"If the women of the United States, with their free schools and all their enlarged liberties, are not superior to women brought up under monarchical forms of government, then there is no good in liberty"
About this Quote
Anna Howard Shaw throws down a challenge rather than a boast. If a nation that prides itself on public education and expanding freedoms cannot cultivate women who outstrip the constraints of monarchies, then its vaunted liberty has failed the test of results. The claim rests on a pragmatic standard: freedom must be vindicated by the quality it generates in human lives, not just by principles printed in charters.
Shaw knew the gap between promise and practice. A physician and Methodist minister who led the National American Woman Suffrage Association from 1904 to 1915, she spoke as the United States argued for its democratic superiority while denying half its citizens the vote. Free schools were the republics great engine, built to form intelligent, self-reliant citizens. Enlarged liberties pointed to new avenues in property rights, professions, and higher education. Yet without political power and full opportunity, those gains were partial. By comparing American women to those under monarchies, she needled national pride and exposed a contradiction: if democracy delivers less for women than societies it scorns, what good is its liberty?
Her word superior reflects the rhetoric of her time and should be read as a call for greater capacity, civic virtue, and leadership, not a claim of innate worth. The line binds freedom to responsibility. Education and rights are not adornments; they are obligations to develop minds, character, and public spirit. It also places accountability on institutions. If women are not flourishing, the fault lies less with them than with a liberty that remains formal rather than substantive.
The provocation still resonates. A free society proves itself by the outcomes it enables: broader access to schooling, genuine political voice, and the conditions that allow talent to rise. Liberty earns its name when it equips people to excel, and when their excellence, in turn, strengthens the commonwealth.
Shaw knew the gap between promise and practice. A physician and Methodist minister who led the National American Woman Suffrage Association from 1904 to 1915, she spoke as the United States argued for its democratic superiority while denying half its citizens the vote. Free schools were the republics great engine, built to form intelligent, self-reliant citizens. Enlarged liberties pointed to new avenues in property rights, professions, and higher education. Yet without political power and full opportunity, those gains were partial. By comparing American women to those under monarchies, she needled national pride and exposed a contradiction: if democracy delivers less for women than societies it scorns, what good is its liberty?
Her word superior reflects the rhetoric of her time and should be read as a call for greater capacity, civic virtue, and leadership, not a claim of innate worth. The line binds freedom to responsibility. Education and rights are not adornments; they are obligations to develop minds, character, and public spirit. It also places accountability on institutions. If women are not flourishing, the fault lies less with them than with a liberty that remains formal rather than substantive.
The provocation still resonates. A free society proves itself by the outcomes it enables: broader access to schooling, genuine political voice, and the conditions that allow talent to rise. Liberty earns its name when it equips people to excel, and when their excellence, in turn, strengthens the commonwealth.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|
More Quotes by Anna
Add to List
