# The Rights of Women and the Sexual Relations/Part 2/6. The Convention of German Women in Frauenstadt

Contents
THE CONVENTION OF GERMAN WOMEN IN FRAUENSTADT.
(Correspondence to "Der Pionier," Frauenstadt.)
The numerous attendance and the lively interest for our cause which I found here, compel me to apologize for the want of faith with which I had anticipated this gathering of German women. I almost began to feel reconciled to America.
Promptly at the time appointed the convention assembled. The large hall was almost filled and the attendance so numerous that it astonished all present. Besides those who had announced themselves a great many more have come, partly from the far west. Some of the women are accompanied ‘by their husbands, some by their brothers, and besides these men, several representatives of the strong sex have come alone. Some of them are suspected to be "reporters" and "editors," but they have not yet made themselves known.
The first hour was spent in welcoming each other and becoming acquainted. Then the meeting was called to order by the venerable Katherine Schmalz of Philadelphia. A most simple and abbreviated mode of organization was adopted. Mrs. Schmalz proposed Julie vom Berg as president, who, however, declined the honor and in her turn proposed ​Ida Johanna Braun of Boston Highlands. The latter was unanimously elected. She opened the convention with the following words: —
Ladies — Never before did I even dream of the honor that has just been conferred upon me, because I never before even dreamt of the possibility of seeing so much interest displayed in public affairs, and especially in the questions for the consideration of which*'we have here come together, by the German women of this country, of whom, hitherto, nothing has ever been seen, except perhaps in beergardens, and nothing ever heard, except in the gibes of men. This interest is all the more a pleasant surprise to me because it seems to ‘have matured in silence and required only a stimulus to come to light. But I am convinced that nobody will be more surprised than the mass of our countrymen, for in no country, hitherto, have women ‘been so removed from public life as in Germany, and in no country has the male sex been so unanimously intent, with gibes and vulgarity, on driving her back into her socalled "sphere," as in our old fatherland. Even on this side of the water we have long enough suffered from the effects of former conditions. But here, where so many limitations, by which we had been hemmed in on the other side, have been removed, we have, it seems, gradually learned to find our bearings and to act according to our own impulses. I hope that our coming together here will prove this and will spread the conviction, through the fruits of ​its activity, that our interference with social development was neither useless nor unjustifiable. We may frankly admit that the American women have set us an example, and have in many respects put us to shame. If that is a reproach to us, it lies entirely with us to clear ourselves of it by setting an example, in our turn, to American women, which they need quite as much as we did theirs. I am alluding to struggles impending in the near future, which will at the same time give our German men an opportunity for freeing themselves from prejudice and of becoming reconciled to our aspirations. I do not consider it doubtful that American women will, within a short time, succeed in gaining the right of suffrage. They will gain it for us, too, and therefore it would be doubly disgraceful for us to bear no part whatever in the achievement, and to accept a right from their hands without some desert of our own. This is a point of honor with us. We cannot permit it to be said of us that, like slaves, we have received a right as a present. Those, only, who help to fight for it deserve it truly. And while we take part in the struggle we at the same time appeal to the honor of German men who cannot wish to expose themselves to the disgrace of withholding from their women a right that others grant them. These men will at the same time come to a recognition of the fact that not only their honor, but their interest as well, bid them to promote our intellectual activity and our participation in public affairs as much as possible. I seem ​to foresee that the granting of the right of suffrage to the women of America will, in the beginning at least, strengthen that political party which will strive to limit social freedom by means of a moral police, and to increase the power of the clergy by religious compulsion. What this party did not hitherto succeed in doing it may perhaps do with the help of the American women, who, on the average, still are more dependent on the representatives of religion than American men; it will certainly succeed if the increase of votes received by the accession to its ranks of those women will not be counterbalanced. And who can and must counterbalance this increase in votes? None other than the German women! (General applause.) We might have the best of opportunities to let the German men become very uncomfortably aware of what they did, when they limited our "sphere" to the kitchen and nursery. Should we but decline to make use of a right which they had wished to withhold from us, we could expose our German brothers defenselessly to the tyranny of temperance fanatics. But no. Let us not revenge ourselves because men were blind enough to disqualify us at their own expense. Let us least of all revenge ourselves by foregoing our own rights. I see the time coming when those of our "Masters" who in the most rudely insulting manner referred us to the "sphere" dictated by themselves will beg us to leave that "sphere" and accompany them to the polls, in order that they may continue to drink their ​beer in peace and not be confined to that same "sphere," which they always described to us as so beautiful, but which they were wont to honor with their presence only when they were hungry or sleepy. Should we leave them in the lurch? Let us rather come to their assistance, not in a magnanimous spirit, however, but in order to do our share in securing liberty and justice. And that we may be prepared for this work it is necessary to make our appearance upon the field of battle, and to begin to drill in good season.
But while we are thus assisting the German men to combat temperance tyranny and religious fanaticism, we have, at the same time, the best of opportunities to set an example of intellectual freedom to American women, and to thus show our gratitude for the example they gave us in their struggle for political freedom.
But even that is not the whole of our mission. Our public activity and its consequences will not be limited to this country; it will serve as an incentive to our country-women on the other side of the ocean, and I hope that we shall succeed in successfully co-operating with them and especially in convincing them that without political freedom, and without a republic, the female sex cannot hope for an improvement of their lot.
Before closing permit me to say a few words concerning the attitude we must take in this struggle for reform in order to gain our end. Are we to iso​late ourselves or not? And if not, with whom ought we to combine? That is the question. If there is any portion of the population of a state that deserves to be designated as a class it is the women. A class in a political sense is caused by legal privilege or disfranchisement. The negroes were a class so long as they had not the right of suffrage. The wealthy form a class when the right of suffrage and government depends on the possession of money. But the entire female half of humanity bears the most pronounced class-character. It has always been distinguished in all countries, even by the disfranchised class of the male portion, as the class without rights. That she could in no way be dispensed with has been her only protection; and the only guarantee of her rights has rested with the chivalry of men. We daily read, nowadays, of the class-distinctions which are called out and fostered by the "laborers" in Europe as well as in America, the object being to develop the most intense "class-consciousness," which _ must finally lead to "class-wars." Now, we women need not have recourse to artificial means in order to call out a "class-consciousness" among us. The state as well as nature stamp us as the largest and most disfranchised class in the world. If we were to adopt the tactics of the laborers, we would regard only our special interests, concern ourselves only with that which is wanting to and oppressing us as women, we would isolate ourselves as women and as the woman-class take our stand against the entire ​man-class. The mere suggestion of such an idea is sufficient to make all the folly and narrow-mindedness of it clear to everybody. Just because it was narrow-mindedness and exclusion that have driven us into a position of disqualification, we, in our turn, must occupy higher ground, upon which narrow-mindedness and exclusion disappear. It is the standpoint of a common humanity, of common human rights. Upon this standpoint we learn to unite with all individuals and with all classes, who in the conception of common rights also recognize and strive for our rights; we further learn to look upon every right for which others struggle as our own cause, even if it does not directly accrue to our advantage; and in combatting every wrong that is perpetrated on others we ward off a blow directed to the common rights in which we also share. If the negro rattles his chains, we must help him break them; if the laborer fights with his exploiter, we must take his part; when nations rise against their oppressors, we must take part in the uprising; and when intellectual liberty scores a victory in a field where the art of mystification and dogmatic barbarity have heretofore held sway, we must hail it as a benefactor of mankind. In short, whenever the question is one of human rights, and of the diffusion of humanity, liberty and truth, there we must take part and help, not only for the sake of satisfying our own natures, and of putting to shame those who declare us incompetent to ​fill the requirements of a higher human calling, but also for the sake of our own interests. For it is determined by the law of social development that the lot of woman deteriorates on a progressive scale, as right and general enlightenment retrograde, that she, as the weaker party, must hold her claims to justice in abeyance until justice has become general in the masculine sphere, and that its true appreciation and its noblest effect can appear only after evolution has swept away every vestige of vulgarity, violence and narrowness. Therefore women comprehend their true interests only when their sympathy for right and truth is general, and when they extend their support to every radical cause. The realization of radicalism is the future, the resurrection, the "millennium of women."
This address of the president was received with general and most enthusiastic applause.
After this the organization of the meeting was completed by the election of the following officers and committees:
Vice President — Julie Morgenroth. Secretaries — Johanna Fluegel, Caroline Poltz. Treasurer — Anna Alsen. Committee on Resolutions — Julie vom Berg, Marg. Fluegel, Marie Zehringer. Committee on Miscellaneous Business — Cath. Heisterbach, Mrs. Felsenthal, Elise Luebke.
Hereupon the motion was made to-adjourn the meeting until 3 p.m. But before the vote could be ​taken a committee of the German radicals of Frauenstadt appeared upon the scene to invite the entire delegation of ladies to take a drive and to view the city and vicinity. A long train of carriages was waiting on the street. The invitation was accepted and the meeting adjourned until the next morning. The weather was mild and suggestive of spring, and all felt themselves most agreeably entertained and refreshed by the drive. Upon their return the company again halted at the hall of the meeting and were not a little surprised to find it transformed into a great dining hall, with tables spread with a steaming repast. It was a simple meal, but substantial and savory, and over the excellent wine many a toast was offered full of the spirit of the hour. The German radicals were treated with special distinctions and felt themselves sufficiently rewarded for their pains by the graceful thanks that were tendered them. After dinner coffee was served and a few hours were spent in agreeable conversation, whereupon the company dispersed in excellent mood to meet again the next morning.
On this occasion I made the experience that sociability could be found even in America.
SECOND DAY.
After the minutes of the previous session had been read and approved, the Reverend Mr. Goetzling was introduced to the meeting.
REV. GOETZLING — It is as much of an honor as a deeply felt happiness to me to be able to attend ​this noble assembly. It is not in vain that the poet, our highly honored Kloppstock, says:
"Honor to woman! To her it is given! To garden the earth with the roses of Heaven!"
SEVERAL VOICES — Does Kloppstock say that?
REV. GOETZLING — ARH, so you, too, love the adorable poet? The singer of the "Messiah" has always been my favorite and he appreciated woman very highly. But as the expression "to garden the earth with the roses of Heaven" indicates, we are always to look aloft with one eye while the other is directed toward the earth. Only when the father in Heaven lends his assistance, can the worldly work, succeed. Even the unchristian Goethe says: "The blessing comes from on high." (Murmurs and laughter.) And, therefore, my sisters, allow me to remind you of the beautiful example set you by your American sisters, who convene their assemblies with an invocation from the word of God and open them with a prayer to Him. It is the deep interest that I take in your enterprise and the Christian sympathy I feel for you personally, that moves me to offer myself to you as mediator with Him to whom we owe everything. Let us, therefore, my beloved sisters, open our meeting with an ardent prayer.
PRESIDENT — It is self-evident that outside of the members proper of this convention no one has a right to participate in its deliberations. Nevertheless everybody, not a member, even every opponent, ​has free access to this convention, and may express his opinion, on condition that he will not interfere with the ‘business of the meeting. The Rev. Mr. Goetzling is personally welcome, like any other individual, but his position does not entitle him to assume a function at his own pleasure. No motion _has been made to open our session with prayer. But to show every possible liberality, and to formally establish the pleasure of the meeting, I shall put it to a vote whether we are to accept the reverend gentleman's offer or not.
CATHERINE SCHMALZ — Before the vote is taken I should like to make a few remarks. The reverend gentleman addressed us as sisters. No doubt he means sisters in Christ. But I for my person stand in no relation to him whatever, neither in nor out of Christ. Other members of the assembly, whom I know, are as little inclined to call him brother as [ am. We certainly all wish him well, but I can desire nothing better for him than that he may go and pray no more and no more molest others. (Applause.) I have not prayed since I began to think for myself, and none of my seven children has ever learned how. But, on the other hand, I have taught them to do what is right, and have given them this rule to guide them through life, "do right and fear no one," be it God or man. Of the doctrines of Christianity I have retained only this one: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but have added to it, "Whatever you ​desire for yourself, grant it also to others, and help them to the best of your ability to procure it, especially the common rights of man. These are the principles according to which my children have been brought up,and four of them have become righteous, active and generally respected men, while the other three are lovable, good and happy women. But I myself look back upon the sixty-five years of my life as upon a cheerful, blooming, fertile landscape, which I myself have planted. How, on the other hand, have those of my acquaintances fared who have been brought up on praying and church-going? I do not know of a single one who has not either developed into a hypocrite or gone to the bad, and not one of them was happy. Three of them have married ministers, and of these three one died in an insane asylum, the other committed suicide by hanging herself, and the third could save herself from her pious surroundings only by eloping with the sexton to Australia. I should rather be here in America than in Australia. Let us remain here and gratefully decline the reverend gentleman's pious offer.
(Cries of "Question! Question!)
The offer of the clergyman is unanimously declined, whereupon he leaves the hall.
The President now requested the Committee on Resolutions to report, and Julie vom Berg, chairman of the committee, at last had an opportunity to read the following resolutions:
​1. The degradation and subordination of woman had its origin in the most barbaric primeval ages, in man's superior physical strength and wildness of temperament, and received permanent sanction from the monstrous creations of his ignorance and delusion, which placed a "God" upon the throne of the world without a goddess, and created man in the "image" of this "God," and woman merely from a "rib" of this man. The belief in God and its implications excludes the equality of woman from the start. The religious woman is the upholder of her own debasement, and only the pure, sovereign human mind is the savior of her dignity and of her rights.
2. The profound prejudice which has accustomed men to look upon the difference of the sexes as an inequality must be traced back to the origin of mankind. The manner in which the first men as well as the first animals originated is a mystery; but this manner, as well as the matter from which they originated, must have been the same for both sexes, and this equality must by their union logically have been preserved to the present day. Animals know of no inequality of the sexes and unite on a basis of equal rights for a common life-purpose. Man alone, who has the power to depart from nature, in order to return to it as a thinking being, could become so barbarous as to sophisticate the companionship by an arbitrary subordination of the weaker sex, thus establishing a union upon a difference of rights.
​3. The conception of man as a genus excludes every inequality of rights as an inherent contradiction and irrationality. Equality of kind implies equality of rights. By subordinating woman man raves against himself. If vulgarity and habit have led him to make this monstrous mistake of branding his mother and his wife as slaves by disqualifying them, while he would have his children and himself free, of degrading the woman below himself while desiring to love her as an equal, then the time has indeed come when he must be brought to realize this contradiction, by the abolition of which, alone, will he himself, as well as woman, be able to occupy their true position in life.
4. Equal rights will suffer no deductions and no exceptions. They can be thought of only as a complete, absolute, individual sovereignty, secured from all sides, in the state as well as in the family, in social as well as business intercourse. To exclude woman from suffrage is simply tyranny; to subordinate her in the family is barbarism; to limit her in social intercourse is arbitrariness; to measure the fruits of her labor with an unequal standard is fraud. 5. In the family, as well as in the state, this collection of families, interests, sentiments and aspirations can be brought into a state of humane harmony only by a co-operation of both sexes on a basis of equality. The one-sided preponderance of one sex to the exclusion of the other from public activity is not accompanied merely by the disastrous ​consequences which inevitably follow every suppression of rights, but must needs maintain a defective, discontented state of society, by depriving it of the co-operation of its noblest perfecting and humanizing forces. All reforms will remain fragmentary and botch-work so long as not all the members of society can participate in them as equals.
6. The foundation of a humane co-operation of both the sexes in the state is their personal union in marriage for the purpose of forming a family. But in order that marriage may accomplish its aim of a harmonious relationship, it must be the result of a free need and a free choice, and not be treated as a duty and a coercion. It is a glaring inconsistency to expect free individuals to unite to form a state in order that this same state may, through the institution of marriage, rob them of their individual liberty.
It is the inherent and exclusive right of every individual to determine his own actions. This right cannot be forfeited by a voluntary union with another individual. Marriage is a free relationship between sovereign and equal individuals, entered into for the sake of mutual happiness, and its dissolution, as well as its contraction, cannot be determined by any other will than that of the united parties, even although the conception of a true marriage presupposes a union for life.
Corresponding to this conception of marriage, and the equality of the two individuals concerned in it, all the property of the united couple, that which ​was brought into the union, and that which is accumulated by both in common, must, as the basis of their united existence, be administrated in common, and must, in case of a separation, be divided in equal parts.
7. So long as perfect equality in all departments of life has not been established, and an equal opportunity for education in their chosen calling, in any field, has not been secured to both sexes alike, a proportionately larger share of the property of the parents should by inheritance fall to the female children, for the purpose of securing their existence.
Thus far the resolutions. Julie vom Berg recommended their adoption with the following remarks:
I need not call special attention to the fact that the resolutions are somewhat irregular in form, and also ignore many a point upon which much emphasis is generally placed, on similar occasions. These points have received such frequent consideration that we have intentionally avoided their repetition. While we were careful to duly acknowledge general principles, our chief concern was to emphasize those sides of the question which usually, especially in American conventions, are ignored or receive a false interpretation. While, for instance, American women make the mistake of attempting the confirmation of their rights by religious authorities, our special object is to show that religion itself — this eternal enemy of nature and free humanity — contains the root of the tyranny, which has ever ​degraded one-half of humanity to be the servant and slave of the other half. Only nature and reason can assign us our proper place; all religions begin and end with our degradation, but especially the Christian religion, the most unnatural and inhuman of all. Have Christians ever doubted the human nature of male man? Have they ever classified him as an animal? In the middle ages the question was discussed whether woman was a human being. But they nevertheless, since they could not do without her, assigned ther a high position in the divine royal family, not, however, without first divesting her of all womanly or human attributes, except the "seven swords" in her breast. Perhaps this, too, is an illustration to the Christian command: Taceat mulier in ecclesia — "let the woman be silent in the church" — she may not speak, but she may weap. And she has indeed wept enough, both with and without swords in her breast, and not only in the Christian church. I hear her weeping in the Mohammedan church, where she is driven in troops to satisfy male lust; I hear her weeping in the Babylonian church, where she was at the mercy of every stranger, for money, which the priest pocketed; I hear her weeping in the Hindoo church, which drove her living into the flames, that it might write a ghastly epitaph for the dead master with the coal of the burned slave. Hundreds of thousands and millions of these epitaphshave been written since the religious campaign of Alexander, during two thousand years, and they are ​still being written to-day. It is surprising that Christianity, which also at a later day came to greatly relish roasted living human flesh, has not adopted this Hindoo method of beatification.
Thus the spirit of all religions established by men, whose pious delight has always been in human sacrifice, the sacrifice of the helpless, has understood the rights of women! If woman wished, by a single fact, to prove herself the representative of true humanity, and by a single word to deny all complicity in the misery of the world, she need but say: Never has a woman, whatever else she may have done, in the capacity of queen, for instance, never has she founded a religion!
In drawing up our resolutions we have gone back to nature, this fountain head of all knowledge, to open men's eyes to the barbaric prejudice that permeates all his opinions, habits and laws, and through which he has deemed himself justified in conducting himself as the lord and owner of his fellow-beings of the feminine sex. Not until he has become entirely conscious of this prejudice, not until he has learned to recognize in the subordination of woman the debasement of his own race and humanity, will he be able to grant equal rights to us honestly and completely. Before this even the most just and humane man will concede them more or less as an act of mercy, rather than a demand of inexorable logic, the fulfillment of a categorical command of duty, the expiation of an ancient wrong. But when this false ​fundamental conception that a difference of sex may involve a difference of rights, and annul the sovereignty of the individual, is once destroyed, it will become clear to everyone that all further objections to the absolute equality of rights can be turned against men as well as against women.
In touching upon a few other points we wished to indicate the consequences of equal rights upon relations which are generally passed over in silence, but which have hitherto been regulated entirely to the disadvantage of woman, and are rarely conceived of in a radical sense. I am tempted to ask the question whether men would ever have thought of founding the institution they call marriage if they had felt sure that without it women would, be as eager to do their "duties" as they themselves have always been to disregard theirs. The women were to be chained while the men went free. This seems to have been the original meaning of man-created "marriage." Marriage as reformed by women abolishes all chains as superfluous in the true, and disastrous in the false, union.
The motion to adopt the resolutions, in toto, was favorably received by many, especially by Marie Zehringer of St. Louis, who spoke as follows:
"It is incomprehensible to me how a woman, who is not entirely devoid of judgment and selfrespect, can love a man and accept him as her companion for life, who does not grant her every right which he claims for himself. By the assumption of ​a difference or by the denial of her rights, he either declares her as unable or as unworthy to stand upon an equal plane with himself; he divests her of her human dignity or degrades her into a second-class human being. He says to her: I dove you as a person, but this person has no will of her own, only my will; you are an angel, but this angel does not know what she is about; I adore you as a goddess, but this goddess has not brains enough to judge of the most commonplace things; you can make me happy for life, but you cannot decide what is good or bad, right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable; T am wholly yours, but I am your law-maker and your judge; all my possessions are at your disposal, but I must be your guardian, and must vote for you as the slave-holder does for the slave; you are my mistress in theory, but my servant in practice. How ought she to answer all these inconsistencies? Simply thus: You are either a hypocrite in your professions of love, or a fool in your arrogance; in the first case, I despise you, and in the second case, I laugh at you, but in no case do I love you. Adieu!
The contradictions in which men involve themselves, in their struggle against the equality of the sexes, are as obvious as they are innumerable. They think they are paying us the very highest compliment when, in assigning us our "sphere" in their well-known arbitrary manner, they entrust us with the high task of educating their children. We are to be educators without having had an education ​ourselves. We are to do our share in making the children worthy members of society, competent citizens, without having learned ourselves what society needs, and what constitutes a good citizen. We are to teach them the rights of man when we have none ourselves. We are slaves and are expected to rear free men; we are brought up as dolls, and are entrusted with the task of training men. In short, we are charged with incapacity for and deprived of the opportunity of learning and practicing the very thing which it is to be our highest task to teach.
But although women in general have no opportunity to fit themselves for public life, they nevertheless show, in all questions that do not require a special training, that they stand on the right side. I need only to call to mind the slave question. Slavery, so long admired by the majority of men, would certainly have been abolished several decades earlier had women had a voice in the matter. That women of the South, spoiled by education, and dehumanized by habit, have taken the side of slavery need not astonish us; but how many women in the North sided with this barbaric institution, of the preservation of which the men made a vital question? And especially among the German women, where do you find that revolting fanaticism for slavery, that stupid ‘hatred of the negro, by which the majority of the German men have distinguished and are still distinguishing themselves as "Democrats?" I have never yet found a German woman ​who hated a negro woman on account of her color. To the disgrace of our nationality be it said that there are hundreds of thousands of German male "Democrats," but to the honor of our sex be it likewise said, very few female "Democrats."
The test has never yet been made how much woman in general can accomplish, but rather the test to what degree her capacities can be curbed. And yet the sons of the mothers who have been put to this test have not all turned out idiots and barbarians! Ought not that to arouse a desire in men to see what can be made of women, if they are not only placed on a footing of equality with men, but also receive equal liberty and opportunity to develop their capacities and unfold their activities? We always point with satisfaction to the fact that great men usually had excellent mothers. The qualities of the mothers are therefore to be considered an index to the qualities of the sons, and the influence of a mother does not seldom decide the trend of a whole life. And yet there seems to be a determination to limit the number of superior women as much as possible, by hindering the development of their faculties. Do not the men thus defraud themselves most surely, while they think they are working for their own best interests? When the mothers are enslaved and degraded, the sons can not be born as champions of liberty and men of genius. Let us turn our eyes to the Orient. Is it not, and will it not always be, an intellectual desert, ​a monotonous merely vegetating spiritual waste, a hopeless stagnation? And why? Because woman is everywhere degraded to an unconscious slave and incapacitated for producing other beings than after the prevailing type. When do we ever hear of one remarkable intellect, one superior character among the hundreds of sons of which a Sultan or lord of a harem can boast? And yet their mothers are the most charming, the choicest specimens of their sex; and yet their fathers have all the means at their disposal to give their sons every opportunity for the development of their faculties. Even if these fathers were all men of genius, the sons would nevertheless be born stupid and degraded because all higher nature, all intellectual life has been killed in the mothers by the customary degradation and slavery.
But we need not go to the Orient, to the so-called heathen, we have instructive examples in our midst, which can at the same time bear witness to the blessings of Christianity. Within this great republic Christianity thas bred an offspring which, so far as the female sex 1s concerned, might serve as a model to the Turks. The Mormons consider it their mission to populate heaven, and for this purpose they provide for the greatest possible increase of their progeny. What will be the nature of this heavenly population? We can surmise it from the condition of their mothers. I have before me a report by a pious Christian, who has just returned from a tour around the world, who has visited the most ​different nations, who has everywhere studied woman in her degradation, and who has made some very true observations on the pernicious influences of religion, so far as his own religion was not concerned. From him we hear how in Salt Lake City "the resisting woman is made a prostitute in the name of God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." She is taught that in Utah, the same as in the Bible, the man is her "Lord and Master;" she is shown from examples in the Bible (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) that her "lord and master" must have as many women at his disposal as he likes; it is impressed upon her that the "salvation" of her soul depends on her compliance, commanded by God, so that the most beautiful maiden will not dare to refuse the most disgusting old fellow, for this would ibe a sin against God, whereby she forfeits her eternal blessedness. And how about the unfortunate victims of this holy prostitution? "There is," says the reporter, "no religious doctrine too senseless for men to believe. Is it possible for ignorance, for fanaticism, for superstition to change sensual vulgarity into virtue, in the name of religion? Do you ask whether these women of Salt Lake City believe in polygamy? I answer, Yes. They believe that Brigham Young is the servant of God, that his revelations come from God. They are serious and sincere in their belief. Do you ask whether they like polygamy? I answer, No. They accept it as a religious sacrifice. It is the will of God. They ​honor Him by obeying, they secure their own salvation, and at the same time eternal blessedness for unborn souls, who are waiting for an earthly dwelling. I venture to assert that in all Utah there is not a single happy woman united to a man who has more than one wife. Polygamy is contrary to nature. You can read nature's protest in the sad, careworn face of every woman whom you meet."
Such are Christian conditions, religious conditions resulting from a belief in the Bible. Christians, that is, those who consider themselves true Christians, curse them, but ‘with what right? Who has given these believers in the Bible a monopoly on their interpretation? Is not every vice, every most hideous act, every crime, that claims to have religion, the Bible, God on its side, justified? And since the weakest are always the first target and the first victims of every vice, every hideous act, every crime, it is but natural that woman should be the first to experience most thoroughly the benefactions of religion. But Mormonism, this masterpiece of systematized hypocrisy for the satisfaction of animal lust at the expense of degraded womanhood, teaches still more plainly than its mother, "legitimate" Christianity, how religion can even serve as a means for making crimes, committed in its name, appear like the greatest boon to those against whom they are perpetrated; so that in the name of "God," the patron of every imaginable barbarity, and horror, they allow themselves to be not only defrauded of ​their lives, but to regard this as their highest destiny!
It would be easier for me to understand a woman who considered suicide as her destiny, than one who, claiming human rights for herself, could still feel some enthusiasm for religion.
The resolutions also met with some opposition. Johanna Fuchs of Buffalo took exception to the sixth resolution, so far as it demanded communism of property between married people. She feared "that such an arrangement would lead to the greatest abuse, and was more likely to create false marriages than to preserve the true ones. Would not every girl of means run the risk of having her property squandered by the man who knew how to gain her affections, and who really cared only for her money? What protection has she if she is no longer to possess and administrate her property in her own name? And would not, on the other hand, many a shrewd woman try to insinuate herself into the affections of a rich man, then wilfully provoke a ground for divorce, in order to walk off with one-half of his property? It seems to me that if property is to be held in common, divorce should not depend merely on the will of the united couple; but if divorce is to be free the property ought to belong to the one who brought it into the union. Such as the world is, I cannot expect any good to come from the arrangement as recommended."
JULIE VOM BERG — The objections that have ​been raised seem to be justified if we consider merely the present conditions of society. But we must remember above all things that our point of departure is an assumption of better conditions, which we ourselves will help to create. Just as the exercise of suffrage, which we demand, and the equality of the sexes for which we strive, can only be expected in a future which is more susceptible to such reforms than the present, so in the conception of a reformed institution of marriage, we must count upon future conditions in which the obstructive elements of the present are at least partially removed. When we imagine the marriage relation of the future, as we desire it, we also assume, for example, that the women of the future have received a more adequate education, that they will be better able to secure their own existence, that their economic dependence on men ceases in part, and that they are to that extent less tempted to marry from necessity and speculation instead of from love. On the other hand, we must expect that in the same proportion as women gain in independence and influence, men will change their habits, and ennoble their sentiments, whose present vulgarity and baseness find their chief nourishment in the existing helplessness and degradation of woman. We must here, above all things, remember that this is a question of principle, which cannot be modified, or condemned to silence, out of consideration of existing conditions. What do equal rights demand? And what does a true conception ​of marriage demand? These alone are the questions we must answer. There is not an uncorrupted woman in the world, who, in considering all her wishes, with regard to marriage, would ask anything else than to be united to a man to whom she may be devoted in love for her whole life. Now may each one ask herself how she can harmonize the thought of such unity of feeling, of devotion and of existence, with the precautions of securing the dollar, inherited, or obtained by some other favorable circumstance, against the beloved man, in whom she trusts as in herself, and with whom she would share everything that is her own! How does the calculating spirit of the merchant or the lawyer, that keeps strict account over his dollars and her dollars, agree with the relationship of two lovers, who lead a common life, and see themselves rejuvenated in their children? Frightful discord! Disgusting contradiction! What! am I to entrust and devote my person, my whole life and being to a man, but guard my purse against him by law and the police? Do I not thereby declare my purse more valuable than my person? And is the man to see in this anxiety about the dollar a proof of his wife's confidence in him? Is it not as though she were saying to him: I love you infinitely, but I take you for a thief and a sharper who wishes to rob me of my money? How a man can debase himself to "marry" such a woman, who at the outset meets him with the most sordid distrust by locking up her money from him, I can ​comprehend as little as that such a woman can really expect her love to be considered genuine. For it is a condition of true love that each side finds his or her happiness in turning over to the other every desirable thing over which he or she has any power. A financial barrier must necessarily also create or indicate a moral barrier, a barrier between the feelings, and it does not seem to me that any marriage can be a happy one in which a separation of the property indicates a life apart, or, in making the one dependent on the other, subordinates one to the other. Ifa millionaire offers you his hand without at the same time offering his millions, then reject him or demand of him that he throw his millions out of the window for your sake. He who does not want to marry without securing his property from his chosen life-companion will act more wisely and more worthily if he continues to live without a companion.
There is a custom which prevails in America, more than elsewhere, according to which a woman upon marrying secures her property, if she has any, for her own person. In giving her one hand to the man, she points with the other to her strong-box upon which is written: Hands off! Very romantic, and most promising of future happiness! But the husband finds this as unobjectionable as the wife, because both of them have no conception of true love and marriage. Take, says she or he, my hand, take my liberty, take my person, take my heart — ​as much as there is of it — but, dearest creature, leave me my money! And thus they enter into the business of "loving" each other. Think of Abelard and Heloise with a lawyer or notary between them guarding their separate accounts. To be sure, Abelard and Heloise did not live in America. In this country of calculators and money-makers, where the number of dollars constitutes the "worth" of a person, one can sacrifice the person and keep the worth, if one keeps the money. I do not venture a conjecture as to how many true marriages there are here; but they are surely not to be found where man and wife keep separate accounts.
If, however, in objection to the proposed resolution, and in consideration of present conditions, the anxiety is expressed that the female sex will be piaced at a disadvantage should the resolution be put into practice, I am of an entirely different opinion. If we consider that the majority of women are still economically dependent upon men and will remain so for some time to come, and that, as a rule, the men provide the means of existence, it follows that an arrangement which in marriage makes the property of both common, and in case of divorce divides it into equal parts, must in general result to the advantage of woman. The resolution, therefore, offers a security to the weaker party. This security may go even further, for since the husbands, having complete control of everything, are generally the ones who furnish the occasion for a divorce, the ​temptation and opportunity for it will consequently be lessened if women have a word to say with regard to the disposal and administration of the property. .
For all these reasons I repeat the motion to adopt the resolutions in toto.
At these words a respectable-looking man arose, gave his name as Backfuss from New York, and asked for the floor. He had polished manners, but his physiognomy was most commonplace. On close observation one could see that his right eye was an immovable glass ball.
"If men are permitted," said Mr. Backfuss, "to join in the discussion, I will take the liberty to call your attention to one important point, which has not yet found expression in this meeting. I am of the opinion that it is an insurmountable obstacle to the emancipation of woman. You demand, ladies, complete equality of rights with men in the state and society. You claim that a difference of sex can be no objection. Well, I will concede everything if you are able to disprove a saying which has been considered true as long as the world stands, and will have to hold for all time if human society is not to collapse. Do you know what this saying is? I will tell you. It is: Equal rights call for equal duties! If you lay claim upon everything which men possess, you must also accomplish everything that we men accomplish. What do we men accomplish? Our most important and highest achievement is that we risk our lives for our country, that we take ​up weapons and go out upon the field of battle, that we shed our blood, and in the thunder of cannons defend our country, and our institutions, and you also, honored ladies, against the common enemy. Now I ask: Do you do that, too? Can you do it? No, forever no. Our highest duty you cannot fulfill, consequently you cannot Jay claim to our highest right. I say that without wishing to offend you, for you have so many other rights, and such a beautiful vocation in your sphere ——"
(Voices from all sides: "Nothing about the sphere! We alone know about that." Mr. Backfuss sits down.)
JULIE VOM BERG — I know a great many men who do not go to war, although they are able to go. And I know many others who cannot go on account of some infirmity or other hindrance. But I do not know a single one who has forfeited his rights, because he did not allow himself to be made into an instrument of murder on the drill ground, or has not taken part in a mass-murder, in the thunder of cannons. Upon what do those, who. are exempted, found their privileges as against us? On the other hand, I know thousands of women, who during the war have saved the lives of thousands of men, or relieved their suffering with tender care, providing all those things which their condition needed, but would never have found without the sympathy of women. In this manner women also have fulfilled duties during the war, which are surely equal to ​those of the men, especially if we also take account of the suffering and the sacrifices to which they were exposed through the loss of their-husbands and sons. Thus the distinction men win for themselves as murderers is transmuted into a distinction for women as sufferers. Would it not be humane logic to. deduce from this distinction of women a right to assist in doing away with this murdering for which men claim so much credit, by the participation of women in public life? Do these barbarians really consider it their destiny to shed as much blood in the future as they have shed in the past? Is this, then, and will it always be their "sphere?" Is it to remain man's highest estate to achieve that for which beasts of the desert, the tiger and the hyena could serve as models? This martial infatuation and bluster, continued even to the present day, proves more than anything else to what extent the animal and savage nature still prevails in man, and how much barbaric admixture, all his culture notwithstanding, he must still eliminate from his mode of thought, before he is truly humane. His right — the strength of bones; his fame — bloodshed — thus it was in primordial times, when he devoured his slain opponent,, and thus it is even to-day, when he buries him "decently." In Europe, the cradle of universal culture, that man stands highest even today, who has the greatest number of victims on his list of murdered; and in America, the model republic elects a man to the Presidency, who could sail ​into the White House on a ship of war, if all the blood which he has shed, and shed for the most part unnecessarily, could be collected in Washington. Had he saved his country, as they call it, by a great thought, or any other peaceful deed of the intellect, he would probably be neglected or forgotten; but because he reeks with blood, because blood marks his path, and blood surges about his seat, it is that which gives him the true color to suit the taste of this barbaric masculine world, and to secure for him precedence above all other unbloody greatness.
If murder and bloodshed are thus still to mark the path of man's aspirations and glory, would we women not be justified in considering ourselves as the only true human beings? And yet our claims to human rights are to ‘be measured according to our ability to participate in the deeds of inhuman beings? Would the gentleman, who has just enlightened us concerning the duties of citizens, consider our claims to the rights of citizens as better grounded, if we possessed the proper qualifications for the amazons of the dictator Lopez, or the king of Dahomey? If we women were as intent upon handling murderous weapons, and shedding blood, as men are, and could, therefore, perform their vaunted "duties" as their equals, it seems to me the "lords of creation' would long for nothing more ardently than to see us Once more transformed into unarmed and unbloody beings. They would most willingly concede to us ​every right, yea, every privilege, and even force it upon us, to escape the danger of having the relationship reversed and of having masculine right dealt out to them by the feminine sword."
AGNES KOEHLER — I beg pardon, but has the gentleman who reminded us of the military duty, been in the war himself?
BACKFUSS — Certainly, I have been through the entire campaign of the army of the Potomac.
A. KOEHLER — Were you also in the battle?
BACKFUSS — Not just in it. But I filled my position.
A. KOEHLER — What position did you hold? Were you a soldier or an officer?
BACKFUSS — Neither of the two. The loss of the right eye by a stone disabled me for service.
A. KOEHLER — ABH, no warrior, no thunderer of cannons then! And yet you retained your political rights? And yet you enlighten us as to our incapacity for equal rights because we are unfitted for war? But what position did you hold in the army? Perhaps my brother knows you, who was there also.
BACKFUSS — Well, I was a sutler.
(General merriment.)
MARGARETHE NIEVENHEIM — The sister of my washerwoman, whose husband was a corporal in the army of the Potomac, accompanied him fearlessly and faithfully, and went through the entire campaign, likewise in the capacity of — sutler, I ​hope you will at least accept this woman as a colleague, with equal rights, especially since she never sold adulterated drinks, and was very moderate in her prices.
(Mr. Backfuss rises.)
A. KOEHLER — Beg pardon, but are you not now an "editor?"
BACKFUSS — I have an engagement with a paper in New York.
(Leaves the hall.)
A. KOEHLER — Then he will change from a sutler into a muddler.
After Mr. Backfuss had withdrawn, another opponent succeeded him, a gentleman with the face of a fox, whose diplomatic self-complacent air betrayed the consciousness of his ability to greatly embarrass the ladies. He was a politician and editor from the West, who considered himself a great statesman, and his name was Schuerze.
MR. SCHUERZE — Ladies, I have followed your discussions with great interest, but do not presume to be able to give an opinion on the questions which are brought up here. The right of women is for you the chief, yes, the exclusive question, and you undertake to solve it at once. It seems to me that another question ought to be solved first, upon which the entire significance of this one depends. The question of woman's rights, as many another question, belongs to the realm of theory. Theoretical questions in themselves have no meaning in ​politics. They have meaning and significance only when they represent a power in practical life which is strong enough to uphold and execute them. Politics reckons with powers and numbers. Assuming that your resolutions had found favor before all the world, as theoretical principles, but not a person besides yourselves could be found to give them support in practical politics, or to attempt to make them law, would they then be anything more than mere phrases? They would have to be considered as nonexistent. It is clear, then, that the standard which the practical statesman must apply to a question is that of the power and support at its disposal. If it has no party it can receive no attention. The interest in it grows with its party. But where is the party to back your demands? I see a number of ladies assembled here, who individually, or as a debating society, can call out the greatest interest. But measured by the party standard which politics must apply, this society will be of no importance, even if its theories were entirely correct. How many voters are ready to adopt these theories and support them at the polls? This is the main question. But even this ts preceded ‘by another: How many women are there back of your theories and demands? Suppose, now, that you stood all alone. Will any practical statesman wish and be able to work for woman's rights, if the majority of women themselves do not demand them, and thus declare themselves against them? Could we let the majority of ​women, especially of German women, vote on this so-called emancipation, I am convinced, regardless of its theoretical correctness or incorrectness, that the majority would vote against it, or not at all. What sort of a case have you now? The majority of men against it, and the majority of women not for it. If the contrary were the case, the theoretical side of the question would present few difficulties; but under present circumstances a discussion of the subject has neither a definite aim, nor any chance of success whatever.
JULIE VOM BERG — If the speaker has convinced me of anything it is of the fact that he is indeed a "practical statesman." The principle, by him called theory, has in itself no significance for him; power alone has significance. Where this exists, there the principle, whose part it takes, has value. The principle is merely the accident of power, and might just as well not exist at all. A practical statesman has no principle whatever, to begin with, and does not decide upon any, in order not to compromise himself; he waits cautiously until one that promises well for his position has sufficient adherents, that is a party strong enough to insure victory. Then the practical statesman takes its side, conducts himself as its enthusiastic champion, and reaps all the advantages of the victory, which his cunning and daring manages to appropriate for himself, without having incurred the least risk in the struggle. He merely waits until a question of progress has become ​mature, and strong, through the exertion of others, then he attaches himself to it and becomes its spokesman, thus securing not only his reputation as a liberal man, who belongs to the advance guard everywhere, where the struggle is for liberty and development, but also as a far-sighted politician, whose championship is always coupled with success. Whoever is sly enough in his operations to keep away from a struggle so long as a superior enemy makes the outcome doubtful, but who later, when the downfall of this enemy can be foreseen, takes his place in the ranks of the aggressors with eclat, he certainly adopts the most practical way to share in the glory of the victory, without having assisted in the struggle. Remember the spectacle that presented itself in the development of the slave question. The abolition of slavery was in the beginning agitated only by "impractical" abolitionists, who were forever "harping" on their "theory," were hated by all true "patriots," and despised or ridiculed by all "practical statesmen." — In spite of these animosities the abolitionists did not relinquish their efforts, and when they alone could not gain a hearing, the natural course of events brought the slaveholder, cuddled and reared by the practical statesman, to their aid, and opened the ears of these practical statesmen very practically; that is, unmisakably. What happened? During the exciting stress of this reaction, the enemies of slavery increased a millionfold, and grew to a party whose victory had ​become as much of a certainty as of a necessity. What did the "practical statesmen" do now? Did they continue to ridicule the abolitionists? They, who from cowardice and want of principle, had but a short time ago attempted to withdraw the slave question from all contention, as an inviolable sanctuary; they, who. had boasted of "not being abolitionists, not even in silence," now suddenly became, of necessity, the leaders of the combat; they took possession of abolitionism, as though they alone had worked for it from childhood up, and now boast of themselves as champions of liberty, in order to reap the reward of their achievements.
I am not afraid of being a false prophet, if I predict that the question of woman's rights will run the same course that the question of negro rights took. Our victory is to us as certain as the victory of the enemies of slavery has been to the abolitionists. But when shall it be consummated? Can we assign the day in the calender? Can we determine the time according to month, week, and day? Think of the dreadful possibility of having to fight five, ten, twenty years longer for the recognition and accomplishment of our rights! A man of principle, a friend of justice, a warrior of liberty, and advocate of truth, a promoter of humanity, who takes his cause seriously for the sake of the cause, does not reckon by days, months and years. He has patience, and perseverance, and finds ‘his reward in striving for a noble end, and hoping for its final attainment. But is it ​not unreasonable, yes, cruel, to torture a so-called politician, or practical statesman, on the rack of such waiting? Remember that he has no principle; how can he be expected to strike and wait for it? Remember that he must live by success, how then can he be expected to join a party whose success seems still so doubtful, even in a remote distance? Remember that the poor wretch cries for an "office," that he wants to become Governor, Ambassador, Senator, how can he be expected to entrust his destiny to the future of a society that has as yet no "office" at its disposal, except perhaps the position of President or Secretary of a woman's convention? No, let us not be cruel, above all things! But I know of no greater cruelty than to expect a "practical statesman" to risk his "office" in a ruling party, and his reputation, as a successful man, by identifying himself with a principle that has still to win a party and to create a power. Let us be fair, let us judge mildly, and show forbearance. We, too, shall sometime have the practical statesman on our side, namely, at a time when we shall no longer need their help. At that time not only all meeting halls, but also the halls of the capitol will resound with "woman's rights," and among those who will congratulate us, on our victory and who, of course, will have the highest honor of it, the "practical statesmen," will be the most chivalrous and debonair. Will we be grateful? Will we be generous? Will we distribute the "offices" only among the "theorizers?" ​I for my part vote for extreme liberality, and even Mr. Schuerze will not ‘be forgotten, if he will answer me one question definitely and unequivocally. It is not the following question: If all men were "practical statesmen" who became interested in a right only after it had become a power sure of victory, could an unrecognized right then ever come up for discussion, and would progress ever be possible? Neither is it the following: Are not the radical friends of reform, who are the first to agitate for universal rights and better institutions, trusting that whatever is correct in principle must and will find its way into practice, more practical and farsighted statesmen than the calculating ‘business and state "politicians" of the moment, who take advantage of progress only when it is already in full swing, in spite of them? Nor the following: Were the majority of the slaves, a few years ago, in favor of the abolition of slavery? Was this abolition untimely or unjust, because not the slaves themselves but the free people demanded it? And is not oppression everywhere detrimental to those that execute it as well as to those who suffer from it? Is not the recognition and security of rights a beneficence and a duty even where no one expressly claims them? I will excuse the practical statesman from answering all these, and other questions — I only wish to address one personal question to him.
SCHUERZE — And that is?
JULIE VOM BERG — Are you in principle, or as ​you say, theory, for granting absolute equality of rights to the female sex? Yes or no.
SCHUERZE — I hold that the entire female sex has absolutely equal rights.
JULIE VOM BERG — I see. You mean to say that one woman has as many, that is as few, rights as the other. I shall now vote that Mr. Schuerze is not to have any "office."
Mr. Schuerze departs amid general merriment.
Not discouraged by this failure, another opponent appears. It is a man with very little forehead, but much beard, and a powerful voice. He gives his name as Gerstaeker. Several questions from the meeting: "Are you the traveler and writer, Gerstaeker?"
GERSTAEKER — I am his namesake and likewise a traveler, but I travel for a wine-house. But that makes no difference. I only wanted to say something that my namesake has said. He said it ‘in the "Gartenlaube," with which you are probably acquainted; it is the most distinguished and brightest paper in our German fatherland. My namesake is of the opinion that the emancipation of woman is against her own interests. For, he says, so long as she is not emancipated, that is, not on a footing of equality with man, he will protect her; she is for him the weaker sex, over whom he must watch, and for whom he must show tender consideration. But when she is made his equal, he will treat her as his equal, and will abandon all ​indulgence compassion and consideration that we owe to the weaker part. My namesake proves this by a striking example. He relates how a young lady entered an American street car, but found all seats occupied. A gentleman jumped up to offer her his place, but at the same time asked her the question whether she was in favor of woman's emancipation. When she answered in the affirmative, he resumed his seat, saying: "If you want to be the equal of man I may also treat you as a man." You see, that is what you would have to expect, if your resolutions were to become law.
JULIE VOM BERG — The prospects that the namesake of Mr. Gerstaeker lays before us are at least better than those of the young lady in the street car. We may at least expect to have a seat vacated for us by chivalrous gentlemen, so long as our resolutions have not become law; that is, so long as our equality has not become a fact, while the unfortunate young lady was condemned to stand, because she only desired the equality, only expected it "theoretically" as the "practical statesman" puts it. But I think we had better stick to our rights, even at the risk of going without all masculine chivalry at this early date. Later on, when we take part in the law-making, we shall see to it that the street car companies no longer will let anybody stand, but will furnish a seat for his or her money to every passenger. In this as well as in other cases we shall inaugurate the reforms which the ​practical statesman as well as the chivalrous gentlemen have forgotten or neglected. For the present let us examine the chivalry and the tender considerations, the secret of which Mr. Gerstaeker has so naively disclosed to us. He makes the observance of these considerations toward the weaker sex dependent on its disqualification. He offers us chivalry as a reward for the renunciation of our rights. As slaves we may hope to sit down in the street car; as free individuals we must stand. So long as I cannot vote my legs are too weak to carry me; as soon as I have the suffrage they suddenly grow strong. To subordinate one's rights to the rights of men is a service that must be rewarded with chivalrous attentions; to be his equal in rights is an offense that must be punished by rudeness. You see, this is the correct interpretation of Gerstaekerian chivalry. He also might have expressed himself thus: So long as you women are satisfied to be our disqualified servants, we are the chivalrous bestowers of compliments; but as soon as you demand and receive rights, we become brutal churls. Mr. Gerstaeker, I mean the namesake of the wine merchant, has had much intercourse with savage men, and ‘beasts, as I see from the accounts of his travels. He also has been a frequent guest at "courts" which has the same effect. Can it be that he has learned his chivalry there? I would quietly leave him to his society if I were not compelled to also see in him a representative of a great number of men, who have ​not lived among savages and courtiers, but in civilized circles. May it be made known to these gentlemen that we thoroughly detest and abominate their entire chivalry, of which they seem so proud. It is nothing but a mask for brutality and vulgarity. If it were a disinterested virtue and an outcome of their humanity, how could they have the barbaric arrogance to demand as its price, a renunciation of human rights? And how could they then, make the difference which we daily see them make, according to circumstances, and external appearances? Look, how chivalrous these knight-errants are when they see a pretty face, and how indifferent, when a plain unfortunate woman appeals to their pity! At the sight of an affected society belle, they start from their seats; but the sick negress may stand till she drops. Do but become humane, and no one will demand or miss your chivalry any more. Then also a better lot will be in store for that numerous class of unfortunates, whom your anxious chivalry has consigned to misery and shame, although they have no rights. And here is the true test of your chivalry: Those unfortunates do not offend your masculine superiority by the demand of equal rights — where then is your tender consideration for the weaker sex? Here the question is not merely one of a seat in the street car; here it is a matter of rescuing thousands from degradation and despair. Where are you now, chivalrous gentlemen, upon whose protection and shelter, considerateness and ​aid the disfranchised can lay claim? Would those unfortunates be what they are without your chivalry? And could you have made them what they are, if they were not disfranchised? If, after the schooling you have given them, they are still able to arouse themselves to a consciousness of moral worth, they will call out to you: To hell with your chivalry, but give us our human rights, that we can protect ourselves against the dangers of want, and need no longer be the helpless victims of your lust!
By the reply of Julie vom Berg the wine drummer, Gerstaeker, was thrown into a great state of excitement. He arose, but for some time could not find words for his indignation. At last he called out in a stentorian voice:
"I hope that the speaker's insinuations were not meant to be personal. But I shall report the affair at once to my illustrious namesake that he may write it up for the "Gartenlaube."
Then he rushed from the hall, upsetting two chairs in his haste. Upon one of them sat the doctor, spiritualist and editor, Bluethe of New York, in a state of deep reflection, to which philosophy applies the term "trance." Aroused by the violent shock and fall, he sprang bravely to his feet and at once assumed the attitude of a speaker.
DR. BLUETHE — The movement for the political equality of woman is steadily gaining ground, even among the German women of North America.
A VOICE — More ground, it is to be hoped, than it has so far gained‘among German men.
​DR. BLUETHE — But "in itself."
TWO VOICES — What in itself?
DR. BLUETHE — I mean the movement, no, the thought, I was going to say — well, what did I want?
THREE VOICES — You wanted something in itself.
DR. BLUETHE — Ah, yes, in itself. I was going to say, namely, that "the aspiring minds of the German adopted population" could inaugurate "the most profound and systematic opposition" to the principles of the movement. Re
AGNES KOEHLER — The aspiring minds? Aspiring to what? To get an "office?" And these "aspiring minds," to whom profound thinking as well as principles are a horror, are to inaugurate a profound opposition to the principles? Hitherto only men of thought and principle have fought on our side of the movement; they have helped to start it. I remind you, among other things, of a pamphlet, from the pen of the late Karl Heinzen, whose early death we lament, printed as early as 1849 in New York: "Concerning the Rights and Position of Women." In this work you will find the woman question treated comprehensively and in connection with the entire evolution and revolution of society, so that the author can justly exclaim at the end: "Women must enter the ranks of the revolution, for the object is the revolution of humanity."
DR. BLUETHE — This work is beneath all ​criticism, as are also his comedies in which he disparages the German editors. .
A. KOEHLER — Have you read it?
Dr. BLUETHE — No, I have not, but it stands condemned in itself.
A. KOEHLER — You seem to be "in itself" both a logical thinker and a just critic.
DR. BLUETHE — I have thought so myself, and I am glad to have it acknowledged by others. Therefore let me continue. The American Woman's Suffrage agitation arouses the well-founded apprehension that it may lead to a resuscitation of the asphyxlated nativist party, to a new installment of knownothingism, which had seemed to be entirely vanquished.
The chief speakers show a bitter and hostile attitude toward the adopted element, especially that of the German tongue, perhaps ‘because they suspect or know that from this side their agitation will receive the least support, but to some extent even the most profound and systematic opposition from principle.
MRS. STIEGLER — But would they not be justified in that? If these "German tongues" can do nothing but gulp down beer, saturate themselves with tobacco smoke and bleat after the party bell-wether; if they are so coarse that they have not a word of sympathy for the rights of the weaker half of humanity; if they can only hoot and hiss with the rabble and even pass off such vulgarities as "most profound opposition," then I not only do not take ​it ill of the American women that they feel bitter toward such a valuable "element," but I could myself become nativistic, and at least cast my vote in favor of depriving such "thinkers" of the right of suffrage, that the power of withholding it any longer from women may be taken from them.
DR. BLUETHE — "In itself," — "in a wider sense, — "most profound." — (He slowly sinks back upon his chair, closes his eyes and is again in a "trance.")
A. KOEHLER — If he did not have so much of a beard I would take him for a woman in disguise, who has come here to ridicule the men. He seems to be a "medium." Does nobody here understand spiritualism? We ought to ask him some questions.
KAROLINE WACHENBERG — I know him. I have often seen him in New York. He is an excellent "editor" and sees spirits besides, although no one can see his. I will examine him. Ina "trance" he imagines himself another person, and perhaps we will hear some truth. For an "editor" speaks the truth only when he does not know what he is talking about.
How does a man think?
DR. BLUETHE — With the stomach.
K. WACHENBERG — In itself or for itself?
DR. BLUETHE — In itself and for itself.
K. WACHENBERG — Who causes the stomach to think?
DR. BLUETHE — Whoever fills it.
​K. WACHENBERG — Who fills yours?
DR. BLUETHE — The proprietor of the type.
K. WACHENBERG — And who fills his stomach?
DR. BLUETHE — The "party" and the public.
K. WACHENBERG — Consequently you must think just as the party and the public wants you to. But if you should now think and speak otherwise?
DR. BLUETHE — That is impossible, for my stomach knows what to expect "if he should become guilty of this little mistake."
K. WACHENBERG — "In a wider sense?"
DR. BLUETHE — In the widest sense.
K. WACHENBERG — And what do you call this, politics or philosophy of the stomach?
DR. BLUETHE — Most profound and systematic opposition from principle, or the "German thought of the aspiring minds of the German adopted population."
K. WACHENBERG — But did you not formerly say that "reforms, the correctness of whose principles could not be contested, must not be left to time to be inaugurated from so-called considerations of expediency?"
DR. BLUETHE — That was true in itself, and so far as one's bread-giver agreed with it, but not for things antagonistic to the considerations of expediency of the stomach.
K. WACHENBERG — So if at any time you say anything that is true it must be regarded as a mere phrase?
​DR. BLUETHE — Everything is a mere phrase in the world. One cannot live by truth-telling, and even lying is badly paid if it does not sometimes look like truth. The world is so filled with lies that even a genuine lie can no longer be sold, unless it 1s adulterated to a certain degree with truth.
K. WACHENBERG — Are you not as fully convinced of the equal rights of women which you combat in your paper, as of the equal rights of negroes, which you advocate?
DR. BLUETHE — Completely. But the latter are demanded by my party, my public, and my bread-giver, the former not, and my stomach
A VOICE — I begin to feel nausea.
SEVERAL VOICES — The whole "German tongue" is beginning to be nauseating.
MRS. KALITSCH — So deeply fallen are these lords of creation, and yet they will not accept us as saviors!
THE WHOLE MEETING — Take the wretch away! We cannot endure his presence.
(The usher arouses him with the call: "The comedies of Heinzen!" whereupon Dr. Bluethe darts up, horror struck, and rushes out.)
JULIE VOM BERG — What fruits can we expect from such "blossoms!" And such ninnies, such imbeciles, such caricatures of manhood mount the high horse, conduct themselves as an intellectual ​aristocracy, try to clothe their pygmy stature with a nimbus of dark possibilities, and deep mysteries, by significantly pointing to the "aims of aspiring minds" of whom they are the leaders! Really, when I see that such celebrities as these, such absolute nothings, in intellect and character, are the spokesmen of our opponents, I feel ashamed for my own sex because it is still so far from attaining its rights. Those among them who consider themselves great "statesmen" cannot adduce any more weighty reason against our equality than this; that but few of us as yet demand it. Why, if few of us demand, and make use of it, so much less danger is there for the "statesmen." Thus they confess that from fear of these few they condemn one-half of humanity, their mothers and wives inclusive, to be without rights. A brilliant testimony to their wit as well as their courage. Ah, gentlemen, it is time that you protect yourselves against these imputations and humiliations, to which your spokesmen expose you, or you will en masse get a reputation for brainlessness and cowardice!
Dr. Bluethe had scarcely been dismissed when another opponent emerged from the background. It could not be ascertained who he was or how he called himself, although it seemed to everybody that they had already seen him, or some one who resembled him. All that was known was that he hailed from New York. He was a man of about forty years of age, but bald-headed and with a shriveled ​face that, in spite of its dull eyes, had a brazen, insolent expression. If he was not an editor, he might at least have been one. In order to give him a name, © and a cosmopolitan one at that, I will call him Mr. Morality.
MR. MORALITY — One of your resolutions demands the free, unrestrained contraction and dissolution of marriage. Is that not merely another way of saying "free love?" I am astonished to see German women make a demand which even among American women has called out disgust. What would it lead to, if it were left to the option of every woman to run away from her husband, as soon as he had crossed her whims, and offended her sensibilities in any way, or as soon as another one pleased her better? What would become of feminine dignity and virtue if our women could rush into the arms of another man every day? Indeed, what would become of marriage, and love, that divine theme of our songs, if all were chasing after sensual pleasures in perpetual change? Think of the moral anarchy that would be the inevitable consequence of your new institution. I must confess that I am horrified, and can hardly believe it possible that the moral sense of our German women can be put to shame by men.
JULIE VOM BERG — The gentleman's objections, which so pathetically appeal to our conscience, and are so anxiously concerned about our dignity, are most welcome They give me an opporunity to ​speak openly on this subject, which even in this country is still treated with.the most unbecoming prudery, and the most senseless reserve. I do not know the gentleman whom I am to answer. He need not take my remarks personally — they are aimed at the masculine world in general.
I begin with the declaration that I advocate "free love" completely and decidedly. But the expression is incorrect and ought to be "freedom in love." Indeed, can any other kind of love exist except free love? Can love be commanded or forced? Something of this sort seems hitherto to have been in the minds of our philosophers of love, who have learned their philosophy in Constantinople or Utah apparently, and who can let a slave pass as their beloved. Among all the daughters of the goddess Liberty there is none, who, according to her nature, must possess the properties of her mother in a higher degree than Love. Love and free love are therefore synonymous. It ought not to be necessary to talk of free love, any more than of wet water, or hot fie. I might, however, conceive of love as not free in the sense that the feeling, the necessity, the passion that unites two beings, binds them completely, destroys their free will, turns them irresistibly away from everything else. But just because true love has this effect, exerts this power, creates this necessity, it ought no more to be hindered in its choice, by external force, than it will require external bonds to insure its permanence. A man and woman who ​do not love each other ought not to be united, or where they are united, they ought again to be separated; a man and woman who love each other ought not to be kept apart, and they need no external force to remain together. This is the simple statement of what I understand by freedom in love, which is the only means of securing what has now become so rare — a true marriage and a happy family life. Let him who does not agree with me have the courage to postulate the opposite and declare, that those who do not love each other ought to be united, and to be kept together by force, those who love each other ought to be separated and to be kept apart by force — both in the interest of humanity and human happiness!
Although no man in sound mind dares to make such a demand, it seems, in practice, to be the guiding principle almost everywhere. If all the considerations, whose slaves men are nowadays, would suddenly drop for only a period of twenty-four hours, not ten of the so-called marriages would exist next day. For married people and their progeny the consequences of the existing relationships of force and prostitution are truly appalling. But this same society, especially the male portion of it, never wearies of pronouncing their anathemas on freedom in love. "Free love' is a word of terror, but free prostitution has become a social institution, which is approved inside and outside of marriage by a legal license. And shall I tell you why men ​condemn freedom in love? Because it would be the death of freedom in prostitution! Our male teachers, who can discourse so wisely on our nature, nowhere show their incapacity to judge of our nature more than in their anxiety that freedom will lead us whither it has led them. Give woman freedom, and she will love according to her own tastes and emotional needs, give man freedom — he already has it — without giving it to woman, and he will prostitute himself according to his habit. Prostitution does not proceed from woman any more than slavery does from the slave; as the latter must be charged to the oppressor, so the former must be charged to man. "Free love" for woman signifies the end of prostitution, just as free self-determination for the slave signified the end of slavery.
What more I have to say on the subject I will say in the words of one who is gone, who died and was forgotten too soon, and whose memory I consider it an honor to revive. Years ago one of the first woman conventions took place in Rutland, in the ‘State of Vermont. On this occasion — there were also a great many spiritualists present — much absurd and foolish stuff was brought up for discussion, but at the same time several women speakers created general consternation by their talent and boldness. A hitherto unknown woman attracted the greatest attention. The chief organ of the prostitution party, the "New York Herald," describes her personality thus: "She is a pale, delicate looking woman, with ​a sweet, calm smile continually playing about her pretty little mouth. Nobody would suspect that such a woman could utter sentiments like those which defiled her mouth at Rutland." The woman's name was Julia Branch from New York. And what were the criminal sentiments by which Julia Branch so greatly incensed the moral judges of the male persuasion? Listen: "No man has a right to dictate to me where and whom I must love." This was the subject of her address. Shocking! A little woman with a pretty mouth dares to assert that no one in the world except herself can determine her love. "Free love!" Down with it!
Later a similar convention took place in Utica, in the State of New York at which Julia Branch once more appeared. This time the chief subject of her address was "Prostitution and Infanticide." Referring to the verdict of condemnation, which had been pronounced on her former speech, she said, among other things, the following: "I do not fear any public opinion, or public condemnation, for I must denounce everybody, be it man or woman, as a coward, who in his heart holds a belief or principle, which he dares not advocate openly before all the world. Such men do not know the true meaning of the word freedom, and still have to learn the true meaning of the word slavery. True enough, it is not an easy matter to defy public opinion. I am not astonished to see strong hearts grown weary and weak in doing good. It is happiness after ​which all the world aspires; but the way to happiness has been planted with the cross of duty, and has been made so narrow, and steep, that but few venture upon it unless driven by the fear of hopeless condemnation, or allured by the promise of a sparkling crown — in every case a poor recommendation for their own or the general conception of happiness. The ambition to become great in public opinion or to gain the applause or approval of the masses, is a childish sentiment. The most faithful and noblest reformers of to-day as well as of all former generations are those who have lost their ‘reputation' by advocating unpopular principles. Indeed, neither man nor woman can do thorough reform work in the present state of society so long as they have not lost their "reputation."
Has ever man or woman spoken nobler or prouder words than this "delicate" woman, with the "small mouth" and the "sweet smile?"
She then proceeds to describe the condition of society and especially of the institution of marriage, which, above all, she holds responsible for the two evils upon which she is about to speak — prostitution and infanticide. "I hope," she says, "that the meeting will listen to me calmly while I speak of the first evil. It is without doubt a disagreeable subject for an audience to listen to. Many of you, perhaps all, have grown up amid the limitations of false shame and false delicacy, and if a woman dares only to hint at such a subject publicly, or betrays any ​knowledge of it, it suffices to cast a suspicion upon her own morality. But whatever may be thought of me, I openly confess that I take an interest in everything human, not excepting the woman who has abandoned the path of virtue, and who is considered a worthy representative of that place of eternal torture, to which our Christian friends mercilessly condemn her."
Is it not inspiring to hear, in the midst of this babbling and howling hypocrisy, which oppresses the minds of this pious world of scoundrels like a nightmare, such noble contempt of the stupid monster, called public opinion, expressed by a "delicate" woman?
Of this dreadful pest, prostitution, which poisons, both physically and morally, millions of the coming as well as of the present generations of men, Mrs. Branch contents herself with unfolding a picture by means of statistical tables, which she has received from physicians, especially from Dr. Saenger, of Blackwell's Island. Dr. Saenger explored the city of New York under police escort and found four hundred notorious brothels with eight thousand female inhabitants. The number of the frequenters of these houses, which consume some eight million dollars, he estimates at sixty thousand a day. Of the private prostitution, which exceeds the public (New York is said to contain forty thousand prostitutes) Dr. Saenger could give no estimate; but in England they count one prostitute to every fourteen ​women (in France the proportion is said to be much worse) and on the average the unfortunates there lead this sort of life only for four years, whereupon they "marry" and become "respectable wives and mothers." For this increase the "married state" shows itself sufficiently grateful.
Mrs. Branch emphasizes the fact that five-sixths of the frequenters of houses of prostitution are married men! And how necessary present society considers prostitution to be, is shown by the answer with which the Mayor of New Bedford met the request that the houses of prostitution should be abolished: "If these houses are abolished, our wives and daughters will no longer be safe anywhere — on every street they will be in danger of being insulted." (That reminds one of the worthy Mr. Stringfellow, who argued that slavery was necessary, because the female slaves were a moral lightning-rod, so to speak, for the Caucasian women.)
Insulted on the street! "But," Mrs. Branch asks, "by whom would they be insulted? Not by any man outside of the world, but by somebody in the world, somebody here and there and everywhere — sixty thousand of these men are in the streets of New York daily, they meet you everywhere, their warm breath fills the air, and the purest and most modest girls are constantly brought into contact with them! Who are they? Who but husbands, fathers, brothers? Whose husband, father, brother? Is it yours? Is it mine? The blood rushes into my cheeks as ​well as into yours, at the thought that they could be our friends."
And yet, she ought to have added, each one of the sixty thousand considers himself qualified to play the part of superior moral teacher, and to condemn Mrs. Julia Branch, because she said that she alone was to decide where, when and whom she was to love. The fact that this liberty is not recognized and practiced everywhere, she considers to be the chief. cause of prostitution. "The cause lies in our present institution of marriage, which forces a man and woman to remain together until death separates them, without love, without intellectual, moral and physical harmony." The objection, that without the present marriage bonds our sexual relations would sink into a state of anarchy, she meets with the true observation that worse conditions than the present are impossible, and that perfect liberty at its worst would create a better generation of men and women. The hypocrisy which declares that bonds are necessary to restrain those who cannot restrain themselves, and as an example mentions "Mr. So-and-so, who neglects his wife," etc., she silences with the question, "How old is the youngest child of Mr. So-and-so?" Answer: "Two or three months." "Does it not make one heart-sick to see such degraded conditions and the wretched subterfuges behind which they are to be concealed?" — The second subject upon which Mrs. Branch spoke was infanticide. She proved by statistical ​statements that this crime, which has here come to be an every-day measure of expediency and correction, has increased in a frightful degree. In the year 1805 the proportion in New York of still-born children to the entire population was one to sixteen hundred and twelve; in 1820, one to six hundred and fifty-four; in 1840, one to five hundred and sixteen; in 1850, one to three hundred and eighty-six. Dr. Wyne calculated that for the year 1805 there was one abortion in forty-nine births, for 1810 one in thirty-three, for 1815 one in thirty-two, for 1830 one in twenty, for 1840 one in sixteen, for 1845 one in thirteen, for 1850 one in twelve. The same physician told Mrs. Branch that the crime of infanticide had increased since 1805 four hundred and fifteen per cent. If this ratio continues, hardly a child will be born alive in New York, at the end of the century. . And such a population listens to condemnation of "free love" as if it still had any right to condemn anything whatever except itself! How many of the mothers of those thousands of murdered children could say of themselves that they alone were to decide where, when and whom they should love? None of the pharisees, who condemn women like Julia Branch as immoral, have ever asked themselves this weighty question.
"What," asks Mrs. Branch, "is the cause of this frightful increase of this most unnatural of crimes? I can find it only in our present institution of marriage. Not the slightest scruple exists, either in or ​out of wedlock, to destroy the life of a child — out of wedlock on account of the fear of losing ‘respectability' since society condemns the mother as immoral; in wedlock because the cares of maternity are binding, annoying and difficult. We can have no idea to what extent this system of murder is practiced, and yet if we consider the numbers of children which fill our prisons, we must almost call it a boon. Mothers, think of it! Every son whom you place into this world, whom you have not conceived in purest love, has all the qualities which fill our prisons and poor-houses, inherent within him; every daughter of this kind is born with the tendencies which lead to houses of prostitution. Therefore it is your responsibility as well as your right to say, where and when and how you want to become mothers. Therefore it is also a necessity for you to acquire a knowledge of every art and science which now are the monopoly of men, that you may learn how to bring better children into this world. I reject in all things the stupid saying that ignorance is a blessing. Woman is to know everything that man is capable of knowing, and is to have full liberty to acquire the knowledge. You must break every chain that hinders your development, be it church or state, man or woman, wife or child, who forges it."
In closing she refers to the fact that the existence of the present institution of marriage does not hinder propagation outside of marriage, and that, for example, in the year 1852, fifty-five thousand ​"illegitimate" children were born in England and Wales. Theretore nature ought to be restored to her right, and the difference between legitimate and illegitimate births ought to be abolished that at least one ground for infanticide may be done away with. She then closes with the resolution:
"Since the crime of infanticide has increased and still increases, from year to year, under the present false form of marriage, therefore all children, under whatever conditions they may be born, should be declared legitimate."
Thus far Julia Branch. Oh, that I could recall her to life, this pale, little woman, with the pretty mouth, and the sweet smile! By the death of this woman who so boldly advocated the rights of the free woman, and who knew how to put men to shame by holding a mirror up to their arrogance and vulgarity, our cause has received an incalculable loss. In honor to her memory, and in proof of our appreciation for this noble woman, who departed from life in quiet unpretentiousness, I request the entire meeting, men and women, to rise from their seats.
The entire meeting arose, and all eyes went in quest of Mr. Morality of New York, who had brought Julie vom Berg to the platform. But in vain. He had availed himself of the rapt attention, with which everybody listened to the speaker, to steal away unnoticed.
As no one else desired to be heard, the order of business was resumed.
​Just as the President was on the point of putting the resolutions to a vote the following letter from Waldeck, Virginia, was read to the convention by the Secretary:
Dear Countrywomen:
I am a born American, although no true Caucasian. My mother was a native of Africa, and only my father, whose slave she was, belonged to the Caucasian race. Now if I address you as countrywomen I do it because my husband is a German, or because I look upon you as Americans, or because we all belong together as cosmopolitans. I hope you place as little importance upon the merely external differences in men as I do. But if I am to make a difference for once, and choose a place for myself, I want to be a German. I shall tell you why.
My poor mother was dead, and I grew up with the white daughters of my father, who were younger than I, partly as a sister, partly as a nurse. Then the war broke out. My father went as colonel. (He fell later at Richmond.) When he was gone his wife thought it advisable to have her slaves taken further south for security. She could never endure me and therefore wanted to send me away first, to an acquaintance in South Carolina, who had formerly offered $3,000 for me. I knew what that meant, and determined to fly to the North. I was then only eighteen years old, but strong and courageous, and so I started on my way at night with an old slave, a ​relative of my mother's. I had a revolver, and he a bowie-knife. After a tramp of several days, through forests and desolate places, we one evening, weary and half-starved, approached a farm house that lay at the foot of a hill, half-hidden by the edge ofa forest. The house was pretty, it stood in a large garden, and the entire surroundings showed that it ‘was not inhabited by Southern people. We looked in at the window, and saw four persons in the lighted room — two old men, an old woman, and a young man. They did not look like Americans, and we determined to enter. As soon as we had made ourselves known as fugitives, we were received and entertained in the most friendly manner. Only one of the old men did not regard us with a friendly eye. On the second day we wanted to push on, but were advised to wait, because the region towards the north was not safe. We were quite content to comply, since we were with such excellent people, and took a hand in the work wherever we found an opportunity. I won the affections of the old woman, ‘whom I relieved of almost all the housework, and the young man showed me the most friendly regard. I had never been in such pleasant company, and the thought of continuing my journey filled me with dismay. Suddenly came the news that rebel troops were close by. Caesar, my old companion, who was always on the lookout, had seen them. He did not fear anything for himself; he could pass himself off as the slave of the farmer, and nobody cared ​for an old man. But the son of the house was to be pressed into the rebel army, and I would have been recognized as a fugitive at once. There was no time for consideration; I took my revolver and hastened with the young man, who had his rifle over his shoulder, into the forest, where we kept ourselves hidden for two days. Then Caesar brought us the news that the rebels had all departed, and were at a safe distance. They had searched‘the house, and the neighborhood, and had at last contented themselves with the assurance that the son had left for the army, as long as two weeks ago. When I came out of the woods with him, he presented me to his parents as his fiancee. In order to win my love it would not have been necessary at all for him to declare his love for me, for from the first moment that I saw him, I had said to myself: Him I should like for a husband. As he presented me, his mother at once approved, only his father, who had been a "Democrat," shook his head and made a sulky face. But Fritz said: "She has a clear head, she has a good heart, she has the best of principles, she has a bright sense of humor, she is an industrious worker, and with all that she is prettier than all the girls I can think of. I love her, and she loves me, and we shall be happy. What more can you ask?" The old man had to give his consent and we became husband and wife. This we have now been for seven years, and are still as happy as on the first day. We have also laid by something. We now have one ​hundred and twenty acres of land, fifty acres of grain, six of grapes and the rest in meadow land and forest — everything like one large garden. But you ought to see my children! The girl is only two years old. Oh, I tremble with fear and rage, if I think back to the time when such a child could be torn from one's arms and be sold. Take this child away from me? No, nobody could have done that. I would have torn him with my teeth; I would rather have allowed myself to be torn to pieces than to have the child taken from me. But then the boy! He is five years old. You have never seen such a boy. He is an intermediate between an angel and a young lion. It seems to me in the evening that it could not become dark at all, so long as he keeps his great eyes open. Otherwise he is just like his father, especially the mouth. Even our dog sometimes sits down in front of him, when he is playing, just to look at him. We call him Fritz, after his father, and his little sister Elizabeth after myself.
I had to write you all this that you might know ‘how I came to be your country-woman. Several German families have now settled in our neighborhood, very good and educated people. We often visit among each other, take German papers, especially "Der Pionier," and discuss everything they contain. My husband and I are always the most radical, and when we read of your convention we felt like starting for Frauenstadt at once. But that could not be, because my father-in-law died recently, ​my good mother-in-law is ailing, and old Uncle Jacob is away. But I must at least write to you in order to tell you how I rejoice that there are radical German women besides myself. I really do not comprehend why they are not all radical. To be radical, after all, means nothing else than to have common sense. But it seems to be easier to rob people of their common sense than to use it fearlessly. When they hear strange words, which they do not understand, or when learned people talk to them, they have more confidence in the stuff which they do not understand than in themselves, A few days ago I read an essay, in which a most learned doctor explained what a great difference there is between the separate parts of the male and the female body, and how different therefore must be the avocation and the rights of men and women. A few of my neighfors took this seriously. But I asked them: "Why do you not reason according to your own ideas, instead of believing the teachings of this doctor? This man's theory proves the very opposite of what he wishes it to prove. Just because man and woman are different, each can decide and judge only about himself or ‘herself. Is it not perfect nonsense to have a man tell me that I am an entirely different being than he is, and that therefore he may or must tell me what I am capable of doing, what I am cut out for, what I want, and what is becoming to me? Would not that be the same as saying: Because he is a man, therefore, he can think and will like a ​woman, more womanly than I myself? Because he has not my nature, therefore he must teach me what my nature ought to be? That is as despotic as it is senseless. Just because he is different from me, for that very reason he cannot and shall not prescribe to me what I am to think and to want, for that very reason he cannot represent me, for that very reason I will and must have the right to follow my own inclinations to guard my own interests. Would he not be highly indignant, and pronounce me insane should I presume to be better able to judge of his nature than he himself, and derive a right from that to act as his guardian?" This seemed quite plausible to my neighbors, and they declared the doctor to be an insolent humbug.
My dear countrywomen, I find that human affairs always grow more simple, the more humanely you look at them, and the less you allow yourself to be imposed upon by learned people, who are frequently greater blockheads than the simplest day-laborers. These gentlemen think we women are not able to have an opinion on affairs of the state. Well, I always read the papers and gather from them what sort of affairs of state those are on which we are not to have an opinion and in which we are not to have a voice. But I have not yet come across any question where I could not at once decide for myself how I should have to vote, while statesmen and scholars quarrel over them for years. Liberty or slavery? I vote for liberty, although I have a different physique than ​either a statesman or a doctor. Prerogative of the States or of the Union? I vote for the prerogative of the Union, since the States belong to the Union, but not the Union to the States. President or legislature? Away with the servant who rules his master! Well, these are great "complex" "political" questions, and yet as simple as a question of domestic economy. Now if you examine the minor questions of legislation, in the affairs of the Union, the State, the county, you will be still less able to find one over which you can long remain in doubt, on which side is sense Or nonsense, right or wrong. But one thing I will admit: We women shall vote differently upon many questions than the men, just because they, for thousands of years, have become habituated to force and ‘wrong, and still too frequently mistake the one for reason and the other for right.
I have not met very many men in my life, but sometimes I think that the majority of them must be fools. Twice two is four, that is, acording to the masculine arithmetic. But when a woman multiplies, they expect the result to be five. They think a woman is unable to distinguish black from white, straight from crooked, big from little, warm from cold, and yet they expect us to be able at once to select from them the best, the noblest, the cleverest, the greatest, the most lovable, and of course, each one expects himself to be that one. Is that anything but crazy? But even if they had faith in our correct judgment on other things than their own amiability, ​they still insist that we have at least no right to exercise that judgment where it can be of use, namely, at the polls. Is not that more than crazy? I always have to laugh at our old Uncle Jacob. He is no "Democrat," as his brother was, and he also has quite a different opinion of women, but he draws the line at suffrage. At every election in our neighborhood, he comes to me for advice, and then generally votes as I wish him to. But when I ask him why it would not be just as well for me to vote, since he always abides by my judgment, he answers: "You women are either too stupid or too clever for it." The former expression I should frequently like to apply tc the men, but I am not so stupid as to acquiesce in the other alternative.
I must now bid you farewell. I hope that your convention will pass off satisfactorily, and be a success. But if any one of you should ever come to our beautiful country, she must make us a visit. Sincerely yours, ELIZABETH STARK.
My husband also sends his best regards.
The letter was received with general applause, and the Secretary instructed to answer it appropriately.
THIRD DAY.
After the meeting was called to order the most excellent spirit came to prevail at once by the reading of the following document, directed to the President:
To the Presidentsy of the German Woman's Convenshun in Frauenstadt, Protestantation:
​Our editor has told us, and has also made up this protestantation, that you want to immancerpate all women folks and let them all become men folks, and do all men's work, and that no man would then any longer be sure of his work, or his business. Now, see here, we haven't work enough anyhow and bad pay at that, and now you even want to take that away from us? Why don't you stick to your needles and scissors, and pots and kettles? What do you want in our sphere? You must stay in your nature and not step into our feelings. We warn you that we shall appeal to the government and that we hereby protestantate with our whole instinct.
Signed:
A. Hammer, blacksmith. M. Beam, carpenter. R. Backup, coal-shoveler. Th. Craft, sailor. F. Trotter, teamster. S. Lager, brewer. K. Granit, quarryman. G. Clay, bricklayer. V. Steer, butcher. B. Skin, flayer. N. Strong, longshoreman.
JULIE VOM BERG — We need not stop to ascertain whether this document is genuine or ​spurious. It is in any case a most striking and downright satire upon those shining lights of the press, who seem to depend only on a public, such as the undersigned, whom they can constantly alarm with the anxiety that women could, by an equality of rights, lose their nature, adopt masculine habits, seek masculine employment, usurp masculine "spheres of action," in short, transform themselves into female men. How fortunate that these monitors remind us of ourselves; otherwise we might forget that we are women! But is it not remarkable that those men, who are least of all qualified to serve us as models for imitation, are most frequently haunted by a fear that our enfranchisement might induce us to cast off our feminine nature, and to pass over into the male sex? If some malign power should ever irresistibly. tempt me to adopt a masculine nature, models, of the sort of these German editors, would cure me thoroughly for all time, and would drive me back into my feminine nature for the salvation of my humanity and respectability."
After these remarks, which were received with cheerful acclamations, the committee for special motions was requested to report.
The first motion concerned the permanent association of radical German women. To gain this point it was resolved to establish a central committee in New York, which was to take the initial steps towards organizing the movement throughout ​the whole land, and enter into relations with the American woman suffrage committee, and with the German "Association for the Dissemination of Radical Principles."
Second Motion — "Since the rights of women are championed among German men only by the real radicals, who are trying to inaugurate a general propaganda, through their ‘Association for the Dissemination of Radical Principles,' it is the interest as well as the duty of radical German women to support this association to the best of their ability. Fairs ought therefore to be started, as soon as possible, in all places, where a number of such women can come together, and the proceeds turned over to this association."
In discussing this motion, attention was called to the fact that German men, in general, even many who call themselves radical, have no money to spare for intellectual purposes, because they must spend everything for beer and cigars — a need which nature has fortunately denied to the feminine sex. That, although our sex, on the other hand, has a passion for fine dresses and gewgaws, this would yield in a direct ratio to an increasingly rational education, while radical women were free from it even now. It would, therefore, be quite an easy thing for women to spend a part of their pocket money, not, indeed, for gewgaws and ribbons, but for material for handiwork, etc., that could be utilized for fairs.
​Third Motion — Attempts ought to be made, and especially ought to be recommended to the central committee in New York, to see to it that at least two women, and one of them a German, are appointed as members of the board of "Commissioners of Emigration."
The reason given for this motion was that according to everything that could be learned, either through the press or incidentally, of the existing arrangements for the protection of immigrants, these arrangements did not benefit the women in the same degree as the men, although the former needed protection more than the latter. This want could only be remedied through feminine watchfulness and care. At present the chief aim of the board is to secure the immigrants against pecuniary losses through swindling; but the immigrating women and girls, especially those who arrive without male companions, were threatened with entirely different dangers, besides the loss of money, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, had already perished, because there was no one to pay especial attention to their condition and their welfare. It was also natural that a stranger, upon her arrival, would at once confide her plans and grievances to a woman, appointed to guard the new-comer's interests, while she would be reticent toward a male official, This would be especially true with regard to the treatment on board ship, concerning which scandalous stories get abroad subsequently. It was most urgently ​necessary, therefore, that the board of commissioners of immigration should be perfected by the appointment of capable women, whose special duty it would be to look after those of their own sex in need of help, and to protect them against all dangers that lurk in the way to their destination,
Accepted.
Fourth Motion — All German women ought to make it their especial task to send their children to German schools, and to insist upon their speaking German among themselves, which, of course, must not preclude the learning of the English language.
Accepted and recommended.
Fifth Motion — The chief means for spreading enlightenment, truth and humane progress is the press, especially the daily press. Women, all whose interests depend upon this progress, act against their own interests if they do not exert themselves to the utmost to support the radical press — the only one which champions their rights — and to discountenance the reactionary and indifferent papers. It is, therefore, the duty of all radical women, to introduce radical papers into their circles, and to banish all others from them.
This motion was especially supported by Julie vom Berg, who spoke as follows:
The feminine sex is all the more interested in reforming the press because it has so far been controlled, almost exclusively, by men. Men write the papers, men circulate them, and most women read without choice or hesitation, what is placed before ​them. But what does the reading matter, that is placed before them as their intellectual food, offer them? Disregarding religious papers, which selfevidently are or ought to be excluded from our circles, we are offered little more than the daily reiterated, stupid disgusting disputes of the party slaves, who try to mutually outdo each other, both in their accusations, and in their defenses, by unscrupulous lying; or reprints of the most unprincipled and corrupt fiction, by which servile litterateurs in Germany try to keep the oppressed subjects from thinking about their execrable conditions. The whole land is deluged with the organs of the party slaves, and the products of the manufacturers of "entertaining literature." Every means, even the most mendicant, is adopted for their circulation, and peddling agents obtrude themselves into every house, for the special purpose of inducing women to buy their wares. It is not astonishing that with such reading matter, which is intended only for subjects, even the free spirit of the republic is led astray, mind's become effeminate or poisoned, and good taste corrupted. We deplore the stagnation of all intellectual life, and the want of sympathy for higher aspirations, among the German women of this country. Is anything else to be expected, when we consider the character of their intellectual food, which consists mainly of criminal stories, insipid tea-table novels, local gossip, the advertisements of fortune-tellers, or masked medical murderers, etc.? All this ​literature seems to be designed to confine women to the intellectual level of the populace, and to keep every incentive to thought and aspiration away from them.
And what sort of minds are they, who send such reading matter forth into the world? We have made the acquaintance of several examples. They are the so-called "editors." The journalistic profession seems to distinguish itself above all others, not only in that it throws open its doors to all manner of incapacity, and unworthiness, but also in that it rewards incapacity, and unworthiness better than any other profession does. No shoemaker, no tailor, no mason, no woodchopper finds employment, and customers, if he does not know his trade. But in the journalistic trade — it is indeed a mere trade for most of them — every thirsty loafer, every unsuccessful clerk, who never before in his life thought of literature, is at once a finished "editor." And if that sort of genius has once taken his seat upon the "editor's" chair, he becomes a "great man" in the twinkling of an eye. What of modesty there may still have been in him, what of possibility to learn, what of doubt in his own competency, is suddenly clean blown away; he is superior to everybody, repels every sort of information, advocates every stupidity with the consciousness of infallibility, and drags everything into the mire that does not chime in with his own vulgar conceptions, or his party servility. But the trait by which these representatives of German intelligence, and German language, ​distinguish themselves chiefly, and most uniformly, including even the more highly educated among them, is the sublime brutality with which they deride and combat the aspirations and rights of their fellow beings of the female sex. The mere consciousness that they belong to the sex that supplies the prizefighters and cut-throats makes of them competent judges, and privileged lords over everything feminine. No question furnishes a better and surer test of a man's vulgarity than the question of woman's rights; and since the true rabble, everywhere, is wont to dilate upon it con amore, and with complete liberty, fearing neither the police, nor the bones of the weaker sex, it is a tid-bit with which this scribbling rabble tempts the appetite of its readers, by serving it with a sauce piquante of beer-saloon wit and street-corner esprit.
Women have it in their power to take the bread away from a large number of this scribbling rabble. I know that many of them are driven by hunger, rather than viciousness, to lend themselves to even the lowest kind of newspaper work, and I do not wish the poor wretches any harm. Still I cannot agree, even apart from our special interests, to have the press, this most important institution for the education of mankind, used as a mere charitable institution for every poverty-stricken incapacity — that ought rather to turn to some manual labor — and degraded by every low-minded individual, who is willing for board and lodging to commit treason ​against all intellectual and humane interests of the race. It is better that an "editor," without ability and calling, should go hungry, than that the minds of thousands, who would have been open to the influence of better teaching, should be mislead and corrupted.
All women, who are not acquainted with, or indifferent to, liberal thought, good taste, and noble tendencies, by completely banishing from their circles all those "intelligence papers that are not papers of intelligence," and ail so-called entertaining literature that requires nothing of the publisher but bad taste, a mean, mercenary spirit, and indiscriminate reprinting, ought to set themselves squarely against them, and replace them by radical journals, which combine a genuine will to serve minkind, with the ability to do so. What we need is to adhere strictly to the principles of universal human rights and keep them pure; to expose and assert truth fearlessly and unsparingly on all sides; to keep an open and unprejudiced mind, for the purpose of securing intellectual progress; to subject all questions and occurrences in public life to independent criticism; to wage relentless war against all baseness and corruption; and if we need additional intellectual entertainment, let it conform to a normal taste, possess real intellectual worth, and be free from illiberal or unworthy tendencies. But where do we find all this, where can we find it, except in outspoken radical papers, which are as independent of the rabble as of ​party service? Let no woman object that, in favoring the radical press, which advocates her rights, she might come into collision with her stronger half. She who dreads such a collision is not fit to take part in our struggle; but she for whom such a collision would assume a serious character, is sufficiently matured in her ideas to withdraw herself entirely from every collision with her stronger half. If we want to be free women, let us show it first of all by being no longer afraid of the unfree men, whom we cannot convert.
The motion was accepted with enthusiastic approval.
Sixth Motion — Women in general never cast greater doubt upon their intellectual ability, and never furnish their opponents with a better weapon than by their thoughtless acquiescense in the tyranny of even the most senseless fashions, and by the unscrupulous vanity with which they spend sums for the most trivial finery that could furnish them the means for reforming society. It is therefore both an urgent and a worthy task for sensible women, not only personally to emancipate themselves from fashion, and to set the example of wearing simple and tasteful garments, but also to encourage general co-operation in such reforms.
K. HEISTERBACH — The subject, to which this motion calls our attention, is so important that I am almost afraid to express myself upon it, since a brief elucidation is not sufficient to place it in its ​proper light, and it would fill a book to treat of it exhaustively. Woman's slavery to fashion furnishes an appalling amount of matter for questions such as these.
Can a being who, without choice or will of her own allows her external appearance to be prescribed to her, have a sufficient independence of character to act, in serious matters, according to her own judgment and decision? Can a being be considered as intellectually responsible who is immediately reconciled to, and eager to adopt, the most senseless attire, as soon as Others set a bad example?
What inner worth can a being have, who is so anxiously and continually occupied with the external?
Can we still believe the feminine sex to have any of that aesthetic faculty, which we call good taste, when we see how stubbornly it adheres to the most unbecoming styles?
Is not the passion for fashionable and extravagant dress a chief source of moral ruin? Does not this passion supply prostitution with as many victims as want?
If one considers how infinitely much good women might do, if instead of spending hundreds of millions on the most trivial finery they would spend these sums for their children, for the needy, for social reforms, for intellectual culture, for the fine arts; in short, for all those purposes which are in accordance ​with the true essence of noble womanhood, one must resort to the theory of a complete degeneracy through habit, in order not to charge this criminal extravagance of wealthy women to innate unscrupulousness and depravity, and impeach feminine nature itself as entirely inferior and mean.
It is impossible for me to express myself upon all these points in detail as it ought to be done. I must content myself with mere suggestions which will surely suffice to call your attention to the importance of the question, and to show you what a great problem the German women would solve, if they would lead the way in a reform of woman's dress. Should we accomplish nothing more in this country we could regard it as a great distinction if the people on the street, upon seeing a simply and tastefully attired lady, would have to say "that is a German woman," and not one of those slaves of fashion, overloaded with bad taste, who always impress me as so much walking merchandise looking for a buyer. We need not even agree on the cut of the garments, or the combination of colors, or on any detail whatever, if we only observe the following principles:
1. The beautiful is always simple. 2. Gaudiness is never beautiful. 3. The garment must be fitted to the body, not the body to the garment. 4. Excellence of quality is the best extravagance.
Let us act according to these principles, and let ​us make propaganda for them, both theoretically and practically. Those who abide by them will find that they will not only fare better, from an economic point of view, but that, in every respect, they will make a better impression than by the most ostentatious display. It is a mistaken calculation when girls think that they are more attractive to men in a conspicuous and extravagant attire, than in a simple and tasteful garment. Their extravagance and repudiation of good taste is, therefore, useless, even in that respect. When this is appreciated, the chief reason for adhering to the slavery of fashion falls to the ground.
MISS SCHWARTENBACH — If we do not soon begin to act in accordance with this motion our sex will really lay itself open to the suspicion of having lost its common sense, or of celebrating a perennial carnival. The present styles are indeed such that almost every woman would be in danger of being arrested, if public offenses against sense and good taste were under police surveillance, the same as offenses against public morals and safety are. If I had the power I would put an end to these almost scandalous fashion crazes, by not only placing them under police control, but by proceeding. against them in court in a manner whereby the entire wardrobe of the fair delinquents would be subjected to investigation. First of all I would call those photophobiac ladies before the tribunal, who give their heads a most inhuman shape by fastening ​a flat plate upon it, reaching down to the eyes, and then attaching behind this plate a hairbomb constructed of all manner of suspicious ingredients, which, although unexplosive, is most disagreeable to behold. But I would treat those monstrous fools, who think they have changed themselves into ethereal beings by the addition of the so-called "Grecian bend" still worse. A more shameless and more absurd coquetry with the pose of modesty than this disfigurement has never yet been practiced. All the lunatic asylums of Christendom cannot produce the equal of these caricatures of womanhood, who think they are making themselves immensely interesting and mythologically romantic, if they defy the scorn of every unsophisticated spectator, and, with abdomen artificially drawn in, an ostrich-like appendage in the rear, and stilts under their shoes, trip along the street as if they were afflicted with chronic colic, while they carry their arms before them like kangaroos, in a constant shielding of themselves against a fall on their nose. Recently I overheard a gentleman remarking to another, as one of these monsters of fashion passed by: "She is caparisoned like a horse, but has the saddle strapped on wrong side before." This is undoubtedly coarse, thought I, but nothing could be more appropriate than if every word would changc itself into a tangible lash, to drive this shameless woman — she was a pretty girl, scarcely more than seventeen, and her suit was worth at least two hundred ​dollars — back into her dressing stable. I call her shameless, and would like to use a still stronger expression, for I do not consider anyone who can abuse good taste and common sense so cruelly before all the world, capable of true morality. A sense of the beautiful and a moral sense belong together. I consider a woman with a "Grecian bend" capable of anything but what is reasonable and humane. There is no expression of public opinion that a being can dread who has stood the test of exposing herself to the criticism of the "Grecian bend."
Among the present fashions there is a third which might be called a heinous offense against good taste, and the ladies who adopt it can justly be compared to inverted cabbages, on account of the manyleaved character of their attire. To wear a simple dress would be shocking to these ladies. Indeed, nobody can tell what is the real dress, there are nothing but dress fragments, piled one upon the other, each successive one shaped and draped more idiotically than the other, and, perhaps, of a different color, so that the ideal costume seems to be the one made up of the most senseless accumulation and mixture of rags and colors imaginable.
I confess I am ashamed of my sex, when I see thousands of women parading in the streets and places of meeting, day after day, as if their entire occupation and aim in life consisted in placing themselves on exhibition, loaded down with all sorts of rags and absurd finery and in defying the criticism ​of sound common sense. Something must be done to put an end to this absurdity, this shame, this scandal. So long as women were satisfied with the honor of being pampered as mere elegant dolls, and amusing playthings, the demands made upon their reason, even with regard to their external appearance, corresponded to this lot; the sillier the better. Nobody can be used to better advantage than the fool. But since the word goes round that women are also human beings, and as rational human beings can lay claim to and make use of human rights, it is high time that they doff the uniform, so to speak, which they wore in their former state of servitude.
I vote for the motion and suggest that both the motion and the debate upon it be separately printed and sent to all the votaries of fashion whose addresses we can ascertain."
Accepted.
Seventh Motion — Where the men are still subjects, the liberty and rights of women are entirely out of the question. Only in a republic is there any possibility of demanding and attaining the rights of women. An address ought, therefore, to be drawn up, to the women of Germany, in which the cause of their degradation is made clear to them and in which they are exhorted to spur the men on toward the revolutionizing and republicanizing of their fatherland, and to bring up their children in this spirit.
In giving the reasons for this motion, attention was called to the sad fact that in the fatherland of ​idealism, the fatherland of Schiller and Goethe, woman was actually more deeply degraded and less respected than in any civilized country in the world. Among the uneducated classes she was almost everywhere looked upon as a servant, and a beast of burden, and if it is reported that some men harness their wives to the plow, together with the cow, the report may here and there be founded on actual truth; but the exclusive mission of "housewife," emphasized by the educated classes, was founded on ideas not much higher than the above, while every more extended career led into the horrible realm of prostitution. But this realm owed its population chiefly to monarchy and its servants, especially to the standing armies of idlers, whose entire object and occupation it was to oppress men and degrade women.
Accepted, with instructions to the Secretary to draw up an appropriate address to be circulated in Germany.
This ended the list of motions and propositions by the respective committees. Upon the President's question, whether any one else had any suggestion to offer, Miss Schwartenbach arose and proposed the following:
Resolved, The vice of smoking implies a disgraceful slavery of the man and is an inconsiderate insult to the woman who is to keep him company. Be it, therefore, further
Resolved, that we will not only shun all society in ​which tobacco is smoked but will not invite men who are subject to this slavery, and carry the odor of it on their clothes into our society.
MISS SCHWARTENBACH — I have limited my resolution as much as I could. If I had chosen to express my whole heart on the subject, it would have also contained the determination not to marry a man who is a slave to this odoriferous tyrant that oppresses the whole masculine world in the form of pipes and cigars. But I refrained from making this addition, first, because I was afraid of subjecting the courage of many of the women present to too severe a test, and, secondly, because I did not wish to deprive men of the possibility of reforming after marriage. If Goethe, Schiller, Lessing, Napoleon, Frederick II., Boerne, Heine, and other gifted and aesthetically inclined men had not redeemed the honor of their sex by their disgust for the pipe, we would be actually driven to make the disgraceful statement: All men, especially all German men, smoke, or, to use an Aristotelian phrase, man is a smoking animal. But how are they to be broken of this habit? They are generally so enslaved to and so hardened by the habit of smoking that we cannot count upon them themselves for any revolution or effective opposition to the vice. That it injures their health, that they waste their money in smoke, that they offend good taste, that they declare war against the aesthetic sense, that they deny reason, that they make themselves the slaves of a senseless habit; all ​these things have been told them hundreds of times, without having the least effect on them. They can hope for recovery only when we come to their rescue, and we cannot do that in any more effective manner than by forcing them to do without our society, if they will not do without tobacco. But this passive resistance is at the same time the best way to guard our own interests. It is not only to relieve ourselves from the physical suffering, to which we are exposed by the horrid stench, the fumes that take away our breath, the smoke that makes our eyes smart, and all the other abominations which accompany the operation, but also from the moral degradation of subjecting our persons, without hesitation and without regard to an ordeal of self-abnegation against which our whole nature rebels for the sake of a coarse male amusement. When I see a woman sitting in the company of men, enveloped by tobacco smoke, I feel that she is defiled, insulted, sacrificed. She gives me an impression of vulgarity or self-degradation, and a feeling of contempt, because she endures or even enjoys without protest an atmosphere entirely antagonistic to womanliness.
In the interest of both sexes, and, I may add, in the interest of marital happiness, I recommend the adoption of my resolution.
JULIE VOM BERG — I am willing to cast my vote for any expedient that can possibly break men of the tobacco vice. Fortunately our German men have not yet sunk so low as to adopt the American ​vice of chewing tobacco — a "pleasure" that disgusts even savages. Instead of that they achieve almost superhuman feats in the art of smoking tobacco. And how does that come about? Simply through imitation. The youthful lord of creation sees the adult lord of creation with a stump in his mouth, and, accordingly, puts a stump into his own mouth, that he may feel himself the equal of his senior. If fathers would refrain from smoking, this savage diversion would never occur to the sons. It is only the example that leads them to do it. To harden his nature, as early as possible to vices which no quadruped could endure, seems to the young biped a means of speedily becoming a man. Just because these fumes are disgusting, and the nicotine abominable, and the whole a most unnatural piece of business, which tests the senses and the nerves to the utmost, therefore, it may be, the young look upon it as a sort of heroism, which carries them in one stride over years of development, to the full estate of man; and thus one generation of heroes fumes and spits the next into existence, and people, who have not been inured to such a barbaric atmosphere, and have not been entirely deprived of their aesthetic feeling, must needs escape into solitude, to save themselves from the persecutions of these tobacco heroes.
Whatever is created by mere habit, and not through a natural necessity, can, in its turn, be made to yield to habit. All that is necessary is to ​realize that the habit in question is an evil and to have the will to be free. Fortunately there still are some men who hate the vice of smoking as much as we do, and we can appeal to them, should we be accused of egotism. Besides, men know better how to steep their tobacco-steeped fellows in shame. Permit me to read you an article from "Der Pionier," in which an enemy of smoking attacks an habitual smoker who claims to have discovered that smoking is an intellectual entertainment, a sort of substitute for thinking.
"Whoever is so thoughtless," we read, "that smoking can take the place of thinking for him, simplv sleeps with open eyes, and ought to be able to sleep just as well without, as with a stump in his mouth. Is the Turk a thinker? He will laugh at you if you suspect him to be one, and yet he is the hardest and most enduring smoker in the world. Whoever imitates him in this respect must not be surprised if he is put on an intellectual level with the Turk. If you read a paper at home, or chat with your family, or play a game of chess or whist, are you not as well entertained as when you hold an odious stick between your lips and blow odious fumes into the air that irritate your eyes? I have never yet found a man who could explain wherein the enjoyment of smoking really consisted; but neither have I ever found a smoker who 'was not a downright slave to this undefinable enjoyment. The entire enjoyment consists in a thoughtless illusion ​and habit, which has such a dehumanizing effect that the smoker not only loses his aesthetic sense, but actually his five senses as well; he no longer feels how the smoke effects his eyes, no longer sees how disgustingly the tobacco juice soils his fingers and lips, he does not hear how idiotic this continual puffing sounds, he does not smell the disagreeable odor of this Indian perfume, and he does not taste the diabolical flavor of the noxious herb. A magnificent enjoyment, indeed, that one can fully appreciate only after having lost both his reason and his five senses together. And a great many of the members of that sex which calls itself the strong sex, purchase.this enjoyment with the ruin of their health and their finances. If Cleopatra dissolves a precious pearl in a glass of wine and drinks it, I can understand the sense of this nonsense; I can also understand why Lucullus, on special occasions, serves a dish of peacocks' tongues, or another gastronomic genius devours carps that have been fed on human flesh. But how a man can spend half a dollar or even a dollar for a roll of stinking herb, which he tosses about between his unsavory lips for five minutes, puffing and cutting up faces the while, to throw the chewed half out of the window, I cannot understand. And yet there are multitudes of such monsters. They, of course, smoke a cheaper variety, but since their front chimney is puffing all day long, they do not escape more cheaply in the end, than those insane aristocrats of the tobacco ​mania. We may assume that smoking, on the average, costs as much as drinking, and while the one gulps the sustenance of a family down his throat, the other puffs it into the air as smoke. And if the family could but in the least participate in this socalled enjoyment! But there is no more egotistical ‘entertainment' than smoking; it not only excludes every second person from sharing in it, it actually Grives everyone who is not hardened to it to seek safety in flight. A drinker can at least offer his glass to his wife, but no smoker would lend his nasty weed to his wife, even if she were so unrefined as to share his loathsome taste."
Another article signed "J. Oelkopf," upbraids the tobacco barbarians still more emphatically.
"However ridiculous it may seem," says Mr. Oelkopf, "I shall advance a new theory of development that, for me, contains a profound truth, superficial and paradoxical as it may appear. My theory is: So long as men smoke tobacco they are not free and cannot become free.
"I have just attended a meeting of German radicals. I feel as if I were in a paroxysm of sea-sickness. My smarting eyes water. I cannot breathe; whenever I move I am threatened with an attack of vomiting, my clothes are saturated to my very skin. with the odor of the disgusting weed, the use of which we have learned from the joyless, bestial savages, and all my female friends flee from me as from a monster. And why is all this? Because, in ​deference to my principles, I felt obliged to attend a meeting of men, who call themselves free, and radical, but who are neither free enough in themselves to refrain for an hour from the fuming, stinking weed, nor liberal enough towards others to save them from the necessity of undergoing this unbearable, nauseating torture in the interests of liberty. To see those fellows sit there, as if under orders, tossing the tobacco stick about between their lips, with the most important air in the world, raising their enraptured eyes to heaven, to puff out the stinking fumes, as a whale throws up water, and filling the room with smoke so thick that one is tempted to grasp it and form it into balls to throw at the sinokers, and knock the sticks out of their distorted mouths! O, how often have I had the desire to seal people's mouths with court-plaster when they were talking nonsense! But the desire is still stronger when they use their mouths as a crater for their suffocating, eye-destroying pestilent fumes.
"The tobacco-smokers are themselves slaves and tyrants to others. Is not he a slave who cannot live, not even discuss liberty, without an indulgence, which is not a necessity of nature, and has become bearable only through habit? And is not he a tyrant, who, in his indulgence, has not the least regard for others, to whom it is utterly intolerable, but who, from social considerations and circumstances, are obliged to be in his company? If the mere circumstance of a man's enjoying, or being addicted to a ​thing, gives him the right to indulge himself without regard for others, then all good manners and all decency cease, and every sin against aesthetics is permissible.
"Enjoyments and needs agree with liberty only when they are natural necessities and justified by reason, i. e., when they are aesthetic and not injurious. But the smoking of tobacco is:
"1. Not a natural necessity.
"2. Known to be injurious to the health of the mind as well as of the body.
"3, Unaesthetic in the highest degree, in that it affects in the most disagreeable manner the sense of smell, the sense of taste, and also (through the grimaces of the executing artist, as well as by the visible traces on his mouth, his hands, his dress, and the floor) the eyes of every not utterly callous person.
"Whoever, therefore, cannot dispense with this ‘pleasure' consciously acts contrary to his reason, is not free in the use of it, and makes himself the slave of a habit that is a sin against nature, against health and against aesthetics. How can such a weakling call himself a free man?
"But the inconsiderateness with which these puffing tobacco-chimneys victimize others is their greatest condemnation. I have been present in companies of "respectable" Germans, where, with truly boorish obtuseness, ladies, to whom tobacco smoke was actual poison, have been expected to endure ​hours of torture without a minute's respite from the barbaric fuming, puffing, spitting and nauseating stench. Is it thus that liberty is to be understood and practiced? If indecency and vulgarity towards others is liberty, what then, pray, is tyranny? Our ‘free' men talk so much of ‘culture.' Is there no incongruity between tobacco smoking and culture?
"By right of habit tobacco smoking has come to be a legitimate means of
"Slavery among the free. "Tyranny among liberators, "And vulgarity among the cultured.
"How can any one who is not able to free even himself from so unnatural, so disgusting and so injurious a need, be expected to have the necessary insight and strength to remain faithful in other things, to reason, liberty and the beautiful.
"Therefore, I repeat, so long as men smoke tobacco they are not free and can not become free."
Now let me read you one more communication from a woman who has something to say about the effect of this Oelkopf article, an effect which we would rejoice to observe on all men, who still have enough reason and strength left to renounce a vice which has nothing to justify it.
"Mr. Oelkopf has laid the colors on thick, in order to demonstrate the nastiness and injuriousness of tobacco-smoking; but whoever loves truth cannot gainsay him, and I agree with his assertion: ‘So long as men smoke they are not free and cannot ​become free.' But I beg permission to add a few points which he seems to have forgotten.
"My husband is a good and most excellent man, and an enthusiastic champion of liberty. At the same time he is so fortunate as to possess sufficient pecuniary means to live free from special care. He has carefully systematized his expenditures, and spends annually for liberal journals, the support of free thought projects, etc, three hundred dollars. His cigars and pipes cost him annually three hundred and twenty-five dollars, exactly twenty-five dollars more than liberty. And what does he gain from them? For the three hundred and twenty-five dollars, he does more harm to his health than I venture to estimate. I have realized it long ago, and his physician likewise, who has repeatedly reproached him with it; but what was I to do? Everybody knows how hard it is for a wife to deny any pleasure, especially if this pleasure only costs money, and his other needs are few, to the man she loves. I suffered physically and morally from this hobby of his, although I never betrayed myself, in order not to appear egotistical, and he himself never suspected it. Only now, after reading the article of Mr. Oelkopf, his attention was aroused, and he asked me whether the smoke and odor of the tobacco was disagreeable to me, too? I confessed that the torture the weed caused me was as great as my anxiety for the injury he was doing to his health. It was just on my birthday. ‘From to-day on,' said my ​husband, ‘not another cigar will touch these lips.' I never had a more valuable birthday present given to me, and I feel no less grateful to Mr. Oelkopf for it than to my husband.
"But what,' I asked him, ‘are you going to do with the three hundred and twenty-five dollars now? ‘Presumably,' he answered, ‘I am now going to have a better appetite and will make greater demands upon your larder. I shall also, now and then, feel like drinking a bottle of wine. I shall allow one hundred and twenty-five dollars for this. The remaining two hundred dollars I place at your disposal for the cause of liberty.'
"T cannot sufficiently express to Mr. Oelkopf how happy this resolve made me. But, at the same time, I could not help thinking, what great means liberty would have at its command if all the smokers who are its champions would turn the money, which they have hitherto puffed into the air in the form of tobacco smoke, into a liberty fund! What a great change could be brought about in the world by the general resolution to renounce tobacco in favor of liberty! And what a great pecuniary loss this would be to despots! Does not despotism, in Europe, as well as in America, live to a great extent from tobacco? The Italians stopped smoking in order to ruin the Austrians. Shall we not try, in America, to ruin the slave-holders of Virginia and Cuba by banishing their tobacco? It would be a double gain for liberty; an immense increase of the sinews of war ​and at the same time an immense falling off of the means of the enemy. Really, when one thinks of this result, and considers how easily it might be attained, and must live to see that nobody is interested in it, he can justly exclaim: ‘So long as men smoke tobacco they are not free and cannot become free!'
"The friends of liberty in all countries ought to distinguish themselves by ceasing to smoke, and by contributing their tobacco money henceforth to liberty! I would venture to begin a new era from the day when this resolve would go into practice. Very well, then, show that you are men, like my husband; from the 22d of February, the birthday of Washington, no enemy of slavery and no friend of revolution ought any longer to smoke!
"Another advantage which Mr. Oelkopf has passed over, consists in the increased ability to think, the restoration of the mind. My husband confessed to me that he invariably stopped thinking when he began to smoke, and that this was the chief enjoyment which the vice afforded him. What a confession, what weakness! A man whose chief pride ought to be his ability to think, strives to escape thought by means of a poison! And what does he exchange it for? I asked my husband: ‘What did you think as a man if you did not think as a smoker? In what did the "pleasure" exist, if by depriving you of thought, it deprived you of the means of becoming conscious of the "pleasure?" What ​occupied your mind while you sat there staring at the wall, tossing the cigar about between your lips, puffing the smoke to the ceiling, knocking off the ashes against the edge of the table, to begin anew and puff, and making a round hole of your mouth for the smoke to escape in circles into the air?'
"He answered: ‘So long as my nerves had not become completely obtuse the tobacco induced a sort of intoxication, during which I could give myself up to indefinite phantasies. That was especially the case after dinner when the body was inclined to indolence, anyway, and the energy of the mind had relaxed. It was the natural indolence of digestion, rendered romantic by the listlessness of artificial stupidity. Later this effect ceased, and the dullness came of its own accord, by the mere belief that the tobacco would cause it. Smoking had become a mere matter of thoughtless and purposeless habit, and I would no longer have known that I was smoking at all if I had not seen the smoke before my face. But now the smoke became the chief thing; I imagined that it was entertaining, a comfort, a "pleasure" to blow the smoke into the air. Therefore, I practiced the art of blowing smoke with variations; now I would blow the smoke from the middle of the mouth, now from the right, now from the left corner, now through the nose. Then again I would expel it while I held the cigar between my lips, and the next time I would take the cigar in my hand. Yes, I even learned to make an essential difference ​between the smoke that I blew away immediately, after I inhaled it, and that which I retained in my mouth for a quarter of a minute. But the greatest pleasure was to take a very long pull and then to puff out my entire stock of smoke in perfect rings, so that it made a chain of ever larger and larger rings, up to the ceiling. It is self-evident that during this entire performance no thought could approach within a distance of ten miles. Vacancy within me, and nothing but smoke before me — that was the world of my thought, and after smoking for several hours it took several more hours before the smoke had dissipated before my mind.'
"This confession actually frightened me. It is dreadful to think of a man in his best years, a man of intellect and character, a man that we can respect and love, in a condition of childishness, even of idiocy. Whenever I think of tobacco now I think of idiocy, and whenever I see an otherwise presentable man, with a 'tobacco sausage' in his mouth I say to myself: ‘I wonder how this man looked when he still had his reason, when he still saw the light!'"
STUDENT SCHWARTENBACH — I second my Sister's motion with all my heart. When she exposed me to public disgrace in the meeting day before yesterday I left the hall with the determination to revenge myself thoroughly. But, after I had thought the matter over calmly, I realized that the best revenge, and one that would be most likely to 'be in accordance with my own interests, would be ​to resolve to reform. (Bravo, from all sides.) Instead of scolding my sister, I am, on the contrary grateful to her that she took this opportunity to use a most drastic and energetic method, when, hitherto, she had exhausted all remonstrances and admonitions in vain. For the crime that I committed in this assembly I now atone, with the confession that the method has proved effective, and with the promise that never again shall either pipe or cigar touch my lips. (Bravo.) I have always been for woman's rights. I am glad that I also give you an opportunity to exercise them, especially the right to free men from their evil habits, assumptions, vulgarities and vices.
General clapping of hands. The motion is accepted.
After all the propositions were disposed of, the President closed the transactions with the following farewell address:
IDA JOH. BRAUN — Permit me to make a few closing remarks concerning the question which has been the subject of our transactions. It is a question of such transcendent importance that even among those who advocate it, perhaps the very fewest are able to realize its entire scope. In the race's struggle for development, hitherto, the issue has always been between hostile forces within the masculine half of humanity, of which the feminine half was merely a passive appendage, always sharing the fate of the former. Now, at last, the feminine ​half has come to a consciousness of its own rights, and likewise begins to take an active part. However, its struggles are not within its own ranks as are those of the masculine half, but against this latter, which opposes it as a hostile force. It is a separation of the two halves of humanity that belong together. Six hundred millions of women stand opposed to six hundred millions of men to claim only through a small number of pioneers, as yet, recognition as human beings. As human beings, I say, for only he is of value as a human being who is his own master and law-giver. To the extent to which I deny rights to a man, which I myself possess and exercise, to that extent do I degrade him as man below myself. To deny him all rights would be to degrade him completely to the level of the brute. What the feminine half of humanity has hitherto possessed of so-called rights does not deserve the name, because women did not themselves determine them, nor were they able to maintain them. They were only a gift of mercy, and arbitrary power, presented in the interests of the giver himself.
‘What women want now is to change this gift of grace not only into their own achievement, but to extend this achievement so far as to annihilate every difference that exists between their rights and the rights of men. They demand that since there has hitherto existed only a male right, there should now at last be established a human right which excludes no one, and no longer metes out uneven measure ​to any one. This is the greatest, the most comprehensive progress after which human aspirations have so far aimed, and to misapprehend this is possible only to the blindness of an ancient habit, and a hardened egotism, that sees in a hoary privilege the immutable decree of nature. This universal prejudice, so old, and so deeply rooted, which has erected a barrier ‘between the two halves of humanity, must be overthrown by a revolution that will create a new ethical consciousness, but a revolution, which, although it is directed against a wrong sustained only by force, ‘will for the first time give an example of a peaceful, purely intellectual resistance. Six hundred million women are fighting with purely intellectual, humane weapons against six hundred million men, and will conquer them, that they may change themselves as well as their opponents into truly humane beings. Was there ever a struggle more interesting than this?
I know that our aspirations will also meet with Opposition from some women, but they are irresponsible, by their numbers, as well as by their qualities. It is a well-known fact that in Paris, after the storming of the Bastille, several of the prisoners, instead of rejoicing in their liberty, begged to be returned to the prison. Long habit had so dulled them and estranged them from the external world that the prison atmosphere had become their vital air. In a somewhat similar manner some of the negroes in the South, after the emancipation, ​preferred their slavery to the liberty of which they never had had any conception. Women who oppose their emancipation belong to the same class, but are just as exceptional in civilized countries as the negroes and prisoners just mentioned. We may therefore rest assured that the opposition we have to face comes from the men. Although I can very well understand this opposition, I am nevertheless tempted to exclaim: "Forgive them, they know not what they do." Indeed, they are not aware of the vulgarity they evince by denying us that which they unhesitatingly grant to the most degraded of their own sex; they do not know how they expose their intellectual and moral deficiencies when they betray and deny all the principles and arguments in our case, which they promulgate and emphasize in their own; and finally they do not know that it is treachery to themselves to prevent us from doing our share towards ennobling and humanizing their own lives.
What I am here saying holds good especially of German men, for the Americans have outstripped them in this question by half a century. When do you ever hear an American dispose of woman's rights by such vulgar witticisms as are customary among the German spokesmen of their sex? And, if our local legislatures were constituted of Germans, how long would we still have to wait until such important minorities would appear in behalf of our emancipation, as have already appeared in several Western legislatures? But the majority of our ​German men, however ostentatiously they flaunt the flag of "radicalism," cannot yet quite divest themselves of the spirit of servility. Descended from a country where the degradation of both men and women was systematically conducted by three dozen courts, through a million agents of vulgarity, throughout every stratum of society, where, naturally, the stronger of the oppressed found a sort of consolation or diversion in the assumption of superiority over the weaker of the oppressed — somewhat after the manner the "Democratic" party slaves in this country deported themselves as a sort of lord over the negro slaves — and where the contempt for women as subordinate beings created only for the service and lust of men was bred into them from childhood in an infected moral atmosphere, although now emancipated from their prince, these one-time subjects cannot yet emancipate themselves from themselves, and while they, as superior minds, dictate our "sphere" to us, they are not aware that it is only the degenerate spirit of the creature of royalty, the student, the musketeer, the philistine, that asserts itself in: them. In the officer's clubs, the beer-houses, the guard-rooms, and the students' inns on the other side of the water the question of woman's rights is probably treated in exactly the same manner as here by the German newspaper writers, and popular leaders.
I regret this, I am ashamed of it, for the sake of the German name, which is boasted of so much, ​whenever the talk is of "ideas," "principles," "humanity," and "radicalism." But I am not so fainthearted as to fear that our aims could be frustrated by this vulgar opposition of the German subject. No, this movement, because it is based upon reason and right, will overcome every obstacle, and will not rest until its last demand is fulfilled, exactly as in the question of negro rights. And exactly like this will be its practical course, after the victory of the principle has once been acknowledged; the sanguine will, therefore, be as much disappointed as the whiners. The negroes, after attaining the suffrage, didnot all immediately turn politicians and hasten to the polls in a body in order to rule the state, neither will the women immediately come in multitudes to take part in political life; the emancipated negroes do not now claim the daughters of their former masters as wives, or turn communists, as some brilliant "Democrats" had feared; neither will the emancipated women change into masculine beings, and sacrifice their domesticity. Their pioneers will have to continue to break the way, after the attainment of the suffrage, as well as before, and only very gradually will the participation in public life become general. At the same time nature will continue to assert her rights, in private or family life, as hitherto, but according to humane agreement, and not by a one-° sided dictatorship. Thus gradually a condition of society will be developed that has sacrificed nothing that was good and tenable, but that, by abolishing ​the privilege of the stronger sex, ceases to cripple the weaker and enriches a nobler life with the fruits of free co-operation.
I feel actual compassion with the shortsightedness that does not foresee all this. But we must not allow our activity to flag on this account any more than we must allow ourselves to be overcome with indignation at the vulgarity we meet. The honor of the feminine sex, yes, of the entire human race is at stake, and it is of vital importance what part the German women play in its redemption. Even if we should never be able to make use of the rights for which we fight, merely to attain them is worth the struggle of a lifetime. As I have already intimated, the most immediate issue to be decided is whether we are human beings; it is necessary to establish a new, comprehensive conception of humanity; it is necessary to legally establish the abstract truth that we are sovereign members of the human race, as well as the men, equipped with the right of selfdetermination and self-government; that one-half of this human race is not born and destined to be under the tutelage of a foreign will, and used like children, or even like animals. If we have once attained to the recognition of our sovereign human dignity, all practical reform will become a matter of course. With this recognition we have reached the turning point, and that part of humanity, to whom we must be an example here in America, will enter upon the path of true, universal humanity. The ​accession of women, the weakest part of society, incapable of using force, to the common rights of men and citizens, will form the keystone of the edifice of the humane state.
With this confidence in a beautiful future, I close the transactions of our convention, which, it is to be hoped, will not remain without influence upon the thought, and the aspirations, of the German women of this country.
When the members of the convention were on the point of separating, a committee of the German radicals of Frauenstadt appeared upon the scene, with an invitation to a farewell reception and ball for the evening.
The President accepted the invitation with the following words:
"I do not fear to meet with any opposition if I accept this cordial invitation of our male sympathizers, in the name of the entire assembly; but with the following condition: Among the privileges which men have hitherto possessed and asserted was that of entertaining the ladies at parties and balls and of asking them to dance. The gentlemen who have now tendered us this invitation are no usurpers of power, but as members of the male sex they are accustomed to the above privilege like all the rest. In any case, it can do no harm to let them feel, for once, how it is to be disqualified. Therefore, we want to make this condition, that the roles be changed this evening, and that the ladies entertain ​the gentlemen, and ask them to dance. Every gentlemen who acts contrary to this condition commits a breach of etiquette, and for punishment is not asked to dance."
The invitation was accepted with this condition. The new order of things proved a great success that evening, and all were agreed that they had never on a similar occasion enjoyed themselves so much. Several American ladies, who were present, were of the opinion that things were managed in a more humane and more social manner at a German convention of women than at an American convention, and declared that they would hereafter try to introduce the German fashion.
Thus closed the first convention of German women in America.