Women’s Rights—Free Love with A Vengeance
image 1
image 2
image 3
image 4
image 5
image 6
image 7
image 8
image 9
image 10
image 11
image 12
cropped image 1
WOMEN'S RIGHTS—FREE LOVE WITH A VENGEANCE.
Among many a “cause” that is looming out largely just now in the way of meetings and talk, not the least is that of “Women’s Rights.” They who lead in this, had their annual anniversary yesterday and last night, in New York, attracting a large audience. The officers were about two-thirds women, the remainder men. The Hutchinson family opened the exercises with a song, “The Good Time Coming Right Along.”1 Then several ladies spoke, moved resolutions, offered objections or amendments, &c., quite like the he-fellows do when they hold a meeting.
We don’t see any thing very remarkable in the proceedings, until S. P. Andrews2 comes forward, with a series of remarks that the orthodox will demur to, and throw the term “free love” at them at once. Certes, they have good reason to throw that term at them. Isn’t the following pretty considerably “free?” Indeed we only transcribe it because we think it will be best to let our readers know, without disguise, what is going on around them. Mr. Andrews said:
“The very first right of woman, according to his conviction, was the right to maternity—maternity under the very best physiological circumstances, the right to study and investigate what those circumstances are, the right to change and experiment, if he might use the word, in regard to the very best relations under which the human race can be sired and generated. None of their reforms would ever be radical until they touched this vital point, and settled all questions of generation, and of the education, cultivation, and refinement of the race. He knew there were persons present, both ladies and gentlemen, who agree with him in these views, and they wished to know whether such question as he wished to be broached and discussed, were in order on this platform or not.”
These doctrines were received by the audience with considerable applause! The hisses were only a few. The only objection made to Mr. Andrews’ proposition was by a gentleman from Newark, Mr. Moore, who said he
“Believed the human soul had not arrived at that development which would warrant the subversion of all that was decent and comely in mankind at the suggestion of impurity and sensuality.”
Several others followed; but it was mostly talk, talk. “Rev.” Antoinette L. Brown3 seemed to go in for something practical—she wanted the women to take right a hold—
“She argued that woman was adapted for agriculture, and urged the necessity of her going out West, where the soil is so rich as not to need expensive manure, and only wants a willing hand to call forth a luxuriant harvest. There women could build up homes for themselves, and obtain, by their labor, the means of comfort and independence.”
Nor did the proceedings pass off without a dash of fierceness. Mr. Moore aforesaid,
“Declared it to be his belief, that the cause of woman’s rights could only secure immediate recognition through a display of Sharpe’s rifles and a woman’s insurrection.”
What then! have we a prospect of stirring subjects for articles before us—a real mine to us poor newspaper writers?
The meeting adjourned until to-day, when they will go at it again. They offer upon the whole, the best illustrations yet of certain curious wandering phases of the American mind.