Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-08-12
WOMEN In POLITICS.
DR.. Hammond's Article in the GNorth
American Review" Not Justified
by Facts and History.
The Argument D~iscredited by Unneces'
sary and ~InexeusabIe Misstatements
French Canadian Wives.

his argument, in The opeDIog paragraph, bJ
a mIsalAtement OF iscIs equally unnecessary
and inexcusable. He asserts that the origin
ators of the Nonau'- rights movement were
"a few advanced and perhaps abnormally
constituted wemen, many OF whom seemed
to make it their principal object to Look az
much az possible like men. They cut their
hair short, parted it on one side, and dis
played longIngs for short frocks and trousers.
Strange TO say, he men who affiliated with
them exhibited inclinalions toward femiuln-
ity. They wore their hair long, parted it in
he middle, and donned coats the skirts OF
which almost touch their heels." This
statement Is untrue in every particular, as
will be seen by a simple enumeration
OF the men and women who person.
ally or by letter took part in
the early woman's right meetings
from lS47 10 1850. Among the women who
took q leading part in the very beginning Of
the movement were Lucretia Mott, Martha
G. Wright, Lucy Stone, Elizabeth Cady Stau-
ton, Abby Kelly Foster, Sarah and AugslIns
Grimke, Caroline NJ. Severance, Frances D.
Gage, Hannah NJ. Tracy Cutler, Clarina II.
Nichols, Ernestine l.. Rose, Harriet K. Hunt,
Emma Z. Coe, Maria L Glddings, Josephine
s. Grifiog j. Elizabeth Jones, Paulina w.
Davis, Gala C.. Burr, Mariana w. johnson,
Emily Robinson, Mary F. Thomas, Amanda
w. Way, Catherine A. F.. StebDins, Sarah +.
Earle and AutoinetGe l.. Brown. Most OF
thess ladies still survive, and are still amoug
the honored leaders of the movement. No
one who knows these women will recognize
ia them the remoiest resemblance TO the de-
s%cription Of DR.. Hammond. 1t is true that
at a later date Two or three of these ladies
did for a time wear tbs Boomer dress.
Among the men who took part in these early
proceedings by speech or pen were William
LLOYD Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Stephen
s.. Foster, Parker Plllsbury, Henry james
Mott, John NJ. Earle, Joshua +. Giddings,
Gerritt Smith, Aarius Robinson, Will
liam Henry Channing, DR.. William Elder,
the Rev. Samuel J. May, Thomas Wentworth
Higginsou, Dr.. n. s. Townshenj, Oliver
Johnson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, A. Bronson
Alcoti, George William Curtis and John G.
Whittier. Among all these eminent men
only once. c. Burleigh-"wore his hair
long or parted it IN the middle" Every
other man named, without exception, wore
his hair short, and wss dressed rs we'll as the
average Of his fellow-citizens. More digni-
fed and estimable men and women could not
not be found anywhere. Equally untrue
is the assertion that follows: "Both
sexes of the advanced guard were of one ac-
cord in their abuse of The average man aud
woman. The first they professed TO regard
rs a tyrant and a monster, TO be held up to
execration for his Wickedness, while the
o:her was a faint-hear,ed slave, in whom
thousands of years of captivity had annihi-
lated the overwhelming mental aud physical
vigor che had originally possessed, and who
now for her abject subserviency to her op-
pressor was entitled only to the scorn and con-
tempt of her more enlightened and pro-
g~ressive sisters and brothers," Forlu-
natsly for the truth of history, the pro-
ceedings of these early conventions have
been preserved and are readily accessible.
The resolutions and addresses were calm,
digniisd and moderate, singular ly free from
vituperatioU, violence or exageeratiop. There
was scarcely a word or sentence taken with
lis context which resembles DR.. Hsmmond's
description. The tone of these early discus
sions was u-nexceptioRal, both in matter and
manner. Such rant as is named by DR.. Ham
mopd existed only in the imaginations of
prejudlced opponents. 1t was not then char
acteristic of woman's rights meetings, though
it has occasionally appeared in some meet
ipgs of a later date. Having thus mi r>pre-
sented the origin of the movement, DR.. Ham
| mond proceeds 10 liken the brain of woman
TO that OF the lower animals, and 10 deduce
from a supposed inferioritv of quantity and
qualify of what he calls "the mind. pro6nc-
ing organ" woman's upitness TO exercise
equal political rights. Mans brain is larger
and superior in structure, therefore he has
more mind. To be cure, in pro-
portion to the weight Of the body,
there is very little difference be-
quickly brushed aside. The fact that some
very uuintellectual men have very heavy
brains, and that some very intellectual men
(like Emerson and Gimbetta) have very
small ones, is ignored; and the learned dog
tor remands woman to political subsection by
a pompous parade Of weights and measures.
Indeed, we wonder that DR.. Hammond does
not propose to abolish republican govern
ment altogether, and to substitute Tor SUI
rage a Civil Service examination TO ascertain
the comparative size and structure of brsins.
Upon this theory craniology should take the
place Of political science. We should award
the Presidency to the po5sesser OF the largest
skull, and choose our Governors, Congresses
and Legislatures by superior dimensions OF
heaus, certified by u board OF examiners pre-
sided over By The illustrious discoverer.
Preach Canadian Housewives.
Chicago Times: A word about this French
Canadian housewife, though she deserves
chapters, / have drifted of late i,to some OF
The most desolate and poverty-stricken col
l~ections OF huts which the mind can conceive
which, indeed, it is next to impossible for
an American 10 conceive at all-hamlets
where the men, with gaunt, burnt faces, long,
matted hair, forms visited in middle age as
with US at eighty, by reason of privation,
exposure and unsettled hopelessness, and
clothes altogether indescribable in their
meauness, appear to the vision like specters
from some raft of a "Medusi." But even here
l saw no woman, young or old, who was moi
neat in her personal appearance, painfully
clean 10 the care of her home and apparently
in the habit of doing three-feurths OF all the
work that was done. Tn amount Of labor
that this poor but contented creature per.
forms is nothing less than marvellous. Premis.
ing that btfore the age Of thiriy-lve che i
usually the mother OF from six to twelve
children-most French Canadian girls are
married before they are eighteen--let us
consider her work for a moment: She has
first of all, the care of her children, which is
not a slight thing, even though they are the
most careful and self-reliant of all the
worlds urchips; then she does all of her
cooking, baking her bread out 10 the sun in
a stone oven built near the house; che does
all the washing and mendiug of clothes; she
does all her own sewing and knitting, and,
in some parts, spinning; she keeps all the
money Of the household, aud makes all the
purchases; she scrubs the front steps and all
the floors of the liviug-rooms i'll her house
every day, and she whitew ashes the outside
OF her house once a fortnight or go; ii they
have a COW she milks and cares for it; and
then 1--WE have dealt thus far only with the
incidental occupations by which spare mo-
ments are filled up) che works all day in the
field with the spade, hoe or rake. 1t she is
near salt water, she also salts down
barrels of tom-cod and founders
for the fsmily's winter use. If she
lives near a town she also goes in
with the horse and charette to the market,
and knits while she is not selling produce, on
two days of the week. The race does not any
where afford a more superb spectacle of in
dustry than this woman presents. And with
it all che manages to keep, if not a fresh, at
least a bright and CHEEKY look upon her face
| she dresses herself for church well and taste
fully, and carries her good clothes SIS If she
was accustomed 20 nothing else; and her
children, particularly the girls, are models OF
cleanliness and good, order. This, bear in
mind, is as true oil the poorest and most iso
laled hamlets as it is of the well-to-do subur-
han VILLAGES