Life and writings of Amelia Bloomer

by D. C. Bloomer

VOTING AND FIGHTING.

“My reply to the argument of our opponents that ‘if women vote they must also fight,’ is this: All men have not earned their right to the ballot by the bullet; and, if only those who fight should vote, there are many sickly men, many weak little men, many deformed men, and many strong and able-bodied but cowardly men, who should at once be disfranchised. These all vote but they do not fight, and fighting is not made a condition precedent to the right to the ballot. The law only requires that those of sufficient physical strength and endurance shall take up arms in their country’s defense, and I think not many women can be found to fill the law’s requirement: so they would have to be excused with the weak little men, the big cowardly men, and the men who are physically disqualified. We know there are thousands of voters who never did any fighting and who never will. Why then must woman be denied the right of franchise because she cannot fight? If there are any great strong women who want to fight for their country in its hour of peril, they should be allowed to do so, and men have no right to disarm them and send them home against their will. But as there are other duties to be discharged, other interests to be cared for, in time of war besides fighting, women will find enough to do to look after these in the absence of their fighting men. They may enter the hospitals on the battlefields as nurses, or they may care for the crops or the young soldiers at home. They may also do the voting and look after the affairs of government, the same as do all the weak men, who vote and hold office and do not fight. And, further, as men do not think it right for women to fight, and fear it will be forced upon them with the ballot, they can easily make a law to excuse them, and doubtless with the help of the women will do so. There is great injustice, so long as the ballot is given to all men the weak as well as the strong, without condition, in denying to woman a voice in matters deeply affecting her interest and happiness, and through her the happiness and welfare of mankind because, perchance, there may come a time in the history of our country when we shall be plunged into war and she not be qualified to hold a musket!

“This objection, like many others we hear, is too absurd to emanate from the brains of intelligent men and I cannot think they honestly entertain such views. If they will but give us a voice in the matter, we will not only save ourselves from being sent to the battlefield, but will, if possible, keep them at home with us by averting the threatened danger and difficulties and so compromising matters with other powers that peace shall be maintained and bloodshed avoided.

“A. B.”

PROGRESS.

Mrs. Bloomer was mainly instrumental in organizing a woman’s-suffrage society in Council Bluffs, in 1870, and was its first president. Through her influence woman’s position was greatly enlarged in that community. In 1880, she was enabled to write as follows: “The trustees of the public library of this city are women, the teachers in the public schools, with one or two exceptions, are women, the principal of the high school is a woman, and a large number of the clerks in the dry-goods stores are women.”

The revised Code of Iowa, promulgated in 1873, almost entirely abolished the legal distinction between men and married women as to property rights. As to single women there was, of course, no distinction. That code is still in force, and its liberal provisions in regard to the rights of married women have been still further enlarged. The wife may hold separate property, and may make contracts and incur liabilities as to the same, which may be enforced by or against her as though she were a single woman. So also a married woman may sue or be sued without joining her husband in matters relating to her separate property, and she may maintain an action against her husband in matters relating to her separate property rights. Their rights and interests in each other’s property are identical. They may be witnesses for, but they cannot be against, each other in criminal actions.

It is not claimed that, for bringing about these beneficent changes in the laws of Iowa, Mrs. Bloomer is entitled to the sole credit. There were other efficient workers in the same field; but it is certain that her long residence in the state, and her continued and persistent advocacy of the principles of justice on which they are founded, contributed largely to their adoption by the lawmaking powers.