ven those who took no interest in the
slave question, would have shrunk from so barbarous a thing. But
no sooner was it passed, than the ignorant mass, the rabble of
the self-styled Union Safety Committee, found out that we were a
law-loving, law-abiding people! Such is the magic power of Law.
Hence the necessity to guard against bad ones. Hence also the
reason why we call on the nation to remove the legal shackles
from woman, and it will have a beneficial effect on that still
greater tyrant she has to contend with, Public Opinion.

Carry out the republican principle of universal suffrage, or
strike it from your banners and substitute "Freedom and Power to
one half of society, and Submission and Slavery to the other."
Give woman the elective franchise. Let married women have the
same right to property that their husbands have; for whatever the
difference in their respective occupations, the duties of the
wife are as indispensable and far more arduous than the
husband's. Why then should the wife, at the death of her husband,
not be his heir to the same extent that he is heir to her? In
this inequality there is involved another wrong. When the wife
dies, the husband is left in the undisturbed possession of all
there is, and the children are left with him; no change is made,
no stranger intrudes on his home and his affliction. But when the
husband dies, the widow, at best receives but a mere pittance,
while strangers assume authority denied to the wife. The
sanctuary of affliction must be desecrated by executors;
everything must be ransacked and assessed, lest she should steal
something out of her own house: and to cap the climax, the
children must be placed under guardians. When the husband dies
poor, to be sure, no guardian is required, and the children are
left for the mother to care and toil for, as best she may. But
when anything is left for their maintenance, then it must be
placed in the hands of strangers for safe keeping! The
bringing-up and safety of the children are left with the mother,
and safe they are in her hands. But a few hundred or thousand
dollars can not be intrusted with her!

But, say they, "in case of a second marriage, the children must
be protected in their property." Does that reason not hold as
good in the case