Historical Reflections: Susan B. Anthony on Women's Right To Vote (1873)

[Anonymous 6]

Welcome back to Historical Reflections, once again I am your host, VENOM. This time around we’re going to get controversial. Susan B. Anthony, and her speech on Women’s Right To Vote. Now I did say in the last post that we would hit topics that we may not like, but we should still debate and discuss them because an honest dialogue makes all of us better in our arguments. So here is yet another, Historical Reflections.

__________________

We start this one of with Susan B. Anthony and her speech about women having the right to vote. In the 1800s, women in the United States had few legal rights and did not have the right to vote. This speech was given by Susan B. Anthony after her arrest for casting an illegal vote in the presidential election of 1872. She was tried and then fined $100 but refused to pay.

*Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen’s rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny.

The preamble of the Federal Constitution says:

“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people – women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government – the ballot.

For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or, an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity.

To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters, of every household – which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord, and rebellion into every home of the nation.

Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office.

The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several states is today null and void, precisely as is every one against Negroes.

Susan B. Anthony – 1873

[Can’t Stump TrumpParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.

Is that so? Her great grandmother fought in the revolution, I presume? Oh wait, no, it was just the men.

Anonymous wrote:

It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe;

Then she should’ve gotten the f~~~ out and went to live with the Muslims.

Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.

[FunInTheSunParticipant 8283]

Women had something that men didn’t have: the blessing of chivalry. They also didn’t have to worry about providing their bodies “for the common defense” since they were exempt from the military draft.

The difference between American men & women: American men fought to secure land and form a nation with laws. Women got their rights from the CONSENT of men after protesting. In my opinion: those that risked their lives to gain new territory should enjoy the spoils of war.

There are exceptions here and there, but for the most part, women got what they wanted after massive amounts of complaining (instead of fighting). Men gave in just to shut them up and have some peace.

I find it ironic that MILLIONS of women don’t vote during presidential elections. I estimate that 30,000,000 of them thought it was more important to watch TV or get their nails done instead of voting for a national leader and new laws on Election Day, 2016. These women have absolutely no appreciation for the efforts of Susan B. Anthony and others who made contributions to women’s suffrage. If you took away their right to vote, they wouldn’t miss it.

"I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’" (Atlas Shrugged)

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

I love when then pull out the dictionary.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Funinthesun writes: I find it ironic that MILLIONS of women don’t vote during presidential elections. I estimate that 30,000,000 of them thought it was more important to watch TV or get their nails done instead of voting for a national leader and new laws on Election Day, 2016. These women have absolutely no appreciation for the efforts of Susan B. Anthony and others who made contributions to women’s suffrage. If you took away their right to vote, they wouldn’t miss it.

Women vote at rates about 3% higher than men. Because they also vote in larger proportion for progressive/Democratic candidates than men do, the long-term, net result is an increase in the power and role of the State and Federal governments.

Most men I know who don’t vote, do not vote because they feel it doesn’t make a difference. The two parties are very similar. Notice, as but one example, that Tronald Dump didn’t urge Congress to vote to repeal the Obamination’s Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA) and replace it with NOTHING (appropriate for a FREE people); instead he wanted them to vote for HIS cronies’ version of it, Ryancare. I’ll give the Donald credit for getting us out of the Paris Accord, which Shrillery NEVER would have done, but he’s no great friend of Freedom. So the ‘civil participation’ was hardly equal or balanced.

Venom writes: In the 1800s, women in the United States had few legal rights and did not have the right to vote.

I would respectfully disagree with the first part of this; IF a women were unmarried, she enjoyed freedom to move, own property, sign contracts, etc, so it is important to make the qualification ‘married’ women had few legal rights. Indeed, after the Revolution there was even equal inheritance. HOWEVER, if she married, she had significantly fewer rights. The marriage pendulum, was essentially swung in the OPPOSITE direction it is in now.

Originally, only white, property-owning Men could vote. States set criteria for who could vote — and often did so to discriminate against blacks in the South. The problem I have with the suffragette movement is with equal rights come equal responsibilities — the draft and dieing for one’s country, being called to jury duty, etc. Women are now finally eligible for the draft, but only because there is unlikely to be another draft. Women voted, but didn’t die in WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, in any significant numbers. The dieing was left for the men.

[Anonymous 6]

Do you think a draft with women involved would ever happen?? If we went to war with Russia like the liberals want us to, then we could test this theory out. But seeing as how, that ain’t happening, i don’t know when we could test this theory.

It may end up backfiring on them. They would ask for equal rights on the battlefield and then be surprised when they get it. They weren’t asking for it forreal, but they got what they wanted.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

The liberals don’t want a war with Russia; they just want to weaken and oust Trump to sabotage his legislative agenda.

Wars with US women soldiers have already happened, but they typically do NOT serve on the front lines in the US Armed Forces. Most women would NOT be effective on the front lines. Hell, most Americans, men and women, are landwhales, unless they are human shields they won’t be very effective on the front lines, haha.

Seriously, if there ever was a draft again, I suspect either women would be exempted OR exempted from front line combat roles.

[Anonymous 6]

You know what would be funny, if the liberals and social justice warriors guys all got drafted. That’s some s~~~ i’d sign up just to see that. The women will probably be exempted from front lines tho, you’re right about that

[Author]

Posts