he laws of man affect that
character beyond a very slight degree. Whatever rights may be
given to them, and whatever duties may be charged upon them by
human laws, their general character will remain unchanged. Their
modesty, their delicacy, and intuitive sense of propriety, will
never desert them, into whatever new positions their added rights
or duties may carry them.

So far as women, without change of character as women, are
qualified to discharge the duties of citizenship, they will
discharge them if called upon to do so, and beyond that they will
not go. Nature has put barriers in the way of any excessive
devotion of women to public affairs, and it is not necessary that
nature's work in that respect should be supplemented by
additional barriers invented by men. Such offices as women are
qualified to fill will be sought by those who do not find other
employment, and others they will not seek, or if they do, will
seek in vain. To aid in removing as far as possible the
disheartening difficulties which women dependent upon their own
exertions encounter, it is, I think, desirable that such official
positions as they can fill should be thrown open to them, and
that they should be given the same power that men have to aid
each other by their votes. I would say, remove all legal barriers
that stand in the way of their finding employment, official or
unofficial, and leave them, as men are left, to depend for
success upon their character and their abilities. As long as men
are allowed to act as milliners, with what propriety can they
exclude women from the post of school commissioners when chosen
to such positions by their neighbors?

To deny them such rights, is to leave them in a condition of
political servitude as absolute as that of the African slaves
before their emancipation. This conclusion is readily to be
deduced from the opinion of Chief-Justice Jay in the case of
Chisholm's Ex'rs _vs._ The State of Georgia (2 Dallas, 419-471),
although the learned Chief-Justice had of course no idea of any
such application as I make of his opinion. The action was
assumpsit by a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and the
question was, whether the United States Court had jurisdiction,
the State of Georgia declining to appear. The Chief-Justice