A collection of articles published in the 1880s debating women's rights and suffrage.
**************
Excerpt:
One of the most charming of the women orators in the late municipal campaign in New York, in a burst of eloquence for which she was applauded, pointed to the lady who stood as the emblem of the Fusion party, and to the tiger of Tammany, and asked if it were possible to hesitate in the choice: "The lady or the tiger confronts you. Which shall it be?"
Fortunately, the audience was with the speaker. Questions are admittedly dangerous political weapons. The picture of the voter trembling before the gates was cleverly drawn; yet it might have been awkward had one ventured to suggest that it was not at all certain before which gate one would more violently tremble. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which one might pray for the tiger. My own experience is somewhat limited - on the side of the tiger. But I fancy an angry tiger kills quickly.
I am quite sure that, in the political arena, I should dread the advent of women as voters and office-holders a little more than that of the tiger. Of course, to the speaker, Woman typified and summed up all that was honorable, pure, noble, uplifting. To her, even the fact that the emblematic "lady" referred to was really a goddess was in no way disconcerting.
It was assumed by many campaigners that the interest taken in the campaign by the women was in itself a conclusive arraignment of Tammany, was in itself a proof that the Fusion party stood for honest government. Of course, such an assumption when it is made by a man is not to be seriously challenged; but when it is made by a large proportion (still, I am persuaded, happily, by a minority) of women, then it becomes worth while to examine woman's claim to moral superiority, to examine it soberly and seriously.
The exercise by woman of the power to vote has been held up by these women again and again as a panacea for the chief evils, if not all the evils, that now threaten to undermine the moral life of America. As even these women must be aware that in voting the majority prevails, this is clearly an assumption that the majority of women may be counted upon as a force that would make for political righteousness. It is strangely difficult to keep this inference before the public.
The popular method of argument is: "Mrs. Thus-and-So is a splendid woman; would she not give us a more intelligent vote than the ignorant hod-carrier?"
The fact that the vote of Mrs. Thus-and-So will be pitted against that of Mrs. Hod-carrier, never seems to be considered.
It must be remembered that the suffrage - at least in America - is almost certain to be refused to all women, or given to all women; that a vote to one woman will be a vote to all women, vicious and virtuous, ignorant and educated, lowest and highest.