Woman surely should not aspire to the law making, or law executing power. Her wisdom could never invent disentanglements like the following:
It was necessary, a short time since, to prove in Michigan that a man had murdered a little son by his first wife, and this could only be done by the testimony of his second wife. According to Michigan law the testimony of his wife could not be received. The difficulty was surmounted by proving that when she married him she had another husband living. Though thus guilty of bigamy she was not her husband’s wife, her evidence was received, and in consequence the man was convicted.
Or how could any woman solve such a difficulty as this? It is in the Chicago Liberal: “Swear an Atheist? Upon what will you swear him?” asks a writer.
To which I reply, although I am not an Atheist; swear a Christian!
Upon what will you swear him? Not by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king; nor by the head, for you cannot make one hair white or black, see Matt ch. v.: 33, 34, 35. Upon what then, will you swear him? Why upon a book, which says, “swear not at all!”
Woman should not meddle with things above her. It takes men, male citizens, to work algebra like this.
Source: The Revolution 1868-07-02