Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1891-05-21
For the Ellsworth American
The Views of an Anti-Suffragist.

Reading in the AMERICAN some time
since few ideas on the suffrage question
| learned some things that had never oc-
Cured TO me before and since that time
have vainly looked for reply discussing
the other side. Although our friend H"
may not be aware of 1t, am sure there
Is another side to the question, and the
writer will attempt, although incompetent
to the fulness of the task, to present a
few Of the reasons why it seems to him
that woman should not possess the ballot.
Of course this will call down the wrath,
| curses and criticisms of many readers.
Yet hope what say will be looked upon
as simply discussion and surely every
question Is entitled to that honor and the
writer although he may be deluded, yet IL
such is the case, seeks to be set Alright
We need to discuss all the problems
which are agtsting the minds of the 10Th
century, and to do this in a reasonable
way, for by a discussion only and a rela-
tion Of the right. As H" says, petitions
for suffrage are yearly sent up to our leg
lslature and set aside. But instead of a
gross injustice, IL is rather wise, cautious
the hands of as many "citzens" as now
possess ii Is no slight measure to be adopt
Ell rashly, or until public sentiment and
opinion clamorously demand it. When
| the measure is adopted which, pardon me,
| do not believe will ever occur, such a
| change will occur In our political status
n has never been experienced by any gov
ernment in the history of the world
Then certainly our law makers are not
to be blamed If they hesitate until the mat
ter has been repeatedly before the people
and public sentiment educated in its behalf
II The enfranchtsement of women Is right.
like all other rights, IT will finally prevail
and when it has been shown and is popu-
LARRY believed 10 be right then we may look
with certainty to the endowment of this
"Gad given right"
That IL Is lrgrd that the constitution
uses the expression rights of citizens"
can hardly seem Il reasonable claim why
women should obtain the ballot. The
mere accident of the wording Of one sen
tence does not obligate our national bodies
to suddenly bring about such an innova-
tion OF politics as must inevitably ensue
hon l.4tj av,Hs . AL.
are granted.
| do not think discussion Of the intel
lectual abilities or relative character Of the
two sexes has any bearing on this question.
yet anticipating that many may advance
this argument we will not wholly ignore
! II. But the question is not concerning rel
alive. moral or intellectual power but, Is
woman's understanding and character tit
ted for the functions of government as well
a mans? and what Il mans sphere ard
what womanst
Nature has created two sexes and she
has given to each certain duties Of life,
bul IN that ste has done this We are not
to suppose that she has done injustice 10
either. The relations between man and
woman are not that Of rivalry, but Of com
panionship- The one is the complement
OF the other and on this foundation per
feet harmony may reign between the sexes
though they may be essentially different.
But our bewailers Of mans and woman's
wrongs" are fond Of representing them as
slaves, victims OF slavery indifferent 70
their lot" and men as "liege lords" and
'tyrants". There can scarcely be one true
man or woman but will feel natural
shrinking at this Interpretation of the re-
lations between man and woman.
What is there either In our own history,
morals or government that will justify
these terms to be applied TO them: | say
again that man and woman are not com
petitors. but that mans place is the state
and woman ; the home. Our preachers of
woman's rights say but little in regard 10
home influence or children Most often
these 'derangers OF social doctrine" are
either women who have never experienced
married life or those whose married life has
not proven wholly pleasant. But is single
life preferable to married life or wedlock
and its permanence essential to happiness
and to children? No one will question
that it is. Can we then believe that man
and wife after hotly contestlng each other
in the campaign will sit down lovingly and
with unchanged affection at the firesides
III tells US that this is as possible be-
| tween political rivals as between persons
| holding different religious beliefs. But
are the two at all alike: The foundation
and corner stone of religion are love and
| union. Different denominations commune
together. They are all working under diff
ferent banners simply for common inter
/ est as allies in the salvation of souls, but
in politics all is rivalry, OPP osition and
enmity, we might say. Persons belonging
erly love but may have this love seriously
shattered by difference in political views.
Does it not seem then that this is an
incongruous comparison? What will then
AOiio" al VI aoiiitb liiC anu uOHC iUuu-
ence have become burden! Woman has
always been mans mother, sister and part.
ner, but not his rival. That there are
some duties she is not by nature designed
to perform is no sign of her subordination
or inferiority. The male of all created
things is the protector. champion and pro.
wider for his female companion. Man does
the rough and dangerous work and have
yet to hear Of any champion of suffrage
proposing to take any portion Of it of his
hands. What absolute cruelty to think
Of such think This | suppose is one
of the elements of female slavery. Won.
an certainly has advanced influence and
are we to suppose that because she does
not vote that she has no influence on our
political condition? The home Is the
cradle of our people. Here those princi
pies and views. morals and habits are
formed which follow man to his grave
How then can we conscientiously call
woman nonentlty in our politics?
Chivalry is ever due to woman. Does
any one doubt it? But chvalry depends
on the acknowledged need of protection