From a speech of the Rev. Knox-Little at the Church of St. Clements in Philadelphia in 1880: "G.o.d made himself to be born of a woman to sanctify the virtue of endurance; loving submission is an attribute of a woman; men are logical, but women, lacking this quality, have an intricacy of thought. There are those who think women can be taught logic; this is a mistake. They can never by any power of education arrive at the same mental status as that enjoyed by men, but they have a quickness of apprehension, which is usually called leaping at conclusions, that is astonishing. There, then, we have distinctive traits of a woman, namely, endurance, loving submission, and quickness of apprehension. Wifehood is the crowning glory of a woman. In it she is bound for all time. To her husband she owes the duty of unqualified obedience. There is no crime which a man can commit which justifies his wife in leaving him or applying for that monstrous thing, divorce. It is her duty to subject herself to him always, and no crime that he can commit can justify her lack of obedience. If he be a bad or wicked man, she may gently remonstrate with him, but refuse him never. Let divorce be anathema; curse it; curse this accursed thing, divorce; curse it, curse it! Think of the blessedness of having children. I am the father of many children and there have been those who have ventured to pity me.

'Keep your pity for yourself,' I have replied, 'they never cost me a single pang.' In this matter let woman exercise that endurance and loving submission which, with intricacy of thought, are their only characteristics."

From the Philadelphia _Public Ledger and Daily Transcript_, July 20, 1848: "Our Philadelphia ladies not only possess beauty, but they are celebrated for discretion, modesty, and unfeigned diffidence, as well as wit, vivacity, and good nature. Who ever heard of a Philadelphia lady setting up for a reformer or standing out for woman's rights, or a.s.sisting to _man_ the election grounds [_sic_], raise a regiment, command a legion, or address a jury? Our ladies glow with a higher ambition. They soar to rule the hearts of their worshippers, and secure obedience by the sceptre of affection.... But all women are not as reasonable as ours of Philadelphia. The Boston ladies contend for the rights of women. The New York girls aspire to mount the rostrum, to do all the voting, and, we suppose, all the fighting, too.... Our Philadelphia girls object to fighting and holding office. They prefer the baby-jumper to the study of c.o.ke and Lyttleton, and the ball-room to the Palo Alto battle. They object to having a George Sand for President of the United States; a Corinna for Governor; a f.a.n.n.y Wright for Mayor; or a Mrs. Partington for Postmaster.... Women have enough influence over human affairs without being politicians.... A woman is n.o.body. A wife is everything. A pretty girl is equal to ten thousand men, and a mother is, next to G.o.d, all powerful.... The ladies of Philadelphia, therefore, under the influence of the most 'sober second thoughts' are resolved to maintain their rights as Wives, Belles, Virgins, and Mothers, and not as Women."

From the "Editor's Table" of _Harper's New Monthly Magazine_, November, 1853: "Woman's Rights, or the movement that goes under that name, may seem to some too trifling in itself and too much connected with ludicrous a.s.sociations to be made the subject of serious arguments. If nothing else, however, should give it consequence, it would demand our earnest attention from its intimate connection with all the radical and infidel movements of the day. A strange affinity seems to bind them all together.... But not to dwell on this remarkable connection--the claim of 'woman's rights' presents not only the common radical notion which underlies the whole cla.s.s, but also a peculiar enormity of its own; in some respects more boldly infidel, or defiant both of nature and revelation, than that which characterises any kindred measure. It is avowedly opposed to the most time-honoured proprieties of social life; it is opposed to nature; it is opposed to revelation.... This unblushing female Socialism defies alike apostles and prophets. In this respect no kindred movement is so decidedly infidel, so rancorously and avowedly anti-biblical.

"It is equally opposed to nature and the established order of society founded upon it. We do not intend to go into any physiological argument.

There is one broad striking fact in the const.i.tution of the human species which ought to set the question at rest for ever. This is the fact of maternity.... From this there arise, in the first place, physical impediments which, during the best part of the female life, are absolutely insurmountable, except at a sacrifice of almost everything that distinguishes the civilized human from the animal, or beastly, and savage state. As a secondary, yet inevitably resulting consequence, there come domestic and social hindrances which still more completely draw the line between the male and female duties.... Every attempt to break through them, therefore, must be p.r.o.nounced as unnatural as it is irreligious and profane.... The most serious importance of this modern 'woman's rights' doctrine is derived from its direct bearing upon the marriage inst.i.tution. The blindest must see that such a change as is proposed in the relations and life of the s.e.xes cannot leave either marriage or the family in their present state. It must vitally affect, and in time wholly sever, that oneness which has ever been at the foundation of the marriage idea, from the primitive declaration in Genesis to the latest decision of the common law. This idea gone--and it is totally at war with the modern theory of 'woman's rights'--marriage is reduced to the nature of a contract simply.... That which has no higher sanction than the will of the contracting parties, must, of course, be at any time revocable by the same authority that first created it. That which makes no change in the personal relations, the personal rights, the personal duties, is not the holy marriage _union_, but the unholy _alliance_ of concubinage."

In a speech of Senator George G. Vest, of Missouri, in the United States Senate, January 25, 1887, these: "I now propose to read from a pamphlet sent to me by a lady.... She says to her own s.e.x: 'After all, men work for women; or, if they think they do not, it would leave them but sorry satisfaction to abandon them to such existence as they could arrange without us.'

"Oh, how true that is, how true!"

In 1890 a bill was introduced in the New York Senate to lower the "age of consent"--the age at which a girl may legally consent to s.e.xual intercourse--from 16 to 14. It failed. In 1892 the brothel keepers tried again in the a.s.sembly. The bill was about to be carried by universal consent when the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, feeling the importance of the measure, called for the individual yeas and nays, in order that the const.i.tuents of the representatives might know how their legislators voted. The bill thereupon collapsed. In 1889 a motion was made in the Kansas Senate to lower the age of consent from 18 to _12_.

But the public heard of it; protests flowed in; and under the pressure of these the law was allowed to remain as it was.

Such are some typical examples of the warfare of the opposition to all that pertains to advancing the status of women. As I review the progress of their rights, let the reader recollect that this opposition was always present, violent, loud, and often scurrilous.

In tracing the history of women's rights in the United States my plan will be this: I shall first give a general review of the various movements connected with the subject; and I shall then lay before the reader a series of tables, wherein may be seen at a glance the status of women to-day in the various States.

[Sidenote: Single women.]

[Sidenote: History of agitation for women's rights.]

In our country, as in England, single women have at all times had practically the same legal rights as men; but by no means the same political, social, educational, or professional privileges; as will appear more conclusively later on.

We may say that the history of the agitation for women's rights began with the visit of Frances Wright to the United States in 1820. Frances Wright was a Scotchwoman, born at Dundee in 1797, and early exhibited a keen intellect on all the subjects which concern political and social reform. For several years after 1820 she resided here and strove to make men and women think anew on old traditional beliefs--more particularly on theology, slavery, and the social degradation of women. The venomous denunciations of press and pulpit attested the success of her efforts.

In 1832 Lydia Maria Child published her _History of Woman_, a resume of the status of women; and this was followed by numerous works and articles, such as Margaret Fuller's, _The Great Lawsuit, or Man vs.

Woman: Woman vs. Man_, and Eliza Farnham's _Woman and her Era_. Various women lectured; such as Ernestine L. Rose--a Polish woman, banished for a.s.serting her liberty. The question of women's rights received a powerful impetus at this period from the vast number of women who were engaged in the anti-slavery agitation. Any research into the validity of slavery perforce led the investigators to inquire into the justice of the enforced status of women; and the two causes were early united.

Women like Angelina and Sarah Grimke and Lucretia Mott were pioneers in numerous anti-slavery conventions. But as soon as they dared to address meetings in which men were present, a tempest was precipitated; and in 1840, at the annual meeting of the Anti-Slavery a.s.sociation, the men refused to serve on any committee in which any woman had a part; although it had been largely the contributions of women which were sustaining the cause. Affairs reached a climax in London, in 1840, at the World's Anti-Slavery Convention. Delegates from all anti-slavery organisations were invited to take part; and several American societies sent women to represent them. These ladies were promptly denied any share in the proceedings by the English members, thanks mainly to the opposition of the clergy, who recollected with pious satisfaction that St. Paul permitted not a woman to teach. Thereupon Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton determined to hold a women's rights convention as soon as they returned to America; and thus a World's Anti-Slavery Convention begat an issue equally large.

Accordingly, the first Women's Rights Convention was held at Seneca Falls, New York, July 19-20, 1848. It was organised by _divorced wives, childless women, and sour old maids_, the gallant newspapers declared; that is, by Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mrs. Lucretia Mott, Mrs.

McClintock, and other fearless women, who not only lived the purest and most unselfish of domestic lives, but brought up many children besides.

Great crowds attended. A _Declaration of Sentiments_ was moved and adopted; and as this exhibits the temper of the convention and ill.u.s.trates the then prevailing status of women very clearly, I shall quote it:

DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to a.s.sume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's G.o.d ent.i.tle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to such a course.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are inst.i.tuted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the inst.i.tution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light or transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they were accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are ent.i.tled.

"The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

"He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

"He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.

"He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men--both natives and foreigners.

"Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

"He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.

"He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

"He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master--the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastis.e.m.e.nt.

"He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes, and, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women--the law in all cases going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.

"After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single, and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognises her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

"He has monopolised nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow she receives but a scanty remuneration.

He closes against her all the avenues of wealth and distinction which he considers most honourable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

"He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.

"He allows her in church, as well as state, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public partic.i.p.ation in the affairs of the church.

"He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.

"He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to a.s.sign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her G.o.d.

"He has endeavoured, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

"Now, in view of this entire disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of one half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation; in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.

"In entering upon the great work before us, we antic.i.p.ate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, pet.i.tion the State and National legislatures, and endeavour to enlist the pulpit and press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions embracing every part of the country."

Such was the defiance of the Women's Rights Convention in 1848; other conventions were held, as at Rochester, in 1853, and at Albany in 1854; the movement extended quickly to other States and touched the quick of public opinion. It bore its first good fruits in New York in 1848, when the Property Bill was pa.s.sed. This law, amended in 1860, and ent.i.tled "An Act Concerning the Rights and Liabilities of Husband and Wife"

(March 20, 1860), emanc.i.p.ated completely the wife, gave her full control of her own property, allowed her to engage in all civil contracts or business on her own responsibility, rendered her joint guardian of her children with her husband, and granted both husband and wife a one-third share of one another's property in case of the decease of either partner.

Thus New York became the pioneer. The movement spread, as I have mentioned, with amazing rapidity; but it was not so uniformly successful. Conventions were held, for example, in Ohio, at Salem, April 19-20, 1850; at Akron, May 28-29, 1851; at Ma.s.sillon on May 27, 1852. Nevertheless, in 1857, the Legislature of Ohio pa.s.sed a bill enacting that no married man should dispose of any personal property without having first obtained the consent of his wife; the wife was empowered, in case of a violation of this law, to commence a civil suit in her own name for the recovery of the property; and any married woman whose husband deserted her or neglected to provide for his family was to be ent.i.tled to his wages and to those of her minor children. A bill to extend suffrage to women was defeated, by a vote of 44 to 44; the pet.i.tion praying for its enactment had received 10,000 signatures.

The course of events as it has been described in New York and Ohio, is practically the same in the case of the other States. The Civil War relegated these issues to a secondary place; but during that momentous conflict the heroism of Clara Barton on the battlefield and of thousands of women like her paved the way for a rea.s.sertion of the rights of woman in the light of her unquestioned exertions and unselfish labours for her country in its crisis. After the war, attention began to be concentrated more on the right to _vote_. By the Fourteenth Amendment the franchise was at once given to negroes; but the insertion of the word _male_ effectually barred any national recognition of woman's right to vote. A vigorous effort was made by the suffrage leaders to have _male_ stricken from the amendment; but the effort was futile. Legislators thought that the black man's vote ought to be secured first; as the _New York Tribune_ (Dec. 12, 1866) puts it snugly: "We want to see the ballot put in the hands of the black without one day's delay added to the long postponement of his just claim. When that is done, we shall be ready to take up the next question" (i.e., woman's rights).

The first Women's Rights Convention after the Civil War had been held in New York City, May 10, 1866, and had presented an address to Congress.

Such was the dauntless courage of the leaders, that Mrs. Stanton offered herself as a candidate for Congress at the November elections, in order to test the const.i.tutional rights of a woman to run for office. She received twenty-four votes.

Six years later, on November I, 1872, Miss Susan B. Anthony did a far more Audacious thing. She went to the polls and asked to be registered.

The two Republican members of the board were won over by her exposition of the Fourteenth Amendment and agreed to receive her name, against the advice of their Democratic colleague and a United States supervisor.

Following Miss Anthony's example, some fifty other women of Rochester registered. Fourteen voted and were at once arrested under the enforcement act of Congress of May 31, 1870 (_section_ 19). The case of Miss Anthony was argued, ably by her attorney; but she was adjudged guilty. A _nolle prosequi_ was entered for the women who voted with her.

Immediately after the decision in her case, the inspectors who had registered the women were put on trial because they "did knowingly and willfully register as a voter of said District one Susan B. Anthony, she, said Susan B. Anthony, then and there not being ent.i.tled to be registered as a voter of said District in that she, said Susan B.

Anthony, was then and there a person of the female s.e.x, contrary to the form of the statute of the United States of America in such case made and provided, and against the peace of the United States of America and their dignity." The defendants were ordered to pay each a fine of twenty-five dollars and the costs of the prosecution; but the sentence was revoked and an unconditional pardon given them by President Grant, in an order dated March 3, 1874. Miss Anthony was forced to pay her fine, in spite of an appeal to Congress.

Such were the stirring times when the agitation for women's rights was first brought to the fore as a national issue. Within a few years, various States, like New York and Kansas, put the question of equal suffrage for women before its voters; they in general rejected the measure. At present there are four States which give women complete suffrage and right to vote on all questions with the same privileges as men, viz., Wyoming (1869), Colorado (1893), Utah (1896), and Idaho (1896). In 1838 Kentucky gave school suffrage to widows with children of school age; in 1861 Kansas gave it to all women. School suffrage was granted all women in 1875 by Michigan and Minnesota, in 1876 by Colorado, in 1878 by New Hampshire and Oregon, in 1879 by Ma.s.sachusetts, in 1880 by New York and Vermont, in 1883 by Nebraska, in 1887 by North and South Dakota, Montana, Arizona, and New Jersey. Kansas gave munic.i.p.al suffrage in 1887; and Montana gave tax-paying women the right to vote upon all questions submitted to the tax-payers. In 1891 Illinois granted school suffrage, as did Connecticut in 1893. Iowa gave bond suffrage in 1894. In 1898 Minnesota gave women the right to vote for library trustees, Delaware gave school suffrage to tax-paying women, and Louisiana gave tax-paying women the right to vote upon all questions submitted to the tax-payers. Wisconsin gave school suffrage in 1900. In 1901 New York gave tax-paying women in all towns and villages of the State the right to vote on questions of local taxation; and the Kansas Legislature voted down almost unanimously a proposal to repeal munic.i.p.al suffrage. In 1903 Kansas gave bond suffrage; and in 1907 the new State of Oklahoma continued school suffrage. In 1908 Michigan gave all women who pay taxes the right to vote upon questions of local taxation and the granting of franchises.

The history of the "age of legal consent" has an importance which through prudery and a wilful ignorance of facts the public has never fully realised. I shall have considerable to say of it later. It will suffice for the moment to remark that until the decade preceding 1898 the old Common Law period of ten, sometimes twelve, years was the basis of "age of consent" legislation in most States and in the Territories under the jurisdiction of the national government. In 1885 the age in Delaware was _seven_.