Domination by Submission

What happens if half of us just walk away...

The din has me over-saturated. The nerves are shattered and split. The emotions are so raw and tender that it hurts to be thought of. Everything is nothing and nothing is everything. 

I’ve felt like this before. In prison. The feeling of absolute singularity in a sea of humanity. Humility is forced and respect merely a commodity. The surface is calm but the undercurrent is boiling. 

It’s hard to believe that this is calm, but in comparison to what’s on the horizon, the fateful mayor may have been prophetic when she called 2020 “The Summer of Love”. 

The constant comparisons of our present time in history as being the worst since the Civil War is as perplexing factually as it is fearfully inciteful. Purposefully. 

The insult and derision of half the American Citizenry are complete assaults on our liberty. And they are intended to restrict any type of rational refutation. 

But I’ll try. 

Worse since the Civil War

Admittedly, the Civil War was as all wars are: Hell. But it was perhaps one of the noblest wars ever fought. The freedom of a people and the fate of an ideal were at risk. 

And the side of good prevailed. A nation’s original sin was constitutionally corrected. Americans of all colors battled each other on either side, their reasons and glories as many and varied as they. Some causes honorable and others dishonorable. The victors freed a people and started a political party. 

The defeated were vanquished. Their way of life was decimated and repudiated. Their systems and traditions burnt on the altar of freedom. The bitterness of that defeat is still tasted by some. 

But let us be crystal-clear on the facts. One political party fought to free a people and one political party fought to keep them enslaved. One party attempted to move forward. The other remained mired in the hatreds of the past. 

The party of freedom was called Republican. The party of hatred was called Democrat. Those are the stone, cold facts. Some people don’t like hearing straight-up truth like that. I like giving it to them.

I know, I know, but no politics. That’s the problem now. Mislabeling words and thoughts so as to control and prohibit them. The paragraph above is history; not politics. 

Now, if I were to compare today’s politicians to those of the Civil War era, that might be construed as politics. Like if I said that a particular person today did something so great, they were just as great as someone great from that era. 

I think that just happened, right? Something about a group of courageous lawmakers doing great acts of great bravery at great risk of bodily harm and death. In a chartered jet and a catered five-star. Pretty sacrificial. 

(Ok, if I had to drink Lite beer from Miller, I would be calling it a sacrifice as well)

The kicker was the comparison by name. These folks are the 2021 Frederick Douglass. Uhm. Wait. What? Like the oratorical Black dude from back in the 1860s? The escaped slave turned free black abolitionist? Who got beat daily by a cruel master while enslaved, and then beaten by anti-abolitionists as a free man? That dude? 

Brainyquote has a ton from Mr. Douglass, but I think the most appropriate one here is 

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.

So, again, my point here is not politics, but rather what politicians say, the words they manipulate to control the reception of the thought. Huh? Too much DEVO.

Mr. Douglass believed, wrote and said many things. About many topics. His quote above is taken completely out of context by me to illustrate my point. He publicly and courageously expressed doubts and misgivings about many things, the least of which included Mr. Lincoln and the Republican Party. 

But his criticisms were specific and he outlined potential solutions as part of his critiques. He practiced tolerance and accepted compromise. He logically engaged his ideological opponents. 

I consider his support of the Suffragette Movement one of the finest acts of honest Intellectual Intersectionality in history. (full text of his April 1888 speech before the International Council of Women, in Washington, D.C. at the end of this post - I implore you to read his speech, it is spellbinding)

One of my favorite writers on Substack is Torrance Stephens, PhD.  I copied the paragraph below from his latest post, Black America is a Fatherless Child

Specificity is the root of all effective criticism; as a writer I am immune to the distortions of people who misrepresent my work but exquisitely sensitive to those who faithfully repeat its arguments in the act of criticizing it.

Another great American, outlaw, poet and singer, Waylon Jennings, put it this way

(As an aside, Waylon Jennings gave up his seat on the plane that crashed and  killed Big Bopper, Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens in 1959 - he spoke about the survivor's guilt that spawned some of his demons)

(As another aside, another quote from Mr. Douglass that seems apropos after reading Mr. Stephens’ essay about growing up fatherless is It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men)

To the point, you say. Specificity is the root of all effective criticism. And, by extension, the root of all effective communication. Comparing Democratic lawmakers on a PR junket to Frederick Douglass’ journey to escape and end slavery is asinine on its face, and insulting on every level. To every American.

And then to call the criticisms of those lawmakers actions racist and Jim Crow is quite beyond the pale. But it is manipulative and purposeful. 

Hijacking and co-opting the sacrifices of a great man and bestowing them onto others that have lived nothing of his life is reprehensible. But again, everyone is a Nazi now, so why not?

It’s not the first time this administration has tried to deflect political party historical connections. Remember on the trail when he proudly recalled his Senatorial days when he reached across the aisle to work with segregationists. 

Uh, what aisle? The segregationists were in his own party, the Democrats! NBC News (of all places) did some actual reporting on this topic. Awww, those were the days. 2019 where did you go? I write about Uncle Joe and his racist buddies here

The article has a title that’s hard to fathom ever being currently written, Joe Biden didn't just compromise with segregationists. He fought for their cause in schools, experts say.

Which experts? I knew you would ask. That's why I didn’t link to Fox News. And I think that in light of the current racial atmosphere, it must be pointed out that Mr. Greenberg was White and Jewish. 

Here is but a snippet of his experience

Greenberg became the only white legal counselor for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund ("LDF") in 1949, and, in 1961, succeeded Thurgood Marshall as LDF's Director-Counsel

It extensively quotes Jack Greenberg, one of the lawyers who had won the Brown v. Board of Education case that ended legal school segregation 21 years earlier.

In a 1975 Senate hearing, the legendary civil rights lawyer Jack Greenberg had something to say to freshman Sen. Joe Biden. The bill “heaves a brick through the window of school integration,” And according to Greenberg, Biden was the man with his hand on the brick.

That’s pretty damning, wouldn’t you say? I mean, Mr. Greenberg knows a thing or two about this thing or two. And, as a white person, his actions resulted in positive advances in the daily lives of many black Americans. 

I have linked to this other guy before, but he is really worth reading. He has a take on things from his generational street corner, and I am standing just up the street from him, on a different cohort corner. I’m telling the history cop yeah, it was the white car that caused the wreck, and he is saying it could’ve been the black car. Allegorically. 

I am not sure about that metaphor. Maybe it identifies as an analogy. Whatever. Back to the article, Anti-Racism is an Inter-White Struggle and I will let Freddie deBoer state the case in his erratically eloquent elucidation

This is a recurring tendency, for Black cultural and intellectual rebellion to be folded seamlessly into an unbothered white power structure. Critical race theory, antiracism all of today’s self-consciously “radical” critiques of white supremacy and whiteness: they are all ostensibly Black discourses that are funded by white institutions and ultimately serve white people. I think the endless, pointless, going-nowhere fast debate about CRT shares this essential commonality with the earlier fight over rap lyrics and culture; both sides of the discourse have every political and professional incentive to represent a minor skirmish as a battle for the soul of civilization, and yet ultimately neither will produce much of tangible value at all. And in both cases the most salient observation is the fact that while what is being argued over is ostensibly Black cultural and intellectual production, the entire conversation exists to satisfy white desires and appetites. These are meant to be philosophies that liberate Black people from white frameworks, but the dynamics under which they operate reveal that their participants have failed to escape from the event horizon of elite white tastemakers, whose omnipresence in American letters ensures that nothing so black and brown can be made that cannot become, at its core, a white phenomenon.

A beautiful long-ass way to say racism, or rather, anti-racism is just another feel-good salve of absolution self-squirted on each other in orgasmic fits of faux moral rectitude. Those actions do less-than-nothing positive in the daily lives of black Americans. 

I have asked it before, and I will ask it again

Why are we calling tribalism racism?

Friction is the mortal enemy of movement. In this case, the friction is calling one thing another name to evade direct accountability. The movement here would be the end of racism as a generic critique of all white people. 

But as Mr. deBoer points out, friction in this case is profitable, in dollars and power, to those that perpetuate it. Basically, they are the megalomaniacs controlling the ancient atmosphere generator on the Red Planet in Total Recall.

And sadly, we are Quaid, and they keep feeding us red pills with gaslight chasers. People are catching on, though, and a steady drumbeat of defiance is becoming louder. 

But as this resistance increases, so too does the onslaught of truly dystopian realities. Let’s take a look across the pond. No, just 90 miles across. 

Yahoo’s bullshit headline

Black Lives Matter condemns U.S. government amid Cuba crisis

At least Cathy Young, Associate Editor for Arc Digital at Newsweek had an honest title affixed to her opinion piece

Why Is Black Lives Matter Defending the Totalitarian Cuban Regime? | Opinion

So, let’s diagram this conundrum. Unarmed black men are killed at exponentially infinitesimal rates per overall encounters by police in America and this Harvard study  has found no statistical evidence of racial bias in these killings (my bold emphasis).

IV. Conclusion

The time has come for a national reckoning on race and policing in America. But, the issues are thorny and the conclusions one can draw about racial bias are fraught with difficulty. The most granular data suggest that there is no bias in police shootings (Fryer (forthcoming)), but these data are far from a representative sample of police departments and do not contain any experimental variation. We cannot rest. We need

more and better data. With the advances in natural language processing and the increased willingness of police departments to share sensitive data, we can make progress. For those of us who desire a more perfect union, police use of force has become our Gettysburg. Of course, black lives matter as much as any other lives. Yet, we do this principle a disservice if we do not adhere to strict standards of evidence and take at face value descriptive statistics that are consistent with our preconceived ideas. ‘Stay Woke’ – but critically so.

So the riots, looting and arson in most cities in America over the past 16 months are the result of racist US government policies, per BLM. And BLM demands we defund the police and abolish prisons. In the US. But not everywhere. Hmmm...

Back to the dueling headlines above. Not sure when we will hear BLM criticize the Cuban police apparatus. But here is what those forces are up to. (Cannot find a YouTube video of this)

Video: Cuban forces raided a house and shot a man who took part in the protests

This post started as many of mine do, with my brain wrestling with my sleep. Sleep is a powerful incumbent, but brain packs a time-release punch. It jabs and jabs, and sleep artfully bobs and weaves. 

But brain is smarter than sleep, and fakes to the left. And comes in with a right hook that knocks sleep out. I went too far with that, but I had to see where it went. 

So the wrestling match took place between midnite and 2 am, and when brain was declared the winner by knockout, I started writing. Yeah, mixed metaphors. Again. Sigh. 

I think what started this particular spat between brain and sleep were two elements of life I have been consuming this week. The impetus of my platform is my belief that five elements combine in life to create culture.

I express that in a formula and write about it here

Life / Food + Music + Art + Craft + History = Culture (L/5e=C)


#AmythystKiah #BlackMyself #MusicVideo

I wanna jump the fence and wash my face in the creek

But I'm black myself

I wanna sweep that girl right off her feet

But I'm black myself

I'm tired of walkin' 'round with no shoes on

'Cause I'm black myself

And your precious God ain't gonna bless me

'Cause I'm black myself

Is you washed in the blood of your chattel?

'Cause the lamb's rotted away

When they stopped shipping work horses

They bred their own anyway, ooh

Black myself

I don't pass the test of the paper bag

'Cause I'm black myself

I pick the banjo up and they sneer at me

'Cause I'm black myself

You better lock your doors when I walk by

'Cause I'm black myself

You look me in my eyes but you don't see me

'Cause I'm black myself

Is you washed in the blood of your chattel?

'Cause the lamb's rotted away

When they stopped shipping work horses

They bred their own anyway, ooh

Black myself

Black myself

I don't creep around, I stand proud and free

'Cause I'm black myself

I go anywhere that I wanna go

'Cause I'm black myself (black myself)

I'm surrounded by many lovin' arms

'Cause I'm black myself (black myself)

And I'll stand my ground and smile in your face

'Cause I'm black myself

I washed away my blood and tears

I've been born brand new

There's no more work horses

But still some work to do, yeah

'Cause I'm black myself (black myself)

'Cause I'm black myself (black myself)

'Cause I'm black myself, black myself

Black myself, black myself, black myself (black myself)

Black myself, black myself

'Cause I'm black my-, black my-

Black myself


Zora Neale Hurston wrote a memoir in 1942 titled Dust Tracks on a Road which was considered by some to be her finest piece of literary work. Others decried it as a literal white-washing in reviews of the time.

Wikipedia describes the books reception upon publication as such

It received more negative criticism than most of her other works: Robert Hemenway said it "probably harmed Hurston's reputation" and Alice Walker, otherwise an admirer, was also critical. Harold Preece, reviewing it in 1943 condemned it as "the tragedy of a gifted, sensitive mind, eaten up by an egotism fed on the patronizing admiration of the dominant world". However, Pierre A. Walker has suggested it represents a subversion of traditional autobiography through its fragmentary approach and rejection of the idea of a consistent personality. Despite its questionable attitude to truth, and its many lacunae, it has been praised for its literary quality; The Concise Oxford Companion to African American Literature says "passages in Dust Tracks are as engaging as any Hurston wrote".

I am going to leave it there, and with the most profound quote from Mr. Douglass I have read today

When I ran away from slavery, it was for myself; when I advocated emancipation, it was for my people; but when I stood up for the rights of woman, self was out of the question, and I found a little nobility in the act.


Frederick Douglass was one of the few men present at the pioneer woman’s rights convention held at Seneca Falls, New York, in July 1848. His support of women’s rights never wavered although in 1869 he publicly disagreed with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony who called for women’s suffrage simultaneously with voting rights for black men, arguing that prejudice and violence against black men made their need for the franchise more pressing.  Nonetheless, Douglass remained a constant champion of the right of women to vote. In April 1888, in a speech before the International Council of Women, in Washington, D.C., Douglass recalls his role at the Seneca Falls convention although he insists that women rather than men should be the primary spokespersons for the movement. The full text of his speech appears below.

Mrs. President, Ladies and Gentlemen:— I come to this platform with unusual diffidence. Although I have long been identified with the Woman’s Suffrage movement, and have often spoken in its favor, I am somewhat at a loss to know what to say on this really great and uncommon occasion, where so much has been said.

When I look around on this assembly, and see the many able and eloquent women, full of the subject, ready to speak, and who only need the opportunity to impress this audience with their views and thrill them with “thoughts that breathe and words that burn,” I do not feel like taking up more than a very small space of your time and attention, and shall not. I would not, even now, presume to speak, but for the circumstance of my early connection with the cause, and of having been called upon to do so by one whose voice in this Council we all gladly obey. Men have very little business here as speakers, anyhow; and if they come here at all they should take back benches and wrap themselves in silence. For this is an International Council, not of men, but of women, and woman should have all the say in it. This is her day in court. I do not mean to exalt the intellect of woman above man’s; but I have heard many men speak on this subject, some of them the most eloquent to be found anywhere in the country; and I believe no man, however gifted with thought and speech, can voice the wrongs and present the demands of women with the skill and effect, with the power and authority of woman herself. The man struck is the man to cry out. Woman knows and feels her wrongs as man cannot know and feel them, and she also knows as well as he can know, what measures are needed to redress them. I grant all the claims at this point. She is her own best representative. We can neither speak for her, nor vote for her, nor act for her, nor be responsible for her; and the thing for men to do in the premises is just to get out of her way and give her the fullest opportunity to exercise all the powers inherent in her individual personality, and allow her to do it as she herself shall elect to exercise them. Her right to be and to do is as full, complete and perfect as the right of any man on earth. I say of her, as I say of the colored people, “Give her fair play, and hands off.” There was a time when, perhaps, we men could help a little. It was when this woman suffrage cause was in its cradle, when it was not big enough to go alone, when it had to be taken in the arms of its mother from Seneca Falls, N.Y., to Rochester, N.Y., for baptism. I then went along with it and offered my services to help it, for then it needed help; but now it can afford to dispense with me and all of my sex. Then its friends were few—now its friends are many. Then it was wrapped in obscurity—now it is lifted in sight of the whole civilized world, and people of all lands and languages give it their hearty support. Truly the change is vast and wonderful.

I though my eye of faith was tolerably clear when I attended those meetings in Seneca Falls and Rochester, but it was far too dim to see at the end of forty years a result so imposing as this International Council, and to see yourself [Elizabeth Cady Stanton] and Miss Anthony alive and active in its proceedings. Of course, I expected to be alive myself, and am not surprised to find myself so; for such is, perhaps, the presumption and arrogance common to my sex. Nevertheless, I am very glad to see you here to-day, and to see this great assembly of women. I am glad that you are its president. No manufactured “boom,” or political contrivance, such as make presidents elsewhere, has made you president of this assembly of women in this Capital of the Nation. You hold your place by reason of eminent fitness, and I give you joy that your life and labors in the cause of woman are thus crowned with honor and glory. This I say in spite of the warning given us by Miss Anthony’s friend against mutual admiration.

There may be some well-meaning people in this audience who have never attended a woman suffrage convention, never heard a woman suffrage speech, never read a woman suffrage newspaper, and they may be surprised that those who speak here do not argue the question. It may be kind to tell them that our cause has passed beyond the period of arguing. The demand of the hour is not argument, but assertion, firm and inflexible assertion, assertion which has more than the force of an argument. If there is any argument to be made, it must be made by opponents, not by the friends of woman suffrage. Let those who want argument examine the ground upon which they base their claim to the right to vote. They will find that there is not one reason, not one consideration, which they can urge in support of man’s claim to vote, which does not equally support the right of woman to vote.

There is to-day, however, a special reason for omitting argument. This is the end of the fought decade of the woman suffrage movement, a kind of jubilee which naturally turns our minds to the past.

Ever since this Council has been in session, my thoughts have been reverting to the past. I have been thinking more or less, of the scene presented forty years ago in the little Methodist church at Seneca Falls, the manger in which this organized suffrage movement was born. It was very small thing then. It was not then big enough to be abused, or loud enough to make itself heard outside, and only a few of those who saw it had any notion that the little thing would live. I have been thinking, too, of the strong conviction, the noble courage, the sublime faith in God and man it required at that time to set this suffrage ball in motion. The history of the world has given to us many sublime undertakings, but none more sublime than this. It was a great thing for the friends of peace to organize in opposition to war; it was a great thing for the friends of temperance to organize against intemperance; it was a great thing for humane people to organize in opposition to slavery; but it was a much greater thing, in view of all the circumstances, for woman to organize herself in opposition to her exclusion from participation in government. The reason is obvious. War, intemperance and slavery are open, undisguised, palpable evils. The best feelings of human nature revolt at them. We could easily make men see the misery, the debasement, the terrible suffering caused by intemperance; we could easily make men see the desolation wrought by war and the hell-black horrors of chattel slavery; but the case was different in the movement for woman suffrage. Men took for granted all that could be said against intemperance, war and slavery. But no such advantage was found in the beginning of the cause of suffrage for women. On the contrary, everything in her condition was supposed to be lovely, just as it should be. She had no rights denied, no wrongs to redress. She herself had no suspicion but that all was going well with her. She floated along on the tide of life as her mother and grandmother had done before her, as in a dream of Paradise. Her wrongs, if she had any, were too occult to be seen, and too light to be felt. It required a daring voice and a determined hand to awake her from this delightful dream and call the nation to account for the rights and opportunities of which it was depriving her. It was well understood at the beginning that woman would not thank us for disturbing her by this call to duty, and it was known that man would denounce and scorn us for such a daring innovation upon the established order of things. But this did not appall or delay the word and work.

At this distance of time from that convention at Rochester, and in view of the present position of the question, it is hard to realize the moral courage it required to launch this unwelcome movement. Any man can be brave when the danger is over, go to the front when there is no resistance, rejoice when the battle is fought and the victory is won; but it is not so easy to venture upon a field untried with one-half the whole world against you, as these women did.

Then who were we, for I count myself in, who did this thing? We were few in numbers, moderate in resources, and very little known in the world. The most that we had to commend us was a firm conviction that we were in the right, and a firm faith that the right must ultimately prevail. But the case was well considered. Let no man imagine that the step was taken recklessly and thoughtlessly. Mrs. Stanton had dwelt upon it at least six years before she declared it in the Rochester convention. Walking with her from the house of Joseph and Thankful Southwick, two of the noblest people I ever knew, Mrs. Stanton, with an earnestness that I shall never forget, unfolded her view on this woman question precisely as she had in this Council. This was six and forty years ago, and it was not until six years after, that she ventured to make her formal, pronounced and startling demand for the ballot. She had, as I have said, considered well, and knew something of what would be the cost of the reform she was inaugurating. She knew the ridicule, the rivalry, the criticism and the bitter aspersions which she and her co-laborers would have to meet and to endure. But she saw more clearly than most of us that the vital point to be made prominent, and the one that included all others, was the ballot, and she bravely said the word. It was not only necessary to break the silence of woman and make her voice heard, but she must have a clear, palpable and comprehensive measure set before her, one worthy of her highest ambition and her best exertions, and hence the ballot was brought to the front.

There are few facts in my humble history to which I look back with more satisfaction than to the fact, recorded in the history of the woman-suffrage movement, that I was sufficiently enlightened at that early day, and when only a few years from slavery, to support your resolution for woman suffrage. I have done very little in this world in which to glory except this one act—and I certainly glory in that. When I ran away form slavery, it was for myself; when I advocated emancipation, it was for my people; but when I stood up for the rights of woman, self was out of the question, and I found a little nobility in the act.

In estimating the forces with which this suffrage cause has had to contend during these forty years, the fact should be remembered that relations of long standing beget a character in the parties to them in favor of their continuance. Time itself is a conservative power—a very conservative power. One shake of his hoary locks will sometimes paralyze the hand and palsy the tongue of the reformer. The relation of man to woman has the advantage tell us that what is always was and always will be, world without end. But we have heard this old argument before, and if we live very long we shall hear it again. When any aged error shall be assailed, and any old abuse is to be removed, we shall meet this same old argument. Man has been so long the king and woman the subject—man has been so long accustomed to command and woman to obey—that both parties to the relation have been hardened into their respective places, and thus has been piled up a mountain of iron against woman’s enfranchisement.

The same thing confronted us in our conflicts with slavery. Long years ago Henry Clay said, on the floor of the American Senate, “I know there is a visionary dogma that man cannot hold property in man,” and, with a brow of defiance, he said, “That is property which the law makes property. Two hundred years of legislation has sanctioned and sanctified Negro slaves as property.” But neither the power of time nor the might of legislation has been able to keep life in that stupendous barbarism.

The universality of man’s rule over woman is another factor in the resistance to the woman-suffrage movement. We are pointed to the fact that men have not only always ruled over women, but that they do so rule everywhere, and they easily think that a thing that is done everywhere must be right. Though the fallacy of this reasoning is too transparent to need refutation, it still exerts a powerful influence. Even our good Brother Jasper yet believes, with the ancient Church, that the sun “do move,” notwithstanding all the astronomers of the world are against him. One year ago I stood on the Pincio in Rome and witnessed the unveiling of the statue of Galileo. It was an imposing sight. At no time before had Rome been free enough to permit such a statue to be placed within her walls. It is now there, not with the approval of the Vatican. No priest took part in the ceremonies. It was all the work of laymen. One or two priests passed the statue with averted eyes, but the great truths of the solar system were not angry at the sight, and the same will be true when woman shall be clothed, as she will yet be, with all the rights of American citizenship.

All good causes are mutually helpful. The benefits accruing from this movement for the equal rights of woman are not confined or limited to woman only. They will be shared by every effort to promote the progress and welfare of mankind every where and in all ages. It was an example and a prophecy of what can be accomplished against strongly opposing forces, against time-hallowed abuses, against deeply entrenched error, against worldwide usage, and against the settled judgment of mankind, by a few earnest women, clad only in the panoply of truth, and determined to live and die in what they considered a righteous cause.

I do not forget the thoughtful remark of our president in the opening address to this International Council, reminding us of the incompleteness of our work. The remark was wise and timely. Nevertheless, no man can compare the present with the past, the obstacles that then opposed us, and the influences that now favor us, the meeting in the little Methodist chapel forty years ago, and the Council in this vast theater today, without admitting that woman’s cause is already a brilliant success. But, however this may be and whatever the future may have in store for us, one thing is certain—this new revolution in human thought will never go backward. When a great truth once gets abroad in the world, no power on earth can imprison it, or prescribe its limits, or suppress it. It is bound to go on till it becomes the thought of the world. Such a truth is woman’s right to equal liberty with man. She was born with it. It was hers before she comprehended it. It is inscribed upon all the powers and faculties of her soul, and no custom, law or usage can ever destroy it. Now that it has got fairly fixed in the minds of the few, it is bound to become fixed in the minds of the many, and be supported at last by a great cloud of witnesses, which no man can number and no power can withstand.

The women who have thus far carried on this agitation have already embodied and illustrated Theodore Parker’s three grades of human greatness. The first is greatness in executive and administrative ability; second, greatness in the ability to organize; and, thirdly, in the ability to discover truth. Wherever these three elements of power are combined in any movement, there is a reasonable ground to believe in its final success; and these elements of power have been manifest in the women who have had the movement in hand from the beginning. They are seen in the order which has characterized the proceedings of this Council. They are seen in the depth and are seen in the fervid eloquence and downright earnestness with which women advocate their cause. They are seen in the profound attention with which woman is heard in her own behalf. They are seen in the steady growth and onward march of the movement, and they will be seen in the final triumph of woman’s cause, not only in this country, but throughout the world.