20
Victoria Woodhull (1838-1927)
Born in Homer, Ohio, Victoria Claflin was raised in an abusive family and received little formal education. To escape her family she married her doctor at age 15, but it was not a successful marriage. She worked a variety of jobs–including one as a spiritual medium–and spent time advocating for reform of divorce laws that made it difficult for her to leave her marriage.
After the Civil War, she relocated to New York City. She and her sister became acquaintances of Cornelius Vanderbilt, who provided them investment advice. His stock tips allowed them to make almost $700,000 in six weeks. She used the money to open the first female-owned brokerage house on Wall Street. She also started a newspaper that advocated for women’s suffrage. Massachusetts Representative Benjamin Butler sponsored a constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote, and Woodhull became the first woman to testify before Congress in 1873.
Woodhull parlayed the fame she gained from her testimony into becoming the first woman to run for president, even though she had not yet reached the minimum age of 35. Her running mate was Frederick Douglass, who became the first black to run for vice president. Woodhull gained the endorsement of the Equal Rights Party, but failed to garner much popular support. She moved to the UK four years after her unsuccessful candidacy and lived to see both the UK and US grant women the right to vote.
On Constitutional Equality (1873)
I have no doubt it seems strange to many of you that a woman should appear before the people in this public manner for political purposes, and it is due both to you and myself that I should give my reasons for so doing.
On the 19th of December, 1870, I memorialized Congress, setting forth what I believed to be the truth and right regarding Equal Suffrage for all citizens. This memorial was referred to the Judiciary Committees of Congress. On the 12th of January I appeared before the House Judiciary Committee and submitted to them the Constitutional and Legal points upon which I predicated such equality. [On] January 20th Mr. Bingham, on behalf of the majority of said Committee, submitted his report to the House in which, while he admitted all my basic propositions, Congress was recommended to take no action. February 1st Messrs. Loughridge and Butler of said Committee submitted a report in their own behalf, which fully sustained the positions. I assumed and recommended that Congress should pass a Declaratory Act, forever settling the mooted question of suffrage.
Thus it is seen that equally able men differ upon a simple point of Constitutional Law, and it is fair to presume that Congress will also differ when these Reports come up for action. That a proposition involving such momentous results as this, should receive a one-third vote upon first coming before Congress has raised it an importance, which spreads alarm on all sides among the opposition. So long as it was not made to appear that women were denied Constitutional rights, no opposition was aroused; but now that new light is shed, by which it is seen that such is the case, all the Conservative weapons of bitterness, hatred and malice are marshalled in the hope to extinguish it, before it can enlighten the masses of the people, who are always true to freedom and justice.
Public opinion is against Equality, but it is simply from prejudice, which requires but to be informed to pass away. No greater prejudice exists against equality than there did against the proposition that the world was a globe. This passed away under the influence of better information, so also will present prejudice pass, when better informed upon the question of equality….
I come before you to declare that my sex are entitled to the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The first two I cannot be deprived of except for cause and by due process of law; but upon the last, a right is usurped to place restrictions so general as to include the whole of my sex, and for which no reasons of public good can be assigned. I ask the right to pursue happiness by having a voice in that government to which I am accountable. I have not forfeited that right, still I am denied. Was assumed arbitrary authority ever more arbitrarily exercised? In practice, then, our laws are false to the principles which we profess. I have the right to life, to liberty, unless I forfeit it by an infringement upon others’ rights, in which case the State becomes the arbiter and deprives me of them for the public good. I also have the right to pursue happiness, unless I forfeit it in the same way, and am denied it accordingly. It cannot be said, with any justice, that my pursuit of happiness in voting for any man for office, would be an infringement of one of his rights as a citizen or as an individual. I hold, then, that in denying me this right without my having forfeited it, that departure is made from the principles of the Constitution, and also from the true principles of government, for I am denied a right born with me, and which is inalienable. Nor can it be objected that women had no part in organizing this government. They were not denied. Today we seek a voice in government and are denied. There are thousands of male citizens in the country who seldom or never vote. They are not denied: they pursue happiness by not voting. Could it be assumed, because this body of citizens do not choose to exercise the right to vote, that they could be permanently denied the exercise thereof? If not, neither should it be assumed to deny women, who wish to vote, the right to do so.
And were it true that a majority of women do not wish to vote, it would be no reason why those who do, should be denied. If a right exist, and only one in a million desires to exercise it, no government should deny its enjoyment to that one. If the thousands of men who do not choose to vote should send their petitions to Congress, asking them to prevent others who do vote from so doing, would they listen to them? I went before Congress, to ask for myself and others of my sex, who wish to pursue our happiness by participating in government, protection in such pursuit, and I was told that Congress has not the necessary power….
What is government, and what a Republican form of government? Government is national existence organized. Government of some form exists everywhere, but none would assume to say that the government of China is similar to that of England, or that of Germany to that of the United States. When government is fashioned for the people it is not a republican form, but when fashioned by the people it is a republican government. Our form of government is supposed to emanate from the people, and whatever control it possesses over the people is supposed to be exercised by and with their consent; and even more than this, by their direct will and wish. If, at any time, there are powers exercised by a government which emanates from, and is dependent upon, the will of the people, which the majority of the people do not desire to be continued, they have it in their power, and it is their duty, to compel their suspension. If, at any time, the majority of the people from whom has emanated, and who support a republican form of government, desire that it should assume new functions, exercise more extended control or provide for new circumstances, not existent at its primary organization, they have the power and it is their duty to compel their government to take such action as is necessary to secure the form that shall be acceptable.
The people are virtually the government, and it is simply the concentration and expression of their will and wisdom through which they assume form as a body politic or as a nation. The government is an embodiment of the people, and as they change so also must it change. In this significant fact lie all the true beauty and wisdom of our form of polity….
Now, if a people—an aggregate of individuals—not having a government, undertake to construct one, wherein but one-half should engage, the other half taking no part therein, and its functions should be exercised over the whole, it is plain that so far as the non-engaged part would be concerned, it would be an usurped authority that dispossessed them of the inherent right which all people have in organized government. But so long as the unconsulted part quietly acquiesce in such a government, there could be none to question its right to control. At the moment, however, when the unconsulted portion should demur from such government, they would begin to assert the right to self-government, possessed equally by all. The fact that such right had not been made known by expression, could in no wise invalidate it. It would remain an inherent possession, and whenever expressed it could be maintained and enjoyed.
The condition of the people of this country today is this: I and others of my sex find ourselves controlled by a form of government in the inauguration of which we had no voice, and in whose administration we are denied the right to participate, though we are a large part of the people of this country….
When our fathers launched “Taxation without representation is tyranny” against King George, were they consistent? Certainly. Were they justified? Yes; for out of it came our national independence. The Revolutionary war, which gave our country independence, grew from this tyranny. Was that war justifiable? Most assuredly it was. We find that the same declarations of tyranny were raised by Congress in the lengthy discussions upon enfranchising the negro. Such sentiments as the following were often repeated, and with great effect: “A considerable part of the people of the United States embraced under the preamble to the Constitution, ‘We, the people,’ are left without representation in the government; but, nevertheless, held within the grasp of taxation of all kinds, direct and indirect, tariff and excise, State and national. This is tyranny, or else our fathers were wrong when they protested against a kindred injustice….
Could stronger words than these be found or used in favor of universal suffrage? They applied with sufficient force then to rouse a few men, whose souls were fired with its injustice, to resist a powerful oppressor. It was one of the most forcible arguments by which the cause of the negro was advocated. Is it any less forcible in its application to women? Is the tyranny now exercised over women under, as some say, the authority of the government—but we say, without any authority—any less tyrannous than that over our fathers? or than that of the negro, for whom many plead so earnestly? Or is nothing tyranny for women? If a civil right is “not worth a rush” to a man when he is taxed and not represented, how much is it worth to a woman? If a “man’s liberty is gone,” and he is “at the mercy of others” when thus taxed, what becomes of woman’s under the same tyranny? If “every man of sound mind should note,” by what principle can every woman of sound mind be deprived of voting?….
Franklin said, “That every man of the community, except infants, insane people and criminals, is of common right, and by the laws of God, a freeman, and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty. That freedom or liberty consists in having an actual share in the appointment of those who frame the laws, and who are to be the guardians of every man, for the all of one man is as dear to him as the all of another man; and the poor man has an equal right, but more need, to have representatives than the rich one.” “That they who have no voice nor vote in the election of representatives do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved; for to be enslaved is to have governors whom others have set over us.”
If freedom consists in having an actual share in appointing those who frame the laws, are not the women of this country in absolute bondage, and can government, in the face of the XV Amendment, assume to deny them the right to vote, being in this “condition of servitude?” According to Franklin we are absolutely enslaved, for there are “governors set over us by other men,” and we are “subject to the laws” they make. Is not Franklin good authority in matters of freedom? Again, rehearsing the arguments that have emanated from Congress and applying them to the present case, we learn that “It is idle to show that, in certain instances, the fathers failed to apply the sublime principles which they declared. Their failure can be no apology for those on whom the duty is now cast.” Shall it be an apology now? Shall the omission of others to do justice keep the government from measuring it to those who now cry out for it? I went before Congress like Richelieu to his king asking for justice. Will they deny it as he did until the exigencies of the case compel them?
I am subject to tyranny! I am taxed in every conceivable way. For publishing a paper I must pay–for engaging in the banking and brokerage business I must pay—of what it is my fortune to acquire each year I must turn over a certain per cent—I must pay high prices for tea, coffee and sugar: to all these must I submit, that men’s government may be maintained, a government in the administration of which I am denied a voice, and from its edicts there is no appeal….
To be compelled to submit to these extortions that such ends may be gained, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, is bad enough: but to be compelled to submit to them, and also denied the right to cast my vote against them, is a tyranny more odious than that which, being rebelled against, gave this country independence….
Therefore it is, that instead of growing in republican liberty, we are departing from it. From an unassuming, acquiescent part of society, woman has gradually passed to an individualized human being, and as she has advanced, one after another evident right of the common people has been accorded to her. She has now become so much individualized as to demand the full and unrestrained exercise of all the rights which can be predicated of a people constructing a government based on individual sovereignty. She asks it, and shall Congress deny her?
The formal abolition of slavery created several millions of male negro citizens, who, a portion of the acknowledged citizens assumed to say, were not entitled to equal rights with themselves. To get over this difficulty, Congress in its wisdom saw fit to propose a XIV Amendment to the Constitution, which passed into a law by ratification by the States. Sec. I. of the Amendment declares: “All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty and property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
But there is an objection raised to our broad interpretation of this Amendment, and that is obtained from the wording of the second section thereof: “But whenever the right to vote,” etc., “is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States,” etc., etc., “the basis of representation then shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age.” Consistency is said to be a bright jewel when possessed, but I doubt its possession by those who have the boldness to advance this as an argument in opposition to this point. We surely have a right to use the logic of objectors in interpreting their own propositions, and we therefore reply, ita lex scripta est. If the Constitution mean nothing but what is expressed, how can it be presumed to infer anything from the use of the word male in this second section, except what it expresses? The right of women to vote, or the denial of that right to them, is not involved by this section under the furthest fetched application….
Being citizens, women are of the “sovereign people,” and entitled to the enjoyment of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political.”
After the adoption of the XIV Amendment it was found that still more legislation was required to secure the exercise of the right to vote to all who by it were declared to be citizens, and the following comprehensive amendment was passed by Congress and ratified by the States: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”…
I now come to the previous condition of servitude, and there is much more in this than is at first apparent. We had become so accustomed to regard African slavery as servitude that we forgot there were other conditions of servitude besides. Slavery or a condition of servitude is, plainly speaking, subjection to the will of others. The negroes were subject to the will of their masters, were in a condition of servitude and had no power or authority as citizens over themselves.
I make the plain and broad assertion, that the women of this country are as much subject to men as the slaves were to their masters. The extent of the subjection may be less and its severity milder, but it is a complete subjection nevertheless. What can women do that men deny them? What could not the slave have done if not denied?
It is not the women who are happily situated, whose husbands hold positions of honor and trust, who are blessed by the bestowal of wealth, comforts and ease that I plead for. These do not feel their condition of servitude any more than the happy, well-treated slave felt her condition. Had slavery been of this kind it is at least questionable if it would not still have been in existence; but it was not all of this kind. Its barbarities, horrors and inhumanities roused the blood of some who were free, and by their efforts the male portion of a race were elevated by Congress to the exercise of the rights of citizenship. Thus would I have Congress regard woman, and shape their action, not from the condition of those who are so well cared for as not to wish a change to enlarge their sphere of action, but for the toiling female millions, who have human rights which should be respected….
It is said the Amendment does not give anyone the right to vote. Suppose we admit that for a moment. I think men will desire to disown it. If the XIV and XV Amendments give none the right to vote, let me ask them where they obtain their right to vote? Do they get it from the Constitution? Nowhere does it say “the right to vote,” except in this XV Amendment. Do they vote by right, or is this another usurpation which they exercise? Where do they get their right to vote? I will tell them where they get their right to vote. They inherit it from their God, and every one of the sovereign people inherits it from the same infinite source, Who knows no such ignoble limitation as that of sex. The right to vote is higher than State laws, higher than countries’ constitutions. I can neither be given nor taken by laws or by constitutions. These are but means for its exercise, and when our laws and constitutions shall have been reduced to this standard we shall have a republican form of government, and not till then….
There is but one construction the language of this Amendment is susceptible of, and this becomes apparent if the section is properly rendered. It simply means that the right to vote shall not be denied on account of race to anybody. By the interpolation of this word the sense of this Amendment is complete and unmistakable. From the simple negative it changes it to an all-powerful command, by which the sovereign people declare that the right to vote shall not be denied by the United States nor by any State to any person of any race.
We are now prepared to dispose of the sex argument. If the right to vote shall not be denied to any person of any race, how shall it be denied to the female part of all races? Even if it could be denied on account of sex, I ask, what warrant men have to presume that it is the female sex to whom such denial can be made instead of the male sex? Men, you are wrong, and you stand convicted before the world of denying me, a woman, the right to vote, not by any right of law, but simply because you have usurped the power so to do, just as all other tyrants in all ages have, to rule their subjects. The extent of the tyranny in either case being limited only by the power to enforce it….
The first official duty of every Congressman is to take a solemn oath to support and give vitality to the Constitution of the United States, not as they would, or might wish it to be, but as it is. That constitution declares that women are citizens, and that citizens shall not be denied the right to vote. In the face of these facts, how can they, with that oath recorded, deliberately set at naught these plain declarations?
I went before Congress to demand a right, and memorialized them, setting forth my grievances, and frankly and fully to the extent of my ability I endeavored to make my claim clear. This is a vital matter, fraught with more momentous events than have ever yet dawned upon the world. Through it civilization will make a giant stride from barbarism toward perfection—a stride which will land the human race near the haven where every person living will become a law unto himself, where there shall be no need of Constitutions, Houses of Congress and Executives, such as are necessary now. They regarding it as I do, it becomes to me the most sacred duty of my life to attain to my rights under the Constitution…
If Congress refuse to listen to and grant what women ask, there is but one course left them to pursue. Women have no government. Men have organized a government, and they maintain it to the utter exclusion of women. Women are as much members of the nation as men are, and they have the same human right to govern themselves which men have. Men have none but an usurped right to the arbitrary control of women. Shall free, intelligent, reasoning, thinking women longer submit to being robbed of their common rights. Men fashioned a government based on their own enunciation of principles: that taxation without representation is tyranny; and that all just government exists by the consent of the governed. Proceeding upon these axioms, they formed a Constitution declaring all persons to be citizens, that one of the rights of a citizen is the right to vote, and that no power within the nation shall either make or enforce laws interfering with the citizen’s rights. And yet men deny women the first and greatest of all the rights of citizenship, the right to vote.
Under such glaring inconsistencies, such unwarrantable tyranny, such unscrupulous despotism. What is there left women to do but to become the mothers of the future government.
We will have our rights. We say no longer by your leave. We have besought, argued and convinced, but we have failed; and we will not fail….
There is one alternative left, and we have resolved on that. This convention is for the purpose of this declaration. As surely as one year passes, from this day, and this right is not fully, frankly and unequivocally considered, we shall proceed to call another convention expressly to frame a new constitution and to erect a new government, complete in all its parts, and to take measures to maintain it as effectually as men do theirs.
If for people to govern themselves is so unimportant a matter as men now assert it to be, they could not justify themselves in interfering. If, on the contrary, it is the important thing we conceive it to be, they can but applaud us for exercising our right.
We mean treason; we mean secession, and on a thousand times grander scale than was that of the South. We are plotting revolution; we will overslough this bogus republic and plant a government of righteousness in its stead, which shall not only profess to derive its power from the consent of the governed, but shall do so in reality.
We rebel against, denounce and defy this arbitrary, usurping and tyrannical government which has been framed and imposed on us without our consent, and even without so much as entertaining the idea that it was or could be of the slightest consequence what we should think of it, or how our interests should be affected by it, or even that we existed at all, except in the simple case in which we might be found guilty of some offense against its behests, when it has not failed to visit on us its sanctions with as much rigor as if we owed rightful allegiance to it; which we do not, and which, in the future, we will not even pretend to do.
This new government, if we are compelled to form it, shall be in principles largely like that government which the better inspirations of our fathers compelled them to indite in terms in the Constitution, but from which they and their sons have so scandalously departed in their legal constructions and actual practice. It shall be applicable, not to women alone, but to all persons who shall transfer their allegiance to it, and shall be in every practicable way a higher and more scientific development of the governmental idea.
We have learned the imperfections of men’s government, by lessons of bitter injustice, and hope to build so well that men will desert from the less to the more perfect….