. But the newly made freedmen had neither the intelligence,
wealth nor time to await that slow process. Women do possess all these in an
eminent degree, and I insist that they shall appeal to the courts and through
them establish the powers of our American magna charta to protect every citizen
of the republic.
But,
friends, when in accordance with Senator Sumner's counsel I went to the
ballot-box, last November, and exercised my citizen's right to vote, the courts
did not wait for me to appeal to them－they
appealed to me, and indicted me on the charge of having voted illegally. . . .
For any
State to make sex a qualification, which must ever result in the
disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of
attainder, an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law
of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever with held from women and
their female posterity. For them, this government has no just powers derived
from the consent of the governed. For them this government is not a democracy;
it is not a republic. It is the most odious aristocracy ever established on the
face of the globe. An oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor; an
oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant; or even an
oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this
oligarchy of sex which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over
the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters of every household; which ordains
all men sovereigns, all women subjects－carries
discord and rebellion into every home of the nation....
It is
urged that the use of the masculine pronouns he, his and him in all the
constitutions and laws, is proof that only men were meant to be included in
their provisions. If you insist on this version of the letter of the law, we
shall insist that you be consistent and accept the other horn of the dilemma,
which would compel you to exempt women from taxation for the support of the
government and from penalties for the violation of laws. There is no she or her
or hers in the tax laws, and this is equally true of all the criminal laws.
Take for
example, the civil rights law which I am charged with having violated; not only
are all the pronouns in it masculine, but everybody knows that it was intended
expressly to hinder the rebel men from voting. It reads, "If any person shall
knowingly vote without his having a lawful right.". . . I insist if government
officials may thus manipulate the pronouns to tax, fine, imprison and hang
women, it is their duty to thus change them in order to protect us in our right
to vote. . . .
Though
the words persons, people, inhabitants, electors, citizens, are all used
indiscriminately in the national and State constitutions, there was always a
conflict of opinion, prior to the war, as to whether they were synonymous terms,
but whatever room there was for doubt, under the old regime, the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment settled that question forever in its first sentence:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States,
and of the State wherein they reside.
The
second settles the equal status of all citizens:
No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities
of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. or deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The only
question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? I scarcely believe any of
our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then,
women are citizens, and no State has a right to make any new law, or to enforce
any old law, which shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every
discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several States
is today null and void, precisely as is every one against negroes.
Is the
right to vote one of the privileges or immunities of citizens? I think the
disfranchised ex-rebels and ex-State prisoners all will agree that it is not
only one of them, but the one without which all the others are nothing. Seek
first the kingdom of the ballot and all things else shall be added, is the
political injunction. . . .
However
much the doctors of the law may disagree as to whether people and citizens, in
the original Constitution, were one and the same, or whether the privileges and
immunities in the Fourteenth Amendment include the right of suffrage, the
question of the citizen's right to vote is forever settled by the Fifteenth
Amendment. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race,
color or previous condition of servitude." How can the State deny or abridge the
right of the citizen, if the citizen does not possess it? There is no escape
from the conclusion that to vote is the citizen's right, and the specifications
of race, color or previous condition of servitude can in no way impair the force
of that emphatic assertion that the citizen's right to vote shall not be denied
or abridged. . . .
If,
however, you will insist that the Fifteenth Amendment's emphatic interdiction
against robbing United States citizens of their suffrage "on account of race,
color or previous condition of servitude," is a recognition of the right of
either the United States or any State to deprive them of the ballot for any or
all other reasons, I will prove to you that the class of citizens for whom I now
plead are, by all the principles of our government and many of the laws of the
States, included under the term "previous conditions of servitude."
Consider
first married women and their legal status. What is servitude? "The condition of
a slave." What is a slave? "A person who is robbed of the proceeds of his labor;
a person who is subject to the will of another." By the laws of Georgia, South
Carolina and all the States of the South, the negro had no right to the custody
and control of his person. He belonged to his master. If he were disobedient,
the master had the right to use correction. If the negro did not like the
correction and ran away, the master had the right to use coercion to bring him
back. By the laws of almost every State in this Union today, North as well as
South, the married woman has no right to the custody and control of her person.
The wife belongs to the husband; and if she refuse obedience he may use moderate
correction, and if she do not like his moderate correction and leave his "bed
and board," the husband may use moderate coercion to bring her back. The little
word "moderate," you see, is the saving clause for the wife, and would doubtless
be overstepped should her offended husband administer his correction with the
"cat o'-nine-tails," or accomplish his coercion with blood-hounds.
Again the
slave had no right to the earnings of his hands, they belonged to his master; no
right to the custody of his children, they belonged to his master; no right to
sue or be sued, or to testify in the courts. If he committed a crime, it was the
master who must sue or be sued. In many of the States there has been special
legislation, giving married women the right to property inherited or received by
bequest, or earned by the pursuit of any avocation outside the home; also giving
them the right to sue and be sued in matters pertaining to such separate
property; but not a single State of this Union has ever secured the wife in the
enjoyment of her right to equal ownership of the joint earnings of the marriage
copartnership. And since, in the nature of things, the vast majority of married
women never earn a dollar by work outside their families, or inherit a dollar
from their fathers, it follows that from the day of their marriage to the day of
the death of their husbands not one of them ever has a dollar, except it shall
please her husband to let her have it. . . .
Is
anything further needed to prove woman's condition of servitude sufficient to
entitle her to the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment? Is there a man who
will not agree with me that to talk of freedom without the ballot is mockery to
the women of this republic, precisely as New England's orator, Wendell Phillips,
at the close of the late war declared it to be to the newly emancipated black
man? I admit that, prior to the rebellion, by common consent, the right to
enslave, as well as to disfranchise both native and foreign born persons, was
conceded to the States. But the one grand principle settled by the war and the
reconstruction legislation, is the supremacy of the national government to
protect the citizens of the United States in their right to freedom and the
elective franchise, against any and every interference on the part of the
several States; and again and again have the American people asserted the
triumph of this principle by their overwhelming majorities for Lincoln and
Grant.
The one
issue of the last two presidential elections was whether the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments should be considered the irrevocable will of the people;
and the decision was that they should be, and that it is not only the right, but
the duty of the national government to protect all United States citizens in the
full enjoyment and free exercise of their privileges and immunities against the
attempt of any State to deny or abridge. . . .
It is
upon this just interpretation of the United States Constitution that our
National Woman Suffrage Association, which celebrates the twenty-fifth
anniversary of the woman's rights movement next May in New York City, has based all its arguments and action since the
passage of these amendments. We no longer petition legislature or Congress to
give us the right to vote, but appeal to women everywhere to exercise their too
long neglected "citizen's right." We appeal to the inspectors of election to
receive the votes of all
United States
citizens, as it is their duty to do. We appeal to United States commissioners
and marshals to arrest, as is their duty, the inspectors who reject the votes of
United States citizens, and leave alone those who perform their duties and
accept these votes. We ask the juries to return verdicts of "not guilty" in the
cases of law-abiding United States citizens who cast their votes, and inspectors
of election who receive and count them.
We ask
the judges to render unprejudiced opinions of the law, and wherever there is
room for doubt to give the benefit to the side of liberty and equal rights for
women, remembering that, as Sumner says, "The true rule of interpretation under
our National Constitution, especially since its amendments, is that anything/or
human rights is constitutional, everything against human rights
unconstitutional." It is on this line that we propose to fight our battle for
the ballot－peacably
but nevertheless persistently－until
we achieve complete triumph and all United States citizens, men and women alike,
are recognized as equals in the government.
|