Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Photo: Elizabeth Cady Stanton

When the first press release went out announcing the publication of The Curse of 1920: The Degradation of Our Nation in the Last 100 Years, I was surprised to receive a reply from Coline Jenkins, the great-great granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Of course Stanton is the 19th century suffragist and godmother of the women’s rights movement who befriended, inspired, instructed, and labored with Susan B. Anthony.

Despite several attempts to reply to Jenkins’s comments, all efforts to contact her failed. But, her comments and question raise some very important points, and show the great fallacy of this Eveonian movement. Hopefully this article will somehow find its way to her.

In order to address these matters, here is Jenkin’s e-mail:

Dear Mr. Naler,

I recently learned of your new publication: “Conservatives Shoot Too Low: Stunning New Book, The Curse of 1920.”

The Declaration of Independence was justified by God, our CREATOR. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable Rights…”

Understanding God’s creation, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable Rights…”

Who is Gary Naler to refute Jefferson’s words, Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s words, and God’s creation?

Forward into the light,

Coline Jenkins
Great-great granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Unfortunately, Jenkins and her great-great grandmother in fact refuted both Jefferson’s words, as well as God’s creation.

To begin with, the very fact that Stanton had to add “and women” into that statement proves that women were not intended there in the first place. If women have to be added, then doing so obviously alters the very message that was originally set forth. And based on that which “our Creator” stated in Genesis 3:16, Stanton’s altering of those original words by adding women so as to make them equal to men is the very fulfillment of the curse the Creator declared regarding the woman: “Your desire will be for [the place of] your husband ….” In other words—rebellious equality!

Stanton undeniably demonstrated that she in no way understood God’s creation. If she had, she would not have added to and altered that which Jefferson penned and fifty-six men, not women, placed their signatures to, many of whom paid the price with their own lives, wellbeing, and wealth. Significantly and quite appropriately, when those men signed that momentous document, there was no rustling of petticoats in the room.

On July 4, 1776, where was Abigail Adams, who just a few weeks and even days before threatened her husband, John Adams, with rebellion if women were not given equal political rights?

Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.

Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.

That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute; but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up—the harsh tide of master for the more tender and endearing one of friend.

Thank God the Creator, Abigail Adams was at home where she was supposed to be, and John Adams did not give in to her rebellion for one minute. And when she wrote that “all men would be tyrants,” these are the same men referred to when Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal.” Men are men!

Jenkins asked who was I to refute Jefferson’s words. So what did Jefferson indeed say? He who wrote that “all men are created equal,” also wrote that women should not have the right to vote, and that in order “to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, [they] could not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men.” Likewise, he wrote: “The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor I.”

Clearly, all men being equal was never intended to mean equality for women in voting or in participation in governance. That idea was unanimously and entirely foreign, wholly objectionable, and completely unacceptable when the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were set forth. Thus, to say that I am refuting Jefferson’s words is entirely erroneous. In fact, clearly, I am faithfully upholding his words.

Furthermore, the certainty of this intended meaning and application of Jefferson’s words is the fact that ninety years later the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution confirmed it. Proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, the most significant change to the Constitution since the passage of the United States Bill of Rights took effect. Clarifying voting rights to its citizens, the “all men” statement of Jefferson prevailed in intent and substance in that the right to vote was specifically confirmed for “male citizens twenty-one years of age.”

Ninety years after the Declaration of Independence, it remained explicitly clear that governance is the sole rightful, God-given responsibility of the adult male. It would take another half century before the rebellious Eveonian practices of militant feminism would wear away our resolve and wisdom in upholding the godly principle of rightful masculine government. The subsequent Nineteenth Amendment of 1920 is a perversion of everything our nation stood for for three hundred years, violating the very foundation that was carefully and purposefully laid for this nation according to God our Creator.

So what about the other prospect offered by Jenkins that I am refuting God’s creation? Once again to the contrary, God’s creation likewise upholds that women are not governmentally equal to the man. As we have read, the curse of the woman from the Garden has been: “Your desire will be for [the place of] your husband.” But gratefully, God then concludes regarding this wrongful desire of women that leads to rebellion with: “but he will rule over you.” So from the beginning when God gave the man dominion over all things, his dominion included over his wife.

Furthermore, God our Creator said that the woman’s identity was in her husband. When God stated that two become one flesh at marriage (Genesis 2:24), the woman’s oneness with her husband incorporates her identity within him. That is why for centuries, upon marriage the woman has taken the name of her husband, giving up her own. Her identity is now found in him. Blackstone’s Commentaries, which Jefferson, Adams, and all our founding fathers read and studied, confirmed this same truth. Once again we find the life and intent of Jefferson’s words—“all men.”

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, and cover she performs every thing; and is, therefore, called in our law—French a feme-covert, faemina viro cooperta; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, her lord; and her condition, during her marriage, is called her coverture.

And what is the basis for this legal truth? It is from the same Bible that says that two become one flesh. In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Peter 3:1-6, this entire matter of headship resting exclusively in the male is set forth.

And noteworthy here, rebellious Eveonian feminism that demands the woman’s equality with the husband and not her identity in him, provokes feminists like Jenkins to refuse to embrace their husband’s name. Last time I saw, online, Jenkins identified herself as Coline Jenkins-Sahlin. Again, this is nothing less than the curse of equality.

Thus we see that both Jefferson and God’s creation, as well as His word and the Fourteenth Amendment, clearly confirm that the woman is not governmentally equal with the man. This was the truth and practice that was delivered to us by our forefathers; and that which was contrary was forthrightly rejected, and must likewise so be today.

Men and women are not equal in body structure or appearance, in body strength, in voice tone, in dress, in mental aptitudes and interests, in emotional composure, in governmental thinking, in likes and dislikes, in reproductive and nurturing capabilities, even in original creation, and far more. So why would anyone assume that they are equal in the critical and highly determining and impacting area of governance? In like regard, obviously they are not equal! It is as wrong to say that the woman, who was created from the man, is equal to the man, as it is to say that man, who was created by God, is equal to God. The latter truth dictates the reality and necessity of the former.

As I note in The Curse of 1920, if Jenkins’s great-great grandmother could have seen our nation today and the direct results of the movement she was instrumental in beginning, she would have forsaken and repented of her utterly destructive Eveonian ideas. Seeing our shameful immodesty in dress today, Stanton would have shrunk back in appalling embarrassment. She would have recoiled in horror at the resulting murder of 3,500 babies every day in America alone, for she herself called abortion a “crying evil.” Having witnessed the tragedy of the Civil War, she would have shuddered to have known that today in six months alone, the number of fatalities through abortions equals the record carnage of the entire four years of the Civil War!

Stanton would have been stunned and shamefaced that divorce rates would be ten times greater than what they were in her day. She would have then embraced and equally heralded the resolute words of Annie Wittenmyer, the founding president of the world’s largest women’s organization in her day, who warned that women’s suffrage would “strike a fatal blow at the home!”

Jenkins’s great-great grandmother would have been incensed and appalled at the open practice of homosexuality today that came about as a result of the confusion of the sexes by removing the line of distinction between men and women. And the transition from her flirtation with bloomers, which she came to reject, to the present-day practice of girls and women wearing tight and immodest pants and mini skirts and shorts, would have driven her to her pillow, shamefaced. Today’s women’s swimwear, that is far less than even women’s undergarments in her day, would have been an utterly shameful and horrifying prospect. The careless and even irreverent casualness and looseness of speech, lack of respect for women, and open disregard for sexual restraints would have been nauseating. And drug and alcohol usage that goes far beyond the practice that she and Anthony fought against, would have made her glassy-eyed and shake her head in utter disbelief as to how society would so shamefully degrade.

And maybe, just maybe, even she would have been stunned at how giving women the right to vote had the immediate and multiplying effect of dramatically increasing the cost and size of government, to the present destructive bloated proportion that it threatens the very collapse of our nation’s economy.

There is absolutely no way neither Stanton nor Susan B. Anthony would have continued in their fight for Eveonian women’s rights if they could have seen what it has led to today. They would have been shocked, and someday will be grievously ashamed for their part in it!

But today, it is as written in the same Bible: “but when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding” (2 Corinthians 10:12). People today do not look back at the way of life we enjoyed as a nation in the time of Stanton, and compare it to today after the curse of the woman has so egregiously destroyed so much that was once good and right in our nation. These precipitous changes came seemingly slowly, until we have awakened to the appalling shame of where we are today. Because we have lacked understanding, we now perish in so many tragic ways!

Therefore, let it be noted that I in no way refute either Thomas Jefferson’s words or God’s creation, but wholly support them. However, indisputably I refute both the words and the Eveonian actions of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. And for Coline, there is indeed one thing regarding which I will most certainly agree with her and continue to strive toward, and that is her closing—“Forward into the light.”


Comments are closed.