Non-Fiction Book Club Bk 2: The Trial of Susan B. Anthony

Everything except LibriVox (yes, this is where knitting gets discussed. Now includes non-LV Volunteers Wanted projects)
Oxenhandler
Posts: 314
Joined: March 29th, 2010, 12:28 pm

Post by Oxenhandler »

My notes from Section 20, Speech by Matilda Joslyn Gage, Part 2

Where do men get the right to govern women? I have a natural right to obey the dictates of my own conscience. If you are physically stronger than I am and can prevent me from using these rights I still possess them.

People tell us it was not the intention to include women. Were not women intended to be included under the Constitution? The people of the United States are the party to the constitution. Declaring its ends is the most vital part of it. It was framed by the people to secure the benefits to themselves and their posterity. The intention to include women was a part of it. Women are a part of the people.

Women are presumed to be included under the freedom’s guaranteed by the constitution; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

This whole question of constitutional rights stands on the question if the United States is a nation. And citizenship if the premise for inclusion under the rights. National citizenship and National rights, not State rights. If not, the South was right in its claims to succession. The struggle was for State supremacy. The bitter struggle between State and National power was fought and Nation won. The 16th Amendment was added to the Constitution thereby.

Political rights in Great Britain are not personal rights, they are only property rights. In the United States representation if based upon personal, political rights. Naturalization and citizenship grant these same rights to immigrants. When certain states sought to vote themselves out, citizenship was defined as National. The rights of the States emanate from the Nation and its Constitution. A citizen of the United States must reside in a State. State laws may regulate suffrage but not prohibit it.

The moral battle now waging will settle the rights of women and the power of states over the individual political rights of the people. It is a question of a Monarchy over a Republic. A state has no rights not given to it by the constitution of the Nation. People are slow to comprehend the changes asserted by the amendments to State’s rights.

The 14th Amendment prohibits States from denying rights to citizens protected by the Constitution of the United States. The question of State’s rights are not so great as the question is can the United States overthrow, deny or abridge the right to vote to a citizen.

Section 21, coming soon…
Last edited by Oxenhandler on July 10th, 2016, 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Oxenhandler
Posts: 314
Joined: March 29th, 2010, 12:28 pm

Post by Oxenhandler »

My notes from Section 21, Speech by Matilda Joslyn Gage, Part 3

This 15th Amendment has been misunderstood to mean that women can be excluded from voting simply because they are women. It must be re-interpreted. Freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the right to a speedy trial, etc., are interpreted to apply to women. We are nothing but a nation of rights. We have nothing else to stand on.

Is it a crime to be a woman? United States officials declare it a crime for a United States citizen to vote, but have not the right to abridge that right to any of the people who are not specifically precluded and women are not so precluded by virtue of their sex.

Paul demanded by right the Roman’s scourged him. Paul replied, I am free born. The bonds were removed. Native born Roman citizenship was worth as much as that two thousand years ago. Immigrants to the United States are granted more rights than immigrants who become naturalized citizens.

The ballot is the only true republic. Individual responsibility is the only foundation of a republic. By charging Miss. Anthony with a crime is to deny the Constitution of the Nation. The civilization of the world is implicated by these charges. Women vote in Russia, Sweden and France and Britain on some offices. Property holding women in England vote for every office except parliamentary. England though a Monarchy is consistent with itself. Property holders have representation whether man or woman.

The question of this trial is not a woman’s right’s question but a citizen’s rights question. The whole question turns on the power of the United States Constitution to recognize the rights of its recognized citizens, who are women. There is no authority to restrain her. And we brand this prosecution as an illegal and infamous, defiant and subversive prosecution and a direct step to the establishment of a monarchy in this country.

Voting is a United States Constitutional right but the United States discriminates between citizens. The case against Miss. Anthony is a high handed outrage and unauthorized interference by the United States against the State of New York.

The prosecution presents a fine dilemma to the country to solve. Governments try themselves. Babylon, Rome and Egypt did not respect the rights of women and fell. The rights of human nature must prevail. Special renderings of law are the unvarying results if discrimination if permitted. If only men have the right to vote, women are subjects, not citizens.

Miss. Anthony’s struggle is the same as the struggle of the colonists against the crown. It is at this trial that republican institutions will have their grand test. Miss. Anthony is the representative of Liberty.

To you men of Ontario County, freedom has come looking for a fuller acknowledgement, your decision will be for yourselves and for your children’s children. You are to decide not according to prejudice but according to the Constitution of the United States. The underlying principles of the Republic is the exact and permanent equality of the people. May God help you.

Section 22, coming soon…
Oxenhandler
Posts: 314
Joined: March 29th, 2010, 12:28 pm

Post by Oxenhandler »

My notes on Section 22, Judge Hunt and the right to trial by jury

Criticism of Judge Hunt who took the case from the jury and ordered a verdict of guilty to be offered up.

Miss Anthony was charged with voting without the right to vote. She is accused of "knowingly" voting without the right to vote. And so, is deemed guilty of a crime. The defendant pleaded not guilty thus forcing the State to prove their case. She admits she handed four bits of paper folded like ballots to the registrars of voters at an election for congressional representatives. The council for the defendant interposed but without effect. Harken to your verdict. The jury was dismissed after no response to Judge Hunt’s question, speak if you have anything to say. One juror said after he would have spoken to say “guilty” was not his verdict but he did not assert himself.

The real injustice in as much as the real fact of her voting was not enough for conviction. She did not intend to do an illegal act. She did not have a criminal intent. If someone mistakenly voted when he was not entitled to, the question would be, did he intend to vote unlawfully? Miss. Anthony thoroughly believed she had a right to vote. She even consulted a lawyer to confirm her belief and he did and he testified to such at her trial.

The term “knowingly” applies to the lawfulness of the act. But the judge concluded her voting was illegal. Many say she ought to have known she had no right to vote. The question was entirely for the jury. The judge had no right to instruct the jury as to how to vote. There was nothing before the court but a pure question of law. Some assume in jury trials all questions of law are decided by the judge.

But if she believed she had a right to vote, she is not guilty of the charge. The jury could have taken that into question. The inspectors came to the conclusion she had the right to vote. It was not a pure question of law, there was something to go to the jury. If she conceded she had knowingly violated the law, the questions would be, had she voted and was that illegal.

In any case, the judge had not power to deal with evidence. The jury alone can deal with the facts. We will suppose a criminal is allowed to testify, but this did not occur, Miss. Anthony did not testify. If she had no belief that she had a right to vote, there would be no possible verdict for the jury to bring in but “guilty”. But there is still no power of the judge to order a verdict. It is for the jury to say what their verdict will be.

In criminal causes the jury are judges of the law as well as by the facts. The judge is to instruct the jury to the law. The question is ordinarily of little important except that here the judge laid down the law. The jury ought to have adopted the law to be applied but the instruction could find its way to the accused only through the jury. If a defendant pleads guilty there is no need for the jury to find him so. It is no less a question of fact for the reason that the evidence is all one way or the accused has confessed.

This case illustrates an important defect of the law. In this court an application for a new trial is applied to the same judge who tried the case. Judge Hunt refused to grant a new trial. Judge Hunt decided if he made a mistake or was unfair. The only remedy for a defendant is to appeal to the public. The public should pass its own judgement which is supreme. Her liberty was encroached.

End of my notes on The Trial of Susan B. Anthony by Anonymous

------------------

Mary and Maria, I keep thinking of this so let me write it here if I may: many of our founding fathers were not Quakers but Freemasons. I recently listened to Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" here on LibriVox. I highly recommend it. I'm not sure in what way or if at all, it reflects upon Miss. Anthony's case but it is enlightening generally.

Miss. Anthony's trial began in 1872 and women didn't get the vote at the National level until 1920, in between, chivalry died. In the end, it was decided, men are no longer obliged to protect women, not a victory for anyone in my opinion. Perhaps democracy and egalitarianism are overrated?
tony123
Posts: 1485
Joined: July 22nd, 2011, 4:34 pm
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

Post by tony123 »

You have done an amazing amount of work in these reviews, and I have been, and still am very interested in your views.

But you are expressing your opinions about what rights women should have and are claiming that times were better for men and women before women had the right to vote. In a large part of the world, women are treated as second class citizens. Life is not better under those circumstances.

In early times, men considered it their right to beat their wives. Those times were not better than nowadays. Women are not responsible if men decide to act less than chivalrous. Imagine a world where men and women considered each other absolute equals and treated each other with absolute respect. Wouldn't that be a better world?
Post Reply