The principal cause of rejoicing at this convention was the admission of Utah as a State with the full enfranchisement of women. A clause to this effect had been put into the State constitution, endorsed by all political parties, voted on by the men of the Territory and carried. This constitution had been accepted, the new State admitted by Congress, and the bill was signed by President Cleveland January 4, 1896. A noteworthy circumstance in this case was that, while the admission of Wyoming with a woman suffrage clause in its constitution was fought for many days in both Senate and House in 1890, that of Utah was accepted with scarcely a protest against its enfranchisement of women. There was also rejoicing over the fact that, during the autumn of 1895, the full franchise had been conferred upon the women of South Australia.
The occurrence of the convention which forever made its memory a sad one to Miss Anthony was the so-called "Bible resolution." It had this effect not only because of the resolution itself but because those who were responsible for it were especially near and dear to her. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, assisted by a committee of women, had been for several years preparing a work called the "Woman's Bible." It contained no discussion of doctrinal questions but was simply a commentary upon those texts and chapters directly referring to women, and a few others from which they were conspicuously excluded. Naturally, however, this pamphlet caused a great outcry, especially from those who had not read a word of it. That women should dare analyze even the passages referring to themselves in a book which heretofore, neither in the original writing nor in all the revisions of the centuries, had felt the impress of a woman's brain or the touch of a woman's hand, stirred the orthodox to their greater or less depths. Mrs. Stanton was honorary president of the National-American Suffrage Association, but had not attended its meetings or actively participated in its work for a number of years.
Several members of the board, who were children when she and Miss Anthony founded that organization, and unborn when Mrs. Stanton called the first woman's rights convention, decided that her Woman's Bible was injuring the association, although only the chapters on the Pentateuch thus far had been published. They determined that this body should take official action on the question, but they understood perfectly that it would have to be brought before the convention without any previous knowledge on the part of Miss Anthony. Therefore it was planned to have a paragraph of condemnation and renunciation of the Woman's Bible incorporated in the report of the corresponding secretary. When it was read in open meeting she was struck dumb. Mrs. Colby sprung to her feet and moved that the report be accepted, all but the paragraph relating to the Woman's Bible. After an animated discussion the secretary's report was laid on the table and later was adopted with the offending clause stricken out. Miss Anthony supposed this was the end of the matter but, to her amazement, the committee on resolutions reported the following: "This association is non-sectarian, being composed of persons of all shades of religious opinions, and has no official connection with the so-called Woman's Bible, or any theological publication."
This resolution was wholly gratuitous. While true that the association was composed of persons of all shades of religious opinion, it comprised also among some of its oldest and ablest members those who entertained no so-called religious beliefs. Mrs. Stanton invariably had announced that this revision of the Scriptures was the individual work of herself and her committee, and there was no ground for holding the whole association responsible. The resolution, however, was debated for an hour. Miss Anthony was moved as never before. Not only was she fired with indignation at this insult to the woman whom she loved and revered above all others, but she was outraged at this deliberate attempt to deny personal liberty of thought and speech. Leaving the chair she said in an impassioned appeal:
The one distinct feature of our association has been the right of individual opinion for every member. We have been beset at each step with the cry that somebody was injuring the cause by the expression of sentiments which differed from those held by the majority. The religious persecution of the ages has been carried on under what was claimed to be the command of God. I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. All the way along the history of our movement there has been this same contest on account of religious theories. Forty years ago one of our noblest men said to me, "You would better never hold another convention than allow Ernestine L. Rose on your platform;" because that eloquent woman, who ever stood for justice and freedom, did not believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible. Did we banish Mrs. Rose? No, indeed!
Every new generation of converts threshes over the same old straw. The point is whether you will sit in judgment on one who questions the divine inspiration of certain passages in the Bible derogatory to women. If Mrs. Stanton had written approvingly of these passages you would not have brought in this resolution for fear the cause might be injured among the liberals in religion. In other words, if she had written your views, you would not have considered a resolution necessary. To pass this one is to set back the hands on the dial of reform.
What you should say to outsiders is that a Christian has neither more nor less rights in our association than an atheist. When our platform becomes too narrow for people of all creeds and of no creeds, I myself can not stand upon it. Many things have been said and done by our orthodox friends which I have felt to be extremely harmful to our cause; but I should no more consent to a resolution denouncing them than I shall consent to this. Who is to draw the line? Who can tell now whether these commentaries may not prove a great help to woman's emancipation from old superstitions which have barred its way? Lucretia Mott at first thought Mrs. Stanton had injured the cause of all woman's other rights by insisting upon the demand for suffrage, but she had sense enough not to bring in a resolution against it. In 1860 when Mrs. Stanton made a speech before the New York Legislature in favor of a bill making drunkenness a ground for divorce, there was a general cry among the friends that she had killed the woman's cause. I shall be pained beyond expression if the delegates here are so narrow and illiberal as to adopt this resolution. You would better not begin resolving against individual action or you will find no limit. This year it is Mrs. Stanton; next year it may be I or one of yourselves, who will be the victim.
If we do not inspire in women a broad and catholic spirit, they will fail, when enfranchised, to constitute that power for better government which we have always claimed for them. Ten women educated into the practice of liberal principles would be a stronger force than 10,000 organized on a platform of intolerance and bigotry. I pray you vote for religious liberty, without censorship or inquisition. This resolution adopted will be a vote of censure upon a woman who is without a peer in intellectual and statesmanlike ability; one who has stood for half a century the acknowledged leader of progressive thought and demand in regard to all matters pertaining to the absolute freedom of women.
Rev. Anna Shaw, Carrie Chapman Catt, Henry B. and Alice Stone Blackwell, Laura M. Johns, Annie L. Diggs, Rachel Foster Avery, Laura Clay, Mariana W. Chapman, Elizabeth Upham Yates, and others spoke in favor of the resolution; Lillie Devereux Blake, Clara B. Colby, Mary S. Anthony, Emily Rowland, Charlotte Perkins Stetson and Caroline Hallowell Miller were among those who opposed it. The vote resulted, 53 ayes, 41 nays; and the resolution was adopted. The situation was felicitously expressed in a single sentence by Mrs. Caroline McCullough Everhard, president of the Ohio Suffrage Association: "If women were governed more by principle and less by prejudice, how strong they would be!"
Miss Anthony's feelings could not be put into words. At first she seriously contemplated resigning her office, but from all parts of the country came letters from the pioneer workers—the women who had stood by her for more than twoscore years—pointing out that this action of the convention was a striking illustration of the necessity for her remaining at the helm. Mrs. Stanton urged that they both resign, but Miss Anthony replied:
During three weeks of agony of soul, with scarcely a night of sleep, I have felt I must resign my presidency, but then the rights of the minority are to be respected and protected by me quite as much as the action of the majority is to be resented; and it is even more my duty to stand firmly with the minority because principle is with them. I feel very sure that after a year's reflection upon the matter, the same women, and perhaps the one man, who voted for this interference with personal rights, will be ready to declare that their duty as individuals does not require them to disclaim freedom of speech in their co-workers. Sister Mary says the action of the convention convinces her that the time has not yet come for me to resign; whereas she had felt most strongly that I ought to do it for my own sake. No, my dear, instead of my resigning and leaving those half-fledged chickens without any mother, I think it my duty and the duty of yourself and all the liberals to be at the next convention and try to reverse this miserable, narrow action.
In letters to the different members of her "cabinet," who had voted in favor of the resolution, she thus expressed herself:
In this action I see nothing but the beginning of a petty espionage, a revival of the Spanish inquisition, subjecting to spiritual torture every one who speaks or writes what the other members consider not good for the association. Such disclaimers bring quite as much of martyrdom for our civilization as did the rack and fire in the barbarous ages of the past.
That a majority of the delegates could see no wrong personally to Mrs. Stanton and no violation of the right of individual judgment, makes me sick at heart; and still, I don't know what better one could expect when our ranks are now so filled with young women not yet out of bondage to the idea of the infallibility of that book. To every person who really believes in religious freedom, it is no worse to criticise those pages in the Bible which degrade woman than it is to criticise the laws on our statute books which degrade her. Everything spoken or written by Jew or Greek, Gentile or Christian, or by any human being whomsoever, is not too sacred to be criticised by any other human being.