xt70rx937t9n_517 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4.dao.xml unknown 13.63 Cubic Feet 34 boxes, 2 folders, 3 items In safe - drawer 3 archival material 46m4 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Laura Clay papers Temperance. Women -- Political activity -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- United States -- History. Women -- Suffrage -- Kentucky. Women -- Suffrage -- United States. Suffrage pamphlets and leaflets text Suffrage pamphlets and leaflets 2020 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4/Box_32/Folder_1/Multipage24426.pdf 1919-1920 1920 1919-1920 section false xt70rx937t9n_517 xt70rx937t9n \


Selma, Alabama, élfapter No. 53


The United Daughters of the Confederacy Holds Called
Meeting to Condemn the Slander of Robert E. Lee
and Family in the History of Woman Suffrage,
by Susan B. Anthony and Others.

Strong Resolutions Passed.


By James Callaway.

HE U. D. C. is the greatest organization of women in the
world. Besides its philanthropic mission in aiding the old
soldiers “who fought and lived,” erecting monuments to
perpetuate the valor and courage of those who died, and

providing scholarships for girls who desire an education, and
doing thousands Of things Of an eleemosynary character, one of
the chief objects of the organization is to preserve Southern his-
tory and to keep the “record straight.”

The Daughters Of the Confederacy feel the iniquity of the
slander perpetrated upon General Lee and his daughter, Annie
Carter, and are calling upon the authors of that fabrication to
correct the falsehood—Macon Telegraph.


At a called meeting of Chapter NO. 53 of the United Daugh-
ters of The Confederacy, at Selma, Alabama, May 17, 1918, the
following resolutions were adopted:

WHEREAS: It has been brought to the notice Of this Chapter
that in Volume 11, page 23, of The History of Woman Suffrage,
by Susan B. Anthony and others, a most unwarranted, false, and
malicious attack is made upon the character Of Robert E. Lee,
the sacredness and sanctity of his home invaded, and his family
maligned as here literally quoted:


Vol. 11, page 23: “Many women showed their love of country
by sacrifices still greater than enlistment in the army. Among
these, especially notable for her surroundings and family, was
Annie Carter Lee, daughter of Gen. Robert E. Lee, commander-
in-chief of the rebel army. Her father and three brothers fought
against the Union which she loved, and to whom she adhered. A
young girl scarcely beyond her teens when the war broke out,
she remained firm in her devotion to the National cause, though
for this adherence she was banished by her father as an outcast
from that elegant home once graced by her presence. She did
not live to see the triumph of the cause she loved so well, dying
the third year of the war, aged twenty—three, at Johns Springs,
N. C., homeless, because of her love for the Union, with no rela-
tives near her, dependent for care and consolation in her last
hours upon the kindly services of an Old colored woman. In her
veins ran the blood of “Light-horse Harry,” and that of her great
aunt, Hannah Lee Corbin, who at the time of the Revolution pro—
tested against the denial of representation to taxpaying women,
and whose name does much to REDEEM that of Lee from the
INFAMY Of late so justly adhering to it.”

The falsity of the statement is shown by the following letter
of Mary Custis Lee, daughter of Gen. R. E. Lee:


The Jefferson, Richmond, Va., April 20, 1918.

“My Dear Sir: Let me thank you for the quotations from
Dr. H. E. Shepherd’s ‘Life of Lee.’ The ‘Cady Stanton’ and
Susan B. Anthony fabricatibn are such I can scarcely believe
they would have promulgated such wholesale falsehoods. As a

.matter of fact, while my father, like many Of the old army Offi-
cers, was not a secessionist, and hoped to the last that civil war
might be averted, we young people were much more violent in
our feelings and expressions, and you may be sure that there was
no dissentient voice among us.

“My father went down to Richmond the day Virginia seceded,
and my mother was given at first only twenty-four hours in
which to pack up and dispose of her large household affairs and
the children. Packing up was going on all night, nobody attempt—
ing 'to sleep, and the next afternoon we young people were all
sent up to Ravensnorth, an Old family place some fifteen miles
back in Fairfax county, and where a great aunt of ours was
living, while my mother received permission to remain for a few
days longer.


“The scandal is a fabrication, manufactured out Of the whole
cloth, without even the shadow of foundation, and one cannot
imagine how it ever originated. My father’s character was so
pure and lofty, as well as winning, and his devotion to his chil-
dren so well known, so demonstrative even, that he had no per-
sonal ones. So far as Annie Carter is concerned—poor gentle
Annie—she adored her father, and he adored her, partly because
she was named after his mother, whose memory he worshipped,
and always attributed anything that was worthy in himself to
her teachings, and training and influence; and partly because as
a small child Annie had stuck the scissors into one of her eyes
and ruined the sight, but not the appearance of it. Hence my
father always had a special feeling of tenderness for her, so
much so that he specially provided for her in his will. How
ignorant were these slanders of my father’s character!

“My mother was a great sufferer from rheumatism and hear—
ing of the healing virtues Of ‘John Springs,’ now called ‘White
Sulphur,’ managed somehow to get down there with my two
sisters, though traveling was very difficult at that time, and
while there dear, gentle Annie died. My mother nursed her in
sickness, day and night, and Annie died in her arms, and mother
was broken-hearted over this first death of one of her seven
children, and I am the last of the seven now living. Mother
went with Annie and Agnes to North Carolina, and Annie, never
strong, developed typhoid fever.

“I had been left with some near relatives in Virginia and
Mildred, the youngest, was a little school girl in Winchester,
until driven away by the tide of war, when she was sent down
to ‘St. Marys,’ in Raleigh. My dear father could not leave his
post, and was so overcome with grief over the death of Annie,
the first death in his family.

“During our war large families were often separated, and
necessarily SO. I was myself separated from mine. Just recover-
ing from typhoid fever so prevalent in Richmond at that time,
my mother sent me down to King George county, to relatives
living in a remote section, as she thought, and where I could
have quiet and pure air for better recovery, and where it was
not anticipated the ‘Yankees’ would ever come. But one morn-
ing we awoke to find ourselves in their lines, surrounded—the
Fredericksburg campaign having begun. I was there virtually a
prisoner the whole winter, and there heard by a stray letter of
my sister’s death. This explains why I was not with Annie
when she died.”


Now, Whereas, In this same History of Woman Suffrage in
Volume 4, published as recently as 1900, and pronounced good by
its authors, the said Susan B. Anthony, and Mrs. Ida Husted
Harper, (the latter still living) we find on page VIII, of the
said Volume 4, and signed by Mrs. Ida Husted Harper, these

“The money which Miss Anthony now had, enabled her to
carry out her long cherished project, to put the History free of
charge in the public libraries. It was thus placed in twelve hun-
dred libraries in the United States and Europe. Mrs. Stanton
and Mrs. Gage, who had contributed their services without price,
felt that it should be sold, instead of given away and in order
to have a perfectly free hand, she purchased their rights.

In addition to libraries, she has given it to hundreds of
schools, and to countless individuals, writers and speakers, whom
she thought it would enable to do better work for the franchise.”

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That we, the U. D. C. Chapter
53, do hereby brand as absolutely untrue and without foundation
the said statements in The History of Woman Suffrage, concern-
ing Robert E. Lee, and his family, hitherto so honored of all
men, all honest historians whose writings are based upon facts
and truth, and we demand that the same be diligently corrected
and condemned.

We urge all Chapters of the United Daughters of the Confed-
eracy, Confederate Veterans, and Sons of Veterans, to take simi-
lar action; and

WHEREAS, as above stated, this unwarranted libel upon the
justly revered name of Robert E. Lee, has been placed in “twelve
hundred libraries in the United States and Europe, and hundreds
of schools, and given to countless individuals,” be it further
resolved that The United Daughters of The Confederacy pledge
themselves henceforth, to deny and prove false this intentional
insult to a People, and to one of God’s noblest characters, Robert
E. Lee.

Be it further resolved, that action be taken to protect our
children and others, uninformed, to the end, that this unmiti-
gated falsehood may not pollute the pages of future history.

We take this occasion to extend to the beloved daughter of
Robert E. Lee, our heartfelt and sincere thanks, that in Spite Of
the shock and sorrow that knowledge of this gratuitous insult
has brought to her, and her horror of the consequent publicity,
she has, like the true, brave daughter of a father without re-
proach, come forward, as was but just and due to the name
She bears, and the millions who still revere the memory of her
noble father, as one peerless among men and denied and dis-
proved this malicious, shameful falsehood.

We extend to her, renewed assurance of our love and loyalty,
being thankful that it is our privilege and honor to uphold with
her help, and incontrovertible testimony the spotless name of
Robert E. Lee.


The Confederate Veteran, always as acute as Miss Mildred
Rutherford in keeping the record straight, reproduces on its
editorial page the letter of Miss Mary Custis Lee settling for all
time the slander against General Lee and his daughter, Annie
Carter, which was published especially under the supervision of
Susan B. Anthony, whom, Mrs. Ida Husted Harper says was
“exceedingly careful in scrutinizing all the material that went
into the Official History.”

Following the letter of Miss Mary Custis Lee, the editor Of
the Confederate Veteran makes these comments:

“It was General Lee’s intention after the war to have his
daughter’s remains taken to Virginia, but after visiting the place
and seeing how the grave was cared for he was content to leave
his dear one to that tender care forever. Over her grave was
erected the first monument ever placed by women to the memory
of a woman, only women of Warren county being asked to con-

“At its dedication in the summer of 1866 Col. James Barron
Hope was the orator and delivered an elegaic Ode, published in
full in Dr. Henry E. Shepherd’s ‘Life of Lee.’ In writing Colonel
Barron some time afterward, Mrs. Robert E. Lee thanked him
for a sketch of the monument and said:

“ ‘I have often longed to visit it, and it is an inexpressible
comfort to me to daily View this image of a spot so dear. I have
loved to think of her dying so quietly in that lovely place, where
the foot of our invaders never trod; to know, too, that she was
spared the misery of seeing the downfall Of the cause she so
much loved. She only met the doom Heaven Often awards to its
favorites, and I am content.’ ” ,

Lord Wolseley, who visited the Confederate army, thus wrote
of its commander: “I have met many of the great men of my
time, but Lee alone impressed me with the feeling that I was in
the presence of a man who was cast in a grander mould and
made of different and finer metal than all other men. He is
stamped upon my memory as being apart and superior to all
others in every way—a man with whom none I ever knew and
very few of whom I ever read are worthy to be classed.”


 ll .

“Mars" Henry" Watterson, the Noblest Roman of them all

- no

"Speaks in Meetln


His Famous Editorial, Condemning the Woman’s Bible, Feminism
and Woman Suffrage.


The combine of, shall we not say cowardice and
cupidity, which characterizes the average American
newspaper in the matter of Woman Suffrage is the
most discouraging, discreditable and dishonoring
feature of contemporary journalism.

The publishers are afraid of diminished circula-
tion, the Editors of feminine nagging. Between
them the leading dailies of the larger cities and
towns—notably those along the Atlantic seaboard—
.ignore the issue for the most part and bar its discus-
sion. In both the dread of consequences is a miscon-
ception alike of public and manly duty as of commer—
cial forecast and business interest; because in the
long run readers could be multiplied and service ren-
dered and consideration achieved by the adequate
treatment of a question, important indeed to men
and the state, but of transcendent moment to
Women themselves. Yet, vital as it is, the press is

In Maine during the recent campaign where the
Woman Suffrage amendment was beaten two to one
the newspapers shunned debate as far as they could.
In New York, where a campaign is on, they durst
not lift a pen in opposition. Excepting the New
York Times, we fail to discover a single leading j our-
nal which seems willing or able to call its soul its
own. It is the same in Philadelphia, in Baltimore
and in Boston.

Down the Southern Coast—at Richmond, Charles-
ton, Savannah, Mobile and New Orleans—the braves
appear to be paralyzed, though state lines and social
conditions are seriously and immediately menaced.
They that were erst so glib decanting about “South-
ern Rights” stand all agape and have never a word
to say, whilst a clumsy Trojan Horse, open on both
sides so that the Greeks are visible to the naked eye,
is trundled along into the very Holy of Holies by
people who were but just now proclaiming death and
destruction to all things Southern. Even as news
they will not print the truth.

Truly noise, assertion, impudence go a long ways,
for it is safe to estimate that not one intelligent
woman anywhere has considered the Suffrage mat-
ter in all its bearings and reached the definite con-
clusion that in spite of all she wants to vote, whilst
at the South no intelligent woman can thoughtfully
consider it without reaching the conclusion that ac-
complishing nothing for women, it can only bring
evil upon the electorate. Under the existing enlarge-
ment of the franchise we have fallen lowenough,
Heaven knows; but, doubling this by the addition of
millions of good women and bad women, black wom-
en and white women, cannot fail to sink us and our
institutions still lower. What appreciable good could
be attained it is impossible to conceive. »

The professional politician—seeking lines of least
resistance—the popular preacher, not daring to of-
fend an active, albeit a minority section of his con-
gregation—can always and easily be bullied by the
shrieking sisterhood. Meanwhile, the soul of Susan
Anthony, like that of Old John Brown, goes march-
ing on. It goes marching on toward the Feminist
goal of blatant Infidelity, rejecting the Religion of
Christ and Him Crucified and repudiating the man-
made Bible of Moses and the Prophets in favor of
Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s “Woman’s Bible,” which
teaches the religious heresies of Voltaire, Paine and
Ingersoll, along with the Free Love theories of Mary
Wollstonecraft, Victoria Woodhull and Ellen Key.


Feminism is essentially—it is almost exclusively
——a Woman’s Question. The ballot is the least part
of it. If there were nothing else involved, and, by
some miracle, Universal Suffrage could be brought
about between night and morning, the result would
be negligible as a political force and very disappoint-
ing to those excellent women who expect much from

In the centers of population—especially in hotly
contested elections—certain obvious evils and abuses
would be inevitable. The political managers would
rally every purchasable woman, every ignorant wom-
an, at the polls. Not a few good women, intelligent
women, carried away by party zeal and campaign
excitement, would be lured into unwomanly demon-
stration. At the South the colored ladies would be
largely—often perhaps solely—in evidence. To
what end?

In the frontier States where Woman Suffrage,
adopted to invite population, has prevailed, and we
see no sign of elevated conditions, purified politics or
better government. The woman voters divide much
as the men voters. There are no cities and conse-
quently no crowding, no mobs and no dives.

We need not ascribe the turbulency in California
and Colorado to Woman Suffrage. But the woman
voters have shown themselves powerless to abate,
or quell it, even if they have made any attempt.
Assuredly they have made no organized attempt.

Nor need we regard the unimportant figure that
the first woman Representative in Congress has cut
at Washington as evidence of feminine incapacity
for public affairs. As an example Miss Rankin is not
inspiring. But, if she were as dominating as Eliza-
beth, or Victoria—if she had the genius of Madame
de Stael, or Vittoria Colonna—if she possessed the
wit, eloquence and charm of the wife of Roland—her
gifts would not lead to the betterment of govern-
ment and were more profitable employed outside the
bull-ring of politics for the betterment of the human
species. The Member from Montana, being out of
place, does not fit into the prevailing order. It proves
nothing the one way, or the other.

The capacity of Woman is not an issue at all.
When put to it she can fight, she can speak and she
can vote just as well as the men can. The question
turns not upon her aptitudes. It is, did God and
Nature design her to fight, to speak and to vote, or
did God and Nature invest her with higher and
nobler yet equally indispensable duties and func-

Any fool can fight and vote and most fools do
speak. Woman, reflecting men put above such com-
monplaces. They hold her not merely the Mother of
the World—clearly specified and qualified by God
and Nature for that great office—but, by reason of
this elevation, the Moral Light of the Universe,
without whose ministrations children could not be
reared and except for whose modifying influence the

male creation would become little better than the
brute creation.

Nor is any considerable body of our'women excit-
ed on the subject of the ballot. If they were, and
demanded it, they would speedily get it. The femi-
nine instinct, so much more acute than that of the
male, conceives the queenship of woman in the life
of man—fully establishing and unassailable—and
draws warily back from a political scheme proposing
to swap a certainty for an experiment. It were at
best of doubtful advantage. But, what of this ex-
periment if it be merely the prelude to a vast, revo-
lutionizing movement aimed to abolish sex distinc-
tions altogether and to put woman and man on the
same low plane of equalized brutality; no more love
and marriage; no more reciprocal tenderness and
interdependence; the lights of the home extin-
guished; the poetry of girlhood; the chastity and
chivalry of manhood—the religion and romance of
the old order—gone out of life, and in their stead,
the Code of the new order as advocated by the Woll-
stonecrafts and Woodhulls of history set forth by
Mrs. Cady Stanton in her “Woman’s Bible” and ac-
cepted and promulgated by the leaders of the pro-
posal to obliterate geographic divisions and abolish
Home Rule by a Constitutional Amendment Federal-
izing Woman Suffrage and, at one fell swoop, ending
our time-honored system of National and State Pow-
ers with their admirable and necessary checks and

It means revolution—far—reaching revolution——

the saying being no less true than trite that revolu-
tions never go backward.


To be sure all this is flatly disputed by the perferJ
vid advocates of Woman’s Suffrage who merely
scratch the surface of the discussion and either see
not, or refuse to see, the depths below. But, as the
least investigation will attest, it admits of no denial.
The proof is abundant, as the Courier-Journal has
shown over and over again. '

We need not go back to what might be sneeringly
dismissed as ancient history to summon the common
law wife of William Godwin to the stand. We need
not even go to Europe to call Ellen Key and the
Pankhurst crowd. We have right here at home an
organized body of highly educated and intellectual
women who, planting themselves upon Mrs. Cady
Stanton’s “Woman’s Bible,” preach its gospel with
resonant earnestness at all hours of the day and
night wherever a hall may be hired or a soap box be

This “Woman’s Bible” was, compiled, as we learn
from its title page, by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and
copyrighted by her in 1895. On the revisory com-
mittee appear the names of Mrs. Carrie Chapman
Catt, Mrs. Robert Ingersoll, Mrs. Helen H. Gardner,
Lucinda B. Candler, and other women of their
faith and order. The contributors, or commenta-
tors, are Ellen B. Dietrick, Louisa Southworth, Lu-
cinda B. Chandler, Matilda Gage, Frances E. Burr,
Rev. Phoebe A. Hanford and Clara B. Neyman. The
object of the book is to overthrow the “old family”
Bible as we have it and supplant it with a new Bible
inspired by these women. As a reason for a new

Bible Mrs. Stanton says:


The plan of the work is to take a quotation where
woman is mentioned from Paul or Timothy or any
other of the Apostles, and proceed to show that the
woman is degraded and given no place in the New
Testament but that of an inferior, and the reasons
for its publication being, as Mrs. Stanton says, that
“We need a. religion based on Science and Nature.
We have made a fetish of the Bible long enough. ‘As
Christ is the head of the Church, so is man the head
of the woman.’ This idea of woman’s subordination
is reiterated times without number from Genesis to
Revelation, and is the basis of all church action.”—
From Preface to Vol. II.

In one of his recent close studies of Mrs. Stanton
and her “Bible,” and its influence and reach, James
Callaway makes the following illuminating compila-

“Sarah A. Underwood, one of the commentators,
says: ‘The influence of the Bible against the eleva-
tion of woman has been great because of the infalli-
bility and the Divine authority with which the
teachings of the Bible have been invested.’

“Mrs. Stanton in her comment on the widow whom
Jesus praised for casting in her two mites—all she
had—does not approve of the widow’s conduct. In—
stead of the commendation Jesus gave her, Mrs.
Stanton says: ‘Self—development is a higher duty
than self-sacrifice, and should be ‘woman’s motto.’

“Joseph K. Henry of the Revising Committee,
says: ‘Let him who can show just cause why wom-
an should not look to reason and to science rather
than the Scriptures for deliverance; let him speak
now, or forever after hold his peace.

“ ‘When reason reigns and Science lights the way,
a countless host of women will move in majesty
down the coming centuries. A voice will cry, “Who
are these?” and the answer will ring out: “These
are the mothers of the coming race, who have locked
the door of the Temple of Faith and thrown away
the key.’ ”

“On nearly every page of the ‘Woman’s Bible’ is a
fling at the Scriptures. And yet what a following
Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton has! She was Susan
B. Anthony’s preceptor and this ‘Woman’s Bible’
was Susan B. Anthony’s textbook. Suffragette
writers in the magazines of the day teach what the
‘Woman’s Bible’ teaches. This idea of marriage as
set forth in the New Testament is ridiculed. Mrs.
Pankhurst caught the meaning of this New Bible
when she declared her ‘object was to demoralize the
world of society, shame the churches and upset the
whole orderly conduct of life.’

“It made a convert of Miss Rebecca West, who
says ‘that woman’s self-sacrifice for the home is a
s1n.’ It made a convert of Inez Milholland Boisse-
valn, who wrote: “This pressure toward a con-
stantly. growing freedom on the part of woman
means 1n the long run the institutions most certain
to be changed are the home and marriage itself. It
made a convert of Jane Ashley, former secretary of
the National Suffrage Association, who says: ‘In
the choice of love woman is as free as man. She
must be in position to act freely where her strongest
impulses are concerned. No one should give account
of hlmself or herself, and no third party has the
rlght of intervention.’

“Metto L. Sterne, a convert, says: ‘The present
marriage ceremony will be abolished, together with
other useless ceremonies. The State should care for
the children.’

_ “Dr. Anna Shaw, a convert, says: “I would pen-
sion all mothers and have them provided for by the
State. I believe motherhood should be independent
of any man.’ -

“On page 12, Introduction to Volume I, Cady
Stanton, the author, says: ‘Bible historians claim
spec1al inspiration for the Old and New Testament
With 1t miracles opposed to all known laws. * * *
I do not believe that any man ever saw God, or ever
talked with God or that He told the historians what
theysay He did, and so long as women accept the
pos1t10n they assign her emancipation is impossible.’
She (itfizlares the story of Moses about Mt. Sinai is all
a my .

1_ “Matilda Gage, a member along with Mrs. Chap-
man Catt and Mrs. Robert Ingersoll, of the Revising
Commlttee, in Vol. II, says: ‘That even the most en-
lightened nations are not yet out of barbarism is due
to the teachings of the Bible. We are investigating
the Blble’s influence under Judaism and under Chris-
tianity and pronounce it evil.’ ‘We’ in the above re-
fers to the ‘Revising Committee’ and Commentators.

“In Vol. II, Josephine K. Henry, of Versailles, Ky.,
of the Revising Committee, says: ‘We claim that
woman’s advancement is due to civilization, and that
the Bible has been a bar to her progress. * * *
How strange it is that the average Christian woman
holds the name of Paul above all others, oblivious to
the fact that he has brought deeper shame, subjec-
tion and servitude and sorrow to woman than has
any other human being in history.’ ”

It will be a popular religion in Europe after the
war. There will be an immense excess of women, a
correspondmg decrease of men, and, as after the
“Thirty Years’ War” it was ordained that one man
might lawfully have many wives, and that no child
should be held illegitimate, no matter how born, so
after the war we may expect the spirit of Feminism
to prevall, and no questions asked. There will be no
escape. .They are already proclaiming that Chris-
tianity 1s a failure. But with the end of the war
there will be an added reason, the need of more

We have a foretaste of what to expect even in
Staid Old England. In a recent sketch Sir Conan
Doyle tells us what he sees on the streets of London
every evening. He graphically describes the parade
of young women by the hundreds, walking the pave-
ments, arm 1n arm, laughing loudly and singing and
making remarks to the soldiers. “They do not be—
long to the ranks of the unfortunate women—most

' of them do not—but are engaged during the day

performing the ordinary task of messengers, por-
ters, stenographers, office keepers and such occupa-
tions as fell before to young men,” says Sir Conan,
justly alarmed by the spectacle of such wanton

If such things be possible now, what must happen
when this kind of harlotry is- justified by public pol-
1cylook1ng to repopulation and “sanctified” by “the
Rehgion of Nature,” seeking the freedom of women
through the overthrow of the Religion of Christ?
They tried it in Babylon and Tyre. They tried it in
Athens and Rome. What came of it history tells us.
But the Modern Aspasia will learn none of the les-
sons of history. She glories in her shame and wor-
ships at the Free Love Shrine of Max Eastman who
makes jokes and ribald cartoons at the expense of
Jesus of Nazareth and swears in five keys and seven
languages upon “The Woman’s Bible” of Elizabeth
Cady Stanton.

Here, to come back to our text and point of de-
parture, we have the most vital question of modern
times—in the Southern part of North America in-
volvmg our political being and our social structure—
everywhere involving life, religion and morals——
w1th a newspaper press asleep to all appearance;
deaf and dumb, and blind, as well; in the great
c1t1es, silent as the tomb; in the smaller cities, empty
as a .house-to-let; in town and village, emulating the
vacuity of its betters! Since Christian civilization
has gone to smash among the high-brows of the
East and self—government has become a lost art in
Gotham, it were a kind of fatuity to look in that
general direction; but the South, what do we see
there! The Capital of Virginia once had a press
that gave lessons in political‘economies and Charles-
ton at least one newspaper that almost made the
War of Sections. Time was when the word of John .
Forsyth went forth from Mobile to the farthest cor-
ners of the Republic, and Kendall, Bullitt and Walk-
er made New Orleans a National sounding—board of
Wit, wisdom and eloquence. Alack the day! For-
syth is dead and Erwin Craighead groweth in years
apace. Even the Bakers are gone from the Crescent
Clty, leaving Robert Ewing too busy chasing party
shadows, and young Thomson looking too sharply
after Champ Clark’s presidential qualities, to bother
about the structure of society and the danger of the
Universe. Fanaticism has the floor. Why philoso-
phize—even specify? The boys creep around dead
walls and slip in and out of silent alleys, and wonder
what time 0’ night it is, and whether ’twill ever be
day! As for the honor of the cloth—a free, indepen-
dent, fearless, upright, outspoken press—inspired
by the memory of by-gone glories—invigorated by
the sense of public and professional duty—they will
none of it; they have none of it; nowhere; and no-
body left to tell the tale except the Courier-Journal,
which was and ever will be—as the Good Book says
——“one among ten thousand and altogether lovely.”

“Lest Ye Forget”—Write Your Representatives in Congress and Your State Not to Vote for Woman Suffrage,



“Each State shall appoint, in such man-
'ner as the Legislature thereof may direct,
‘a number of electors, equal to the whole
number of senators and representatives to
which the State may be entitled in the
Cengress.” (U. S. Constitution, Art. 2,
Sec. 1. P. 2.)


The ample, exclusive and sovereign
power of appointment thus conferred was
formerly exercised by members of the
State Legislature in person, and contin-
"ued to be so exercised, by'the Legislature
‘of'South Carolina, until after the breaking
out of the Civil YVar in 1861. In New
*Jersey until 1804 the State Legislature in
person appointed the presidential elec~
tors. With the growth of democracy it
has become usual to delegate this power
to all male citizens, but this is subject at
any time to change, modification, or re-
call. Therefore a majority of any State
Legislature can at any time confer upon
its female citizens an equal right with its
male citizens to take part in the appoint-
ment of presidential electors.

The choice of President and Vice-Pres}
dent of the United States is the most im-
portant form of suffrage exercised
by an American citizen. lt‘ decides who
shall be for four years the Chief executive
officer of 75 million people, with power of

l} V ‘3 i‘

sands of otlicials, with sllprmno
of the army and navy, with the manage—
ment of our foreign relations and the duty
of'making treaties subject to the advice
and consent: of the