hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 386 0 Browse Search
William H. Seward 168 0 Browse Search
Daniel Webster 145 1 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 132 2 Browse Search
Europe 130 0 Browse Search
John Brown 126 0 Browse Search
France (France) 110 0 Browse Search
William Lloyd Garrison 110 0 Browse Search
Louis Napoleon 96 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 92 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Wendell Phillips, Theodore C. Pease, Speeches, Lectures and Letters of Wendell Phillips: Volume 1. Search the whole document.

Found 93 total hits in 50 results.

1 2 3 4 5
Stephen Girard (search for this): chapter 4
irely filled in taking care of her household, her cares must be so extensive, that neither those of soldiers nor sailors nor merchants can be equal to them; she has not a moment to qualify herself for politics! Woman cannot be spared long enough from the kitchen to put in a vote, though Abbott Lawrence can be spared from the counting-house, though General Gaines or Scott can be spared from the camp, though the Lorings and the Choates can be spared from the courts. This is the argument: Stephen Girard cannot go to Congress; he is too busy; therefore, no man ever shall. Because General Scott has gone to Mexico, and cannot be President, therefore no man shall be. Because A. B. is a sailor, gone on a whaling voyage, to be absent for three years, and cannot vote, therefore no male inhabitant ever shall. Logic how profound I how conclusive! Yet this is the exact reasoning in the case of woman. Take up the newspapers. See the sneers at this movement. Take care of the children, Make th
Macaulay (search for this): chapter 4
the weight of a thousand years of mis-government, is the answer to those who doubt the ultimate success of this experiment. Woman stands now at the same door. She says, You tell me I have no intellect: give me a chance. You tell me I shall only embarrass politics: let me try. The only reply is the same stale argument that said to the Jews of Europe, You are fit only to make money; you are not fit for the ranks of the army or the halls of Parliament. How cogent the eloquent appeal of Macaulay,--What right have we to take this question for granted? Throw open the doors of this House of Commons, throw open the ranks of the imperial army, before you deny eloquence to the countrymen of Isaiah or valor to the descendants of the Maccabees. It is the same now with us. Throw open the doors of Congress, throw open those court-houses, throw wide open the doors of your colleges, and give to the sisters of the Motts and the Somervilles the same opportunities for culture that men have, an
Catholics (search for this): chapter 4
rs and husbands were Whigs. It would never do. It would produce endless quarrels. And the self-satisfied objector thinks he has settled the question. But, if the principle be a sound one, why not apply it m a still more important instance? Difference of religion breeds more quarrels than difference in politics. Yet we allow women to choose their own religious creeds, although we thereby run the risk of wives being Episcopalians while their husbands are Methodists, or daughters being Catholics while their fathers are Calvinists. Yet who, this side of Turkey, dare claim that the law should compel women to have no religious creed, or adopt that of their male relatives? Practically, this freedom in religion has made no difficulty; and probably equal freedom in politics would make as little. It is, after all, of little use to argue these social questions. These prejudices never were reasoned up, and, my word for it, they will never be reasoned down. The freedom of the press,
John Brown (search for this): chapter 4
he clothes, See that they are mended, See that the parlors are properly arranged. Suppose we grant it all. Are there no women but housekeepers? no women but mothers? 0 yes, many! Suppose we grant that the cares of a household are so heavy that they are greater than the cares of the president of a college; that he who has the charge of some hundreds of youths is less oppressed with care than the woman with three rooms and two children; that though President Sparks has time for politics, Mrs. Brown has not. Grant that, and still we claim that you should be true to your theory, and allow to single women those rights which she who is the mistress of a household and mother of a family has no time to exercise. Let women vote! cries one. Why, wives and daughters might be Democrats, while their fathers and husbands were Whigs. It would never do. It would produce endless quarrels. And the self-satisfied objector thinks he has settled the question. But, if the principle be a sound
Horace Mann (search for this): chapter 4
ion of woman to professional life and the higher ranks of intellectual exertion, up, and throw into her scale this omnipotent weight of your determination to be served by her, and by no other! In this matter, what you decide is law. There is one other light in which this subject is to be considered,--the freedom of ballot; and with a few words upon that, I will close these desultory remarks. As there is no use in educating a human being for nothing, so the thing is an impossibility. Horace Mann says, in the letter which has been read here, that he intends to write a lecture on Woman; and I doubt not he will take the stand which he has always done, that she should be book-taught for some dozen years, and then retire to domestic life, or the school-room. Would he give sixpence for a boy who could only say that he had been shut up for those years in a school? The unfledged youth who comes from college, -what is he? He is a man, and has been subjected to seven years tutoring; but
Elizabeth Heyrick (search for this): chapter 4
t they pass far above and over the heads of the other half. Yet, meanwhile, theorists wonder that the first have their whole nature unfolded, and the others will persevere in being dwarfed. Now, this great, world-wide, practical, ever-present education we claim for woman. Never, until it is granted her, can you decide what will be her ability. Deny statesmanship to woman? What I to the sisters of Elizabeth of England, Isabella of Spain, Maria Theresa of Austria; ay, let me add, of Elizabeth Heyrick, who, when the intellect of all England was at fault, and wandering in the desert of a false philosophy,--when Brougham and Romilly, Clarkson and Wilberforce, and all the other great and philanthropic minds of England, were at fault and at a dead-lock with the West India question and negro slavery,--wrote out, with the statesmanlike intellect of a Quaker woman, the simple yet potent charm,--immdiate, unconditional emancipation,--which solved the problem, and gave freedom to a race! H
Paradise Lost (search for this): chapter 4
laim of woman. The State has never laid the basis of right upon the distinction of sex; and no reason has ever been given, except a religious one,--that there are in the records of our religion commands obliging us to make woman an exception to our civil theories, and deprive her of that which those theories give her. Suppose that woman is essentially inferior to man,--she still has rights. Grant that Mrs. Norton never could be Byron; that Elizabeth Barrett never could have written Paradise Lost; that Mrs. Somerville never could be La Place, nor Sirani have painted the Transfiguration. What then? Does that prove they should be deprived of all civil rights? John Smith never will be, never can be, Daniel Webster. Shall he, therefore, be put under guardianship, and forbidden to vote? Suppose woman, though equal, to differ essentially in her intellect from man,--is that any ground for disfranchising her? Shall the Fultons say to the Raphaels, Because you cannot make steam-en
Julius Caesar (search for this): chapter 4
scussion of these questions,--What is the intellect of woman? Is it equal to that of man? Till then, all such discussion is mere beating of the air. While it is doubtless true that great minds, in many cases, make a way for themselves, spite of all obstacles, yet who knows how many Miltons have died mute and inglorious ? However splendid the natural endowment, the discipline of life, after all, completes the miracle. The ability of Napoleon,--what was it? It grew out of the hope to be Caesar or Marlborough,--out of Austerlitz and Jena,--out of his battle-fields, his throne, and all the great scenes of that eventful life. Open to woman the same scenes, immerse her in the same great interests and pursuits, and if twenty centuries shall not produce a woman Charlemagne or Napoleon, fair reasoning will then allow us to conclude that there is some distinctive peculiarity in the intellects of the sexes. Centuries alone can lay any fair basis for argument. I believe that, on this poi
Byron (search for this): chapter 4
ed, from the year 1688 until now, that does not cover the claim of woman. The State has never laid the basis of right upon the distinction of sex; and no reason has ever been given, except a religious one,--that there are in the records of our religion commands obliging us to make woman an exception to our civil theories, and deprive her of that which those theories give her. Suppose that woman is essentially inferior to man,--she still has rights. Grant that Mrs. Norton never could be Byron; that Elizabeth Barrett never could have written Paradise Lost; that Mrs. Somerville never could be La Place, nor Sirani have painted the Transfiguration. What then? Does that prove they should be deprived of all civil rights? John Smith never will be, never can be, Daniel Webster. Shall he, therefore, be put under guardianship, and forbidden to vote? Suppose woman, though equal, to differ essentially in her intellect from man,--is that any ground for disfranchising her? Shall the Fu
Maria Theresa (search for this): chapter 4
r the deepest nature of one half the nation; but they pass far above and over the heads of the other half. Yet, meanwhile, theorists wonder that the first have their whole nature unfolded, and the others will persevere in being dwarfed. Now, this great, world-wide, practical, ever-present education we claim for woman. Never, until it is granted her, can you decide what will be her ability. Deny statesmanship to woman? What I to the sisters of Elizabeth of England, Isabella of Spain, Maria Theresa of Austria; ay, let me add, of Elizabeth Heyrick, who, when the intellect of all England was at fault, and wandering in the desert of a false philosophy,--when Brougham and Romilly, Clarkson and Wilberforce, and all the other great and philanthropic minds of England, were at fault and at a dead-lock with the West India question and negro slavery,--wrote out, with the statesmanlike intellect of a Quaker woman, the simple yet potent charm,--immdiate, unconditional emancipation,--which sol
1 2 3 4 5