The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-01-25
WILD WOMEN.
"Thc Witches Carnival over u Bloody
Tomb.''
From the Saturday ReyieM.l


The economical objection to the indiscrimt-
whether as shoemakers, clerks, preachers,
Journalists, or doctors, is found out to be that
they hardly ever become skilled artisans in
any employment which they take mp. In
America it has not been found to answer TO
give employment TO any decent-looking girls.
They always pursue business as stop gap, not
as they work in life They know that to mar
ry, bear children, and keep the house is the
female rdison d'etre and that ledgers, watch
making and compounding medicines are
merely taken up in default of q legitimate
business for life. The best proof OF the inabii-
ty of women to compete with men would be
to give them every facility in the competi-
tion. They would never excel or equal men,
because their heart is not in the business.
The only result would be to cucumber every
business and every profession with crowd OF
camp-tollowers never capable of acquiring eX-
ccllcnce in their calling, simply because the
calling was unnatural and artificial We are
led to this view that, were 1t not for the social
disorganiZation that would ensuc, and for the
degradation Of every department OF real work
which must follow when it Is encUmbered by O
horde of rnskilled outsiders, it would be well
to test woman's assumed capacities to do all
some recent proceedings of the Woman's
Rights advocates, n or Wild Women as
they call them" in America, which
have reached us from New York. 1t might
have been thought that the recent Richardson
tragedy would have suggested to the womens
advocates little hesitation as to the practical
success of their agitation. Whatever other
lessons the homicide Of Richardson by the ips
jlrcd husband, Mcfarland, might be supposed
to teach, the event at least showed that some
what awkward results might attend the new
ohoDt hn nnno nninottnn Of women Even
if we were 10 admit, which we certainly do not
admit, that there was no criminality in the re-
lations between Richardson and Mrs. McFar-
land, yet it Is nndeniabo that she permitted
herself to act out an that Is claimed as women's
rights. She deserted heG husband; she wanted
TO marry somebody else if she could get di-
vorce; she did get what Is called divorce IN
the free and easy Indiana courts-Indiana be-
inc known as the Unyoking State In the Union.
We all know what came OF this. Mrs. McFar-
land had no cause for divorce recognized in
any civilized community. In New York she
had not the shadow of q pretence for asking to
be divorced. She had no adultery, no cruel
ty, no desertion to complain OF. She only
wanted to marry somebody else, and openly
acknowledged her intention to do so. She had
formed connection with this paulo-post-Al-
and regarded by everybody as adultereus. The
husband took the law into his own hands, and
shot the eXpectant bridegroom dead.
The incident attracted, as we'll 1t might, the
serious consideration of the Woman's Rights
Convention of Public Safety. An organization
called the National Woman's Suffrage Asso-
citation held an extraordinary session on the
event. 1t might seem that society embodied
for special and single purpose, to get the
do with the affair of Richarson. utlogical con-
sistcncy is not in the line of the women's ad-
yocatcs. They did somehow connect Rich
arlson's homicide with the question of female
suffrage, and this they did by passing u resolu-
tion which is too good and feminine In argyll
mcnt and expression to be lost.
''ReSolUed, That the brutal and mnrderous
attack of Mr. Mcfarland upon A. D. Richardson
is In great degree attributable to the slavisl,
and de6asing condition of woman by the stat
ute and common law of the State of New York,
and the pernicious influence of the New York
Tribune on the divorce question and the moral
rights OF woman"
From which we gather that an appeal fol
the suffrage means claim to asslmilate the
divorce laws of the whole American Union tG
the law, or licentiOusness, OF Indiana; and
that the moral of the Richardson case, accord
ing to the woman's advocates and their friends,
is that the only person to blame In the whole
matter is the husband who could not
exactly accept the doctrine of bar.
terng wives. This view was brought
out In the discussion of the resolution, which
''people must be taught that neither sex has
any property qualification in the other," which
observation Immediately and not unnaturally
.stabled' the doctrine of ''frec love-" Mrs
Blake, who seems to have been slightly alarm
ed at the course of the discussion, interferec
with mild protest, and ''took exception tc
many of Mr.. Poole's remarks. She did moi
wish to have the Indiana case of divorce. She
had her duties as wife and mother; she had
her children to think of she wanted no change
in the law by which divorces could be more
easily obtained" This dull, stupid conser::
valism was however promptly disposed OF.
Mrs. Norton disagreed with Mrs. Blake, and
thought there was great mtsapprehenslon
In regard to the ''words free love- She
meant it in the. sense of opposition to q
marketable commodity; but she did not there
by mean ndiscriminate conneXion between the
sexes" 1t is something in such''a discus
sion to get at anybody's meaning, and we are
thankful now to know what free love
means It means that love is to be free as
air, and provided the commodity" is moi
bought9Esold any man or woman, married
or single, may form what love connexions they
please, so that no money passes. DR.. Hoebel
backed this doctrine, and though some OF his
arguments were such that 'here several ladies
left the hall, he was certainly in favor OF Mr.
Poolc's resolution, land would prefer free
love to the present system Of marriage, which
was nothing but public system Of prostitu
tion' After which we are not at all surprised
that the association passed another resolution,
which, though somewhat supcriillous after inc
debate. has its value as an expression OF prin-
ciple. Mrs. Wimore offered and carried re.
solution, ':That calling things by their right
names is the most intelligent and honest me-
thod of dealing with all things" And we have
some reason to be thankful to the Suffrage AS
sociation for their very distinct views on the
Richardson case and on the marriage tie, free
love, and the essence of prostitution. One
New York newspaper, we must admit, Is rude
enough to be sOrely scandaliZed at this inde
cent proceeding, and severely rebukes these
'sanprlic women for holding q sort Of witches
carnival over Richardson's bloody tomb, like {
party of children dancing in a graveyard" ant
says that "nothing but their childish Ignorance
can account for their shocking lndelcacy.'
And the writer even goes so far as 10 venture
upOn the suppoSition that these Strong-mlnue(
women are after all only foolish babies, and tt
ask whether there might not be such thing
in their case as '!justifable infanticidc under
circumstances of intolerable provocation ant
in sef.dclencc."
This Is not our view; we are quite prepared
to let PraXagora have her full swing: Inc
more we know of the proceedings 0f THESE
Transatlantic Ecclesiazlsir the better tor So
cicty. And, as we said just now, that all these
inarticulate howls and claims for equality nave
only to be tried by experience to show us what
female capacities for work are, so we may now low
add that the more We know of female debates
and female conventions, and female meetings
tie more we see that they are only an accl
dental form in which the one universal femi
nine temper displays itself. A platform meet
in~ of women, a female chairman and female