Special Legislative Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature.

I have not come here with any hope of refuting in ten minutes all the arguments of our pro-suffrage friends, nor is it necessary that I should even try to do so, for repeated discussion of the subject has made us all familiar with our own convictions and those of our contrary-minded neighbors. Still less have I come in any unfriendly spirit to the pro-suffragists, for I know many of them too well not to acknowledge that they are working, heart and soul, for what they believe is one of the necessary, if not the most necessary, factors in human progress.

The anti suffrage women are women so busy in their own homes, so occupied in charities and plans for the poor and ignorant, that they never have had time, more than that, they never have had the wish to come before the public, even in this Green Room. More than that, they do not think it is in woman’s place to argue or to refute statements in the arena of politics. For years they were silent, passive; their convictions strengthening all the while, they expressing them only as social intercourse demanded. But a year or two ago reproaches were heaped upon them for their passivity, which was called cowardice. They are not cowards, but they are women, and as such they prefer to stay at home and do their part through their home. There are but few of us trained to the public work of addressing you. Those few the distance of many miles keeps from us, but there are thousands of women who feel that if their silence is attributed to fear or to small numbers they must summon courage to speak, and therefore have they asked me to come and speak as best I may for them.

I stand here because we anti-suffragists believe that the time has come for us to declare that our intellectual judgments, our moral convictions, and our belief in right expediency as one of the grounds on which governmental and constitutional changes should be made, are entirely opposed to the doctrine of female suffrage.

It is said that the casting of a vote is a slight duty, quickly performed. If it were that simple mechanical act, we might not object to such action, but to cast a vote ought to mean to cast it intelligently and honestly; and how can we gain that accurate intelligence except by attending caucuses, primaries, nominating convictions, and supplementing general knowledge as far as possible by personal acquaintance with candidates? Even if some women have time and ability for such work, most of us have not; and even if we all had the time, is it desirable that the presence and co-work of unintelligent and depraved women should be added to the already jarring factions of political life? Every woman knows that all women cannot purify politics; and if a good woman can vote, so can a bad woman! Therefore, gentlemen, we say that to permit us to vote is to permit us to do many impossible things, which, nevertheless, we ought to do as patriotic women. The point in question is a vexed one between the pro and anti-suffragists. They say we have no right to prevent their doing what they consider to be right, and also that we need not vote because they do. We say that their demand for extension of the suffrage does involve us, and therefore we are put on the defensive against them. Party questions and reform measures of all kinds will arise; we may hold convictions different from theirs, and as we also care as much for our country’s welfare as they do, when we see some measure we deem unwise likely to succeed, then, to save our country or State, we must vote; therefore do we beseech you not to grant female suffrage. And if it is replied that women will only vote and legislate rightly, I answer that I utterly disagree with such a statement. Women, as a rule, will vote on the side of pure moral issues, but they will also vote for illogical, inexpedient measures to secure some narrow, present good, which should be outweighed by the larger issues of legal stability, validity of order, constitutional and States’ rights, which are also involved in the immediate settlement of any question.

What, then, is our general position?

1. That suffrage is not a natural right; if it were, no restriction of age, property, or education could be put upon it such as now exists.
2. That the essence of republicanism does not depend upon every one’s voting, independent of qualification, but that it is the sovereign people, and not a monarchical power, who shall decide what persons may vote and under what restrictions.
3. That to be deprived of a vote is not to be deprived of one’s personality; we are persons whether we are voters or not, and as persons should demand and receive careful legislation in all that concerns our interests.
4. Our opponents have rendered it useless for us to reaffirm that an intelligent woman is as capable of casting an intelligent vote as an intelligent man, or that some form of restricted suffrage might perhaps be desirable, for they demand unrestricted, universal female suffrage. They claim that suffrage is an educating power. We “anti” women grant that it may be, but we add that as the country is already so heavily weighted with an ignorant population, and that as our naturalization laws admit foreigners to vote before they have become Americanized, therefore we, as true patriots, will not burden our country with a great class of women to be educated.

We anti-suffragists will not yield one iota to the pro-suffragists in our belief in woman’s capacity for advancement in every direction; in her right to receive the highest education, to demand equal wages with men, to work as physician, lawyer, minister, lecturer, or in any occupation she wishes. We also demand of our legislature that they erase from the statutes laws which discriminate unjustly against women. We also believe that she should serve on school committees, on State boards of charities, and on all kindred institutions, so that we wish to effect no curtailment of a woman’s sphere except in the direction of suffrage.

And why do we wish that she should not enter upon that? Because most women are not fitted for it. We do not say that they never will be, but that they are not now, and will not be for some generations to come. Because I am a woman, because I care for women’s advancement, because I believe that though a large number of women are already fitted to vote, an infinitely greater number of women are not fitted for it, do I — do we — implore you not to give to all what at least most of us are not able to use rightly. You cannot give us suffrage without letting loose influences akin to those which have already debased politics and given rise to words of doubtful morality like wire-pulling, bribery, log-rolling, etc. If you give suffrage to all, you will speedily find that women are adepts in political measures, and will no more shrink at trying all means to secure their ends than do men; though on the other hand many men do, and many women would, employ only honorable means.

It is not necessary that women should vote in order to have the laws more favorable for them. The changes that have already taken place in them are due to the great progress of modern civilization within the last fifty years, and have had nothing to do with suffrage.

There is an opinion in some minds that the State should more and more assume a paternal relation to its population; tat it should provide whatever is asked, and that by the making of laws, oppression and poverty will cease. It is also supposed that women can legislate best for themselves. Gentlemen, those who assume either of these opinions are asking the State and the power of suffrage to do the work of personal righteousness. If women can best legislate for themselves, why should not minors both girls and boys, ask to have themselves qualified before the present legal age? And why should not one class of women legislate for themselves, and still another class for themselves? That there are still unfair and degrading laws is granted, but if we ask for woman suffrage in order to rectify them, we open the way for increased private, class, and personal legislation of all kinds. Is woman suffrage going to cure the evils that come from one’s own misdoings? Will a brutal, an intemperate husband be any less brutal or intemperate because his wife has the power to vote? Will trustees cease to speculate with their clients’ money because those clients can vote? Again, it is personal righteousness that must do the work which so often is expected from legislation and suffrage.

It is woman’s ignorance more than man’s wickedness, or the law’s injustice, which brings about the evils for which our sympathy is craved. Suffrage is not needed to beget self-respect, or a knowledge of contracts, investments, and the workings of the law, which if carefully studied before action is begun, would save later needless misery. Lastly, it is argued against us that for various reasons we need not fear that the unintelligent will vote. This must remain a matter of opinion between us and those who differ from us. I can only say that my experience has led me to the contrary conclusion. I had occasion one winter to be connected with some work at the North End. The women were too careless and wretched in their lives and in their dress to be here described. They talked with each other in little groups; many a one spoke of the time when she could vote as the only vengeance left her to exercise upon the wealthy classes. Woman suffrage, they said, would give the unskilled workwomen more ample wage for they could vote themselves what they needed. Again, I was in a house where workingmen came for their daily dinner. The men were also talking of this subject, and said that the women must vote, “for we want the eight hour law, and can get it THROUGH the women. They must make the State give us work. The women must see to it that we have work, and only work for eight hours.” These are but two instances, though I think they could be multiplied a hundred-fold; yet are they not indications of the way which woman suffrage may be urged to forward some special party measure? Once let the great mass of uneducated women be added to the great mass of already uneducated men voters, and the State will slowly but surely be shaken under the varying demands made upon it for bread, work, money, leisure, and all kinds of laws to favor all kinds of persons. When the times come, there will be more bitter animosities of women against women, of secret warfare, of despicable wire-pulling, and of exercise of the power of personal charms as a weapon of persuasion, than now exists among men.

One word more. Even if in itself suffrage may be based upon the fundamental principle of justice, it does not follow that it should be applied when great injustice must be done. No wise government deals in abstract justice without considering the expediency of the steps necessary to remove justice from an abstract principle into a concrete action. Therefore, if in close argument I should be forced (which I could not be) to surrender all my assumed positions against woman suffrage, I could never be driven from this position, that in the present constitution of events, of facts, — physiology, social, financial, moral, and political, — it is inexpedient for govt to grant universal female suffrage.

Inexpedient! Yes, forever inexpedient, until the highest type of reality and the clearest sense of justice and the widest reaches of law in theoretical and practical applications are reached by all women. Women now do generous, wise, and lofty deeds, and women now do mean, foolish, despicable actions, — oh, how mean! how bad!

So finally we beseech you, gentlemen, to rectify all unjust laws against women; to strengthen the hands of good women all over the land in raising the fallen, in teaching self-respect and self-support to the ignorant, in bringing more happiness into every one’s life; and to withhold from us the duty, necessity, right of suffrage, whichever it may be called, until you can have only noble, honest women for your voters and legislators.

 Source: An Argument Against Woman Suffrage, Delivered Before the Special Legislative Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature, (Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Extension of Suffrage to Women).