Life and writings of Amelia Bloomer

by D. C. Bloomer

While the woman-suffrage amendment was before the general assembly of Iowa, Senator Gaylord, a member of that body, published a list of twenty-one reasons why it should not be adopted. These Mrs. Bloomer, in a letter to the Des Moines Register, answered as follows:

“1. He says ‘it is not in the interest or in the disposition of man to legislate against woman,’ etc. And yet for ages men have legislated against woman and deprived her of all right to her own person, her earnings, her property, and her children. The common law places woman in a position little better than that of slavery. And this law was made by men; and it was not until the agitation of the woman’s-rights question by women, and their exposure of the injustice of the laws and their demands for redress of grievances, that changes were made in their favor. If the senator does not know of this, let him read up the common law on these points and the history of the woman-suffrage question for the last thirty years, and he will find that up to that time it was the ‘disposition of men to legislate against’ every interest of woman.

“2. He says ‘she ought not to be compelled by law to work out a poll-tax in the public highway, nor to learn the art of butchery on the battlefield.’ Most certainly she ought not, but she could hire a substitute to do these things, just as Senator Gaylord does. I venture the assertion, without knowing, that he did not earn his right to the ballot by the bullet or by shoveling dirt on the highways. If only those who do these things were allowed to vote the number of voters would be small indeed.

“3. ‘Because there is no evidence that the most intelligent women ask for the miserable privilege of becoming politicians.’ Does the senator think that it is a miserable privilege to have the right to the ballot, the right to vote for good men and measures, the right to self-protection, the right to sit in the halls of legislation making wise and just laws for the government of his country, which shall tend to the interest and happiness of the whole people? One who prizes these privileges so lightly should be deprived of them and the wonder is that, holding such opinions as he does, we find a ‘miserable politician’ having his seat in the legislative hall of this great state, where he surely ought not to be. The fact that the women and the men who are asking for the enfranchisement of women are among the most intelligent, refined, affectionate and exemplary citizens is too patent to need proof from me.

“4. ‘Because woman is superior to man, and she owes her superiority to the fact that she has never waded in the dirty pool of politics.’ Dear me! how worried this man is about the ‘dirty,’ ‘miserable’ politics! And again how strange, knowing the pool to be so muddy, that he has waded in so deep! and to think of his going home to his family with all this filth upon him! Really, if the place is so muddy it is high time that woman come in, with all the purity and goodness he gives her credit for, and sweep out the dirt that is befouling her husband and sons and make it a more fit place for them. An atmosphere that is too impure for her to breathe cannot but be dangerous to them, and it is her duty to rescue them from the ‘muddy’ pool or so to cleanse it that it will be safe for both.

“5. Senator Gaylord may call himself a wizard if he likes, and we shall not object; but women prefer not to be angels while sojourning here below, but rather good, sensible, practical wives and mothers, prepared to discharge life’s duties in whatever situation they may be placed—in the home, at the ballot-box or in legislative halls, wherever duty, interest and inclination may lead them.

“6. ‘Because a deference is now shown to women, which would be denied,’ etc. Deference shown to women does not make up for deprivation of rights, Mr. Gaylord. Besides, it is not a fact, but on the contrary, that equality of rights, politically or otherwise, leads men to disrespect woman. Give us rights and then, if you must, withhold courtesy: I trust we should have strength to bear it.

“7. ‘Because, if married women should vote against their husbands, there would be war.’ And who would make the war, Mr. Gaylord? No man, except one who wishes to play the tyrant in his family and enslave his wife’s thought and actions, could ever utter so silly a reason for depriving her of rights to which she is as justly entitled as himself. Does he question the right of a man to do his own thinking and vote as he pleases? Why then a woman? The very fact that he thus claims the right to make her action subservient to his wishes, or to make war upon her if she does not submit to his own dictation, is reason sufficient why her individuality and right to self-government should be recognized and secured to her by making her an enfranchised citizen.

“8. ‘Because there are bad women,’ etc. Well, why may not bad women vote as well as bad men? If they had had a vote long ago perhaps they would not be bad now, and perhaps there would not be so many bad men either. I would sooner trust those women to vote right than many men who now disgrace the ballot; and as to any contamination at the polls, we no more fear it than on the streets, at public gatherings, in the stores, and in various places where we meet and brush by them unharmed. We have more to fear from the men who make women bad. But, inasmuch as many women are compelled to associate in the closest relations with these men, and we all have to tolerate them in society, and come in contact with them in business matters, we think no great harm can come to us by dropping a bit of paper in the same box. But if there is really danger from such contact, we can avoid it by having voting places for our own sex away from theirs.

“9. ‘Because, if a woman trains up her children right, they will vote right.’ etc. No, not always. The training of the mother is often counteracted by the influence, authority and example of the father, and the two might differ as to what was right. The mother might teach her son that the ballot is a high and sacred thing, a mighty power to be wielded for the best interests and happiness of humanity, a power for the putting down of evil and for the forming and sustaining just governments; while the father might teach him that the right of the elective franchise is a ‘miserable privilege,’ that it leads to a ‘muddy pool’ into which all must wade, that it is all ‘moonshine and monsoons’ and that the ‘privilege of voting is not to be so much desired as the privilege of being voted for.’ Which training is he to follow? Where lies the danger?