The Revolution: Vol. 1 - No. 1 (January 8, 1868)

VOL. I.—NO. 1.
$2.00 A- YEAR.
The Revolution;
the organ of the
national party of new America.
principle, not policy—individual rights and responsibilities.

1. In Politics—Educated Suffrage, Irrespective of Sex or Color; Equal Pay to Women for Equal Work; Eight Hours Labor; Abolition of Standing Armies and Party Despotisms. Down with Politicians—Up with the People!
2. In Religion—Deeper Thought; Broader Idea; Science not Superstition; Personal Purity; Love to Man as well as God.
8. In Social Life.—Morality and Reform ; Practical Education, not Theoretical; Facts not Fiction ; Virtue not Vice; Cold Water not Alcoholic Drinks or Medicines. It will Indulge in no Gross Personalities and insert no Quack or Immoral Advertisements, so common even in Religious Newspapers.
4. The Revolution proposes a new Commercial and financial Policy. America no longer led by Europe. Gold like our Cotton and Corn for sale. Greenbacks for money. An American-System of finance. American Products and Labor Free. Foreign Manufactures Prohibited. Open doors to Artisans and Immigrants. Atlantic and Pacific Oceans for American Steamships and Shipping; or American goods in American bottoms. New York the Financial Centre of the World. Wall Street emancipated from Bank of England, or American Cash for American Bills. The Credit Foncier and Credit Mobilier System, or Capital Mobilized to Resuscitate the South and our Mining Interests, and to People the Country from Ocean to Ocean, from Omaha to San Francisco. More organized Labor, more Cotton, more Gold and Silver Bullion to sell foreigners at the highest prices. Ten millions of Naturalized Citizens Demand a Penny Ocean Postage, to Strengthen the Brotherhood of Labor; and if Congress Vote One Hundred and Twenty-five Millions for a Standing Army and Freedman's Bureau, cannot they spare One Million to Educate Europe and to keep bright the chain of acquaintance and friendship between those millions and their fatherland?
Send in your Subscription. The Revolution, published weekly, will be the Great Organ of the Age.
TERMS,—Two dollars a year, in advance. Ten names ($20) entitle the sender to one copy free.


Proprietor and Manager. 37 Park Row (Room 17), New York City. To whom address all business letters.

The question of the enfranchisement of woman has already passed the court of moral discussion and is now fairly ushered into the arena of politics, where it must remain a fixed element of debate, until party necessity shall compel its success.
With 9,000 votes in Kansas, one-third the entire vote, every politician must see that the friends of “woman's suffrage” hold the balance of power in that State to-day. And those 9,000 votes represent a principle deep in the hearts of the people, for this triumph was secured without money, without a press, without a party. With these instrumentalities now fast coming to us on all sides, the victory in Kansas is but the herald of greater victories in every State of the Union. Kansas already leads the world in her legislation for women on questions of property, education, wages, marriage and divorce. Her best universities are open alike to boys and girls. In fact woman has a voice in the legislation of that State. She votes on all school questions and is eligible to the office of trustee. She has a voice in temperance too; no license is granted without the consent of a majority of the adult citizens, male and female, black and white. The consequence is, stone school houses are voted up in every part of the State, and rum voted down. Many of the ablest men in that State are champions of woman's cause. Governors, judges, lawyers and clergymen. Two-thirds of the press and pulpits advocate the idea, in spite of the opposition of politicians. The first Governor of Kansas, twice-chosen to that office, Charles Robinson, went all through the State, speaking every day for two months in favor of woman's suffrage. In the organization of the State government, he proposed that the words “white male” should not be inserted in the Kansas constitution. All this shows that giving political rights to women is no new idea in that State. Who that has listened with tearful eyes to the deep experiences of those Kansas women, through the darkest hours of their history, does not feel that such bravery and self denial as they have shown alike in war and peace, have richly earned for them the crown of citizenship.
Opposed to this moral sentiment of the liberal minds of the State, many adverse influences were brought to bear through the entire campaign.
The action of the New York Constitutional Convention; the silence of eastern journals on the question; the opposition of abolitionists lest a demand for woman's suffrage should defeat negro suffrage ; the hostility everywhere of black men themselves; some even stumping the State against woman's suffrage ; the official action of both the leading parties in their conventions in Leavensworth against the proposition, with every organized Republican influence outside as well as inside the State, all combined might have made our vote comparatively a small one, had not George Francis Train gone into the State two weeks before the election and galvanized the Democrats into their duty, thus securing 9,000 votes for woman's suffrage. Some claim that we are indebted to the Republicans for this vote ; but the fact that the most radical republican district, Douglass County, gave the largest vote against woman's suffrage, while Leavenworth, the Democratic district, gave the largest vote for it, fully settles that question.
In saying that Mr. Train helped to swell our vote takes nothing from the credit due all those who labored faithfully for months in that State. All praise to Olympia Brown, Lucy Stone, Susan B. Anthony, Henry B. Blackwell, and Judge Wood, who welcomed, for an idea; the hardships of traveling in a new State, fording streams, scaling rocky brinks, sleeping on the ground and eating hard tack, with the fatigue of constant speaking, in school-houses, barns, mills, depots and the open air; and especially, all praise to the glorious Hutchinson family— John, his son Henry and daughter, Viola—who, with their own horses and carriage, made the entire circuit of the state, singing Woman's Suffrage into souls that logic could never penetrate. Having shared with them the hardships, with them I rejoice in our success.
e. c. s.

The Revolution will contain a series of articles, beginning next week, to prove the power of the ballot in elevating the character and condition of woman. We shall show that the ballot will secure for woman equal place and equal wages in the world of work ; that it will open to her the schools, colleges, professions and all the opportunities and advantages of life ; that in her hand it will be a moral power to stay the tide of vice and crime and misery on every side. In the words of Bishop Simpson—
“We believe that the great-vices in our large cities will never be conquered until the ballot is put in the hands of women. If the question of the danger of their sons being drawn away into drinking saloons was brought up, if the mothers had the power, they would close them ; if the sisters had the power, and they saw their brothers going away to haunts of infamy, they would close those places. You may get men to trifle with purity, with virtue, with righteousness ; but, thank God, the hearts of the women of our land—the mothers, wives and daughters—are too pure to make a compromise either with intemperance or licentiousness.”
Thus, too, shall we purge our constitutions and statute laws from all invidious distinctions among the citizens of the States, and secure the same civil and moral code for man and woman. We will show the hundred thousand female teachers, and the millions of laboring women, that their complaints, petitions, strikes and protective unions are of no avail until they hold the ballot in their own hands; for it is the first step toward social, religious and political equality.

England leads. A woman has voted in regular form and lives ; and the British realm survives the shock. The Queen and Lady's Newspaper, an elegant London journal, and of most liberal tendencies, contains the following report:
The contest for the representation of Manchester last week brought into prominence a new element among voters. While some people talk, others act; and so, while a great deal of wordy discussion has been going on as to whether women, who pay taxes, shall have the right of voting as to who shall spend the money collected Mrs. Lily Maxwell appears to have acted to some purpose. Her name, by some means or other, had got enrolled In the list of electors ; and when, she presented herself, in the midst of a species of mild triumphal procession, to record her vote for Mr. Jacob Bright, [brother of John Bright,] The clerk had no alternative but to take the proffered vote and record it along with those tendered by persons of the more favored sex.
The name “Lily Maxwell” is registered (No. 12,826) as that of a person entitled to vote for the Parliamentary borough of Manchester. How this came about no one has yet told us. It is suggested that the registrar may have supposed Lily to be a masculine, name. We do not in the least see how such a mistake could arise. Had like name been Sidney or Frances, or some others which are [illegible] by both men and women, and are nearly [illegible], we could have understood the mistake; or if it happened (as it does not unfrequently in Scotland) that the [illegible] voter had been called by a really masculine name, the origin of the mistake would have been [illegible]. But the name “Lily” is so essentially feminine, that [illegible] look for some other explanation. We suppose that the lady will hardly come forward herself to enlighten us. But the plan that succeeded once might be [illegible] again; and the registrar of voters for Manchester will, no doubt, be on his guard in the future, lest other female voters should be found on his lists.
The vote was not given secretly or in a by-the-way fashion. “Lily Maxwell” was accompanied to the [Illegible] Town Hall where she recorded her vote, by Miss Becker, the Secretary of the Woman Suffrage Society of Manchester. This conjunction is ominous. Morever, a number of persons, among whom were several members of the All Saints Ward Committee, accompanied the ladies to and from the poll.
The Times has laughed at, and sneered no little about the event, and has said that women do not care about political power—that is, about votes. But the instance on which the comments were made proves the contrary, and has shown that, if women had votes, they would probably be perfectly able sensibly to use the power thus given them.
The following letter from Miss Becker, to the editor of the Times, has appeared in that journal:

"8TH: Will you permit me to say that the Woman's Suffrage Society of Manchester is not responsible for the occurrence of Mrs. Lily Maxwell's name on the register of electors for this city? We do not know how it came there, but, finding it on the register, the owner of the name used her vote in accordance with her political opinions.
“Lily Maxwell is a widow, who keeps a small shop in a quiet street of Manchester. She supports herself and pays her own rates and taxes out of her own earnings. She has no man to influence or be influenced by, and she has very decided political principles, which determined her vote for Mr. Jacob Bright at the recent election. We are perfectly aware that a legal scrutiny might result in depriving this house-holder and rate-payer of the privilege of the franchise; but, though such a decision might be legal, we are unable to perceive why it would be equitable to take away her vote from a person who has proved that she values the privilege, and who fulfills every condition which the law declares essential to its exercise. Yours, etc.,”
“Lydia. E. Becker, Hon. Secretary Manchester National Society for Women's Suffrage.
“113 Carter street, Greenheys, Nov. 80.”

The Queen is in no respect a political journal; but we think this matter quite worthy of record, and interesting to our readers as a fact, whether they regard the franchise as suitable for women or not.


The Independent thinks, and very justly, that it is a very rare circumstance that a black person and a white wish to marry each other. But if any two such persona do wish to marry, it is impertinent and oppressive for other people, and particularly for legislator, to interfere. But it seems that the Alabama Convention not only propose to prevent the making of such marriages in the future, but to annul all such marriages made in the past. This is an over-sight on the part of that convention; for the number of whites and blacks who ought to be married to one another in Alabama is already far greater than the number who are so married. The true legislation for Alabama is the solemnization, not the nullification, of such marriage.

On suffrage for women at the Brooklyn Academy, Dec. 26.

Mrs. Stone's lecture, last evening, was logical and persuasive, varied with argument, fact, and pathos. She gave an able digest of our oppressive laws for woman, and many touching incidents of every-day life. We give the report of her speech from the World, as the best we find in any of the daily journals:
Mrs. Stone said the subject she brought before the audience was not a new one in Brooklyn. Whatever might be the case in other places, there was one voice often heard in Brooklyn in regard to the question; so that when she came there to speak about woman's Suffrage she felt that she need not tell all that there was to be told about it. Yet she should go back to the early history of the country to adduce one reason why women ought to vote, and from that they would see that the claim was by no means a new one; but was at least as old as the Declaration of Independence. When the war of the Revolution was upon them, the fathers learned the lessons of suffering, and declared that political power inheres in the people; they learned that political power accrued to the people by right; and they wrote their convictions in the immortal Declaration, in those words so beautiful and so strong that “All governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed.” That was a self-evident proposition, which he who runs may read; and it has been adopted as the foundation of liberty in the Republic. But when women come to claim their right under the Declaration; when they assert that they are a part of the people in whom political power inheres; when they ask that their rights may be recognized, she did not see how their claims could be fairly denied. Now the only way in which the consent of the governed is to be obtained in regard to any government is by suffrage. It could not be otherwise. For if it he said that silence gives consent, then that gives a right of existence to despotism; for silence might give a claim to any kind of government. By means of suffrage only could the assent or dissent of the people be obtained in regard to any principles, measures, or men. From the right of suffrage, however, were excluded non-naturalized inhabitants of the country; minors also, because it was supposed that they had not arrived at discretion to make a rational choice; criminals, also, because as they had made war on society, society protected itself by taking away their power as law makers; idiots and lunatics also, because they were incompetent to act rationally in such a matter. But all these exceptions did not conflict with the groat principle that political right inheres in the people; but when you disfranchise a woman, you do violate that great principle; because nobody denies that she has every human faculty and is perfectly able to act intelligently. What man would deny that his mother was capable of acting rationally in the matter of the suffrage? What man would say that his wife couldnot vote rationally? And if any man should say that the wife of his choice was a fool, the fault lay with himself and it ought to put him in the category of excepted persons. The great mass of women were as well educated, and a great deal more moral than a great many men. It was truly said that the negroes who fought in the war, the men who wore the blue uniform, and who did gallant service for the country, had the right to vote. But when the mothers who sent forth their sons to the great struggle—when they claim to give expression to their opinions in reference to the laws which they are required to obey —no matter how patriotic, how loyal they might have been, the claim of these women is rejected. Women, indeed, are fined—imprisoned—hanged—and to none was ever yet granted the right of a trial by her peers. She was, in fact, governed without her consent, in spite of all the beautiful theories and the Declaration of Independence which all men swear by. Men said it was “a self-evident truth that Governments exist only by the just consent of the governed”—yet when women urge their claim to the suffrage, they said it was a glittering generality. Lincoln said that if men could govern without the consent of the governed—if that was not wrong, nothing was wrong. In fact there can be no argument against a self-evident truth. Well, then, why deny its application to the case of women? But this question had advanced beyoud the stage of ridicule, and was becoming a topic of serious and solemn discussion. For two days it had been deliberated In the State Convention; and as the members of that body had negatived the proposition, the women of New York would have to wait twenty years before they could obtain this right. In regard to the question what advantage it would be to women to vote, she said it was necessary for her protection—to enable her to obtain employment on juster terms; to give her a fair control of her property, whether as wife or widow; and to enable her to obtain equal rights in regard to the disposal of her children. She cited a great number of State laws bearing upon these points, and said that in all instances they pressed most unjustly upon women. The lecturer went on to comment on the injustice of the law which empowered men to will away from their children the property acquired by the mutual labor and economy of the husband and wife; a law which she said existed in every State of the Union but two. It was not, she asserted, by any means a dead law, and in illustration gave several instances in which, to her knowledge, it had been put into operation. And not only was the control of her property taken away from the married woman, but also the control of her children. The old barbarous law of England in respect to the rights and status of women was the law of nearly every part of the Union to this day; a law which gives her to her husband as a chattel, annihilated her personality, and only preserves her the right of being maintained. The slave women in the South understood the practical bearing of this state of things, and in consequence were averse to marriage. They did not want to marry, they said, for then the man could “take the egg, the chicken, and the turkey when be please and sell them;” but, when not married, then they had “the egg, the chicken, and the turkey, and can sell them and get the money.” So it was with the white woman. She had no legal existence; in the eye of the law the husband and wife were one, and the husband was that one. In one State the law was that if the husband went out of the State, or was put into the State prison, the wife could use their property, but when the husband returned to the State, or got out of the prison he resumed control over the property. She (the lecturer) was glad to see that everywhere women were beginning to recognize these facts, and that everywhere men and women were joining together in the endeavor to secure the right of suffrage. Petitions to that end were sent to the Legislature from almost every State, and in every State were found good, earnest persons of both sexes who advocated the measure. The newspapers too, were, many of them, coming out in favor of it, a thing unknown a short time ago. In Kansas they had submitted three Constitutional questions to the vote of the people: First, whether the word “white” should be omitted from the constitution; Second, whether the word “male” should be omitted from it, and Third, whether the rebels should be allowed to vote, and for the second of these propositions 9,000 votes were received out of 23,000; and, as Gov. Robinson, of Kansas said in a letter he wrote only the other day, when the questions of negro suffrage and woman suffrage shall be discussed on their merits both measures will carry. But it was a cause of regret to see that neither political party in the country was willing to base the new constitutions on the will of the people. The Democrats said this was a white men's government; the Republicans said this was a man's government. It should be universal amnesty and universal suffrage, and then the questions which agitated the country would be settled easily. But when women said they wanted the privilege of the vote they were asked. Would it not make discord at home? Would not the husband want to vote one way and the wife the other? These men who talked thus seemed to think that if the wife had the privilege to vote it would lead to fisticuffs immediately, and instead of trusting God that what he made true he would make safe, they asked this miserable question. She (the lecturer) liked to go down on election day and see her superiors vote; it did one good sometimes to have one's indignation warmed up. She saw on such occasions that the politicians were very bland in their manner. They beamed with good nature and made friends with every voter whose vote they wanted to secure. And if this was the case when a vote was to be secured by them from men, how much more would it be the case when votes were to be secured by men from women, There would bo peace and amiability in the house—at least at election times. (Laughter.) But seriously the objection was not, as the audience knew, of any worth. On religious questions it was found that husband and wife could respect each other's convictions, and live peacefully, though differing in opinion, and if this was the case in so vital a matter as religion, would it not be so in politics also? Another class of objectors feared that if women voted they would become demoralised and lose their self respect. Yet it was considered that this same voting would be a capital thing for the negroes; that it would educate them and raise their standard of morals and intellect. But just think, said the objectors, of women going to the polls and mingling with drunken, vulgar swearing men. They forget that these same men had wives and sisters and daughters. If living with these men all the time did not hurt these women, how could half an hour at the polls do so? But granting that there was some force in the objection, why not have separate polls for men and women? But there was no force in the objection. As Henry Ward Beecher said, “If any man molested a woman at the polls, the crowd would swallow him up as the whale swallowed Jonah.” In Kansas, the women were allowed to vote in school matters, and the men at such elections came nicely dressed, and there was no profanity, no vulgarity, no drunkenness. It was objected again that even if women were allowed to vote, they would vote as their husbands told them. That could not be told till it was tried. But if it would be so, why should men object to their voting? They ought to be glad to get their vote and have ho much more political influence. It was said again that women did not want to vote. Now, a great many of them did want to vote, as they showed by their earnest endeavors to get the right to do so, and why not make it so that those who wish to could? But it was said that if they voted they would next want to hold office. There were so many more men wanting offices than there were offices for them, that the claim was quite natural. Women ought to hold office. There were surely women in the United States that would fill the Presidential chair as well as Andy Johnson. It was objected once more that women should not vote because they did not fight. But how large was the list of men excepted from the duty of fighting who yet claimed the right to vote. And why should the man who perils his life in battle have the right to vote, and not the woman who periled her life when the soldier is born into the world? Mrs. Stone proceeded to set up and knock down the arguments against women suffrage in the same manner, and ended in a lengthy address, with an appeal to the men of Brooklyn to give their influence to that cause, which she recommended should be done by signing petitions in favor of the principle of female suffrage as had been done extensively in other parts. There was every reason, she said, why men should vote, and why women should vote with them. They should not suppose that conferring the suffrage on the negro only would bring prosperity to the nation. They must give their right also to the fifteen millions of women who were now unjustly deprived of them. Do this and our future national prosperity would be secured ; but fail to do it and that security was indefinitely postponed. The path of justice was the only path of safety. The remarks of the fair lecturer were concluded amid applause.

GRANT—WHERE HE STANDS.—The party newspapers are continually asking Gen. Grant where he stands; to which the General might very aptly reply to the Radicals or Democrats, Gentlemen, where do you stand?— N.Y. Herald.
In one respect the two parties are nearly alike. The Democrats have no candidate. The Republicans come so near that, as to remind one of the man who did not believe in ministers, and yet sent for one to bury his wife. “I thought,” said the minister, “you did not believe in having anything at a funeral.” “True,” replied the other, “and I called you in as the nearest to that, possible.” Both parties seem reduced to a pitiful orphanage. Artemus Ward would wail over them as more " babes in the woods." What a burlesque when on the stormiest sea that ever shook its terrors in the face of the poor mariner, with the gloomiest night evidently impending too ever yet encountered by a nation, to call one to the helm whose only virtue at best is that they do not absolutely know his utter unfitness, and to confess their fear that if they do not so assign him, the other party will; and that other party charged too all the while by the Republicans, as deliberately conspiring with the yet unconnquered rebels to complete the overthrow of the government!



Monday night George Francis Train and Susan B. Anthony were invited to address the people at Rahway, New Jersey, by the Athenaeum society, on the Enfranchisement of Women. A splendid audience greeted the reformers, and Mr. Train spoke for two hours for the glorious cause. Miss Anthony having just returned from Washington, where she had been introducing her new journal, The Revolution, Mr. Train interrupted her by asking about the capital. The following sketch describes a scene that the citizens of Rahway will not soon forget:
TRAIN—Whom did you see at the Capital?
TRAIN—What did Everybody say to you? (Laughter.)
ANTHONY—They said as Revolutions never go backward, they would all subscribe for the new organ of the age. (Applause)
TRAIN—Did you see Ben Wade ?
ANTHONY—Yes; he led the Senate subscription; he is a royal old fellow. Go ahead, he said; push on; noble cause, and must win eventually; we are too busy now to take it up, but it has got to come; here is my name and two dollars, and thank you too. (Applause.)
TRAIN—What did Sumner say?
ANTHONY—Did not see him; you have to go to his house; he never acknowledges cards sent in to the Senate; but I saw Wilson. He was very gruff; said that Mrs. Stanton and myself, during the last two years, had done more to block reconstruction than all others in the land. But he subscribed nevertheless, for he said, "I shall want to know what you say to us." (Applause.) Senator Pomeroy seemed sore about the Kansas matter, though he is a good friend of the cause of woman, and he subscribed for The Revolution and paid two dollars in gold, saying, "You see I have commenced specie payments. "
Ex-Gov. Boot, of Kansas, being present, said, " You did a good work in Kansas, Miss Anthony, but you should not charge the Republican party with opposing woman's suffrage. It was only individual Republicans."
MISS ANTHONY—The reverse of that is true. It was only individuals who helped us. Your State Central Committee declared themselves neutral, and then sent out, as agents, all the prominent anti-female suffrage men and not one prominent advocate of the cause in the whole state.
TRAIN—Who else did you see?
ANTHONY—Senators Anthony, Howe, Henderson, Nye and Drake were yery friendly, and Senator Fowler said we must go into Tennessee. He would write to Nashville and Memphis at once. Did not think they were educated up to the question, but said woman's voting was only a question of time. The Republicans were bound in honor to take up the measure as soon as they could afford it. (Applause.')
TRAIN—Did Senator Sprague subscribe ?
ANTHONY—No; he don't believe in us. Said it was as much as we could do now to manage the women without the ballot (laughter), and with it there would be no managing them at all.
TRAIN—Did you see our Nebraska Senator?
ANTHONY—Yes; Senator Thayer don't believe in woman's suffrage; said we had killed the negro question in Kansas and hoped we would not go into Nebraska: and refused to subscribe. I can only say it was his loss. But Senator Tipton is another style of man; he paid his money. Said Revolution is a splendid name. You are all right. The cause is glorious. He seemed disappointed that Thayer did not subscribe. Senator Grimes is with us. I remarked that Theodore Tilton said Iowa will first give us woman suffrage. Yes, replied the Senator, we shall be close upon the heels of the first State if not the first. Senators Conness, Patterson, and Senator Hendricks are too far behind the age to believe in it. California should be more advanced, but I am not surprised at Indiana and Tennessee. (Laughter and applause.) Senator Chandler said No to me with an emphasis. Michigan is more wide awake than her Senator. He seems to forget that his own State Convention recently gave nineteen votes for women and that that small balance of power may, some day, throw him out of the Senate. (Applause.)
The audience were much entertained by Miss Anthony's prompt replies and Mr. Train's persistent pumping to find out what the Congressmen had to say. Miss Anthony had a long list of the leading names of the country, all obtained for The Revolution in two days, and said that some of the Senators told her to come back after the holidays and get the rest of them.
TRAIN—How about the House. Did you get Colfax?
ANTHONY—Yes; he put down his name and paid his money like a man; (applause), but Julian was the first to sign; and he told me that when he saw the name of Parker Pillsbury in the Prospectus as an Editor, he felt that we had made a wise selection; for, of all the old abolitionists he considered him the most prophetic, and at the same time one of the most able of that eminent class of reformers. Elliot said if we raise the wages of the school teachers we shall lose all our daughters. It might be said Mr. Elliot's daughter has a thousand dollar position in the Normal school of St Louis (applause), where the principal, Miss Brocket, gets two thousand, the highest salary paid among the one hundred thousand woman teachers in America who look to The Revolution as the organ of woman's enfranchisement (Applause.) Mr. Pile, of Missouri, was very friendly, so was General Banks, who seemed to be a great friend of yours, Mr. Train, and said the only trouble with Mr. Train is he has too muvh brain, and the politicians have to call him crazy to get rid of him. (Loud laughter and applause.)
TRAIN—If I thought I was as sane as most of our politicians who are ruining the country, I would jump overboard, or follow Cato's plan, fall on my sword. (Loud laughter.)
ANTHONY—Baker of Illinois, and Lawrence of Ohio, were both advocates. Lawrence at first said we don't need The Revolution. Baker said we do and asked Lawrence where there was a paper that would speak for the cause of women without a sneer? Lawrence admitted that it was so. The only argument men had was sarcasm, or an insult. (That's so.) The most disagreeable man I met was Oakes Ames, who said Train told him all about us and our paper in New York. He don't believe in women voting, but I think they would make better Representatives than himself. (Laughter.)
TRAIN—Did you see Forney?
ANTHONY—Oh, yes, Forney said, Just the thing Revolution—splendid name! just the thing— subscribe for it ? Yes, and he did it not as some editors do, beg for a dead-head ticket (Laughter.) He said he would give an editorial notice and recommend it to all his friends. The editor of the Republican was also up to time.
TRAIN—Did you see the newspaper reporters. They are the important men of the time? (Applause.)
ANTHONY—Yes. Boynton, Young, Hinton, Seville, Adams, and others, all had a kind word for this new sister of the Press—The Revolution. (Applause.)
TRAIN—When do you return to get the other members ?
ANTHONY—After the holidays, when you, Mr. Train, and Mrs. Stanton are both invited to speak before the Woman's Suffrage Association at Washington. ^
TRAIN—Did Colfax give you the House of Representatives?
Anthony—I have not yet received his answer.
TRAIN—How about the Cabinet. Did you get Seward ?
ANTHONY—No, he was not at home, but Geo. E. Baker, his private secretary, was very friendly and subscribed at once. He is with us heart and hand.
TRAIN—Did you see McCulloch?
ANTHONY—Yes, surrounded with all the luxury of his three thousand millions for the rich and nothing for the poor, as you say. (Sensation.) He said “No” emphatically. He said we were all wrong. The most disastrous thing that could happen to woman was for her to enter into politics. Woman was no equal of man. Let her keep her place at home, and let men attend to governing the nation. Man will protect woman.
TRAIN—All the protection woman wants is against some other man (laughter), and if men don't govern better than McCulloch, the nation must go to ruin. (Applause.) Wait till The Revolution opens upon the incompetent minister, and unless he stops playing into England's hands to bring on a panic and throw our people out of employment, he will be thrown out of the cabinet in ninety days, (Loud applause.) Seward might say sixty. (Laughter.) But who else did you see?
ANTHONY—General Fremont, who subscribed at once. I knew, the husband of Jesse Fremont would stand by the noble cause of the emancipation of her sex. (Applause.)
TRAIN—Did you go to the White House?
ANTHONY—Oh, yes. I had forgotten my interview with the President. I waited two hours in the ante-room among the huge half bushel measure spittoons, and terrible filth of the outer chambers, where the smell of tobacco and whiskey was powerful, and I could but mentally enquire if the ante-room of the Empress at the Tuilleries in Paris, or Queen Victoria, two women rulers (applause), were as condescending to their guests as to put up placards at the entrance of Buckingham Palace and the Tuffleries—Gentlemen, Please use the spittoons. (Laughter.) Johnson stood at his desk. Said "No," had a thousand such applications every day; more papers than he could read. I told him he was mistaken. That he never had such an application in his life. You recognize, I said, Mr. Johnson, that Mrs. Stanton and myself, for two years, have boldly told the Republican party that they must give ballots to women as well as negroes, and by means of The Revolution we are bound to drive the party to logical conclusions, or break it into a thousand pieces as was the old Whig party, unless we get our rights. (Applause.) That brought him to his pocket book, and he signed his name Andrew Johnson, with a bold hand, as much as to say, anything to get rid of this woman and break the radical party. (Loud applause and laughter.)

The New Haven Palladium publishes the following from a correspondent who, it says, is on intimate terms with Gen. Grant, and who had a free interview with him :
“Speaking of the strictures of the New York Tribune on his reticence, Gen. Grant said, if there be in these complaints any assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in them any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I will not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in them an impatient and dictatorial tone, I wave it in deference to others who have a light to speak and think as they may be prompted by a sense of duty. As to my principles, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the country. I would save it in the shortest way, under the Constitution. If there be those who would not save the country unless they could at the same time save their own theories, I do not agree with them. My wish is to save the country, and. as soon as possible to restore all the States to their proper relations as such, and upon the principle of even-handed justice. What I do in the premises, I do because I believe it helps to save the country; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do believe it helps to save the country. I shall do less, whenever I believe that what I am doing hurts the cause. I shall do more, whenever I shall believe that doing more will help the cause. I have now stated my own sense of personal and official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-repeated personal wish, that all men may be permitted to think freely, and all, on suitable occasions, speak out what they think, it by so doing they can benefit mankind and help to save the country." ,
The Palladium and other journals that rejoice in the wisdom displayed in the above, may admire it even more when they trace it to its source as in the following remarkable and not wholly forgotten letter, dated,
“Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.”
“Hon. Horace Greeley—Dear Sir: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself, through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
"As to the policy I 'seem to be pursuing,' as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
"I would save the Union. I would save it in the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the National authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be 1 the Union as it was/ If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union ; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do net believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause ; and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors ; and I shall adopt new views as fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose, according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free.
"Yours, A. Lincoln."

From the New York Citizen.
GEORGE FRANCES TRAIN, one of the most brilliant and certainly one of the most eccentric intellects of our time, is now running for President, on a track of his own laying down, at the highest rate of speed ever attained by any political locomotive. He has been already nominated in over one hundred mass-meetings for the office to which he aspires, and some of the issues on which he has taken his stand are of the most decided character. He is for woman's rights in all their integrity, and by his eloquence on the stump in the late Kansas elections caused seven thousand votes to be cast in favor of admitting women to the right of suffrage. The second plank in his platform is total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, which at once enrolls under his banner the countless and thoroughly-disciplined Temperance Societies from Maine to California. Lastly—at least, lastly of his leading issues—Mr. Train is warmly and powerfully identified with the Irish cause, and has made some of the most striking and epigrammatic speeches ever uttered on that side of the question. And who can have forgotten how nobly Train battled in England for the cause of our National government, during the earlier and darker days of the late war ? He then carried the war into Africa and kept John Bull so busily occupied in defending himself, that said John had but little time or inclination for further assaults upon Uncle Sam. Train is about thirty-five or thirty-eight years of age, well built, broad-shouldered, with swarthy and regular features, an immense shook of iron-gray hair, almost so curly as to suggest African blood; emphatic but graceful gestures, a voice trained in all the modulations of oratory, and a mobility of expression in his face such as few professional actors have attained. Add to this that he is rich—one of the heaviest real estate proprietors in Omaha, as also all along the main line of the Pacific Railroad, and one can form some rough idea of what manner of man is Mr. George F. Train. We hear that he is about starting a new weekly paper, to be called The Revolution , which will be an organ for all our most advanced ideas—an organ of the "Young American mountain;" and we know this paper will have behind it all the resources and influence of the Credit Foncier, Credit Mobilier, half of Wall street, and the undivided support of the Pacific Railroad Company; Long may George Francis wave! He is an enemy to dullness and sworn foe to respectable mediocrity. He may be deemed wanting in common sense, at times, by those who only hear him talk ; but judged under the test of what he has accomplished and is accomplishing, where can we find an intellect of more practical or capacious grasp? Call all your councils together, George, and let your eagles scream!
[While making our acknowledgments to The Citizen for its very friendly notice, we would remark that The Revolution is no official organ of any corporation or individual. President Johnson was one of the first subscribers, but it does not represent his policy. So were Senators and Representatives, yet it does not represent the policy of Congress; and while it has on its list Pacific Railway Chiefs and Directors; and Credit Foncier and Credit Mobilier Shareholders, it is not their organ, nor is it Geo. Frauds Train's paper, although we shall always welcome him or Miles O'Reilly, or any other live writer, as a contributor.]



138i Madison Ave., New York City, ) December, 1867. f Jab. Gordon Bennett, Esq., Editor of Herald:
"Train who is the chief engineer of this women's rights campaign, all the way from Kansas, ought to give us another blast at Steinway Hall”—Editor Herald, Editorial.

ALL RIGHT; give me the same chance the newspapers have Dickens, and I will take off the English (as he has and will again the Americans), draw larger audiences, entertain them better, and give them more for their money.
SUBJECT—Fifth avenue Toadying to England, —American Citizens in English Jails—Educated Suffrage for Women as well as Men—Down with Gold and up with Greenbacks. Something like this on Walker and McCulloch.
A very poor writer and very weak talker,
is treasury bond-holder, Robert J. Walker,
Whose gold-paying letter in behalf of the rich, l
eaves the poor man, as usual, in bankruptcy’s ditch,
Let McCulloch, Sam. Hooper, Jay Cooke and "Bob,"
Divide their commissions with Lanier and Rob,
To sell out the people in this new foreign loan,
While the rich men laugh and the poor men groan!
Greenbacks are good for our butchers and farmers.
While nothing but gold suits our dear “Alabamas,”
A National Debt that was made by Inflation,
By Inflation can only be paid by the Nation;
And Shylock's grand swindle is nipped in the bud,
If we pay him the flesh and refuse him the blood.

Besides I will show how it is that foreign bankers rule New York and Congress—why Johnson and McCulloch are in English hands, and why the New York Herald is the only independent journal in America—when it thinks it will pay. Give us fair play as you do the yachtmen, the pedestrians, the prize fighters and Charles Dickens, and while Mrs. Stanton and Mrs. Anthony explain Woman's Rights, I will show up Woman's Wrongs.

The first nine thousand votes ever cast in the world for woman, ought not to have been ignored by the New York press. Manton gives four columns on a dog fight, Henry J., the famous two-horse political rider, five columns on a prize ring, and Horace, six columns on a pedestrian or a horse race, or in Toadying to Dickens, while the Herald is the only journal that has had a friendly word for woman, and that was "sarcastic." Put the argument in a nutshell. Three thousand million dollars and one million lives have gone to emancipate four million of blacks. Are eighteen millions of white women and girls not worthy of a kind notice in the New York press? To-day, by man's laws, woman is a junior partner in the distinguished disfranchised firm of Miners, Paupers, Lunatics and Idiots. Once they had negroes for companions. But now the negroes vote, woman is left with the other partners! Are not our wives, our daughters, our sisters, our mothers as capable of voting as 700,000 ignorant plantation negroes, or even the Empress and Queens who have always governed Europe? When man swears at a strong minded woman he insinuates that his wife and mother ore weak minded women.

Phillips, Greeley, Beecher, Curtis and Tilton got Studwell of the Equal Bights Association to come out ignoring Mrs. Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and myself. We happen to be plaintiff in this case, and as these gentlemen are polished debaters, perhaps they will enter the debating arena before a New York audience, and explain why, after twenty years of devotion to the cause of women, they left her the moment the actual battle commenced in Kansas, considering absence of body better than presence of mind; Greeley saving his life by putting his breastplate on behind. Not having had a university education and somewhat practiced in debate, I propose to take the field against the five gentlemen challenged, commencing with Phillips, who can then explain whether it was not a breach of trust to sink so much of the $50,000 fund of my old friend Hovey in the Anti-Slavery Standard, that has been twenty years getting up a 2,220 list of subscribers! .

Twenty years ago, we met when" I came to New York to sell Grinnell, Minturn & Co. the Flying Cloud, clipper. I was then a chief of the old house of Enoch Train & Co., having commenced with Donald M'Kay with the Joshua Bates, four hundred ton clipper, owned in part by Borings, Goodhue & Co., and graduated with the Great Republic, 4,000 tons, sold to A. A. Low & Co. Then you thought me a good business man. Throwing up my fifteen thousand a year, I saw you again just as I was embarking for Australia in May, 1853, where in fourteen months I made one hundred and twenty thousand dollars, and had consigned to my house one hundred thousand tons of shipping.
'Then I travelled, and the Herald of 1856 has over forty columns of my correspondence under "Young America," which you recommended my publishing in a book, and "Young America Abroad" to-day is in all the circulating libraries of England. Once more I saw you after having, all through 1866-7, written you from abroad, foreshadowing the financial revulsion of '57. I arrived in October of that year, in time to see 1,400 banks fail as I had predicted. You reviewed my " Young America" in Wall street, published by Freeman Hunt, and called me a prophet.
That fall (in November) I saw you again, and asked you to help me join the Erie and the Ohio and Mississippi Railroads by the Broad Guage Atlantic and Great Western. You declined to be interested in a moneyed way, saying that the Herald's business was advertisements and the sale of the paper. That five hundred miles was built and James McHenry and Sir Morton Peto paid me, when they sailed in the Scotia, ninety-eight thousand dollars for my commissions. You had column on column on Peto and Mo-Henry, but not a word on Train—save a sneer. Once more my speeches adorned the columns of the Herald.
I wrote you showing up the whole blockading business before the ships had got away, and was driven out of England and my railroads ripped up because I would not sell my love of country for an English secesh mess of potash. Peterson made ten thousand dollars out of the sale of my Union speeches That was the time on dii Geo. Peabody, Thurlow Weed and Charles Francis Adams joined, hands on the Seward, Mason and Slidell dispatches, to sell out our country on the London Stock Exchange, an unexposed swindle.
Again, in September, 1863, I called upon you with the subscription paper of the Union Pacific Railroad, $1,600,000 out of the $3,000,000 having been subscribed. As we shall be happy to take you out in a Pullman Palace Car three hundred miles west of Wyandotte and Leavenworth, on the Kansas Pacific, or 540 miles west of Omaha, on the Nebraska U. P. Railroad. (We pay you handsomely for advertising it) You see I have also carried that point Success is good evidence of success.
In 1864 I called upon you again with my Credit Mobilier project; again you turned away. The capital now is $10,000,000, and owns the Pacific Contract and the stock sells at over 200—having declared 50 to 100 per cent dividends each year. Yet you put in an article, to destroy the enterprise.
Then the Credit Foncier came up, of which I am president having among my special co-partners the richest men of the nation ; that too was talked down editorialy in the Herald. So much for what an old friend will do for a fellow. The same with Omaha.
I own five thousand lots there—where the bridge will cross—ten blocks from my property, the lots are selling for six thousand dollars each. I mention these points to show you, Mr. Bennett, that I am not one of these one-horse lecturers from Harvard University, who pocket like Gough and Beeoher, the quarters of the people, under what they call a Christian mission, and also to prove to you for once, you have- been mistaken in your man. The proceeds of all my lectures are given away—I paying my own expenses. The other lecturers are disgusted because I am injuring the trade—hence the action of the Equal Rights Committee.
Last Wednesday night, at the Tremont Temple, Boston, I spoke to the Irish for the benefit of Mrs. Warren and. her four little children, who are starving in Charlestown, while Captain Warren, who fought for us four years under Thomas Francis Meagher, is dying in an English jail, and Chas. Francis Adams is dining with the English ministers, and Mr. Seward is toadying to Lord Stanley about the Alabama claims. The house was packed with a paid audienoe (see Boston Pilot report), while the same night the Faneuil Hall Grant meeting, free, with all Boston at its back, was a fizzle. As you seldom like to admit yourself in the wrong, the Herald will, most likely, be too crowded to find room for this, so I send it to the new organ of the age, The Revolution.
Geo. Francis Train


The following is the last of a series of remarkable letters addressed to Thaddeus Stevens, Senator Dixon and Secretary Chase, by one of the best practical merchant bankers, and one of the wealthiest men of New York. The writer is too well known among the old millionaires of New York, to ask an attentive perusal of his views. The letters speak for themselves, as coming from one of the few practical financiers who, from the first, grasped the condition of our national finances. The other letters will be reproduced in successive numbers of The Revolution.

NEW YORK, November 37th, 1867.
SIR: I see by the public prints that you purpose making a move in relation to the public debt and the' currency, which induces me to lay before you my views in relation to both, the which, if useful to you, will be the object I have at heart.
If you will let your secretary collect the assessed value of the property of the United States, you will have a basis to act upon. Let the value be $1,000,000,000, more or leas, bearing in mind that every article in the nation requires a certain representation, in currency, in the amount of from one to ten or more per cent to move it, without which there must be stagnation in the business and value of the wealth of the nation, as nothing can move without a certain amount of its value in circulating medium. Stacks require at least ten per cent.; real estate, fifteen to twenty per cent—other articles more or less. You will see by this plan that the currency should exceed any amount which our financiers name as falling short of the sum required to represent the property of the nation, and keep the finances in safe working order. Every move of any article, let it be what it may, requires currency to move it. The banks and the money-lenders object to an expansion, as short currency enhances their gains and rate of interest. I think 1,500,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 of legal tender greenbacks will not be an over-estimate required for the business of the nation ; the balance of the national debt should, be paid in legal tender bonds, bearing interest, in sums of from $100 to $10,000—the small bonds for the people, the large bonds for investments, for trust funds held by the courts or funds for minors, or gifts to single women—it will be the safest and least expensive way, and, at four per cent, per annum, will, I think, all be absorbed, in a few years by the American people, without foreign aid. The possession of the now outstanding bonds I propose to acquire by purchase in tho open market and at the current market price ; the premium will be cheaper to the people even at 90 per cent., as for once only, whereas, now it costs us a much bigger premium annually for all that we consume.
These greenbacks should be made payable in forty years in the legal currency of he United States, and the interest or the bonds payable in the same at the office of the United States Treasury, in each of the cities in which the government may appoint an agency.
The import duties should be paid in greenbacks in a sliding scale in proportion to the purchase of the outstanding gold-bonds—the outstanding bonds bearing interest in the United States currency can remain as they are—the object is to do away with the gold bonds only and bring about the much-desired wish of the country—one currency for the people and the government—and reduce the value of all the material for building and manufacturing purposes, as the present rates impede the progress of the country.
Respectfully, your most ob't.,
* * * 35 Wall Street.

HENRY WARD BEECHER, in demanding universal suffrage and universal amnesty from Maine to Louisiana, has touched the key-note of reconstruction. In his far reaching wisdom he told abolitionists two years ago, ask the whole loaf and you will get half; “bait your hook with a woman and you may got a negro." But abolitionists fell back to the Republican ranks, and the late elections rise up in judgment against them.

AMERICAN industry, American manufactures, American ideas begin to be great facts. The sun is shining. The great Irish constituency is being educated to the true way of gaining their victory over England. "What is party where a nation's prosperity is at stake. The Iron Age does well to copy the Chicago Irish Republic. The article is worthy of The Revolution, and we set it whirling along the line of our first Ten Thousand Subscribers, comprising Cabinet, Senate, Congress, the American manufacturers, and the Wall street bankers and brokers. In a city where the Times and Tribune are sapping the foundations of the nation, we hail, with pleasure, the advanced thought of the Irish Republic.
From John Williams' Iron Age.
“WE take the following extract from a trenchant article which appeared in a late number of the Chicago Irish Republic, on the subject of “Irish support of .Free Trade with England.” Coming from an Irish journal, and whose true loyalty to the cause of Irish independence is so well established, we hope the words of faithful counsel herein contained will be heeded by the thousands of Irish workingmen who have been so long and so strangely misled as to their true interests in regard to this matter of Protection to American Industry against the competition of Great Britain:

"We have already spoken of tbe Republican party. We have admitted, without hesitation, that they are far from Immaculate. Here and there a black sheep is only too conspicuously evident in the centre, if not sometimes at the head, of the flock. The Judas appears among the twelve, and carries the bag of his bribery with an unabashed countenance. There are some such disgraceful instances. These are your Radical (?) advocates of your Free Trade with England. But, after all, they are little more than exception a to the general rule. The leading journals and most prominent politicians of the great Republican party of America are true, heart and soul, to the protection of their country's industry. They are resolved that not England, but America, shall be the world's vast manufactory ; that they will keep the wealth of their country to enrich their own citizens, not to aggrandise the bloody, bloated aristocracies of Europe; that thev will preserve for their own workingmen snob wages as will enable them to live and rear their families in comfort and intelligence, as human beings ought, instead of sending it across the sea to be squandered by spendthrift lords and squires in the gambling halls of London and Paris. They are resolved that honest and industrious men in America shall be protected, and not left the naked victims of an infernal system which has fed and clothed and lodged their brothers in England and Ireland worse—tenfold worse—than the horses and dogs of English aristocrats. This is the Simple, practical meaning of Protection to American Industry. This is the creed, the principle and the practice of that very Radical party, which hundreds of thousands of Irishmen would no more think of voting for, or supporting, than they would think of selling their souls to the author of evil himself. That is, in plain words, they go enthusiastically against the interests of their own country, of their own wives and children, of their own wages, of the very bread they eat, and the raiment wherewith they are clothed. They go right, and most enthusiastically in support of the wealth and power of England, of that country whose rulers have robbed them of everything but life; that have made them beggars and slaves in the land of their birth ; that have hunted millions of them into exile and the grave ; and pursued them with their scorn and vengeance to the ends of the earth. We again ask, and demand an answer, was ever infatuation so complete as this? Were ever ignorant blindness and unreasoning obstinacy so unpardonably besotted as they are here?
"We are sorry to say that we can find no excellent exception to break the force of the condemnation which, in connection with the vital question, we are obliged to pass on the entire Democratic party. Free trade with England lies at the very foundation of the Great Conservative structure. This is a cardinal doctrine of their peculiar political creed. Nor is there a single Democratic Journal, from New York to San Francisco, which does not teach, from week to week, and from day to day, this destructive and disgraceful principle. And if there is any truth, which we greatly doubt, in the boasted 'reaction ' which has been so much spoken of, and if there is any rational chance of the Democratic party once more assuming the rule of this great Republic, then one thing may be looked forward to as an absolute certainty, and that is Free Trade with England. This will have a few effects which is worth the while of Irishmen to ponder seriously, before by their votes and influence they bring it to pass. One will be to reduce the wages of the workingmen one-half, so that those who find it difficult at present to live in New York or Chicago on two dollars a day, will have the pleasure of accomplishing the some task, under the new English-Free-Trade-Democratic regime, with one. It will strengthen England, by pouring into her coffers the wealth of America, so that her reign of robbery and blood, instead of coming to a close, will, like the eagle, renew its age for another century or two, or perhaps for another seven hundred years as Ireland has seen and felt. And on that unhappy country its effect will necessarily be to rivet its chains; to increase and perpetuate its hunger and rags and wretchedness, and, probably to enable its eternal enemy, England, to root the last Celt from Irish soil, and thus to extinguish the race and the faith of the old land together. We do not envy the Irishman who helps to accomplish such an object as this, nor would we like to inherit the harrowing reflection which must gnaw his soul like the undying worm, that the Infamous deed was performed by his own hands."

NOTHING is more marked than the persistent ignoring of every item favorable to the cause of Woman's Suffrage by the New York press. The Kansas campaign, the most remarkable in the history of the world, from the fact that the first nine thousand votes ever cast for the emancipation of woman were thrown there was hardly noticed by the journals of this city. The miserable trimming-on-the-fence-will-it-be-popular policy of our journals is destitute of all independent thinking. Although we may not agree with many things that may appear in The Revolution, we believe in fair play and giving everybody a chance. While over one hundred columns of reports of the great meetings held by Mrs. Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Geo. Francis Train in the great cities of the country, during the last thirty days, have been laid before their readers by the enterprising newspapers of Chicago, St. Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse, the anti-women, old fogy cities of Albany, Boston and New York hare generally dismissed the subject with a few lines of ridicule.
The western journals have the manhood to report the speeches, whether they agree with them or not—while the sea-shore papers are too busy in getting up long reports of the last dog bait, prize fight, or pedestrian wager, or in extensive quotations from the English press, giving good advice how America should be governed.
The Constitutional Convention at Albany has not had many variations from its customary slate of topics, but it is a noteworthy fact that no New York paper mentioned that Geo. Francis Train addressed the convention for two hours on the subject of woman voting and the financial policy of the nation. Mr. Train having been the only advocate to volunteer his services in Kansas and before the Convention, it is worthy of note, when the only argument advanced by our chivalrous press is a sneer, a sarcasm, or an insult, that Mr. Train's defense of women voting was received by the Convention by loud and repeated applause. The following was the resolution passed unanimously offering the hall:

On motion of MR. BALLARD :
Resolved, That the use of the Assembly Chamber be granted to Geo. Frauds Train, Esq., at 4 p.m.. this day.
By order.

When it comes to pass that Mr. Train's financial views, as expressed in his Gold-room speech of last March (to be reprinted in next week's paper), become the policy of the country, newspapers may possibly be more enterprising, and the associated press be more inclined to give actual news than the favored articles of a few politicians in the ring.

The women of Wisconsin have decided to take the word " male " from their constitution. From the report of a recent convention held in Janesville, we find the leading men and women have formed a State Impartial Suffrage organization, and are resolved to make all their citizens equal before the law. Able addresses were made by the Rev. S. Farrington, Rev. Sumner Ellis, and a stirring appeal adopted to the people of the State, signed by Hon. J. T. Bow, G. B. Hickox, Mrs. J. H. Stillman, Joseph Baker and Mrs. F. Harris Reed.

FEMALE SUFFRAGE IN BOSTON—The Banner of Light reports Music Hall well filled on Monday evening, December 9th, to listen to remarks from George Francis Train, Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Miss Susan B. Anthony, on Female Suffrage. Mr. Train was very severe on politicians of all parties. He announced himself as an independent candidate for presidential honors. In the course of his three speeches he told many plain truths, and made a good argument in favor of the right of suffrage for women.
Mrs. Stanton is a fine looking, dignified, intelligent lady, well advanced in years, and a good speaker. She gave a brief account of their "recent labors in Kansas, where the cause of female suffrage received nine thousand votes, which she considered a great triumph — for hereafter, she said, no party can succeed in that State without affiliation with the new element which has arisen in their midst, thus securing the success of the woman question in a very short time.
Miss Anthony is a pleasant and fluent speaker. Both ladies made strong and convincing arguments in favor of the right of female suffrage.

A HYDROPATHIC INSTITUTE NEAR CENTRAL PARK—A thousand drug shops—ten thousand Allopaths—five thousand Homoeopaths—a score of medical colleges but no Hydropathic Institute in a city numbering a million of souls! Yes, Kuczkowski, the Presneitz of America, and Dr. North, so long a time with Schefferdeoker, are making cures at their establishment, 44 Bond st, where Mr. Train packs and plunges his friends. But what we need is a splendid Institute, and we are glad to learn that several wealthy Hydro-paths intend erecting such a building.

Just as we go to press, we receive from the editor of the Leavenworth Commercial, the official vote of Kansas. The vote for woman's suffrage is larger than the most sanguine of us had hoped, being 9,070 for, and 19,857 against it. The black man, with all the machinery of the Republican party in his favor, runs only 436 votes ahead of the women! Hurrah for Kansas! The following is a statement of the official vote on the various propositions to amend the Constitution of Kansas, as canvassed by the State Board of Canvassers, December 16th, A.D. 1867:

Counties Striking out the word White. Striking out the word Male. Restricting the elective franchise

For. Against For. Against For Against
Allen........... 324 266 249 303 454 163
Anderson 258 259 218 275 398 138
Atchinson 412 1,161 345 1,235 736 884
Bourbon 56U 725 454 736 1,350 33
Brown 265 346 248 341 S4i 222
Butler 33 70 28 76 39 64
Chase 120 123 118 125 164 83
Clay 47 61 39 58 78 32
Crawford 5U 199 45 150 150 41
Cherokee SOU 186 249 239 264 110
Coffey 219 434 299 359 272 364

Davis 183 883

364 281 304
Dickenson 89 95 34 140 161 44
Donphan 338 1,425 358 1,390 576 1,126
Donglas 1,017 1,147 652 1454 1,484 635

Franklin '280 539

709 552 175
Greenwood 133 198 99 198 234 66
Jackson 173 445 182 387 301 910
Jefferson 892 1,159 335 1,188 649 894
Johnson 400 862

856 655 438
Labette 115 213 95 217 207 134
Leavenworth... 830 2,703 1588 1,775 1,135 289
Linn 340 798 253 791 737 178
Lyon 503 273 209 565 701 92
Marion 13 58 16 59 16 56
Marshall 167 421 160 411 304 229
Miami 486 865 243 970 850 413
Morris 48 212 66 203 71 190
Nemaha 251 421 227  427 396 178
Neosho 151 322

867 236 180
Osage 267 143 121 238 225 113
Ottawa 14 27 34 32 57 15
Potiawattomie.. 226 456 155 501 352 336
Klley........... 351 277 218 378 821 267
Shawnee 491 670 439  731 900 234
Saline 162 219

233 252 123
Wabaunsee 149 108 114 162 230 28
Washington 39 118 19 143 98 78
Wilson 36 138 43 170 132 81
Woodson 149 88 141 94 187 56
Wyandotte 159 826 168 798 235 779
Total 10,843 19,421 9,070 19,857 16,860 12,165
* No returns-
We, the undersigned State Board of Canvassers, do hereby certify that the above is a true statement of the votes cast at the general election held on the 8th Day of November, A.D., 1867, for the various propositions to amend the Constitution of the State, as appears from, the certified abstracts on file in the office of Secretary of State, and do determine and declare that the two propositions for striking out the words White and Male from the Constitution of the State were defeated, and that the proposition submitted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas at its last session to amend Sec. 2, Article 6, of the Constitution of .the State, was adopted.
S. J. Crawford, Gov.,
R. A..Barker, Sec'y of State.
J. B. Swallow, Auditor of State
M. Anderson, Treasurer of State,
Geo. A. Hon, Attorney-General.
Topeka, Kansas, Dec 18,1867.

COLORED JURORS.—A special correspondent of the New York Tribune, dating from St Augustine, Florida, Dec. 17, writes: "The United States District and Circuit Courts for Northern Florida, Judge Fraser presiding, adjourned today. Seventeen colored men and six whites were drawn on the Grand Jury. Although drawn promiscuously from the registered voters of three counties, fourteen out of the seventeen colored men could read, and six could both read and write. Judge Fraser complimented the Grand Jury as the most attentive, intelligent, and industrious body of persons which had been assembled in many years. The foreman reported that he had sat upon no jury distinguished for better order and decorum in the jury room, or who better realized the responsibility of their duties."

TRAIN is waking up Wall Street to the importance of backing Colorado in her railroad enterprises. When the railroad is under way, and the greenback age is a fact, hurrah for our gold mines again. See what the New York World's financial article, says December 3 :

"The prospect of a railroad being completed to Denver during next summer is encouraging to all connected with the mining interests of Colorado, as both roads to the Pacific coast are bidding for the mining business. Last year, twenty-three merchants in Denver paid $1,204,141 for transportation of 12,173,251 lbs. of freight, and it is estimated that other merchants paid out $l,000,000, and Central and Georgetown about $2,000,000, making a total of about $4,200,000, a sum sufficient to ruin the prospects of any region of our country. The Union Pacific Railroad from Cheyenne, only 110 miles from Denver, is pushing for it; and also John D. Parry, of the Eastern Division, a distance of 300 miles, is determined to connect his road with it. The question whether the terminus of the road shall be at Pine Bluffs, forty miles east of Cheyenne, is not yet definitely settled. The completion of these roads will revolutionize the gold and silver mining interests, and is likely again to revive the gold mining furore of 1864, only on a sound and profitable basis, which it lacked then."
That's so. We can turn out one hundred millions as well as twenty every year. We want more currency—more money. Legal tenders will do for money; and we will sell our gold as we would our corn, as merchandise.
George Francis Train's speeches are telling on Congress. Already McCulloch has stopped contraction. About time, when sixty thousand laborers are out of work in New York.—Rocky Mountain News, December 21.

The murder of a mulatto family at Perdido Station, Alabama, was perpetrated by a party of four drunken men armed with shot guns, who charged the family with stealing. The assassins first butchered the mulatto Morris, then his wife, then his mother, aged 80, and lastly a sleeping babe. They finished by firing the house, but after their departure the flames were extinguished by a young girl who had concealed herself. .Four men have been arrested on suspicion, but murders are of so common occurrence there, as that criminal courts would have to be in perpetual session to try the cases ; and so, for the most part, they are economically neglected. _

A RECENT ISSUE of the New York World says :
“The largest commission ever charged on any railroad transaction, is in process of settlement. The claim so far is about $500,000, and when the road is completed it will be about $1,500,000. A bill passed in Congress yesterday is said to be closely connected to this claim." Who charged the commission, and what road, is it?—Boston Commercial Bulletin

THE LAWRENCE Tribune says that the shops of the Union Pacific Railroad, now building at that place, will far surpass, in magnitude and completeness, anything of the kind which have yet been built west of the Missouri.



SUSAN B. ANTHONY, Proprietor.



A new paper is the promise of a new thought; of something better or different, at least, from what has gone before. ■
With the highest idea of the dignity and power of the press, this journal is to represent no party, sect, or organization, but individual opinion; editors and-correspondents alike, all writing, from, their own stand point, and over their own names. The enfranchisement of woman is one of the leading ideas that calls this journal into existence. Seeing, in its realization, the many necessary changes in our modes of life, we think "The Revolution" a fitting name for a paper that will advocate so radical a reform as this involves in our political, religious and social world.
With both man and woman in the editorial department, we shall not have masculine and feminine ideas alone, but united thought on all questions of national and individual interest.
But we do not promise the millennium in journalism, from this experiment, or in politics from the enfranchisement of woman, only a new, and, we hope, a better phase of existence, which, to those who are tired of the old grooves in which the world has run so long, is something to be welcomed in the future. With the moral chaos that surrounds us on every side, the corruption in the State, the dissensions in the church, the jealousies in the home, what thinking mind does not feel that we need something new and revolutionary in every department of life. Determined to do our part in pushing on the car of progress we begin with the new year, a new life work, hoping the world will be the better for the birth of "The Revolution.”

PHILOSOPHERS tell us the Circle is the Symbol of all nature and all art. Mr. Emerson says the eye is the first circle; the horizon it describes the second. And throughout nature this primary figure is ever repeated; the highest emblem in the cypher of the world.
In the old Hieroglyphs, the circle represented Eternity. An ancient saint and sage described the Infinite Omnipresence as a circle whose centre was everywhere, and whose circumference was nowhere.
Action too is circular; and around every great and good deed, a greater and better maybe drawn. Children are puzzled to know how four living sheep can be folded in five pens at the same time. They draw the four with a sheep in each and there stop, till the boy or girl in the secret, draws a large pen enclosing in it the other four, and solves the mystery.
Outside our little Solar System sweeps another as a next wave in the illimitable sea of space, and beyond that a second, bearing the same proportion, it may be, to the first, that our sun and its suite of attendant planets do to the eye-ball of the astronomer who beholds and describes them. And thus outward and onward through space as measureless as duration is endless.
And should not also the same law measure human thought ? We laugh at the story of the miller who denied that the earth was round and revolving, because that, he said, would spill his mill pond like water from an overturned bowl; and yet why laugh Sceptics to the divinity of human nature, have ever declared, and with too much reason, that human history but repeats itself. That the moral and spiritual world completes its regular revolutions, and only comes back to the same point at last. That the tide of human thought and progression has its impassable high water mark ; and like the rolling sea, is flood on one side only at the expense of ebb on the other. The “Lost Arts” lecture by Wendell Phillips is a sad if not satirical comment on the present, and half explains the secret of his wondrous prophetic gift.
It is said that no man can quite emancipate himself from his age and surroundings; that the politics, usages, education and even religion of his times must have some share in his work. But the tendency of our time is wholly toward the past. Our artists are great only as they best imitate the old models. An evangel that should promise resurrection of all the ancient statues, and summon them to a judgment day, would, to our schools of art, outweigh in importance the whole theological dogma of "resurrection of the body," and future rewards and punishments besides. The sparrow, forty centuries ago, builded as well in the cedars of Lebanon, and in the pediments of the temple on Mount Zion, as in the groves and gardens of to day. So the Acropolis and Parthenon mock all the architecture of the boasting nineteenth century. As the best saint is he who best imitates the Nazarene model of eighteen hundred years ago, so our best poet must be made to believe, that could he but touch the hem of Homer's garment, he would thenceforth glow with inspirations unknown to him before.
Our politics and religion too, do but revolve in circles, tending ever inward hitherto, as into maelstroms and the bottomless pit. And yet what are these but the sublime sciences which treat of the conditions of the human race, here and hereafter? A painter of the Panorama of the Mississippi river said he was surprised one bright evening, when drifting down the stream, at the similarity of the houses he passed ; and the more, as in every one, there seemed to be exactly the same dancing, music and merrymaking. At length he discovered that he had floated into a whirlpool, not unknown there, and was only sweeping round and round by the same house. Much like this, is the intellectual and spiritual navigation of nations and governments, churches end religions. Persecution chased the Pilgrims and Puritans from one hemisphere to become themselves fiery persecutors in the other. Our revolutionary sires unyoked themselves from one tyranny only to begin another themselves, a thousand times more rigorous than that out of which they fled. Even in Boston, the same newspapers that first glowed with the Declaration of Independence, grinned also with advertisements for the sale of one slave; and the, recapture of another who had run away, with generous reward offered. Even President George Washington hunted a slave mother from the Potomac to the Piscataqua, instructing his emissaries to hound her back to her whipping-post unless it should seem to wake the public odium.
To prolong such a slavery and union with its tyrants we have waged the bloodiest war of all the ages. In the name of a Republican, Democratic and Christian Constitution and a Union with slaveholders, we have offered: more human victims than have bled on all the heathen altars of the world in a thousand years! And though the terrible system has gone down in the fiery storm, at least in name, every hour is revealing more and more how nearly our whole nationality was involved in the fall, and how far we yet are from the end of the conflict. And with a Newspaper Press in the country numbering six or seven thousand, the most terrible truths do not get told. The people are stumbling in more than the storied darkness of Egypt, if not also hastening to all its plagues.
In the hope of aiding to rescue our beloved country from still impending dangers, and to bring a peace based on Justice and Equality, and a prosperity that shall gild all our mountains and valleys, our plains and prairies with grandeur and glory unknown before among the nations, we to day unfurl our banner to a waiting and expectant world. P.P.

THE REVOLUTION.—The name speaks its purpose. It is to revolutionize. It is Radicalism practical, not theoretical. It is to effect changes through abolitions, reconstructions and restorations. It is to realize ancient visions, answer long uttered prayers and fulfill old prophecies. Former things are passing away. Old Faiths, Philosophies and Philanthropies are to be extended, and new principles discovered and applied to human enfranchisement. New America is discovered. The march of empire in literature, science, commerce and all material interests, is onward as never before. But there is more than these. Justice, truth, virtue, must be our new foundations. More than slavery is to be abolished. More than suffrage is to be given to man and to woman. Carlyle said when Louis XV died, more died than a king. The kingship had also given up the ghost. So in the new life, it is man and manliness, woman and all womanly virtues and exaltations that are to be sought. Citizen hereafter is to mean more than a creature who is in the market with his ballot and birthright on election morning, seeking for bidders. A nation of such citizens might number millions of millions, but its numerical grandeur would be its disgrace. What should be its glory would be only its shame. Such ate ever the dupes of the demagogue, to subserve his base designs, to the subversion of all honor, integrity and stability in government. An intelligent suffrage based on man and woman alike, will soon arrest, the reckless career of many who in the name of democracy, republicanism and patriotism are rushing the dismembered fragments of our nationality on to a still deeper ruin.

OUR PROSPECT—This is the first edition of Ten Thousand, of the first number of The Revolution ; sent to all the leading minds of the nation, including, among its subscribers, in Congress, Senators B. F. Waile, Sumner, Wilson, Nye, Fowler, and Representatives Colfax, Julian, Banks, and others; also the President of the United States. Read this and me if it be not worth your effort to extend it everywhere.

“Revolution,” says Goldwin Smith, “is a public evil. The secret of wise statesmanship is the art of securing calm and regular progress in its place. The energy which revolutions call forth is paid for by the lassitude and political infidelity which follow them. The great spirits of the English revolution were succeeded by the corrupt and licentious men who rose into power under Charles II. The moral elements in the French revolution were lost in the chicanery of Napoleon and Talleyrand. But the prime movers of revolution are not the fanatics of progress, but the blind and intemperate opposers of progress, men who strive to recall the irrevocable past, with no sense of inevitable future, who chafe to fury, by damming up its course, the stream that would otherwise flow on tranquilly within its banks.”
The true statesman is the true reformer ; he who brings himself into line with the immutable law of change recognizes the necessary steps of progress and thus secures individual and national growth rather than vice and revolution. Men speak of revolutions as moral powers, that lift nations to higher planes of Ration, forgetting that war and disorder are not in harmony with fixed law, but the result of some irregularity or violation of the natural order of events. Involutions are disease, sores on the body politic, that warn us of corruption at the heart of the nation; not creative but depletive forces. Small pox and fevers are renovators for the diseased, but the true physician teaches the laws of life and so purifies the physical man that contagion has nothing on which to feed. So the statesman, seeing that progress is the law of life, substitutes education for repression, science for superstition, and thus exalts manhood and government.
Our Fathers left England for an idea: the equality of all men; proclaimed it on these western shores, fought to secure it, but in haste for peace and union forgot the idea for which they fought. Under a century of crime and corruption they buried it deep down, but fresh from the resurrection of another revolution, the same tough problem of "individual rights" stands face to face with us to-day.
Another lesson, added to the many in the long past, to show that man is above laws and constitutions; that the corner-stone of a nation is justice—the rights of its humblest citizens. The moral effect of our last revolution is already nearly lost in the confused councils and vacillating action of our leaders, in the lethargy and political infidelity that ever follow war and violence. Even oar reformers seem to have lost their prophetic vision, and in their demands for a partial idea, have sacrificed "a fundamental principle. Hushed with conquest, wild with speculation, reckless in expenditure ; principle, justice, mercy, all the sweet amenities of life, axe sacrificed to party triumph, to material considerations. Instead of keeping up the grand debate on the rights of citizens in a re-' public, which is the basis of sound reconstruction, our leaders talk of "negro suffrage," "impeachment," "protection," "finance," and the "presidency," all of light consideration compared with the broader question, what constitutes a citizen? and on what principle are educated, wealthy, patriotic citizens taxed without representation, governed without their consent? The demoralization of our best minds to-day is but another proof that no good fruits are to be gathered from revolutions. How close is the analogy in the moral and physical world. When by a sudden storm the tree is rudely stripped of its foliage, nature, shocked at the violence, puts forth hardier leaves-that cling far into the winter, but thus taxed there comes no blossoms in the spring, no fruit in the harvest.
But as the tree without violence sheds its leaves only in the new growth, puts forth its flowers, and fruits, in their season, so might nations with wise rulers, leave the dead letters of the past and in calm, regular steps of progress secure the health and happiness of the people and their own life and immortality. E.C.S.

A FEW years since Mr. Buckle startled the world with some comparisons on the relative importance of moral and intellectual culture in the development and elevation of human nature. He declared truly that there was nothing in the world that has undergone so little change as the great moral dogmas of which religious and philanthropic institutions are composed. And though they have been known for thousands of years, not one jot or tittle has been added to them by all the sermons; homilies and text-books which, moralists and theologians have, been able to produce. Sir James Macintosh, certainly one of the clearest and yet profoundest philosophers of the last two centuries, denies the possibility of their advance, and boldly insists that morality admits of no discoveries. It is stationary, and must ever remain so. In the latter opinion both these eminent writers agree; and the world has seemed to presume, that not only can there be no new discoveries in the science of morals, but that their rules and laws admit of no new applications. Macintosh further says that more than three thousand years have elapsed since the composition of the Pentateuch, and then challenges any man to show in what important respect the rule of life has been varied since that period. The Institutes of Menu lead to the same conclusion, and the doctrines of Confucius, Pythagoras, or Zoroaster will not change it. And so slavery and war, capital punishment, intemperance, infanticide, and the degradation of woman, may continue throughout all generations. If in forty centuries not one of these evils has been arrested and banished from the world, when will their end be? The triumphs of Judaism and Christianity have been as powerless against them as the so-called false religions that abound in every age. No day, no civilized nation ever witnessed more drunkenness than ours ; none surely such diabolical determination to continue the curse, despite all laws, human and divine. Sinai and Calvary, Moses, Messiah and the American Congress cannot quench the volcanic fires of our legion of distilleries. Slavery we only abolished as a "Military Necessity," to save ourselves, not the slaves. It was to, conquer the rebels. And to conciliate them, we have by Constitutional Amendment again placed them back almost as completely in their power as-before, by making possible their perpetual disfranchisement.
And now we are laboring to rebuild our national ruins. To all appearance, however, we are getting worse and worse. A year ago last autumn, Congress appealed to the people to decide the contest between it and the President as to policies of reconstruction. Immediately the thunder of Radical Republican victories shook the continent from ocean to ocean. But to how little result, is told in the present confusions in the national councils. No wonder at the reverses in so many recant State elections! No wonder that the best men of all classes and parties are alarmed! No wonder that the President laughs at impeachment, and hails new defiance at a Congress whose cowardice, grown chronic, and named or misnamed conservatism, is almost worn as ornament, like the goitre of the poor Tyrolese.
And now the one sole cause of the present calamity can be told in a word. The nation will not do justice. It will not even apply the acknowledged rules of morality, to say nothing of discovering newer and sublime codes, supposed impossible by all the philosophers and moralists of the past. We cannot restore the Union, because there never was a Union; a terrible truth yet to be known. Slavery bound and held the states together as in the folds of a serpent, for purposes of trade, and for plunder of unpaid, unpitied slaves whom the South owned, but the North held ; and together they divided the spoil, until Infinite Patience could bear it no longer. That was our Union.
Suffrage is now to be grudgingly given to the negro, as was freedom, if given at all. And as to woman—no matter how rich, refined, and patriotic, how obedient to the government, and prompt in its support in peace and war—the reproach of inferiority must cleave to her, it is religiously believed, in all her generations. Two thousand, years ago it was said and is still believed: " he abuses and corruptions which in time destroy a government, are sown in the very seeds of it, and both grow together; and as rust eats away iron and as worms devour wood, and both are a sort of plagues born and bred with the substance they destroy, so with every form and scheme of government that man can invent, some vice or corruption creeps in with the very institution, which grows up along with and at last destroys it”
And late in the nineteenth century this is the belief of the most enlightened nations. The press and the pulpit, as well as the education and commerce, are shrouded in this general darkness. If, as has been so long held, these views are just and true, the advent of The Revolution to-day is vain. But in the confident belief that there are new and sublimer rules of morality to be discovered, and new and greatly enlarged applications of the old, which shall add immensely to the stock both of individual and national growth, prosperity and happiness, we commend it to the favorable consideration of the public P. P.

[This is not the complete edition of this issue. The remainder will be added at a later time.]