New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-08
Communicated
WON AN SUFFRAGE.
EDITOR REPUBLICAN,:

|
AS you are so kind as to give ne hear
ing, 1 will place before you come othe,
| tho lights respecting the theory of suffrage
| for women.
1t has been asserted by the opponents oil
female suffrage that it is against nature
not only, but contrary to the revealed will
of God. Of course, there is nothing direct
ly about female suffrage in the Bible, but
their conclusion is derived from the first
mandate to Eve: THY desire shall be to thy
husband, and he shall rule over thee" and
from Pauls Injunction to women to be sub
ject to their husbands in the fear of the
Lord. The female suffrage advocates have
virtually yielded that the assertion was cor
rect by abusing Paul as narrowminded
bachelor of no modern largeness of devel-
opment, and Moses ia almost arraigned as a
falsiier, while, indirectly, they do not fail
to re feet upon God himself, and all to sus.
tain the idea of female suffrage.
1t is peculiarly of human thought that
it is difficult to make it yield itself subject
to expression in words, and that the subtIety
of logical reasoning is seldom attainable.
Thus, the worse is often made to appear the
better reason, and good cause fails through
lack of skill in it's advocate.
The divine mandate respecting the desire
of oman being unto her husband, is unde-
niabIy true, and that his rule should be
but rather of exaltation and honor, as the
married woman is crowned with the glory
of her husband in that exquisite and mex
plicable relation, which is eXaltation, the
highest man can give woman or WON an
receive Of man, and which Christ has
chosen as the most expressive similitude of
His relation to the Church: He is hus-
band of the church, the church is His
bride-'the Lambs wife,"
Paul expatiates upon this moral relation of
The sexes and of the corresponding union Of
Christ and his church. But this mora! and
domestic relation is limited to the rule of
the b sband over his own wife, and gives
him no manner Of right to hold in subiec-
ton, in their civil rights, the wives, widows
and daughters of other men. Even Paul
gives vi ritual release to the wife from SUBJ
lection to the husband when he is in oppo-
sition to the law of God; and why, in civil
rights, should not a wife, even, be allowed
her protective vote, if need be, against the
vote of her husband which goes to support
that whic h seems to her tyrannous and
bad cause?
But low would wo men vote? is asked.
Would not the vote of bad women counter
balance that of the good, and still more
corrupt politics? Womon are more prom
inently religious than men, ia Christian
countries; and among the Mahomedans,
where it is only suspicioned that they may
have souls, they are more prominent at their
devotions than men. This would indicate
that in voting women would be more re.
luCtant to vote for a man of bad morals than
arc men, who are dazzled by talent to over
look many debasing traits which, in the eyes
women, are not only abominable, but which
become abominsbe in the eyes of men,
when they are thought of rs coming in con-
tact with their wives and daughters. Thus,
for safeguard to the purity of their homes,
would not the moral status of candidate
be more critically scanned by men, as well
as by women, iGto women was awarded the
right Of suffrage?
AN ENDURING MIND.