CHORUS
“Life is real, life is earnest,”
set themselves about solving its problems for themselves and for their sex. Some of them asked for the ballot. Why? Because they wanted to obliterate from the statute books such laws as restricted their liberties and circumscribed their sphere. As wives they wanted to be the equals of their husbands before the law. Why not? As mothers they wanted to be the equal of their sons before the law. Why not? A thousand reasons have been assigned why not, but they do not answer the demand. What is wanted as prudent guarantees that the ballot will be wisely wielded by those upon whom the great right has been conferred? The answer is ready—intellect, education, a fair comprehension of the obligations of citizenship, loyalty to the Government, to republican institutions and the welfare of society. It is not contended that women do not possess these qualifications, but the right is withheld from them nevertheless, and by withholding this right a hundred others are included, every one of which when justice bears sway will be granted. This done woman’s sphere will regulate itself as does man’s sphere. The Boston Herald in a recent issue takes Dr. Dix to task for narrowness of vision and weakness of grasp in discussing “the calling of a Christian woman,” and then proceeds to outline its own views on the “sphere of capable women,” in which it is less robust than the reverend D.D. To intimate that the Infinite Disposer of Events favors the narrow, vulgar prejudices of Rev. Dr. Dix and his organ, the Boston Herald, is to dwarf the Almighty to human proportions and bring discredit upon His attributes in the midst of which justice shines with resplendent glory, but the demand is that women themselves shall determine for themselves the boundaries of their sphere. It is not a question of mere sentiment, it is not a matter of fancy or caprice. It is rugged question. It involves food, clothing, shelter. It means self-reliance. Women are not appealing to man’s gallantry, not to any quality of less importance than his sense of justice for their rights. Man is not likely to regard his mother with less affection and reverence because she is his father’s equal, and in the past, when women were more degraded than at present, the best men have found in women inspiration for their best work, good men will not find less inspiration for good work when women are emancipated from the thraldom of vicious laws, and crowned man’s equal in all matters relating to “sphere,” shall, by laws relating to physical and mental organism, take their chances in the world’s broad field of battle, demanding and receiving for work done in any of the departments of human activities men’s pay when they perform men’s work.—Indianapolis Sentinel, May 13, 1883.
[18] It is not a physiological cause which produced our present family with the father as ruler and owner of all property.—Kemptsky.
[19] By a singular lack of oversight in making up the title-page and lettering the cover, the words “Husband and Wife” have been printed as though they referred to objects of equal importance. Even the carefully trained eye of a former editor of the “Christian Register,” the Rt. Rev. F. D. Huntington, D.D., Bishop of Central New York, who furnishes a brief and cautious introduction to the volume, did not detect this error. It has been left to us to call attention to the incongruity of the title-page, and to give the sentiment of the book proper typographical expression. The conventional sobriety and ecclesiasticism of the title-page do not prepare one for the novelty of the contents. It is only by reading the book that we become aware of them. The sensation of the reader is somewhat the same as one would have on going into a building which from the facade appeared to be a plain, dignified Episcopal church, but which on entering he found to be a mediaeval circus. Not that there is any anything intentionally hilarious in the arena of this book or that it displays any athletic vigor of thought but that it is essentially novel and revolutionary. Dr. Gray is not unconscious of the novelty of his doctrine. “It is believed,” he says, “that the position of this essay is new to the discussion. It has not been urged or stated in print in England or America;” and, later on, he expresses a well-grounded belief that “some will smile” at his views as “antiquated and fanciful.” All of these claims may be readily granted. First, the doctrine is new. It is new at least in its present dress—as new as Adam would seem to be, if he put on a modern costume, dyed his gray hairs, and appeared in Boston as a social lecturer.—The Christian Register, Boston.
[20] Who has forgotten the sublime magnanimity of Artemus Ward, when he proposed on a certain occasion to sacrifice all his wife’s relatives? This is exactly what Dean Gray theoretically achieves. He not only abolishes his own wife’s relatives, but those of other men who have entered into the marriage relationship. He makes thorough work of it. Not only does he extinguish the wife’s sister as a relative, but also her cousins and her aunts. In fact, he even abolishes the mother-in-law. The luxury of a mother-in-law is granted to the wife, who by virtue of marriage becomes related to her husband’s mother, but is not granted to the husband, who has no relation whatever to the mother of his wife. As to the sisters, the cousins and the aunts, there may be a reason why Sir Joseph Porter, K.C.B., would view with dismay an equal addition to their number through the offices of matrimony; but the majority of men not blessed with a similar superfluity would hardly wish to forego this delightful form of conjugal perquisite.—Ibid.
[21] “One of the most learned colored men in the country is Alexander Crummell, Rector of St. Luke’s Protestant Episcopal Church, Washington, D.C. When he desired to study for holy orders he applied at Kenyon College, Gambier, O., but was refused admission. He made applications elsewhere, which were equally unsuccessful. He finally went to Oxford, England, and there took a full course. He is an eloquent preacher, and his congregation embraces a large number of prominent colored citizens.”
[22] I. Corinthians, v: 1.
[23] And one of the most bitter opponents to the admission of the women lay delegates to the Methodist General Conference.
[24] As reported in Syracuse, New York “Sunday Morning Courier”, March 4th, 1877.