THE REAL CASE OF THE "REMONSTRANTS"

AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

BY O. B. FROTHINGHAM.

IT must not be supposed that the silence of the "Remonstrants" is evidence that they have been convinced of their error. They are simply tired of repeating worn-out commonplaces. In their opinion, the usual arguments in favor of the measure have been answered again and again, so that now it is a matter not of argument, but of feeling. They think they have disposed of the asseverations that suffrage is a natural right; that the Republican theory of government involves female suffrage; that there should be no taxation without direct representation; that there can be no popular government without full consent of the governed; that a principle of justice demands the extension of the suffrage to women; that society would be benefited by the participation of women in its administrative details; that the sex would be raised in the human scale.

One

But there is one point respecting the attitude of some of the "Remonstrants on which a certain amount of misunderstanding exists. It is charged that they look down on woman as an inferior creature; wish to keep her in subjection, and debar her from a privilege. This may be true of the mass of objectors, but certainly is not true of all. of the most resolute of opponents was the late D. A. Wasson, but his essay on "The Genius of Woman," in the recent volume of his papers, is a plea in her defence so impassioned that he himself says, "I am so far from insinuating an inferiority in woman, that the contrary, rather, might seem to be true; with more plausibility might I be accused of exalting her unduly." It is understood, of course, that by "woman the typical woman is meant, the normal woman, woman in her essential nature. I am one of those who think that Mr.

Wasson somewhat overdraws the picture, as when he declares, "Homer only reports; it is, as he deems, a goddess who sings. .. Dante wrote the Divine Comedy, but Bea

trice made it. . . . In Phidias she is the vision. In the hue of her being, Titian has dipped his brush, else the paint were but ochre," but the main contention is mine also. It is because womanhood stands so high, not because it lies so low, that its mingling with political enginery is deplored. The highest art owes much of its inspiration to the feminine element, and this element is most effective, even in men, when it is least adulterated. The most ethereal artists, whether in sculpture, painting, music, or poetry, are in their constitution feminine. If we could take the feminine quality out of architecture it would probably cease to be interesting. We may not be able to draw a sharp line of division between masculine and feminine characteristics, but it may be broadly stated that the masculine represents judgment, the practicable, the expedient, the possible, while the feminine represents emotion, what ought to be, the dream of excellence, the vision of complete beauty. There is a good deal of this latter attribute in man, but there would be far less if the honor at present given to woman were removed, as it must be if the sexes are intermingled in the contest of parties. Its chief support would, in this case, be taken away, and as it is not strong enough to act alone it must fall to the ground. For this reason the cause of the "Remonstrants" appears to them to be the cause of social elevation. There is no doubt that in the past, owing to the exigencies of social life, women have been kept down; that brute force has prevailed; that the animal propensities have triumphed; that the so-called passive virtues have been treated with scanty respect. Laws representing this period are still on our statute books. Customs derived from this period are still operative in our communities. But that age, if not entirely gone, is rapidly going, and is lamented by many men, who are heartily ashamed of its brutality. Unfortunately, the language of ancient statutes cannot be expunged. What is written is written, and all that can be done is to enact more humane edicts in the future. Still, as historical records the worst enactments are valuable and should not be erased; but, except as historical monuments, they should not be used. Let us have the benefit of all the humanity there is. So far

as I know, men are rejoiced to hear of woman's advancement in every form of art, of the opening of new opportunities for education, fresh outlets for her activity, further room for her achievement.

The fact that woman exerts power instead of force is a reason for keeping her in her present condition, which is one of command. Wendell Phillips used to say that she had too much power, and ought to be held to more responsibility; but how voting would secure this, I cannot imagine, especially in these days of a secret ballot. Governments ought to rest upon power; they do, in fact, in the final resort, rest upon force, and this is embodied in the male sex. Termagants may borrow what comfort they can from the King of Dahomey's body-guard of females, but the King of Dahomey does not rank high among monarchs, neither do those who compose his body-guard rank high among women. Their feminine attributes are of the smallest. The necessities of the "service" have not proved favorable to their womanhood. It is true that on ordinary occasions a large number of men are released from military duty. The crisis seldom occurs when those under the legal line or above it are called. Still, they may be, they are liable. At one period of our Civil War we were grateful for the reserve of women who could not be summoned to the front, and who were at liberty to wait on the wounded in hospitals, to solace the dying, to manage sanitary fairs, and attend to the various works of mercy, while stronger arms wielded weapons. It is a grand position, that of standing outside of strife and using moral power alone, keeping alive patriotism, inspiring valor, holding up the highest aims, animating sons, husbands, fathers, and breathing an atmosphere of pity and heroism, aloof from the perils of camp life. This is a noble sort of disfranchisement, something wholly different from the dis franchisement of the pauper, the criminal, the insane. These are discharged; women are exempt. These are set aside as persons not human; women are absolved as constituting a higher class. There is a very real distinction between being placed among the beasts, and being placed among the "ministering angels."

Another argument in favor of the retention of women of their present place is the preponderance in them of feeling, a preponderance that becomes the more striking as they become

more perfect in the traits which distinguish the sex. This peculiarity acts as a disqualification in the sphere of practical politics, which rests mainly upon sagacity, but is invaluable as an influence on society. The consciousness of possessing political responsibility may, in some cases, ennoble; though that will depend on circumstances. The possession of the ballot may sometimes be of actual value. The strongest argument in favor of female suffrage I ever heard turned on this latter point. A poor woman was brought before a police justice, charged with some offence. The judge imposed the heaviest sentence that was allowed by the law. A bystander observed to his companion, "That woman should have been let off more easily." "Yes," replied the other, "she would have been if she could have helped herself. But, you see, she has no vote, and ours is an elective judiciary." Let us hope that all judges are not like that one, and that there are women who are not dragged before police courts. Whatever we may think of theoretical politics, the practice of politics is not ennobling. The educating power of the suffrage is sometimes over-estimated. It does educate in chicanery, cunning, the arts of party management, the market price of manhood, skill in offering rewards for service. But does it educate in intelligence, a broad view of statemanship, the love of justice, patriotism, humanity, respect for citizenship? Virtuous women cannot be aware of the dangers they will have to encounter if they enter the political arena. Society is not alive to the corruption that will follow the introduction of a new kind of bribery into national and state affairs. We need all the purity, modesty, reticence, we can get, and it comes to us best, in the least adulterated form, from a class set apart, and having simply a moral influence on the questions before the people. The importance of a mass of influence conditioned by moral restrictions alone, can hardly be estimated too highly. And, at present, women hold this advantage: they will exert it more and more, as they expand in the true graces that belong to their sex. Just now they come nearer to being a privileged body than any under the sun, as near as our American institutions permit. Much more truly privileged than any European order, because purely ethical in character, not formally instituted, but ordained by Divine decree. Even now deference is paid them, but this deference

is but a shadow of what will be when they fully justify their high calling. The old feudal politeness is but a symbol of the respect that will be rendered by the best minds to the arbiters of a sacred destiny. It may be conceded that the actual woman is no more virtuous than the man, but her genius is certainly more etherial; her temptation to earthiness is less; she is delivered from the necessity of wading through mud to a throne.

This predominance of sentiment in woman renders her essentially an idealist. She jumps at conclusions. She cannot stop short of final results. She carries out principles to the end, regardless of processes. She can make no allowance for slowness, for tentative or compromising measures. Her reforms are sweeping. She would close all the bars and liquor saloons, and make it a crime to sell intoxicating drink. She would shut up all gambling-rooms, all houses of assignation, thus compelling people to be virtuous. We may hope to arrive at the same goal by-and-by, but by gradual steps. Of the philosophy of government there is no question. Our concern is with practical politics, entirely, and practical politics is an experimental science, where not the best thing but the best thing possible is considered. Mistakes, blunders, errors there must be. Steps must be retraced. Votes must be annulled. Our feet are always in the water, for in a republic, men sail, as Fisher Ames said, on a raft. The possession of the suffrage is therefore a painful if not, as many think, a doubtful boon, a duty rather than a privilege. They who would discharge it thoroughly are compelled to work hard, to encounter dirt, to frequent disagreeable places, to consort with unpleasant people, to listen smilingly to vacuous speeches, and, after all, to accept a portion only of the desired truth. The dainty man shrinks from the task; the careless man avoids it; the indifferent man neglects it. There is complaint, there is remonstrance, and partial improvement. But the duty is anything but a pleasure, and they upon whom the work is thrust are, in many instances, unwilling that women should defile themselves with that mire. To cast a ballot is an easy matter, but to perform the preliminary drudgery is not easy. A few are jealous of their right to vote, but not all. There are numbers who welcome disfranchisement from change of residence, as bringing at least temporary exemption.

I am speaking of women who follow the bent of their