History of Woman Suffrage
Chapter 131 : Mr. POMEROY: I desire to say in just a brief word that I shall vote against the amendm

Mr. POMEROY: I desire to say in just a brief word that I shall vote against the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, simply because I am in favor of this measure, and I do not want to weigh it down with anything else. There are other measures that I would be glad to support in their proper place and time; but this is a great measure of itself. Since I have been a member of the Senate, there was a law in this District authorizing the selling of colored men. To have traveled in six years from the auction-block to the ballot with these people is an immense stride, and if we can carry this measure alone of itself we should be contented for the present. I am for this measure religiously and earnestly, and I would vote down and vote against everything that I thought weakened or that I thought was opposed to it. It is simply with this view, without expressing any opinion in regard to the merits of the amendment, that I shall vote against it and all other amendments.

The PRESIDENT _pro tem._: The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan], to strike out the word "male" before the word "person," in the second line of the first section of the amendment reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia as a subst.i.tute for the whole bill, and on that question the yeas and nays have been ordered. Yeas, 9. Nays, 37.[58]

In the House, January 28, 1867, Mr. Noell, of Missouri, introduced a bill to amend the suffrage act of the District of Columbia, which, after the second reading, he moved should be referred to a select committee of five, and on that motion demanded the previous question, and called for the yeas and nays, which resulted in 49 yeas,[59] 74 nays--68 not voting.

FOOTNOTES:

[48] FORM OF PEt.i.tION.--_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:--The undersigned women of the United States, respectfully ask an amendment of the Const.i.tution that shall prohibit the several States from disfranchising any of their citizens on the ground of s.e.x.

In making our demand for Suffrage, we would call your attention to the fact that we represent fifteen million people--one-half the entire population of the country--intelligent, virtuous, native-born American citizens; and yet stand outside the pale of political recognition. The Const.i.tution cla.s.ses us as "free people," and counts us _whole_ persons in the basis of representation; and yet are we governed without our consent, compelled to pay taxes without appeal, and punished for violations of law without choice of judge or juror. The experience of all ages, the Declarations of the Fathers, the Statute Laws of our own day, and the fearful revolution through which we have just pa.s.sed, all prove the uncertain tenure of life, liberty, and property so long as the ballot--the only weapon of self-protection--is not in the hand of every citizen.

Therefore, as you are now amending the Const.i.tution, and, in harmony with advancing civilization, placing new safeguards round the individual rights of four millions of emanc.i.p.ated slaves, we ask that you extend the right of Suffrage to Woman--the only remaining cla.s.s of disfranchised citizens--and thus fulfill your const.i.tutional obligation "to guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government." As all partial application of Republican principles must ever breed a complicated legislation as well as a discontented people, we would pray your Honorable Body, in order to simplify the machinery of Government and ensure domestic tranquillity, that you legislate hereafter for persons, citizens, tax-payers, and not for cla.s.s or caste. For justice and equality your pet.i.tioners will ever pray.

[49] JOINT RESOLUTIONS BEFORE CONGRESS AFFECTING WOMEN.

_To the Editor of the Standard_--_Sir_:--Mr. Broomall, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Schenck, of Ohio; Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode Island; Mr.

Stevens, of Pennsylvania, have each a resolution before Congress to amend the Const.i.tution.

Article 1st, Section 2d, reads thus: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective number."

Mr. Broomall proposes to amend by saying "male electors," Mr. Schenck "male citizens," Mr. Jenckes "male citizens," Mr. Stevens "legal voters." There is no objection to the amendment proposed by Mr.

Stevens, as in process of time women may be made "legal voters" in the several States, and would then meet that requirement of the Const.i.tution. But those urged by the other gentlemen, neither time, effort, nor State Const.i.tutions could enable us to meet, unless, by a liberal interpretation of the amendment, a coat of mail to be worn at the polls might be judged all-sufficient. Mr. Jenckes and Mr. Schenck, in their bills, have the grace not to say a word about taxes, remembering perhaps that "taxation without representation is tyranny."

But Mr. Broomall, though unwilling to share with us the honors of Government, would fain secure us a place in its burdens; for while he apportions representatives to "male electors" only, he admits "_all the inhabitants_" into the rights, privileges, and immunities of taxation. Magnanimous M. C.!

I would call the attention of the women of the nation to the fact that under the Federal Const.i.tution, as it now exists, there is not one word that limits the right of suffrage to any privileged cla.s.s. This attempt to turn the wheels of civilization backward, on the part of Republicans claiming to be _the_ Liberal party, should rouse every woman in the nation to a prompt exercise of the only right she has in the Government, the right of pet.i.tion. To this end a committee in New York have sent out thousands of pet.i.tions, which should be circulated in every district and sent to its Representative at Was.h.i.+ngton as soon as possible.

ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.

NEW YORK, _January 2, 1866_.

[50] Leaving Rochester October 11th, she called on Martha Wright, Auburn; Phebe Jones and Lydia Mott, Albany; Mrs. Rose, Gibbons, Davis, Stanton, New York; Lucy Stone and Antoinette Brown Blackwell, New Jersey; Stephen and Abby Foster, Worcester; Mrs. Severance, Dall, Nowell, Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Dr. Zakzyewska, Mr. Phillips and Garrison, in Boston, urging them to join in sending protests to Was.h.i.+ngton against the pending legislation. Mr. Phillips at once consented to vote $500 from the "Jackson Fund" to commence the work.

Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton spent all their "Christmas holidays" in writing letters and addressing appeals and pet.i.tions to every part of the country, and before the close of the session of 1865-66 ten thousand signatures were poured into Congress.

[51] "THIS IS THE NEGRO'S HOUR."

_To the Editor of the Standard_--_Sir_:--By an amendment of the Const.i.tution, ratified by three-fourths of the loyal States, the black man is declared free. The largest and most influential political party is demanding suffrage for him throughout the Union, which right in many of the States is already conceded. Although this may remain a question for politicians to wrangle over for five or ten years, the black man is still, in a political point of view, far above the educated women of the country. The representative women of the nation have done their uttermost for the last thirty years to secure freedom for the negro, and so long as he was lowest in the scale of being we were willing to press _his_ claims; but now, as the celestial gate to civil rights is slowly moving on its hinges, it becomes a serious question whether we had better stand aside and see "Sambo" walk into the kingdom first. As self-preservation is the first law of nature, would it not be wiser to keep our lamps trimmed and burning, and when the const.i.tutional door is open, avail ourselves of the strong arm and blue uniform of the black soldier to walk in by his side, and thus make the gap so wide that no privileged cla.s.s could ever again close it against the humblest citizen of the republic?

"This is the negro's hour." Are we sure that he, once entrenched in all his inalienable rights, may not be an added power to hold us at bay? Have not "black male citizens" been heard to say they doubted the wisdom of extending the right of suffrage to women? Why should the African prove more just and generous than his Saxon compeers? If the two millions of Southern black women are not to be secured in their rights of person, property, wages, and children, their emanc.i.p.ation is but another form of slavery. In fact, it is better to be the slave of an educated white man, than of a degraded, ignorant black one. We who know what absolute power the statute laws of most of the States give man, in all his civil, political, and social relations, demand that in changing the status of the four millions of Africans, the women as well as the men shall be secured in all the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens.

It is all very well for the privileged order to look down complacently and tell us, "This is the negro's hour; do not clog his way; do not embarra.s.s the Republican party with any new issue; be generous and magnanimous; the negro once safe, the woman comes next." Now, if our prayer involved a new set of measures, or a new train of thought, it would be cruel to tax "white male citizens" with even two simple questions at a time; but the disfranchised all make the same demand, and the same logic and justice that secures suffrage to one cla.s.s gives it to all. The struggle of the last thirty years has not been merely on the black man as such, but on the broader ground of his humanity. Our Fathers, at the end of the first revolution, in their desire for a speedy readjustment of all their difficulties, and in order to present to Great Britain, their common enemy, an united front, accepted the compromise urged on them by South Carolina, and a century of wrong, ending in another revolution, has been the result of their action. This is our opportunity to retrieve the errors of the past and mould anew the elements of Democracy. The nation is ready for a long step in the right direction; party lines are obliterated, and all men are thinking for themselves. If our rulers have the justice to give the black man suffrage, woman should avail herself of that new-born virtue to secure her rights; if not, she should begin with renewed earnestness to educate the people into the idea of universal suffrage.

ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.

NEW YORK, _December 26, 1865_.

[52] From the _New York Evening Express_.

SCENES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.--_Negroes are to Vote--Why not Coolies in California--Indians everywhere, and First of all, Fifteen Millions of our Countrywomen._

The following occurred in the House, Tuesday, upon Thaddeus Stevens'

resolution, from the Reconstruction Committee, to deprive the South of representation, unless the South lets the negroes vote there....

Mr. CHANDLER, of New York, having the floor for an hour, said: Before proceeding with my remarks, I will yield the floor for ten minutes to my colleague [Mr. Brooks].

Mr. BROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise, of course, to debate this resolution, in the few minutes allowed me by my colleague, nor, in my judgment, does the resolution need any discussion unless it may be for the mere purpose of agitation. I do not suppose that there is an honorable gentleman upon the floor of this House who believes for a moment that any movement of this character is likely to become the fundamental law of the land, and these propositions are, therefore, introduced only for the purpose of agitation. If the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] had been quite confident of adopting this amendment, he would at the start have named what are States of this Union. The opinion of the honorable gentleman himself, that there are no States in this Union but those that are now represented upon this floor, I know full well, but he knows as well that the President of the United States recognizes thirty-six States of this Union, and that it is necessary to obtain the consent of three-fourths of those thirty-six States, which number it is not possible to obtain. He knows very well that if his amendment should be adopted by the Legislatures of States enough, in his judgment, to carry it, before it could pa.s.s the tribunal of the Executive Chamber it would be obliged to receive the a.s.sent of twenty-seven States in order to become an amendment to the Const.i.tution. The whole resolution, therefore, is for the purpose of mere agitation. It is an appeal from this House to the outside const.i.tuencies that we know by the name of buncombe. Here it was born, and here, after its agitation in the States, it will die. Hence, I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania this morning to be consistent in his proposition. In one thing he is consistent, and that is in admitting the whole of the Asiatic immigration, which, by the connection of our steamers with China and j.a.pan and the East Indies, is about to pour forth in mighty ma.s.ses upon the Pacific coast to the overwhelming even of the white population there.

Mr. STEVENS: I wish to correct the gentleman. I said it excluded Chinese.

Mr. BROOKS: How exclude them, when Chinese are to be included in the basis of representation?

Mr. STEVENS: I say it excludes them.

Mr. BROOKS: How exclude them?

Mr. STEVENS: They are not included in the basis of representation.

Mr. BROOKS: Yes, if the States exclude them from the elective franchise; and the States of California and Oregon and Nevada are to be deprived of representation according to their population upon the floor of this House by this amendment. I asked him, also, if the Indian was not a man and a brother, and I obtained no satisfactory answer from the honorable gentleman. I speak now, in order to make his resolution consistent, for no one hundred thousand coolies or wild savages, but I raise my voice here in behalf of fifteen million of our countrywomen, the fairest, brightest portion of creation, and I ask why they are not permitted to vote for Representatives under this resolution? Why, in organizing a system of liberality and justice, not recognize in the case of free women as well as free negroes the right of representation?

Mr. STEVENS: The gentleman will allow me to say that this bill does not exclude women. It does not say who shall vote.

Mr. BROOKS: I comprehend all that; but the whole object of this amendment is to obtain votes for the negroes. That is its purport, tendency, and meaning; and it punishes those who will not give a vote to the negroes in the Southern States of our Union. That is the object of the resolution, and the ground upon which it is presented to this House and to the country. This is a new era; this is an age of progress. Indians are not only Indians, but men and brothers; and why not, in a resolution like this, include the fair s.e.x too, and give them the right to representation? Will it be said that this s.e.x does not claim a right to representation? Many members here have pet.i.tions from these fifteen millions of women, or a large portion of them, for representation, and for the right to vote on equal terms with the stronger s.e.x, who they say are now depriving them of it. To show that such is their wish and desire, I will send to the Clerk's desk to be read certain doc.u.ments, to which I ask the attention of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens], for in one of them he will find he is somewhat interested.

The Clerk read as follows:

STANDARD OFFICE, 48 Beekman Street, New York, _Jan. 20, 1866_.

_Dear Sir_:--I send you the inclosed copy of pet.i.tion and signatures sent to Thaddeus Stevens last week. I then urged Mr.

Stevens, if their committee of fifteen could not report favorably on our pet.i.tions, they would, at least, not interpose any new barrier against woman's right to the ballot.

Mrs. Stanton has sent you a pet.i.tion--I trust you will present that at your earliest convenience. The Democrats are now in minority. May they drive the Republicans to do good works--not merely to hold the rebel States in check until negro men shall be guaranteed their right to a voice in their governments, but to hold the party to a logical consistency that shall give every responsible citizen in every State equal right to the ballot.

Will you, sir, please send me whatever is said or done with our pet.i.tions? Will you also give me the names of members whom you think would present pet.i.tions for us?

Hon. JAMES BROOKS. Respectfully yours, SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

A PEt.i.tION FOR UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:--[The pet.i.tion here presented has been already in _The Express_. The following are the signatures to the pet.i.tion sent to Mr. Stevens]: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, New York; Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N.Y.; Antoinette Brown Blackwell, New York; Lucy Stone, Newark, N.J.; Ernestine L. Rose, New York; Joanna S. Morse, 48 Livingston St., Brooklyn; Elizabeth R.

Tilton, 48 Livingston St., Brooklyn; Ellen Hoxie Squier, 34 St. Felix St., Brooklyn; Mary Fowler Gilbert, 294 West 19th St., New York; Mary E. Gilbert, 294 West 19th St., New York; Mattie Griffith, New York.

The SPEAKER: The ten minutes of the gentleman from New York [Mr.

Brooks] have expired.

Mr. BROOKS: I will only say that at the proper time I will move to amend--or if I do not I would suggest to some gentleman on the other side to move it--this proposed amendment by inserting the words "or s.e.x" after the word "color," so that it will read:

_Provided_, That whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color or s.e.x, all persons of such race or color or s.e.x shall be excluded from the basis of representation.

Mr. STEVENS: Is the gentleman from N.Y. [Mr. Brooks] in favor of that amendment?