parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test: though a
different opinion prevails in this country, built on the very
arguments which you use to justify the oppression of woman,
prescription.

Consider, I address you as a legislator, whether, when men contend
for their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves,
respecting their own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust
to subjugate women, even though you firmly believe that you are
acting in the manner best calculated to promote their happiness?
Who made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the
gift of reason?

In this style, argue tyrants of every denomination from the weak
king to the weak father of a family; they are all eager to crush
reason; yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to be
useful. Do you not act a similar part, when you FORCE all women,
by denying them civil and political rights, to remain immured in
their families groping in the dark? For surely, sir, you will not
assert, that a duty can be binding which is not founded on reason?
If, indeed, this be their destination, arguments may be drawn from
reason; and thus augustly supported, the more understanding women
acquire, the more they will be attached to their duty,
comprehending it, for unless they comprehend it, unless their
morals be fixed on the same immutable principles as those of man,
no authority can make them discharge it in a virtuous manner. They
may be convenient slaves, but slavery will have its constant
effect, degrading the master and the abject dependent.

But, if women are to be excluded, without having a voice, from a