Woman's Profession as Mother and Educator, with Views in Opposition to Woman Suffrage

by Catharine Esther Beecher

Note A. Mrs. Livermore, in her address which followed this, expressed the wish that I had noticed more directly the main point, (i. e.) woman's natural, as well as constitutional right to the ballot. This I will briefly attempt here.

It will be conceded by all, that neither man nor woman has any right to anything which is contrary to the best good of society. The question then is, does the best good of society demand a division of responsibilities, so that man shall take those out of the family, and woman those in it? In other words, shall man take the responsibilities of nursery and kitchen in addition to his outside business, and shall women take charge of government, war, and the work men must do in addition to her home duties? Past laws and customs demand the division, and it is probable that it will be retained.

As to the constitution of the United States, and the 14th and 15th amendments, the question all turns on the use of the terms citizen and people. Both these words, (as the dictionaries show,) have two uses, a wide, and a limited. In the widest sense they include men, women, and children. In the limited sense they include only a portion of society with certain qualifications which the best good of society requires. It is not probable that any court will ever decide that the framers of the constitution, or of the two amendments, used these terms in the widest sense, thus including not only women, but children.

If the best good of society requires women to be law-makers, judges and juries, she has a right to these offices; if it does not, she has no right to them. As to taxation, it is probable that the best good of society does require that women holding property shall have the ballot, for this would increase the proportion of responsible and intelligent voters, and not add a mass of irresponsible and ignorant ones, as would universal woman suffrage.

It is owing to this that in Europe the statesmen are aiming to give suffrage, not to all women as demanded here, but only to those who hold property and pay taxes; for this, in reality, is a method

of increasing the proportion of intelligent voters. And if this measure were adopted here it probably would add to the safety of our institutions.

It is worthy of notice that a large portion of those who demand woman suffrage are persons who have not been trained to reason, and are chiefly guided by their generous sensibilities. Such do not seem to be aware that all reasoning consists in the presentation of evidence to prove that a given proposition is included in a more general one already believed and granted, and also that in this process there must be definitions of the sense in which terms are used that have several meanings.

Instead of this, they write and talk as if reasoning were any kind of writing or talking which tends to convince people that some doctrine or measure is true and right. And so they deal abundantly in exciting narratives and rhetorical declamations, and employ words in all manner of deceptive senses.

For example, when Mrs. Livermore pleads that women should have equal rights with men before law, everybody grants it in some sense. But the question is in what sense is she to be made equal? All will allow that law should be so framed that woman's highest usefulness and happiness shall be treated as equal in value to that of man's. But this is not relevant to the question whether laws be framed by fathers, husbands, and brothers, or by women. Most women believe that it is for their best good that the responsibility of making and enforcing laws be taken by men and not by women.