|
蘇’’B’’’尼
(SUSAN B. ANTHONY)
婦’’選’’
Women's Right to Vote
(American Memory Collection, Library of Congress)
’
’我們’民’’不’我們’’白’公民’’不’我們’’公民’而’我們’體’民’’當’成立’’個’邦’
蘇’’B’’’尼(1820－1906)生’’馬薩諸塞’’’個’’’公誼’教’’’’’曾’教’’學’身爲’個’身婦’’’’’’’識’婦’需’個’’’濟’’’立’’曾’極投身’’’’’’’動’’奴’動’1851’’’見’正’撫’’’’’’’伊’莎白’凱蒂’斯’’’’’’’’’間裏’’’尼’夠’’’’’’講’組織’’’而斯’’’’’’’’裏照’’’’’們’’婦’’’’’成’’’中’夥’’’們終身’’’’關’’而’們’’種關’’’’’國’’’’’動’’’’’1872’’’統’選中’’’尼’’’’’’’羅徹斯’’婦’’那’投票’’參’投票’’爲當’婦’投票’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’尼’1873’6月’傳’’’’之’’’’’’’’部’’部分’區’’’’’’講’說’剝奪婦’’選’’’不’’’’’最終’’有’’’’’款’’’’’’’’而’’’有’’’’款’’’’講中’’說’本’不需’憲’’正’“給”婦’’選’’’’爲1868’’’’第’’條’正’中’講’’“’’’衆國’生’’化’衆國’”均爲’衆國之公民’’’有’切公民’’’堅’’爲’’’婦’’’裏提’’’們’公民’’們’完’有’投票選’’
我’犯有’謂’’有’’選’’而擅’參’本’’統選’’’’而’’’’’我今天晚’’’說’’’’’’們證’’我’樣做不僅’有犯任’’’而僅僅’’’’我’公民’’’’’’’國’憲’’證給我’’有’國公民’’’’’’個’’’都’’’’剝奪’’
我們’民’’’’’’’它’’個成Ⅸ’立’’執’中’有’言’’選’’’’’’’’’’爲基礎’’我們’爲’’’職’’’證它’’民’有’們’不’剝奪’’’’我們不’’’’’’夠賦予’民’’’’那’’老教條’誰都不’’’’組織’’之’’’個’都有’’’’’’生’’’由’’産’’’有’百’’百’’’’’’個’由’’’’們’目’’不’爲’’’賣’’’’’’’’’們’’’望’’’’’’立’’’’機’’互’’證’衛’們對’’’’’’有’’們’’’’不’’用野’’手’’而’’’文’’辦’’調解’們之間’矛’’’’立’言’’’’衆國憲’’’及’’’’憲’’
準’’基本’都’’提’’“’’”’民’’’’’賦予’’種’’’’’章’都’有裝’’’’給’們’’什麽’’’樣’’
’’生而平等’’’’賦予’們’’不’剝奪’’’’’中’’生’’’’由’’’’’福’’’’爲’’障’’’’’’類’’’們之間’立’’’而’’之正當’’’’’’’’’’’’而産生’’
’裏’’有’示’’’’’’’凌’’’民’’’之’’’’’’部分’’’有’’部平等’’’’’剝奪’’裏’’’’’’’有’’’’那’公誼’’’’言’“’’’’’有’’’”’’’中’’言’’’’立’言’’第’’’裏’’’’個’參’投票選’’’’’’’’由’’’選’’’剝奪’“’’’’’’’”’’’産生?’’婦’們對’種’式’’’’’不滿’’爲’們’課’’’而不准選’’’’’們’迫遵’’們’未’示’’’’’’’們’’’’’’’’’’有’個由’們’等’’’公民’組成’陪’團’’們’’’中’剝奪’’身’由’勞動收’及對’’’監’’’’’們’’’’’完’聽憑’’’’’’任’’布’’’接’’’’個’’’’’’們’’言中’體’’精’’文’’’’’言中’’’項都’基’’’’有平等’’’’不’’改’原’之’’’’’’言面’’’有’國’’教’’’’’’族’都降爲平民百’’’都’’’’’’身最’賤’’民’’奴’’’’樣’’’’’’’’言面’’’’們’’樣失’’賦’’’’’而’’’’’婦’們’’’樣’’’’’’’’言’實’’’階’等’間’’限’’’’’’有’奴隸’’奴’’民百’’’’’’’’都’’奴’’’’’’’’’’平等’’’’’’’
’邦’’’憲’’’言中’’’
我們’’衆國’’民’爲’組織’個’完善’’邦’樹立正’’’障國內’’寧’’立’’’國防’’’’民福’’’’我們’’及我們’’’’’’’由’’’’福’爲’’堅’衆’’’’’立’’部憲’’
’我們’民’’不’我們’’白’公民’’不’我們’’公民’而’我們’體’民’’當’成立’’個’邦’我們組織’個’邦’目’不’給什麽’’’由’’福’而’’證’們’’’’’福’不’僅僅’我們中間’’’’’我們’’’’’’’而’’’體’民’’’’’’’’’’’’’福’’’’方面’婦’們’傳’們’’有’’由’’’’福’而’’方面’’不讓’們’’選’’’’’個民’’’’’’提’’唯’’夠獲’’福’’’’那麽’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
當我’1871’’’(’爾斯’薩’’參議Ⅸ)’像’爲黑’’做’’那件’’樣’’’’衆國憲’有’’’婦’’選’’’’候’’遞給我’’’’戰’重’’期’’部’說’’’’還說’
’’’我’有“種族”’“膚’”’’方’’都’’“’’”’’樣’’’’’’’我爲婦’們’’’’’最’’’’最有’’’’’’’疑問’婦’’有憲’’’’’選’’’我’絕不投票’’第’六條’正’’’們’證’’’’’我曾’不’’投票贊’第’’條’第’五條’正’’’不’’爲當’’情’緊’’我’絕不’’樣做’’我’堅’’’’’’’’’’’’對原憲’’’’體公民’有平等’’’’’’’證實’’而’當’那’剛獲’’由’奴隸不’’解’’’有’錢’’間’等’’’’’’’’’’’婦’’顯’’’’’’’備’’條件’’’我’爲’們還’應該’諸’’’’’’’它們成立’國’憲章’’’’’國’’個公民’
’’’’友們’當我’據薩’’議Ⅸ’’見’’’11月’投票’’’我’公民選’’’’候’’’不等我’’’’把我給’’’’我犯’’’投票’’’’
’’’個’把’’’’爲’種限’條件’它’勢必’成整整’’’’民’剝奪公’’’樣做’等’’’’項剝奪’犯’’’’’’’’’議’’’’項溯及’’’’’’’’它’’’’國’’最高’’’’據’’’’’’’婦’’’們’’’’’都’永遠’不’’由’’’’’福’對’們而言’’個’’’本’’有’’’’’’’而産生’任’’’’’’’’’’個’’’’不’’個民’’體’’不’’個’’’體’它’’’’’有’’中最醜’’’族’’’’們’’’’’忍由’’’’’’’’’寡’’’’由有學問’’’’’有學問’’’文’寡’’’’’’由’國’’’’’’’種族寡’’’’’’’’種’’寡’’’’’’’’’戶中’’親’’’’’夫’’’成爲’’母親’’’’’’’’’’’’寡’’它’’’有’’’爲’’’’有’’’爲’民’它’’國’’’’戶戶中’成Ⅸ變’不’睦’’反目爲仇’’’
請’’’’’’’有’章’中都’用’’’詞“’”’“’’”’它’’’’’’’條款本’’’’對’’而言’’’’’們堅’’’文’’’’’’方式’那麽’我們’’’’們’’做’’’’’’正視問’’’’個方面’’’’’’’們’’婦’爲’’交’’’’’婦’犯’而不’’’’’爲’’中’有“’”’“’’”’’有’’中’情’’’樣’
’’我’’控’’反’民’’’說’它’用’’詞都’’’’’而’’’’’’它’’’爲’限’那’圖謀不’’’’參’選’而’’’’’中’’’“’’有’’’’’’’有’’’’’而’’參’投票’”’’我堅’’爲’’’’’’’像’樣竄改’’’詞而對婦’課’’’’’’’款’關’’’’’那麽’們’有’任變動’’’詞’’’我們’選’’’’’
雖’’國’’’憲’中不偏不倚’用’“’們’’民’’民’選民’公民”’’’眼’’’’戰’’們對’’’眼’’屬’’詞還’’’有不’’見解’’而’不論’舊’’’’’方面有’’值’’疑’’方’’’’’’’第’’條’正’中’第’個’’徹’解’’’個問’’
任’’’’’’衆國’生’’化’衆國’’’管轄’’均爲’衆國及’’’’之’’公民’
’中’第’個’’解’’’體公民’平等’’問’’
任’’不’’’’執’任’剝奪’衆國公民’’’豁’’’’’’任’’’’未’’當’’’式’均不’剝奪任’’’生’’’由’’産’亦不’對任’’’管轄’’’’絕給予平等’’’’’’
’’剩’唯’’解’’問’’’婦’’’們嗎?我不’’任’反對我們’’有’’說’們不’’們’’’’’們’那麽婦’’’公民’任’’都’’’’’執’任’剝奪’們’公民’’’豁’’’’’’’’’’今’’’’憲’’’’中’視婦’’’’’條款’像’’項’視黑’’’’’條款’樣都’’’’除’’
選’’’公民’’種’’嗎?我’’’有’剝奪公民’’’’亂分’’’’’犯’都’贊’說’它不僅’’種’’’豁’’’而’還’’種捨’’’’’’’’’’’’有選’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’諭’’’
’論’’博’們對’“’民”’“公民”’原有憲’中’’’’’種’’問’’’及’第’’條’正’中’’’’豁’’’’’’選’’’問’’’’’麽’重’分’’公民選’’’問’’’’第’五條’正’中’’徹’解’’“’衆國’’’任’’’’’’不’’種族’膚’’’’’曾’勞’而’絕給予’剝奪’衆國公民’選’’’”倘’公民不曾’有公民’’’’’’’’’絕’剝奪之’結論’有’個’選’’公民’’’’而’種族’膚’’’’曾’勞’等’體情’’’’不’’“不’’絕給予’剝奪公民選’’”’’著重’調’’’’’’’
’’’’’’們’’堅’’爲第’五條’正’’調’止“’種族’膚’及’’曾’勞’”而剝奪’衆國公民’選’’’’話’’’’衆國’任’’個’’’有’’據任’’’’由剝奪’’’’選’’’那麽’我’’’’們證’’據我們’’’本’’’’’’’’’’’’我正爲之’’’那’階’’公民’’’’“’’曾’’勞’”’’條款之’’’
’’’論’’婦’’’們’’’’’’’謂奴’?“奴隸’身’’”’謂奴隸?“’個’剝奪勞動’’’’’’個’’’’’志’’’”’據喬’’’’’’羅’’’’及’方諸’’’’’黑’’’身監’’’支’’’’隸屬’’’’’’’不順’’’’’有’對’’’管教’’黑’’不’接’管教而’走’’’’有’採’’’手’’’’’’’據’個’邦’部’’部’’’’個’’’’’’’’’’’婦’’’身監’’’支’’’’’隸屬’夫’’’不順’’’’’’當’’管教’’’不’接’’’’當管教而跟’“散夥”’走’’夫’’’用’當’’’手’’’’’’’們’’’個’’眼“’當’”’’’’’’’條款’而’’旦’’’’夫用“’尾’”對’’’管教’’’’’’執’’’’’手’’’’’’’條款’疑’’’僭’’
’說奴隸’’’有’’’勞動’’’它屬’’’’’’奴隸’’監’’’’’’’’們’屬’’’’’’奴隸’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’證’’’’犯’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’有’個’’有’’’’’’允’’’婦’有’’有遺産’遺贈’’’’及’’’’’’’’允’’們有’’’’’産’問’’’’’’’’’’’’有’
’個’’證’’’有夫’雙方’’創’’’’’平等’’’’’’’說’’’絕’’數’’婦’不曾’’’’賺’分文’’不曾’’親’遺産中分’’個’’’那麽’’說’’們’’結’’第’天’’’’夫’’’那’天爲止’身’’’’文’’’除’’夫爲’’’心’讓’’’’’’’’’
難’還’’’什麽’證’婦’們’’’奴’’’’’讓’們’’第’五條’正’中’那’’證嗎?我’爲’有選’’而’談’由’對’個’’國’婦’們’’’’’’’’’蘭’’說’溫’爾’菲’普斯’’’次戰’結’’’’說’有選’’而’談’由對剛獲’解’’黑’’說’’種’’’完’’樣’’有’’’’’敢反對我’’種’’嗎?我’’’內戰’’’’’生’國內’國’’’成爲奴隸’及剝奪’們公’’那種’’’’’’’’’交給’’’’’’’由內戰’重’’’’’’’’’個重’原’’’國’’’擁有最高’’’它’’’’’’個’’’’’’而’’’衆國公民’’由’’選’’’而’’國’民還’次’’次’’’絕’’數支援’’’’蘭’’’民’贏’’’’原’’
’’’’’統選’中’’個問’’’第’’條’第’五條’正’’’應該’’成爲不’動’’民心?結論’必須’樣’’它們’’’國’’’不僅有’而’還有’任’證’體’國公民’分’’’’由’’’們’’種’’’’’’任’’’’’圖對’’’’絕’剝奪’’夠對它們’’’’’
’’’’條’正’’’’’’’’我們’’婦’選’’’’’提’’’’個論’’’’’’第’項’動都’基’’衆國憲’’’’’正’闡’’我們還’
’’’五月’’’’’’’’’’動’’五’’’’動’我們不’請’立’部’’國’給我們’選’’’’我們’’’’’婦’’’’’們個’遺忘’“公民’”’我們請’選’檢票Ⅸ收’’個’國公民’選票’’爲’’’們’職’’我們’’’國’’’’Ⅸ’’警’’那’’絕收’’國公民選票’檢票Ⅸ而’用那’’’職’收’選票’檢票Ⅸ’’爲’’’’Ⅸ’’警’’任’我們’’陪’團’’’’對那’遵’’’投票’’國公民’那’’選’’收’’’選票’檢票Ⅸ’’“’’”’’’’
我們’’’’’’公正’’’’’裁’’’’’有’’’’方’請’’薩’’說’’“’據國’憲’’尤’’’據’正’’’憲’’闡釋’’正標準’’’’有’’’’’’’符’憲’’’’’’反’’’’’不符’憲’’’”我們’’’照’’方’爲選’’而鬥’’’我們’鬥’’’平’’’而’’堅’不懈’’我們’’’鬥’’我們獲’’勝’鬥’’’體’國公民’’’’’’’都’樣’’’爲’個’’中平等’’Ⅸ’
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.
’
’ |