BLACKWELL FAMILY
LUCY STONE

SPEECH-"WOMAN'S RIGHT TO VOTE AND HOLD PROPERTY"NY Tribune April (28) 1853
SKETCHES OF LECTURES
Woman's Right to Vote and Hold Property.
BY MISS LUCY STONE.
Miss Lucy Stone delivered her second lecture at Metropolitan
Hall, Broadway, on Tuesday. She was accompanied
on the platform by several ladies and gentlemen,
and spoke to about an average audience. She said the
concluding part of the lecture of last night was concerning
the circumscribed sphere allowed to Woman in which to
labor. We contend that a wider sphere should be afforded
her, and that Woman should be allowed to go into all kinds
of business for which her mental capabilities may have
fitted her; that she should be an artist, a daguerreotypist, a
doctor, a lawyer, a printer, or whatever else she chooses --
and we claim for her the right to preach, to instruct, to become
a Minister of the Gospel if she considers herself well
adapted for that profession. She can do all those things if
she is only firm enough to brave some popular distaste, for
there is no law to prevent her. This class of grievances it
is in our own hands to remedy, and we have only to get up
and go about it, and the matter is completed. In the political
branch of this subject, the case is different. We
cannot accomplish that in a straightforward manner; we
have the seek the assistance of other hands; we must call
upon other heads to aid us. The power to wield these
hands we can find by going into other fields of labor; and
we can make use of the influence which we may by this
means obtain, so to change the existing laws as to secure
for ourselves those political rights and privileges which we
think we have the right to claim. Against the granting of
those rights, I do not see that there can exist, or has ever
existed, a single valid reason. A stranger, for the first 
time coming into our land, and who knew nothing of us
personally, but had read our Declaration of Independence,
and who would naturally expect to see the sentiments
that noble document carried into actual living practice,
would find himself greatly mistaken in his opinions. He lands
on our shores ignorant of our peculiar mode of government,
and of the exact nature of our institutions; but he
has read our famed Declaration of Independence, and he
naturally expects to see the truths there enunciated put into
practice. Instead of that he will see with astonishment
that more than one-half of the population of the country do
not participate in the blessings or privileges claimed for the
entire body; that they are oppressed by laws and taxes,
and, as it were, ground to powder in a sort of political mill,
themselves having not the power of moving the upper nor
the under millstone. Our fathers of the Revolution learned
great truths; but it was only when they themselves felt the
evils under which they suffered; and they required this
suffering as a curative for the evils which then afflicted
them. The truths which they felt were greater, grander and
more magnificent in a political view than were ever before
known among men; and these they boldy enunciated 
and proclaimed, declaring that neither King nor
Queen should ever thereafter reign over them,
but that the people should be their own sovereigns,
and reigns over themselves, and that this old fashion of
sovereignty should give place to the new; as averring that
when a people are compelled to obey laws in the enactment
of which they had had no voice, that there was unquestionable
tyranny. When crushed, Man thus rose to vindicate
and avenge himself, his pulses throbbed with a burning indignation
at the wrongs he had so long suffered, and he involuntarily
uttered the hopes which he entertained in real
and true sentiments of Equal Rights and Equal Privileges
for all the race. Our Fathers plainly announced these doctrines,
but are they carried out? We, at present, certainly
do not carry them out. Men may yet arise who will do so
-- let us hope that they may; but we are, at present, like
France, who, in her victory and triumph after the
dethronement of Louis Philippe, proclaimed 'Liberty,'
'Equality,' 'Fraternity,' but who soon forgot 
the sentiments which these words were intended
to express. They are truly great words, if their
full realization could be effected. Woman, however, did
her part to carry them out; for she did not believe that
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" meant nothing. She rated
them at the value which they ordinarily represented; and
thereupon she claimed her right to vote, but she found that
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" meant a prison, and some
 of the women in France were actually sent to prison for
the audacity of claiming the right to vote, and for aught I
know to the contrary, they may be in prison still. It was
said, in explanation of these brave words, and the contrary
practice after them, that indeed the words were very good,
but they were not the best of things after all. Our Fathers
considered a tax which had been imposed upon them with
out their consent, as a just and sufficient cause of War;
and when they did go to war, and had bravely and
partially succeeded, they sent forth, they sent forth, in
their new and united capacity as sovereigns, the famous
declaration, in the name of "We, the People of the 
United States." Which "We, the People?" The 
Women were not included.  (Laughter) And "unusual
suffrages" has been interpreted in the same sense as "we
the people" -- which means "universal" --  the Women excluded.
The States in defining the rights of citizens,  declare
in their Constitutions that all "white male citizens"
of mature years shall be entitled, &c. though some of them
have latterly left out this odious distinctive word "white,"
and declare "all citizens," &c. entitled to "universal suffrage."
But yet, even in those States, the Women are not
entitled to vote. Now, in this country, the Constitution declares
that all who pay taxes are entitled to vote; and I desire
to test the matter and see if this be the actual truth -- for
it is as proper that the question should arise now as
at any future period. Our fathers, then, either told
the truth, or they did not. If they told the truth,
let us carry that truth into effect. (Applause.) if they did not
do you tell the truth and admit that they were wrong in
putting forward the bold claims which they have. If they
were right, however, you have governed all things wrong --
and for bringing to the light these wrong things, you should
not complain of me, because it is yourselves who are in the
fault. All we ask is that the theory of the Constitution
should be carried into actual practice; and that the
greatest privileges  ever claimed or gained by 
mankind shall be universal to all, not excepting
Woman. Take that great document, read it on the Fourth
Of July and other high festival days, inculcate the doctrines
there propounded in their true, and proper, and legitimate
sense, and I defy you to exclude Woman from a participation
in the privileges there claimed for all Mankind. As
you look now back to your fathers, so will your children
hereafter look back to you for lessons of wisdom and of truth;
and according to your acts, so will they respect your
memory. The equality of race has been recognized even
in the Southern States, for there one slave is allowed to be
three-fifths of a voter, and as such he counts on election
days --- while we, women, who are counted a whole at all
other periods of the year, are, on election days, counted as
nothing. On those days, you will often see a man
reeking with mire, just dragged out of the gutter,
reeling along the street with an unmanageable head
of liquor on board, stagger up to the ballot box, and
there deposit his vote, perhaps while he is held up by two
men, one on either side of him, who have made him the
beast he is in order to subserve party purposes; and, notwithstanding
all this degradation, he is held to be a Sovereign,
and included in the ennobling declaration of "We,
the People." Under certain formulas, you admit men of
foreign birth to all the privileges which you yourselves enjoy.
The Irishman, the Frenchman, the German, you admit
him when he comes here to the elective franchise, whether
educated or not; no matter whether he is able to read even
in his own tongue, or to speak in yours, you have provided
for him a mode by which he can enjoy all the rights of your
own proud citizenship. It is right and proper that this
should be so, for if he is expected to be amenable to
the laws, his consent should be asked to the making of
them. You, in New York, rate the negro so low, as not to
consider him your brother man. You will not admit him
into the same place of worship with yourselves, nor into
the same school with your children; he must be placed
apart and alone, by himself in life; he is only fit for
the coal-hole -- and in death he must still be kept
apart from you -- you will not permit him to be buried
in the same churchyard -- his ashes are not fit to mingle
with yours; yet if he owns enough of dirt, you allow
him to have a vote, elevate him to the highest
rights of citizenship, confer upon him all its privileges
and immunities; and yet those of whom you would
make wives, and clasp to your bosoms for life,
you vote as more degraded than the drunkard, less intelligent
than the foreigner, and more deeply debased than
the Negro. And when you have told us that this is your
estimate of us, you offer us your gallantry. You vote us
below all these, and then politely offer us gallantry! And
is this, after all, the category in which your "gallantry" has
placed the white woman? the high pinnacle on which she
stands in your estimation? These are most evident truths
-- they are no figments of the brain; and if there is to
be a quarrel respecting them, the quarrel should be
with yourselves, for permitting their existence, and not
with me for exposing them. But you say there are no precedents
for granting women those privileges. We do not
want precedents; we can make precedents, as well as other
people. I have never heard any real objection to the granting
of these privileges -- never one that deserved to be entertained
for a moment as worthy of the slightest consideration.
I heard one, indeed, from a young man who was
willing to concede to woman all the rights she claims -- and
considered that they should be granted -- "I do think," said
he, "that argument, reason and common sense are on your
side, and that you should be allowed the franchise; but yet,
I confess I would not like to see my sister at a meeting in
the Town Hall." On being asked his objection to her
going there; "Well," said he, they are such a vulgar drunken
set there, that I should not like to see her among
them." But, my friends, he did not see that it was
the depravity of man, and not the incapacity of Woman,
that formed the real objection; and that it was because
man did not or would not know how to conduct himself or
correct his bad practices, that made it improper for Woman
to be among them. I submit, however, that the depravity
of Man can form no just ground for the infliction and endurance
of a wrong upon Woman. There is another objection
that I would like to allude to. One man, indeed, said to
me that if Women had the privilege to vote, it would create
discord at home; the wife might be a Whig, and would
vote the Whig ticket; the husband might be a Democrat,
and vote the Democratic ticket; he would desire that she
should vote with him, and, if she did not, this
would create discord at home. Discord at home! --
-- well, I have been to that man's house, and a very
short time proved to me that "discord" could exist
at home even where the wife had not the privilege of voting.
But even suppose the wife would, after her marriage
desire to vote for the Whigs-- that is, always supposing the
Whig party to be still alive. (Laughter.) I think there is
still a mode of avoiding the difficulty. Let every man tell
the woman he proposes to marry that, after marriage, he
will be so narrow-hearted and mean-spirited as not to consent
to her having any opinion different from his own --
that she must think as he thinks, and act as he desires,
and if, after being told this, she consents to marry
him, she deserves to take the consequences. There is
another objection; that if women had the power to
vote there would be no one to take care of the babies;
and this objection is made by men who spend three
or four hours with their wives at church every Sunday,
and take them to parties four nights out of the six in 
the winter season. If they get people to take care of the
household, at such times, the women would quite as easily
get persons to take care of the babies. Another objection
is, that politics are too corrupting for women. It is, then,
extraordinary that men should mix in them when they have
such influence, and that people should not be careful of
their own morality who are so tenacious about the
purity of women. But, as it is necessary that Governments
should exist, and there must, consequently,
be politics, the Eternal and All Seeing will not
ask a corrupt politician who comes before Him to be
judged, whether the arraigned be a male or female, and it
will not do to say "I was a corrupt politician; but then I
was a man." The only way to prevent corruption and 
purify politics is to admit woman to the platforms.
Persons who suffer wrong are bold in denunciations
of tyranny, and where they cannot redress themselves,
they flee, as did the Puritans to this country,
claiming liberty of conscience; and yet, when the
Quakers came here, demanding the same privileges as the
Puritans demanded for themselves, they hung the Quakers.
This is the way in which the men act here; they demand
their own rights, but will not grant the same to the women.
Women however, now sometimes vote by proxy; and
one woman who had property in Massachusetts, expended
a great deal of money in elections -- for women
have learned from men the art of bribery, and know
how to buy up votes. Yet this voting by proxy
is not proper. It should be made a direct demand,
and if the Woman's Rights party ever get to be a stong
party, and a great party, and take the wind out of the sails
of all other parties, (Laughter.) it will, in fact, be "the
Party." It is only necessary to do one of two things --
grant Woman her rights, all her rights, or ignore her altogether.
But if it be admitted that it is illegal to tax without
representatton, this last can never be effected.
And now I would speak to the legal disabilities of Women.
There are wives who say they do not need laws to protect
them in their rights. The common law says the man shall
be the protector, the keeper; he can, if his wife chooses to
leave him for his misconduct, use gentle restraint, that is
he may lock her up, feed her on bread and cheese, and
make her his slave. A wife told me, the other day, "Oh!
I have no troubles; I can do just as I please; if I want to
visit my friends for a few days, he let's me go. "He let's
me!" I wonder what they would think if we should
"let" them go to visit a friend? They never think to ask us
to "let" them. I think when both sexes are so mutually
dependent, each should consult the other; as it is, the balance
is all on one side --- the wife loses the right to her person,
and in most of the States, to her property also. A woman
carried a petition through this City, some years ago,
for signatures, to ask the right of woman to the disposal
of her own property. So listless were the women of
New-York, that not one signed it. Maine, Michigan,
Louisiana, Rhode Island and some other States, 
have granted her this right. In Massachusetts,
she must contract with her husband before marriage, and
have that contract recorded within 90 days after marriage,
or she loses all control of her property; and the law adds
that she shall hold her property but shall not invest it in
any business. In most of our States, the husband can, at
his death, will away the whole of his property and leave
her destitute. If she had property before marriage, and
she has not secured it to herself by law, her husband's relatives
may claim the whole of it at his death. In Boston,
some three years ago a merchant gave his daughter $10,000
as a marriage portion. Her husband was a profligate, for
which reason she left him, and he got the whole of her property.
A woman once loved a poor man; her parents were
wealthy, and married her, against her will, to a rich man;
her husband died, and remembering her first love, she
married him, bringing much wealth to him; a month after
he was accidentally killed, and his unscrupulous relatives
seized the whole of her property, and left her penniless.
And the law protected them in the injustice. Woman should
secure herself her rights; she should demand that the governed
should have a voice in making the laws that govern
them. That woman who marries without securing to 
herself her property, is foolish. In New-York the husband
may to-day be worth half a million, and to-morrow be a
beggar. If the wife had secured her own property, there
would still be enough left for both. That man who objects
to his wife's fortune being secured to her, loves her
for her money, and she is a fool to marry him, and
deserves to suffer the consequences. A woman had
$3,000 when she married; her husband had nothing;
she did the work of the house, and cared for her
husband's comforts as only a true Woman can care; and
yet when she wanted a cent, she was obliged to go to him
for it. One day she asked him for money to buy some
household necessaries; he growled, "always dunning forTHE ALICE STONE BLACKWELL FUND COMMITTEE
21 Ashmont Street, Melrose 76, Massachusetts
Trustees
Mrs. ADA COMSTOCK NOTESTEIN
Mrs. MAUD WOOD PARK
Mrs. EDNA LAMPREY STANTIALpage 2
NY Tribune
April 28, 1853
money," and gave her a shilling; when she came back, he
asked her what it cost; she told him ten cents; "I gave
you a shilling," said he, "I want the two cents." It 
is a fact. I had it from her own mouth -- the tear
in her eye and the quiver on her lip, attested the
truthfulness of it. Women will hide the faults
and magnify the virtues of their husbands; and only when
the most grinding tyranny forces them to it, will they confide
the story of their wrongs to others. If she wants a
pair of boots, or a bonnet, she must go to him for it. In
all the States, save two exceptions, the woman has no right
to her earnings. A woman who had a little property, married;
her husband spent her all, and removed with
her and their family to an unhealthy locality. One by
one their family died, until at last a single little one
was left, and this was so weak and sickly that unless
removed to purer air, and supplied with proper nourishment,
the last of a goodly flock would die also. The amount 
of money necessary was $60. The mother, by dint of
severe toil had managed to save nearly enough for this
purpose, and had left the money in the keeping of her employer;
her task was all but completed, when her husband
discovered with whom she had left her little earnings, and,
while his wife was finishing her preparations for her contemplated
journey -- already anticipating [?]
Of her [?] he went to the employer,
and threatened him with prosecution and
obtained the money, paid off the scores he had run up
at the various rum-holes, and that night reeled home in
beastly intoxication. The poor wife learned the sad truth
the next morning. Her child died and she became a maniac.
With such facts as these before you, will you tell me
Woman needs no vote? Show me the man who dares to
say she does not, and I would tell him he had not a worthy
mother, or she would have taught him better. The
husband, be he ever so depraved, may take charge of his
children, and the wife has no control of them. I knew a
case in Nantucket where a drunken man treated his wife so
badly that she was forced to leave him. He told her she
might go, but he would keep the child. She had to smuggle
her child away, and hide it from her degraded husband.
In Maine, I knew a case where a man was dying from
consumption. He had one child; his brother came
from Boston to see him, and he asked that
the child should be given to him. His brother said,
"I have no other fortune to leave to my wife but our
little one, and when I am gone she will have no other companion.
No. I cannot take from my wife her only companion."
The brother urged that the wife was young, handsome,
would marry again, &c.; and drew an affecting picture
of a hard-hearted step father. The poor man -- his mind
already almost childlike from long sickness -- was persuaded
to make over by deed the child to his brother, who left for
Boston, taking with him the little one, pretending that he
would bring it back again in the course of two or three weeks,
At the expiration of the time the mother sent for her child.
when she received the stunning intelligence that her child
was no longer hers, but another's. She hastened to Boston,
brought the matter before the courts, and all of them
sustained the man in his claim, for he had his brother's
deed to that effect. The poor mother became crazed. A man
in Boston used his wife so badly that she returned home to
her parents within two months from the time of her marriage.
The husband demanded and obtained payment for the
wearing apparel which she wore when leaving him, though
her parents had purchased it for her at her marriage. Oh!
do not tell me we are secure in Man's protection! The
history of all legislation proves to us that the interests of
one party are not safe in the keeping of the other. We
claim the right to be equal and co-sovereign with men.
The laws of some Western States assert that "married
women, insane people and fools shall not make a will!"
You say you respect us, love us; you offer us gallantry --
and class us with madmen and idiots! In Massachusetts a
woman can make a will, provided her husband will indorse
it, unless she wills her property to him, when the law graciously
permits her so to do. It seems to me that the man
who truly loves should, like the knights of olden times, fight
for the rights of their mistresses, and not cease
until they could bring the statute book, with
these obnoxious laws blotted from its pages, and lay
it at their feet; and the, and then only, should they be
worthy of the love they sought. [Applause.] If Women
would only combine, in one year our statute-book would 
be purged of these outrages upon right and justice.
Woman, you say, "gains something by marriage." We
saw a little of this gain to-day, on the person of a poor
victim of one of the "lords of creation," in the shape
of bruises and scars. Again, the law says she has
the right to be maintained. So has the pauper.
The laws of some States give to a widow one-third of her
husband's property. In how many cases have they good
cause to long for the time when they shall enjoy "one full
third," and no questions asked? A poor woman,
who had labored on till she was fifty years old before
she was married, had managed to save about $600;
her husband had nothing; they consulted how they
should best expend the money; they agreed to buy a
house; not such a house as some of you occupy --
but a little brown stone cottage, where they might have a
comfortable home for the remainder of their days. The
husband died; his heirs claimed the property as theirs, and
the law awarded to the poor widow "one third," a paltry
$12 a year. She, poor woman, had to go to the workhouse;
and, instead of the comfortable home she had labored
so many long years to procure, she became a 
pauper, and the parish took her $12 a year.
Now, Men, I think you ought to be ashamed! Do you
ask us if we would have a voice in making the laws? We
answer, Yes; for they could not be made worse than they
are. You have had full swing long enough; it is now time
that a reform should take place. The statute-book allows
to Woman various household utensils, and the clothes she
wears; and, mindful of her feelings, of the clothes of her
deceased husband. Suppose we were to make laws,
giving to you only the clothes which you wear?
Yes, Woman, we ask you, and Man also, to help us bring
about the equality of the sexes. Let not the Nineteenth
Century know that sex shall make one the lord
and the other the slave. There are those who say
that Woman will lose her feminine character, and
unsex herself by mixing in politics. Such opinions
are particularly mannish. Take two brothers; give
to one all the advantages of the most liberal
culture, induct him into all the sciences, and train
him to fill the high stations of life; and cramp and circumscribe
the other, narrow his sphere of operation, curb the
range of his intellect, and the result will be that the first
will be an intellectual giant, and the second be paltry
pigmy. Such is the case with Woman; she has been
checked, and fettered, and her energies have been confined
to the narrowest circle, by Man's prejudice and injustice. But
let her start fairly with him in the race of life, and enter college
and hall, and the various professions that her abilities fit
her for, and instead of the paltry toy that stands by his side,
he will have a noble being, fitting in intellect and soul to be
his life companion. It has been urged that this will unfit
her for her duties as a mother. In the day that God stamped
upon her being the seal of maternity, He gave her a well of
affection that can never be exhausted. She never forgets
the child of her bosom; though the crime-blackened son be
spurned by the father, and the sister shrink from him as a
plague, the mother feels all her love the more awakened,
and takes the poor lost one to her loving breast, and with
the fire of her holy affection seeks to rekindle the spark of
honor, and win him back to innocence.
Miss Stone continued to illustrate the affections of the
mother for her child by several anecdotes from real life
which had come under her own observation, and contended
that if Woman were admitted to enjoy equal privileges
with Man, she would be equally strong-minded; that there
would be no seductions, no Five Points, and no necessity
for Missions in such places; and that the only rule which
could redeem the world was the golden rule, to "do unto
others as you would be done by." If Man acted towards
Woman according to that rule, Human Nature would be
soon redeemed.THE ALICE STONE BLACKWELL FUND COMMITTEE
21 Ashmont Street, Melrose 76, Massachusetts

Trustees
Mrs. ADA COMSTOCK NOTESTEIN
Mrs. MAUD WOOD PARK
Mrs. EDNA LAMPREY STANTIAL
From New York Tribune, May, 1853
Woman's Right to Vote & to Hold Property. 
Miss Lucy Stone delivered her second lecture at 
Metropolitan Hall, Broadway, on Tuesday. She
was accompanied on the platform by several
ladies and gentlemen, and spoke to about an 
average audience. She said the concluding 
part of her lecture last night was concerning 
the circumscribed sphere allowed to Woman in
which to labor.  We contend that a wider sphere should 
be offered her, and that woman should be allowed 
to go into all kinds of businesses for which her mental 
capabilities may have fitted her, that she should be an 
artist, a daguerreotypist, a doctor, a lawyer, a printer,
or whatever she chooses — and we claim for 
her the right to preach, to instruct, to become a
Minister of the Gospel if she considers herself well 
adapted for their profession. She can do all 
those things if she is only firm enough to brave 
some popular distaste, for there is no law to 
prevent her. This class of grievances it is in 
our own hands to remedy, and we have only to 


get up and go about it, and the matter is completed. 
In the political branch of this subject, the case is 
different. We cannot accomplish that in a 
straightforward manner; we have to seek the assistance
of other hands; we must call upon other 
heads to aid us. The power to wield these hands 
we can find by going into other fields of labor; 
and we can make use of the influence which we may 
by this means obtain, so as to change the existing 
laws as to secure for ourselves those political rights 
and privileges which we think we have the right to 
claim. Against the granting of those rights, I do 
not see that there can exist, or has ever existed, 
a single valid reason. A stranger, for the first 
time coming into our land, and who knew
nothing of us personally, but had read our Declaration 
of Independence, and who naturally 
expect to see the sentiments of that noble 
document carried into actual living practice 
would find himself greatly mistaken in his 
opinions. He lands on out shores, ignorantof our peculiar mode of government, and of the exact 
nature of our institutions; but he has read our famed
Declaration of Independence, and he naturally expects
to see the truths there enunciated put into practice.
Instead of that he will see with astonishment the more
than one-half of the population of the country do not
participate in the blessings or privileges claimed for
the entire body; they they are oppressed by laws and 
taxes, and as it were, ground to powder in a sort of 
political mills, themselves having not the power of
moving the upper nor the under millstone. Our
Fathers of the Revolutions learned great truths;
but it was only when they themselves feel the evils
under which they suffered; and they required
this suffering as a curative for the evils which
then afflicted them. The Truths which they feel were
greater, grander, and more magnificent in a 
political view than were ever before known among
men; and these they boldly enunciated and proclaimed,
declaring that neither King nor Queen
should ever thereafter reign over them, but

that the people should be their own sovereigns,
and reign over themselves, and that this old fashion
of sovereignty should give place to the new; as averring 
that when a people are compelled to obey
laws in the enactment of which they had no voice,
that there was unquestionable Tyranny. When crushed
Maw then rose to vindicate and avenge himself,
his pulses throbbed with a burning indignation
at the wrongs he had so long suffered, and he
involuntarily uttered the hopes which he entertained
in real and and True sentiments of Equal 
Rights and Equal Privileges for all the Race. Our
Fathers plainly announced these doctrines, but
are they carried out? We, at present, certainly do
not carry them out. Men may yet arise who 
will do so, let us hope they may; but we are, at
present, like France, who, in her victory and triumph
after the dethronement of Louis Philippe, proclaimed
"Liberty", "Equality", "Fraternity", but who soon
forget the sentiments which these words were intended
to express. They are truly great words, iftheir full realization could be effected; Woman, 
however, did her part to carry them out; for she
did not believe that "Liberty, Equality, Fraternite"
meant nothing. She rated them at the value
they ordinarily represented; and thereupon she
claimed her right to vote, but she found that
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" meant a prison, and
some of the women in France were actually sent
to prison for the audacity of claiming the right
to vote, and for aught I know to the contrary, they
may be in prison still. It was said in explanation
of these brave words, and the contrary practice after them,
that indeed the words were very good, but they were not the 
best of things after all. Our Fathers considered a tax
which had been imposed upon them without their consent,
as a just and sufficient cause of War; and
when they did go to war, and had barely and
partially succeeded, they sent forth in their new and 
united capacity as sovereigns, the famous declaration,
in the name of "We, the People of the United States".
Which "We, the People?" The women were not included.

And "unusual suffrages" has been interpreted
in the same sense as "we the people", which means 
"universal" — the women excluded. The States
in defining the rights of citizens declare in their
Constitutions that all "white male citizens" of mature
years shall be entitled, etc., though some of them have 
latterly left out this odious distinctive word "white",
and declare "all citizens," etc entitled to "universal
suffrage". But yet, even in those States, the Women are
not entitled to vote. Now in this country, the Constitution
declares that all who pay taxes are entitled to
vote; and I desire to test the matter and see if
this be the actual truths, for it is as proper that the
question should arise now as at any future
period. Our Fathers then either told us the Truth,
or they did not. If they told the truth, let us carry
it into effect; if they did not do you tell the truth
and admit that they were wrong in putting forward 
the bold claims which they have. If they were right
however, you have governed all things wrong, and 
for bringing to the light these wrong things, youshould not complain of me; because it is yourselves
who are in the fault. All we ask is that the
theory of the Constitution should be carried into
actual practice, and that the greatest privileges
ever claimed or gained by mankind, shall be
universal to all, not excepting women. Tae that
great document, read if on the Fourth of July and
other high festival days, inculcate the doctrines
there propounded in their true, proper, and 
legitimate sense, and I defy you to exclude
Woman from a participation in the privileges there
claimed for all Mankind. As you look now back
to your Fathers, so will your children look back
to you for lessons of wisdom and truth; and
according to your acts, so will they respect your
memory. The equality of race has been recognized
even in the Southern States, for there one slave
is allowed to be three-fifths of a voter, and as
such he counts on election days, while we women
who are counted as a whole all other periods of
the year, are on election days counted as

nothing. On those days, you will often see a
man reeking with [?], just dragged out
of the gutter, reeling along the street with an
unmanageable head of liquor on board, stagger
up to the ballot-box and there deposit his
vote, perhaps while he is her up by the man,
one on either side of him, who have made
him the beast he is in order to subserve party
purposes; and notwithstanding all this degredation,
he is held to be a sovereign, and included in the 
ennobling declaration of "We, the People." Under certain
formulas you admit  men of foreign birth to all the 
privileges which you yourselves enjoy. The Irishman, the
Frenchman, the German, you admit him when he comes
here to the elective franchise, whether educated or not;
no matter whether he is able to read even in his own
tongue, or to speak in yours, you have provided for
him a mode by which he can enjoy all the
rights of your own proud citizenship. It is right
and proper that this should be so, for if he is 
expected to be amenable to the laws, his consentshould be asked to the making of them. You in New York
rate the negro so low as not to consider him your
brother man. You will not admit him into the same
place of worship with yourselves, nor into the same
school with your children; he must be placed apart
and alone, by himself in life, he is only fit for the
coal-hole, and in death, he must still be kept apart
from you; you will not permit him to be buried in
the same church-yard, his ashes are not fit to 
mingle with yours; yet if he owns enough of dirt,
you allow him to vote, elevate him to the highest 
rights of citizenship, confer upon him all its
privileges and immunities; and yet those of whom
you would make wives, and clasp to your bosoms
for life, you vote as more degraded than the drunk
and, less intelligent than the foreigner, and more
deeply debased than the Negro. And when you 
have told us that this is your estimate of us, you
offer us your gallantry. You vote us below all
these, and then politely offer us gallantry! And
is this, after all, the category in which your


gallantry has placed the white woman? The high
pinnacle on which she stands in your estimation?
These are most evident truths, they are no figments
of the brain; and if there is to be a quarrel respecting
them, the quarrel should be with yourselves, for permitting
their existence, and not with me for exposing 
them. But you say there are no precedents
for granting women these privileges. We do not want
precedents; we can make precedents as well as other 
people. I have never heard any real objection to
the granting of these privileges, never one that deserved to
be entertained for one moment as worthy of the slightest
consideration. I heard one, indeed, from a young
man who was willing to concede to woman all the
rights she claims, and considered they should be 
granted. "I do think," said he, "that argument, reason, 
and common sense are on your side, and that you
should be allowed the franchise; but yet, I confess,
I would not like to see my sister at a meeting
in the town hall." On being asked his objection 
to her going there: "Well," he said, "they are sucha vulgar, drunken set there, that I should not like
to see her among them." But, my friends, he did not
see that it was the depravity of man, and not the incapacity
of woman that formed the real objection; and
that it was because man did not, or would not,
know how to conduct himself or correct his bad practices,
that made it improper for women to be
among them. I submit, however, that the depravity
of man can form no past ground for the
infliction and endurance of a wrong upon upon woman.
There is another objection that I would like to allude
to. One man, indeed, said to me that if women
had the privilege to vote it would create discord
at home; the wife might be a Whig, and would vote 
the Whig ticket, the husband might be a Democrat
and vote the Democratic ticket; he would desire
that she should vote with him and if she did
not, this would create discord in the home.
Discord at home! Well, I have been to that
man's house, and a very short time proved
to me that "discord"could exist at home

even where the wife did not have the privilege
of voting. But men suppose the wife would, after
her marriage, desire to vote for the Whigs (that is
always supposing the Whig party to be still alive).
I think there is still a mode of avoiding the difficulty.
Let every man tell the woman he proposed
to marry, that after marriage, he will be so narrow-minded
and mean-spirited as not to consent
to her having any opinion different from his
own; that she must think as he thinks, and
act as he desires, and if, after having told her
this, she consents to marry him, she deserves to
take the consequences. There is another objection;
that if a woman had the power to vote there would 
be no one to take care of the babies; and this objection
is made by men who spend three or four hours
with their wives at church on Sunday, and take
them to parties four nights out of six in the 
winter season. If they get people to take care
of the household at such times, the women 
would quite as easily get persons to take care ofthe babies.
Another objection is that politics are too corrupting
for women. It is then, extraordinary that men
should mix in them when they are such influence,
and that people should not be careful 
of their own morality who are so tenacious about
the purity of women. But, as it is necessary that 
Governments should exist, and there must consequently,
be politics, The Eternal and All-Seeing
will not ask a corrupt politician who comes before 
Him to be judged, whether the arraigned be a male
or female, and it will not do to say, "I was a 
corrupt politician; but then I was a man." The
only way to prevent corruption and purify politics
is to admit woman to the platforms. Persons who
suffer wrong are bold in denunciations of tyranny,
and where they cannot redress themselves, they 
flee, as did the Puritans to this country, claiming
liberty of conscience; and yet, when the Quakers
came here, demanding the same privileges,
as the Puritans demanded for themselves,

they hung the Quakers. This is the way in which men
act here; they demand their own rights, but will
not grant the same to women, Women, however,
now sometimes vote by proxy and one woman
who had property in Massachusetts, expended a 
great deal of money in elections, for women have
learned from men the act of bribery, and
know how to buy up votes. Yet this voting by proxy is
not proper. It should be made a direct demand,
and if the Woman's Rights party ever got to be a 
strong party, and a great party, and take the wind
out of the sails of all other parties, it will, in
fact, be "The party". It is only necessary to do
one of two things —grant Woman her rights, all 
her rights, or ignore her altogether. But, if it
be admitted that it is illegal to tax without representation,
this last can never be effected.
And now I would speak of the legal
disabilities of women. There are wives who say
they do not need laws to protect them in their
rights. The common law says the manshall be the protector; the keeper; he can, if his
wife chooses to leave him for his misconduct, use
gentle restraint, that is, he may lock her up, feed her
on bread and cheese, and make her his slave.
A wife told me the other day, "Oh! I have no
troubles; I can do just as I please; if I want to
visit my friends for a few weeks, he lets me go."
He lets me! I wonder what they would think 
if we should "let" them visit a friend? They 
never think to ask us to "let" them. I think
when both [?] are so mutually dependent,
each should consent the the other; as it is the
balance is all on one side — the wife
lovers her right to her person, and in most
States, to her property also. A woman
carried a petition through this City some years
ago, for signatures, to ask the right of woman
to the disposal of her own property. So [?]
were the women of New York, that not one
signed it. Maine, Michigan, Louisiana,
Rhode Island, and some other States have

granted her this right. In Massachusetts
she must contract with her husband before
marriage, and have that contract recorded
within 90 days after marriage, or she loses
all control over her property; and the law adds 
that she shall hold her property [?] shall
not invest it in any business. In most
of our States, the husband can at his death
will away the whole of his property and leave her
destitute. If she had property before marriage
and she has not secured it to herself by law,
her husband's relatives may claim the whole of
it at his death. In Boston, some three years 
ago, a merchant gave his caught $10,000
as a marriage portion. Her husband was
a profligate, for which reason she left him,
and he got the whole of her property. A woman
once loved a poor man; her parents were
wealthy, and married her against her will,
to a rich man; her husband died, andremembering her first love, she married him
bringing much wealth to him; a month after
he was accidentally killed, and his unscrupulous 
relatives seized the whole of her property,
and left her penniless. And the law protected
them in this injustice. Woman should secure
herself rights; she should demand that
the governed should have a voice in
making laws that govern them. That woman
who marries without securing to herself her 
property, is foolish. In New York, the husband
may to-day be worth half-a-million dollars,
and to-morrow be a beggar. If the wife had
secured her own property, there would still
be enough left for both. That man who objects
to his wife's fortune being secured to her,
loves her for her money, and she is a fool to 
marry him, and deserves the consequences.
A woman had $3000 when she married;
her husband had nothing; she did the

work of the house; and cared for her husband's
comforts as only a true woman can care;
and yet, when she wanted a cent she was
obliged to go to him for it. One day she
asked him for some money to buy some
household necessaries. He growled, "always
dunning for money," and gave her a shilling;
when she came back, he asked her what
it cost. She told him ten cents; "I gave 
you a shilling," said he, "I want the two cents."
It is a fact. I had it from her own mouth;
the tear in her eye, and the quiver on her lip,
attested to the truthfulness of it. Women will
hide the faults and magnify the virtues of their 
husbands; and only when the most grinding
tyranny forces them to it, will they confide the story 
of their wrongs to others. If she wants a pair 
of boots, or a bonnet, she must got to him for
it. In all the States, save two exceptions, the
woman has no right to her earnings. Awoman who had a little property married; her
husband spent her all, and removed with her
and their family to an unhealthy locality. One
by one their family died, until at last a single
little one was left, and this was so weak and 
sickly, that unless removed to purer air, and
supplied with proper nourishment, the last of
a goodly folk would die also. The amount 
necessary was $60. The mother by dint of
severe toil had managed to save nearly
enough for this purpose, and had left them
money in the keeping of her employer. Her
task was all but completed when he husband
discovered with whom she had left her little
earnings, and while his wife was finishing
her preparations for her anticipated journey,
he went to her employer and threatened him
with prosecution and obtained the money. He
paid off the scores he had [?] up at the
various [???-holes], and that might [?]

home in a state of beastly intoxication. The poor 
wife learned the sad truth the next morning.
Her child died and she became a maniac.
With such facts as these before you, will you
tell me woman needs no vote? Show me
the man who dares to say she does not, and
I would tell him he had not a worthy mother
or she would have taught him better. The
husband, be he even so depraved, may take 
charge of his children, and his wife has no
control of them. I new a case in Nantucket
where a drunken man treated his wife so
badly that she was forced to leave him. He
told her she might go, but he would keep 
the child. She had to smuggle her child
away, and hide it from her degraded husband.
In Maine, I knew a case where a
man was dying from consumption. He had
one child; his brother came from Boston
to see him, and he asked that the childbe given to him. His brother said, "I have no
other fortune to leave my wife but our little one,
and when I am gone she will have no other
companion. No, I cannot take from my wife
her only companion." The brother urged that
the wife was young, handsome, would marry
again, etc. and drew an affecting picture of a
hard-hearted step-father. The poor man,
his mind already almost childlike from
long sickness, was persuaded to make over
by dee the child to his brother, who left for 
Boston, taking with him the little one, pretending
that he would bring it back again in 
the course of two or three weeks. At the expiration
of that time the mother sent for 
her child, when she received the stunning
intelligence that her child was no longer hers,
but another's. She hastened to Boston, brought
the matter before the Courts, and all of
them sustained the man in his claim, for

he had his brother's deed to that effect. The poor
mother became crazed.
A man in Boston used his wife so
badly that she returned home to her parents within
this month's time after her marriage. the husband
demanded and obtained payment for the wearing
apparel which she wore when leaving home, though
her parents had purchased it for her at her
marriage. Oh! do not tell me that we are secure
in Man's protection! The history of all legislation
proves to us that the interests of our own party are
not safe in the keeping of the other. We claims the
right to be equal and co-sovereign with men. The
laws of some Western States assert that "married
women, insane people and fools shall not make
a will!" You say you respect us, love us; you offer
us gallantry, and class us with madmen and 
idiots! In Massachusetts a woman can make 
a will, provided her husband will indorse it,
unless she wills her property to him, when thelaw graciously permits her to do so. It seems to me
that the man who truly loves should, like the
knights of older times, fight for the right of their
mistresses, and not cease until they could bring
the statue book, with these obnoxious laws blotted
[?] its pages, and lay it at her feet; and then,
and then only, should they be worthy of the love they
sought. If women would only combine, in one
year our statue books would be purge of these
outrages upon right and justice.
Woman, you say "gains something by marriage."
We saw a little of this "gain" to-day, on the person
of a poor victim of one of the "lords of creation" in the
shape of bruises and scars. Again, the law says
she has the right to be maintained. So has the pauper.
The laws of some States give the widow one-third of her
husband's property. In how many cases have they
good cause to long for the time when they shall
enjoy "one full third," and no questions asked?
A poor woman, before she was married, had

managed to save $600. She had labored for this
till she was about fifty years old. Her husband
had nothing. They consulted how they should best
expend the money; they agreed to buy a house.
The husband died, his heirs claimed the property
as theirs, and the law awarded the poor widow "one
third", a paltry $12 per year. She, poor woman,
had to go to the work-house, and instead of the
comfortable home she had labored so long to
procure, she became a pauper, and the parish
took her $12 a year.
Now men, I think you ought to be ashamed!
Do you ask us if we would have a voice in making
the laws? We answer "Yes", for they could not be
made worse than they are. You have had full 
swing long enough, it is now time that a reform
should take place. The statute book allows to 
[?] household utensils, and the clothes she
wears; and mindful of her feelings, the clothes
of her deceased husband. Suppose we wereto make laws giving to you only the clothes which
you wear? Yes, women we ask you, and men also, 
to help us to bring about the equality of the sexes. Let
not the Nineteenth Century know that sex shall
ever make one the lord and the other the slave.
There are those who say that woman will love 
her feminine character, and unsex herself by
mixing in politics. Such opinions are particularly
mannish. Take two brothers; give to one all the 
advantages of the most liberal culture, induct
him into all the sciences and rain him to fill
the high stations of life; and cramp and circumscribe
the other, narrow his sphere of operation, curb
the range of his intellect, and the result will be that
the first will be an intellectual giant, and 
the second be paltry pigmy. Such is the case with
woman; she has been checked and filtered and
her energies have been confined to the narrowest
circle, but man's prejudice and injustice. But
let her start fairly with him in the race of

life, and enter college and hall, and the various
professions that her abilities fit her for, and instead
of the paltry toy that stands by his side, he will
have a noble being, fitting in intellect and
soul to be his life-companion. It has been
urged that this will unfit her for her duties as
mother. In the day God stamped upon
her being the seal of maturity, He gave her a
well of affection that can never be exhausted. She
never forgets the child by her bosoms; though the
[a????]-blackened son be spurned by the father,
and the sister shriek from him as from a 
plague, the mother feels all the more her love
awakened, and takes the poor lost one to her
loving breast, and with the fire of her holy affection
seeks to rekindle the spark of honor and
win him back to innocence.
Miss Stone continued to illustrate the affections 
of the mother for her child by several anecdotes
from real life which had come under herobservation, and contended that if woman were
admitted to enjoy equal privileges with man,
she would be equally strong-minded; that there
would be no seductions; no Five Points, and
no necessity for Missions in such places;
and that the only rule which could redeem
the world was the Golden Rule to "do unto
others as you would be done by."  If man
acted towards woman according to that rule,
Human Nature would soon be redeemed.